Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

"Anyway, science doesn´t prove anything with exactitude, it is all based in generalizations and inductions. And that can be said about almost everything we know. We just believe in it because its method makes it a little more difficult to make stupid mistakes."

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

"since you believe so much in science why dont you prove us wrong instead of being hypocritical"

Prove what? We don't have to prove anything, if you think Jesus is the son of God and made all those miracles it says he did, prove it! If you do that I promise I'll admit you are right and I'm wrong.

Just because there are stories about the ancient greek gods or roman gods, doesn't mean we have to waste time proving they don't exist, because that's what they are STORIES. Just like the Bible is, a story.

Well isn't that nice, you don't need proof, that's very good for you since YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

Oh here's a little hint you learn in Logic class, you can't disprove a negative, which means we can't logically disprove the existance of God, simply because of the lack proof, just like you can't disprove "Russel's teapot" argument or the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" argument, BUT and this is where it might go over your head lack of proof that disproved the existance of God DOES NOT logically mean God exists, it means there is no way to know or ever know for sure.

That said the existance of God has no relation to the Bible, the Bible is quite clearly not the word of God, but the work of humans, that were prone to sin and biased like everybody else. If you need proof that the Bible was written by humans I'm sure I can find some.

As for the miracles, they are very much stories, but if you want proof I suggest this experiment, take a barrel and fill it with water and than pray to God to change it into wine, if the water does change into wine than you've got your proof, if it doesn't than we've got our proof.

"Anyway, science doesn´t prove anything with exactitude, it is all based in generalizations and inductions. And that can be said about almost everything we know. We just believe in it because its method makes it a little more difficult to make stupid mistakes."

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Do you know how logic or science work (and by logic I mean the branch of philosophy, which is an important part of the scientific method. Science works until there is an exception, then its premises prove themselves wrong.)? Look into it and you will understand this! I talk because I know what I am talking about. You can´t fancy science per se.

lol, hypocritical :-)

anyway, the burdon of delivering proof is not mine, my ideas are well supported by proven facts :-p sorry if it doesn't suit you.

how could you trust a text, written about a person that's been dead for 80 to 300 years, to be 100% accurate? especially if you know that people couldn't read, which would unfluence the final version of the text

(as people would have to know the stories by hard, twists are added, things are left out, things are exagerated, to be able to more easily remember them, etc, same reason as to why later so many stonecarving and paintings were made ... early grandscale advertising? ;-) )

and whether or not jesus really existed ... it wouldn't help your credibility :-p 

Fellatio, you finally got my point. Science is obviously more objective than religion, but neither of them can claim to hold the "final" or "real" truth.

"so suddenly you are not saying that god doesnt exist, now you are saying he might but the religion is wrong, please sort out what point you are actually making,"

You are making a mistake. Like I said objectively God can't be proven or disproven, however that does not mean that the chances are 50% for each option. What it means is that neither option is an absolute 0%, the chance that God exists objectively is greater than 0 as such scientists can't say for sure there is no God, but for all atheists that % is very close to 0%, so subjectively it might as well be 0%.

If you want when an atheist says that "God does not exist" you might want to replace it with "The chance that God exists is ALMOST 0, but still strictly greater than 0."

Now that I got that out of the way I can clear your confusion about religion, it seems to me you're confusing religion with the existance of God, or should I better say 'a God'. What makes you think YOUR god is the real one? From the thousands of God the human race created along the eons and an infinite amount they didn't but that still have an equal chance of existing what makes you think your religion worships the real one?

When I use the word God I don't refer to the judeo-christian god of the bible, but to simply a higher power beyond our reach. That said when you think of the chances christianity has of being "the true religion" it's very easy to consider it's holy book as nothing more than stories for adults.

"just because this does not happen it cant be your proof your point is compleely stupid, god should run around granting everyones little wishes? what if hitler had wished to win the war? why should an almighty being be forced to do what you want?"

Ah but if god wants to prove he is real he can do that, he's God he shouldn't have a problem repeating a miracle. Tell me do you believe all the fairytales of old or just the ones that come in the Bible? Somebody's being hypocritical...

"say you asked me a question and i didnt reply does that mean i dont exist?"

If you want to prove to me that you're real you will reply, if you don't it means either that:
a) You don't really exist.
or
b) You don't really care what I do.

In either case religion is useless. If god doesn't exist clearly religion has no use, but also if god doesn't care it's just as useless. If god doesn't care about some thing why would he care about others? He wouldn't.

