Happy Atheist Forum

...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

The story of Jesus, and his teachings were not new in the first century. The story and teachings are an amalgamation of multiple predating characters and several other similar stories of the time, including Mithra, Horus, Appolonius, Zoroaster, and so on. The ideas existed long before the church codified them.

As for Sun Tzu, Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama, we have multiple accounts of their existences from independent sorces. That is why their existence is concidered history, not mythology.

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

You have exactly the same view of Jesus and Christianity as me Crow, that it was a result of the Hellenising of Judaism.

As an atheist it makes no difference to me if Jesus existed or not (I don't think he existed, but I'm also sceptical about the historical existence of Socrates, Gautama Buddha and King Arthur). Even if he did exist, he was just a Jewish philosopher who'd read too much Plato, not the son of Yahweh.

You're an atheist too, so Jesus' historicity is no big deal for you either. But I think Jesus' historicity matters massively to a Christian, if Jesus was a wholly mythological figure that destroys their religion and belief in their god. All they're left with is a mythical son of god like Heracles or Perseus and some second-hand philosophy, that's a big step down from 'the Son of God'!

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

Because what no good evidence they have is based on a partially hate filled doctrine and one of fear and twisted into a philosophy of love and believed in. The holy book is cherry picked to whatever a member of the death cult's particular world view means...or what they want their world view to mean. And sadly, in this country, that world view gives power in politics - power over the people in even the lowliest positions of the political spectrum.

So why argue? Well, there is the money, notoriety, fame, position...(all the things the make believe Jesus preached against)

Why do we argue against it? To keep planting the seeds of doubt, I would say. To try to get them to examine their own biases and prejudices, to see their cognitive dissonance as defective as we do...but only for a moment...enough to pry away the god goggles because as one is able to read much Christian response here, some of those goggles are veritably welded on.

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

Correct. In Christianity, the faith is wholly wrapped up in the person of Jesus, not just his teachings or ideas. It's much more dependent upon what he actually did rather than on what he said.  If his historicity were destroyed, the faith would die on the vine. Nothing else would have that effect, IMHO. 

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 15, 2012, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 02:25:56 PM
With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

Correct. In Christianity, the faith is wholly wrapped up in the person of Jesus, not just his teachings or ideas. It's much more dependent upon what he actually did rather than on what he said.  If his historicity were destroyed, the faith would die on the vine. Nothing else would have that effect, IMHO. 

That is incontrovertibly so.

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

I agree it doesn't matter because it's clear to anyone who cares to do the research that Jesus was not viewed as divine by all christians until a few centuries after his death (Council of Nicaea - 325 CE). That fact alone should carry some weight, yet with believers it doesn't.

Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 10:17:15 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

I agree it doesn't matter because it's clear to anyone who cares to do the research that Jesus was not viewed as divine by all christians until a few centuries after his death (Council of Nicaea - 325 CE). That fact alone should carry some weight, yet with believers it doesn't.

I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 12:09:22 AM
I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

I don't think so, but Xtians sure seem to.  Maybe that's another point of disconnection between religious and non-religious.

Quote from: Crow on February 16, 2012, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 12:09:22 AM
I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

I don't remember the names of the various sects off of the top of my head. I just think that it's pretty obvious that the council was determined to consolidate power and unify the church not to establish any factual basis for a religion. What they accomplished was forming a powerful political entity.

Quote from: Reprobate on February 16, 2012, 02:42:31 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 16, 2012, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: En_Route on February 16, 2012, 12:09:22 AM
I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

I don't remember the names of the various sects off of the top of my head. I just think that it's pretty obvious that the council was determined to consolidate power and unify the church not to establish any factual basis for a religion. What they accomplished was forming a powerful political entity.

Nicea did not in fact resolve the controversy. The key issue is that Christians have always believed that what Jesus said represented the word of God (whether or not he  himself was God or an emanation thereof) and if you remove that foundation the entire edifice of their faith collapses.

