Religion
Related: About this forumDid historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called Historical Jesus and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, an academic embarrassment. From Crossans view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenmans Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrmans apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus historical existence. But can even that be questioned?
The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
--snip--
Also important are the sources we dont have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They can try all they want to say he didn't exist but I will never believe them.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And of course you won't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You've already stated that there is nothing at all that can.
And if that's true, discussing this topic with you is an exercise in futility.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That you choose to remain close-minded and unconvinced despite any evidence or argument given is already well documented.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am always willing to listen to them. But i am not going to give up my faith because scholars think he did not exist.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Stating that there is nothing that will ever change your mind regardless of how convincing it is pretty much defines the term "close-minded".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Your right. There is no point!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)What would be the point of having a discussion with someone who states that regardless of what you have to say or demonstrate, they will remain firmly entrenched in their position?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Right about the time you stated you would remain unconvinced despite any evidence to the contrary.
Can't get much lower than that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goodbye cleanhippie!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You have a nice day now, ya hear?
On 2nd edit: nevermind. You can read it in the edit versions if you really want to.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)to express his belief in Jesus, as to not do so is to deny his existence as the apostle Thomas did, and Jesus or god would consider this a great offense.
I totally get what they believe and why, and some of them can be the most wonderful, peace loving people anywhere.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But that has nothing to do with his inability to think crtically or open his mind on this subject, especially when he goes on the record to state that nothing at all could ever change his mind.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
If you're going to claim to say that a man is unable to think critically or open his mind, then you presume far too much and have taken the low road.
Scientists work on faith in their fields. Do you argue with them about things that cannot be proven?
Is anthropogenic climate change a real phenomenon? Is the center of the Earth really mostly iron?
How do you choose which are legitimate theories and which are bogus?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That there is nothing that could possible make him not believe. Nothing, not ever.
That is the definition of close-minded. Its not ad hominem. It's not an attack. It's observation.
And I make no definitive claim, I conclude that the story of Jesus, whether he be a regular man or the son of a god, is most probably pure mythology. It's a rebuttal to the original claim. Those making the claim have the burden of proof, and they have none. But you knew that.
It's nice to see a new poster in here, but your usual regurgitation of tired apologist arguments and asinine statements are less than intellectually stimulating, so you'll forgive me for not responding to them.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You're an abject failure and, to be kind, disingenuous.
First you say you're just observing and then you lay out more ad homina, that's pretty clear evidence that you can't handle a discussion without turning it into an insult.
I apologize for nothing and as for "asinine", (stupid, foolish, brainless, mindless, senseless, idiotic, imbecilic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, inane, witless, empty-headed), well, aren't you the creative writer!
If that's how you treat people then you have a long path toward becoming a civil contributor to discussion and to society.
I'm sorry for you.
You're so cute. Bless your heart.
You have a nice day.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)work on faith..."
No. Scientists conjecture, then rigorously test their hypotheses. If the results prove them wrong, they discard the premise and begin anew.
Occasionally an accepted theory is proven incorrect by later experiment and acquired information, then the true scientist abandons his position gladly, accepting the newer knowledge and works from a more informed perspective.
Your statement indicates you have no understanding of the scientific method.
That's how you choose which are legitimate, the "you", of course, not being those who fail to understand how science works.
That's the exact opposite of "faith".
EDIT: Oh, and absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It's not proof. You're quoting a "clever" mincing of words, but you fail to understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof".
The lack of evidence persuades that Jesus doesn't exist. The emotionally needful refuse to accept it, though, because the truth is too painful to endure. Le condition humaine...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I had a presentation before several, ~25-30, retired scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs back in 2007 and some of them were surprisingly candid about how much they don't know- how much is taken as true without proof, based on faith.
These include the nature of energy, magnetism, and whether or not the speed of light is really a limit.
I remain friends with a couple of them, great people and humble.
They freely admit that they don't know with certainty many things that are taught and accepted to be fact.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)in 2007 I conducted the Philharmonic, and at a crucial moment magical monkeys flew out of my ass and distributed bananas to the crowd and the people cheered and cheered!
Many of those grateful folk are still my friends today, so you know it's true!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There are others on the board who chose at some point in a discussion to reply with mockery.
Really, it's a shame. Happily, many respected DU members are my friends in real life and know of my professional experiences, so when you suggest that I'm lying, you look like a very small person.
If you can't respond to my point about science and faith, then maybe you should just remain silent and keep your mocking insults to yourself.
Good day.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)With all the solemnity it deserved.
No, I don't accept your anecdote. It was self-serving and preposterous. Faith is the direct opposite of scientific rigor.
EDIT: Look, Skip, I'm sorry your feelings got hurt.
Perhaps your experience actually happened, but my skepticism is understandable. People make ludicrous claims on the internet everyday.
If your story is true, I suspect your field of expertise is Creation Science and the non-specific numbers in your audience represents professionals who have abandoned the discipline required by science due to personal failures, resentment over being forced into retirement, or personal tragedies that rendered them susceptible to feel-good fantasies.
I also suspect your respected DU friends might be fellow-travelers in following the illusion of a messiah, respected by the same group of respected DUers. Indeed, I do appear small to them, I refute the delusions they live by. After all, time is, according to R. Cohle, a flat circle.
In fact, I am small. A mere whisper of reason in a raging torrent of sanctimony.
True, I'm fairly new. I don't have a following of respected followers. Soon, though, the World and DU will learn of my magical butt-monkeys and I shall be as honored as you are!
Heddi
(18,312 posts)to say
i love you
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That you would go through the effort to thank a member for posting a snarky and juvenile attempt to insult and denigrate.
This could have been done by PM, but you chose to publicly for others to read. That's interesting and sad.
I remember something about school playgrounds:
Bullies didn't have many friends, and the few friends they had were all bullies.
Nice.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)We need more levity in this world
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)to Dr. Sour Grapes, PHD.
He just takes himself way too seriously, and is astounded that the entire world doesn't share his high opinion of his worth.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Thanks Heddi.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)is this is our best guess and that it fits and continues to fit all our models and data. but we must allow that it could be wrong.
That is a much different faith that the type expressed here that says contrary evidence and the complete lack of evidence does not dissuade someone from their faith.
You may see the difference or not, but it is different.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I would agree with you and add that, while we might say that there is scientific faith and a separate form of spiritual faith, that among these are a range of types, maybe even a spectrum including an area in the middle where some science overlaps with some faith.
Thus, I don't think anyone can say with certainty that Jesus actually did or did not walk this Earth, though many, through their personal form of faith, may choose to adopt one rigid view or another.
Personally, I think the story of Jesus is a considerable bit of fact and a lot of embellishment over time.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)is the least of it.
All the supernatural stuff, the nativity and the son of God parts I have a real problem with.
And even if we had evidence for a man at that time, say a document showing he was crucified, that is immaterial to the NT being true.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)My skepticism is applied liberally (there I go again); Moses didn't get the ten commandments from God, Allah didn't split the moon, and I don't believe that Buddha strode on a jeweled walkway suspended in the air.