"There are more preserved ancient texts from that era that show that Jesus existed than any other Greek scholar or philosopher at that time..... though people don't deny there existence."

Jesus as an historic figure probably did exist, like you said there are texts that point to this, but from that to saying he's the son of god you've a long way to walk my friend.

"so you say that because atheists BELIEVE that god does not exist then their belief is more real then religios persons? as you havent said why they are more correct"

Of course it's more real the difference from 0.0(0)1% to 0% is almost nonexistant, while the same can't be said for deists. The difference is unimportant in anything in life.

"look at most of the religions: christianity islam etc each basically believes in the same god but have different ways of expressing this belief therefore it doesnt really matter which religion is right as each believe in the same basic rules and have done for thousands of years only the masses stc change"

Glad to see you agree with me that religion is a useless fabrication, with no importance whether a god exists or no. Why should belief in a religion trump not believing in any?

"yes he CAN but he doesnt NEED to, millions of people believe and that is without having to see, even if a miricle did happen scientists would most likely write it off as some form of physics unknown rather than believe"

1. If god does exist and he cared if people believed in him I think we agree that he could do that without breaking a sweat.
2. If he doesn't it means that either he doesn't exist or doesn't care. Tell me from an objective point of view, why should god care if you or me belives in him? Do you really consider such a powerful entity to be so petty and egocentric?

"of course he cares why else would he have created humanity?"

Prove to me he created humanity. Oh wait you can't... since you'd need to prove there is a god before trying to prove he created anything.

Of course it's more real the difference from 0.0(0)1% to 0% is almost nonexistant, while the same can't be said for deists. The difference is unimportant in anything in life.

no u only say its that sort of percentile, where exactly did you get that from?

Glad to see you agree with me that religion is a useless fabrication, with no importance whether a god exists or no. Why should belief in a religion trump not believing in any?

another misunderstanding, religion is there to celebrate god and his work the belief is not in the religion but god, religion is their to help us celebrate god

 If he doesn't it means that either he doesn't exist or doesn't care. Tell me from an objective point of view, why should god care if you or me belives in him? Do you really consider such a powerful entity to be so petty and egocentric?

people DO believe in him, and you say he cant care about us? is not that simple, millions follow him so why should he have to persuade people with such closed minds to follow him?

Prove to me he created humanity. Oh wait you can't... since you'd need to prove there is a god before trying to prove he created anything.

well i say again you prove he isnt, you forget that it is the accuser that need to prove the defence wrong before the defence needs to take any action at all in our society

From the fact that atheists do not require a supreme deity to explain life, as such the chance that a god exists is very small.

yes but that does not explain how you managed to get such an accurate percentile please elaborate, so far it seems that you are sayin you are right "because you say so"

Who says you need to celebrate god? Useless ritual is all it is.

you dont, every religion is optional to join and anyone can leave at anytime, just because you dont believe doesnt mean you should stifle others.

thats not the point, the original point was why doesnt he do something to make people believe in him and i was simply reminding you that plenty do, i wasnt giving it as a reason that god wxists i was just stating a fact - that people already believe

Well I can prove that Evolution through natural selection created humanity, who's that for proof?

again you think that EVIDENCE is needed to support a claim, kindly show some

"yes but that does not explain how you managed to get such an accurate percentile please elaborate"

Would you like to ask atheists what they think the chance of god existing is? Please do.

"you dont, every religion is optional to join and anyone can leave at anytime, just because you dont believe doesnt mean you should stifle others.

thats not the point, the original point was why doesnt he do something to make people believe in him and i was simply reminding you that plenty do, i wasnt giving it as a reason that god wxists i was just stating a fact - that people already believe"

If I think people are acting retarded you better believe it I'm going to tell them.

since you believe so much in science why dont you prove us wrong instead of being hypocritical

You've already been proven wrong. We have proof contradicting nearly every important part of the bible. Water can't be made to wine, a man can't walk on water, no one can come back from the dead, and humans come from evolution, not magic.

our fundamental belief is just that - belief - we dont NEED to structure ourselves around proofs, i said he should prove it because that is what the oppostion always talks about, proof. if you try and make us proove our beliefs you should do the same otherwise you are being hypocritical

First it is irresponsible to tell people how to live their lives, tell them what is wrong or right, charge them money, and threaten acceptance under penalty of tortuous afterlife all based on something you cannot prove. If a person is going to believe something and shut up then they don't have to prove anything, but if they assert it on another person they had better damn well prove something. PS-as above, we've done our proving and add to it every day.

so suddenly you are not saying that god doesnt exist, now you are saying he might but the religion is wrong

Nope, we're still saying he doesn't exist. By using evidence we come to the only reasonable conclusion that he does not exist. 100% proof is (aside from good alcohol) a theoretical idea for logicians that really never occurs in life. Demanding 100% proof of anything is silly and usually the last line of defence used by someone with a firm belief in something superstitious. What's more is that scientists don't ask for 100% proof of God as christians do of say, evolution for example; they only ask for any shred of evidence at all that stands up and can add to the discussion.

