Are you really an atheist?

[MadBomr101]

That is not entirely true.

I know that's why I qualified it with "basically."  It's all open to interpretation.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Why should anyone believe the first 4 books of the new testament? Who wrote them and when? The most conservative place the earliest one at at AD 60. I whole generation after Jesus died.

Actually some have argued for mid-50's for Mark.  And the Q document which is a major source in the Synoptics may go back much earlier (though Q itself has never been found). That being said, I'm 59, and can quite accurately recount events that happened to me 40 years ago.  Why couldn't the gospel writers or their sources do the same?

[Whitney]

I have problems remembering the details of a meeting that happened just this past august; I can remember generally what happened and what was discussed but details that didn't seem key at the time (like how I'd find my notes from the meeting a few months later) are gone.  Maybe those of us with less detailed memories are less likely to trust eye witness testimony the longer the time frame since the actual event.

[Egor]

Egor, can you please go further back and review the comments between now and the last time you were in to comment.  There are things that myself and others would like you to respond to, if you please.  Thanks.

No. If you have a question ask it. Either I didn't feel like responding to you or I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Either way, I'm all about going forward not back.

You are wrong in assuming that if someone doesn't accept Jesus that they simply haven't read the gospels.  Most of the members here have read it; a majority of ex-christians will tell you that reading the bible is what made them have to quit accepting it as real.

I'm talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not the Bible in its entirety. Be that as it may, I never said if someone doesn't accept Jesus it's because they haven't read the Gospels. I suggested they may want to try reading them again without worrying what others have told them they are supposed to mean.

Now, are you going to provide us with your obvious evidence for God existing or do you now agree that it is justifiable to not have a belief in god when there is absence of both objective and individual evidence?

Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.

Do you disagree?

why is that? that then brings ANOTHER problem, are all of the revelations of god in the OT invalid? that doesn't make sense.

I have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.

Egor, if that were true, Christ would've NEVER mentioned the God of the OT...BTW the OT is the only "Bible" Christ knew and referred to.

God is both Judge and Savior.  While I don't hold that the God of the OT is the Judge and the God of the NT is the Savior (I believe both aspects of God's character are revealed in both the OT and NT) that's to say that the Judge side may be the prevelant trait seen by a glance at the OT.  The OT is full of the same grace taught in the NT.  The ONLY difference MAY be that the OT's grace from God was mostly a promise of later salvation.  However to those that followed God, experienced His grace daily as that of the NT believer. 

Whatever. It's not my book; it's your book. My books are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I appreciate that Jesus read from what we call the Old Testament, but his life and teachings have fulfilled that. There's no reason for the books of the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Canon other than that the early Catholic Church made them to be. But I'm not a Catholic and I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. To me, their sole purpose has been to preserve the four Gospels.

And frankly, I think all this talk is useless and distracting. Atheists don't believe in God. Period. Who cares what the Bible says, if we're talking about people who believe God is the same as a flying spaghetti monster? Hmmm?

I might not have a problem with that, removing the supernatural elements and the idea of a personal god.  But Christ as god?  No, I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible cover to cover twice and nothing I've read in there makes that sound even remotely likely. 

Then what can I say? Jesus Christ is the only revelation of God that matters. If you can blow off Christ when the entire Western World bowed down to him for 2000 years, I suppose that's where you're going to be until you die.

I know one thing for sure, if Christ did have supernatural knowledge, then we might as well throw out germ theory and accept that diseases are caused by demons. The guy was a radical philosopher (for his location and especially societal/cultural context), but saying that he is god is going a bit too far.

He's a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.

Yes, but the golden rule is one of those things that are hardwired into human brains, it's just reality isn't as simple as that and so moral dilemmas and discussions happen. 

Actually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)

Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.

I have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?

It's possible that if there was a historical Jesus, that he even thought up the golden rule based on basic moral common sense independently, without ever having read up on more ancient philosophers who wrote of it first, such as Confucius.

Well, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?

I think that in the historical context of the time, Jesus' message (whether or not he actually existed, the teaching attributed to him) still could've been a step up compared to what people were thinking.  Though that doesn't make him a god (I'm not arguing for that) I think it's way more likely that he was still a radical philosopher that got deified over time. The one that survived at least. 

According to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.

Back on topic, I consider myself an Agnostic. (weak atheist, pick your poison...)    I know that I do not know whether God does or does not exist.   It has not been proven to me either way.    There is a significant lack of evidence on both sides of the equation, and believe me - it is completely understandable lack of evidence given that we live for Maybe 70 years on average if we're lucky and the course of human history is many, many times that number in years.

