patrick.net

CL says

He refers to himself as the "Son of Man". I don't recall him referring to himself as the Son of God, unless you count references to Abba.

Jesus constantly claims to have the authority to sit in judgement of the entire human race (living and dead) on the "day of judgement." He clearly think's he's god. I don't know if there are references to him saying the exact phrase "I am God" but it's implied pretty strongly. The charge against him (that got him crucified) was blasphemy, i.e. claiming to be God. I suppose today we'd call him a madman suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia.

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

He refers to himself as the "Son of Man". I don't recall him referring to himself as the Son of God, unless you count references to Abba.

Jesus constantly claims to have the authority to sit in judgement of the entire human race (living and dead) on the "day of judgement." He clearly think's he's god. I don't know if there are references to him saying the exact phrase "I am God" but it's implied pretty strongly. The charge against him (that got him crucified) was blasphemy, i.e. claiming to be God. I suppose today we'd call him a madman suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia.

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later. He really makes a concerted effort to say that he and God are NOT one (as is evident in the Our Father, or in the Agony in the Garden. "Your will, not mine be done").

CL says

He really makes a concerted effort to say that he and God are NOT one (as is evident in the Our Father, or in the Agony in the Garden. "Your will, not mine be done").

"Myself to the other third myself, let this cup pass away from this third of myself. But my own other third part's will, not my own third part's will, be done."

How nonsensi---, I mean, what a mystery that is ;)

YesYNot says

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

Life experience and projection are two different things. From what I've observe about so-called agnostics is that their uncertainty that there might be some kind of god is in direct proportion to the emotional vocalization of theists in their immediate vicinity proclaiming that there is a god.

If these agnostics were living in say, Russia, where everyone is an atheist, I suspect they would be too. Of course, no one would be talking about a god just like here no one talks about the invisible pink microscopic unicorns that live in your butthole and make farts out of rainbows. We're all disbelievers in that, so we never even bother thinking about it.

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

Yeah, agnosticism is basically atheism for pussies. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to rock the boat. I know; I used to be one when I was in high school.

You shouldn't project your own motivations on others.

If you think that agnostics are pussies because of some life experiences with atheists being political in mixed company that is one thing. But if you assume that agnostics are pussies, because you used to be a pussy in high school and could not admit to being an atheist, then that is projection :). Maybe you misspoke?

Roger Pearse says

How often do you or I eat snails?

A couple times a year, and being that it is at a French restaurant it is absolutely due to French influence. It used to be more frequently but the French restaurant near my home closed a few years ago.

FYI, the very best snails I have ever had was at La Folie in San Francisco. They are cooked in a bone with a marrow gratin. DELICIOUS

Not my favorite restaurant in SF, that would be Gary Danko, but the best thing I have had at La Folie.

Roger Pearse says

I can't say that I see why (unless we define "influence" so loosely that includes things like speaking and eating and watching One Tree Hill).

Hmmm... not really. There are plenty of stories, rituals and memes (yes they existed before the internet) that clearly existed in B.C. and were common at the time time christianity began. There are such striking similarities between christianity and other beliefs (e.g. Osiris, etc.) it is a little silly to think that christianity did not "borrow" ideas.

Roger Pearse says

Do they? Why?

I never demand extraordinary evidence of anything, and nor should you. It's a rubbish way to investigate. What we should demand is *evidence*.

I am the true christian god and as a test of your true devotion to me I command that you send me all your banking information and passwords.

You have just been granted the power of flight. Immediately launch yourself from the tallest building you can find and you will be soaring through the clouds in no time.

Scientology is the one true faith, it is very scientific. Proceed to the nearest testing center to have your engrams analyzed.

So, you weight the above statements the same way you would rate a suggested restaurant for lunch? OK...

Yes, if somebody makes an extraordinary claim I most certainly apply a more rigorous "proof" than for mundane claims. You however are free to do as you wish.

Roger Pearse says

Is there any practical difference between demanding "extraordinary evidence" from something, and simply demanding higher standards of evidence for things that we are predisposed not to believe?

For mundane claims we immediately have a frame of reference.

