Atheist Realism?

[Old man]

There is no historical evidence for a Jesus person, so what evidence are you referring too. how do you know this, isn't that just poor exegesis(eisegesis).

laughable isn't it.

Actually there is more than sufficient historical evidence for Jesus. You, evidently, just choose to deny it out of hand. That is intellectually dishonest. And your idea of self refuting is absolutely laughable. Try apply a little actual scholarship instead of merely speaking as a parrot.

 

[Old man]

Again, no loving father leaves his child to burn for all time. I have not found out that the flip side is justice.

You will.

You also have no idea what justice is. To let a living thing burn for all time, forever, cannot be justice.

From man's very limited point of view yes, it does seem excessive. But not from God's viewpoint, and His is the one that matters. BTW, I do know what justice is, and I don't want it. I want mercy instead, and so should you.

Then why did you play a game above and deny it at first with that whole 'I am not is a position to judge God' routine so many Christians play. I knew you approved and said so and you denied it.

Having trouble reading are we? I didn't deny it. Tiptoed a little, perhaps.

Here's the thing. YOu are making claims to understand it. You have explained in your posts why it is OK. How bad most humans are. How it is their free will to choose wrong. How it is justice. You say that it is beyond 'their'limited understanding while at the same time you explain why it makes sense. You have justified the torture of human souls for eternity and seem to think you understand it.

What I claim to understand are the doctrines of faith and the reasons for them. Each and every doctrine is soundly supported by many scriptures, and the scriptures inform us of what we need to know. Not everything we would like to know. What I do not, and can not fully understand is the complete mind of God. Is that so hard an idea to grasp?

No. I never said this. I said we could both be accused of doing this. I have not done this. You have such a strong need for me to be a certain way. You have reality in little boxes. But these boxes are not reality.

You did not make the flat statement, but almost without exception what you have written supports it. You do not like God as the Bible portrays him, you think he is horrible if he executes His justice on people, you said "we need to get beyond" this. Ergo, you want a subjective God that meets you personal requirements. The inference is logical.

I have no need to oppose the God you hallucinate, because that is not God. I would disapprove of a God who burned most people who have ever lived for ever and forever. After one thousand million years of their screams, yes, I would say to God: this is evil what you are doing. Fortunately I do not need to oppose God on this issue, because only cruel humans or terrified ones could come up with such a system.

And here we have more of the same. You don't like the doctrine of hell, though it is clearly taught, so you would accuse God of evil. You try to get around that by saying that only "terrified humans" could have come up with the idea. Am I correct in assuming that there are only certain very limited parts of God's word that you are willing to accept? Perhaps the ones that can be used as a soft pillow to cushion a singed conscience. or directly challenge a materialistic world view?

You are still making assumptions. Of course it is not the god of YOUR Bible.

That's for sure. But He is the one with the doctrine of hell, and it is He whom you oppose and deem "evil". That makes you an atheist, no matter who or what your personal god might be.

.Perhaps you have very little experience of people and the world, but I am still shocked by how much you assume and what it implies about what you know and don't know.

It is precisely because of my experience of people and the world that I know, if not the precise details, generally where you are coming from.

No, I truly doubt you 'know my God'.

I know who it is. In a different form probably, but your god is the god of this world.

However you word it you approve of humans being tortured for all time.

Put another way: I approve of God. You don't.

No, you believe what men have said that God said. Men with limited knowledge. Men coming from cultures that had specific psychologies and cultural baggage. Words stitched together by committees and other men with their own motives and misunderstandings. I not only claim not to be an atheist, it is clear I am not one: I believe in God. And not in one that burns people for all time.

That's the really neat thing about scripture. One can read it and get exactly nothing out of it, and another can read it and be enriched. The scripture actually comments, quite sharply, on that very point.

What a horrible horrible chamber you have in your heart. Jesus is rolling over in Heaven when he sees men like you using his name in the way you do.

Why? Because I happen to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

'Out of hand'. You know nothing about how or why or through what process I rejected it. Again you are claiming to know something about me that you clearly do not know. You know that the men who wrote the bible got every word right. You know who I am and what I have done. You make claims to knowing a tremendous amount even in the face of being shown you know very little.

I can know a lot about you from your own words, and I know all the common objections, and most of the obscure ones too. What you choose to believe is up to you. Free will and all that. Every position you have taken opposes the God of the Bible. You absolutely will not allow that God has a perfect right to execute His, not your, idea of justice. Just above you dismiss the Bible as cultural baggage. You have said that you have a god. Please name him because your god clearly is not the Christian God of history. I said before that you have assembled a god to suit yourself, seeing as how the Biblical God is wanting in your eyes.

This is pointless.

 

[Cris]

Old Man,

Actually there is more than sufficient historical evidence for Jesus. You, evidently, just choose to deny it out of hand. That is intellectually dishonest. And your idea of self refuting is absolutely laughable. Try apply a little actual scholarship instead of merely speaking as a parrot.

Many threads have explored this and many people have made similar claims to yours. No one to date has yet to show a single reliable scrap of independent evidence that Jesus actually existed.

