But how can you so blindly follow a message that almost assuredly has been distorted? Even if basic truths remain and Im sure some do, these things were not written down until long after the fact by people that never knew Jesus nor saw what he did int the first place.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
But how can you so blindly follow a message that almost
assuredly has been distorted? Even if basic truths remain and Im sure
some do, these things were not written down until long after the fact
by people that never knew Jesus nor saw what he did int the first
place.
Aha! Hence why Belisarius has long since abandoned the Catholic
"Church" and is not a member of any Christian denomination. I share
your distaste for those who follow blindly the opinions and theories of
others. I think for myself which is truth and which is propaganda and
embellishment. Even the basic truths of Jesus' "recorded" teachings is
enough for one to live their life the right way.
But how can you so blindly follow a message that almost assuredly has been distorted? Even if basic truths remain and Im sure some do, these things were not written down until long after the fact by people that never knew Jesus nor saw what he did int the first place.
The message is independent of the bearer, even of the alleged bearer's existence. That church and state should be independent as Jesus is alleged to have said would be just as true whether Jesus lived or didn't live, or said 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' or didn't, whether it was interpolated a hundred years later or a thousand.
That is, it may or may not be true, but its truth doesn't depend in the least on the truth of the story in which it is embedded.
'No man is an island'. Does the truth of that depend on who said it, or where or when?
Are you saying you don't believe there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon?
I am saying that I dont' believe there are blue fairies frolicking on the moon. I don't see what point you are trying to make using double negatives.
Basically, what you are saying is: "I believe that I do not believe" is a belief. Fine then, I'm not going to argue with these semantics.
By the same token I could say you "dont believe that there are no gods". What on earth is the point in talking like this?
Fact is you either:
-1. I believe (there is enough evidence, I have faith, I just do, whatever)
-2. Do not believe (there is not enough evidence, I dont have faith, etc)
No amount of linguistic backflips from you will negate this fact. Incidently, why do you refuse to believe in one non-rational proposition (the fairies) but you believe the other (god)?
well that is corerct,but atheism is a belief also.
Atheism is no more a belief than the assertion "that that there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" is a belief.
And the shame is not what those people belive,the shame is that their belief of those non-proved mumbo jumbo keeps them from committing terrible crimes
I'm sorry, are you saying that belief in a god keeps people from committing terrible crimes? I'd say that even a cursory look at history confirms this is not the case.
For most people it is true.They are afraid to commit a sin not a crime.
***huge sighs***...atheism is a belief.because in the end the existyense/noon-existense of god evolves into a huge paradox.You can neither prove neither disprove god exists
It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.
&nb
Are you saying you don't believe there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon?
I am saying that I dont' believe there are blue fairies frolicking on the moon. I don't see what point you are trying to make using double negatives.
Wasn't really a double negative. However to indicate that, I accept I should have put quotes around "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon". Not believing a statement that contains a negative is not a double negative.
"I don't not believe" would be a double negative. But, incidentally, "I don't disbelieve" is not the same as "I don't not believe".
Basically, what you are saying is: "I believe that I do not believe" is a belief. Fine then, I'm not going to argue with these semantics.
By the same token I could say you "dont believe that there are no gods". What on earth is the point in talking like this?
Fact is you either:
-1. I believe (there is enough evidence, I have faith, I just do, whatever)
-2. Do not believe (there is not enough evidence, I dont have faith, etc)
No amount of linguistic backflips from you will negate this fact. Incidently, why do you refuse to believe in one non-rational proposition (the fairies) but you believe the other (god)?
I don't believe in God. Any god. I don't see why you think I should. I don't believe there are fairies on the moon. I believe "there are no fairies on the moon."
You said
Atheism is no more a belief than the assertion "that that there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" is a belief.
If something is not a belief, how can you be said to believe it?
My point is that both atheism and "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" are beliefs.
Personally I believe in neither the existence of gods nor the non-existence of gods. If you name any particular god, I think the probability of its existence is vanishingly small, so I would say, for instance, I don't believe that Jehovah or Osiris exist. But no god(s) at all is too much of a stretch.
