The caller that says "It seems like Atheists pick and choose their ethics...." - WOW! That has to be the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard a Christian say....
I would have asked the first caller "Troy" why would god knowingly have created human kind into this cruel or evil world and let all these disease and bacteria and viruses to kill us in the first place when he can supposedly can see the future. and don't tell me its bz of the original sin.
If i had a chance not to be born i'd go for it , as an adult i've never felt the need to procreate , i never considered life was something i wanted to pass on ! , i'm an atheist !
Troy is an absolute idiot for asking that question. If anything, the question should be turned around. One reason I can think of for bringing children into the world as an Atheist is because this is the only life you have and the evolutionary purpose of life is to pass on genes. What happens after that, so long as your child gets laid, is irrelevant. Sure, there will be famine, war, and disease, but that's part of the natural world, without a greater 'evil' cause. I find the entire question nonsensical and he just kept asking it when it wasn't valid to begin with, I'm surprised the hosts didn't realize that. Second, from the Christian perspective, why would you have children, especially if you believe the end times are coming. If you have children, you are giving them the opportunity to go to hell, something allegedly far worse than anything the natural world has to offer. However, if you didn't have children, wouldn't their souls just remain where they began in eternal bliss?
"It is better to be alive than not alive" This is only true to those of us who have already begun living. Those who were never born don't yearn for life.
Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist. For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."
Once I had my natural son, I realized that having children that share your genetics is just egotistical and senseless. There are plenty of children out there that need your care and few if any that need your genetics.
If Jesus of Nazareth was such a big deal, why did none of his pals (aka apostels) or anyone else who lived while he did his miracles write a single word about him?
I'm an atheist and I actually believe its immoral to have children because they could suffer, but they are nowhere near as evil and a god who would actually choose for beings to suffer.
Did you guys post a video about the books relating Jesus and compare one author's writings to sounding like he was on crack? I want to know so that I can watch it again. I found it very eye opening (I should have put it in my Favorites list.)
Einstein said: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of... primitive legends. No interpretation... can change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text." "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
Good analogy with the Abraham Lincon thing, also you have to remember, most of the Apostles of Jesus were involved with the rebellion against the Roman occupation, and that the New Testement wasnt drafted until 30-50 years after his death. Now in those times religion WAS politics, and with the deep abiding hatred the apostles had for Rome because of the destruction of jerusalem, it wouldnt be a far stretch of the imagination to consider christianity a political movement as much as a religious...
I have arrived at my conclusion because none of the claims that have been made for god have any evidence. I was religious, but when I realised that religion was wrong for me, I started looking more at whether god existed at all, but my bias was heavily towards "There's something, but I don't know what". Non-existence requires no proof. The idea of god is introduced, which is why it must be backed with evidence. But no-one has provided any good evidence, in 2000 years. My 'bias' is towards truth.
Interesting & informative, thanks. As an agnostic atheist myself I sometimes chat with my brother (a simple agnostic him) about such matters. Long ago we'd independently concluded that Buddhism was the only religion that we could stand. I'm still leaning towards the hypothesis that Jesus was strongly influenced by Buddhism. If not a monk himself, which I'm now less inclined to accept, then surely he must have come into contact with one.
Not a single witness outside the bible ever bothered to write about Jesus who could have met him. None. Zilch. Zero. Plenty of people long AFTER Jesus died claimed he was real. And none of those thousands upon thousands of people that heard him speak ever bothered to write about it. Outside the bible. Sorry, its a tall tale, and we all know it.
Who has written about you ? Does this make you fiction ? If you question Jesus , does this mean you question Moses ? Was Moses real ? Maybe your beliefs are formed based on who you offend , not what makes sense !
nosuchthing8 We don't have any writings from anyone who personally knew John the Baptist, or Queen Boudica or Apollonius of Tyana. Historians still think they existed though. There are no good arguments for Jesus not having existed. None.
who could of met jesus who didn't write? considering his preaching was to the illiterate masses. 2000 years ago. second those who are included in the bible for that reason. and what of the gnostic and non canon gospels? im so pleased you base your view on.. ohh wait your believe that its all a tall story. a view that goes against the consensus. a consensus based on years of translation, study and method. who's irrational now?