I can bake you a delicious cake...

I can build you a cold fusion reactor...

So is there a higher standard of evidence that you would require for each of those claims? Or does your prejudice make you want to doubt by skills in cold fusion reactor construction?

Roger Pearse says

It's not a scientific principle, at any rate.

Once again I suggest you brush up on your basic scientific knowledge.

"Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction" I highly suggest it if you are actually interested in how the scientific method works not the creationist straw man explanation of science.

Roger Pearse says

Curiously, I have never heard anyone demand "extraordinary evidence" for anything they want to believe in. :)

Yes, very often people who use circular logic -- and other logical fallacies to articulate their opinions -- are of this vein. They don't care about evidence extraordinary or otherwise.

Roger Pearse says

...I find that those who make these exaggerated demands tend to be rather shy about subjecting themselves to the same test...they can't state that, won't admit it, won't put their own view up for the examination they expect of others, and won't offer any evidence for it.

Why should they? You are the one making a claim the burden of proof lies with you. I am sure that changing the focus to their beliefs is a clever response, but in doing so you are just committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Can you support your position without resorting to logical fallacies?

Roger Pearse says

We all know that these people live by values they got from their society, and which they live in conformity to. That's not a rational position; and it must be the default in any society (even supposedly religious ones), I'd have thought.

So living by the christian values, provided to you by society, is irrational?

Hmm... perhaps we agree on something.

YesYNot says

Maybe you misspoke?

I don't mind being a pussy. You are what you eat.

In any case, my comment was to show that I empathize with closeted atheists. However, I still stand by my original statement that if it weren't for the cultural pressure to be "open" to a "higher power", most agnostics would be as agnostic about god as they are about unicorns.

Come to think about it, agnostics really aren't that agnostics about gods. Certainly not gods like Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Flidais, Shango, or Quetzalcoatl. Seems like it's only the gods that their next door neighbors, their coworkers, and the people at the local supermarket believe in that warrant some plausibility. I have yet to hear an agnostic say, well maybe Quetzalcoatl exists. And to deny that god while saying that the god of Abraham might, sounds like a big "fuck you" to the Native Americans.

What, you steal our land, kill our people, but you can't be agnostic about our gods? Yet, you can be agnostic about some Bronze-Aged dessert dweller's god? That's racist.

If you're going to be agnostic, at least be consistently agnostic and hold the belief that it's just as likely that the Olympians were real as it is that the Holy Trinity is.

CL says

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later.

Personal feelings are always considered great scholarship.

thunderlips11 says

"Myself to the other third myself, let this cup pass away from this third of myself. But my own other third part's will, not my own third part's will, be done."

How nonsensi---, I mean, what a mystery that is ;)

Hence the doctrine of the Trinity...God in three distinct persons. Was there a lot of controversy in the early Christian church? Absolutely. Various "alternative theories" about the nature of Jesus/God existed but were declared heretical.

