But we are not asserting anything. All we want is the other side showing us evidence - aceptable evidence. For an infinite, personal being, it has got to be pretty strong.
If you accept any bald assertion coming at you, you will just have to believe in all the religions in the world, plus the invisible dragon, the Ten Foot Hare, the Purple Unicorn, and the Giant Banana.
If you mean Jesus of Nazareth, he could have existed - but not as the bible describes him. There is simply no external evidence that such a character ever existed, not Roman history, not Jewish history. All the artifacts we found about Jesus of Nazareth turned out to be fakes (Shroud of Turin for example) or are serious contenders for fakes (the recent stone burial container for example).
How do media, faith healers, and stage magicians conduct their “miracles?” How about Uri Geller? How does he perform his paranormal tricks? How about David Copperfield, how did he walk through the Great Wall?
I know it’s a bit late in the discussion now, but I just now looked at the page linked as an “interesting site.” Well, if God made that code (Assuming he used his super-omnicient-know-it-all powers to make it decode in a language that hadn’t been made yet), then God sucks as a cryptologist. Can’t make a consistant cypher worth a damn. You have to switch rules arbitrarily or the nice deciphering breaks down in the middle of the sentance (Right at the “a” in “speaking”). For an omniscient guy, I would have expected better.
Pretty good for a joke site, though 
Because agnosticism is just wishy-washiness that gives credence to religion. If religion didn’t exist, agnosticism couldn’t, and since religion might as well not exist as far as I’m concerned, agnosticism isn’t a possibility for me.
Agnosticism assumes that there are two possibilities: “god existing” and “god not existing,” and that our minds begin half way between the two. It presents atheism as a belief. Atheism is not a belief. Expecting me to take the position that “I don’t know whether god exists or not” is like expecting me to say “I don’t know whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not.” I see no reason to believe that the sun won’t rise tomorrow, just like I see no reason to believe that God exists. Quite frankly, I wonder how agnostics can live, apparently not desiring to either believe or disbelieve in something.
There was a probably a bloke called Jesus back in them days. There is no reason to assume he performed miracles.
Isn’t there more evidence that Socrates existed? We can read what he wrote, for a start.
Just to note that in a previous posts I agreed that I too fit someone’s defintion of atheist but the “strong” atheist is indeed making an assertion. There is a difference between saying something doesn’t exists and saying there is no proof. I say there is no proof and that there is ample reason for why the human mind would make up such a mythology but I have no basis to assert that there is no god. I don’t have proof either.
I never considered agnosticism to equate with being wishy-washy. I just considered it rational since you can’t prove the premise of either god or no god.
It’s much easier to offer a refutation of an infinite, personal, being than one with limited power. The Judeo-Christian god is especially easy given the many contradictory attributes as per orthodox Christian doctrines.
I have a question:
Do you like surprises?
Not really- We read what Plato wrote. I am not sure there is evidence that Socrates existed, except that he was Plato’s teacher. Don’t think he ever wrote a thing.
Yes, but in my mind, the proof is so overwhelmingly lacking that for everyday purposes, I can say that god does not exist. Just as the proof of an invisible, undectable giraffe that lives in New York is so overwhelmingly lacking that for everyday purposes, I can say that it does not exist.
This is true only if existence is equally as plausible as non-existence. In the case of gods, we are talking about something which is, prima facia at least, utterly contrary to all that we know of the empirical universe. We also know that humans have invented not one but thousands of gods in the course of our history, and that many of these gods are just heavily mystified perceptions of natural phenomena (the sun, the moon, fire, the sea, cave bears, thunder, the seasons, the wind, etc.). Occam’s razor, as well as common sense, tells us that it is far more likely that the Abrahamic deity (Jawheh, Allah, Christ, whatever) is a purely mythological construct and a relic of ancient attempts to explain the natural world than that there really is an invisible, undetectable, all-powerful, magic spirit spirit floating around out there. I don’t think that it is any more irrational or unreasonable to assert that God does not exist than to assert (as Urban Ranger pointed out) that unicorns do not exist.
Asserting that the impossible is impossible is not an expression of faith.
Orbytal: for an excellent secular view of Jesus, watch the movie ‘JESUS OF MONTREAL’. It’s an odd comedy-drama about a French-Canadian method actor who takes the role of Jesus in the local bishop’s Passion Play.
Anyway, I do believe that there was an actual person upon whom Jesus was based. He was probably an Essene or at least inspired by one based on some of his teachings and rituals (if the gospels are correct) and he may have led an armed uprising against the Temple. (I say this because the Bible says he cleared the Temple of merchants and moneychangers- in art and movies this is usually depicted as a righteous man kicking over a few Scrooge-like old men with TV trays filled with doves and coins- in reality there were more than 10,000 businesspeople on the temple grounds at any given time and probably many more than that during the high holy days- to have removed them would take a full scale riot at the very least and would definitely explain Jesus’s subsequent arrest.)