It's with a big block of salt that I take religious stories of any origin, and I have to wonder if the writers really expected followers to take them literally to begin with.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)but look at even now over 70% of Americans think the whole story of Jesus is literally true.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But then a bunch of people voted for Bush, too!
Before the masses were literate, when communication and news was all storytelling, I can see how easy it might be to convince people of remarkable, incredible, events.
How would they know otherwise?
As things evolved, the need to press the masses to continue to believe against logic and science grew.
And as these needs grew, the stories changed, other stories were stricken, and other resources came to bear.
I think it's an interesting topic, the relationship of truth to myth in religions that include real-life figures as fact or even as inspiration.
Embellishment is inevitable.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Do you think he revived after being dead for three days and walked around for a while?
There is a whole list of absurd bullshit that is fundamental to Christianity. Claiming that there might have been some real person who the Jesus Myth was based on is the least of the problem. It is the surrounding bullshit that is fundamental to the religion, that stuff, that people claim they believe, that is delusional nonsense.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That idea is wholly wrong, based perhaps on the fact that I challenge them on their nasty behavior, like that must mean I'm a Christian.
The lead host told me I was clearly not one of them, another member yesterday wrote that if I'm a scientist then it must be Creation Science.
I tell you, the further they go with it the sillier they look.
I most closely relate to Theravada Buddhism, according to my Belief-O-Matic quiz results.
I don't believe in any one religion, but I respect parts of each one.
All those stories? Well of course they didn't happen as described.
But how else are you going to keep people entertained before there was the NFL and Kardashians?
And Snookie?
Yes, I went there.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There are scientists, for example, who so want to believe a thing that they skew the factual data, and believers who find scientific evidence for their beliefs.
This might all be above your head, if you think I'm confusing myself.
88
...
okasha
(11,573 posts)There's dear Lloyd Graham, who came into the discussion a few days ago, who also believes that the earth used to be a star.
There's S. Acharya, who calls herself an archaeologist (she sifted dirt the summer of her senior year on a dig in Greece); a historian and a linguguist (she has a BA in classics but can't keep her Greek and Latin straight); and something else absurd, that I don't remember offhand. Bottom line, she's a fraud.
And poor Paul Doherty, who lists no academic credentials at all and has really, really innovative interpretations of Greek words and phrases.
Then there's the jesusneverexisted website, which assures us in all seriousness that the last time the Inquisition burned a heretic in Mexico City was in the 1860's.
Robert Price, on the other hand, is a genuine scholar, but he seems to be hedging his bets by going regularly to church (Episcopalian.)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not an expert on these scholars and you and others are more able to speak to them.
All i want is to live out my faith as best I can and when I hear people say Jesus didn't exist it gets my juices going.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)He is risen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #159)
okasha This message was self-deleted by its author.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The documentary evidence from Tacitus and Josephus is actually quite sound, and there is a growing body of archaeological material that supports it. Finds are being made which may not only verify Jesus' own existence (Yes, folks I'm talking about the James ossuary: no, folks, it's not a forgery--catch up on your reading.) but that of some of the other persons who were important enough in his life that they are remembered. One of the most interesting lines of inquiry going on now is the growing evidence that Jesus' brothers played a far greater role in his ministry than previously assumed.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)There is one single reference in a Josephus text to a Jesus, where two other documents had been found with the same text but WITHOUT any reference to a Jesus ... this fact is well known ...
There are two mentions of Jesus in the Antiquities.. The 'Testmonium Flavianum" is the contentious one. The other passage, which mentions Jesus in conjunction with his brother Jacob (James). is generally regarded as authentic.,
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)so he must be real.
Not to mention all the books about vampires and werewolves. How could anyone doubt their existence in the face of such evidence?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Try again.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)out there that have wrong information in them. A couple of possible mentions of a fictitious figure by someone a couple of thousand years ago just does not convince me.
Look at all the people who think "The DaVinci Code" is accurate history. And so on.
I happen to be in the Jesus is a charming myth corner. For those who want to believe he actually existed, fine, but don't think that you have any actual proof that he did live.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'll go with the scholarship on Jesus.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)but a lot of people really do think it's accurate. Granted, they aren't thinking in terms of scholarship, but it's still a frighteningly large number of people.
Back at ya!
okasha
(11,573 posts)They believe that the four canonical gospels were chosen by the Council of Nicaea. Strange, that.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Isn't that weird?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Which doesn't change the fact that the non-scholars listed in my post are, academically speaking, batshit crazy.
Have a nice day, Warren.
Response to okasha (Reply #243)
John1956PA This message was self-deleted by its author.
MFM008
(19,776 posts)About not doubting his existence , despite no absolute evidence he did not? Just coz.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Can you kindly reword your question to be more coherent?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Skittles
(152,964 posts)Iggo
(47,487 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)When it comes to religion, rationality gets left behind.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And you've done a bang-up job!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)That is why they have it as central to their beliefs. Unprovable, unresearchable non-peer reviewable, unassailable, uncontestable, unscratchable, by definition, faith.
Some fundies even say since some scientists question if the speed of light is a physical limit, that is a lack of "faith" similar to the word as used in the religious sense....it is the nature of science to always question, it is the nature of religion to never ask.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)you discuss these things yes? (*Looks upthread*) Yes.
So, it is sort of unreasonable for one to expect 'they' to prove he/she/it/they don't exist.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But my point is you can't prove he didn't.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Where we differ, is one of our positions requires faith, and one does not. You've chosen faith. Ok.
Rationality puts me in a different place, and on a lot more issues than just this one.
Interestingly, I don't have any 'givens' like that, but I do rely on a couple axioms, such as 'existence exists' (though I am aware that the universe may be a hologram at its most fundamental level, and I am ok with that possibility) or 'self ownership', but only because these things can be critically and rationally examined, challenged, and tested, even if the manner of test is 'acceptable as a working premise but unproven until falsified'.
I suppose your position on jesus is similar to my concept of an axiom. However, being that he was claimed to be a real historical character, as well as a supernaturally imbued biblical character, some of those things can be supported/refuted, where philosophical abstracts like self ownership, aren't.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Like I said in another post, I really respect some religious folks because they can be so loving and giving.
Were it not for some religious institutions a very close family member would be homeless now.
I dont like that many in need have to rely on religious organizations, we should have homeless shelters that resemble $150 a night hotels provided by tax dollars from the under taxed top 5% of the economy, but we dont.
I dont like that a person has to swallow a shitload of religious nonsense in order to swallow food they need to survive, but I am thankful that they exist to help.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)I believe in leprechauns. Therefore, they exist -- just like Jesus. Except Jesus didn't have that pot of gold thing going for him.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)the magi/kings/wise men brought to the manger...along with the frankincense and myrrh?
edhopper
(33,196 posts)they came with all these gifts, said he was king and then...
