The God Delusion

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

So you're saying the souns of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping?

I'm not actively trying to figure out the answer, eh. I'm just waiting for you to provide it to me.

its a logically impossible statement

-through linguistic definitions of words certain concepts are incompatible in nature e.g. "married bachelor"

- inherent in the meaning of the word "clap" is one thing hitting another - also necessary is that these objects "clapping" will cause a sound wave & this sound wave will find a receiver (sound)

The word "clap" loses its original meaning when used in the context of a singular object (one hand) & becomes nonsensical

answer: one hand can't clap

[CCS]

Hey thanks for the explanation, Professor Hawking. I'm not sure you realise what I'm doing here.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

*Sigh* *yawn*
Its the scholarly consensus that a man existed called Jesus who was a Jewish teacher & who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in (Palestine) during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

What scholars/historians contest is the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels - not whether or not a man called Jesus actually lived at that time.

Well then, you should be able to provide the names of ten -- actually, to make it easy, make it two -- no, just make it ONE -- of the scholars/historians* who form this "consensus".


* specialists in ancient history who have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals. Not some anonymous poster at jesuslovesmeohyeshedoes.com.

[Redneck]

Everyone read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Simon

Well then, you should be able to provide the names of ten -- actually, to make it easy, make it two -- no, just make it ONE -- of the scholars/historians* who form this "consensus".


* specialists in ancient history who have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals. Not some anonymous poster at jesuslovesmeohyeshedoes.com.

I realise that you have faith in Jesus being a myth . . . but

Originally Posted by EXTRACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus A small minority[*] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.
[*]"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."

(this page a lot of external links, notes, references etc. to test your faith even further)

[CCS]

Wow, that's really convincing.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Wow, that's really convincing.

Are you being sarcastic? Its difficult to tell with you




by the way my faith jokes weren't meant to offend anyone - just to flip the script

[CCS]

C'mon, biblical scholars? Wikipedia? Sounds like you've got Simon cornered there...

[Trigger]

I'm with ccs
lol evidence~

[?>Superman]

We get told off for using Wikipedia as a resource in a simple university assignment(most markers won't count it at all).

While it might be alright as a guide and help you find out interesting things about which celebrity has made a sex tape or not, it isn't considered a valid source.

So in conclusion, nice try but no cigar.

[Lightspeed]

How many people in this thread are claiming there is no historical evidence of Jesus while at the same time lauding the James Cameron documentary as a big "In Your Face" to Christians?

[fixed_truth]

i agree with your comments about wiki - citing wiki in an assignment would be referencing incorrectly - in fact concerning ANY information on the internet its VERY important to always CITE PRIMARY SOURCES (wiki articles are heavily footnoted so its easy to check accuracy of information/interpretation from the horses mouth).

Regarding the evidence - you are only correct that there is no 'conclusive' proof if you make 'conclusive' mean a very strong sense, but one cannot find any proof in THAT sense of pretty much any figure in the ancient world - we have just as much or more evidence for Jesus than for many other figures in the ancient world whose evidence we never doubt (e.g. Alexandra, Buddha).

My point is that in this field of thought & research the level for something to be considered "True" has been achieved concerning historical Jesus, and this is widely accepted.

Also claiming that the only unbiased views on Jesus only come from atheists and agnostics is just ridiculous. Although that would make my view unbiased

[Simon]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My point is that in this field of thought & research the level for something to be considered "True" has been achieved concerning historical Jesus, and this is widely accepted.

No, it hasn't. And no, it isn't.

There are NO PRIMARY SOURCES of evidence suggesting the existence of Jesus other than the Gospels, which -- and call me paranoid here -- may be slightly, well, self-serving shall we say.

[Lightspeed]

Well, based on your testimony I guess I can sit satisfied James Cameron's documentary is a load of horse shit.

[Simon]

I'll be right next to you, thinking the same thing

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by ?>Superman

We get told off for using Wikipedia as a resource in a simple university assignment(most markers won't count it at all).

While it might be alright as a guide and help you find out interesting things about which celebrity has made a sex tape or not, it isn't considered a valid source.

So in conclusion, nice try but no cigar.

Yeah - but studies have shown that wikipedia is almost as good, if not better, than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[cyc]

To be honest, I question why anyone would consult AND reference entries from an encyclopedia for a university assignment. Go and use either primary sources or reference some decent journal articles.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Simon

No, it hasn't. And no, it isn't.