I'd like to answer generally questions asked by leoj707 in post # 107.
I agree that using Bible references is not a proof. My thinking was that if the God of the Bible exists then the Bible should be coherent and internally consistent. If the Bible is shown to be materially incoherent or inconsistent, then I would conclude the God of the Bible does not exist. Therefore, I searched the Bible for answers that can shed light on these 3 questions. Mark 11:23 would show God in action, giving observable results. And yet the general Christian community does not report these observable results. I thought perhaps it is not material, not useful to answer these 3 questions. To my surprise, Mark 11:23 shows up everywhere in the Bible.
Some more examples: God created the world using Mark 11:23: Genesis 1:3, 1:6, 1:9, 1:11,1:14-15. A variant of Mark 11:23: Moses initiated the plagues by raising his rod. David used it on Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:37,45-47. Elijah stopped the rain: 1 Kings 17:1. Elijah called down fire: 1 Kings 18:24, 37. Joshua stopped the sun and moon: Joshua 10:12-13. These are all observables. For the Christian readers: Paul prayed Mark 11:23 endlessly for the church in Ephesians 1:15-20, 3:14-21, Colossians 1:9-11. And Psalms 91, which many use as basis for protection, is chocked full of Mark 11:23 statements.
So, why are these observables not seen? So, I searched for consistent answers to when God leaves the scene. I gave 2 answers earlier. The primary reason in the Bible is that when people doubt or challenge God's word/position, then God leaves them alone for that topic. Adam and Eve doubted God's word and chose the serpent's word over God's word before they ate the apple. When the Israelites doubted they could take the promised land, God called that an "evil report" (Numbers 13:32) and let them stay there until they died. For God said in Numbers 14:28: "as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you." Moses doubted God (Numbers 20:12) and could not go into the Promised Land.
Like you say, these prove nothing except consistency that does not materially contradict observable data today.
However, the positive side of Mark 11:23 can be tested and observed. Therefore, my 19 years of testing using sickness/healing as the venue and statistical bias as the observable result. I stopped taking notes after the first 2 years. By then, I was getting near 100% success when success is defined as surprisingly fast recovery, miracle, or near mirable. For example, when I was focused on getting my bum left knee healed so I can run again, I went through that Spring hay fever season without any hay fever symptoms.
If so, then why don't Christians report more successes? If you ask around, you'll find most mainline Christians don't know their Bible, don't know about Mark 11:23, or are trained to be hostile to applying Mark 11:23 even though it runs all through their Bible. So, by omission or commission, they have, in this aspect that is designed to give them results, gone against their foundation book.
If you look for those who support Mark 11:23 and ask about their track record, you'll learn how it works for common folks.
We will not resolve God issues by trading opinions. I offer my experience and a verifiable Bible trail, that while is no proof, will show internal consistency that is also consistent with observed data both ways.
Here is a convenient internet Bible: www.biblegateway.com.
You can get God healing without being a Christian. God deals with people in independent aspects. I got my dad healed/restored many times using Naaman, the centurion's servant, Syrophoenician's daughter as the foundation.
Good luck.
PS. I got my BS, MS, and PhD in EE from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I research novel solutions in various aspects of electronics.

wanderer01 says

I agree that using Bible references is not a proof.

OK, but you use a lot of bible references to prove your point.

wanderer01 says

My thinking was that if the God of the Bible exists then the Bible should be coherent and internally consistent. If the Bible is shown to be materially incoherent or inconsistent, then I would conclude the God of the Bible does not exist.

Yes, it should first be coherent and internally consistent for one to consider the possibility of a christian god. However, internally consistency does not prove the existence of a christian god. The Harry Potter series of books is coherent and internally consistent but that does not mean Harry Potter is real.

Also, the bible is not internally consistent or consistent with knowledge of our natural world gained over the last 2000ish years. The bible is riddled with literally hundreds of incoherent inconsistencies that christians have developed long winded, anemic, complicated and/or inherently flawed answers to.

I am not going to waste space here. If you are truly interested in these inconsistencies then there is plenty of information on them through Google and they are well documented.

And, yes I agree that these inconsistencies are a good reason to believe that the christian god does not exist.

wanderer01 says

The primary reason in the Bible is that when people doubt or challenge God's word/position, then God leaves them alone for that topic.

Or kills them or sends people who do listen to kill them.

wanderer01 says

If so, then why don't Christians report more successes?

Because it does not work.

wanderer01 says

However, the positive side of Mark 11:23 can be tested and observed. Therefore, my 19 years of testing using sickness/healing as the venue and statistical bias as the observable result. I stopped taking notes after the first 2 years.

OK, first off of you can scientifically test Mark 11:23 you have a million dollars coming to you.

Second it is not a "test" if other treatment is being used at the time.
wanderer01 says

60 days and 1 brain operation later Mom could do everything again.

emphasis mine.

Third, many things -- cancer included -- are known to get better on their own.

HINT: This is why christians don't "report more success". The bible healing method does not work better than a placebo. Look into some very strong believers, the christian scientists, they have a third world infant mortality rate. Yes, exactly what you would expect for a group getting no medical care.

If you truly want to be convincing in your position that Mark 11:23 is "true" then use it to heal things that are not known to get better on their own.

