Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that Jesus and all Religions are False

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
@OP

You made a few mistakes in your thinking though.

1. You assume there are other intelligent life in your argument. (Bear in mind I'm not saying there isn't)

2. You assume "insert your favourite God figure here" has not appeared to these aliens.

3. You assume these aliens are not followers of "insert your favourite God figure here"



[edit on 24-5-2009 by postmeme]

Also there are some things which you state as fact that I've never read about or heard of before.

For example, I've never heard of Buddha being crucified, dying & resurrecting. He supposedly died from old age or food poisoning (pork or mushrooms depending on who's telling).

[edit on 24-5-2009 by postmeme]

I don't get why part II is relevant to your argument. Even if the stories are similar, it does not prove or disprove anything.

Its like the story of the blind men touching the elephant. The elephant is different for everyone. Differing accounts does not mean the elephant does not exist. Only that we lack the "sight" to see it as it is.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by postmeme]




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 

Hey Neon!

While the first part of your OP may be valid (although I have not looked in-depth at the math), you yourself admit that an argument ad populum is meaningless.

As for the second part, from the way you wrote, I'd have hoped you would have done more research. That stuff seems generic copy-paste (forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is what it seems), instead of your own research and work. I say this because so much of it is so obviously wrong, that if you had actually researched it, you would not be believing it.

Some minor examples:
While the whole concept of Horus spans thousands of years, so there isn't really one specific character that can be discussed, Horus was not born of a virgin. He was born of Isis, wife of Osiris.
I've never heard of him walking on water (he may have, after all, he was a God, but I've seen no written record of such a thing). He did drive a boat on water, but that is hardly the same thing.
Who (and where) is Horus called a "Messiah"? He was the son of Osiris, so it
is nothing odd for him to have been called the "Son of God".

As for Mithra, where did you get this information that he was born of a virgin? As I understand it, Ahura Mazda brought him forth from a solid rock.

As for Krishna, where did you find that his father Vesudeva was a carpenter? All I see is that they (both his father and mother) were imprisoned. His mother certainly wasn't a virgin (she had 8 other sons). Perhaps you could claim the similarity that Krishna was born through "mental impregnation" by his father Vesudeva into his mother, and this could be considered a similarity to Jesus (in a vague way), except according to Hinduism, most "ascended beings" could do this sort of thing at the time, so it wasn't anything too special.


Now for Buddha: once again, his mother was definitely not a virgin (she had been married to Buddha's father for some 20 years before he was born). There is a story of how she dreamed she had been pierced by an elephant on the night that Buddha was conceived, but there is no indication of any sort of immaculate conception.
Also, where did you get that story of "Sakya Buddha" (why do you call him "Sakya" there, and nowhere else? Do you deem his ethnicity significant?) being dead and gone to hell for 3 days and then coming back?
Yes, he ascended to Nirvana (which Buddhists will adamantly tell you is nothing like the western concept of "Heaven"), but so can all other people (before and after Buddha).


Interesting read nonetheless! I have no intention of belittling you. I'd be very curious as to the sources for some of those things (and hence my post was interspersed with questions). Thanks in advance!

PS: I don't believe Jesus to be a deity, so I don't really have any personal stake in this (aside from advancement of the truth and rejection of falsehoods, of course).

[edit on 24-5-2009 by babloyi]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I would think there are at least 500,000 satanists in this world out of 6.5 billion, lol.


It may appear that way if you think all those who you consider as evil are Satanists... but reality is the official Church of Satan has never reached more than 50,000 members.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Those other stories were all this guy. The star is actually in the sky. Lending this credibility beyond imagination. It's more like a UFO.

www.share-international.org...

Except he's all the other ones and not Christ.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
But do all persons on this planet who believe in a god in whatever form, ultimately beleive in the same god? And do all persons on all planets in the universe who also beleive in a god in whatever form, also ultimately believe in the same god?

Thus the question is: how many sentient beings in the universe believe in God? How many do not?

And I'm an atheist, btw



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The drake equation in a religious thread...

brilliant!

Did you ever see a stand up comic and wished you'd thought of a joke first, or hear a song and wished you wrote it?

