|
This entire topic is resolved immediately by clarifying the particular intended use of the word atheist here. Alternatively by differentiating between logical possibilities (it is logically possible for someone to have not heard of a God) and the general reality of the world (in which it is extremely unlikely that someone has not). Flopping out various definitions isn't useful if you're doing so to wheedle out of addressing an arguement.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
I went to church today and while there I prayed to a God I believe in, but don't think there's conclusive proof it exists. Am I an atheist? I'm confused now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
No, you simply believe something without a reason to, which IMO sounds like something a sucker does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I went to church today and while there I prayed to a God I believe in, but don't think there's conclusive proof it exists. Agnostic theist. You don't know (Or don't think) the answer can be proven conclusively, but still believe in God. There's tons of micro-organization poo poo like this on r/atheism that I remember back from my dark days in that mindset. But you do you, man. No one else can do you. Nonviolent J posted:i have a whore butt Is this love for cock a choice, or do you have a deterministic whore butt?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Nonviolent J posted:i have a whore butt Pounding My Whore Butt In The Butt By My Own Whore Butt
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Hey when did I enter reddit? Because I am loving the stating that everyone is an athiest but some of us are just not smart enough to be. Also love the tired old brian fleming/richard carrier arguments for Christ not existing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey when did I enter reddit? Because I am loving the stating that everyone is an athiest but some of us are just not smart enough to be. Also love the tired old brian fleming/richard carrier arguments for Christ not existing. Sorry you can't be as cool as us. Maybe in the next life, Confucius: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey when did I enter reddit? Because I am loving the stating that everyone is an athiest but some of us are just not smart enough to be. Also love the tired old brian fleming/richard carrier arguments for Christ not existing. My favorite part of these conversations is when touchy theists fall back on fedoras and reddit when atheists attempt to argue their side no matter how couched or respectful it may be. Its like they know they don't have anything substantial to say so top priority becomes childish pissing and garish hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey when did I enter reddit? Because I am loving the stating that everyone is an athiest but some of us are just not smart enough to be. Also love the tired old brian fleming/richard carrier arguments for Christ not existing. Are they discredited or are you just sick of them being true?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Honest question: What exactly is the situation with respect to whether or not Jesus actually existed as a single person? From what I understand, most historians believe he did exist as an individual. But at the same time I can't help but think that a majority of research into the topic of Jesus was probably conducted by Christians (both due to the sheer percent of people in Western countries who are Christians as well as the fact that that topic would be of greater interest to Christians). So I feel like this is a situation where quality of research would be more relevant than quantity/consensus (barring some extreme consensus like >95%). For the record, I'm assuming that the actual single person probably did exist. It's just that I can't help but think that "majority of historians think so" isn't really a sufficient argument in and of itself. It isn't the same as a topic like global warming; many people, including historians, have a vested interest (on a personal level) in believing Jesus existed. The same can't really be said for climate scientists, with the exception of the minority who are funded by the fossil fuel industry. It's also worth keeping in mind that a hell of a lot of what we think happened historically is dependent upon assumptions (like having to assume that contemporary writers were telling the truth about a particular emperor or something and didn't have some bias for or against them). I appreciate any info someone might have on this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
The problem with making that argument, where history is made up of assumptions, is that then we have to go to if there is archaeological evidence. The problem with archaeological evidence being that that means alot of people we are told of in old texts have no actual evidence for their existence. Which would then suggest we should act as though for instance Socrates did not exist. Neither did Atilla the Hun, or Hannibal Barca.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
There will especially be very little to no archeological evidence of crucified persons, part of why it was done was that it destroyed the body (via dogs and crows) denying a burial. There is evidence of the Jesus movement that formed around and after him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
There's evidence that there was probably a Jewish scholar named Jesus, but no evidence he was crucified, much less that he was the son of God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's evidence that there was probably a Jewish scholar named Jesus, but no evidence he was crucified, much less that he was the son of God. Jesus seminar had that one (crucified) red. Pretty good consensus on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's evidence that there was probably a Jewish scholar named Jesus, but no evidence he was crucified, much less that he was the son of God. Serious historians agree that he was probably crucified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
