The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think very few historians dare to go anywhere near Jesus. Until fairly recently questioning Jesus' historicity was career suicide (it did cost some their heads). Even now historians are reluctant to ruffle any feathers.

It's not career suicide. It's simply an asinine assumption. Just like saying "ya'know they probably made up Hannibal to scare people".

If Galileo had as little balls as historians, we'd still be teaching kids that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Is there anything more ridiculous than our calendar system? Even Christian scholars admit we can't be certain of what year Jesus was born.

He did.

Galileo made up and falsified a ton of his evidence in support of his theory. He was wrong about a ton of things, but to be fair his main point was accurate. He just needed way more measurements than what would've been available to him at the time, and so instead it just made up a bunch of crap.

By today's standards Galileo is a complete fraud.

Historians traditionally use CE now I think. It's relationship to Christ is basically incidental at this point.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Is it possible the story of Jesus is simply based on the actions of several prophets at the time? I mean, there was no real way of identifying who was who at the time, there was no communication between the people apart from word of mouth. Obviously I do not count the miracles, they'd be symbolism.

Well like even today I hear about my friend who has slept with "so many women" from other people; strange thing, I can't verify this and most of the time I check behind them (usually accidentally) and realize they haven't hooked up with 99% of the girls they're purported to. I get two or three different stories and I begin to realize, oh, most of this is probably crap.

Or that guy who has been in "soooo many street fights" but not a single, sanctioned match that could put that person's fighting skills in front of everyone where it could be properly judged.

So if there is a Jesus (or Jes-i?) it's not strange to me that rumors would develop around him claiming some sort of divinity or just claiming that he's really damn good at this or that.

It happens today with people you know. Probably the same back then.

 

[Hawkingbird]

It's funny, although I very much stand up for religion, I do not believe in God. I believe in the Big Bang, and despite the Reductionist argument, I do not believe there was a creator behind it.
But that does puzzle me. Where does everything come from? What created the thing that created the Big Bang? What created the thing that created the thing that created the Big Bang? Did the Big Bang even happen? in 3000 years mankind may look back and laugh at our idea of the Big Bang! 3000 years from then they may laugh at those!
And that's where my point comes from. We don't know anything for sure. You cannot believe in science, just as you cannot believe there's a big guy up in the sky watching over us; no one knows either to be true for sure. That's why when you see both of them as unproven ideas, both are as valid as each other.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I rather like Jesus.

I assume he was a man, a real man and a really nice man, and I think he made a very powerful point.

The religion that developed around him notwithstanding, his point about loving people and turning the other cheek, and that whole sermon on the mount, combined with his current presence in mainstream society make me realize he was very onto something. He made a case both for self-reliance, pacifism, and helping one another.

In 1,000 years I'm sure society will look back at us, our wars and our guns and wonder how we were ever so barbaric. The reputation of men who stood against violence and oppression will shape the future. That, in my opinion, is the nexus of what Jesus is.

His immortality is his reputation. It's that he wasn't content with all the corruption, violence, death and hate that surrounded him and he walked above it. He presented an aloof attitude and wasn't sucked into the world of man. He never became petty like them.

So to me, I wouldn't be surprised people thought he walked on water. For someone to be so nice and non violent must have seemed supernatural. Seems supernatural even now.

Lincoln, to me, may go down like Jesus for many of the same reasons. He is the nearest thing to Jesus in modern history, and is pretty damn close in my opinion. Strange quality for an atheist. Although I have this radical idea that Jesus never believed the clap-trap people said about him, and all that was written about him later.

 

[redhawk23]

Is it possible the story of Jesus is simply based on the actions of several prophets at the time? I mean, there was no real way of identifying who was who at the time, there was no communication between the people apart from word of mouth. Obviously I do not count the miracles, they'd be symbolism.

Jesus certainly had some early connections to John the Baptist and his movement.

Furthermore, many of the stories about Jesus in the bible are merely literary devices echoing the stories of Elijah in the old testament.

There are a lot actions and supposed quotes and messages of Jesus that Christians wouldn't have been likely to make up because they are things that Christians have struggled to reconcile for centuries. If Jesus was entirely just an amalgamation of different stories and people, early Christians would have been quick to leave out things like Jesus's harsh views towards divorce or quite likely the number of women among Jesus' followers.

 

[redhawk23]

It's funny, although I very much stand up for religion, I do not believe in God. I believe in the Big Bang, and despite the Reductionist argument, I do not believe there was a creator behind it.
But that does puzzle me. Where does everything come from? What created the thing that created the Big Bang? What created the thing that created the thing that created the Big Bang? Did the Big Bang even happen? in 3000 years mankind may look back and laugh at our idea of the Big Bang! 3000 years from then they may laugh at those!
And that's where my point comes from. We don't know anything for sure. You cannot believe in science, just as you cannot believe there's a big guy up in the sky watching over us; no one knows either to be true for sure. That's why when you see both of them as unproven ideas, both are as valid as each other.