I feel that way about many of Neon Haze's threads. Rarely does he post, but when he does it's always quality.

It's sad that there are so many post whores around here with precious metals in their avatars that contribute nothing but their own ignorance, yet Neon Haze is just a "Solid" contributer.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hiya,

no problem at all,

One good source is "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity before Christ" Kersey Graves.

Admitadly there are several subpositions to make when concerning Buddha though can be said of any myth or story of old. It is very clear that you cannot take what is presented of these myths literally so you have to use suposition.

This is where there is argument due to the grey area of interpretation.

What I can tell you is that I have geniunly researched each diety and can state that although these similarities have been pointed to many times on the web I have read and read and read. it has been frankly bloody interesting to do and totaly eye opening.

all the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
The drake equation in a religious thread...

brilliant!

Did you ever see a stand up comic and wished you'd thought of a joke first, or hear a song and wished you wrote it?

I feel that way about many of Neon Haze's threads. Rarely does he post, but when he does it's always quality.

It's sad that there are so many post whores around here with precious metals in their avatars that contribute nothing but their own ignorance, yet Neon Haze is just a "Solid" contributer.


Awww Shucks thanks!!

I'm glad you enjoy my threads.

I don't get the chance to enjoy ATS as much as I would like these days, the responsibilities of family life and work keep me from posting, though not from reading


All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 

No wonder, Neon Haze!

I'm sorry, but you did not choose the best of sources (even according to atheists).

[edit on 24-5-2009 by babloyi]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


Actually, hasn't Zeitgeist been pretty much torn apart by both historians and theologians alike? It's not that there are a lot of obvious falsehoods - but that tenuous connections are stretched too thin to really be considered accurate or applicable in many cases.

I'm not going to write up a comprehensive research and corrections response, because I really don't care enough to at the present time and it would take longer than I have to spare. Perhaps later. In the mean time, something you wrote did catch my eye which I want to address.



Prometheus shares a number of similarities with the Christ character. Prometheus descended from heaven as God incarnate as man, to save mankind. He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead.


It's always seemed to me that Prometheus always more exemplified the Lucifer character. Not the "devil" so many associate, but the "Light Bearer" aspect of Lucifer. Even if the character had innoble intents, he is the one who brought knowledge to mankind by convincing Eve to eat of the forbidden tree of knowledge (or knowledge of good & evil... it seems "knowledge" is maliable depending on the interpretation and the apologetics). However, the similarities end there. I can't say how the original story of Lucifer's rebellion went in the Christian mythos, but for several centuries at least it's been said that the rebellion occurred before man's creation - and that the temptation was Satan's way of corrupting God's perfect new people.

In contrast, Prometheus gave fire to mankind only after realizing his brother Epimetheus had already selfishly used all the gifts on the animals. So Prometheus stole fire.

Fire is,I think, not necessarily meant to be taken literally - but as a symbol for knowledge - at least by association. Knowledge is generally referred to as "light", and in those days - fire was the only source of light in the darkness. So common symbolism for knowledge is a lit lamp. And of course... I doubt the ancient Greeks through that fire was a direct manifestation of the gods. They must have seen it in the natural world, and it's taming occurred long before the city states of Greece were founded. The gods merely had the knowledge it took to summon fire, and control it. This is what Prometheus brought. Knowledge... Knowledge that was only supposed to be privy to the gods. Depending on which source you read, some say he did it out of pity for man, some say out of spite for the gods.

Now, for this transgression, Prometheus was not crucified. He was chained to a rock whereupon he would forever be tortured by raptors eating his liver/entrails. As a god, he cannot die - so each morning his body regenerates and starts the process anew.

Some other interesting parallels between Greek Mythology and the Bible. While Prometheus didn't get crucified and resurrected - he did create mankind in the image of the gods from the clay of the Earth. However, Prometheus was a titan and subservient to the gods. In Genesis, god is the one who created man from clay.