It's not so much whether a dude named Jesus may have existed so much as a bunch of the magical qualities attributed to him aren't particularly original. The concept of virgin birth wasn't new, Perseus was fathered by Zeus and that myth dates back to the before the ancient Greeks. Mithraism, which was a fairly popular cult in the Roman Empire that arguably predated Christianity and was definitely one of its contemporaries declared their god, Mithras, was borne from a stone. The Roman cult was mutable and figures like Mithras, Jesus, and concepts like Sol Invictus shared similar places before the tenets of Christianity began to be codified. There's claims that Jesus met King Herod in certain Gospels as well which seem to be there specifically to tie them to Old Testament stories. The idea of a Messiah certainly wasn't new and regardless of whatever reality-based qualities a historical Jesus may have possessed, he was obviously not convincing enough to the people of Judea at the time. The Council of Nicaea which decided which bits of the various myths were to be counted as true didn't occur until ~325 years after the alleged events took place and the evidence for a historical Pontius Pilate who conveniently shifts blame for killing the central figure of an increasingly popular religion from the state to the inhabitants of a far-off province is an engraving on a rock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The problem with making that argument, where history is made up of assumptions, is that then we have to go to if there is archaeological evidence. The problem with archaeological evidence being that that means alot of people we are told of in old texts have no actual evidence for their existence. Which would then suggest we should act as though for instance Socrates did not exist. Neither did Atilla the Hun, or Hannibal Barca. So you don't think that a work that at least purports to be factual history should be considered any more reliable than a religious and mystical work concerning a transcendent god-man? Not even a little bit? Like you can argue about the historiographical standards of the Romans and their penchant for mythologizing history but it's a pretty reasonable distinction to make. I'm no reddit atheist type, but it's always amazed me how much anger and vitriol the idea that Jesus or Muhammed or whoever didn't exist evokes from people who are nominally/otherwise liberal And even then yeah I would lean towards skepticism regarding the factual accuracy of Roman history, and premodern narrative history in general. I look forwards to the meltdown over that icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
There is no factual reason to question the existence of Jesus or Mohammed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
What about the fact that they were major chumps?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:There is no factual reason to question the existence of Jesus or Mohammed. There's no factual reason to believe in the existence of Jesus or Muhammed
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Read any book about the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:It's not so much whether a dude named Jesus may have existed so much as a bunch of the magical qualities attributed to him aren't particularly original. The concept of virgin birth wasn't new, Perseus was fathered by Zeus and that myth dates back to the before the ancient Greeks. Mithraism, which was a fairly popular cult in the Roman Empire that arguably predated Christianity and was definitely one of its contemporaries declared their god, Mithras, was borne from a stone. The Roman cult was mutable and figures like Mithras, Jesus, and concepts like Sol Invictus shared similar places before the tenets of Christianity began to be codified. There's claims that Jesus met King Herod in certain Gospels as well which seem to be there specifically to tie them to Old Testament stories. Actually no to Mithras, the aspects that Mithras began to show that seem to be alot like Jesus appear long after the Jesus Movement. Also how anyone can compare Mithras coming from the Rock, youthful but certainly not a babe, and armed to Jesus being born in a manger is beyond me. (I could see an argument made about his birth from the Rock being comparable to the birth of Athena from the Head of Zeus, fully clothed and armed). The most compelling arguments I can see are that certain activities in the cult, like the use of ash on the foreheads may have influenced Christianity but beyond that I find little evidence. In response to Perseus, I mean how can you compare Perseus to Jesus? Perseus is not a messiah figure he is a typical Greek warrior adventure who has the added benefit of being Zeus's son in a Hera sanctioned union. Finally Sol Convicts was several Gods through the history of Rome, including Zeus and Apollo, and finally Elgabulus. Also before you say "well he had a halo in his images". So did other Gods and goddesses in Rome, Christians believing that all that was Good came from God would of course incorporate the culture that they could reconcile as good with their faith. Furthermore the tenets of Christianity were pretty solid in the second century. Finally the Council of Nicea was not a codification of anything, it was a debate over whether Jesus was of the same substance or of just a similar substance to God the Father. Please learn some actual history, and not just from "The God who wasn't there". Because at the rate we are going I might just have to start discussing on how Hannibal clearly never existed. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
There is no contemporary account of Jesus existing. Obviously Mohammed is a different case, being a warlord and all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
It would be bizarre if there was a contemporary account. There is as much basis to believe that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified as there is to believe that any specific person born before him existed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Sons of gods but not, nice sons of nice gods. Or rocks. My point was only that the concept of a lady getting knocked up by a god had been around long before that particular virgin birth story. Determining what kind of magic Jesus was made of does strike me as a pretty important thing to get straight but you are right, it took a bunch of other meetings, councils, and conventions to determine which words of god were canon, apocrypha, or outright heresy. The Kingfish posted:It would be bizarre if there was a contemporary account. Except the main source for his existence is an immense tome full of magic and tales of poo poo that never happened. People are using it as a basis to inform opinions on whether or not gay people should be married in 2016. The Romans nailed all sorts of people to trees, maybe one of them was named Jesus. He still wasn't magic. bij fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Sons of gods but not, nice sons of nice gods. Or rocks. My point was only that the concept of a lady getting knocked up by a god had been around long before that particular virgin birth story. And now we have gone full Reddit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Yea that bad message board sure is a convenient way to deflect attention from an indefensible belief in magic. Fedoras! Sky Wizards XD They don't have an application fee! Who loving cares? Claims made in the bible are incongruous with reality, getting upset and screaming reddit doesn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:And now we have gone full Reddit. So saying that the historical evidence for Jesus existing, which consists of metaphysical religious texts, and three footnotes in Roman history compilations 100 years later, is really really thin, counts as 'going full Reddit'? This is what I meant by otherwise liberal people going apeshit in my earlier post