 

[audible]

Actually there is more than sufficient historical evidence for Jesus.

Can you post up this evidence you say exists, please thank you.

You, evidently, just choose to deny it out of hand.

To deny something you first need to believe it exists.

That is intellectually dishonest.

And thats rich coming from a theist, rotflmao.

A prime mover/first cause arguments is self-refuting and as such is poor reasoning because if the premise is true the conclusion must be false. IE Aquinas said
Premise: Everything is caused by something other then itself.
Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
A string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
If a string of causes cannot be infinitely long there must be a first cause.
Conclusion: Therefore there must be a first cause a divine entity.

It is self refuting because if everything has a cause other than itself, then a divine entity must have a cause other than itself. And thus if a divine entity has a cause other then itself, it cannot be the first cause.

And your idea of self refuting is absolutely laughable. Try apply a little actual scholarship instead of merely speaking as a parrot.

Then explain how it's wrong, instead of being childish, put me right, educate me.

 

[Old man]

Old Man,

Many threads have explored this and many people have made similar claims to yours. No one to date has yet to show a single reliable scrap of independent evidence that Jesus actually existed.

What would you consider to be reliable evidence?

 

[Old man]

Can you post up this evidence you say exists, please thank you.

I referred Myles to Simon Greenleaf. I refer you also.

To deny something you first need to believe it exists.

I assume you are an atheist? If so then you must believe God exists.

And thats rich coming from a theist,

Would I be wrong in assuming that you have a low opinion of anyone who just might be in possession of knowledge you don't have?

Then explain how it's wrong, instead of being childish, put me right, educate me.

Yes. I beg your pardon, though I seriously doubt the latter part of your request. Take a look here and then tell me what you think.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/cosmological-argument/the-argument.html

 

[spidergoat]

Actually there is more than sufficient historical evidence for Jesus. You, evidently, just choose to deny it out of hand. That is intellectually dishonest. And your idea of self refuting is absolutely laughable. Try apply a little actual scholarship instead of merely speaking as a parrot.

No, there isn't any actually. There is no contemporary historical account. The Roman records date from long after Jesus' time, or were added as later forgeries by Christian Romans.

I assume you are an atheist? If so then you must believe God exists.

As a non-theist, I deny that God exists.

 

[audible]

I referred Myles to Simon Greenleaf. I refer you also.

And I replied to that very post, at post 597 with this "There is no historical evidence for a Jesus person, so what evidence are you referring too." repeating yourself isn't going to gain you any ground. Some evidence please.

I assume you are an atheist? If so then you must believe God exists.

yes I am an atheist, and I have a lack of belief in god/gods, devils/demons, elves, orks, fairies or any supernatural creature you can imagine. You obviously have no real idea of what an atheist is or what the word means. Atheism is the non-believe in god/gods, not the believe, you need to read up a little on atheists/atheism, to get a better understanding.
Religion forum FAQ/Definitions:Atheism and Agnostism.

Would I be wrong in assuming that you have a low opinion of anyone who just might be in possession of knowledge you don't have?

yes you would be wrong, there are several people on this site that I respect immensely for the intellect and intelligence, such as skinwalker, cris, snakelord, and sarkus.
But I dont suffer fools gladly, especially if the never provide any evidence for their claims, and constantly throw forward extremely poor arguments.

Yes. I beg your pardon, though I seriously doubt the latter part of your request. Take a look here and then tell me what you think.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/cosmological-argument/the-argument.html

Thank you for the link, however it in no way refutes, the self-refuting statement. it just give more of the same rubbish Aquinas states. In order to win a debate, the debatee must put forward an argument that cannot be refuted, or at least is so well reasoned that the other person concedes.
The problem with the first cause argument is it's a pointless endeavour for a theist to put forward as an argument for god. Because it is quite simply a self-refuting argument.

 

[Simon Anders]

You will.

Good. You are almost being honest here. You enjoy the idea of other people suffering and of being close to the despot, precisely like the sychophants in Latin American who often killed the liberation theologists. Priests who had the temerity of taking Jesus seriously.

From man's very limited point of view yes, it does seem excessive. But not from God's viewpoint, and His is the one that matters. BTW, I do know what justice is, and I don't want it. I want mercy instead, and so should you.

And now you know what God's viewpoint is like.

Having trouble reading are we? I didn't deny it. Tiptoed a little, perhaps.

This is simply another lie. I say you approve and you say something along the lines of 'who am I to approve?" This is intentionally denying that I was correct. Instead of simply saying 'Yes" you strongly implied a no and would have been happy to have it take as a no. You don't even have the courage of a direct lie. You keep leaving yourself outs. This does not fit well with Christianity, nor with my beliefs. In that they are in agreement.

What I claim to understand are the doctrines of faith and the reasons for them. Each and every doctrine is soundly supported by many scriptures, and the scriptures inform us of what we need to know. Not everything we would like to know. What I do not, and can not fully understand is the complete mind of God. Is that so hard an idea to grasp?

It is irrelevent, but yes, easy to grasp.