Quote from: Crow on February 14, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone.

But the bible itself is authoritarian.
Christian morality is authoritarian, driven via coercement from a (belief of an) all powerful, all knowing dictator.
There is no justification behind Christian morality, only that certain things are good because God says so and that certain things are bad because God said so, and of course God is perfect thus what he says must also be perfect and disobedience must be flawed and worthy of just punishment. This is more of a law than a morality. Christians amorally and selfishly obey this law. But that is not what gets them to heaven.

The funny thing about Christianity is that it is all about Jesus. Well, the name "Jesus" anyway and a belief that if you accept his death as payment for your sins then you get to go to heaven for eternal happiness.
If you used the name "Horus" instead, and accepted that Horus died for you and you then mentally accept Horus' sacrifice as payment of your sins, then presumably Christians would think that you are worshiping a false god and hence you will perish in hell.

Shakespeare wrote "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...", but Christianity does not accept this philosophy, for Christians the name "Jesus" is more important than the man. You must believe in the name, you must believe that this name represents your path from sin, your path to heaven.
It's exclusive nature is a driving force behind the growth of Christianity. No different to a brand name of a sporting franchise.

A most excellent post Stevil.

Quote from: Gawen on February 18, 2012, 03:43:23 PM
A most excellent post Stevil.

Indeed.

[edit] Same goes for all the other posts I have enjoyed reading them.

Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

Quote from: Stevil on February 18, 2012, 10:03:27 AM
Shakespeare wrote "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...", but Christianity does not accept this philosophy, for Christians the name "Jesus" is more important than the man. You must believe in the name, you must believe that this name represents your path from sin, your path to heaven.

Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 05:49:55 AM
Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 03:42:15 AM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 05:49:55 AM
Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I think that question answers itself, Bruce.  SD already answered it in the post you quoted.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 03:42:15 AM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 05:49:55 AM
Stevil's post makes A LOT of sense. I've said 'Jeebus' plenty if times, and   Xstians look at you like you're a monster for 'mocking the lord.'

I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

Thus spake Homer the Simpson: "Jeebus! HELP ME JEEBUUUUS!"

Selah.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 21, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 03:42:15 AM
I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I don't. I may, for instance, mildly mock another Alex by calling him(/her) axle, or a Leif by calling him loff (pronounced luf, means white bread)

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:57:53 AM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 21, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:17:44 AM
I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

But they don't know the person. The name does not represent the person to them.

If you asked me if I like Sir Edmond Hilary, I would say that his claim to fame was that he was (along with sherper Tinsing) the first person to climb Mt Everest.
That he used his popularity to encourage NZ children into sports, that he used his popularity to do good things for some people in India. I would say that my perception is that he was a great example of a humanist and that he input much benefit into the world.

However I would also have to say that I didn't know Sir Ed, that his private life is a mystery and that it is quite likely that the real man was quite different from my perception of the man behind the name. What Sir Edmond Hilary is to me is simply a name which represents a public image, a persona and that I actually don't know who Sir Edmond Hilary the man actual is.

I think the same thing applies to Jesus. The worshippers don't know the man. They worship a name and a persona, not the man. But to be on topic with this thread, could a Christian be a Christian without the worship of the Jesus name and the Jesus persona? I think the answer is no.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 09:24:43 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:17:44 AM
I think that any name is simply a symbolic place holder for an object or concept. All language is symbolic. If one writes Jesus or Jebus or Joshua bar Joseph we all know that the reference is to a person some consider to be the Son of God. It's the name (word) that is irrelevant, the concept it symbolises is the important part. Christians don't worship a name, they worship a concept that historically has become symbolised by the name Jesus.

But they don't know the person. The name does not represent the person to them.

If you asked me if I like Sir Edmond Hilary, I would say that his claim to fame was that he was (along with sherper Tinsing) the first person to climb Mt Everest.
That he used his popularity to encourage NZ children into sports, that he used his popularity to do good things for some people in India. I would say that my perception is that he was a great example of a humanist and that he input much benefit into the world.