Took off and left him to live the son of a poor day laborer?
Why were they never heard of again?
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)MFM008
(19,776 posts)No one has an absolute answer or proof.
I used to be an arrogant militant atheist see,and things happen that can change your mind.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)What happened to change your mind? And what did it change to?
MFM008
(19,776 posts)Some thing pretty profound huh.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Hard to comment on an event you want to keep secret.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I make no claims about a potential afterlife, or a potential supernatural thingy, etc. I simply dismiss claims that are currently made, that have no credible evidence.
If believers can pony up some credible, testable evidence that withstands scrutiny, I'm all ears. Till then, I have no faith at all. That's not a position that requires defense.
Where I get *active* as an atheist, is where jackalopes that DO believe in XYZ made up imaginary friend, try to modify society or worse, government, to suit their imaginary whims.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Give him a break.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...to have existed?
If the answer is "not very many at all", does that necessarily mean that all the rest of those people from that place and time didn't exist?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)None are evidenced to have provided a credible basis for a supernatural anything at all.
If not for the associated supernatural claims, we wouldn't be talking about some dude from the first century gregorian calendar at all.
phil89
(1,043 posts)What causes you to believe something without evidence and how can that be a good thing?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Attacks upon the ACA in court. Bans on abortion. Bans on physician assisted suicide. Bans on comprehensive sex ed. You name it, a lot of really bad political crap in the US comes directly from that book and the presumption that any of it is true on any level.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stated.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That may not be what you meant to ask, but that is one credible interpretation of your question.
"Your scared by my faith?"
My faith could be interpreted as your subjective personal interpretation/implementation of your faith, or the general 'faith' to which you subscribe, which has many members, and a large historical tradition behind it, and associated faiths that it splintered off from, and built upon over centuries.
As for personal responsibility, generally, I grant you are not responsible, and your particular brand of faith is better than some, in the US, but it still starts with a general acceptance of the foundation, the underlying premise that the biblical character of jesus was a real thing. Without that, one can further marginalize groups that share your premise, but then use data in the bible differently than you do, to attack civil rights. Without that shared, core foundation, people who do that would be more isolated, and people like me could be free to be a LOT less respectful of the general concept they rely upon.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If I don't read it back to myself with the same cadence I wrote it in my head, it's difficult to grok, so, revising in simplistic terms.
The Rider is a subjective interpretation of faith.
The Horse is the general premise that god exists.
One rides the other.
I can't tell people like the Westboro Baptist Church 'Fuck you and the horse you rode in on', because you are on the horse too. You're a separate rider, frankly, your faith has many progressive ideals/doctrines and I applaud that. But you're still riding the horse. Your presence on it, lends credence to the idea that the WBC builds upon as its foundation, even though the WBC and it's implementation of faith may be wholly abhorrent to you/yours.
I want to attack the horse too, and your presence means I have to be careful of bystanders. That I can't be too critical of the horse (or the idea of it).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But you really don't understand the implications AC just explained. If you did, you would have more to say than "I understand".
His point is as valid as can be, and your place on that "horse" is equivalent, in many ways, to the others he mentioned. If you really understood that fact, your response would be different. Unless you just don't care...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Gotta try in order to understand.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 18, 2014, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't want to get a hidden post so I will leave it at that. I leave it to others to tangle with you.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I just don't want to deflect from cleanhippie's very honest OP, the one you've found to be so challenging.
You can continue to avoid "tangling" with me, though. I'll accept that as validation. My honesty, as well as my correct observations, will continue. Hang back and alert, maybe you'll get lucky.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Your post was infuriating to me but I do not have the eloquence or desire to tangle with you.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)"Well at least your (sic) honest. Wrong but honest."
That's baiting.
The post I deleted infuriated you because I AM honest, and it's an honest appraisal of your Christian world.
Eloquence has nothing to do with your inability to rebut, you're not able to refute it because fact trumps fiction.
I deleted it only because cleanhippie pointed out that I was vulnerable to an alert, solely because I spoke directly to you and addressed you by name. In your world that counts as a personal insult and a jury of your peers would likely give me another undeserved "hide". I don't want that post hidden; ie, censored, due to a quibble.
Just as responding to your patronizing post counts as "baiting" to you.
As cleanhippie cautioned I'll rewrite that "infuriating" post and re-post it because the message it held is quite important. You may respond or not, as you wish.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That is baiting me!
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)A fitting riposte.
That you choose to consider it bait might be symptomatic. If your "faith" is as strong as you claim, then you needn't proclaim it so loudly and repetitively. If, on the other hand, you do feel such a need and if you're so sensitive to perceived insult from proffered reason, perhaps that indicates doubt creeping in.
Justin, I'm deriving much pleasure from our tete a tete, but duty calls. I have limited time to devote to your devotions.
Seek me out on Monday, if you like.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Take out the direct references to justin and make it apply to believers in general, and BOOM, you've got yourself one hell of an OP.
MFM008
(19,776 posts)There was no more of a contemptuous, arrogant, atheist crusader than me. I am not born again nor am i a church goer, I know few who are. Things change and I'm just saying there are more things that are thought of than in your philosophy Horatio. If your so willing to call a believer closed minded for stating belief your doing the same thing.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)They are also angry that they have none and it eats at them every hour of every day so they have to strike out in a pathetic attempt to shake or destroy yours.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I wonder how many here who don't have faith wished they had it.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Think about how offended you have been when the opposite was questioned:
How many "christians" are really afraid to state their disbelief?
You had a goddamn stroke at the idea that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is anything but a Christian.
But you can impinge upon the thoughts of Atheists, that we're jealous of your faith?
That's nasty. And it wouldn't be tolerated by you if reversed (and hasn't been tolerated by you in the past when it WAS reversed)
You're out of line with this shit, Justin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Tell me, Justin, are you really a Christian, or are you just playing the part, too afraid to admit to yourself and to your made-up God that you don't believe it at all? Afraid of the friends you'll lose, the community you'll be shunned from if you came out and said "I DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD?"
Be honest with yourself. It's okay to not believe.
The question "are atheists really believers" is just as nasty and offensive as what I wrote above. It's just as nasty and offensive as saying that homophobes who commit hate crimes are really closeted gays/lesbians.
Do you believe that's offensive? That crimes against GBLT"s are committed by closeted GBLT's who are too ashamed to admit their true feelings? Because its exactly the same as saying that Atheists are too ashamed to admit they're believers.
And again, you're not sorry. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Atheists, you don't respect our viewpoints or point of view by saying, without any ambiguity, that we're closeted Christians.
Is that an attitude that Jesus would approve of? Seems pretty nasty and judgemental to me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not that they really believed and were lying,
I suggest you reread my post instead of unloading on me with bullshit.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)next time you take umbrage at the mere whisper that a Christian may be anything but a 100% Full Fledged Believing Everything Christian. Because hey! Suggesting that they might not be is a-okay with you...well, as long as it has to do with Atheists then it's okay.