If I can conjure enough evidence (on any subject) for myself but not for anyone else... I must accept that the entire thing has happened in my head and is not real.
Theists A&B: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Implied: before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing.) Skeptic: Then where did god come from? Theist A: God has always existed. Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point. Theist B: God created herself. Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing. Theists A&B: The universe necessarily requires an intelligent design. But my god doesn't. Skeptic: That negates the necessary design argument. Strike three. The theists are out.
I didn't bring them up as proof that God exists... why do you link this? I gave them as proof of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Talmud is indeed a holy book, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it therefore is inaccurate when it is claiming Jesus of Nazareth actually existed...
@pdoylemi I think John P. Meier would disagree with your Nazareth statement. He wrote "archeology indicates that the village [Nazareth] has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c." Also there were historians like Josephis and Tacitus who confirm Jesus' story.
i think you missed the point. As an atheist, im under no illusion of an afterlife, there is only this one life. As an adult you need to ask you’re self some serious questions; what life can i give this child, is my life stable enough to guarantee 18 + years of support
I don't think you actually read my full post all the way through. Let me ask you a question. Do you deny Tiberius Caesar actually existed too? And do you know that many respected academic atheist historians also acknowledge the historicity of Jesus?
The french are particularly known for their pastries, however I think that sausage is more or less universal. And german, while known for sausages, are also renown for their beer and sauerkraut.
What is your point? Hinduism has a pantheon that is unfamiliar to most Christians which is why I used it as an example, I don't need your help making an argument but thanks.
French Revolution was atheism; Nazism was atheist motivated; Crusades were justified defensive maneuvers. Most of them make a case against Islam but not any other faith. There was a non-religious reason for conquering Canaan.
The thing to remember is that Jesus taught in light of the apocalypse. His message of love was because God was going to intervene soon. Some have suggested that he was Essene, but nothing connects him or John the Baptist to the group. He did have something in common with them though. The apocalypse. What we don't have is evidence (written or otherwise) that suggests that there were Buddhists in first century Palestine. And no evidence that they taught poor, illiterate, Aramaic speaking Jews.
According to YOUR source: "A Puritan led controversy began during the English Interregnum, when England was ruled by a Puritan Parliament.[157] Puritans sought to remove the remaining pagan elements of Christmas. During this brief period, the Puritan led English Parliament banned the celebration of Christmas entirely, considering it "a popish festival with no biblical justification", and a time of wasteful and immoral behavior.[158] "
Does this make possible sense to you. That Jesus was a Buddhist monk preaching in Palestine during a period of political volatility. (Christ's teaching are striking like Buddhist Teachings). That he either survived crucifixion (It did happen) & he fled,or he simply died on the cross. Once he was gone, his followers, now leaderless, & later followers, just attached old myths to him like him being the son of God born to a virgin. What do you think?
No, I am saying that the texts I presented where to be proof of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Tabby took it in the wrong direction and linked it with me trying to proof God, which wasn't at all what my intention was, nor what the comment chain was about.
That is precicely why Paul persecuted the christians before his conversion. Paul, being a law abiding Jew, didn't think there was any way someone who was under gods curse (because he was hung from a tree/cross) could be the *annointed one*. To Paul, it would have been blasphemous.
Right, sometimes it is difficult to gather up information about a positive claim, but does it mean that the positive claimer has no longer the burden of proof? Should we abandon the scientific method & just rely on what experts say?
Thank you for ignoring my question again. It takes little scientific knowledge to understand the events of the big bang theory which continues to be the best and most likely model for the expansion of the universe. As new information presents itself, we start to develop a better understanding of universal history. Christianity's defined 'answer' to the existence of the universe offers no truth, only unfounded fiction, proven demonstrably worthless. Why would you accept a story over evidence?
@MikeJunior94 "what do you think what it is that convinced them?" In the story, these people existed as described. In the story, they were skeptics. In the story, they were convinced by an apparition. In the story.
