How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[BreezeWood]

.
the 4th century christian bible is a biased political document disguised as a religion in an attempt to suppress the free Spirit that emerged in the 1st century -

those same individuals from the 4th century are the same as those to this day that continue to disguise their true intent using the 1st century as a foil for their duplicitous intentions.

they are easily detected by their hatred for any free Spirited theology that is not enslaved by their repressive political agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well we have to be intellectually honest though and admit that those manuscripts were written by human beings as testimony to the living God. We have nothing that was literally penned by a deity.

But I have to smile at those posting writings by famous Atheists as being somehow authoritative on the subject when those 24,000 or however many there are manuscripts written by famous Christians are summarily dismissed as delusional fiction.

So if people copy a Justin Bieber song 4,000,000 times, is he bigger than god?

Are there really that many people who like a Justin Bieber song?

The last time I looked it up, at least 6 billion and counting Bibles have been printed. Bieber isn't anywhere close to being in the same league.,

Factoid: the longest word in the Bible is Mahershalalhashbaz. You'll find it in the Book of Isaiah.

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

 

[Mudda]

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.

I read somewhere that there were several guys named Jesus preaching in the same area around the same time.

 

[Mudda]

So if people copy a Justin Bieber song 4,000,000 times, is he bigger than god?

Are there really that many people who like a Justin Bieber song?

The last time I looked it up, at least 6 billion and counting Bibles have been printed. Bieber isn't anywhere close to being in the same league.,

Factoid: the longest word in the Bible is Mahershalalhashbaz. You'll find it in the Book of Isaiah.

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

Being able to memorize stuff and repeat it doesn't make you able to cut through the crap, intelligent or aware. Their belief of an invisible superbeing with zero tangible evidence is proof of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I wonder how many biographies of famous people were written while those people were still living? Of course autobiographies are common now, presumably written by people while relatively young, including somebody in his 40's who aspired to be President.

I wonder how many histories were written of the Revolutionary War or Civil War while these were still in progress.

The ancient Jews composed much of the Old Testament after Nebuchadnezzar ransacked Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews in Israel to the four winds--the disapora. In exile, the elders feared the purity of the Jewish faith and culture would be infused and contaminated by non Jewish religions and customs, and they began collecting manuscripts that had survived the centuries and producing new ones from oral history and tradition that would form the Torah. Other manuscripts would be added to the whole that makes up the Old Testament. The original Old Testament was canonized--declared complete and unchangeable--in a series of steps but with virtually 100% agreement among the Jewish elders by the First Century A.D.

Likewise as the Christian communities developed and expanded beyond Judah, the Christians began collecting manuscripts, recorded or remembered sayings of Jesus, the authoritative letters written by Paul, and other documents to be distributed for purposes of teachings in the formed Christian congregations. And in time, through common use, these were edited into what we know as the New Testament. Though never formally canonized, the content became fixed over time and considered permanent as to what would be the New Testament scriptures.

Probably none of the New Testament writers had any inkling they were writing scripture, thus they omitted so much detail commonly known to themselves but that would have been so helpful to us now in understanding what they were saying.

And was the whole process inspired by God? I believe it was based on the enormous staying power of the Bible despite so many efforts to destroy it, and because of the Bible's ability to inform, instruct, inspire, and encourage people all the way to the 21st Century so far.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are there really that many people who like a Justin Bieber song?

The last time I looked it up, at least 6 billion and counting Bibles have been printed. Bieber isn't anywhere close to being in the same league.,

Factoid: the longest word in the Bible is Mahershalalhashbaz. You'll find it in the Book of Isaiah.

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

Being able to memorize stuff and repeat it doesn't make you able to cut through the crap, intelligent or aware. Their belief of an invisible superbeing with zero tangible evidence is proof of that.

Well I'll let them know though I think they won't agree with you that there is zero evidence. I think they'll also consider the source of this new (cough) information as coming from one who seems to have no conscience about attempting to destroy the faith that gives so many comfort and purpose and wonder what creates such a motive in somebody.

 

[Foxfyre]

...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.

Agreed. I try not to argue religion with people who become angry and agitated and sometimes downright militant when it comes to religion. I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit when that happens.

But I LOVE a good debate with somebody who enjoys the exercise and is secure enough to test his/her beliefs and opinions.

 

[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.

I wonder how many biographies of famous people were written while those people were still living? Of course autobiographies are common now, presumably written by people while relatively young, including somebody in his 40's who aspired to be President.

I wonder how many histories were written of the Revolutionary War or Civil War while these were still in progress.