BUT WE MUST NEVER QUESTION A CHRISTIAN'S BELIEF. NEVER. IT IS SO OFFENSIVE TO DO SO.
Atheists...not so much so fuck them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)verified.
Imagine if you could verify any of the stuff in the Bible? And a God. That would be a good religion, one with evidence.
Atheism IS a religion also, one based on facts, not faith. One that celebrates, not worships, the Solstice, which can be verified, not Christmas Day, which can not.
In my neck of the woods Solstice is precisely and measurably on December 21st at 5:03 p.m EST.
And from that bit of science you would be able to find out where I live...isn't science more magical than religion?
"Jesus was risen", when? Precisely?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I don't do what I do, or don't do what I don't do for fear of eternal punishment or reward. I do or don't do things because they're the right things to do, or the wrong things that shouldn't be done.
It's an easy way to live. No confusing rules (is it masturbation if my husband is in the room with me? Is it premarital sex? Does the premarital sex get wiped away once we get married?). Just live a good life, make good decisions because they're the right things to do.
No fear of hell. No dream of salvation. And I can sleep in on sunday mornings? Count me in!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Not having to live in fear, moral compass fixed and set for us, robbing us of our individual freedom to have our own, the magic of science to amuse us..yes, WE are the rejects of society.......
Heddi
(18,312 posts)all my sex is guilt free. ALL of it. With EVERYONE. Guys, Gals, independently or at the same time. NOT AN OUNCE OF GUILT. NO SIN.
That, my friend, is awesome
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)P.S. Helpful writing lesson: "Thinking" and valuing" are poor comparitors for whatever point it was that you did not make by the poor analogy.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Please don't get sucked into his crappy view of atheists. We don't have a god-shaped hole in our hearts.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)and that we wished we had it.
Well I think Christians are jealous of my ability to think for myself and make decisions NOT based on eternal paradise, but rather to make decisions based on what's right and wrong. I think Christians wish they could have the freedom of thought and freedom from the repressive church that I and other Atheists have.
No reason for anyone to alert on this--Justin already said upthread that saying such things about Atheists aren't offensive, so they can't possibly be offensive when turned about a Christian.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your projection is popcorn worthy.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You have to see how offensive it is.
As close as I can get to an answer: Would it be awesome if I could see my mom and dad again when I die in a place where everything is perfect and I can have an eternity of all things good? Yes. It would be. Doesn't mean I wish I could believe. I, and most every atheists I know, are very happy with our non-belief.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My point is i wonder how many wish they could believe.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I find it a bit rude as well. Presumptuous, even.
Requiring evidence in lieu of blind acceptance is not indicative of fear, merely a sign of the reality based mind.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)the thingy.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)It applies to whom it applies to. You may not be one of them. Gee I hope I used whom correctly.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You also used backpeddling correctly, too.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)by what I posted. It's eating them alive and they hate it that. Their only relief is to try and pull others down to the pit of rage and pity they inhabit by trying to tear at their faith. If you're not one of them then I'm happy for you.
rug
(82,333 posts)As in bicycle.
Backpeddling is selling something out of your backside.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I just wonder why he assumes that I'm saying all atheist have this problem. Does he believe atheists are a monolithic block that all share the same problems and beliefs and attitudes, some unspoken dogma?
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)How did you possibly do that?
But, yes, I'll admit it, all atheists have a god-shaped hole in their heart and we have special meetings where the first half is spent talking about how we wish we could believe and fill that god-shaped hole and the second half is spent talking about how we are going to make the lives of those that do believe miserable. But, please, do forgive us. That attitude just stems from our jealousy of those that don't believe.
The really pathetic thing here is that you probably actually believe that bullshit and don't even have a clue as to how fucking offensive it is.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The theocrat speaks!
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I guess comedy is it's own reward.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)It was found wanting.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Instead of projecting, how about reflecting, or does that take too much courage?
RussBLib
(8,984 posts)On Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:53 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Your courage has been seen and measured here in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=171458
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling someone a coward is a personal attack, is disruptive, over the top, and otherwise innapropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:01 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: poster is directing this to cleanhippie, who has a habit of being rather caustic toward the religious (and even agnostics who just want to be civil to those holding reliigous beliefs), so I do not find this response out of line.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is not the Land of Oz and lions. Leontius shows little courage hiding behind a screen name that doesn't even identify what state he or she lives in.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this is a mild 'personal attack,' given the sub-thread (context is everything) I vote to LEAVE
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This entire thread was tiresome and should have been taken into a private chat room a long time ago. Hide the thread, not just one of the back and forth comments
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leonitus may be an idiot, but this post isn't nearly as offensive as some of Leon's others in this thread.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)it makes for interesting reading and gives a basis for the Jesus story.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The apologists get all in a tizzy.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)the story of Innana, the Queen of Heaven who went to the land of the dead voluntarily and then returned to the land of the living 3 days later.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's simply a coincidence, I'm sure.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)the Jesus story.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)I just wanted to poke the beast with a little stick.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Sure hope I'm not "the beast" you speak of.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)No person, the OP itself is the beast. Silly stuff. I'm sick and have been in bed for a week, so I must be bored.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)The only part of the Horus mythos that actually parallels the gospels is Isis' flight with her son into the marshes to save him from Set. See Matthew for the story of the flight into Egypt. There would be no need for Matthew to turn to Egyptian tradition for his model, though, because he had both the sojourn of Israel in Egypt and the Moses narrative right there in the Torah to make his point Which was that Jesus represented both the new Israel and a new covenant of the Jewish people with their god.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your only purpose in posting this here is to goad people into discussing theological issues in the religion forum. You know that is not what this forum is about, so stop, just stop.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Then whose flesh do millions of catholics ingest on a weekly basis, huh? Answer me that.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)You know I have to post in this thread, and you know my anti-fans will show up to try futilely to goad me.
Then they'll succeed in giving me another fallacious "hide" cause FC isn't nice to them. How deliciously Christian to be censored for merely challenging their cherished beliefs, despite the lack of actual personal insults they so self-righteously claim.
I agree most heartily with you. There never was an actual person and the Jesus of the New Testament is entirely fictitious.
The total lack of any record from the period described by believers is as good proof of the non-existence as is necessary for all but the critically-challenged. The worship of Nothing only persists due to the gullibility of believers and their desperate need to have something to believe in, no matter how macabre.
Sad, but so essentially human, that so much grief, guilt, death and horror have been perpetrated by It's believers in the name of Nothing.
elleng
(130,129 posts)the First Christians.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)What's the gist/conclusion of this?
elleng
(130,129 posts)several historians discuss the history including archeological clues relating to his life and times, his world, the gospels' accuracy, clashes among early Christians, and how a small Jewish sect became the Church.
Comes in 2 parts, each 1 1/2 hours long, I think. Check your local listings.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If you have seen it, what was the conclusion?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)It's actually quite well done ... says this atheist ...