However I would also have to say that I didn't know Sir Ed, that his private life is a mystery and that it is quite likely that the real man was quite different from my perception of the man behind the name. What Sir Edmond Hilary is to me is simply a name which represents a public image, a persona and that I actually don't know who Sir Edmond Hilary the man actual is.

I think the same thing applies to Jesus. The worshippers don't know the man. They worship a name and a persona, not the man. But to be on topic with this thread, could a Christian be a Christian without the worship of the Jesus name and the Jesus persona? I think the answer is no.

You have added persona to the mix. I would agree that they worship the idea/persona/concept of a Son of God, who just happens not to be called (insert any name you like here) but is currently called by some Christians Jesus. The persona is what's the important part, what that persona is called in irrelevant. The word Jesus could be Asmo. As long as the person speaking/writing the word is using the same meaning as the person listening/reading then communication has succeeded.

Take your example of Sir Edmund Hilary. If I asked "Who first climbed Mnt Everest?" and you replied "Sir Edmund Hilary." I would now know you thought a person (probably male given the name) had climbed Mnt Everest. If somebody then asked me "Who first climbed Mnt Everest?" I would say (because I trust you to not guess something you didn't know), "Sir Edmund Hilary." In this case we have a real person who is documented to have claimed to have climbed Mnt Everest, who we trust to be honest, his statement is verified by another person, who we also trust to be honest. We have a photograph of the alleged event. We have evidence in written form of ledgers and diaries of other people that Sir Edmund was on Mnt Everest at the time he claims to have climbed it. But suppose we didn't know the name of the person who climbed Mnt Everest. By some fluke we knew everything about the event but the name. We use a place holder 'That bloke from NZ'. That one change makes no difference to the action that was carried out. Mnt Everest was climbed, by "That bloke from NZ.'

Linguistically if a Christian says 'I believe that we have been saved by the son of god' or 'I believe that we have been saved by Jesus' they are saying the same thing where 'son of god' = Jesus. The word/name Jesus is simply the linguistic convention used by Christians to refer to the man who they believe was the son of god.

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 06:43:51 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 22, 2012, 03:42:15 AM
I suppose the question is why do you call him "Jeebus" when it's clear that this is not what his name was. You don't say "Cheeser" or "Alexeender".  Why do you reserve this particular expression of opprobrium for Jesus?

I don't. I may, for instance, mildly mock another Alex by calling him(/her) axle, or a Leif by calling him loff (pronounced luf, means white bread)

At least you are consistent.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:57:53 AM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 21, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Not so much.  I would disagree.  The name is only powerful in that we believe He is the son of God.  However one can probably invoke His blessings under another name as long as you refer to that "name" being the son of God and His redemptive work.  The name really does nothing in and of itself.  It's who that name refers to specifically that has the "power". 

But that makes no sense.

AD, you have never met the god's son. You wouldn't know what he looks like, what he sounds like. You don't know his personality. What is it that you are praising if it is not a name?

Are you praising the legend story of a character called "Jesus"?
You have read some stories about a person whom you don't know ever existed, written by people who themselves had only heard of the legend. You have read that he was put to death and then there were a few alleged sightings and then no more sightings.

If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think Tank is making the point well. 

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

There's a difference between having a lack of evidence for someone's existence, and evidence that they did not exist.

(As it happens, there were a few self-proclaimed Messiahs around that time)

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 22, 2012, 05:49:21 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

There's a difference between having a lack of evidence for someone's existence, and evidence that they did not exist.

(As it happens, there were a few self-proclaimed Messiahs around that time)

My answer stands.  It is already seen as a belief in fairytales...

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 03:41:34 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:57:53 AM
If "Jesus" could not offer you eternal life, would you praise him?

I think Tank is making the point well. 

OK so it is a persona, a legend that you praise and not the man, fair enough point.