Try healing this person back to perfect health (limbs and all):
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/girl-flesh-eating-disease-faces-horror-depression/story?id=16350982#.T9dvtnjvZBk

Once you have demonstrated that you can get a "near 100% success" rate in healing amputees then there is going to be a lot of good works for you to preform. Can you think of a better way to exhibit christian values that traveling to war torn areas and restoring the limbs of children caught up in conflict?

wthrfrk80 says

CL says

My personal feeling is that a lot of those words were inserted later.

Personal feelings are always considered great scholarship.

That's why I prefaced it as such, to distinguish THAT from the other items I've talked about which were learned in Christian Academics.

Factually, there were words added much later. In fact, all of them were.

They would have the motivation and history to add words into "Jesus'" mouth, to support the theology of the day.

CL says

Factually, there were words added much later. In fact, all of them were.

Really? How do you know that?

Are you talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? St. Paul's epistles?

wthrfrk80 says

Really? How do you know that?

The books were written several decades after Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. You know that! :)

There are zero eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life. Nobody was writing down the things he said as he said them, and the people he surrounded himself with were likely illiterate. He himself never wrote or read anything, even in the Gospels (unless you count when he was scribbling on the ground).

St. Paul wasn't really even an Apostle, unless you believe that Jesus called him on the road to Damascus.

CL, many suspect there's a sayings gospel, a lost text, consisting only of the alleged words of Jesus. The words of Jesus are pretty consistent across all 4 Gospels.

However, the narrative and detail of Jesus' life, is inconsistent.

Now, that could be evidence FOR an HJ, but then again we can compare with Daoism, where many philosophers were conflated into Lao-Tsu and the stories of his life are mish mashes of various persons with a large dollop of myth.

CL says

The books were written several decades after Jesus supposedly walked the Earth. You know that! :)

Of course they were written about two decades after Jesus' death. But how is that relevant?

CL says

There are zero eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life.

The gospels are eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. To claim otherwise is to admit you are not familiar with the gospels.

CL says

Nobody was writing down the things he said as he said them, and the people he surrounded himself with were likely illiterate.

Of course they weren't writing it down as he said them. Jesus' teachings were "oral tradition" (a common practice at the time) until it was written down two or three decades later.

CL says

St. Paul wasn't really even an Apostle, unless you believe that Jesus called him on the road to Damascus.

The early Christian church considered him an Apostle, which is really all that matters. The opinion of someone 2000 years later doesn't matter.

I really don't understand all of these "conspiracy theories" regarding early Christianity.

If you don't like Christianity, it seems that Occam's razor would suffice to refute it. I'm skeptical of Christianity because of the miracle accounts. Guys rising from the dead? That's about a 10 out of 10 on my "weird-shit-o-meter."

wthrfrk80 says

Of course they were written about two decades after Jesus' death. But how is that relevant?

Given that life expectancy was quite low, and the New Testament was written over the next 7 decades, it follows that the eyewitnesses would have long been dead. Some were martyred.

You say that they were oral tradition, written down decades later, AND EYEWITNESS Accounts? Maybe we only differ on what constitutes "eye-witness"? I don't know of any mainstream historian or Church that believes they were eyewitness accounts whatsoever.

Then you say that Paul, who never walked with Jesus, but had a miraculous encounter with Jesus, is the same as someone who was physically approached by him? Yet, miracles give you pause?

wthrfrk80 says

To claim otherwise is to admit you are not familiar with the gospels.

I've read them countless times and taught them professionally. I was the President of the Theologically Honor Society, studied the material in Graduate School in Rome. I'm pretty familiar.

Occam's razor would dictate that the most obvious answer for the Gospels was that they wrote down what was commonly accepted at the time into texts. Faith would say that that process was divine, guided by the Holy Spirit, inerrant.

Why were some Gospels considered heresy, while others were accepted as Canon? Was the Council divinely inspired? Are the subsequent translations inspired too? Why are there so many contradictions? Why is so much missing from Jesus' life?

Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple? Or was Mark written after 70? What do you think?