(I believe Jesus probably existed, because I can't see why anyone would make him up. I don't believe he was divine.)
the existyense/noon-existense of god evolves into a huge paradox.You can neither prove neither disprove god exists
And you can neither prove nor disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle. Is that also a pradox?
My point is that both atheism and "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" are beliefs.
I'm afraid that I find this a very strained form of thought. One says that one either believes or does not believe the world is round. If one believes that the world is round, than one believes that the world is round, one does not "not believe that the world is not round" or "not believe that the world is flat" or "not believe that the world is pear-shaped" or "not believe that the world is cylindrical" or "not believe that the world is pyramidal", ad infinitum.
Regardless, lets not get stuck in semantics. Surely you will agree with me that one's default opinion on something's existance should be "I do not believe" until that person has provided positive proof of the thing's existance, as this is the more defensible position.
It is not up to the sceptic to disprove that I am a 20-foot invisible gazelle, it is up to the claimer to prove it, otherwise you would have the absurd position of having to say "I dont disbelieve that you are a 20-foot invisible gazelle, because I can't disprove it".
But no god(s) at all is too much of a stretch.
Hardly. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this world is not completely natural. Therefore, god is not required. Therefore, god does not exist.
To believe otherwise is irrational, you just as rationally might believe that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
For most people it is true.They are afraid to commit a sin not a crime.
Rubbish. The Spanish Inquisition? Muslim extremist terrorism? Rationalisation of a peasant's surfdom to his lord? Sectarian violence throughout the world? It is a lot easier to argue that religion causes violence rather than prevents it.
There is no proof that a "religious" person is any more likely to follow the tennants of his own religion that the laws of the state.
the existyense/noon-existense of god evolves into a huge paradox.You can neither prove neither disprove god exists
And you can neither prove nor disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle. Is that also a pradox?
Nope. Neither statement is a paradox. The Continuum Hypothesis can neither be proved not disproved. That's not a paradox. Gdel demonstrated that in all sufficiently complex systems there must be some assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven. There's nothing paradoxical about not being able to prove or disprove something.
Anyway, the only reason I can't prove anything about you is that you're not around to observe. If you were, I could.
(It is in fact proven already that you, whoever or whatever you are, respond to stimuli, and therefore exist and are sentient. God on the other hand has never been observed to respond to stimuli.)
My point is that both atheism and "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" are beliefs.
I'm afraid that I find this a very strained form of thought. One says that one either believes or does not believe the world is round. If one believes that the world is round, than one believes that the world is round, one does not "not believe that the world is not round" or "not believe that the world is flat" or "not believe that the world is pear-shaped" or "not believe that the world is cylindrical" or "not believe that the world is pyramidal", ad infinitum.
You make the same mistake again when you say 'if one believes the world is round, one does not "not believe that the world is not round"'.
Too many 'nots' or the quotes are in the wrong place. If one believes "the world is round", one does not believe "the world is not round", i.e. one does not believe "the world is flat".
You're getting much too tied up in nots.
> Regardless, lets not get stuck in semantics.
Semantics? Sounds more like syntax to me.
Surely you will agree with me that one's default opinion on something's existance should be "I do not believe" until that person has provided positive proof of the thing's existance, as this is the more defensible position.
Nope. One's default position should be based on the a priori probability of the proposition, or the opinion of people one trusts, not on whether the proposition is phrased as a negative or a positive.
Should I believe quarks exist? Or that they don't exist? No-one's ever given me direct proof. How about black holes? For that matter, how about viruses?
You are saying that if you tell me you do have an appendix, I should assume you are lying. On the other hand, if you tell me you do not have an appendix, I should assume you are telling the truth.
Personally I'll believe you whatever you say.
It is not up to the sceptic to disprove that I am a 20-foot invisible gazelle, it is up to the claimer to prove it, otherwise you would have the absurd position of having to say "I dont disbelieve that you are a 20-foot invisible gazelle, because I can't disprove it".
It would be equally ridiculous to claim "I don't believe that you are a 20-foot invisible gazelle, because I can't prove it." I don't believe that you are a 20-foot invisible gazelle, because I don't believe such things exist, or, even if they did, that they would be able to carry on this kind of debate.