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Yea that bad message board sure is a convenient way to deflect attention from an indefensible belief in magic. Fedoras! Sky Wizards XD They don't have an application fee! Who loving cares? Well if the Shoe, or in this case Fedora, fits...Also are you going to really claim the bible is entirely a work of fiction? icantfindaname posted:So saying that the historical evidence for Jesus existing, which consists of metaphysical religious texts, and three footnotes in Roman history compilations 100 years later, is really really thin, counts as 'going full Reddit'? This is what I meant by otherwise liberal people going apeshit in my earlier post Well the evidence for a historical Hannibal is really thin and I really think Cato the Elder created him for the Romans to commit genocide on Carthage. Likewise how can we know that Socrates wasn't created wholesale? I think these are very important questions and aren't in anyway founded on maliciousness at something I do not like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if the Shoe, or in this case Fedora, fits...Also are you going to really claim the bible is entirely a work of fiction? No, there's parts that are at least reflective of actual events. The Old Testament probably roughly describes what happened to some early Semitic groups with some added mythological flavor. There's just very little evidence that the Israelites of the Old Testament were ever a slave class in Egypt or that anything resembling Exodus ever occurred. The parts that are fiction are the pieces with supernatural events in them like creation, parting the red sea, the resurrection, and dead holy men in Jerusalem crawling out of their tombs. As I said, there could certainly be a historical figure named Jesus, but there was nothing supernatural about him and the mythology surrounding him bears resemblance to some other contemporary religious figures. If the resemblances are coincidental and whoever decided Jesus' mother was a virgin did so without ever having heard a story about Mithras or Perseus, that's fine. If the ancient Hebrews weren't influenced by Zoroastrians when they adopted monotheism, that's fine. The supernatural bits didn't happen because magic doesn't exist and it seems prudent to scrutinize the historicity of the parts of the bible that don't deal in magic because of the parts that do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
Everything up to Acts is made up. As to historicity, Jesus =/= Socrates Jesus =/= Qin Shi Huang Jesus = Gilgamesh Jesus = Paul Bunyan
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Likewise how can we know that Socrates wasn't created wholesale? I think these are very important questions and aren't in anyway founded on maliciousness at something I do not like. Off the top of my head, it seems reasonably likely to me that Socrates was simply a rhetorical device used by Plato.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Off the top of my head, it seems reasonably likely to me that Socrates was simply a rhetorical device used by Plato. Then why do multiple other Greek writers contemporary with him also mention socrates as a real person?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Off the top of my head, it seems reasonably likely to me that Socrates was simply a rhetorical device used by Plato. Plato is far from the only primary source we have on Socrates though. Probably most famously he's the subject of a (highly critical) play by Aristophanes, and he's mentioned by his contemporaries in philosophy as well. That said, I'm commenting on the historicity of Socrates, not on whether Plato represents him accurately, which is an entirely different and much more complicated subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Man is the measure of all things, those that are that they are and those that are not that they are not. Believe in god, don't, whatever floats your boat. Just don't impose those beliefs on others and its all good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
And may I add, "impose" includes talking. Just pipe down about god, ok? Let it peter out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
What are you talking about? We impose beliefs on each other all the time. When raising children, when enforce the rules of society and carrying out justice - these are all impositions. Even something as simple as a debate is the attempt to argue your beliefs through reason - to compel the other person to your position by appealing to their intellect. Imposing ones beliefs is normal, the bad part comes when your you don't introspect your own beliefs before you impose them, seek out contradictions and then resolve them, or when you use them as an excuse to hurt people who haven't done anything wrong. Like when hypocritical religious leaders mock gay people or whatever, the correct response isn't to shy away from that and say 'well it's just their beliefs', it's to smash their faces in, because gently caress em. Cato has no reason to fabricate someone like hannibal, and was at least attempting to present historical events. Religious works can't be treated in the same way, especially since the only source has several, contradictory stories. Like no one actually believes rome was founded by two dickheads who suckled from a shewolf, yet if we had people who stomped their foot down and said 'No you idiots Romulus and Remus were based on real people!', they get loving laughed out of the building.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Man is the measure of all things, those that are that they are and those that are not that they are not. Believe in god, don't, whatever floats your boat. Just don't impose those beliefs on others and its all good. Yeah, no. Beliefs like creationism and faith healing are demonstrably harmful both to individuals and to society, so I'm gonna impose the poo poo out of my beliefs against people who promote those things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Wait so two men who were brothers and foght to the death for leadership of said tribe couldn't have happened? Just like some backwoods preacher calling himself a chosen one couldn't have been executed for blasphemy. I mean now that I think about it both sound to ridiculous to be historically plausible. Also unless you can find physical evidence of his existence I must assume Hannibal never existed. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
But that's a different claim! Claiming, in the abstract, that there may have been a preacher/there was duel over leadership is categorically different to claiming that they're somehow historical characters! It's a transparently desperate/weak sauce comparison. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't; are we sure there is an actual, historical causal connection between the stories and events, and the story both portrays the events correctly (even if using metaphor), and that the events had the same significance then as they did later, and that they weren't just invented wholesale to satisfy a convenient need later on? Have you ever played the game 'telephone' before?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:48
|
|