False equivalence strikes again. Science and systematic philosophies are not the same as revealed truth. Do we really have to go into the differences in approach and the contrasts of the philosophies underpinning the different perspectives?

By that argument the only thing you can be sure of at all is that your consciousness exists in some form.


One doesn't believe in science, one trusts in an ongoing process.

Yes we may laugh at the agreed upon observations, but the fact of the matter is we have a framework from which to move past whatever errors we are currently making, a framework from which to make those judgements. A major part of the scientific method is to reach the edge of knowledge and to push further. There will always be a point that we reach that we must simply admit that "We don't know." That's not the same thing however as "We can't know." or "We shouldn't know." A major part of the process is being honest about limitations and sources of error and seeking ways to eliminate them.

 

[Hawkingbird]

By that argument the only thing you can be sure of at all is that your consciousness exists.
.

That is exactly my argument. "The only thing we can prove is our own existence".

 

[xisaacx]

I love when atheist say they "hail satan" and worship "satan" smh

 

[Thundercrack85]

Jesus (if he did exist) got lucky. Look at Mani. Most people here probably have no idea who Mani is (well, most atheists probably do). His religion nearly eclipsed Christianity.

In some parallel universe, most of the world is Manichaean.

That's the thing about religion, it's so arbitrary. Most believers owe their faith entirely to the culture they happen to have been born into.

 

[Hawkingbird]

But many religions are similar anyway. Judaism, Christianity, Muslim ect

 

[Edguy]

You people should all think hard about what you mean by the word "science". Some of you are using it in kind of weird contexts. I think a lot of you have agreeable statements, but ruin them with incorrect formulations and false arguments..

In some parallel universe, most of the world is Manichaean.

Unless subject to interaction from "the outside", any (theoretical) parallel universe would, by definition, develop exactly like ours.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think he is more likely referring to the eternal inflation "bubble universes" as the type of "parallel" universe.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Jesus (if he did exist) got lucky. Look at Mani. Most people here probably have no idea who Mani is (well, most atheists probably do). His religion nearly eclipsed Christianity.

In some parallel universe, most of the world is Manichaean.

That's the thing about religion, it's so arbitrary. Most believers owe their faith entirely to the culture they happen to have been born into.

I kind of agree. I mean I'm sure Jesus, like I say, personally probably deserved the attention he got, but then again we know many radical Rabbis were roaming around back then and many were killed over their radical teachings. Whose to say one of them wouldn't have caught on? Nothing.

So I recognize the character of the man as being something important, but he certainly got co-opted by the right people in power. Without Rome eventually getting behind Christianity there would be no Christ and I'm sure something like Manichaean could've existed.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I love when atheist say they "hail satan" and worship "satan" smh

I say that all the time to f*** with people.

I act like I worship satan because there is absolutely nothing satanic about me

 

[childeroland]

I say that all the time to f*** with people.

I act like I worship satan because there is absolutely nothing satanic about me

But, according to Christian tradition there's nothing satanic about satan either, he appears as an angel of light. *regards optimus suspiciously

 

[Schlosser85]

The image of Satan with horns and a forked tail originated in the Middle Ages and has absolutely no Biblical basis.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The image of Satan with horns and a forked tail originated in the Middle Ages and has absolutely no Biblical basis.

Neither do images of Hell (those come from Dante), images of God, the notion of Angels as being humanoid in appearance, etc.

 

[Hawkingbird]

The idea of Mary being a Virgin isn't in the Bible either. It says her MOTHER was a virgin, not her herself.

 

[childeroland]

That idea comes from a mistranslation of Isaiah. "he will be born of a virgin" should be, "he will be born of a maiden (or young woman)"

 

[Danalys]

just more of christianity demonizing or co-opting other religions icons or practices.

 

[childeroland]

I've never heard of Galileo falsifying evidence to support his theory. Where is that sourced?

 

[animeana]

Everybody is entitled for his own opinion about this topic and we are free to believe whatever we want. This topic is one of the interesting topics in this site. I'm a newbie here and found this forum a great hangout for me.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I've never heard of Galileo falsifying evidence to support his theory. Where is that sourced?

Found a good article about it here. Sums up what he did nicely.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-brooks/scientists-behaving-badly_b_1448729.html

 

[childeroland]

Found a good article about it here. Sums up what he did nicely.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/michael-brooks/scientists-behaving-badly_b_1448729.html

that's astonishing. Thanks for the link.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

One of the "Four Horsemen" of Atheism, Sam Harris, giving a really good interview on the Joe Rogan Experience pod cast.

Figured I'd share for those who may be interested. I'll warn you now that it is a long one (just under three hours)...

[YT]?v=tGHMv73_j04[/YT]