I also can't prove that you have four fingers and a thumb on each hand, but that certainly is my default belief.
One thing you are doing is confusing 'belief' with 'having proof'. Quite frequently, indeed much of the time, we believe things that have not been proven. Often we have no choice but to do so.
But no god(s) at all is too much of a stretch.
Hardly. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this world is not completely natural. Therefore, god is not required. Therefore, god does not exist.
The second 'therefore' is invalid. That god is not required I agree. However the final deduction should be more like 'therefore we should assume god does not exist'.
To believe otherwise is irrational, you just as rationally might believe that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
Nope. One reason for believing you are not a 20 foot tall invisible gazelle is that it follows from the definition of gazelles that they are visible and less than 20 feet tall. So if you were 20 foot tall and invisible, you couldn't be a gazelle. Similarly I would hold that you cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god: it would contradict the observed facts of life.
However, that doesn't rule out any god at all. Or any supernatural force that you might not wish to call 'god' but would in effect be one.
For most people it is true.They are afraid to commit a sin not a crime.
Rubbish. The Spanish Inquisition? Muslim extremist terrorism? Rationalisation of a peasant's surfdom to his lord? Sectarian violence throughout the world? It is a lot easier to argue that religion causes violence rather than prevents it.
There is no proof that a "religious" person is any more likely to follow the tennants of his own religion that the laws of the state.
Except that it follows from the definition of 'religious'. People who follow the laws of the state rather than those of their religion aren't religious. People who fear punishment in this life more than punishment in an afterlife aren't 'religious' (well, they might be ancient Greeks or Romans or something, but at least they wouldn't belong to any of the major modern religions).
I agree that religion causes a great deal of violence, and probably in the upshot does more harm than good. But that's another matter.
Anyway, the only reason I can't prove anything about you is that you're not around to observe. If you were, I could.
But even if I claimed I were next to you for you to observe, you still would not be able to prove that I existed as I am invisible. Thus by the nature of my claim, you cannot disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle. God, similarly, would have characterisitcs that make it impossible to disprove him. A supernatural entity that can supposedly violate the very rules of logic that make up this universe is not testable.
Science dictates that any hypothesis that can not possibly be disproved somehow is worthless. Therefore, it is equally wortless to assert god exists. The default position must be a rejection of his existance, just as the default position must be a rejection of my being a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
You're getting much too tied up in nots.
Fine. I'll conseed then that you can believe either in the existance or non-existance of something, fdor the purposes of this argument. However, I still maintain that the onus of proof must be to the person asserting existance, not to the sceptic that doubts it.
Should I believe quarks exist? Or that they don't exist? No-one's ever given me direct proof. How about black holes? For that matter, how about viruses? For that matter, how about viruses?
I do believe all of these things have substantial evidence supporting their existance, otherwise they would never be defensible in the scientific community. Something for which there is no evidence is always rejected by the scientific method.
God of course, has no evidence supporting his existance, and can never have. There is absolutely no reason to say he may exist, until such time as this situation changes and at least some evidence materialises.
However the final deduction should be more like 'therefore we should assume god does not exist'.
Well the assumption is implied.
Nope. One reason for believing you are not a 20 foot tall invisible gazelle is that it follows from the definition of gazelles that they are visible and less than 20 feet tall. So if you were 20 foot tall and invisible, you couldn't be a gazelle.
This can be rectified by redefining "gazelle" in my case to being able to be both invisible and 20 foot tall. my point is, when this is done, the hypothesis becomes imposible to disprove and worthless.
However, that doesn't rule out any god at all. Or any supernatural force that you might not wish to call 'god' but would in effect be one.
Likewise all you have done here is redefined the hypothesis to make it impossible to disprove. It is therefore not worthy of rational consideration.
Except that it follows from the definition of 'religious'.
In that case I would argue very few people are religious (under that definition), compared to those who believe in god.
Anyway, the only reason I can't prove anything about you is that you're not around to observe. If you were, I could.