Are you able to answer my question above?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Well I have never been christian (even though I was baptized) and the Jesus figure has always been totally irrelevant to my life but it is to many so that's where my interest into the subject comes from, not the religious side but rather the modern human relation with the idea. I do not think that there is any empirical evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus there is just a lack of evidence for his existence, therefore it's easy to take whatever way the individual likes. The main reason I started this thread is that if you watch a program such as The Big Questions there is always a christian representative that doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of god and sometimes they don't believe in the christian concept of god, however it's what Christianity represents beyond the supernatural which they feel associated with therefore they consider themselves to be christian, if the recent RDF poll was correct then this is the majority viewpoint of Christians in the UK. So we have living proof that if you remove Jesus from Christianity it caries on regardless therefore does it really matter if Jesus existed because it is still relevant to many people without the idea that Jesus was the son of god or that he even existed.

But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

Squirming?  I answered the question quite plainly.  I'm sorry it elludes you.  My answer is plainly, that the typical Atheist already thinks this is the case and yet here I stand...a Christian.

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 06:33:52 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

Which begs the question, what is so important about him being the son of god?

If he was the son of god, but had nothing to offer you, especially towards eternal life, then would you bother to praise him?

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If it were conclusive empirical evidence, it would have to be the end. If it were less than that, there would still be room for the faith that my experience has generated in me. But there would be no reason to stand in the face of conclusive evidence.  Probably wouldn't change my general way of living, but it would be the end of faith and would probably create an emotional/psychological crisis - the idea that I had based my worldview on a proven falsehood.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 06:33:52 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
That was a straight question from Crow. Why didn't you give it a straight answer? You can either answer yes or no. Why are you squirming?

Squirming?  I answered the question quite plainly.  I'm sorry it elludes you.  My answer is plainly, that the typical Atheist already thinks this is the case and yet here I stand...a Christian.

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 06:16:06 PM
But I am asking directly would that be the end of Christianity for you if it was proven that Jesus did not exist or even if he did but rejected the notion of being the son of god or a messiah if he did.

I suppose it would be the end of "Christ"ianity, wouldn't it?

The question was firmly directed at you and explicit in its content.  

QuoteEcurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:13:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:16:40 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:13:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:27:48 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:16:40 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:13:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

Like or dislike is not at issue. It was a straight answer to a straight question. He could have equally well have answered that his personal experiences would override any 'evidence' and from his perspective Christianity would not have been compromised.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:27:48 PM
I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:27:48 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:16:40 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:13:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
There are only two realistic answers to this question.
A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me.
B) Yes, it would mean the end of Christianity for me.

Which would it be AnimatedDirt A or B?

Am I being forced to answer a certain way?  I already answered the question. 

You are not being forced.
You didn't answer the question, you obfuscated.
Bruce did answer the question, very honestly in my opinion.

So because Bruce gave an answer you "like", it was honest where mine, apparently an answer you "do not like" is dishonest?

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

You're skirting around the question, is the difference, by pleading others' beliefs (or lack thereof) as already sufficing the context of the question. The question isn't about what atheists think (which I already pointed out as lack of belief due to lack of evidence), it's a personal question about what you would change, or not change, if faced with solid, empirical evidence that Jesus was a literary creation, and never existed. No such evidence exists, so you cannot compare the current context of disbelief with this hypothetical question. Is that a better explanation?

I think a somewhat better question to put to yourself and Bruce would be, what would change if the resurrection was proved false beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, if archaeologists uncovered a tomb, with a male skeleton that had been crucified; bones, linen, and inscription dated accurately to the right year, with a papyrus saying something like "This is Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph, executed in 33 AD by order of Pilate, governor of Judea, for claiming to be the Messiah". And DNA analysis corroborated the evidence. I don't think this scenario would ever occur, but this is a hypothetical round of inquiry. ;)

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:34:03 PM

Quote from: AD
I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.



EDIT: Sorted quotes - Tank

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:44:12 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

Quote
No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.