Now think of the game you may have played in school as a child, where you are given a sentence and pass it on through your classmates one by one and by the end the sentence is nothing like you were given originally.    So went the course of human history, given to new generations first only by oral tradition, then finally by written tradition.   Somewhere along the lines though - man, as in humanity, or a man, or group of men, whoever realized that history could be whatever it is they wanted it to be.    By making small adjustments in text they could influence the masses.    I see this as a more plausible theory than that Jesus was the son of God AND God through some supernatural twist of logic.

It's worse than that, you know? First the Gospels were written in Ancient Greek, then translated to Coptic, then translated into Latin, and then translated into Old English, and today we have the New International Version and Paraphrased Editions. There are no original manuscripts in existence. We don't even know who wrote them. The names are simply ascribed to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). And as someone mentioned above, the earliest the originals may have been written is some 20 years after the event.

Today, we see this religious approval given for things that would have been heresy in years past, now given out like candy.

So, don't go to church.

[Gawen]

He's [Jesus] a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.

Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.

Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.

Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.

[Too Few Lions]

Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Do you disagree?

I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.

I have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.

Whatever. It's not my book; it's your book. My books are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I appreciate that Jesus read from what we call the Old Testament, but his life and teachings have fulfilled that. There's no reason for the books of the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Canon other than that the early Catholic Church made them to be. But I'm not a Catholic and I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. To me, their sole purpose has been to preserve the four Gospels.

Egor, do you see your god as being Yahweh, the god of the Jews / Israelites? Or, like some early Christians, do you believe your god is different from Yahweh. If you believe your god is Yahweh, I don't see how you can dismiss the OT.

Then what can I say? Jesus Christ is the only revelation of God that matters. If you can blow off Christ when the entire Western World bowed down to him for 2000 years, I suppose that's where you're going to be until you die.

technically it was something nearer 1400 years, and it was also highly dangerous to be anything other than a fairly orthodox Christian during that period (unless you liked the idea of being jailed, tortured or burned alive!) If you think Muslims are intolerant of non-Muslims, they're wet liberal pussies compared with Christians throughout most of their history. Christianity ruled supreme during the Dark and Middle Ages, it was hardly the western world's finest moments.

According to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.

Plenty of people have questioned the historicity of Jesus, including some scholars. Obviously it would have been a very dangerous pursuit for a lot of the past 2000 years. Scholars also generally assumed Moses was also a historical figure 100 years ago, Jesus may end up also having his historicity reassessed in the future. Given that we have no archaeological or non-Christian evidence to corroborate the gospels stories, I don't see how any of the gospels can be seen as 'proof' of Jesus' historical existence.

It's worse than that, you know? First the Gospels were written in Ancient Greek, then translated to Coptic, then translated into Latin, and then translated into Old English, and today we have the New International Version and Paraphrased Editions. There are no original manuscripts in existence. We don't even know who wrote them. The names are simply ascribed to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). And as someone mentioned above, the earliest the originals may have been written is some 20 years after the event.

They may even have been written up to 50+ years later than that. Given all of the above problems that you yourself have mentioned, along with others such as the variations in the story between the four gospels accounts and also the variations between different versions of the same gospel, I don't see how they can be viewed as the inerrant word of any deity.

[history_geek]

No. If you have a question ask it. Either I didn't feel like responding to you or I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Either way, I'm all about going forward not back.

I think you are now confusing "not backing down" not "your opinnions do not matter and do not need adressing" or something similar. Either way, you are no longer arguing, and only make your position worse if you do not take earlier posts and opinnjion into account in your responses.

Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.

Do you disagree?

Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it. Of course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator". Of course, I might have misunderstood that, but hopefully someone can correct me in that case...

Second of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?

Also, have you ever heard about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

Your claims seemed a lot like the same thing...

I have nothing to say about the Old Testament. It's not part of my Canon, and I won't defend it. I use it as an historical reference, that's it. Why not ask me about the Book of Mormon, for that matter, or the Koran? I have no comment about them, either.

Well, for starter, all the claims of Jesus' supposed divinity are based on OT prophesies...

And I'm sorry, but I have to facepalm if you just tried to hint that any part of the bible is historical documentation that can be relied upon. As I said before, at best it is historical fiction.

Actually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)

Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.

I have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?

Well, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?

I would say that no, Jesus did not "popularize" it, but make it perhaps a bit better know. If he had succefully popularized it as anything else then a quotation, we would have a very different looking world and christian religion.

