Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[canuckamuck]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

85% of the world's population are religious.

[thailiketoo]

Is this really the level of debate you prefer? little tit for tats. I am doing my best to answer some questions in a very interesting discussion. your last comment to me was that my post ( the part about how people come to believe in God) was BS. I tried to politely deflect it. But now i will ask you to defend your claim, Why was my answer bs?

You said it not me. You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself."

Then you go ahead and post a bunch of information from other people. You wrote "But i know that some have come to their belief through miraculous events, through study, through personal revelation, through trying to prove it is not real, through seeing how others get their peace. And then by comparing their experience with others and in further research and study."

Which is it? You wrote, "I can speak for no one but myself." True or false? That's all I'm asking. I am only asking for clarification of something you said.

If you can speak for no one but yourself then defend your argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist,

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.

But. As far as I know.

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

So, Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Look I said I can only speak for myself, meaning that I am only an authority on my own personal experience. But then i capitulated some information that I believe is true about the general way in which people typically come to believe in God. Just helpful information relevant to the debate.. Which by the way you said was BS but have avoided defending that claim.

You are ranting over a grammatical construct and wasting a lot of everyone's time. the point you are trying to make is pedantic.

If you can not simply move on and say something interesting, i am afraid you will not see any more response from me. It might give you a chance to wipe some froth and spittle of your keyboard.

The BS was meant because you said you wouldn't write experiences from anyone else and then you did, that is BS. I could have said liar liar pants on fire but the BS sounded more polite.

If I wrote, " I can't possibly know what is inside your head" and then wrote, "but it can't be much." That would be BS.

It is not a grammatical construct. I agree with you. You can't speak for anyone but yourself. Saying 85% of the world is religious is meaningless. So why say it? I can't ask 85% of the world about their beliefs so it's silly. I could say it's BS but that apparently upsets you.

If you have any proof that god exists for you feel free to present it. If not you believe in a fantasy and deal with that same as the kids who believe in Santa Clause deal with it.

"When the first baby laughed for the first time, its laugh broke into a thousand pieces, and they all went skipping about, and that was the beginning of fairies."

[canuckamuck]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

Yea that's it in a nutshell.

Me and others have asked the same question several times.

so far No evidence is forthcoming.

instead we are being told, that even if they told as we would not believe them, or that the evidence are of a personal nature not to be revealed in open forum. (personal revelation)

I suspect that they themselves know that the evidence they have is weak.

Then they proceed to talk about the process of the process of gathering evidence, not the evidence it's self..

It is a process of intellectual contortion. in order to avoid the obvious.

In essence they are in denial.

They are so heavily invested in their belief, they find it difficult to abandon them.

But that's understandable, Most of as went through the same process, We were not born Atheists, we lamented the information,we resisted, and finally we accepted the obvious.

They are in the same position a lot of us were, so let's be a little more sympathetic,

and accept the fact that some of them will never accept any reasonable argument against their religion.

They have being brainwashed in believing that, any argument against their faith is a temptation from the devil. and they must resisted vigorously, To accept any argument against their faith is to give in to temptation.

To eat the proverbial apple again.

A lot of assumptions in there, and i disagree with many, but fair enough, I am not willing to detail the personal aspects of my life on an anonymous forum. I think that is a wise position. So I am in default of defending my position. I did try to answer your questions as best I could.

This is page 52, wow.

[canuckamuck]

The BS was meant because you said you wouldn't write experiences from anyone else and then you did, that is BS. I could have said liar liar pants on fire but the BS sounded more polite.

It is not a grammatical construct. I agree with you. You can't speak for anyone but yourself. Saying 85% of the world is religious is meaningless. So why say it? I can't ask 85% of the world about their beliefs so it's silly. I could say it's BS but that apparently upsets you.

If you have any proof that god exists for you feel free to present it. If not you believe in a fantasy and deal with that same as the kids who believe in Santa Clause deal with it.

"When the first baby laughed for the first time, its laugh broke into a thousand pieces, and they all went skipping about, and that was the beginning of fairies."

The 85% percent was in response to Bundoi's comment:

" I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other...."

I was clearing up his misinformation. It was meant to appear beneath his post but some other posts got in there.

If you wrote, " I can't possibly know what is inside your head" and then wrote, "but it can't be much." That would be BS.

Well thank you for the compliment

Edited January 27, 2014 by canuckamuck

[cashpower]

I am not willing to detail the personal aspects of my life on an anonymous forum.

Look, nobody CARES about your personal life. You are obviously living in a fantasy world where for some reason or another you mistook a fairytale as truth. Just like millions before you. And just because they all believe in Santa Claus you do too. Great. Enjoy it. Just don't try to convince anyone else that your beliefs are anything apart from claptrap introduced into a deluded, vulnerable and dysfunctional mind.

You have every right to believe in this deluded nonsense, and the greater society has every right to have you locked up in a nuthouse for being such a gullible halfwit and trying to spread your bullshit as "truth"

[canuckamuck]

I am not willing to detail the personal aspects of my life on an anonymous forum.

Look, nobody CARES about your personal life. You are obviously living in a fantasy world where for some reason or another you mistook a fairytale as truth. Just like millions before you. And just because they all believe in Santa Claus you do too. Great. Enjoy it. Just don't try to convince anyone else that your beliefs are anything apart from claptrap introduced into a deluded, vulnerable and dysfunctional mind.

You have every right to believe in this deluded nonsense, and the greater society has every right to have you locked up in a nuthouse for being such a gullible halfwit and trying to spread your bullshit as "truth"

C'mon you love getting this chance to vent your spleen. You should thank me

[sirineou]

I am an Atheist my self , but since my friend Mr Kanukanukanukanuk is getting lonely on the other side all by himself, with the occasional visits from the Cowboy, and is complaining we are ganging up on him,

I, being the great guy that I am, will cross over to the other side and lend a hand.