I think this might be as close to an answer as you're going to get, Tank. To paraphrase, AD would maintain his faith in Christ no matter what the evidence. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:44:12 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:34:03 PM

Quote from: AD
I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.

That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but the idea that we have irrefutable evidence in the non-existence of Jesus is a belief most atheists woud probably distance themselves.
It is almost impossible to prove the non-existence of something. What is the common atheist opinion is that there is not sufficient evidence to support the existence of a Jesus character. There is no good reason to believe that such a person existed outside the bible, which we know contains many claims that are just plain wrong.

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 22, 2012, 08:02:15 PM
There is no good reason to believe...

And as I stated in my original answer, yet here I am...a Christian.  Answered fully.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

If it was plain I would have understood it, sorry for being so fucking stupid.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:05:56 PM

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 22, 2012, 08:02:15 PM
There is no good reason to believe...

And as I stated in my original answer, yet here I am...a Christian.  Answered fully.

I was not challenging your answer to that question (You did, eventually, answer it), but challanging your statement that atheists know that there is no Jesus. I said that the common opinion of atheists is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a Jesus, rather then definitive evidence of his non-existence.
You did not adress that.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

It is not clear at all.
Are you saying that you acknowledge that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus did not exist?

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 22, 2012, 08:13:52 PM
I was not challenging your answer to that question (You did, eventually, answer it), but challanging your statement that atheists know that there is no Jesus. I said that the common opinion of atheists is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a Jesus, rather then definitive evidence of his non-existence.
You did not adress that.

As the topic of this thread, does it really matter whether the evidence is insufficient or definitive?  *Your opinion of me is the same regardless.  To the Atheist, there is enough to disbelieve and  so s/he does lots to belittle the Christian and their belief(s).  Take the Image Dump thread...take all the times on this forum alone that people have stated that they cannot stand Christians or those that will not believe or disbelieve as the evidence shows...*you (the Atheist) is hardly claiming to be on the opposite side of an equally valid belief are you? 

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:18:18 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

It is not clear at all.
Are you saying that you acknowledge that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus did not exist?

I'm finding this almost unbelievable.  Is it not your position as an Atheist that there is enough to disprove Christianity?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:25:16 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:18:18 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

It is not clear at all.
Are you saying that you acknowledge that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus did not exist?

I'm finding this almost unbelievable.  Is it not your position as an Atheist that there is enough to disprove Christianity?

Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:25:16 PM
I'm finding this almost unbelievable.  Is it not your position as an Atheist that there is enough to disprove Christianity?

The question was not about me, it was about you.

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 08:27:39 PM
Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

The question is answered by the Atheist him/herself.  The Atheist disbelieves for whatever reason and I believe inspite of it.  I think it answers the question plainly and in turn goes to show that (at least this Christian) does not put the weight of proof of God on Man, but puts faith in God and not in fallible Man.  I think I gave a more thourough answer than a simply 'yes' or 'no'.  I somewhat disagree with Bruce in that to me he suggests that he would put more weight on Man's knowledge than on God.  While it may do away with "Christ"ianity, it does not do away with God.  My faith would remain.  However, Bruce didn't go much further and I may simply be speculating on what he really meant if it were to be so or what he would do as far as belief.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:36:51 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 08:27:39 PM
Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

The question is answered by the Atheist him/herself.  The Atheist disbelieves for whatever reason and I believe inspite of it.  I think it answers the question plainly and in turn goes to show that (at least this Christian) does not put the weight of proof of God on Man, but puts faith in God and not in fallible Man.  I think I gave a more thourough answer than a simply 'yes' or 'no'.  I somewhat disagree with Bruce in that to me he suggests that he would put more weight on Man's knowledge than on God.  While it may do away with "Christ"ianity, it does not do away with God.  My faith would remain.  However, Bruce didn't go much further and I may simply be speculating on what he really meant if it were to be so or what he would do as far as belief.

"Wordy" does not equal "complete".