A loose correlation can be made for women here as well. Prometheus wasn't the only one punished for the light of fire being spread to man. Zeus also punished mankind. To this end, he ordered Hephaestus to create a companion to men who would be all that they desired... woman. Hephestus did so, and her name was Pandora. She was offered to the titan Epimetheus (Prometheus's brother) as a gift of consolation. With her, she had a box that contained all of the evils of the world and was told never to open it. Her curiosity got the best of her, and she eventually opened the box - releasing evil into the world. In a way, Pandora's box can be seen in the same light as the expulsion from paradise. Especially since both accounts seem to lay the blame on women.

Also, on a final note: If anyone could be seen as a "Christ Figure" in the Prometheus myth - it would be Hercules. Prometheus was a Titan, not a mortal. Hercules, however, was born of a mortal woman and fathered by a god. Hercules was the redeemer of Prometheus, considering his father's punishment too harsh. He eventually persuaded Zeus to allow him to break Prometheus's chains and redeem him. However, Heracles was the redeemer of a titan - not mankind. Considering the situation, the closest analogy would be if Christ persuaded god to rethink his punishment of Lucifer and allow Christ to descend into the pit and free the Light Bearer from the lake of fire.


So, considering the above, I really don't think you've fully through this through or have done enough research. Surely you must have known the weaknesses of comparing Prometheus to Christ, and yet you added it anyhow in what appears to be the deliberate padding of your case, rather than it's accuracy. Because of this, I don't feel your proposition is really worth considering, as it's likely riddled with the same errors and misconceptions - or convenient stretchings of the truth so long as you think it builds your case. The same error that Zeitgeist's writers made.

Unless, of course, you have a means of explaining the alleged Prometheus/Christ connection which is both accurate and compelling which I have thus far not come across. I did an initial query for resources on the Prometheus Creation/Fire myth and found not even an insinuation of a correlation to Christ.

Indeed, their central roles aren't even the same. Prometheus was the creator of man, and he made mankind to resemble the gods. What more fitting a gift than to bestow upon those who look like the gods, than a spark of the power of the gods. In many ways, I think the Prometheus character both exemplified his love for his creation by stealing fire, as well as spite. I don't see any reason why he could not both pity mankind, and at the same time be contemptuous of the gods who had defeated his fellow titans when Zeus warred against Chronos and now ruled from Mount Olympus with tyranny and absolute control.

(Interesting note: Prometheus represents "Foresight", while his brother represents "hindsight". Prometheus was only tolerated on Mt. Olympus for his insights into the future, and his brother only tolerated by association. It was this foresight that allowed him to steal the fire, and ultimately, makes Prometheus such a tragic character - as he likely knew his ultimate fate as a result of his actions - and he still gave the fire to mankind)

Insofar as Christ... Christ is merely a scapegoat character. It somewhat like the modern act of confession. In the old days, the Jewish people would tell their sins to a goat, or write them on a scroll and tie them to the goat, then either kill the goat as a blood sacrifice or send it into the wilderness to die. Lambs were also common sacrifices, and hold great importance in the old testament. Remember the plagues of Egypt, and that to spare your first born son you had to cover your door frame with lambs blood. This is essentially what Christ is. He is the son of god, the "Sacrificial Lamb" of God. By taking on mortal form, he took our sins upon himself and then was sacrificed to appease the angry Old Testament god for the original sin of Adam and all subsequent sin. He's really just as simple and shallow as that.

The virgin birth and walking on water... that's just filler junk. The central core concept of Christ is not like the other gods you described. Indeed, the reason stated above is why some Christians cannot stand the through of Genesis being read as anything other than literal. To them, it had to historically take place - or else there was no "fall". With no fall, there is no need for a redeemer... no need for Christ. The whole house of cards comes down.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by Neon Haze
 

No wonder, Neon Haze!

I'm sorry, but you did not choose the best of sources (even according to atheists).

[edit on 24-5-2009 by babloyi]


That was not the only source it's a book I read that relates to the questions you raised about Buddha specifically.

Though I never like quoting Wiki Sources I had not read that before, though given the time that Kersey lived (the 19th century) he would have been vilified for even questioning religion.

You may also want to read the following, though it's a tough read I warn ya.

Another source one of Many

All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Time too is running out for me, and I wanted to thank you for your contribution I haven't read it all as of yet so I appologise.