Pontius pilate most likely existed we have historical proof for that we have none for jesus or him being a divine perfect god the old testament is proof that he clearly wasnt perfect
Every conspiracy theorist is "skeptical" of whatever science disproves him. Basically, you don't know what constitutes "weak" or "strong" evidence, you are just a layman, you're opinion doesn't count. Whether something is convincing to you is of no relevance, you are using a form of argument from personnel incredulity. In the Q&A section of one of his talks Richard Carrier SAYS EXACTLY THE SAME: until the Mythicists can convince the consensus, laymen should go with what is consensus now.
GOD CREATED EVIL - Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." GOD BRINGS EVIL - Jeremiah 44:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; "Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem" GOD CREATED DISASTER - Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster GOD CREATED WICKED PEOPLE - Proverbs 16:4 (NAB) "The Lord has made everything for his own ends, even the wicked for the evil day." Stacked deck
The reason no story denies these things is that the man was not important enough for anyone but his followers to bother to write about him. Of course, when all the people writing about him believe he was the messiah, that's what the stories say. There is nothing outside the Bible that lends any credence to this story. As for Nazareth, I don't even know of Humphrey's site - there are plenty of other sources. The new evidence in favor of it existing is very suspect.
I expressed my points, which were about how atheism can not be an act of faith, clearly and simply by giving you the definition of faith and how it does not apply to atheism.
If not believing in magic and myth would make you a bad person, then please keep going to church and keep telepathically talking to your mythical sky wizard. Some of us don't need to think that sky faeries exist to be good people.
I can't argue with that-- Religion would have met its end long ago without moderate apologists re-interpreting the "perfect word of their god" to make it acceptable to modern minds.
According to YOUR source: "Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period.[111] As Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas, especially Koleda,[112] which was incorporated into the Christmas carol. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,[113] a usage first recorded in 900."
Julius Caesar was a Christos(title).Gave his life's blood,was seen as a God/son of a God.The Comet of 44 BCE was seen as his soul.His wax effigy was nailed to a cross,was seen as a savior,a craftsmen (military strategy),and related to the Dove symbol(Goddess Venus) .Followers rubbed his pyre ash on their foreheads.Forgave sins.Betrayed by Brutus, stabbed by Longinus on 3/15.Deified,and his worship was made official by decree by his heir Augustus(virgin birth thru the God Apollo).
More than 3 billion. The message is that stupid ideas shouldn't be safe from criticism. Religious ideas are often stupid and almost always shielded from criticism. A parent who uses drugs can have their kid removed, a faith healer can't, at least on legal grounds. The dozens of dead kids in Oregon city would've benefited from a society where dumb ideas are treated as such.
I've just watched Carrier's exposition about his theory. It sounds neat, informative and everyone should take a look, but it didn't convince me. Purely circumstancial, he can only make the case that there was ideological, mythological framework in judaism at the time that enabled the biblical authors to fabricate Jesus, first as a deity entirely in the other-world, and then transport his deeds to this one. But, without positive evidence that that WAS the case, it does seem less probable.
So, what reason do you have to believe that we are created in 'his image'? Or created at all? Or exists at all? You can't even prove the existence of love, which virtually everyone agrees on, how could you assume you have the knowledge of where is comes from? Every argument I've made you have simply ignored an tried to come at me with something else... Assume I have never had any contact with the concept of theism or religion. How would you convince me of your god?
I dont know how to "prove God" scientifically or about scientific evidence of God.Nor do I understand science. But Jesus can be proven from a historical perspective. The evidence is overwhelming. There was an atheist journalist named Lee Strobel that did research on evidence for Jesus whether he was a real person and whether he was the son of God. He interviewed college educated scholars and historians to get answers. He was convinced and got saved. The evidence is overwhelming.
I'm sure this has been brought up a billion times, but on the off chance it hasn't: JWs don't believe in Hell at all. They believe the 144,000 "anointed ones" are going to heaven, and the rest of the billions of people are going to be resurrected and given the opportunity to redeem their sins for the chance at living forever on a paradise Earth. The reason I know is because I was raised as one... SO glad I learned to think analytically from an early age.
I am not saying that among the many self proclaimed Messiahs of the day that there may not have been one named Jesus. But the stories attributed to that person can quickly be put to rest. First No one could have done in the temple what he did and not have contemporary writings about the event. Also there was no tradition of letting a prisoner go on Passover. He was not written about until 7 decades or more after his supposed death. As an atheist you obviously don't believe in his divinity.