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 08:38:28 PM
"Wordy" does not equal "complete".

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:50:26 PM
More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:50:26 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 08:38:28 PM
"Wordy" does not equal "complete".

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

But again, it isn't about what HE believes.  The hypothetical is if YOU encountered such evidence.  I'm sorry, but this isn't a more nuanced answer: it's simple question-dodging.  You may say with full rights that you don't feel like addressing such a hypothetical situation, you may say that you feel uncomfortable with responding directly, you may even say "I don't know".  However, saying "Well, isn't that what you believe?" says nothing whatsoever about your personal belief system in terms of how you would respond to the situation presented.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:25:16 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:18:18 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 07:50:53 PM
That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

It is not clear at all.
Are you saying that you acknowledge that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus did not exist?

I'm finding this almost unbelievable.  Is it not your position as an Atheist that there is enough to disprove Christianity?

It is my opinion, and that of many others, that it is not neccesary or possible to disprove Christianity, as Christianity, or any other faith, has not been proven yet. Again, It is not that we claim to prove the non-existance, it is that there is no evidence of existance in the first place.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 22, 2012, 07:43:23 PM
I think a somewhat better question to put to yourself and Bruce would be, what would change if the resurrection was proved false beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, if archaeologists uncovered a tomb, with a male skeleton that had been crucified; bones, linen, and inscription dated accurately to the right year, with a papyrus saying something like "This is Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph, executed in 33 AD by order of Pilate, governor of Judea, for claiming to be the Messiah". And DNA analysis corroborated the evidence. I don't think this scenario would ever occur, but this is a hypothetical round of inquiry. ;)

This hypothetical poses a slightly different question, because such evidence would confirm that Jesus was a real person and it would give us a good basis for believing that at least the general gospel accounts about him were probably historical, if not in every detail, at least generally. But it would radically challenge my understanding of the resurrection, and undermine my faith to a great degree. I suppose I could still believe that Jesus' teachings were valid, and perhaps that there was a potential for an afterlife in some other realm.  But so much of Christianity is based on the resurrection that I don't think my faith would be anything like it is today. Again, this is a hypothetical, but if conclusive evidence on a point is presented, I can't ignore it.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:53:10 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:50:26 PM
More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:03:32 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:53:10 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:50:26 PM
More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:03:32 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 08:53:10 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:50:26 PM
More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:08:56 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

Quit the trolling AD or you'll find yourself with an 30 day suspension. - Tank

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

How does "Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief" equate to
"if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed"

It seems to me that you have rewritten the question and then answered your own question.

Many of us on this thread are interested to know your yes/no answer as it pertains to the original question.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:08:56 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:05:56 PM
Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

"Yes", "No", and "I don't know" would have been direct answers.  Instead, you're acting like Jesus before Pilate, throwing questions of his divinity back in the man's face with "Thou hast said it".  That's fine if you're looking to play games, but please don't insult my intelligence or the intelligence of the questioner by acting as if it's direct.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:08:21 PM
No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.  Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.  Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:08:21 PM
No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.  Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.  Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

AD I am now telling you to answer the question Crow asked in a straight forward manner or make no further comment in this thread. If you don't do either of these then I'm going to suspend your account for 30 days for trolling. Your behaviour in this thread is no longer conducive to reasoned or rational debate, you're just taking the piss in my opinion - Tank

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM


What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.

All of which is irrelevant to the question as stated, which presupposes that you have discovered incontrovertible proof that this evidence was absolutely incorrect.

Quote
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.

Saying that Atheism exists to the extent that it does (making fun of Christians) is like saying religion exists to the extent that it does (oppressing gays).  While such things do occur, this is a gross overgeneralization of the stance in question.

QuoteEven more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

If it does away with Jesus and his claims, you're absolutely correct that it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.  This actually comes close to answering the question, but not totally.  Would you still consider yourself  to be a Christian under these circumstances?  Not what other people would consider you to be, not what others think, but what would you consider yourself to be as a result?  Would it radically alter your way of thinking about the New Testament, or how you've interpreted the ministry of Jesus? How about your moral code?  Or would you simply shrug, say "I was mistaken about the specifics, but I still believe in God, though not in his son"?

