How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[sealybobo]

No, incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if there's enough of it.

If A sometimes implies B, and B _never_ happens after zillions of observations, then logic says we should conclude A is wrong.

Everyone acts that way for most things in their life. Some people just make a special exception to that common sense rule for the matter of religion, which isn't logical.

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

25,000 after I post this

Atheism and secularism correlate highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.

Irreligion by Country, Democracy Index, Education Index, Economic freedom, Overall Human Development.

Atheism is correlated with higher intelligence: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4Source 5 Source 6 Source 7 Source 8 Source 9.

See also: Epiphenom – The Science of Religion and Non-Belief

“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” – Sam Harris

What does that have to do with the historical evidence for Jesus Christ?

Embellishment

Seriously? That's your response?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels - Christian Research Institute

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

No eye witnesses. All hearsay. You sir are a liar. Even Josephus only read about the myth he heard about . Not one of the 5000 he ate with wrote about it. You're lyin

 

[ding]

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

 

[sealybobo]

No, incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, if there's enough of it.

If A sometimes implies B, and B _never_ happens after zillions of observations, then logic says we should conclude A is wrong.

Everyone acts that way for most things in their life. Some people just make a special exception to that common sense rule for the matter of religion, which isn't logical.

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

No one who wrote the bible met Jesus. It was all put together decades later if not centuries.

 

[ding]

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

25,000 after I post this

Atheism and secularism correlate highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.

Irreligion by Country, Democracy Index, Education Index, Economic freedom, Overall Human Development.

Atheism is correlated with higher intelligence: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4Source 5 Source 6 Source 7 Source 8 Source 9.

See also: Epiphenom – The Science of Religion and Non-Belief

“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” – Sam Harris

What does that have to do with the historical evidence for Jesus Christ?

Embellishment

Seriously? That's your response?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels - Christian Research Institute

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

No eye witnesses. All hearsay. You sir are a liar. Even Josephus only read about the myth he heard about . Not one of the 5000 he ate with wrote about it. You're lyin

Of course there were eyewitnesses. You dismiss evidence for no other reason than it contradicts your beliefs. The early Christians wrote about Him, Jewish historians wrote about Him and secular historians wrote about Him.

 

[ding]

But there isn't absence of evidence. There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts.

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

No one who wrote the bible met Jesus. It was all put together decades later if not centuries.

No different than any other event in antiquity. It seems you have a higher standard for events which contradict your beliefs than events which don't contradict your beliefs. The reality is that by any objective measure the evidence for Jesus Christ far surpasses any other event in antiquity. It isn't even close.

 

[Mudda]

If I copy a Tarzan comic 25,000 times, is it more true than the bible?

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

 

[ding]

You dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

 

[Mudda]

The historical events of the bible, including what Jesus is supposed to have said, were dated to be several generations after the facts. And those were just fragments, most of it is dated much later. If anyone comes up with anything dated within jesus' lifetime, you could possibly have something. So it's a really good reason. Too bad for you, clown.

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

 

[ding]

Like I said before, you dismiss evidence of a historical event for no good reason or basis.

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

 

[Mudda]

Like I said before, your critical thinking is severly impaired.

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

 

[ding]

I see it the other way around. You dismiss evidence because it contradicts your beliefs.

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

 

[Mudda]

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

 

[Divine Wind]

Imagine a god looking down on a good atheist and dick head Christian and choosing the dick just because he believes.

That's cult talk

Agreed. I doubt that's how it works.

 

[Divine Wind]

...For to me, God only wants us to love and seek him, and he really doesn't care what we think about all that other stuff. (And he doesn't mind that I find religious history fascinating and have spent a good deal of my adult life studying it as an avocation.)

Abraham is a bit more iffy--I am more reluctant to take him metaphorically though I can see a possibility that he represents several people, but I'm happy to take him at face value too. And Moses I am more reluctant to mess with.

Accolades to you as a teacher.

Disagreed on what God wants from us. That's a matter of interpretation.

If God wanted us to do something, is there any doubt the Almighty could have imprinted it upon our DNA or in the sky? So why the mystery? IMHO, it goes back to the ultimate question: "Why are we here?"