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)No one seems to want to answer that.
elleng
(130,129 posts)did he REALLY exist. Their 'conclusion' was these are the things that occurred in history during the development of early Christianity.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)elleng
(130,129 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)elleng
(130,129 posts)Done as history, as it should be taught in schools, imo.
elleng
(130,129 posts)and they weren't debating whether or not he actually existed, I think. May be a rerun, I'm not sure.
choie
(4,102 posts)wonderful documentary!
elleng
(130,129 posts)well done, interesting, and good variety of presenters/historians.
Drale
(7,932 posts)let alone a common man, which is what Jesus would have been at the time he lived.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But I agree that an ordinary itinerant rabbi would be hard to document, particularly if this rabbi did not have a lot of followers, and did not make any actual impression on the place and time in which he lived, if he did live.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)There are heaps of historical records from that time documenting all sorts of things, from yields of harvests to Senate meetings.
Yet nothing, not a single thing documenting this Jesus fellow.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)If you're in a position of power and authority over the Roman Empire c. 30 CE, the last thing you'd want is for a charismatic rabbi from Palestine-who preached a message that was threatening to your power- to be remembered after you had him crucified. Note that crucifixion was considered the lowest and most degrading form of capital punishment in the Roman times.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You've convinced me.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)that is why we have never heard of the rebellion lead by Spartacus.
I wonder what happened to him in the end?
okasha
(11,573 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)or Roman records of anything relating to these places.
This will certainly be interesting to see.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)Even if they kept records of all these executions, many of those records no longer exist. Anyway, I doubt they bothered keeping records of all the peasants executed in the provinces. Thousands of slaves were executed after the rebellion led by Sparticus. Their tortured bodies were hung up and down the main roads of Italy. Is there a list of all their names, anywhere?
Tens of millions of Romans--citizens, slaves, subjects of the Empire--lived and died without a single record of their existence that survives to this day. How many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian peasants lived and died during the era Jesus was supposed to have lived? How many of these lives are documented, anywhere? How much of that documentation survives to this day? Did none of these people then exist?
Even the writings and accounts of extremely famous persons have been lost. Almost all the poems ascribed to Homer are gone. Almost every single contemporary account of the life of Alexander the Great has been lost. Plutarch repeatedly cites texts which are no longer extant, and if all of his work had been lost (and much of it was--even his famous "Lives"--a best seller by Roman standards--has gaps) we'd have no record at all of these historians' existence. Ergo, by your argument, none of these people then existed?
There is no evidence of the existence of the vast majority of the human beings who lived and died on this planet, most especially those who lived and died before the advent of mass literacy. Which makes the fact that we have any mention at all of someone like Jesus notable, coming within decades of his death.
I wonder: do you honestly believe that, more than two thousand years from now, there will be any record of your existence at all? And if not, will this prove you were never really alive?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Then there better damn well be some record of my actual existence.
And if there isn't, all those folks should be labeled as delusional and irrational.
msongs
(67,193 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)history we can trust by your standard.
Sanity Claws
(21,822 posts)Perhaps he glided over the earth. People say he walked on water so he must have moved around in a different way.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)(can't recall the title) about documents found that proved Jesus was not real.
(Googling this doesn't bring helpful results )
The papyrus turns out to be a forgery, but I wonder how the Christian world would react if a real artifact like this were found?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)See post #1 for an example.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)it was not that recent. It was a novel set in the modern day. From the 70s I think.
Wish I could remember the title and author.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)the ideas of "jesus, religious figure" and some guy that may have lived in modern Israel/Palestine circa 30 c.e. are apples and oranges. No, there is no birth certificate, but most of the subjects of the Empire did not have them. The idea that there was or was not some carpenter who lived in that area, with a commion name like Yeshua (a.k.a "joshua" in modern english) is not as relevant. I do not make this statement to prove the Jesus that christians belive exists; it is up to Christianity to prove that. But if you focus on the idea that "history says there was no historical Jesus" you run right into the quagmire of the fact hisotry is not that reliable about individual people, period.
For example, for the longest time, Troy was considered to be a fantasy. Then people went and did excavations in Turkey. No, they did not find Hector or Helen, but they did find that yes, there were several cities on the site of Troy, some dating before and after the Iliad was written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_campaigns
Now of course, the people who say "there was no historical Troy" wind up being wrong, because they insisted that in order to kill a myth, they had to go past what could be proven and define exactly what is impossible. That works great for Physics, were the variables are the same if you are in Berlin or Brooklyn or Botswana, but History does not work like that.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because something as large and enduring as a city is well within the historian's ability to locate, date, and confirm. Individual people, as you note, are much harder.
Sticking with Homer as our point of reference, I'd say Achilles or Odysseus are better examples. Sure, there very well may have been Greek soldiers with these names who fought and/or died in Asia Minor during the Mycenaean period, but we can be reasonably certain that neither of these guys were blessed with (near) invulnerability or ever ran into a hungry cyclops.
That leaves us with a philosophical noodle-baker: if everything we know about these figures is wrong, can they be said to have "existed", if only for sharing a name with a contemporaneous person?
Personally, I'm not sure that we can. A man named Yeshua bar Yosef was likely to have lived in first century Judea, but the Jesus of Nazareth recorded in the Gospels is almost certainly myth. I don't think a Christian can point at this man and say, "Look, Jesus existed!" when the real Jesus bears little to no resemblance to the one in which they believe. For all intents and purposes, they are describing two different people with the same name.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)There probably were many people with a really common name in Nazareth, just like there could be ten guys named Joshua Jones in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. What the religous folk call "jesus" could have been an amalgam of different people. My point is though, that yes, something as large as a city was belived to be a fairytale. My advice to cleanhippie was to not rely on hostory to give the gotcha blow, because in some areas, even history is not as reliable, and those wishing to twist truth into what Kipling called "a trap for fools" may use that.
Side note: it will be interestign to see how the future reagrds people who can be documented. In the case of cult leaders, well, the thosuands of feet of film of L. Ron Hubbard does not seem to have changed the minds of many of his followers
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)While he might not have lived in the time of CNN and the intertubez, his life was pretty well documented. He was obviously a fraud, as most non-Mormons tend to think. But this doesn't seem to have changed the minds of Mormons one iota.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)as well as the posts you've made a few posts upthread.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Nor was the discovery of Troy proof of the divinity of Athena or that Achilles was a real person. What it did show is that some myths are based on historical events. Some aren't. Was there some itinerant rabbi that the Jesus myth is based on? It is possible, but there really isn't any evidence, no "troy" that this happened. The question is not "could there have been this guy?" it is "is there historical evidence for this guy?".