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

Quote...proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve

You don't need evidence to disbelieve something. When an extraordinary (Which all things supernatural are pretty much by definition, by the way) claim is made, the default position is "it's bullshit".

QuoteEven more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

...And you would likely continue to believe as you do, possibly with minor changes, even if absolute and irrefutable evidence to the contrary was presented.

The "strength" of your beliefs and the beliefs themself are nothing to be proud of. The accumulated knowledge behind them, however, can be.

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
If it does away with Jesus and his claims, you're absolutely correct that it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.  This actually comes close to answering the question, but not totally.  Would you still consider yourself  to be a Christian under these circumstances?  Not what other people would consider you to be, not what others think, but what would you consider yourself to be as a result?  Would it radically alter your way of thinking about the New Testament, or how you've interpreted the ministry of Jesus? How about your moral code?  Or would you simply shrug, say "I was mistaken about the specifics, but I still believe in God, though not in his son"?

A "Christ"ian?  Didn't I say we'd (or *you) would have to come up with another name?  Which part of, 'I don't base my faith on Men's evidence' does not sit well with you?  

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:35:22 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
If it does away with Jesus and his claims, you're absolutely correct that it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.  This actually comes close to answering the question, but not totally.  Would you still consider yourself  to be a Christian under these circumstances?  Not what other people would consider you to be, not what others think, but what would you consider yourself to be as a result?  Would it radically alter your way of thinking about the New Testament, or how you've interpreted the ministry of Jesus? How about your moral code?  Or would you simply shrug, say "I was mistaken about the specifics, but I still believe in God, though not in his son"?

A "Christ"ian?  Didn't I say we'd (or *you) would have to come up with another name?  Which part of, 'I don't base my faith on Men's evidence' does not sit well with you?  

Oh, it's fine.  So you wouldn't call yourself a Christian, is what I'm getting from that.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm a theist.  I wholeheartedly believe in God due to personal experience.  I appreciate much of the ministry of Jesus as portrayed in the synoptic gospels, though I'm skeptical regarding his divinity.  I even believe that there's enough smoke out there to indicate that the fire of his existence occurred at some time, though I have no doubt in my mind that his words and teachings were modified over time due to the telephone game of oral tradition, and the various political and cultural issues involved when what we know of as the Bible was compiled.  

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:36:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Yes, yes... You don't buy the "men's evidence". (Defined as "evidence, developed by humans. Correct me if the definition is wrong or incomplete")

The thing is though, that's the only kind available in the known universe. Until we get in touch with a sufficiently advanced alien race (Herein, supernatural beings from hypothetical alternate dimensions/universes/planes of existene) or discover other highly intelligent life forms capable of complex communication with us on this planet, there is no evidence aside from "men's evidence"

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:45:36 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:36:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Yes, yes... You don't buy the "men's evidence". (Defined as "evidence, developed by humans. Correct me if the definition is wrong or incomplete")

The thing is though, that's the only kind available in the known universe. Until we get in touch with a sufficiently advanced alien race (Herein, supernatural beings from hypothetical alternate dimensions/universes/planes of existene) or discover other highly intelligent life forms capable of complex communication with us on this planet, there is no evidence aside from "men's evidence"

Thanks for further establishing my point exactly.  It only shows that I did answer the question at the very beginning...plainly.

Wow, such a long convoluted way to get to a simple answer.

As I understand it,
You do not accept human evidence with regards to gods or offspring of gods, therefore you have faith in an unverifiable god theory.

If somehow you were convinced that Jesus was not god's offspring then you would still believe in god but could not consider yourself to be a Christian hence you would be a deist or other theistic label.