You did not make the flat statement, but almost without exception what you have written supports it. You do not like God as the Bible portrays him, you think he is horrible if he executes His justice on people, you said "we need to get beyond" this. Ergo, you want a subjective God that meets you personal requirements. The inference is logical.

No. You are assuming that I came to my beliefs in a certain way. That I rejected the Bible's version(s) of God through a certain process. This is not how I came to my beliefs. Your assumption about what the God I believe in is like is another error and also shows that you have two boxes and cannot deal with anything that does not fit these two boxes. There is red, yes, and blue, but I need to tell you that there are other colors. You should know better and you should have the honesty to admit you don't know, but you have a need to put me in a specific box, because it makes it easier for you to believe in certain things.

And here we have more of the same. You don't like the doctrine of hell, though it is clearly taught, so you would accuse God of evil.

I have not accused God of being evil. I am saying that the 'god' you believe in would be evil if he existed. Thankfully, that God does not exist.

You try to get around that by saying that only "terrified humans" could have come up with the idea. Am I correct in assuming that there are only certain very limited parts of God's word that you are willing to accept? Perhaps the ones that can be used as a soft pillow to cushion a singed conscience. or directly challenge a materialistic world view?

'Materialist worldview'. AGain. You keep trying to put me in a box I am not in. You need to gain a little humility here. I am so far from being a materialist I have to pick my spots with the atheists and scientists here or that is all we would be talking about. You made an assumption, and again, it was wrong.

That's for sure. But He is the one with the doctrine of hell, and it is He whom you oppose and deem "evil". That makes you an atheist, no matter who or what your personal god might be.

You need a dictionary. There is no God I oppose. It is you I oppose with your lies about God and your confusion about what love is.

It is precisely because of my experience of people and the world that I know, if not the precise details, generally where you are coming from.

They why do you contantly make false assumptions about me. Why have you regularly, in all your responses charactorized me and/or my beliefs incorrectly? You are very confused and you do not have the integrity to admit that you are wrong.

I need to tell you that admitting you are wrong about me does not mean I now can say you are wrong about God. That is the telling part of this. You simply cannot admit that you are wrong about me, as if you were psychic. You cannot do the simple and decent and rational thing and say

Well, perhaps, I do not understand you and your beliefs, but I am strong in my faith in my God being as I have described.

No, despite finding out repeatedly that your assumptions about me are incorrent you go on as if you 'haven't really' made any mistakes.

You should be embarrassed.

Would you like a quote from Job or Psalms on the problem with pride?

I know who it is. In a different form probably, but your god is the god of this world.

Keep on assuming things. It is quite reassuring, actually.

Put another way: I approve of God. You don't.

No. You aren't listening and your experience is limited.

Why? Because I happen to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Yes.

I can know a lot about you from your own words, and I know all the common objections, and most of the obscure ones too. What you choose to believe is up to you. Free will and all that. Every position you have taken opposes the God of the Bible. You absolutely will not allow that God has a perfect right to execute His, not your, idea of justice. Just above you dismiss the Bible as cultural baggage. You have said that you have a god. Please name him because your god clearly is not the Christian God of history. I said before that you have assembled a god to suit yourself, seeing as how the Biblical God is wanting in your eyes.

This in bold is incorrect. It is based on assumption about the process by which I came to my beliefs which is not correct. If you had integrity you would stop stating as fact something which you should realize might not be the case. There are a number of other possibilities and you should be aware of at least one of them.

This is pointless.

Perhaps for you, but not for me. I needed to see it again, the hubris of of some Christians and their blindness. The way they cannot deal with reality as it is to such a degree that they will even make assertions about things banal humility would admit they cannot know. I am not talking about God or the nature of God, but you continued assumptions about how I came to know God and why I believe what I believe.

You just know that first I rejected the Christian god because I didn't like the hell stuff. Then I constructed my version of god to make me feel good. There are so many wrong assumptions in this, it would be funny, if it were not sad.

Do you have the integrity to admit you do not know? Not so far.

I can see how the encounter is pointless for you. Even Christianity offers you a way to grow in such an encounter and it is not through continued false pride, let me tell you. I am getting the sense I understand the Bible better than you do, especially the Gospels.

 

[Myles]

I find it interesting to get two diametrically opposed perspectives on the attributes of an entity which cannot be shown to exist. Will the real god pease stand up !

 

[Cris]

Old Man,

What would you consider to be reliable evidence?

How about eye-witness well documented testimony from multiple independent unprejudiced authorative sources.

The only one we know that comes close to this is Josephus, and that reference is essentially an indirect short set of statements that has been demonstrated to be fraudulent.

Do you know something new?

Now I can see from your phrases and confrontational statements that you have been considerably conditioned by Christian propaganda. The concept that Jesus didn't actually exist is not something you are likely to consider seriously since that would destroy the basis of your entire religion and worldview. Yet if viewed objectively, with a careful view of history, and with an understanding of how myth makers were prevalent some 2000 years ago, it then becomes not to difficult to see how the Jesus myth arose. An understanding of memetics will also help you understand how such a myth could become confused by so many (the sheep mentality) as if it were actual truth.