But even if I claimed I were next to you for you to observe, you still would not be able to prove that I existed as I am invisible. Thus by the nature of my claim, you cannot disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
I could if I could see you. It's easy (well, straightforward anyway) to disprove someone is invisible. I can't on the other hand prove you are invisible, because if I can't see you it might be because you are not there.
God, similarly, would have characterisitcs that make it impossible to disprove him. A supernatural entity that can supposedly violate the very rules of logic that make up this universe is not testable.
That's true. But being invisible doesn't violate those rules.
Science dictates that any hypothesis that can not possibly be disproved somehow is worthless. Therefore, it is equally wortless to assert god exists. The default position must be a rejection of his existance, just as the default position must be a rejection of my being a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
I agree there's no point (from an epistemological point of view9 in asserting god exists, given that by god you mean something ineffable and unobservable. However that doesn't apply to the thing about you being 20 feet tall, invisibile and a gazelle. Even apart from the fact that the three attributes are logically self-contradictory, each on its own is eminently testable.
And I'd be willing to bet you fail the tests. (Like can you throw a basketball down through the net while standing on the floor?)
You're getting much too tied up in nots.
Fine. I'll conseed then that you can believe either in the existance or non-existance of something, fdor the purposes of this argument. However, I still maintain that the onus of proof must be to the person asserting existance, not to the sceptic that doubts it.
Should I believe quarks exist? Or that they don't exist? No-one's ever given me direct proof. How about black holes? For that matter, how about viruses? For that matter, how about viruses?
I do believe all of these things have substantial evidence supporting their existance, otherwise they would never be defensible in the scientific community. Something for which there is no evidence is always rejected by the scientific method.
There's no evidence for string theory being true. Should one believe strings do not exist? Or just keep an open mind, bearing a priori probablities in mind?
God of course, has no evidence supporting his existance, and can never have.
Yes there could be. You'll have god-people jumping all over you if you say that. All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition.
The point is not that there could never be any evidence SUPPORTING the existence of god. The point is there could never be any evidence proving he did NOT exist.
There is absolutely no reason to say he may exist, until such time as this situation changes and at least some evidence materialises.
Again you push it a bit too far. There are lots of reasons to say it may exist, otherwise I don't suppose anyone would ever say it did.
However the final deduction should be more like 'therefore we should assume god does not exist'.
Well the assumption is implied.
There's a very big difference between assuming something does not exist, and saying it doesn't exist. Ther's just as big a difference between assuming something does exist and saying it does exist.
Back to quarks and strings and so on.
Nope. One reason for believing you are not a 20 foot tall invisible gazelle is that it follows from the definition of gazelles that they are visible and less than 20 feet tall. So if you were 20 foot tall and invisible, you couldn't be a gazelle.
This can be rectified by redefining "gazelle" in my case to being able to be both invisible and 20 foot tall. my point is, when this is done, the hypothesis becomes imposible to disprove and worthless.
See above about the ease of proving something is visible and the ease of proving it is or is not 20 feet tall.
You'd have a better example if you said you were an unclassifiable being of unmeasurable height that is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
THAT would really be hard to prove or disprove. It would also be closer to the thing about god.
However, that doesn't rule out any god at all. Or any supernatural force that you might not wish to call 'god' but would in effect be one.
Likewise all you have done here is redefined the hypothesis to make it impossible to disprove. It is therefore not worthy of rational consideration.
Except that it follows from the definition of 'religious'.
In that case I would argue very few people are religious (under that definition), compared to those who believe in god.
I could if I could see you. It's easy (well, straightforward anyway) to disprove someone is invisible. I can't on the other hand prove you are invisible, because if I can't see you it might be because you are not there.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that my being invisible means it is not possible for you to disprove that I am 20-foot tall or a gazelle. My being invisible means you cant disprove that I am in your presence at this very moment! My arbitrary rules have made me impossible to disprove. Just like god.
That's true. But being invisible doesn't violate those rules.
I agree.
And I'd be willing to bet you fail the tests. (Like can you throw a basketball down through the net while standing on the floor?)