Sure there are always new exceptions found and theories revised or changed, but that's hardly the same thing as saying science and religion are almost the same because both are based in belief.

This is huge. Some of you need to write this down and take it to heart before talking anymore about what you think science is.

There are more preserved ancient texts from that era that show that Jesus existed than any other Greek scholar or philosopher at that time..... though people don't deny there existence.

False premise. There are more texts proving the existence of a plethora of people such as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great, Caesar, and in fact there is more evidence supporting the existence of non-household names like Scipio, Herodotus, Gelon, Megakles etc. I'd love to discuss the logic of the religious' arguments but they keep me constantly busy correcting the false premises they base their reasoning on.

But let's say we grant that there was no other man more mentioned in historic texts. WTF would that prove? When properly studying classical history we have to ask ourselves why the sources of information were writing at all and what THEIR sources were. To make a long story short here, if you ask a classical historian about Jesus they will say the evidence that he existed is sufficient that there was likely a man by that name in the Middle East (WOW, shocking). They will continue though to say that the vast majority of claims about Jesus are incredibly suspect since they speak with too much comfort about minute details.

There are many things about Caesar or Aristotle etc that aren't comon knowledge, because with their experience with ancient sources, classical historians have come to agree that certain statements in certain sources are unreliable. This all comes from deep understanding of the individual sources and from an understanding of how history was written in that period (here's a hint...POORLY). 

Again on this point, you're right people don't disbelieve the existence of say Augustus of Rome, but no one takes seriously that he beat up a man as an infant etc. When a man became a big deal in this era, the writings always go back and make amazing stories about their life which everyone now knows are false.

Lastly on this point, the very same types of sources that claim Jesus was a man-god make claims about the existence of over half a dozen other man-gods that we still know of. All of these stories predate Jesus, sometimes by as much as 2500 years. So if we are to believe everything that was written down centuries ago and put in a book then there are like 7-8 Jesus'es =p

so you say that because atheists BELIEVE that god does not exist then their belief is more real then religios persons? as you havent said why they are more correct

Yes, yes we did =p The belief may not be any stronger than your belief (otherwise there would be no problem) but the evidence is weighted outrageously in favor of science.

look at most of the religions: christianity islam etc each basically believes in the same god but have different ways of expressing this belief

This is only a little more than half. The funny part is they are all caused by the same original book. So to word it another way a person can say "look at all the people who believe in this book, they all believe in the same god." I'm not shocked; call me crazy. Half the world belives in something else and not at all in big "g" God.

millions of people believe and that is without having to see, even if a miricle did happen scientists would most likely write it off as some form of physics unknown rather than believe

Billions of people; don't shoot yourself in the foot by showing us you're just typing away without thinking of what you say =p But anyway scientists "write off" miracles because every time one is whitnessed (today, not in some dusty old tome but today when we can see) it fails to pass the very first round testing because they are always fraud. Cazy old ladies with bleeding statues and holy springs etc. Even at some vatican-endorsed miracle sites they admit there were only a handful, in the single-digits of people who were "healed" despite the millions of people who flock to the sites every year. Therefore, statistically speaking, I bet you're more likely to heal if you DON'T go looking for a miracle. Maybe they get so disappointed with Jesus they give up hope and die...hmmm...

If god doesn't exist clearly religion has no use

Crazy talk! Does anyone know how much money is made with the myth of God?! It's insane. I wish I could pull off a scam that well. L.Ron Hubbard is taking a good crack at it though.

of course he cares why else would he have created humanity?

Simple, because if he didn't create huanity there would be no one to fight in the cosmic war against the small rodents invading from mars which is prophesied to come in 2014. Also, if God didn't create humanity there would be nothing to hold the sky up from the earth and it would fall and break. See? I can write fiction too and mine is cooler and funnier. Eff... Jesus is just a big deal because he got super-popular, people jumped on a banwagon and started making up crazy stories about him, and what's worse are making money writing books about him. At this rate, in a thousand year there will be a religion for Chuck Noris. If only Jesus would sue the a-holes making books about him like Noris did, then we'd be rid of this hogwash.

