Castanet

Necro wrote:No archeological evidence exists proving jesus walked this earth.

none

You're getting ridiculous.

Are you demanding a higher level of proof than you'd likely accept if the person in question wasn't Jesus?

What if I suggested your great grandmother didn't exist? (I'm not making that claim). I wouldn't be asking for experts on the subject. Is it the length of time since death that makes you feel that you're taking the appropriate stance on the subject of Jesus death? If thats the case, then I guess you believe that only the animals found in fossils are the only ones that ever existed?

I, too, am an atheist, but your quest to just fight over religion is a bit absurd. You're not even picking on god this time.

I too was wondering what piece of archaeological evidence one would reasonably expect to find of the existence of a humble carpenter's son who travelled around for only three years with a small group, on foot, taking basically no belongings with them.

Here's archaeological evidence of a second century house church from before Christianity was an organized religion. This is before Constantine's reign so obviously before the Roman Church supposedly made up all of these lies. I'm sure it's of little to no signifigance though, since there are so many highly credible memes which poo poo anything to do with Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church

Ooooh, lookit lookit! Another meme. How persuasive.

Why is it, when atheists have their backs against the wall, they resort to the "you all think there's an old guy with a beard in the clouds" routine?

Why is it that atheists like to spend so much time in religious forums?

fluffy wrote:Why is it that atheists like to spend so much time in religious forums?

Self defense? If the religious were not so politically active trying to impose their beliefs on others, atheists would probably have no problem with them. I'm not even an atheist and I can see their anxiety because the religious' activity affects me and those I care about.

cliffy1 wrote:Self defense? If the religious were not so politically active trying to impose their beliefs on others, atheists would probably have no problem with them. I'm not even an atheist and I can see their anxiety because the religious' activity affects me and those I care about.

So if religious people shouldn't be politically active then atheists also shouldn't be politically active? Who should be politically active?

I have no religious affiliation, by the way, I'm just wondering who is allowed to be politically active in your opinion. Who is allowed to try and "Impose their beliefs" by participating in the political process and getting involved? And who should just shut their mouths and do what the man says?

Isn't anyone who is politically active essentially trying to "impose their beliefs" on others? If they really had their way and were able to persuade the majority to support them, regardless of what they believe or disbelieve, isn't that actually their goal? Even though they may honestly believe it to be what is best for others, aren't they essentially trying to impose their beliefs on others?

youjustcomplain wrote:
Are you demanding a higher level of proof than you'd likely accept if the person in question wasn't Jesus?

Yes.

When proof that a living, breathing god visited our little planet 2000 years ago becomes an exercise in futility, one is left with the logical conclusion that this assertion is false, and it was we, humans, who invented jesus christ.

Necro wrote:When proof that a living, breathing god visited our little planet 2000 years ago becomes an exercise in futility, one is left with the logical conclusion that this assertion is false, and it was we, humans, who invented jesus christ.

Have you considered that you are basing your conclusions on traditional beliefs that are fast losing ground within the religious community?

cliffy1 wrote:Self defense? If the religious were not so politically active trying to impose their beliefs on others, atheists would probably have no problem with them. I'm not even an atheist and I can see their anxiety because the religious' activity affects me and those I care about.

Generalizations like "the religious" do you a disservice cliffy1. Trying to impose ones political beliefs on others is by no means exclusive to religious groups, in fact I doubt if religious people who fit your description are even in a majority. Those who come off as "aggressively" religious often do so with an agenda that is anything but religious.

fluffy wrote:Have you considered that you are basing your conclusions on traditional beliefs that are fast losing ground within the religious community?

I don't have time to list all the particular sciences responsible for long-standing "beliefs" losing ground within the religious community, that said I am quite pleased to know members of my family will not be subjected to the pseudoscience offered up by creationists.

Just the pseudoscience of the zeitgeist movies and Horus is Jesus kinda stuff instead?

I'll bite one more time.

Can anyone agree that Jeshua Bin Joseph was, perhaps, simply a nut that people took too seriously (or that his first followers made their own conclusions about him)? That his story has changed greatly over the last however many years. That he may have been someone else altogether, replacing the identity of another being. That he may have been an invention all along. My point is that the only thing we have to go off of is written possibilities, not solid evidence. I just don't get how people from either side of the debate can make an assertion and suddenly expect everyone to accept it. This has all been discussed many times over the years. Don't you people tire of debating this so often?

I have a radical thing to consider: There is not enough proof to say he existed, and there not enough proof to say he didn't exist. Maybe keeping conclusions personal is best, because few are going to be convinced by strangers on an Internet forum. This is especially true when half-baked arguments are presented, and when the discussion becomes circular.

Necro wrote:I don't have time to list all the particular sciences responsible for long-standing "beliefs" losing ground within the religious community, that said I am quite pleased to know members of my family will not be subjected to the pseudoscience offered up by creationists.

I see. You'll make sure they are indoctrinated into the atheist school of thought then?

Evidence: The available body of information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Since every supernatural entity that has ever existed for humans (such as Zeus, Thor, Krishna or Jesus) has exactly the same amount of evidence I guess we have to believe in all of them.

We don't say that there is equal evidence for a flat earth as there is for a spherical earth. One hypothesis won out. That's how science works. When there is no evidence or unclear evidence we keep on working on the problem at hand until we have a better explanation.

Do we have evidence for a man named Jesus. Yes. Is there evidence for his miracles? No, only hearsay of people who couldn't have been eye witnesses. Stories written 40 + years after the alleged events.

Conclusion- bunkum from mostly illiterates, decades after any supposed 'supernatural' events.