There are NO PRIMARY SOURCES of evidence suggesting the existence of Jesus other than the Gospels, which -- and call me paranoid here -- may be slightly, well, self-serving shall we say.

good morning hows the heads this morning? better that mine i hope.

Most of what is known of the ancient world comes from the firsthand (or primary) accounts of ancient authors. They are the basis for our understanding of the ancient past.

In this branch of learning there aren't proofs in the a posteriori sense. Scholar opinions are deduced or presumed as accurately as possible using 'The Historical Method' - "The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history". (a scholar is a person specialising in this field)

Like any subjective field of study the majority of scholar opinions determine the truth. This truth is not fixed and evolves in context of different periods in history.

You may agree with the opinion by some scholars that there is not good evidence that Jesus did exist. The mainstream academic opinion among scholars, Christian or not, is that there is good evidence that Jesus did exist.

[lektronimo]

Originally Posted by ?>Superman

We get told off for using Wikipedia as a resource in a simple university assignment(most markers won't count it at all).

It is also banned for referencing in some American Universities (don't know which) because, well, because it's wikipedia...

[Know me.]

Interesting. That’s not the truth its just the weight of opinion. I think the truth is only the truth when you experience it and unfortunately unless we invent time travel and go back OURSELVES we are stuck with our opinions as to the existence of Jesus. I'm curious as to why Richard Dawkins said something along the lines that there is good evidence to suggest that Jesus did exist. Maybe he was conceding that point to stop any argument that would take away the emphasis on the main arguments around virgin births and resurrection.

[Whiplash]

He probably said it because whether or not normal-joe-Jesus existed was irrelevant to his argument.

Story-time-Jesus (what 'real' jesus may have been turned into as part of storytelling or whatnot) is what is important in his argument about faith.

[Solvent]

Citing Wikipedia in academic writing, you're kidding right?

Nothing against Wikipedia as a casual tool, but it has no place within academic documents.

[JERI]

Wikipedia articles usually list their references anyway, just use those and it's sweet.

[Foggerty]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The mainstream academic opinion among scholars, Christian or not, is that there is good evidence that Jesus did exist.

Yes/No.

Somone kick started the whole Christian cult way back when, he was male, he was most probably called Jesus or something similar, he did go against mainstream Judaism while still being considered Jewish and was killed by the Romans. The last wasn't too hard to achieve back then since the govener, Pilate, was a total bastard who had a LOT of people killed and seemed to have it in for the Jews in a seriously disturing way. The being killed by the Romans bit seems to be agreeded on by pretty much all ancient sources that I've seen referenced, it was the saying "ouch" and getting up again for a stroll that was disagreeded on. Was he as important and caused as much of a fuss as the gospel writers made out? No.

Was he the same person that the New Testament writers were referring to? Quite probablly - most biblical scholars now belive that they were all referencing a slightly older (than the first gospel) source refered to as the 'Q' gospel.

Is this proof? No, but there is supporting evidence to say that such a person did exist. The new Testament writers and the early Christian chuch got excited over somone, but as to the accuracy of what was written about him...

[doppelgänger of someone]

(This is just WIP, posted here just for laughs)

Roman history confirmed that there was someone called Jesus. Probably Jesus did exist. But the real question is, is this 'Jesus' son of God, who died to save us from hell etc. etc.? How can people reconcile the existence of Jesus the person with Jesus's faulty metaphysics (e.g. God created the world in seven days, modern science says guess again.) It would be easy to imagine Jesus was only a charismatic leader of a sect of the Jewish faith, and no more. And the Christian faith is just a cult turned mainstream. This explains why Jesus got the metaphysics so wrong (like any other person living in the ancient past). Let me run with this tangent for just a moment.

Biblical Jesus was a great moral philosopher, the golden rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is as relevant today as it was two thousand years ago. Cult stemming from philosophers (e.g. Wittgenstein, Derrida, Foucault, Popper) are not self regenerating, people who had actual contact with the founders have good chances to become cultist, everyone else just treat the leaders as historical figures. The moral philosopher comparable with Jesus in terms of popularity is Confucius (a large chuck of eastern culture is based on his teaching), who also framed the so called negative golden rule ("What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others"; golden rule tells you what you SHOULD do, Confucius' negative rule tells you what you should NOT do.) But Confucius only got rabid followers when he was alive; Jesus has rabid followers for centuries.