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark13a.htm

CL says

You say that they were oral tradition, written down decades later, AND EYEWITNESS Accounts? Maybe we only differ on what constitutes "eye-witness"?

I simply meant that the people who interacted with Jesus (the eye-witnesses) remembered the events and teachings surrounding his life and passed down those things in an oral tradition. Eventually the tradition was written down. Some scholars speculate there might have been a "Q" source (an actual written document of this tradition) from which the gospels came.

Do you think that the Torah is an eyewitness account, too? Or like Dan said, are any other religious stories eye-witness accounts? Zeus? Mithra? Zarathustra?

If you think that Jesus was historical, what is your reasoning? Where is the proof?

What reasoning did the early Church have for believing Paul's account? Was it empirical?

thunderlips11 says

where many philosophers were conflated into Lao-Tsu

You mean there wasn't really a man named "Old Boy" who road a water buffalo out of town, stopping only to write down his pithy wisdom?!?!!?!

Now, I don't know what I can believe! :)

Do you think Chuang Tzu was historical? I tend to think of him as the "St. Paul" of Taoism.

CL says

Then you say that Paul, who never walked with Jesus, but had a miraculous encounter with Jesus, is the same as someone who was physically approached by him?

Where did I say or imply that?
I simply said that the early Christian community considered him an apostle. He was considered an apostle even though he did not interact with Jesus directly (except for the miraculous account). Paul himself states that he did not deserve to be an apostle since he persecuted the early Christian movement. Rather, he received the basic tradition of the early Christian movement: that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried, and then rose from the dead. See his first letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 15, 1-11 as a reference.

CL says

Occam's razor would dictate that the most obvious answer for the Gospels was that they wrote down what was commonly accepted at the time into texts.

I agree. That's all I'm saying.

CL says

Why were some Gospels considered heresy, while others were accepted as Canon?

Maybe because those writings didn't line up with the beliefs of the early Christian movement? I wouldn't expect Libertarians to incorporate the writings of Karl Marx into their "canon" of writings either.

CL says

Was the Council divinely inspired? Are the subsequent translations inspired too?

I have no idea. How should I know? What does that have to do with anything? Seems like a "red herring."

CL says

Why are there so many contradictions?

Can you give examples? Sure, if you take things out of context you can find all sorts of supposed contradictions. For example, Jesus says we hate is equivalent to murder. But he also says "a man must hate is father an mother" to follow him. Is that a contradiction? Or are we just missing the intended meaning by "proof texting"?

CL says

Why is so much missing from Jesus' life?

What else would you like to know about Jesus' life? Do you want to know what toys he played with as a child? There are plenty of things I might like to know about Julius Caesar beyond what is written about him, but it's just not in the cards.

CL says

Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple? Or was Mark written after 70? What do you think?

Good questions. I have no idea.
You say you have these theological credentials but direct me to an atheist website?

RE: Paul, I think modern science would recognize that he likely had a need to be considered a valid expert on Jesus. Whether he had an episode or an epiphany depends on your perspective. I, personally, don't find his writings inspiring. He probably felt guilt for his persecutions and felt the need to make amends somehow. But, you're right--most Christians hold him up as though he was called.

RE: Canon: The Church had no central authority and so the traditions developed in isolation in many respects. I suspect that politics played a role in what was allowed into the Canon. But were those who did the deciding inspired? Why would you trust them, since they didn't have the science we do today? If they threw some of it out today, would you agree with that?

RE: Contradictions: An easy one is the legend of Akeldama, the "field of blood". Acts and Matthew give entirely different reasons the Potter's field was named Akeldama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akeldama

The apologists try to explain inconsistencies and contradictions away by saying, "What if Judas gave the money back, and then fell headlong and his guts spilled out?". They do this whenever the Bible contradicts itself.

wthrfrk80 says

What else would you like to know about Jesus' life? Do you want to know what toys he played with as a child?

For the most part, we aren't told what happens in his life between birth and the age of ~30. He has a story at 12 years old, and I think that appears in only one Gospel. The birth narrative is the same way. We've taken a bunch of stories an blended them together, and filled in the gaps with myth and legend.