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:45:36 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:36:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Yes, yes... You don't buy the "men's evidence". (Defined as "evidence, developed by humans. Correct me if the definition is wrong or incomplete")

The thing is though, that's the only kind available in the known universe. Until we get in touch with a sufficiently advanced alien race (Herein, supernatural beings from hypothetical alternate dimensions/universes/planes of existene) or discover other highly intelligent life forms capable of complex communication with us on this planet, there is no evidence aside from "men's evidence"

Asmo. It's hardly fair to ask AD questions after I posted this http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9354.msg155434#msg155434
I assume you haven't got that far through the thread yet.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:48:57 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:45:36 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:36:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Yes, yes... You don't buy the "men's evidence". (Defined as "evidence, developed by humans. Correct me if the definition is wrong or incomplete")

The thing is though, that's the only kind available in the known universe. Until we get in touch with a sufficiently advanced alien race (Herein, supernatural beings from hypothetical alternate dimensions/universes/planes of existene) or discover other highly intelligent life forms capable of complex communication with us on this planet, there is no evidence aside from "men's evidence"

Asmo. It's hardly fair to ask AD questions after I posted this http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9354.msg155434#msg155434
I assume you haven't got that far through the thread yet.

I didn't see that at all...

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:50:25 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:48:57 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:45:36 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:36:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on February 22, 2012, 09:33:19 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:14:46 PM
Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

I rest my case.

Yes, yes... You don't buy the "men's evidence". (Defined as "evidence, developed by humans. Correct me if the definition is wrong or incomplete")

The thing is though, that's the only kind available in the known universe. Until we get in touch with a sufficiently advanced alien race (Herein, supernatural beings from hypothetical alternate dimensions/universes/planes of existene) or discover other highly intelligent life forms capable of complex communication with us on this planet, there is no evidence aside from "men's evidence"

Asmo. It's hardly fair to ask AD questions after I posted this http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9354.msg155434#msg155434
I assume you haven't got that far through the thread yet.

I didn't see that at all...

Even after I have sent you a PM about it!

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:48:57 PM
I assume you haven't got that far through the thread yet.

Sorry... Baiters gonna bait.  :-[

Back to the other threads, I go.

Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:51:20 PM
Even after I have sent you a PM about it!

Sorry Tank, I don't normally take notice of my inbox at every post.  I'll try and be more aware of this in the future.

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If you mean as a religious affiliation/name, yes.  If you mean as my beliefs on the whole, no.
However if pressed for a definitive answer, no.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 10:03:57 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If you mean as a religious affiliation/name, yes.  If you mean as my beliefs on the whole, no.
However if pressed for a definitive answer, no.

I'd consider that to be a simple, straightforward, and reasonably definitive answer.

Friendly reminder: If you disagree with a moderator action on HAF, PM another moderator/admin, such as myself, and we'd be more than happy to offer the most objective arbitration we can muster to come to a fair and just resolution/compromise. Please don't simply report the moderator for trolling, though, even if you believe it to be the case. It's not that HAF isn't a community of equals, we are, but issues with moderators can be more problematic than issues with non-moderators because we've got the power to do things like ban and delete posts, making moderator problems potentially more dangerous.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:05:32 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 10:03:57 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If you mean as a religious affiliation/name, yes.  If you mean as my beliefs on the whole, no.
However if pressed for a definitive answer, no.

I'd consider that to be a simple, straightforward, and reasonably definitive answer.

The answer seems to have stifled the discussion...

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 23, 2012, 05:26:02 PM

Quote from: statichaos on February 22, 2012, 10:05:32 PM

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 10:03:57 PM

Quote from: Crow on February 22, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

If you mean as a religious affiliation/name, yes.  If you mean as my beliefs on the whole, no.
However if pressed for a definitive answer, no.

I'd consider that to be a simple, straightforward, and reasonably definitive answer.

The answer seems to have stifled the discussion...

Considering that the discussion had descended into various people hassling you to give the answer in a comprehensible form, that may be for the best.