Before I have to go though I thought you should research PROMETHEUS ON CAUCASUS.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Just an observation, but whenever a christian claims of proof that god exists, athiests jump all over the thread claiming that whatever proof we have is not proof.
So likewise, could you please show me some proof that he does not exist and not just an opinion based on numbers and tales.
Do you really have some earth shattering news or don't you?


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jon1]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jon1
Just an observation, but whenever a christian claims of proof that god exists, athiests jump all over the thread claiming that whatever proof we have is not proof.
So likewise, could you please show me some proof that he does not exist and not just an opinion based on numbers and tales.
Do you really have some earth shattering news or don't you?


[edit on 24-5-2009 by jon1]


I shall do nothing of the sort. I am not stating that god does or does not exist. I am stating that Religion is false.

Do you see?

All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Refer to my previous post. Your post is nowhere near proving religion is false. How did you prove religion is false?

Define false anyway.

Like you said, you based your conclusion on suppositions (assumptions). That is also in itself a kind of false faith. How is that different from the people you are arguing against?

Packaging assumptions into a pseudo logical argument does not prove anything.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
thanks for the thread. old info but good info. however your thread has about three fatal flaws. lots of us here on ATS are just hobbyists, we're not going to go digging around looking for all the original texts then study the language and culture for 50 years to come to conclusions. you have to provide us with the vegetables as well as the meat.

first of all you didn't cite a single source. not a single one.

secondly you did not take into account the zeitgeist debunking which directly disputes many of the claims you are supporting. who is right and who is wrong?

you are also not considering the differences (sometimes major sometimes minor) in the gods you are listing. comparing krishna and buddha to christ is easy enough if you look at the overall picture but there are MANY major differences that blow holes all through your statements.

last, you are not giving credit where credit is due. religion has not survived for thousands of years because it is dumb, stupid, and irrelevant. it is obviously usefull (at the very least) to millions of people throughout history. so much so that it has survived teh worst scrutiny known to man. not to even mention sex scandals. all ideas have an origin. that origin is original. you cannot lump the original in the same group as the copies. this is what i'm most interested in finding as i'm sure many others are as well.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I find it to be very comical that anyone would try to prove that something didn't exist. This defies the objective of science itself. If something does not exist, there is no proof. I can tell you there is a google monster (fictional name) outside your window right now and what kind of "evidence" can you provide to discredit that? You could say well I don't see it. Is that evidence? No that is lack of evidence to support my claim, not evidence to support yours. So if something doesn't exist, how does one find supporting evidence for non-existence? All you have is the same speculation as the opposing viewpoint. You have no evidence.

Furthermore I am going to say this. You might be proud of yourself for not believing in God and I completely respect that. You may in fact think your doing a community service by making others believe there is no God and I certainly respect that as well. Try to bear this in mind though.

Since we have tried so hard to start taking God out of our country (perhaps the late 60's), look what has happened to our society, our politics, our children, and our very lives. So try to bear this in mind. One of your great accomplishments by convincing someone there is no God, may in fact have helped to create the atheist that rapes and murders your daughter some day because he has no guiding moral principles.

Will you be proud of that accomplishment as well?

Sometimes whether things are right or wrong are not as important as the consequences brought about by the simple act of interfering in the social belief systems of cultures. We can see first hand right out our windows what the results have been from trying to remove God from our society, it doesn't take a PhD. to see these things.

You can call me bible thumper or holy roller or whatever you choose; however, if you apply a little critical thinking you will see that I am speaking the truth. Just take a look around you. Open your eyes and see the real world and the implications of what you are doing. I say this in the most sincere manner I can and honestly mean it. I most sincerely hope that one of the atheist you sire, does not come back someday and do harm to one of your family members.

[edit on 5/24/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Thanks for spending the effort on all that info in the OP. I second the opinion about the copy and paste of false history i.e from zeitgeist, its shady to say the lease. But the mathematics and logic is sound.

that is all. going to read the rest of the replies later. star flagged. cheers. well done.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Every religion can teach us something.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Of course there are going to be religious followers who post on here trying to debunk this. But they're obviously going to fail.

Why can't they just use logic as something to believe in instead of an imaginary friend?

S/F my friend. Well done.





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def