The ancient Jews composed much of the Old Testament after Nebuchadnezzar ransacked Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews in Israel to the four winds--the disapora. In exile, the elders feared the purity of the Jewish faith and culture would be infused and contaminated by non Jewish religions and customs, and they began collecting manuscripts that had survived the centuries and producing new ones from oral history and tradition that would form the Torah. Other manuscripts would be added to the whole that makes up the Old Testament. The original Old Testament was canonized--declared complete and unchangeable--in a series of steps but with virtually 100% agreement among the Jewish elders by the First Century A.D.

Likewise as the Christian communities developed and expanded beyond Judah, the Christians began collecting manuscripts, recorded or remembered sayings of Jesus, the authoritative letters written by Paul, and other documents to be distributed for purposes of teachings in the formed Christian congregations. And in time, through common use, these were edited into what we know as the New Testament. Though never formally canonized, the content became fixed over time and considered permanent as to what would be the New Testament scriptures.

Probably none of the New Testament writers had any inkling they were writing scripture, thus they omitted so much detail commonly known to themselves but that would have been so helpful to us now in understanding what they were saying.

And was the whole process inspired by God? I believe it was based on the enormous staying power of the Bible despite so many efforts to destroy it, and because of the Bible's ability to inform, instruct, inspire, and encourage people all the way to the 21st Century so far.

Of course the writings were inspired by god. If you go to church and then leave and do a good deed later that day, was it inspired by god? Sure it was.

What I find interesting is that Paul went to Greece and told these stories and the Greeks believed it. But then again they weren't that bright. If they were they wouldn't believe in Greek gods.

Was myth allegory/metaphor or truth for the ancient Greeks? Did they really think there were gods and goddesses who took an active part in human life?

It seems pretty clear that at least some level of belief in the gods was part of community life among the ancient Greeks, just as it was for the Romans.

 

[Mudda]

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

Being able to memorize stuff and repeat it doesn't make you able to cut through the crap, intelligent or aware. Their belief of an invisible superbeing with zero tangible evidence is proof of that.

Well I'll let them know though I think they won't agree with you that there is zero evidence. I think they'll also consider the source of this new (cough) information as coming from one who seems to have no conscience about attempting to destroy the faith that gives so many comfort and purpose and wonder what creates such a motive in somebody.

If they are as smart as you say, they'll agree that there's no real evidence but that they choose to believe precisely because it gives them comfort. Which isn't bad in itself, but religions cause way too much suffering for me to give myth worshipping a pass.

 

[sealybobo]

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

Being able to memorize stuff and repeat it doesn't make you able to cut through the crap, intelligent or aware. Their belief of an invisible superbeing with zero tangible evidence is proof of that.

Well I'll let them know though I think they won't agree with you that there is zero evidence. I think they'll also consider the source of this new (cough) information as coming from one who seems to have no conscience about attempting to destroy the faith that gives so many comfort and purpose and wonder what creates such a motive in somebody.

If they are as smart as you say, they'll agree that there's no real evidence but that they choose to believe precisely because it gives them comfort. Which isn't bad in itself, but religions cause way too much suffering for me to give myth worshipping a pass.

• Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
• For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
• Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions.
• Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
• Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

“Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.” – Blaise Pascal

“No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind” – William Clifford

 

[sealybobo]

Are there really that many people who like a Justin Bieber song?

The last time I looked it up, at least 6 billion and counting Bibles have been printed. Bieber isn't anywhere close to being in the same league.,

Factoid: the longest word in the Bible is Mahershalalhashbaz. You'll find it in the Book of Isaiah.

The English word for that is Motherfuckingdouchebag. I think.

But the point is, you can copy something 80 billion times, it still doesn't make it true on that fact alone.

I understand. But if millions of people testify to an experience, whether or not we know how to test to verify or falsify that experience scientifically, it seems to me that it is more reasonable to believe the people had that experience than to deny that it happened because it hasn't happened to us.

Total mass hysteria, with a heavy sprinkling of wishful thinking and a complete lack of objectivity, never mind that these people always seem to be at the lower end of the intelligence scale.. It still doesn't make god true, it's a decent theory that needs to be explored more. Just like re-incarnation, there are so many stories about people knowing things in places they've never been... who can play instruments perfectly... But it hasn't been scientifically proven, so I'm of the opinion that for me, it's a very plausible scenario, and a the most likely, but i would never claim it as proven fact, because objectively, it isn't, no matter what my personal opinion might be about it.

Thank you. I'll advise my PhD friends and students, some who graduated prestigious schools magna or summa cum laude, that they are on the low end of the intelligence scale. I'm sure they will be glad to know that. Of course they will cease their faith in God immediately.

The scientists among them will also will be surprised that we shouldn't believe anything unless it can be proved scientifically. That sure isn't something they would teach.

Being able to memorize stuff and repeat it doesn't make you able to cut through the crap, intelligent or aware. Their belief of an invisible superbeing with zero tangible evidence is proof of that.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalze world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I wonder how many biographies of famous people were written while those people were still living? Of course autobiographies are common now, presumably written by people while relatively young, including somebody in his 40's who aspired to be President.