*pulling a crown=crowd

mechanisms = mechanics

That's fine, no one is going to bug somebody who doesn't want to talk about it.

"Hitler claimed that Jews and Negroes were inferior to his "Perfect Arian race". He used Evolution as his basis for this theory, and using that basis, ordered the holocaust."

Sorry to correct you but Hitler was a catholic, actually the pope said all catholics should celebrate his birthday right up until his death. And he didn't use evolution, he didn't need to, he just have a deep hate for other races and especially jews.

"Fellatio, Pascals wager is based on someone believing in the Christian God, the God of the bible, in which case your three points are redundant, as all of those "assumptions" are taught in the bible."

And who says the God of the Bible is the 'real' god even if we accept that there is a god? But that's for proving my point exactly

Another thing one should consider is that people don´t usually select what god they are gonna believe in, since it is mostly decided by our social circumstances. So it isn´t completely up to you to decide which is the true god, or if the ones from other people are real. That said, it is obvious religion is based in dogmatic ways of thinking, because the society need some institutions that need to be passed on to sustain itself. Thus, the god that we believe in is a subjective creation, but that doesn´t mean he/she isn´t real, just not the way they tell us he/she is.
Nobody can prove there is no god (skeptics cannot prove anything because of their own choice), yet nobody can prove they do exist... That is what makes gods be beyond us.

I mean in an abstract way. You can´t reach them, they are beyond you. You cannot see them in real life, they are beyond that. You can only apprehend them as concepts and ideas, not as material beings.I am not discussing if they are real or not, but the essence of people´s beliefs. They exist for people even though they cannot prove they do, because they choose to believe in them (as a manner of speaking, because people don´t really choose their gods, but they learn that from society). That is what I mean with beyond us (that they are unreachable for human thinking or reasoning, not unlike any other metaphysic discussion). I am sorry if  I am not clear enough, but english isn´t my mother tongue and I prefer to use a more technical language when I am talking about sociological subjects such as religion. That is why I think I am not contradicting myself. 

I agree. But society has the primary role in the apprehension of religion. Adulthood does mean people should (but they not always do) become a lot more critical, but there are some paradigms from where people build their vision of the world (such as religion), and it isn´t easy for everyone to unlearn what you have always believed to be truth. There is where tolerance should kick in. The problem is sometimes people cannot abide that other people do not believe the same things they do, and thus behave in radical manners.

You can think whatever you want to. For me, some things, such as religion, are a part of the natural development of the human kind. But that is only my opinion. If you want to fight for yours, I think that is totally understandable, as long as you do not harm/force other people by doing this. I am an atheist too, btw.  For me religion is just an interesting matter to discuss about.

Sure. But I don´t think I have the right to judge what is good or not for people other than myself. And that is just an opinion. As I said before, everyone has their own, even if that means they believe in god or not, and that should not be my problem. Of course that is not a rule or anything, it is just the way I see these things.

Hmm... I wish I could spend more time on this topic, but I'd best not. I have no time to spend...
Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just hope people are not hypocritical about things (especially myself) and I hope that you Atheist's can see the truth... But of course, you consider what you do believe to be true, well, to be true. Which in itself is the inherent problem of these discussions, no one who comes here will ever change their opinion's meaningfully, which makes the whole topic pointless, doesn't it?

Alright, so I have to ask the evolutionists a couple things:

At what point did humans evolve the eye?

When we were evolving the eye, when did humans decide on how many nerve endings would be in one eye?

At what point of evolving the eye did we decide to pimp it out and add some colors to it?

How did we decide to get the lenses in our eyes to focus light correctly?

When evolving the eye, when did humans decide that they wanted the eye on their face instead of on their fingers, or chests, or on the side of their head?

When did humans decide to evolve the face?

For how many generations did humans stumble around blind before they evolved the first eye, how many generations afterwards did it take to get the eye in the right place and why did they decide to evolve one in the first place if they didn't know what exactly sight was?

That's just one part of a very intricate body. I can use the same reasoning on any part of it. Anyways, don't get me started on how much of a joke evolution is and how it's not science. I can also use that to offer 'proof' of God. If you all would take it or not.

Oh, I'm just getting warmed up Erunion. ;-)