Kind of weird for an eye-witness biography?

wthrfrk80 says

You say you have these theological credentials but direct me to an atheist website?

There's nothing particularly atheistic in that link. Still, you miss the point. Modern Theologians pursue the discipline as an academic discipline. They aren't threatened by science, history or archaeology. Further, they wouldn't discount any Pagan source as corroboration that Jesus existed, would they?

Would the Jews disregard Canaanite writings if they described Jericho?

If science shows anachronisms in the Bible, you can do cartwheels explaining them. Or, you can come to the logical conclusion that none of it is historical.

Which is okay--they weren't writing historical documents. The Hebrew Scriptures are written in the same way.

They are filled with jokes, eponymous writings, parables. In some cases, accidents and inaccuracies. They change the name of God, alternate between a transcendent unapproachable God, and an anthropomorphic one. Every other sentence. It's not a problem except to uninformed Westerners.

CL says

If you think that Jesus was historical, what is your reasoning? Where is the proof?

I'm not the only one who thinks Jesus was historical. It's possible to believe that Jesus existed and not believe everything (like the miracles) attributed to him. Heck, doesn't Michael Shermer even believe that Jesus existed as a wise philosopher or religious teacher, but not as the "Son of God."?

wthrfrk80 says

Heck, doesn't Michael Shermer even believe that Jesus existed

Then what is his proof?

CL says

Paul, I think modern science would recognize that he likely had a need to be considered a valid expert on Jesus.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Paul had some psychological condition like the need to be a "know-it-all" or something? That's a very speculative assertion.

CL says

But were those who did the deciding inspired?

Where did I try to make the case for divine inspiration? I simply asserted that the Christian community had a tradition that Paul inherited from the earlier apostles after he converted.

CL says

Why would you trust them, since they didn't have the science we do today?

What are you saying? That because they didn't know about nuclear physics they cannot be trusted? Early Christianity was not a set of theories on "how stuff works" but rather an account of events (they believed) had happened in ordinary history.

CL says

If they threw some of it out today, would you agree with that?

I wouldn't blame the early Christians for throwing out documents from rival religions that may have infiltrated the movement. Would you? Could you be more specific? Are you referring to Gnostic writings?

CL says

RE: Contradictions: An easy one is the legend of Akeldama, the "field of blood". Acts and Matthew give entirely different reasons the Potter's field was named Akeldama.

It's interesting you bring that one up. There's actually another recent thread about that here on Patnet. I thought the main point was that Judas committed suicide because he betrayed Jesus for money. Maybe there's some difficulty on the details, but does it really matter? The exact physics of Judas' death was never a major doctrine of Christianity (that I know of). I'm not trying to prove "Biblical Inerrancy" or anything. I'm just interested in the history of early Christianity.

CL says

Modern Theologians pursue the discipline as an academic discipline.

That's all I'm trying to do as well. I'm trying to approach the issue like a historian might.

CL says

They aren't threatened by science, history or archaeology.

Who is? I don't understand your point.

CL says

Further, they wouldn't discount any Pagan source as corroboration that Jesus existed, would they?

Why would anyone want to discount Pagan sources? What do you mean by Pagan? "Non-Christian"? We've got to be careful about using the term "Pagan" since the word is sometimes used as a pejorative. Some Christian apologists readily use "secular" sources (like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger).

CL says

Or, you can come to the logical conclusion that none of it is historical.

CL says

they weren't writing historical documents

That's a hard case to make. You say you are familiar with the gospels? The gospel of Luke claims to be an account of things that had happened and handed down for the original eyewitnesses. The gospel of Luke does not start out with something like "once upon a time." Throughout the gospels there are references to real people (like Pilate the Roman governor and Caiaphas the Jewish high priest) and places (Jeruselem, Bethlehem, the Sea of Galilee).

The main difficulty is the miracle accounts. If it weren't for the accounts of "weird shit" like virgin births, resurrections from death, etc nobody would question that Jesus was a historical person.

CL says

Then what is his proof?

I don't know. Ask him.

Maybe it's the references to Jesus and early Christianity that come from secular (Pagan?) sources?