And it was not implied as being "rule of morality of the universe" but as a philosophical idea that can be universaly, in other words largly and almost everywhere, found amongst many religions and cultures in one form or another.

According to everything I've read, no serious historian suggests that Jesus didn't exist. Actually, there's proof in the first chapter of John, but that's another topic.

Well, as again I might point out, bible is not a very convincing as a source of evidence to prove something that it itself claims. Further more, there are historians, both athesit and theists that seem to think that a person existed who could be called "Jesus", but there is nothing to suggest that this person was the one of the many conflicting gospel accounts. As stated before, Jesus is and remains a historically possible charater, who maybe based upon a real single person or a group of them.

NOTE: It took me several hours to post this response thanks to medeling siblings, so I have no idea what I've missed and will react to those in the comming posts, instead of this one

Edit: Well, not much was added it seems...

[Heisenberg]

Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.

Oh boy, this is revolutionary stuff. Have you alerted the vatican of your 'proof'?

[Whitney]

I couldn't make a clean split so I moved the proof of god stuff to a new thread by just copying the responses into a new post:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0

[xSilverPhinx]

He's a revelation of God. He's the Son of God. He's the third person of the Trinity. God, the Father, is way too abstract and fundamental for the human mind to accept or understand. We must have a revelation of God that works in our minds in order to draw anywhere near to God.

I think he's more of a deified legend, I used the germ theory example to show that he didn't demonstrate having any knowledge that was beyond his time. If he did, he would've known that leprosy and other diseases were not caused by demons. For the sake of this argument I'm assuming that there was a historical Jesus. On the other hand, we know that people are easily fooled, and turn others into legends that can get a bit out of hand. So...why didn't Jesus have access to extraordinary knowledge if he was divine in any part (the trinity or whatever)? If something were registered in the bible non ambiguously such as Jesus explaining how diseases are caused by germs, or Einstein's theory of General Relativity, then I would certainly be much more convinced, and certainly very intrigued. That would be extraordinary.

Actually, all moral dilemmas are solved by the Golden Rule (That's why it is called the Golden Rule.)
Love God with all your heart and mind by loving your neighbor as yourself by doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Um, no, actually they're not because of subjective preferences it doesn't solve every moral dilemma. Also, sometimes there are conflicts such as a person starving to death stealing to feed his family. Stealing is wrong, that person surely wouldn't want to be robbed themselves and yet they do it.

Sometimes some people don't mind being harmed, and use that justification to harm others. The dark side of the golden rule, is it not?

I have no idea if he picked that up from somewhere else, but he sure popularized it, didn't he?

Well, if it's the golden rule of morality for the entire universe, yeah, I suppose he was quoting it from another source. What was he going to do? Change it?

The wiki article lists people who spoke of the same rule centuries before Jesus.

It's one of those more universal hardwired moral instincts, not something that needed Jesus to bring to the world. 

[Egor]

I couldn't make a clean split so I moved the proof of god stuff to a new thread by just copying the responses into a new post:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=2.0

I appreciate that. I'm going to respond to some of the replies since my last reply, but I'm going to address anything to do with that argument in the new post you made. Again, thanks.

[Egor]

Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.

Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.

Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.

Honestly. When it comes to Jesus Christ, I think the last thing we need to worry about is the opinion of the Jews. They had their time with him and we all know how that turned out.

Egor, do you see your god as being Yahweh, the god of the Jews / Israelites? Or, like some early Christians, do you believe your god is different from Yahweh. If you believe your god is Yahweh, I don't see how you can dismiss the OT.

First, I don’t dismiss the OT. It is the historical background info needed for the Gospel. I just don’t believe it’s inerrant or God’s Word, the way the Gospels are. As for giving God a name, I don’t do that. God is God. It’s the same God for everyone. As the human race has progressed, so to has our revelation of God, culminating with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't see how any of the gospels can be seen as 'proof' of Jesus' historical existence.

Well, I’ll have to show you some time.

They may even have been written up to 50+ years later than that. Given all of the above problems that you yourself have mentioned, along with others such as the variations in the story between the four gospels accounts and also the variations between different versions of the same gospel, I don't see how they can be viewed as the inerrant word of any deity.

Simple. Nothing in them is an error. Point one out if you think there is an error and let’s talk about it.

Sometimes some people don't mind being harmed, and use that justification to harm others. The dark side of the golden rule, is it not?

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That is the standard of love.

[xSilverPhinx]

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That is the standard of love.

It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.

[Davin]

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.

It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.

I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.

[xSilverPhinx]

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.

It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.

I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.

Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. Then basically don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.

*Edited for grammatical corrections.