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)in the ancient period, there is not much of a way to get modern historical evidence. We know for example, Julis caesar wrote a book called "the war in Gaul", ever fiurst year Latin student reads it, going "Omnes gallia in partes tres, primiim horum sunt Belgae" (trans; "All of Gaul is divided into three parts, first among them are the belgians) However, it is know that we wrote many books that were destroyed by Augustus. Supposedly, they were Homoerotic love poems (Ceasar often bragged he could make be any woman;s husband, and make any man his wife.) Now we know that Augustus read books before he burned them, becaus ehis friend Virgil asked him tpo bnurn the aenied, another poem that everybody who gets an education runs into. So, here is Julis Caesar, one of the mosr dociumented people in history, and yet, ther eis this huge void as to whether he was gay or not.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They supposedly have the "shroud". They don't want to find out how old it really is because that ends their fantasy. That ends dollars in collection plates. We're too far gone unfortunately to get a majority of non believers. People want to believe the fantasy.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Think of how hard it is just to pay your electricity bill and buy food at the same time.
You watch the rich get richer and laugh at you while they do, and you think to yourself surely there must be a reward in another life if I live this one without incidence, right?
I mean if there was no god in most minds would they not start to think about exacting revenge on the fat fucking rich assholes who steal their money and food on a daily basis?
bvf
(6,604 posts)obviously have had a real number done on them, usually from childhood on.
I disagree that we're too far gone, though. More and more atheists have been speaking out over the years, and are regarded as so much of a threat to believers (well, their braintrusts, anyway), that the latter have worked furiously to coin terms to compartmentalize their critics. See "New Atheist," "Fundamentalist Atheist," etc.
(The invention "apatheist" is especially interesting. A tortured coinage of last resort that translates when self-applied as, "My brain hurts when you ask whether I believe in fairies, so shut up already."
okasha
(11,573 posts)The Shroud of Turin, assuming that's what you're referring to, has never been officially accepted by the Catholic Church, which also agreed to and provided samples for radiocarbon dating.
Cloth is 13th. century linen.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)1. He existed just like it says in the scriptures
2. Someone existed and their name and life was co-opted by Christians and converted into the current identity
3. SomeONEs existed and they were consolidated into a single character, either using one of their names, or a fictitious name.
4. No one ever existed and it was created out of thin air by people looking to connect a set of beliefs to a historical figure which would satisfy various predictions of even older texts.
For most of these, any actual person wouldn't have particularly attracted much attention beyond the group of followers they may have developed. Records wouldn't really exist. Even the crucifixion, if it happened at all, may have been done without much understanding of whom was being killed for what reason. Names and crimes might be hard to pin down in records. Heck, look at what happened to names at Ellis Island. My ancestors are recorded arriving there, but there is no record of them getting on the boat upon which they supposedly arrived.
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.raphaellataster.com/
I'm glad somebody's making money off this dreck.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Seriously, if he holds a legitimate degree, it would turn up in a search and it does not.
If he was at U of Sydney, he would have a profile with a url like this:
http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/adrian.bauman.php
http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/raphael.lataster.php
The second link above doesn't exist.
So, I think he and his article is phony-ass bullshit.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Shit, dude!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Did he earn a fukkin piece of paper or not?
I'm dying to learn where he earned the PhD.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Unless the University of Sydney is in on the conspiracy, he appears to be a real person who wrote a real paper for his PhD, wrote a real book, and really wrote the WaPo article.
rug
(82,333 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And the author of the article demonstrates a rather hopeless (but unfortunately common) misunderstanding of the historical discipline and its methodology.
Here's a good, intelligent, well-argued blog post on why Jesus was very likely a real man-written by an atheist historian, I might add. It also rebutts many of the commonly repeated claims in the OP's article:
Part 1: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Part 2: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Sums up the scholarly consensus very nicely. Mythicists or potential mythicists should take note.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Not at all like the author of the wapo article.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Meta, and inappropriate here.
Let the dice roll.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)We've all had hides in here. well, most of us have, there are some that seem to be 'above the law' in that regard.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)Surely looks like accounts of the man as simply a good, wise man were trashed.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I don't know why they do as they do, as if they're the first to question the historical accuracy of accounts of the man's life.
Among members of the global academic community, Australia is a bit like Texas, or Florida, when it comes to sketchy academics.
Merry Christmas!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)So you move on to disparaging and entire continents worth of academics in order to try and savage what's left of your dignity.
Fail, dude. Epic fail
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I questioned whether or not he actually conducts research at the U of Sydney and still question his CV and claim of a PhD.
Must be very sad to have to mis-characterize what others write in order to construct some shabby semblance of being correct.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Or merely ignoring it?
It's ok to admit if you're wrong.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Seriously man, getagrip.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Doctor of Philosophy
God's Intellectual Battles: New Atheists, New Theologians, Philosophical Arguments and Public Engagement
Raphael's thesis analyses the arguments of William Lane Craig (and also Richard Swinburne) for the existence of God, and investigates Craig's sociological impact.
With a background in pharmacy, medicine, and finance, Raphael Lataster is a professionally secular PhD researcher (Studies in Religion), having recently passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction. His main research interests include philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, Christian origins, logic, epistemology, Bayesian reasoning, justifications and social impacts of atheism, Taoism, overpopulation and sustainability concerns, pantheism, and pandeism. Other interests include rock-climbing and volunteering with the State Emergency Service.
Raphael wrote his Masters thesis on Jesus mythicism, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the historical Jesus. For his doctoral work, Raphael is analysing the major philosophical arguments for Gods existence (as argued by William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas), attempts to demonstrate the logical implausibility of the monotheistic concept, explores the theological tendencies of Philosophy of Religion, and considers the plausibility of pantheistic worldviews.
Raphael is currently publishing numerous articles summarising his Masters dissertation, and exploring the themes of his doctoral project. Being passionate about education, Raphael hopes to eventually teach in Religious Studies and possibly Philosophy (critical thinking and philosophy of religion), and also to make every effort to engage with the public, through popular books, speaking engagements, public debates and websites, www.RaphaelLataster.com and www.PantheismUnites.org.
Publications
Bayesian Reasoning: Criticising the Criteria of Authenticity and Calling for a Review of Biblical Criticism. Published in the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (Volume 5, Issue 2, pp.271-293) - May 2013
New Atheists and New Theologians. Published in Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review (Volume 4, Issue 1) - June 2013
http://sydney.edu.au/arts/religion/postgraduate_research/student_research.shtml#Lataster
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Scuse me, your link shows a page of current projects.
Sarah K Balstrup
Raphael Lataster
Merrilyn Mansfield
Don't just post it. Read it, darling:
and:
Mister Lataster is "working on his doctorate".
He's a dick and a poser.
Dude, let it go.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #177)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Look at rug's post that you originally responded to. Go on, look at it, read it again. Then look at his bio page where rug got that from. (Its a good question, what IS a professionally secular PhD researcher? Fuck if I know.) Then look at your response and see if you can figure out where your fail started.
Had you actually read it correctly and not jumped to your own conclusion and let your knee-jerking fingers fly to the keyboard, this entire subthread would never have taken place. My failure was to catch that when it first happened, and for that I apologize.
Game, set, match. Indeed.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)One tool toolbelts are cheaper you know.
Response to Leontius (Reply #153)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Can't have that.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
- Rudyard Kipling
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Even the author says it: http://www.raphaellataster.com/
I have come to accept that Mr. Lataster is OK with using language that suggests that he is a PhD holding author:
When what he really means is that he's working on research in an effort to someday earn an advanced degree and is in the PhD program, but doesn't really have one yet.
A minor detail, I'm sure.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)then look at what rug copied from the authors bio.
It never said he had a PhD, YOU did.
Admittedly, I got caught up in it toward the end but realize where it went off the rails; at your first response.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Why you want to defend him is rather disturbing.
Why defend a liar?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's most definitely off-topic and should be locked.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)All I know is that I don't see him walking around now. I need a "right now," kinda God. I need Gods that are real and alive, not phantoms and myths, who are there to help me, not condemn me. So far, its an exercise in futility.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Now scholars will argue forever about how much of the record is accurate, but most of the literature accept the existence of an actual human as the basis for the "mythology" as fact.
That fact, by itself, doesn't make Jesus a fact but it seems more than likely that he was a real dude.
It's unlikely, on the other hand, that all that was written about his life is true.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)No change there then. But do keep trying, it's funny.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And how come, then, is Jesus a white dude, no way, not historically possible?
goldent
(1,582 posts)Perhaps at the anti-Christmas dinner, the youngest child recites the four claims for the non-existence of Jesus?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)does not make one an anti-Christian.
goldent
(1,582 posts)it is obvious there is an agenda at work - and no attempt to hide it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That's some persecution complex you e got there.
goldent
(1,582 posts)to get a lot better before I will be able to feel persecuted. As it is, I think they are just kidding around.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Anti-Christian beliefs and opinions are perfectly acceptable in this forum. If you have a problem with anti-Christian opinions, there are safe haven forums where you will not be bothered.
goldent
(1,582 posts)It's what makes the forum entertaining.
I remember quite a few years ago watching a TV documentary that described how the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. I've got to admit, on a detailed level it was pretty convincing, and very entertaining. I remember specifically the point that the landing engine did not seem to disturb the soil at the landing site.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)who have lived and died on this planet.
And by "vast majority" I would estimate, say, 90+%. Doesn't mean they didn't all exist, does it?
Even if you discount the hundreds of millions who lived and died before the invention of writing, whose remains weren't fossilized and who didn't leave handprints on cave walls, you're still left with "no evidence" of the existence of the majority of all the people who have ever lived or died.
This is especially true of societies--such as all those under Roman hegemony in the first century CE--where, again, the vast majority were illiterate.
So, no letters, no journals, no interviews, no texts of any sort. And of the texts that were produced, the majority have been lost over time. Homer, for instance, is said to have produced several dozen epic poems. Only two survive. And BTW--there is also no evidence--of the sort you're looking for--for the existence of Homer.
The fact that Jesus -- by most accounts a peasant/craftsman from a rather obscure part of the empire -- is mentioned at all, by anyone, within the first hundred years after his death is what is remarkable. It seems to me that rather than asking--did this man even exist--a more intriguing question would be why is it, out of the millions of people of the era who lived and died in obscurity, and out of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of criminals executed by the Romans, this one man should be singled out for mention.
As has been stated before, in reference to this argument--"Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)THAT guy needs to have his actual existence well documented, don't ya think?
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)People who believe Jesus to be in any way divine hardly need some Roman bureaucrat's scribble as confirmation of their belief.
And the lack of such scribbling is easily met with the adage that has no doubt been quoted to you a number of times now: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." I don't see how you can honestly refute that--and in fact you've made no effort in your replies to me here. Could be tomorrow morning or a year from now or a century from now some manuscript or inscription will be discovered documenting some portion of the man's life and death. But until every manuscript or inscription left by the Romans is unearthed and examined (and there remain tons of material not yet properly scrutinized--we find more pretty much every time there's a major building project in the heart of Rome or any other Roman era city), until every acre of land in what was ancient Palestine is sifted through for artifacts, it will be impossible to say definitely that such evidence doesn't exist. It took close to two thousand years for the Dead Sea Scrolls to be unearthed--an entire library of ancient material stashed in a cave. So your "there is no documentation" claim seems pretty feeble to me as the basis for asserting that this particular human being never actually existed.
As for people such as yourself, who obviously don't believe, I don't see why it should be an issue. Well, I guess I DO see, you want to debunk the Jesus myth and feel compelled to do so in this particular forum, and I suppose since it's Christmas time the urge is especially difficult for you to resist, hence this OP. But it doesn't make for a compelling argument, for the reasons I've cited.
My unsolicited advice to you would be to take the time you're expending on this rather pointless intellectual exercise, and use the existence of this holiday to reconnect with family and friends, whether they are believers or not. If nothing else, the Jesus story gives us a socially sanctioned excuse to take some days off, kick back, and appreciate the fact of our existence in the here and now. For me, it's nice that all the kids in my extended family have time off from school and can hang out and play and visit--which is what they'll be doing all next week. Most of the people I know who work will get some time off as well--a welcome relief from the grind.
The Romans celebrated this winter holiday, as do most cultures past and present, in some form or another, as a way to beat the mid-winter blues. It's been a well documented part of the human story for ages. So why not enjoy? That's what I plan to do. Not to mention--I love all those colored lights. Seems to me any self-described hippy would appreciate the opportunity to make the world a little more psychedelic.
And so happy holidays, peace and love and joy and good will to you and yours.
Merry Christmas, and happy New Year.
Thucy
kwassa
(23,340 posts)A lack of evidence that Jesus existed doesn't prove he didn't exist. A lack of evidence is simply a lack of evidence.
You have nothing, cleanhippie. You've never had anything on this topic. You keep repeated the same tired supposition year after year at Christmastime and Easter, because you are anti-Christian. So, do you have anything new to say? Nope.
Same stuff, different year. Over and over and over.
yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)And you thought you had it all figured out.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)is attributed to Paul and is the oldest book of the New Testament.
It is clear that Christianity had already spread around the Mediterranean.
Josephus also mentions Jesus.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)It's interesting, but there are really only two possibilities here:
1) A historical Jesus existed.
2) There was a deliberate conspiracy to invent a new religion undertaken over a period of decades by people who DID exist and who were, in the later part of their lives, geographically separated by thousands of miles and months of travel. These people persisted in proclaiming their conspiracy even while being tortured and executed. None ever broke or sold out their compatriots.
Do I believe that Jesus walked on water, performed miracles, and was the son of a diety? No. But I do believe that a physical person named Yeshua existed, and that he inspired his followers to go out and found the religion. It's even possible that THEY believed him to be a messiah.