I think each one of us has a purpose and we are given different gifts and ministries to accomplish it. The happiest people are the ones who do.

Agreed on different gifts. Our purpose is up for debate.

 

[sealybobo]

25,000 after I post this

Atheism and secularism correlate highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.

Irreligion by Country, Democracy Index, Education Index, Economic freedom, Overall Human Development.

Atheism is correlated with higher intelligence: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4Source 5 Source 6 Source 7 Source 8 Source 9.

See also: Epiphenom – The Science of Religion and Non-Belief

“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” – Sam Harris

What does that have to do with the historical evidence for Jesus Christ?

Embellishment

Seriously? That's your response?

Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels - Christian Research Institute

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

No eye witnesses. All hearsay. You sir are a liar. Even Josephus only read about the myth he heard about . Not one of the 5000 he ate with wrote about it. You're lyin

Of course there were eyewitnesses. You dismiss evidence for no other reason than it contradicts your beliefs. The early Christians wrote about Him, Jewish historians wrote about Him and secular historians wrote about Him.

Who wrote about him?

1. The Biblical God is real.
   There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
   
   The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
   
   The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
   
   See also: Visualisation of Bible Contradictions (must read), Argument from the Bible, Criticisms of the Bible, Consistency of the Bible, A Compendium of Disbelief, Deconversion: The Bible and A History of God (both must watch), BBC The History of God.
   
   Origins of the Bible: PBS Buried Secrets, CH4 Who wrote the Bible? (a must watch).
   
   “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
   
   
2. Biblical Jesus was real.
   There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
   
   All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
   
   The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
   
   The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
   
   Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
   
   The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
   
   “Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” – Ken Ham
   
   See also: Evidence for Jesus, Did Jesus Exist? [2][3], Why I am not a Christian (a must read), the Christological Argument, Hitchens – Core of the Jesus myth and Christianity is Immoral (both must watch).
   
   “Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.” – Anonymous
   
   
   
   
   

 

[sealybobo]

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

 

[sealybobo]

You have no real evidence. That much has been proven.

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..."

 

[sealybobo]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider the low life expectancy of humans in the first century. According to the religious scholar, J.D. Crossan, "the life expectancy of Jewish males in the Jewish state was then twenty-nine years." [Crossan] Some people think this age appears deceptive because of the high infant mortally rates at birth. However, at birth the inhabitants of the Roman Empire had an even lower life expectancy of around twenty-five years. [source] According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one. [Potter] Of course these ages represent averages and some people lived after the age of 30, but how many? According to the historian Richard Carrier: "We have reason to believe that only 4% of the population at any given time was over 50 years old; over age 70, less than 2%. And that is under normal circumstances. But the Gospels were written after two very devastating abnormal events: the Jewish War and the Neronian Persecution, both of which would have, combined, greatly reduced the life expectancy of exactly those people who were eye-witnesses to the teachings of Jesus. And it just so happens that these sorts of people are curiously missing from the historical record precisely when the Gospels began to be circulated." [Carrier] Even if they lived to those unlikely ages, consider the mental and physical toll (especially during the 1st century) which would have likely reduced their memory and capability to write. Moreover, those small percentages of people who lived past 50 years were usually wealthy people (aristocrats, politicians, land and slave owners, etc.). However, the Gospels suggest that the followers of Jesus lived poorly, and this would further reduce the chances for a long life span. Although the New Testament does not provide the ages of the disciples, most Christians think their ages came to around 20-30 years old. Jesus' birth would have to have occurred before Herod's death at 4 B.C.E. So if Jesus' birth occurred in the year 4 B.C.E., that would put the age of the disciples, at the time of the writing of the first gospel, at around age 60-70 and the last gospel at around age 90-100! Based on just life expectancies alone, that would make the probability unlikely they lived during the writing of the first gospel, and extremely unlikely any of them lived during the writing of the last gospel (and I have used only the most conservative numbers).

 

[sealybobo]

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove.

Did Jesus exist?

 

[sealybobo]

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.