|
Post by ksen on Dec 6, 2011 18:02:12 GMT
This thread would make PZ Myers sad.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Dec 20, 2011 1:27:32 GMT
I am an atheist, and my atheism is a belief. I'm not quite sure whether other atheists would agree. I believe that I should not accept a belief in something without good evidence, which is inexplicable in any other way than the god-one. So it's a belief about belief. If you like, it's a position about what qualifies as something worthy of acceptance. If that is not a good attitude, then I'd like to know what would be better. I think that one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe. One believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. I have heard it said that to become a Christian, one just has to believe in Christ as one's lord and saviour. Sorry, I can't do it - I don't believe. It is exactly equivalent to proposing that a religious believer should pull up by their boot straps, and stop having their religious beliefs, and take on the so-called atheist way of believing. If you are religious, could you do that? If not, then you know what I mean by one cannot willy-nilly choose what to believe; one believes the believable, and refrains from believing what one finds to be unbelievable. What I DO NOT agree with is that atheism is a religion. It doesn't qualify for that. I think you may be confused. not believing and believing are two completely different things. Not believing is a passive process and cannot be in itself qualified as a belief. Belief is an active process in that you choose to believe something. When you walk into an empty room, do you believe it's empty, or full? If you don't believe in something, then you believe in its absence / nonexistence. You either believe in one state of things, or another. You either believe in a scenario in which something (ie god) is part of it, or one in which it is not. It's still a belief. Just because you don't believe in a creator that doesn't exempt you from having a belief about it. You believe that it does not exist. That's a belief. I don't know why atheists deny that. There's nothing wrong with having beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Dec 20, 2011 11:45:25 GMT
Do you believe in other gods? If not your just as much an Atheists as anyone else.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 20, 2011 12:16:08 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. Agreed. The only truly logical position (i.e. Scientific Method) is Agnostic. There is no factual proof either way and, therefore, nothing to discuss.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 20, 2011 18:33:33 GMT
Atheism is just another belief system as far as I'm concerned. They believe that there isn't a god, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that it's a belief. Amazing. Agreed. The only truly logical position (i.e. Scientific Method) is Agnostic. There is no factual proof either way and, therefore, nothing to discuss. Effect on behavior is something worth discussing. Different assumptions about the nature and/or existence of the divine will lead to different behavior choices in life and it is worth looking at whether or not those are sound choices.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 20, 2011 20:13:30 GMT
Agreed that our behavior is guided by our assumptions. A little self-doubt and/or introspection is always good to check one's course in life.
|
|
|
Post by waymarker on Dec 24, 2011 10:41:08 GMT
Waymarker quote- "The whole of Israel and the Roman army garrison saw Jesus strutting his stuff for 3 long years, he was too BIG to be a myth" B reply- "Yet he is not recorded by contemporary historians. Strange" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That figgers.. When christianity began snowballing in popularity after Jesus's execution, the snooty Jewish priests and the posturing Romans said - "Oops better not let on it was us who killed him, quick shred all the documents implicating us or we'll have a Jesusgate scandal on our hands. Let's airbrush him out of history and start hassling christians, and people will soon quickly forget about him" And In the first century A.D. a Jewish priest by the name of Joseph ben Matthias (later given the Roman name Flavius Josephus) was commissioned by the Roman government to write a history of events in Judea. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus makes reference to Jesus and his disciples - "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. If it be lawful to call him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was the Christ. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not extinct to this day." And In the Babylonian Talmud there are numerous references to the historical existence of Jesus. In the tractate Sanhedrin, 43A, there is a fascinating historical reference to Jesus - "It has been taught on the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshua (Jesus). And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days saying, 'He is going to be stoned because He practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover." And Dead Sea Scroll 4Q246 says "He shall be called the son of God, and they shall call him son of the Most High" And even the Koran written some 600 years later dare not deny Jesus was something special:- "Allah.. exalted some messengers above others and gave miracles to Jesus the son of Mary and strengthened him with the holy spirit" (Koran 2:253) And the medieval Jewish 'Toledot Yeshu' talks at length about Jesus (Yeshu) For years, atheists used to deny that Nazareth existed until modern excavations left them red-faced and humiliated..
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Dec 24, 2011 12:21:10 GMT
Nazrareth did not exist during the time of your sky boy! No 1st Century Nazareth! Are you that illiterate that you cannot read? Are you just that brain dead?
|
|
|
Post by Gino Ryder on Dec 24, 2011 21:02:02 GMT
Nazrareth did not exist during the time of your sky boy! No 1st Century Nazareth! Are you that illiterate that you cannot read? Are you just that brain dead? Keep it civil please.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 27, 2011 2:22:13 GMT
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 29, 2011 17:52:35 GMT
Nazrareth did not exist during the time of your sky boy! No 1st Century Nazareth! Are you that illiterate that you cannot read? Are you just that brain dead? evidence please?