But what if I said that this gazelle does not want to participate in these tests? What if I say the gazelle does not want you to disprove or prove its existance. My definition of the 20-foot tall invisible gazelle is now immune to being disproved because I refuse to throw a basketball.
There's no evidence for string theory being true. Should one believe strings do not exist? Or just keep an open mind, bearing a priori probablities in mind?
String theory is a model, just like the Rutherford atom or the Bohr atom are models. They are models because they can explain certain observable phenomena. String theory obviously is a model that seeks to explain certain observable theory. Therefore, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
God is not a model. He is not needed to explain anny observable phenomenon, as Occam's Razor can remove him from this natural universe.
Yes there could be. You'll have god-people jumping all over you if you say that. All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition.
The point is not that there could never be any evidence SUPPORTING the existence of god. The point is there could never be any evidence proving he did NOT exist.
See this is what I mean. Any natural phenomenon can be tested and disproved or proved. God, being supernatural can neither be proved nor disproved.
It is too hard to argue with "All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition" as that is a matter of faith. It hasn't happened and wont be happening. Fact is the universe is natural, not supernatural.
Again you push it a bit too far. There are lots of reasons to say it may exist, otherwise I don't suppose anyone would ever say it did.
Oh I agree, there are a lot of resons to believe in god. They just aren't rational ones, but they are reasons nonetheless. For example, because people fear death, and wish to continue after they have died. For example, because they wish to place an "each way bet" and escape the torment of hell-fire just incase. For example, to provide their lives with meaning that they cant give it. For example, to feel special. For example, because of a sense of tradition. For example, because you have a certain "feeling" that he exists. etc
All of these are reasons. My point were there were no rational reasons for doing so, no evidence.
There's a very big difference between assuming something does not exist, and saying it doesn't exist. Ther's just as big a difference between assuming something does exist and saying it does exist.
I think you're clutching at straws. When I say the Quantum Probability Cloud model for the atom is accurate I assume it is accurate. All that humans can ever do is make assumptions based on the evidence they have. After all, we aren't gods .
See above about the ease of proving something is visible and the ease of proving it is or is not 20 feet tall.
I'm not convinced. I am standing next to you right now. I am always standing next to you. However I refuse to take part in your tests. I refuse to provide any evidence of my existance. Like god, I may as well not be hear, you couldn't know the difference.
Now, prove I don't exist, prove I am not a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
But that's not what you should do at all. Just like with god, you should reject the notion of 20-foot tall invisible gazelle outright. There is no evidence, it is not disprovable, thus it doesnt really matter if it exists or not. Therefore it doesnt exist (assumption ).
I could if I could see you. It's easy (well, straightforward anyway) to disprove someone is invisible. I can't on the other hand prove you are invisible, because if I can't see you it might be because you are not there.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that my being invisible means it is not possible for you to disprove that I am 20-foot tall or a gazelle.
Only if you are invisible, which in fact from my point of view at the moment you are. Provably. From direct observation. The point is though that if I could see you, that would DISPROVE that you were invisible, and very probably also disprove that you are 20 feet tall and a gazelle.
Your original contention was that the statement was neither provable nor disprovable, which isn't true.
My being invisible means you cant disprove that I am in your presence at this very moment! My arbitrary rules have made me impossible to disprove. Just like god.
That's true. But being invisible doesn't violate those rules.
I agree.
And I'd be willing to bet you fail the tests. (Like can you throw a basketball down through the net while standing on the floor?)
But what if I said that this gazelle does not want to participate in these tests? What if I say the gazelle does not want you to disprove or prove its existance. My definition of the 20-foot tall invisible gazelle is now immune to being disproved because I refuse to throw a basketball.
Then I have to invent a test that does not require your willing participation. Which isn't difficult.
There's no evidence for string theory being true. Should one believe strings do not exist? Or just keep an open mind, bearing a priori probablities in mind?
String theory is a model, just like the Rutherford atom or the Bohr atom are models. They are models because they can explain certain observable phenomena. String theory obviously is a model that seeks to explain certain observable theory. Therefore, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
You said the default view of a proposition that something exists should always be that it is false. Then you added unless there was generally accepted evidence for it. That would imply that you should, as a default position, reject string theory since there is no evidence for it.