My reasoning is simple...the odds of a geographically dispersed conspiracy of that magnitude being pulled off in that era, without ANYONE ever revealing the truth, seems more unlikely than the possibility that some loon in the desert inspired a few dozen followers to follow his new faith. If Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite (Heavens Gate) can convince people to KILL THEMSELVES because they've so thoroughly convinced them that they're some kind of messiah's, why is it so hard to believe that someone from a Judean backwater did the same thing a couple of millenia ago? We even have a relatively recent, large scale example of it happening. Joseph Smith forked Christianity in the 1820's the same way Yeshua forked Judaism in the 0030's. He took an established religion, convinced people that he was a messenger sent to fix that religion, and created something new out of it. One guy in an American backwater started preaching, convinced people that he was some sort of messiah, and less than 200 years later there are over 15 million people around the world follow Smith's faith. Hubbard did the same thing in the 1950's and has over 50,000 true believers today, decades after his death.
The possibility that Christianity was started by a lone preacher is HIGHER than the possibility that it was a grand conspiracy, and it is a possibility that is consistent with modern observable human behavior.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Personally, I side with the majority of historians in thinking that there probably was a man called Yeshua who wandered around Galilee preaching peace and love and was then executed (as such people tend to be). The rest is two thousand years of mythologising.
That said, I don't think it really matters anymore. Christians believe and it would be better to deal with them as believers than expend a lot of time and effort failing to make them into unbelievers. They are not going to change their minds, no matter what historians consider likely or how snotty internet atheists are to them.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)even if we can't dissuade them from believing in a divine Jesus.
Dealing with how they interpret the Bible, or just convincing some of them that they are interpreting it, and not following the expressed wishes of God, would help.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I would suggest that Christ exists as the collective body of the dreams and desires of Christians worldwide. That is, regardless of whether Yeshua the man existed, Jesus the Christ exists by virtue of affecting the lives of so many. Granted, that's a metaphysical, philosophical argument but I would argue that the beliefs of Christians (and I'm not, I'm a Lucferian Satanist; I worship the other guy) should be respected for the same reason and on the same grounds as those of people who are in love. Whether we happen to like the beloved or not, we are necessarily obliged to respect the strength of feeling in the lover and so, I would suggest we are likewise obliged to respect the Christian's strength of feeling. With that in mind, it therefore doesn't actually matter whether Yeshua the man existed since millions of Christians are going to act as if he did regardless.
I would also doubt the utility of trying to convince them that they are interpreting their Bible wrongly. The psychological biases of humanity means that, not only will they reject your interpretation, they will resent you for having informed them of it. I strongly suspect that the obnoxious assholes would be such regardless of their faith (or lack thereof, plenty of atheists being assholes too). If the professional Christians can manage to legalistically parse Jesus's words to pretend that he would oppose welfare, they can legalistically parse them to support any position they care to name.
I also think that, in many cases, they are against something just because liberals are for it. Conservatism, and Republianity (that witches brew of fundie Christianity, nationalism and fringe-right politics that exists purely to convey divine approval of the GOP platform) can now be best understood as blind spite. We saw that with the "Rolling Coal" fiasco. They disbelieve in global warming, not because they misunderstand the evidence but because they don't care about the evidence. If liberals are for it, they're against it. End of story.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)but even if I accept it. there are many times someone is in love and their emotions shouldn't be respected, in fact they should be persuaded to rethink it. the woman in love with an abusive man. the person in love with someone married who keeps think they will leave the other person, when they won't. The person in love with someone they don't personally know, or a causal acquaintance they wait to "notice them".
I also think some beliefs are based on what people are told by their church, and those beliefs can be countered.
Things like birth control and Gay rights come to mind.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Those of us who believe experience love for our deity. Moreover, we experience the presence of our deity when we pray (and no, it's not delusion, take it from someone who has experienced both).
Yes, things like opposition to birth control and gay rights can and should be countered. But you will have more success in either appealing to the secular society laid out in the Constitution and/or making common cause with the more liberal churches. Around 80% of teh American population is Christian but, if we take Biblical literalism as a useful definition of being a fundie, only about a quarter are fundies. That means around 55% are mainstream or liberal Christians.Trying to proselytize atheism to these people is pointless but one can make common cause with them to keep fundies out of power.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)but I don't think that means the object of that feeling needs to be. I think that emotions are an internal experience. The stimulus doesn't have to be real.
Many. many Christians were taught being gay was wrong and a sin. I think there has been a lot of improvement in believing that maybe it's not. Removing a big religious obstacle of Gay rights.
The shift in black churches after Prop 8 is an example.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/25/black-church-shifting-gay-marriage-qa-filmmaker-yoruba-richen/
(if you object to tautology, just use the word idea instead, it wasn't meant as a slam)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I am severely mentally ill. I know what delusions feel like because I sometimes suffer from them. The presence of the deity feels quite different. Now, could this be another form of crazy? Possibly.
Yes, many Christians were taught that being gay was immoral. Although the most Christian (in the best sense of that word) woman I ever knew was my grandmother and she was pro-gay and pro-choice. I think there's several things changing that. Firstly, there's the increasing evidence that being gay is not a choice. We found the brain structures that set sexuality some years ago and they set it in the womb. Secondly, there's the fact that more gay people are now "out". They no longer think of gays as some pervert in a dirty mac hanging around the public loos, they think of Bob from work. Thirdly, and in conjuction with that, there's the visibility of gay people in the media. Shows like "Ellen" and "Will & Grace" presented an image of gay people that was funny, unthreatening and, in some key human ways, very familiar.
Personally, I'm bisexual. Due to some incidents in my childhood, I didn't figure that out until my early-mid Twenties (by which point, my grandmother had passed away). My faith (Luciferian Satanism, a very small sub-group of Theistic Satanism) has absolutely zero problem with homosexuality. Father Lucifer is gay and straight and both and neither, as the whim strikes him.
edhopper
(33,196 posts)I am just saying emotions and internal feelings don't say anything about the stimulus of that emotion.
People have deep emotional experiences over movies, even animated ones, they cry their eyes out over Up or Toy Story. Those experiences are real, the characters that cause them are fictional constructs.
I agree that the best way to address gay rights is to change the culture in general, in ways like the ones you point out.
i was just speaking to the religious component of that equation (which is a large one)
Rye Bread Pizza
(37 posts)That you are choosing to attack the very basis of the Christian religion less than a week before their most holy day. Pretty despicable and sad way of saying "Look at me!"
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)edhopper
(33,196 posts)that I am more or less forced to participate in a celebration in this society that is based on a fantastical story.
And yes I said forced. Unless I want to go away for two months and live in a cabin away from family and friends i do have to participate in this whole thing.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)Around where I live, Xmas crap was being put up for display in early October this year. The Xmas music was being played well before Halloween. Next year I expect we'll see it right after Labor Day.
DavidDvorkin
(19,404 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)for many figures of ancient times many people believe existed, but accept without controversy. For example, there are no Roman records that Pilate existed but there is coinage from the period that bears his name and image.