I wonder how many histories were written of the Revolutionary War or Civil War while these were still in progress.

The ancient Jews composed much of the Old Testament after Nebuchadnezzar ransacked Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews in Israel to the four winds--the disapora. In exile, the elders feared the purity of the Jewish faith and culture would be infused and contaminated by non Jewish religions and customs, and they began collecting manuscripts that had survived the centuries and producing new ones from oral history and tradition that would form the Torah. Other manuscripts would be added to the whole that makes up the Old Testament. The original Old Testament was canonized--declared complete and unchangeable--in a series of steps but with virtually 100% agreement among the Jewish elders by the First Century A.D.

Likewise as the Christian communities developed and expanded beyond Judah, the Christians began collecting manuscripts, recorded or remembered sayings of Jesus, the authoritative letters written by Paul, and other documents to be distributed for purposes of teachings in the formed Christian congregations. And in time, through common use, these were edited into what we know as the New Testament. Though never formally canonized, the content became fixed over time and considered permanent as to what would be the New Testament scriptures.

Probably none of the New Testament writers had any inkling they were writing scripture, thus they omitted so much detail commonly known to themselves but that would have been so helpful to us now in understanding what they were saying.

And was the whole process inspired by God? I believe it was based on the enormous staying power of the Bible despite so many efforts to destroy it, and because of the Bible's ability to inform, instruct, inspire, and encourage people all the way to the 21st Century so far.

Of course the writings were inspired by god. If you go to church and then leave and do a good deed later that day, was it inspired by god? Sure it was.

What I find interesting is that Paul went to Greece and told these stories and the Greeks believed it. But then again they weren't that bright. If they were they wouldn't believe in Greek gods.

Was myth allegory/metaphor or truth for the ancient Greeks? Did they really think there were gods and goddesses who took an active part in human life?

It seems pretty clear that at least some level of belief in the gods was part of community life among the ancient Greeks, just as it was for the Romans.

It is impossible to find any culture whose history does not include belief in some form of deity or deities.

Actually neither the Greeks nor the Romans nor the Egyptians or the pagan cultures of the Old Testament in the Biblical lands believed in any kind of relationship with the gods. Most especially the Romans thought the gods more nuisance than benefit, more entertainment than something to actually worship. Homage was paid mostly so that the gods would not make mischief. For the same reason it was required that all pay homage to the gods though a special exemption was given to the Jews in order to keep the peace. Otherwise the people were free to be as good or evil as they wished as the gods could care less.

That is one reason that Jesus of Nazareth was such an enigma. Certainly no one, other than the Jews, had heard of a god showing up on Earth to do good or have lunch with people. Gods could do favorable or unfavorable acts but gods could not suffer or die.

That is why so many describe Christianity as a relationship instead of a religion. The only thing that makes it a religion are the rules and regulations imposed by the various sects/denominations that formed since the crucifixion.

 

[PK1]

4. Pure agnostic. It's the thinking person's position.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.
So no, while agnostic is about thinking, a thinking person must seek the truth and find it.

Yes, Agnosticism reflects HONEST IGNORANCE about a claim. Science takes the agnostic position ... until evidence supports or denies the claim.
It's the most rational stance.

Those who deny their IGNORANCE are displaying emotional insecurities, including conformance to perceived social-cultural pressure.

 

[PK1]

Religion and supernatural beliefs are cultural artifacts salted with discomfort about uncertainty and/or the emotional need to "blend in" to appear "normal".

 

[james bond]

The caveat with this scale is, which god is it that the person is professing belief in.

Generally speaking, I would think Dawkins is referring to certain monotheistic gods. That's why I put "Other" in the poll for those who didn't think their beliefs fit or weren't comfortable with the above choices.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand how a person can claim to "know", one way or the other.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it starts with Faith. In my case, from there is the Bible and the evidence for the Resurrection.

 

[james bond]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

 

[Mudda]

I don't understand how a person can claim to "know", one way or the other.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it starts with Faith. In my case, from there is the Bible and the evidence for the Resurrection.

What evidence?

 

[james bond]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

what is god?
allah or jesus father ? im sure this god is bullshit.

I'm not sure how to answer you. Since this is a serious belief scale, I believe Dawkins capitalizes God such as in academia. The way you put god with a lower case "G," refers to pagan gods in academia. Those gods are not included in the discussion. For example, those gods may be treated as myths in Philosophy or part of Literature courses. I think Dawkins is referring to certain monotheistic gods, but it doesn't include all of them.

Monotheism
monotheism | theology .

Exploring the Monotheistic Religions of the World
Exploring Monotheistic Religions

 

[Divine Wind]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist