This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'm curious about this statement. You agree that it is a valid argument, you believe that George Washington was "certainly" a real individual and yet you stop short with saying that Jesus was certainly a real individual and will only commit to saying he was "likely" a real individual. Why? If you trust the documents regarding George Washington why not those regarding Jesus Christ?
I fail to see the difference in the meanings.Also for our notes, ladies and gentlemen, the definition of "atheist" is much disputed on the internet. Until fairly recently it almost exclusively referred to the belief that there is no deity, but the majority of those today who identify as atheists actually mean that they do not believe that there exists deity. Most impartial dictionaries define it is the belief in a lack, rather than lack of belief, and so when I use the term "atheist" that is usually how I use it. Of course, given the confusion, it probably makes more sense not to use the word at all
Yes, I know what the general definitions are for those terms, thanks, although I disagree with your definition of atheist and agnostic. Nor do I agree that 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' can be used together with 'theist' or 'atheist'. One can no more be an agnostic atheist than they can be a theistic atheist.
Eric,
Reductio ad absurdum
Sadly those articles rely upon reduction ad absurdum and hold very little water for the thinking man. Those who enjoy an argument love to put words in their opponent’s mouth so that they can shoot them down but that is not real life – unless you are a blogger preaching to the converted. These blogs may fool some of the people some of the time but I don’t believe any thinking person will be taken in.
Blog 1. “Atheists have proven God Does Not Exist. Right?†No Eric. I have never met any atheist who claims that. The arguments presented in the blog are formulated on the assumption that God exists. No atheist would ever argue that way. The blog also uses faux-science to support some of its points – ‘Both these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science’. Really! All in all a failed effort at providing ‘evidence for God’ (the words in banner headline).
Blog 2. “Are your beliefs consistent with your world view?†A slightly more interesting blog but all it is really saying is that we human beings are inherently prone to fooling ourselves. Yes, I do agree and so would every atheist (Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Nietzsche).
As far as I can see, there is only one way to hold a consistent world view and that is to accept the Holy Scriptures as a total explanation for everything and reject everything that may contradict it. Unfortunately we all know of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible, let alone anything else and if we reject everything which conflicts with scripture we must, almost by definition, stop thinking for ourselves. No thinking person can possibly have a consistent, unmoving world view OR beliefs. Unfortunately things do change, for example slavery. Early Christians would have been quite relaxed with the notion of slavery, they may not have been happy being slaves but it was a fact of life and there was nothing in the OT or NT against it – quite the contrary.
Blog 3. “Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?†Oh dear where should I start? The blog is based upon the bible without any apparent thought of the origins of ‘myths’. So many issues need to be considered, starting with the gospels that did not make it into the bible – Peter, Magdelene, Thomas etc. Remember that the 1st Sinod at Mycea argued for ages about what should go into the bible and only eventually agreed under extreme pressure from Constantine – but that is not the most relevant thing given that the term ‘Myth’ has been introduced.
You really, really ought to be aware that myths about virgin births, dying for our sins, resurrection after three days, being the son of God, having twelve disciples, having a last supper, performing miracles, rising up into heaven, being born on 25 Dec, etc. pre-dated Jesus by thousands of years. Yes, these are very old myths.
According to myth: Augustus (son of Apollo), Agdistis, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Heracles, Korybas, Krishna, Mithras, Osiris (also called ‘Krst’, the Anointed One!!!) Perseus, Tammuz, Zoroaster and others were born of a virgin. Many of them were also born in a cave on 25th December, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, were crucified and were re-born after 3 days.
Osiris and Mythras are probably the most interesting ones if you have never studied them. Osiris was born in a cave of a virgin mother on 25th Dec (so was Mithras). His birth was announced by a star and attended by three wise men. His earthly father was ‘Seb’ which translates as ‘Joseph’. At 12, Osiris was a teacher in the temple and at 30 was baptised by ‘Anup the Baptizer’ who was later beheaded. Osiris performed many miracles including walking on water. He was betrayed by Typhon and crucified between two thieves on 17th Athyr (April?). Buried in a tomb he rose again on the third day which was celebrated each year at the vernal equinox (so was Mithras). He was also called “The Way, The Truth, The Light, Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, The Son of Man (sic), The Word Made Flesh†(Mithras had very similar titles). Interesting myths!
