It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
No, that's cool. Everything supernatural is fictitious, in your mind. (By the way, you never did answer my question earlier as to whether your disbelief in deities also includes disbelief in all things supernatural, but I suppose this answers that question. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.)
Logically, are you still with me? We're not dealing with any supernatural aspects here, just historically demonstrable things (the Epistles, Roman history) and some logical supposition to move a little further up the tree.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by adjensen
Logically, are you still with me? We're not dealing with any supernatural aspects here, just historically demonstrable things (the Epistles, Roman history) and some logical supposition to move a little further up the tree.
Supernatural aspects excluded, Paul and the four gospel writers offer nothing in the way of actual evidence of the existence of god(s) or the son thereof. All that is readily apparent is the need to believe. The "new testament" as it is called rests on the revelations of mostly five people.
Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
Is clear that it's not 100% accurate, that is the easiest and most obvious thing to understand about with any religion that preaches supernatural words to explain what they can't understand. We have science, it doesn't know the answer, but it asks for it, and when data and observation are there, we find more answers as we go along - it is certainly a natural poetry of the universe, spotting patterns, laws, motions etc.
[edit on 29/7/10 by awake_and_aware]
Originally posted by adjensen
Saying that these are "revelations" is incorrect, in the context of what it presents itself to be. The NT is testimony, written by those who either were eyewitnesses (Paul and John) or who investigated what happened (Luke,) with Mark and Matthew being one or the other, there's no way to tell for sure. The revelation came from Christ, the depiction in the Gospels and Epistles is the testimony of others as to the events.
I presume that you accept that testimony is evidence, and that the objection is that you simply don't believe it. That's fine, you believe them to be liars.
However, before we close the door and say it's all made up (by the way, in my "mostly accurate", "mostly inaccurate" and "totally inaccurate" options, I do not believe that any case can be made for the middle one,) I point out again that the Church itself stands as another piece of evidence.
Your "Elvis Lives" example is fallacious and embarrassing. That early Church that you dismiss didn't consist of a handful of hangers on and delusional pop fans. To believe in Christ, particularly if you were a Jew, was to commit yourself to death. The claims of Christ, contrary to the human claims of Apollo's followers, were outrageous and blasphemous to the people it was being preached to.
Just the act of listening to someone say that Christ was God was a sin to a Jew. And yet the church thrived, in a time when the eyewitnesses to Christ's miracles, and there were obviously quite a large number of them, were still alive to testify to what they saw. Your "need to believe"? They already believed something! But you say that these people were so shallow that they cast aside a lifetime of belief, for a blasphemy, with the knowledge that they could well die for it, on a whim?
You paint the founders of the faith as liars, which begs the question of why they would want to lie? What did they gain from it? There was nothing but death for the lot of them, Stephen to Paul, and their blasphemy meant that even God would be no consolation.
I'm not saying that any of this is "proof" of anything, but it is certainly evidence. One logically struggles to make the case of the existence of the early church developing as it did, when it did, and under the circumstances that it did, without something more significant than a blasphemous story someone made up for reasons that no one can fathom.
Whether evidence of deities exists to your satisfaction today or not, the only two options that I can come up with for what happened 2,000 years ago is that:
1) It happened pretty much as the testimony says, by known persons who followed Christ to their deaths
2) It didn't happen at all, but was invented by conspiracists, whose identity, motivations and rewards remain unknown to this day
Ironically, of those two options, the second is the one that lacks evidence. Why? Because the only support for it is your belief that, because it couldn't have happened, it obviously didn't.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by adjensen
Just the act of listening to someone say that Christ was God was a sin to a Jew. And yet the church thrived, in a time when the eyewitnesses to Christ's miracles, and there were obviously quite a large number of them, were still alive to testify to what they saw. Your "need to believe"? They already believed something! But you say that these people were so shallow that they cast aside a lifetime of belief, for a blasphemy, with the knowledge that they could well die for it, on a whim?
Sure. They also believed a messiah was coming and the christ story could fulfill the so-called "prophecies" in the offensively titled "old testament". It would take already believing in one set of impossible stories to readily accept the next impossible messiah story.
Whether evidence of deities exists to your satisfaction today or not, the only two options that I can come up with for what happened 2,000 years ago is that:
1) It happened pretty much as the testimony says, by known persons who followed Christ to their deaths
2) It didn't happen at all, but was invented by conspiracists, whose identity, motivations and rewards remain unknown to this day
Ironically, of those two options, the second is the one that lacks evidence. Why? Because the only support for it is your belief that, because it couldn't have happened, it obviously didn't.
Well, there is evidence that people do not return from death, that people cannot resurrect and reanimate dead people, walk on water, turn water into wine, cure disease by exorcism, curse away a storm, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
1. I don't know. They seem to represent Paul's fanaticism at very least.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
2. I believe the story of Jesus is typical of other myths in circulation at the time (such as Apollonius of Tyanna). There may have been an actual Jesus - though no hard evidence of him exists - but many of the salient parts of the bible are definitely fiction.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
3. People who needed to believe in such a story made it up.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
4. It's possible they were real or based on real people. We do know people similar to Jesus in that time had followers.
Originally posted by adjensen
Unfortunately, what happened to Jesus was NOT what any Jew expected the Christ would do. The Christ would kick out the Romans and restore the kingdom of David. They wanted and expected a political messiah, they got a spiritual one instead. Jesus' rebuke of Peter shows the difference between expectation and reality.
You also seem to diminish the significance of a faithful community not merely turning away from their beliefs, but embracing the exact opposite, but as you lack faith of any kind, that's understandable.
You see, I presume, the reason that such evidence does not pertain to those two options. You are correct, people do not return from death, people do not turn water into wine, and so forth. But there is still no evidence for option #2, aside from your lack of belief.
Originally posted by texastig
There is no historical data for "myths in circulation at that time".
100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree with the following statements:
Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
There were no people at that time who needed to believe in such a story.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by adjensen
Unfortunately, what happened to Jesus was NOT what any Jew expected the Christ would do. The Christ would kick out the Romans and restore the kingdom of David. They wanted and expected a political messiah, they got a spiritual one instead. Jesus' rebuke of Peter shows the difference between expectation and reality.
You also seem to diminish the significance of a faithful community not merely turning away from their beliefs, but embracing the exact opposite, but as you lack faith of any kind, that's understandable.
Just as today, some people view christ as the messiah, some people don't. What matters is that we've established motive for the christ story: the fulfillment of the alleged messiah of the jewish religious texts.
You see, I presume, the reason that such evidence does not pertain to those two options. You are correct, people do not return from death, people do not turn water into wine, and so forth. But there is still no evidence for option #2, aside from your lack of belief.
Still, neither option - particularly number one addresses the physical impossibilities you've just admitted to above. By your own admission you've nullified the claim that it "happened pretty much as the testimony says".
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by ChickenPie
What is your morality based upon?
My morality is based on social contract derived by the aspects of my culture and punctuated by my care and concern for humanity.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
These are patently false claims. We know of many myths from that era and there is much dispute over the literal existence of Jesus.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Yes there were.
Originally posted by C09JayLT
reply to post by ChickenPie
1. I don't want people screwing with me, and I am willing to give others the same respect in exchange.
2. Its good because it makes me feel good
I am the one who decides.
Originally posted by adjensen
If one was making up a story, in total, why would you make it contrary to belief?
Christ was not a person, so pointing out that human beings do not do something has no bearing on whether God can. There remains no evidence for option #2, but historical and documentary evidence for #1.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by adjensen
If one was making up a story, in total, why would you make it contrary to belief?
The messiah story is NOT contrary to what you'd already believe.
Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world.
This also fails to address why and how such a powerful god treated disease by exorcism of demons when clearly there are no demons involved with any of the problems of those afflicted in the bible stories. This glaring flaw alone indicates that we're dealing with a story sourced to men who had only the first century understanding of the universe, and not the understanding of a god who allegedly reveals truths about the universe.
Originally posted by ChickenPie
Why should you care about humanity?
Why should you concede to the moral standards of your culture?
Originally posted by adjensen
Yes, it is vastly contradictory to the Jewish belief and expectation at that time. Last time I looked, it's still contradictory.
Most significantly, Jewish tradition affirms at least five things about the Messiah. He will: be a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world.
(sourced from www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...)
Yep, that seems mighty contrary to the Messiah ingloriously dying on a Roman cross.
Let's see. 2,000 years ago, someone sees Jesus "driving an illness" out of someone. Not having a clue what the nature of illness was, they testify that he "drove out a demon". Damning evidence of the inaccuracy of the whole New Testament. Or, are you complaining that Jesus healed people without sitting down and explaining what a bacterial infection or virus was?
You claim that it is not up to you to prove God doesn't exist. I agree. You say that it's on me to prove that God does exist. I'm not so sure about that, but okay. Doesn't the same logic apply to your conspirators? That I need not prove that they don't exist, and you need to show that they do?
You mentioned earlier in the thread that if you had incontrovertible evidence that God existed, if he were to, say appear before you and a couple of other people and make some sort of show for you, that's what it would take to change your mind.
Doesn't it occur to you that you're demanding exactly what the Bible says happened to these people? Paul encountered God, with two other people, on the road to Damascus. Shared hallucination? If you had such an experience, would you tuck it away, say "oh, okay, I guess he does exist" and go on with life? Or would you run around telling people?
The people of that time converted, in large numbers, to a religion that not only seemed to fail to meet their expectations, but threatened their lives. Given the choice that they were somehow snookered into it, for reasons that you can't come up with (didn't "need to believe in something," they already believed in Judaism, didn't "need to find the Messiah", the Messiah they were being offered had failed by their standards, etc) or that there was enough proof of supernatural events and/or eyewitnesses to proof, I'll take the latter.
I'll further the conversation:
TD: But I don't believe in God or miracles
Me: Which is why you'll never see any evidence to the contrary. Not because it doesn't exist -- people see God every single day, in the scripture, in the world, and in other people -- but because you blot it out, whether with sensible thinking or, as above, illogical arguments.