Not sure what you are saying. I am an agnostic atheist. I never visit christian websites (ex. AIG). My conclusions are based on research that I have done along with other (secular) scholars. I admit that I am an amateur compared to degree possessing scholars. Most (but not all) secular scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus was most likely an actual historical person living in Palestine during the first century. A view that I hold to as well.
I looked through your previous comments before my jimmies rustled themselves and I see you have quite a few good trolls going on. 7/10 is the best I can do.
I'm an atheist and I hold many beliefs..but I don't hold an "atheist belief." Atheists lack belief in any deities. Atheists don't believe the claims of theists. And yes, I've gotten gifts at Christmas, and I've given them..so what? Christmas was originally a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice..I celebrate the holiday that is now called Christmas to cook a nice dinner for family and friends and to exchange gifts. I'm not going to stop just because the Christians stole the holiday.
You misquoted that, it's "science without RELIGION is lame" and the difference is of gigantic importance; Einstein most emphatically did not believe in a personal God and he used "religion" in a poetic sense. But don't take my word for it: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" -Einey
"THE HOLE GETS DEEPER. " Yes it does, and I just showed, by copying/pasting specific sections of YOUR source to support MY argument, how deep the hole goes. Just give it up.
What's a canard? So you think when Hithchens says there is no evidence for a divinity, he is lying? Lying implies deliberate deceit, so you are saying that he thinks there actually is a divinity but he says in public that there is no evidence for one? Or are you using the word 'lie' when you should say 'mistaken'? So any book which promotes the idea that there is no god (or evidence of one) is a book based on fabrication is it? Is that what you are saying? Fabrication is a deliberate act.
Hot is not clearly defined. Saying that something, such as a cup of coffee, is hot would be an opinion. Atheism is a defined position. It is the position of having a lack of belief in God or gods. This would not be an opinion.
Troy isn't the most articulate person which is a shame because he raised a good point. The problem of suffering/evil doesn't go away just because you reject God.
I'm sorry, the philosophers you've spoken with are wrong. When you butt into a dialogue you often miss the context of what's said. The person I was exchanging with was using the old stand by Argumentum ad populum. I didn't make up a wiki, here is your source wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
I never considered that, but you're right. In fact, the number of contradictions you run into when you assume there's an omniscient, omnipotent being controlling this reality are outstanding. First and most obvious: why create a tree bearing fruit you don't want someone to eat when you *already know* it will be eaten. We were practically damned the moment we were created. It was to create religion's illusion that we are inherently bad and not worthy of good things without religion.
Polycarp, Ignatius, Jerome claim to have heard John speak as an old man & they met other old men who remembered Jesus. To me the passage in Galatians where Paul says after he received his vision from Jesus on the road to Damascus, he did not go to met those where were already apostles but went into Arabia for three years then went to Jerusalem but met none of the apostles except Peter & stayed with him for 14 days & he also met James, the Lord's brother. That is all matter of fact details to me.
the problem of evil is not about doing evil thing or bringing someone into this world to be subject to evil ... IT ONLY MEAN that the mere existence of it contradict an omnibenevolent God. Just like "is god powerful enough to create something that HE can't move ?" .. those are paradox to explain how 'absolute' are impossible thing about your god' idea.
Another thing, miracles are irrelevant to whether or not there was a historical Jesus. That is why scholars do not discuss them. You can only discuss the miracles he did after you determine he actually lived. Look at it this way, the most likely scenario is that the historical Jesus was just a regular man who was a teacher. If he did NOT do any miracles, would there have been an uproar? Probably not.
It used to be the king which talked to god for the people, the king of each town had his kings garden where the god would visit on earth. Kings were ordained by the gods (according to the kings) and they were referred to as "supreme sovereign lords", lords of lords, kings of kings, the savior, the light, the way to the truth, the redeemer and judge to their subjects. Isn't it strange then that the king of Israel thought the god of Israel favored Israel, and that it was the one and only god.
There is a doubt as to whether he believed in any god, but most seem to centre on a deistic type god. But so what??? lots of people believe lots of things......whats you're point?