If you're now saying that you should accept such a position if it is USEFUL to do so, then I wouldn't disagree. It would however have been better to do that at the start.
God is not a model. He is not needed to explain anny observable phenomenon, as Occam's Razor can remove him from this natural universe.
God IS a model. A construct invented partly to explain certain phenomena, partly for other reasons, like justifying political power grabs and whatever.
I agree it is an unnecessary concept to explain observable phenomena. That was never an issue here.
.
Yes there could be. You'll have god-people jumping all over you if you say that. All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition.
The point is not that there could never be any evidence SUPPORTING the existence of god. The point is there could never be any evidence proving he did NOT exist.
See this is what I mean. Any natural phenomenon can be tested and disproved or proved. God, being supernatural can neither be proved nor disproved.
It is too hard to argue with "All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition" as that is a matter of faith. It hasn't happened and wont be happening. Fact is the universe is natural, not supernatural.
My point is you have to watch the tightness of your arguments or you give people all sorts of loopholes. The existence of God could be proven. If you say it couldn't be you're weakening your position. Which ought to be simply that the existence of God could not be disproven. That's the reason to reject the hypothesis.
See above about the ease of proving something is visible and the ease of proving it is or is not 20 feet tall.
I'm not convinced. I am standing next to you right now. I am always standing next to you. However I refuse to take part in your tests. I refuse to provide any evidence of my existance. Like god, I may as well not be hear, you couldn't know the difference.
Now, prove I don't exist, prove I am not a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.
But now your analogy is much closer to what I suggested. If you propose that something exists that is undetectable and does not interact with its environment, then of course that is neither disprovable nor provable and useless.
However the commonest position among the religious is that God exists and is usually undetectable and usually doesn't interact with the material universe. The kicker is in the word 'usually', because it allows for the proposition that God could make himself apparent, and if he did, that would be proof of his existence.
However, it remains a useless proposition because it cannot be disproven
But that's not what you should do at all. Just like with god, you should reject the notion of 20-foot tall invisible gazelle outright. There is no evidence, it is not disprovable, thus it doesnt really matter if it exists or not. Therefore it doesnt exist (assumption ).
I don't think we are different, at least not very, in what we believe. My major point here is that I think your enthusiasm sometimes carries you away and leads you to dropping your guard.
I agree it is an unnecessary concept to explain observable phenomena. That was never an issue here.
My point was he has been made redandant as an explanation for natural phenomena due to our knowledge of the physical world around us and therfore no longer necessary. He is not useful as a model. String theory may be.
Then I have to invent a test that does not require your willing participation. Which isn't difficult.
My point has been missed. Obviously I can define this beast so that he is no disprovable. For example, I could say that I exist as both my human self and a seperate invisible, 20-foot tall gazelle self (which refuses to interact with the world and show itself) and you can not disprove this. But you certainly dont believe this, nor even do you consider it possible that this may be true.
I don't think we are different, at least not very, in what we believe. My major point here is that I think your enthusiasm sometimes carries you away and leads you to dropping your guard.
I dont think our views are all that disimilar. I conceed that it is not impossible that god could exist, just as I conceed that I may also exist as a duality with an invisible 20-foot tall gazelle that I am not aware of. I also conceed that it is not possible to disprove these hypothesi.
I further conceed that if somehow god or the other half of my 20-foot tall invisible gazelle duality appeared it would provide compelling proof for their existance.
However. I fell none of these concessions should mean that I should not (until such time as a single shred of evidence comes to support either contention, that is) reject outright the existance of either of these things.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
All I have is what everyone else has. History. Do you have any factual evidence Julius Ceasar existed? All you got is history. Why is it so hard to believe that there was a jew that went around trying to change the world? I BELIEVE he was a normal, mortal man, not the son of god. Does this make you happy?
Most of the historical figures' characters as we know them today are a
collection of hearsay accounts too. So we have to discredit all these,
and say that we actually know not of the men but of the deeds. That's a
bit too much, though, isn't it?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum