Dear Atheists..

[tonea2003]

I thought you'd be pleased to know about such a critical study, the main point though is that even among sceptical scholars there is universal acceptance of the historical Jesus. The mainstream backlash was predictable and wholly justified in my view. The Christ myth approach is what is utterly discredited of course.

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

i dont say and never have done that he didn't exist, i am certainly intrigued and not 100% that he did mind
there are too many influential contemporaries who say nothing who should of

i'm actually interested in your take that none of the core tenets of Christianity are valid from this seminar

i guess you are poo pooing that bit

 

[johnny crossan]

i dont say and never have done that he didn't exist, i am certainly intrigued and not 100% that he did mind
there too many influential contemporaries who say nothing who should of
i'm actually interested in your take that none of the core tenets of Christianity are valid from this seminar

i guess you are poo pooing that bit

My soubriquet's namesake was briefly quite influential and I took some trouble to examine his views at the time. Essentially the reliance on hypothetical sources like Q and Proto Luke distorted his research findings.

 

[KS55]

I don’t see Jesus as a fact or a myth as important, except possibly to some adherents. It is the idea that has been so influential not who or how it came to be. We know who founded, say, 7th Day Adventism or Mormonism but the people concerned are not important, the ideas may or may not be, depending on your pov.

 

[Damocles]

My "faith" that there is no God is founded in the fact that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to suppose his/her/its existance.

A good quote I once heard, of an atheist talking to a devout Christian:

"You and I are very similar, having near identical theological views".

"Really?" Says the Christian.

Yes, the atheist replies, "There are 2500 Gods or deities, from the most ancient gods of polytheistic societies - Hittite, Sumerian, Mesopotamian - to the most contemporary gods of the major monotheistic religions - Allah, God, Yahweh"

You don't belive in 2,499 of them, whereas I don't believe in 2,500.

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang as the creation model of the Universe yet a large amount of people, who often prolaim their opinions to be based on evidence such as the above, don't seem to know this.

We can get into what singularities are at a different date, but they are no more or less faith based than any deity yet the scientifically illiterate who watched a few documentaries and now think they understand astrophysics accept them unquestioning.

 

[johnny crossan]

I don’t see Jesus as a fact or a myth as important, except possibly to some adherents. It is the idea that has been so influential not who or how it came to be. We know who founded, say, 7th Day Adventism or Mormonism but the people concerned are not important, the ideas may or may not be, depending on your pov.

Christianity has shaped western civilization, it is a fundamental part of how we think and behave. To claim the attempt to understand its origins is not important is quite extraordinary as is putting the life of Christ on a par with the founders of nineteenth century fringe sects. False equivalence on steroids.

 

[Damocles]

The overwhelming evidence of the patterns of religious belief. The fact that it is entirely socially organised to the point that everyone coincidentally believes the same thing as the other people in their community and something different from the community they have little to no social contact with. That fact that every day people convert to a new religion when they get married. The fact that throughout history, the entire population of countries have coincidentally converted shortly after the king did. The fact that no-one has ever independently come to the same conclusions as Christianity, Islam, etc, without having been told about it by someone who already believes it (which is not the case with scientific discoveries, which have regularly been discovered independently by people who have no contact). And the way people act. If I genuinely thought that the punishment for getting it wrong was an eternity in hell, I would literally dedicate my entire life to following the message and worry about it non-stop. And yet the number of people who do this is vanishingly small.


If you say so. I've never met one. I've never seen one in a debate. I've never heard accounts of someone who 'converted to Christianity,' who when you look into it a bit more deeply, didn't coincidentally have some huge related life event around the time of their conversion. Maybe you can enlighten me though (not like that).

I feel like our standards for "overwhelming evidence" and making grandiose statements about what every single person believes are extremely different.

Like I said further down in the post you quoted me from, ‘And you may say, but there isn’t truly reliable evidence of many people from that time - and you’d be right - but Jesus is supposed to be the most important human that’s ever lived so I’m looking for much more weighted evidence for his existence than anyone else’s’.

So the entire basis of your point is that you doubt the historicity of Jesus because, despite it being a well evidenced idea in historical research, you have decided to draw your own lines around what evidence is. And remember, that's you using evidence based reasoning. Where you decide the threshold needed based not on research or knowledge but personal whim?

 

[KS55]

Christianity has shaped western civilization, it is a fundamental part of how we think and behave. To claim the attempt to understand its origins is not important is quite extraordinary as is putting the life of Christ on a par with the founders of nineteenth century fringe sects.

But what difference does it make to the idea? There are loads of important ideas the origins of which we have no idea…. such as a fragment like ‘metron anthropos.’ Cicero was quoting when he wrote ‘cui bono?’ but we have no idea where it came from yet it is extremely important to legal practice today. See 115 charges and Mancini’s contract!
P.S. Loads of scholars said Jesus was a myth, then another load debunked that. How did either camp affect Christianity? Were people persuaded to drop the idea by the first and take it up by the second? ( I have no idea about that)
There is an element of navel gazing there.

 

[Chippy_boy]

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang as the creation model of the Universe yet a large amount of people, who often prolaim their opinions to be based on evidence such as the above, don't seem to know this.

We can get into what singularities are at a different date, but they are no more or less faith based than any deity yet the scientifically illiterate who watched a few documentaries and now think they understand astrophysics accept them unquestioning.

Hmmmmm. I get where you're coming from but there's a few things I might pick you up on there. For a kick off, there's plenty of evidence to support the idea of a big bang, for example. Although it is not proven. Hardly the same as belief in God, for which there is no evidence.

And pretty much all scientists are troubled by general relatively implying the existance of singularities and the ensuing incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics. And if the scientifically illiterate accept them unquestioning, then (a) more fool them and (b) so what. If they do so, that does not lend any justification to an unquestioning belief in God. Both are daft.

 

[johnny crossan]

But what difference does it make to the idea? There are loads of important ideas the origins of which we have no idea…. such as a fragment like ‘metron anthropos.’ Cicero was quoting when he wrote ‘cui bono?’ but we have no idea where it came from yet it is extremely important to legal practice today. See 115 charges and Mancini’s contract!
P.S. Loads of scholars said Jesus was a myth, then another load debunked that. How did either camp affect Christianity? Were people persuaded to drop the idea by the first and take it up by the second? ( I have no idea about that)
There is an element of navel gazing there.

Loads of folk said ciggies were good for your throat. Another load debunked that. How did either camp affect smoking?
Loads of folk said Hitler was a great man, another load debunked that. How did either camp affect Fascism?
A sense of perspective is always helpful when reflecting on history.

 

[GortonBlue62]

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang as the creation model of the Universe yet a large amount of people, who often prolaim their opinions to be based on evidence such as the above, don't seem to know this.

We can get into what singularities are at a different date, but they are no more or less faith based than any deity yet the scientifically illiterate who watched a few documentaries and now think they understand astrophysics accept them unquestioning.

So do you think Jesus is the son of God?

 

[johnny crossan]

Hmmmmm. I get where you're coming from but there's a few things I might pick you up on there. For a kick off, there's plenty of evidence to support the idea of a big bang, for example. Although it is not proven. Hardly the same as belief in God, for which there is no evidence.

And pretty much all scientists are troubled by general relatively implying the existance of singularities and the ensuing incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics. And if the scientifically illiterate accept them unquestioning, then (a) more fool them and (b) so what. If they do so, that does not lend any justification to an unquestioning belief in God. Both are daft.

I think we should prepare ourselves for a 'paradigm shift' on Big Bang Theory when the latest James Webb observations are fully analysed.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tonea2003]

I think we should prepare ourselves for a 'paradigm shift' on Big Bang Theory when the latest James Webb observations are fully analysed.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

will we see god sat on his throne?

 

[KS55]

Loads of folk said ciggies were good for your throat. Another load debunked that. How did either camp affect smoking?
Loads of folk said Hitler was a great man, another load debunked that. How did either camp affect Fascism?
A sense of perspective is always helpful when reflecting on history.

Well, when we are talking perspective, consider this.
Jesus fact or myth is not an enquiry into the origins of the Judaeo-Christian idea that dominates western thinking, but a narrow enquiry into just one aspect, which may be important to Christians but is of little interest to the rest of the world who are the majority. The origins of the idea do not subtend from the historicity or otherwise of Jesus but from, to pick a few, Graeco-Roman philosophy, the Old Testament, the gospels, the writing of St. Paul, and centuries of writing from Christian scholars and other philosophers, the enlightenment and jurisprudence (you won’t find much in the New Testament to support women’s equality or to debunk the evils of slavery), and the revolutions of the 17thC onwards.
I don’t think your response can be considered entirely serious, btw.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I think we should prepare ourselves for a 'paradigm shift' on Big Bang Theory when the latest James Webb observations are fully analysed.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Big Bang theory is an evidence based approach to understanding the universe we inhabit.

If it is flawed, alternative theories will attempt to further our understanding. It is very unlikely that any deistic god will figure in whatever theory emerges. It is certain that no Theistic god will figure in any serious attempt to understand things.

Newton remained Einstein's hero despite the latter's model of the universe supplanting the former's.

We thought the earthquake was flat. Then we thought it was a sphere. Then we thought it was an oblate spheroid. Now we think it's slightly pear shaped (in that the southern pole is slightly thicker than the northern pole). We look for the truth and as we learn new things we modify our opinion.

Darwin drove God off planet earth, Newton drove him out of the solar system and Einstein consigned him to edges of the known universe.

 

[Blue Maverick]

 

[KS55]

The Big Bang theory is an evidence based approach to understanding the universe we inhabit.

If it is flawed, alternative theories will attempt to further our understanding. It is very unlikely that any deistic god will figure in whatever theory emerges. It is certain that no Theistic god will figure in any serious attempt to understand things.

Newton remained Einstein's hero despite the latter's model of the universe supplanting the former's.

We thought the earthquake was flat. Then we thought it was a sphere. Then we thought it was an oblate spheroid. Now we think it's slightly pear shaped (in that the southern pole is slightly thicker than the northern pole). We look for the truth and as we learn new things we modify our opinion.

Darwin drove God off planet earth, Newton drove him out of the solar system and Einstein consigned him to edges of the known universe.

Darwin remained a believer, as did his wife whose sensitivity held him back from publishing ‘The Origin…’
Christians of my acquaintance fall into two camps: Darwinians who think ‘The Origin’ explains how god went about his purpose and the Fundamentalists who believe Genesis is the literal truth. One fundamentalist I know maintains that evolution and the fossil record is a conspiracy. She is unable to say who the conspirators are or what they expect to gain! The church she attends is packed to overflowing with like minded people.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Darwin remained a believer, as did his wife whose sensitivity held him back from publishing ‘The Origin…’
Christians of my acquaintance fall into two camps: Darwinians who think ‘The Origin’ explains how god went about his purpose and the Fundamentalists who believe Genesis is the literal truth. One fundamentalist I know maintains that evolution and the fossil record is a conspiracy. She is unable to say who the conspirators are or what they expect to gain! The church she attends is packed to overflowing with like minded people.

I don’t think that even Einstein ever maintained that god doesn’t exist.
Science deals in facts and the more we discover the more sense we can make of what we deem as the origins of the universe…..
But no matter how far we go back there is always the question, ok, but what was there before that. And why?
We can’t imagine nothingness.

Not only Einstein, but I have seen many opinions from seriously clever people that kind of reflect on the possibility that what we cannot prove, is in a way a godlike presence.
We just don’t know what that is and may never.

Now whether you believe in a soul and an afterlife is a different story altogether.

 

[KS55]

I am troubled by the Big Bang theory. If the whole universe was in a hot dense state, where did it come from?
a) It is the singularity which is the final resting place of a previous universe.
b) It is sui generis and unique
c) God made it.
How does something come from nothing?

 

[tonea2003]

I am troubled by the Big Bang theory. If the whole universe was in a hot dense state, where did it come from?
a) It is the singularity which is the final resting place of a previous universe.
b) It is sui generis and unique
c) God made it.
How does something come from nothing?

don't forget god was, is and always will be
johnny will tell you that

 

[KS55]

don't forget god was, is and always will be
johnny will tell you that

“In the beginning was the word.” Who made the word? Come to that, who made god?
An infinite regression into nothingness.