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Jan 2, 2012 2:28:03 GMT
Okay so... When christianity began snowballing in popularity after Jesus's execution, the snooty Jewish priests and the posturing Romans said - "Oops better not let on it was us who killed him, quick shred all the documents implicating us or we'll have a Jesusgate scandal on our hands. Let's airbrush him out of history and start hassling christians, and people will soon quickly forget about him" That would explain the lack of references among contemporary historians, scholars, officials etc. (And really, I don't consider that to be all that damning towards establishing a historical Christ.) But it wouldn't explain why no one wrote, say, a letter referencing some of the events that were said to have taken place surrounding Christ's ministry--especially if he was as remarkable as the Bible would have us believe. I mean, do you believe that people really rose from their graves in Jerusalem? And if so, don't you think it's strange that no one from the time mentions it? And assuming that there was a conspiracy to discredit Christ, and were he a historical figure of the stature that the Bible suggests there most certainly would have been some effort made to do that, wouldn't it make more sense to just write polemics against him and his followers? Furthermore, if they could scrub these supposed literary references that you believe to have existed, why couldn't they scrub the Gospels or the Epistles themselves? I just don't think your position seems all that reasonable. And In the first century A.D. a Jewish priest by the name of Joseph ben Matthias (later given the Roman name Flavius Josephus) was commissioned by the Roman government to write a history of events in Judea. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus makes reference to Jesus and his disciples - "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. If it be lawful to call him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was the Christ. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not extinct to this day." I think that most scholars recognize this passage to be a forgery, or at the very least, that portions of this passage are the result of forgery. Josephus was not a Christian and so it makes little sense that we should find him refering to Jesus as the Christ. If anything, Josephus probably thought or at least would have espoused the view Vespacian, his patron, was the Christ. In any case, it's not until late in the 4th century CE that we find reference made to this passage. That could be coincidence. Things in the ancient world tend not to be well preserved, but it strikes me as suspicious that earlier Christian writers like Origen wouldn't cite this passage if it were in the original, which was known to Origen. I'm not sure whether or not we can know that Josephus actually made reference to Jesus in the original text since at the very least it would seem that Christians have put a few words in his mouth. In any case, he would have been writing decades after Jesus was said to have died. He's not really contemporary. Though that'd be pretty good for the ancient world. And In the Babylonian Talmud there are numerous references to the historical existence of Jesus. In the tractate Sanhedrin, 43A, there is a fascinating historical reference to Jesus - "It has been taught on the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshua (Jesus). And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days saying, 'He is going to be stoned because He practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover." The passage then goes on to ascribe a different set of followers to this Yeshu, followers who were executed, and records that he was "connected with the government": Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47from halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.htmlDoes this sound like our Yeshua? Maybe it is. Some scholars seem to think so. In any case, like the Koran and like the Dead Sea Scrolls this really isn't anything like a contemporary witness to Christ. We're talking centuries after the fact. It's not unlike the quote from Tacitus that apologists like which really only establishes that there were Christians that believed in a Christ, which is not in dispute. For years, atheists used to deny that Nazareth existed until modern excavations left them red-faced and humiliated.. This bit of juvenile boasting might make sense if atheists simply claimed, without basis, that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that Nazareth as depicted in the Bible didn't exist at the time. It is an inference drawn from the lack of any reference to Nazareth as a town during the time Jesus was said to have existed. In other words it was a claim based in facts. And if it turns out that archeologists indeed discovered evidence of Jewish settlement in the early first century then we have new facts to grapple with. I should also say that it's not only atheists that take the position that Nazareth probably didn't exist at the time. And it's not as if there are atheists that accept the existence of a historical Jesus and a historical Nazareth with it. There is no atheist doctrine. Honestly, when I read statements like yours, I can't help but think there is a measure of projection going on. But really, I guess I get the importance of this from your perspective. Jesus' being from Nazareth is perhaps among the best reasons to think that he was an actual historical person. After all, we find our Gospel writers, Luke and Matthew, bending over backwards to explain how it was that Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem even though everyone knew he was from Nazareth. The fact that this contradiction between the narratives ever existed seems to me to be good reason to suspect that there might be some historical core that these authors were trying to smooth over and fit with Biblical prophecy. So yeah....I also liked how you ignored everything that I had to say in response to your earlier posts. That was cool of you. Peace
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Jan 2, 2012 11:46:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Jan 2, 2012 11:47:57 GMT
This thread would make PZ Myers sad. Who cares!
|
|
|
Post by jtp56 on Jan 6, 2012 0:59:18 GMT
1- Isn't life and the universe enough evidence to at least suggest the possibility of a God? The God of the Bible Jesus said: "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Matthew 16:14 When teaching the disciples how to pray to the Father, Jesus said: "your will be done" Matthew 6. I could pray to get laid tonight by [enter your celebrity babe here]....think that's gonna happen? I'm married? From the Bibles perspective is that God's will? I don't point to that. I point to how Jesus Himself could not heal people in His own hometown. Is not Josephus a contemporary historian? The book of Jude was written by Jesus brother. The gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew. The works of Plato weren't recorded until 600 years after his death, yet academia take his works to be "gospel". I don't know where you are getting from the Bible that insects have 4 feet or that bats were birds, etc. But a man did survive the belly of a fish for 3 days. The Sea divided, an axe had floated, the sun (earth's rotation) stopped, a donkey spoke, there was hand writing on the wall, a guy survived a den of lions, three guys survived a furnace that consumed the guys that threw them in, [enter Old Testament miracle here], whatever. And this disproves the Bible how? Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it true? Was OJ guilty? Your beliefs are what's true? Yes, I am going to trust a book written by murderers, adulterers, etc. but inspired by God. People aren't any different today than they were then, who was God supposed to use? I was a former atheist. Sex, drugs, rock and roll man. So? I think WWGHA kicked me out. Can you check for me. I was jtp56 there, too. I am sooo busy so I could only visit once or twice a week (If that's a problem on this site, kick me off now). I got an email from a guy who wanted me to respond to his post on WWGHA. I want to. I think I got kicked off for the same reason the Jews pissed off the Nazi's, but, I have no scientific proof of that. They being champions of tolerance maybe?
|
|