I've got to say I'm rather confused, CL. You say you are into theology but are very much against the idea that Jesus *might* be a real historical person. That just seems odd to me.

Dan8267 says

I have yet to hear an agnostic say, well maybe Quetzalcoatl exists. And to deny that god while saying that the god of Abraham might, sounds like a big "fuck you" to the Native Americans.

Well, maybe Quetzalcoatl exists.

Or maybe not.

The problem with most discussions like this is that few (including the Agnostics and Atheists) really want to understand what belief is, what reality is, what constitutes the mind and its vagaries of memory. Most just want to argue about semantics of the words on pages. They want to apply pure logic to illogical models of the universe, then argue the points until someone cries "UNCLE JEEZUS!"
Agnosticism is simply following a logical argument that one has not met a god, and therefore would have to say "I don't believe I've ever met a god." and also to say, "If I do meet a god, I will then believe there is such a thing."
Atheism would supposedly be the non-belief and perhaps, even taking an active part in spreading that non-belief. Would an atheist become a believer if they were confronted with an actual god of some kind? It probably depends on the personality. Some people don't believe there are any government conspiracies, even though it was my experience in government that you HAD to conspire in order to get any work done. If you followed the rules you would spend all of your time doing paperwork, so the rules were more like busy-work that you put the kids to doing while the grown-ups went out to the fields and got things done.
Religion is like that, too. Most people don't actually FOLLOW the bizarre rituals anymore. They show up at churches and eat the donuts and listen to the preacher (maybe get a good nod), and they believe they are better people for it....and because they believe they are better people, they go forth and try to act a little better sometimes.
None of it has to be proven true or false in order for it to work or not work. If the curses and sins actually meant anything beyond social norms, we would all be burning in a pit somewhere. Meanwhile, life goes on in chaotic patterns and some people find those patterns to be exciting and impressive while some just find them to be advertising. We have bigger religions now than gods: we have The Economy, The Left, The Right, The News, The Jobs, The Invisible Hand Job : any one of which has more followers than any particular Synod or Parish or Dogma. What we SAY we believe is not proof that we believe it. We are what we do repeatedly. BE the change you want to see in the world. "Do Be Do Be Do" - Frank Sinatra

Here's a work relevant to the discussion, from the "Christianity is historically true" camp:

Simon Greenleaf, "The Testimony of the Evangelists" (1846).

Of course, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. What are the fallacies of that work?

CL says

Do you think Chuang Tzu was historical? I tend to think of him as the "St. Paul" of Taoism.

I really don't know much about him;just looked him up. Skeptical, Anarcho-sympathetic, my kind of dude.

wthrfrk80 says

What are you saying? That because they didn't know about nuclear physics they cannot be trusted? Early Christianity was not a set of theories on "how stuff works" but rather an account of events (they believed) had happened in ordinary history.

While the bible is a story of what happened to a people it also makes many claims on "how stuff works" and observations on the world. Also, more than a "history" it also has instruction for religious ritual and legal code. It also has all the supernatural mythology of a people...

wthrfrk80 says

The main difficulty is the miracle accounts. If it weren't for the accounts of "weird shit" like virgin births, resurrections from death, etc nobody would question that Jesus was a historical person.

In ancient stories that have supernatural events the default assumption is that the characters in the story were not real people but part of a cultures mythology.

So right, characters in a mundane ancient stories are suspected of being real. However, even then people sometimes question it when there is no other corroborating evidence.

Jesus was not from a mundane ancient writing. He was from a writing steeped in mythology and supernatural events. The only reason why so many people today assume he is real is that they still believe in that mythology.

If most Americans worshiped the Greek gods as a society we would assume that Hercules was a real historical figure.

leoj707 says

The only reason why so many people today assume he is real is that they still believe in that mythology.

Really? What about the secular references to Jesus? It's hard to make the case that Jesus was not a historical person. Now perhaps the miracle accounts are suspect, but it's ordinary history that Jesus of Nazereth was crucified by orders of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.

wthrfrk80 says

Really? What about the secular references to Jesus? It's hard to make the case that Jesus was not a historical person. Now perhaps the miracle accounts are suspect, but it's ordinary history that Jesus of Nazereth was crucified by orders of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.