How did the Jesus cult turned into such a popular force? A lot of people reckons Jesus makes a positive contribution to their lives. I believe them, and you can probably argue that the may bad behaviour committed in the name of Jesus (e.g. crusade, too many bad Church behaviour) are done in defiance to Jesus' teachings. (c.f. all the so called commuists (esp. Lenin!) are not by-the-book Marxists)

Why is the Christian faith still useful? Was it because it combined superstition with geniune moral philosophy that makes it such an attractive mix? Scientific realist would offer another conclusion: Jesus cult is popular because it is literally true.

Scientific realist argues that scientific theories states the truth about this world, and their reasoning goes something like this: scientific theories are instrumentally successful (theories of relativity make lots of predictions that comes true). The REASON why scientific theories are instrumentally successful is that scientific theories are *literally* true (i.e. BECAUSE theories of relativity is literally true, that's why they make true predictions). (There is an intermediate step, in the form of no-miracle argument. Details are irrelvant here)

A LOT of people can testify for the instrumental success of the Christian faith. The REASON why Christian faith is so instrumentally successfully, according to scientific realist, would be that Christian faith is literally true, i.e. God did create earth in seven days.

The final coup de grace: scientific realists are committed to science, now their argument is used to justifiy unscientific claims.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Second paragraph tries to flesh out the hypothesis that Jesus was a cult leader, and tries to argue that it is highly unlikely that a cult leader will have any lasting effect on this world. Important related to No-miracle argument. Can be ignored without affecting the argument structure.

So the argument structure is something like this:

Christian faith is instrumentally useful
(Via No-Miracle Argument)
THEREFORE Claims made by Christian faith (including its metaphysics, e.g. God created the world in seven days; Golden rule, etc.) are literally true.

Compare with a well known philosophical argument, argument for *scientific realism* (search Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for reference to this theory)

Scientific theories are instrumentally useful
(Via No-Miracle Argument)
THEREFORE scientific theories are literally true.

[Whiplash]

Put down the crack pipe.

[Know me.]

A must read. This is where I've been heading for all you people that think I have gone mad

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20...ichard-Dawkins

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Know me.

A must read. This is where I've been heading for all you people that think I have gone mad

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20...ichard-Dawkins

Originally Posted by richarddawkins.net

Well, do we know of any comparable examples, where stupid ideas have been known to spread like an epidemic? Yes, by God! Religion. Religious beliefs are irrational. Religious beliefs are dumb and dumber: super dumb. Religion drives otherwise sensible people into celibate monasteries, or crashing into New York skyscrapers. Religion motivates people to whip their own backs, to set fire to themselves or their daughters, to denounce their own grandmothers as witches, or, in less extreme cases, simply to stand or kneel, week after week, through ceremonies of stupefying boredom. If people can be infected with such self-harming stupidity, infecting them with niceness should be childsplay.

LOL

[Simon]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

(This is just WIP, posted here just for laughs)

Roman history confirmed that there was someone called Jesus.

It did? Where?

(This game never gets old)

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Know me.

A must read. This is where I've been heading for all you people that think I have gone mad

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20...ichard-Dawkins

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
The teachings of Jesus minus the BS (Well, most of it anyway).

[doppelgänger of someone]

I read a page in some respectable .edu site ages ago, harvard perhaps, but googling yields nothing. Oh well.

[OY636]

reading this at the moment. And is so far intresting and just as fanatical as any other reglious text.

[armourking]

Saw God Is Not Great on The Daily Show, and it seemed pretty interesting.
Might pick it up on my next order from Amazon.

[Lightspeed]

Is there anything written by people who assume Jesus didn't exist, about who might have written the New Testament and why?

I imagine people automatically think stuff like "to control the masses", etc. but the NT doesn't seem to really have any "masses controlling" content to it. When it's been used to subjugate people it's usually because those people haven't been able to read and realize that the leaders of the time were talking a bunch of bollocks.

[mr selfdestruct]

Watties Baked Beans.

armourking.

[cEvin]

sd - icq

[Know me.]

I've just finished and its a great read. I got the selfish gene at the same time as I've been meaning to read it ever since college. Both books are very readable and I thought the selfish gene was going to make me depressed but it fits very nicely into my version of the world. I've never had that much time for religion and I've heard most of the arguments before. Faith is the problem as Richard Dawkins keeps pointing out. I think life should be a journey to find the truth and to love people. Faith is not compatible with finding the truth and while the religions I'm familiar with preach love the majority of followers to not believe it.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Know me.

...the religions I'm familiar with preach love the majority of followers to not believe it.

Really? I would ask you to cite your source.

[Know me.]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Really? I would ask you to cite your source.

Wikipedia

No just kidding. This is my rational. 80+ % of the USA population follows some sort of Christian faith. The USA is at war.