I think much of Jesus’ miraculous nature was a later invention added to gain converts or fit the scriptures. In Mark, commonly accepted by Christian and non-Christian scholars as the oldest of the gospels, there is no mention of a virgin birth (then there’s the almah-bethullah controversy, but this is already going to be a long post). If you’ll examine the beliefs of the other mystery cults contemporary with nascent Christianity (especially the cult of Heracles) you’ll find many of the same components that were already old by the 1st century: virgin births, tyrants who do evil things to destroy the chosen one as a baby, unjust death (Heracles even died in front of his mother with the last words ‘It is finished’ according to some accounts of his cult) followed by resurrections, miracles and speaking through chosen followers (oracles), etc., then the Mithras-Jesus coincidence is well documented. Within a century of his death, incidentally, Jesus’s Jewish detractors (of whom there were many, which is actually one reason to believe he probably did exist) were spreading the rumor that he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called “the Panther”, consequently he was known in some Jewish sources as “bar Pantera”.
There is some debate as to whether the village of Nazareth even existed in the first century, but I don’t have a convenient cite for the debate. (I’ll find one if anybody’s interested.) An irrelevant aside, but many Christians aren’t aware that in the Nativity Tale when Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, they were fleeing to a country with more Jews than in Israel (almost like fleeing from the Jewish community in Bethlehem today to NYC, where there are actually many more Jews). Alexandria was a NYC or London of it’s day (second only to Rome) and had a huge and thriving Jewish population.
The slaughter of the Innocents by King Herod is not recorded in any history of his reign. OTOH, it certainly would not have been out of character for a man so paranoid that he killed his favorite wife, her mother, father, grandfathers, and brother, several of his own relatives, and ultimately three of his own sons for fear of being ousted from power. (Cæsar Augustus remarked of Herod “I’d rather be his pig than his son. A Jew’s pigs will die a natural death.”)
An oddity to me, and I mean no offense by this, is that most conservative Christians have no problem seeing the logical flaws or even the historical inaccuracies in tales of Muhammad, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, Buddha. etc., with Protestants seeing the illogic in tales of Catholic saints (Thomas a Becket’s maggot-pearls, or St. Perpetua’s gender switching, for example), but they then turn off their superstition detectors when looking at their own beliefs. Why is this? Do they realize they are doing it?
Depends on which kind.
If I am wrong and there is a god, I would expect that any surprise after I’m gone would be a pleasent one rather than an unpleasent one.
**
Do you? Wouldn’t you just love to show up to the afterlife only to find out that Mohammed or the Catholics/Protestants/Mormons had it right and now you are screwed?
More likely you will be too dead to feel much of anything, much less suprise.
I tend to believe that Jesus existed (though there is no evidence for it) since it appears some of the sayings predated the gospels by a bit, and since I think it is unlikely that the Bible writers could make up a character. (People didn’t make up characters in those days - they mostly took from myths.) As for miracles, do you believe that Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac? People made up myths about him only decades after his death, it is not surprising that writers wishing to convince their audience to join this new religion would create the standard set of miracles.
As for Socrates - it is a good analogy. He did exist, from evidence of Plato and others (I think he is mentioned in a play from the period) but he said none or almost none of the things Plato quoted him as saying.
One more thing - do you believe that there were earthquakes and dead people marching around after the crucifixion? If so, how come my distant ancestors never noticed?
<Rocky and Bullwinkle>
That’s something you don’t see everyday Chauncey?
What’s that, Edgar?
Dead people walking around.
Happens all the time. No need to write it down.
</Rocky and Bullwinkle>
Mrs. Voyager is a deist - she just feels more comfortable believing there is something out there. She does not believe in a personal god. She was a bit surprised that I didn’t want to argue about this. But there is no way we can disprove the existence of a deity on the other side of the Big Bang (yet, perhaps for ever) and there is no way we can disprove the existence of something that has not impact on us. As long as the deist admits it is belief, and not fact, and as long as the deist doesn’t try to pass laws regulating morality because this invisible god says so, I’m not going to argue.
I’m also with you on your second paragraph. Maybe there is some god for some planets whose Bible got it right, and who actually is involved. It certainly isn’t any of ours. Maybe the universe was created for the benefit of some other race, and we are just living in the remnants after the interesting stuff happened.
Crafter_Man, yes I like surprises…
For all who have responded, thank you. You are all certainly “opening my eyes” more, but my faith remains unstaggered. Ever since I read it I have agreed with the saying “For the non-believer, no evidence is sufficient; for the believer, no evidence is needed.”
As for non-believers, some of us would settle for a sliver of evidence. As for believers, I think that the above saying sums it up quite well.
[nitpick, forgive me]
It was the Rappahannock, not the Potomac, which actually makes it somewhat believable. Damned good arm, to be sure, but no miracle!
[/nitpick]
—You feel the strength drain from your limbs and your grasp on consciousness weakens. You know now that in a few moments you will be swallowed up by an eternal abyss. There will be nothing more. No more input. No more consciousness.—
I don’t know anything about that. However, if death I like that, then I experience something very much like it every night when I go to sleep: and I go without fear.
—How will you cope with the fear of knowing that you are finally in a position where you know your time on earth is very, very finite?—
First of all, I am always in that position. Not only with regards to my own life, but in regards to everything and everyone I love: anything could be gone tommorow. I know this, and I have ot strive to really appreciate it all the time.
Second of all: I can’t imagine that it would be even half as horrifying as knowing that every moment is finite, and I can never go back and do it again. Even an eternity of life cannot fix that.
—You are all certainly “opening my eyes” more, but my faith remains unstaggered.—
I have no interest at all in staggering your faith. I’m simply describing myself.
So you also believe in Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, Brahma, the Purple Unicorn, the Ten Foot Hare, and the Giant Banana?