Dear Atheists..

johnny crossan said:
I can recommend this book if you are interested in a factual account of the Resurrection.

Click to expand...

Factual account?! I've read a couple of pages and it's like a Netflix conspiracy show! Who moved the stone? Could have been the scorned wife, or the grieving mother. Could have been some kids playing a prank. Could have been an alien. Accounts at the time even say they saw Tupac and Biggy having a rap battle shortly before they arrived to see the stone removed.

Let's go with Jesus came back from the dead and moved it himself.
 
supercity88 said:
Factual account?! I've read a couple of pages and it's like a Netflix conspiracy show! Who moved the stone? Could have been the scorned wife, or the grieving mother. Could have been some kids playing a prank. Could have been an alien. Accounts at the time even say they saw Tupac and Biggy having a rap battle shortly before they arrived to see the stone removed.

Let's go with Jesus came back from the dead and moved it himself.
Click to expand...
well done for managing a couple of pages anyway.
 
johnny crossan said:
Think that gem was one of Charles Bradlaugh's founder of the Secular Society back in the 1890s.
Click to expand...
Regardless, it rings true wherever it was over a hundred years ago or today.
Most religions have moved with the times when archaeology has discovered certain things. There’s just too many holes in mainstream religion. If the planet manages to survive another hundred years without the human race fucking things up I reckon there will be a few more discoveries that leads to more questions than answers.
 
Phil1 said:
Regardless, it rings true wherever it was over a hundred years ago or today.
Most religions have moved with the times when archaeology has discovered certain things. There’s just too many holes in mainstream religion. If the planet manages to survive another hundred years without the human race fucking things up I reckon there will be a few more discoveries that leads to more questions than answers.
Click to expand...
We've had two millenia to get used to monotheism but there's always a few struggling to keep up ;-)
 
johnny crossan said:
It's very difficult to understand the point or points you are making. All I'd say is that the OT is a record of the religious experience of the Hebrew people and Christians believe the NT fulfils it and is a new covenant.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe it to be the word of any god? Fair enough.
 
johnny crossan said:
We've had two millenia to get used to monotheism but there's always a few struggling to keep up ;-)
Click to expand...
It’s not a case of struggling to keep up. Life is for living in the here and now. Not spending countless years of your life speculating on what might be.
You make your case, I respect it.
 
Damocles said:
You're dodging the two main thrusts of the conversation though.

1. Your view implies almost all religious people are stupid, naive, or gullible. There's also a shared implication that people who aren't religious are the opposite and therefore superior intellectually.
Click to expand...
The majority of religious people (actually all, I would argue) follow their religion for purely social reasons. Intelligent people can believe in God, but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually. They may try to intellectualise it later on, but they're coming at it from an intense desire to believe for whatever reason (usually social or emotional). Intelligent people still believe in God for the same reason intelligent people still don't accept that their wife is cheating on them when it's obvious to everyone else.

We've got people on this thread boasting about how 85% of people 'believe in God.' And yet 85% of that 85% live in places where if they publicly denounced the prevailing religion, at best they'd end up ostracised from their community, and at worst, they'd end up dead. Which shows what a sham the whole thing is, based entirely on social belonging and control, and not at all on any kind of objective observations about the nature of the world.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
The majority of religious people (actually all, I would argue) follow their religion for purely social reasons. Intelligent people can believe in God, but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually. They may try to intellectualise it later on, but they're coming at it from an intense desire to believe for whatever reason (usually social or emotional). Intelligent people still believe in God for the same reason intelligent people still don't accept that their wife is cheating on them when it's obvious to everyone else.

We've got people on this thread boasting about how 85% of people 'believe in God.' And yet 85% of that 85% live in places where if they publicly denounced the prevailing religion, at best they'd end up ostracised from their community, and at worst, they'd end up dead. Which shows what a sham the whole thing is, based entirely on social belonging and control, and not at all on any kind of objective observations about the nature of the world.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that different regions of the world believe in different gods. If it's a question of individual belief, surely individuals should, to an extent, be worshipping their own gods in their own ways? What makes a child in England become (primarily) protestant, or in Italy, catholic. Is it a personal belief or indoctrination, or social acceptance? Why do do some countries (Korea, for example) have two major religions? Has each of the people in such countries made peace with their god, or is it more likely to be their upbringing at an early age? Because half of them presumably have it wrong, one way or the other.
 
johnny crossan said:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Click to expand...

Just a question, not knocking your beliefs or anything, but if you were born in another part of the world do you think you would have grown up believing in your god? The Middle East, let's say, or Russia, or Papua New Guinea?
 
johnny crossan said:
That's as far as the records can carry us, a good deal more precise than for most historical figures at this time though.
Click to expand...
rubbish, apart from the gospels which are all anonymous and written at least 2 generations later than the alleged dates there is no corroborating evidence from the alleged time(romans or jews, basically anyone) to support them or that he even existed( not saying he didn't)
the 1st century is a well written period to boot

the Josephus link which is from 93ad (the antiquities of the jews) is very tenuous and very dubious
that is pretty much it
 
Last edited:
tonea2003 said:
rubbish, apart from the gospels which are all anonymous and written at least 2 generations later than the alleged dates there is no corroborating evidence from the alleged time(romans or jews, basically anyone) to support them or that he even existed( not saying he didn't)
the 1st century is a well written period to boot

the Josephus link which is from 93ad (the antiquities of the jews) is very tenuous and very dubious that is pretty much it
Click to expand...
You want different historiographical standards to apply in his case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top