What secular references? The only secular references to Jesus were written well after the fact. The earliest one was written in AD93 by someone who was born at after Jesus already supposedly died. While Jesus might have been a real person that is not enough evidence to convince me that he was.

If someone were to find a Roman record from AD30ish mentioning that Jesus of Nazereth was crucified then that would be something. BTW, I doubt many have survived, but Romans did keep records of such things.

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

The only reason why so many people today assume he is real is that they still believe in that mythology.

Really? What about the secular references to Jesus? It's hard to make the case that Jesus was not a historical person. Now perhaps the miracle accounts are suspect, but it's ordinary history that Jesus of Nazereth was crucified by orders of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.

This is what I'm challenging you to produce. Where are these elusive contemporary sources detailing the revolution and commotion of Jesus?

Do you think that George Washington was a real person? Was he incapable of lying? I believe the first, but not the second.

Why? Because I have proof of the first, and the 2nd defies credulity.

You are comfortable saying that miracles strain credulity, but are believing that Jesus was historical. All I'm asking you to provide is the information that made that compelling for you.

thunderlips11 says

I really don't know much about him;just looked him up. Skeptical, Anarcho-sympathetic, my kind of dude.

I love all of the Taoist writings. I love the dialogue where they mock the Confucianists!

CL says

This is what I'm challenging you to produce. Where are these elusive contemporary sources detailing the revolution and commotion of Jesus?

The Annals of Tacitus

Flavius Josephus

Surely you are aware of those sources? I thought that was common knowledge. Neither of those sources can "prove" that Jesus was in fact the Son of God. But it's pretty clear that there was a historical Jesus.

wthrfrk80 says

Flavius Josephus

Ummm... Josephus was born around or just after Jesus died. His writings on the subject did not come until AD93.

wthrfrk80 says

The Annals of Tacitus

This came even later AD116.

wthrfrk80 says

Really? What about the secular references to Jesus?

None contemporary with Jesus' life. Most from around 100AD. The reference is Josephus is certainly a pious fraud as:

A. Josephus is a Pharisee, a committed Jew, but says things about Jesus ("If indeed he was a man... Miracles...") that only a Christian would say. Nowhere else in any of his works does he mention this "Christian Faith" of his, but he describes his religious background and role as rabbi in detail in his books. Josephus is critical of messiahs and prophets, and believes them the cause of all the troubles of the Jews, he makes this point repeatedly in his works.
B. Tertullian, Justin, Origen, and the rest of the early Church advocates do not quote the "Slam Dunk" Testamonium Flavium (TF) in their defense of Christianity - even though several I believe mention Josephus and quote from his writings. Hard to believe they didn't bring up the TF!
C. No references to the T.F. appear prior to the 4th Century AD, by which time Christianity is a major religion, and is made the official religion of the Roman Empire.
D. We have an idea who did it - Eusebius, "to this day" is a favorite of his, like I overuse "Of course" and "Even".

leoj707 says

wthrfrk80 says

Flavius Josephus
Ummm... Josephus was born around or just after Jesus died. His writings on the subject did not come until AD93.
wthrfrk80 says

The Annals of Tacitus
This came even later AD116.

So that means they are not authentic sources? I don't understand.

thunderlips11 says

The reference is Josephus is certainly a pious fraud as:

The TF is probably a pious fraud yes. But what about the two other accounts from Josephus: the one about James the half-brother of Jesus and the death of John the Baptist?

wthrfrk80 says

So that means they are not authentic sources? I don't understand.

Well, it is not that the sources are not "authentic" it is just that they come from long enough after Jesus' life that they they may have been written based on the myth not based on actual events.

It is kind of like having the proof a prophecy coming true like this:

Day 1: Prophet makes supposed prediction that X event will happen on Day 2.

Day 2: X event happens.

Day 3: Prophet writes down his prediction.

Day 4: Prophet convinces followers that he predicted X event accurately and points to his writings as proof.