Why would there be so many similar myths about different characters? One possible explanation is that it all stems from the early sun worship. The sun ‘dies’ for three days in December when it appears to stop moving South and can be seen to be coming back again on 25th Dec. The sun could be seen to be coming back into the sky from ‘Virgo’ (virgin), the sun is the Light of the World, the sun ‘cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him’, the rising sun is literally the ‘Saviour of Mankind’, the sun wears a crown of thorns (corona) or a halo, the sun ‘walks on water’, the sun has 12 disciples (months OR signs of the Zodiac). OK, OK, it’s all very fanciful but I have only scratched the surface here.
There is so much myth, dating back to the earliest records of man, that one simply has to consider it OR deliberately ignore it all and choose to live in ignorance of it. The problem is not to explain how logical it is that Jesus really did do all the things described in the bible but why we should believe that Jesus did do them and these other ‘gods’ did NOT. If these others did NOT do any of the things done by Jesus, are we saying that the ‘historical’ records for all these others are all fabricated? I THINK we will all agree that the myths about these other gods were indeed ‘fabricated’, i.e. they are indeed myths, but if those records were fabricated, what about the gospels for Jesus and why did God simply repeat the existing myths when he sent his Son to earth?
Bear in mind that there are NO contemporary written records for Jesus and the earliest gospel was written roughly 30/40 years after his death. Up until then there was undoubtedly an aural tradition passing on the story from person to person but there was plenty of time to conflate these various characters. Mithras was after all the most popular god in the Roman Empire at the time. What a shame that the early Christians burned the great library of Alexandria and that Theodosius burned everything in Rome that differed from the agreed Canon. Sadly we are left with very little solid evidence upon which to base our belief.
The entire Bible makes it absolutely clear that God is wholly other, that he is the uncreated creator of man. God only dwells in those who believe in Jesus, and all that that entails.
Not sure what you are saying here. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man.Old Seer said:
No, God is not merely a force or forces. He is a personal being.Old Seer said:
In the Christian context, it refers to the One and Only Being who is the eternal Creator of all that exists.
Not really sure what you are saying here either.Old Seer said:
Once again, I'm not really sure what you're saying. What is this human/animal distinction and where is it found in Scripture?Old Seer said:
There are Roman and Jewish writings about Jesus.
a poor understanding of the bible and based on the talmud. while it is true that all men are made in the image of god and some of that reflection is there but that doesnt mean we have god in our hearts without repentance.OK, I'll explain. I meant to put this in my profile but couldn't find a place for it.
I am a member of a team of adventurers/explorers, scientists, engineers, scholars, psychoanalysts, and other fields, that study many things. One thing is the book and it's interpretations, along with other types of documents. We found something common but new. It's not that it's new so much---it's different and new perspective on things. The book has been interpreted by western religions creating faulty meanings. That is why you have trouble understanding me. I think this is a thread for Atheists so maybe I shouldn't be on this one. I just finished up on an Atheist site and now they know something they've never encountered. They were shown wrong.
No, God dwells in everybody. All are made in the image of God, therefore he dwells in all. The problem is understanding how. But, I think I should be on a different thread.
i guess i will go the sages.There's nothing in the book that relates to God separate from man (persons). It's construed that way by European thinking. The dark age Euros did a botch job on interpretations. Western and Middle Eastern mind sets are different. The Euros merely flavored it with their beliefs.
i am familiar with the talmud, if you look into my more recent posts i pulled things from chabad . org. that said not all of the talmud is inspired.A different knowledge of the book, not poor. What's wrong with the Talmud, it's only another Hebrew document. It' can be very important to understand the Hebrew mind set.
Are your referring to Tacticus?
Meh, I'm not going to get into a few page long semantics argument. I'll still call myself an agnostic atheist because it fits what I believe. I don't believe in a deity, but I'm not closed off to the idea of there being one. It makes the most sense to me, and I refuse to be shoehorned into a category that dosen't fit my beliefs.
"May have been". By that I hope you mean you do believe. No one in their right mind is going to deny that Jesus existed, what he did is what people debate.