So that's it for the election.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

Josephus wrote well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ and Tacitus wrote more than a generation later. Moreover, possibilities for introducing later artifacts into both texts such as interpolation are widely disputed even among Christian Bible scholars! Your proof is just as weak as trying to cite the Bible itself. Please, bring up the shroud, I beg you!

I presented my opinion on why people follow religions, and I prefaced it by saying "it seems." There is nothing fallacious in my statements. Yours, however, are defensive and full of supposition. You attempt to reinforce those beliefs by proclaiming that bigger, smarter, faster people also have those beliefs, which is an example of both false authority and ad populum. It doesn't mean shit if you can find an example of a Nobel-winning scientist who goes to church. There are any number of reasons to espouse belief besides actually believing in Dyēus ph2ter the sky god.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Josephus wrote well after the supposed life and death of Jesus Christ and Tacitus wrote more than a generation later. Moreover, possibilities for introducing later artifacts into both texts such as interpolation are widely disputed even among Christian Bible scholars! Your proof is just as weak as trying to cite the Bible itself. Please, bring up the shroud, I beg you!

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

So what? So someone named Jesus existed, doesn't demonstrate that a single word in the Bible is true... in fact some of it is true, but that doesn't infer that a single supernatural claim made in the book is true. You can't get to a claim of the truth of an entire book by claiming one of the characters was based on a real life figure any more than you can claim because New York City exists, so must Spiderman.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what? So someone named Jesus existed, doesn't demonstrate that a single word in the Bible is true... in fact some of it is true, but that doesn't infer that a single supernatural claim made in the book is true. You can't get to a claim of the truth of an entire book by claiming one of the characters was based on a real life figure any more than you can claim because New York City exists, so must Spiderman.

Regards,
Mg

Nobody is talking about the Bible. Alawen denied the historical existence of Jesus. He was incorrect.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

There is also alot of "proof by your description" that claims Mohammad existed and was the final prophet of god and that jesus was not the son.

?Derp

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is also alot of "proof by your description" that claims Mohammad existed and was the final prophet of god and that jesus was not the son.

?Derp

No, there isn't.

Religious texts that discuss things like god and Jesus' (or Mohammad's) relationship to a god are not "proof". They're religious texts. You can believe or not. There is no proof that Jesus was the son of a god any more than there is evidence that Mohammad was the final prophet. That isn't covered by what we're discussing.

There is, however, a plethora of evidence describing Jesus and his life (and death), from a variety of both religious and secular sources in close historical proximity to Jesus. Many of the basic facts and accounts are corroborated by multiple authors.

I'm not as familiar with Mohammad, to be honest. But I'm not discussing religious aspects. I'm discussing whether or not the person in question existed. In the case of Jesus, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he did -- relatively speaking, of course.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Many of the basic facts and accounts are corroborated by multiple authors.

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No they weren't, the existence of a historical Jesus outside scripture (which are obviously biased) can be inferred but it's a huge exaggeration to say many of the basic facts and accounts are colloborated. They're not.

Regards,
Mg

Yes, they are. But we're probably talking about different facts and accounts, because when it comes to religious figures, some of you see red.

I am talking about Jesus having existed, having been generally revered by Christians, and having been crucified. Nothing religious, nothing supernatural. Just the basic outlines of him as a historical figure. Those accounts were corroborated by Tacitus (a Roman, non-Christian historian), and to a lesser extent, Josephus. You also can't entirely discount scripture. You can set aside the supernatural details, but you should at least account for the fact that the writings identify Jesus as having existed. They are not sufficient on their own to prove that he did because they are obviously biased, but taken together with an unbiased and highly reliable third source, you have a historical figure as fleshed out as nearly any.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol. You are ignorant. This isn't a matter of shrouds and superstition. It was 2000 years ago -- they didn't have an obituaries section in the local magazine. You have a half a dozen sources from within 50-100 years of Jesus' life speaking about him as a historical figure and confirming some of the same basic facts of his life and death -- including non-Christian scholars. There's more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that Shakespeare actually wrote the work credited to him, and Shakespeare isn't even 500 years old yet. And for the record, secular scholars widely agree that Jesus did exist (and that Shakespeare wrote the works credited to him).

This is a direct line from Wikipedia: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

You're holding Jesus' existence to a standard that is completely out of touch with the context of the period. What would it take to convince you he existed? A photograph? Almost everything we know about antiquity is based on third person accounts from people that weren't alive when the supposed events took place. For Jesus, there are a plethora of references to him from a variety of sources, including highly reliable non-Christian authors that wrote in the immediate historical aftermath (less than 100 years) after his death.

Unless you also refute basically everything researchers have concluded regarding antiquity, including the very existence of certain famous authors, poets, and emperors, there is more than enough evidence to conclusively say that Jesus did live.

Your pejorative aside, I'm at least knowledgeable enough to understand what a primary source is. You might want to read them before quoting them as fact. Citation number six is Robert M. Price, who also doubts the existence of a historical Christ.

One of us is definitely talking out his ass and resorting to Wiki and vague references to geniuses who believe in God to back up his point. This is the most disappointing series of posts I've ever seen from you. If I had to guess, I'd say you are so emotionally attached to the existence of God that you don't want these topics discussed.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your pejorative aside, I'm at least knowledgeable enough to understand what a primary source is. You might want to read them before quoting them as fact. Citation number six is Robert M. Price, who also doubts the existence of a historical Christ.

One of us is definitely talking out his ass and resorting to Wiki and vague references to geniuses who believe in God to back up his point. This is the most disappointing series of posts I've ever seen from you. If I had to guess, I'd say you are so emotionally attached to the existence of God that you don't want these topics discussed.

Robert M. Price's standard of evidence is as ridiculous as yours. According to him (yes, via wikipedia), "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know" if he existed. Does this mean that every historical figure for which we lack an autobiography or a skeleton is potentially the stuff of myth? How patently absurd.

And again, you're evading the underlying point. Relative to other historical figures that we have widely accepted as having existed, there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus existed. For instance, there is far more of a case that Jesus existed than Homer. That is just one example of thousands. Why do you continue to ignore the general consensus of actual scholars on the subject? Is it really me that is biased?

And I have no issue with the topics being discussed, and as a matter of fact, the topic we're discussing is wholly unrelated to the existence of any god. We are discussing whether Jesus was a historical or mythical figure. We're not getting into the validity of his supposed supernatural acts, or his divine nature.

You see a bias that isn't there. I'm not a Christian. Whether Jesus existed or not is wholly immaterial to my life. I'm merely perturbed by how closed-minded and condescending atheists can be as it relates to subjects that are obviously beyond human understanding at the moment. You ask for proof or evidence to justify a belief in a god, then you dismiss mounds of evidence that support the historical existence of Jesus. The two matters are NOT related -- but because of your beliefs re: a god, you can't even budge on whether or not Jesus existed.

There is no way to prove any god exists. There is no way to prove no god exists. The notion of a creator -- of life, of the universe, of essentially anything -- is, on its face, rational. That creator could be a god or an extraterrestrial. It could be personal and benevolent or a force that is not even sentient by our current understanding of the term. Or there could be no creator, no god, and the beginnings of the universe merely too complex to understand at present. All possible, all rational. Greeting any of those possibilities with hostility is irrational.