Mao knocked on the door of a couple of billion Chinese and convinced the to be Atheists,though some one might successfully claim that most of them were already atheists being Buddhists.

so did Stalin to the Russians, and Pol Pot to Vietnam .

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

And if Mao and Stalin were not stopped they would be knocking on your door too.

Yes I can appreciate the dilemna, must admit my Marx/Engels isnt what it used to be, cant imagine the good comrades being up for a natter round the camp fire discussing the dialetics of materialism.

In fact it reminds me of another religion that slaughtered all those who didnt conform to or submit themselves to their rigid interpretation of all things religious.

We could probaly start with The Cathars and take it from there if you wish, or we could get up to speed with The Taliban, same same but different.

Yea I agree, Religion is covered in the blood of these that disagreed with it, and it was done in the name of their religion

What the Marxists did, was not done in the name of Atheism but in a misguided attempt attempt to rid their societies from the evils of religion.

Non the less, what ever the reasons, to say that Atheists "did not knock on any ones door"

is in my opinion, disingenuous. Where they clearly did

Some where in Russia, some time, there was an actual knock on an actual door, and and some one was told that if they did pursue religion, they would be doing so at their own peril

Not only some one but a great many someones..

.

[sirineou]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

Yea that's it in a nutshell.

Me and others have asked the same question several times.

so far No evidence is forthcoming.

instead we are being told, that even if they told as we would not believe them, or that the evidence are of a personal nature not to be revealed in open forum. (personal revelation)

I suspect that they themselves know that the evidence they have is weak.

Then they proceed to talk about the process of the process of gathering evidence, not the evidence it's self..

It is a process of intellectual contortion. in order to avoid the obvious.

In essence they are in denial.

They are so heavily invested in their belief, they find it difficult to abandon them.

But that's understandable, Most of as went through the same process, We were not born Atheists, we lamented the information,we resisted, and finally we accepted the obvious.

They are in the same position a lot of us were, so let's be a little more sympathetic,

and accept the fact that some of them will never accept any reasonable argument against their religion.

They have being brainwashed in believing that, any argument against their faith is a temptation from the devil. and they must resisted vigorously, To accept any argument against their faith is to give in to temptation.

To eat the proverbial apple again.

A lot of assumptions in there, and i disagree with many, but fair enough, I am not willing to detail the personal aspects of my life on an anonymous forum. I think that is a wise position. So I am in default of defending my position. I did try to answer your questions as best I could.

This is page 52, wow.

Yes indeed a lot of assumptions, but I qualified all my assumptions,with the words "some, and , Many" Thus not pinning my assumptions on anyone in particular.

[canuckamuck]

I think you need a hug

[cashpower]

I think you need a hug

ok...

... oh get your hands out of my pants you weirdo

[boomerangutang]

I get the impression that most Buddhists are theists. I think that the belief in a soul which suffered reincarnation would qualify one as a theist. A lot of Buddhists seem to worship Buddha despite his mundane nature, and many seem to combine Buddhism with pantheism

SC

You're right. In spite of Buddhist philosophy which some of them are apprised of, they act like deists. They worship an image. They also manifest strongly in the metaphysical realm, both lay-people and monks - with their talismans, taboos, belief in ghosts, a thousand do's and don't's.

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

I don't agree with you premise; "...most of the world's population have no interest in Theism..."

I think most people in the world feel compelled to believe in a prescribed God. In all but a few places, a person is ostracized if he/she claims not to believe in one or more of the required Gods. In a Muslim place, it could be a death sentence. People everywhere are very stuck on going with the crowd. Free thinkers are rare, but becoming more common, thanks (in part) to the internet, and the ability to express one's views without being punished.

China and N.Korea suffer another type of problem which has similarities to 'requiring belief in deism.' In China and N.Korea, their manifestos and top leaders are put on God-like platforms. Non-compliance can be mighty painful or fatal. Not much different than the Spanish Inquisition.

[rgs2001uk]

I get the impression that most Buddhists are theists. I think that the belief in a soul which suffered reincarnation would qualify one as a theist. A lot of Buddhists seem to worship Buddha despite his mundane nature, and many seem to combine Buddhism with pantheism

SC

You're right. In spite of Buddhist philosophy which some of them are apprised of, they act like deists. They worship an image. They also manifest strongly in the metaphysical realm, both lay-people and monks - with their talismans, taboos, belief in ghosts, a thousand do's and don't's.

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

I don't agree with you premise; "...most of the world's population have no interest in Theism..."

I think most people in the world feel compelled to believe in a prescribed God. In all but a few places, a person is ostracized if he/she claims not to believe in one or more of the required Gods. In a Muslim place, it could be a death sentence. People everywhere are very stuck on going with the crowd. Free thinkers are rare, but becoming more common, thanks (in part) to the internet, and the ability to express one's views without being punished.

China and N.Korea suffer another type of problem which has similarities to 'requiring belief in deism.' In China and N.Korea, their manifestos and top leaders are put on God-like platforms. Non-compliance can be mighty painful or fatal. Not much different than the Spanish Inquisition.

China and N.Korea suffer another type of problem which has similarities to 'requiring belief in deism.' In China and N.Korea, their manifestos and top leaders are put on God-like platforms. Non-compliance can be mighty painful or fatal. Not much different than the Spanish Inquisition

You mean a bit like pre WW2 Japan, and another country whose name escapes me, shyt its on the tip of my tongue, puut mai ork.

[sirineou]

I think you need a hug

ok...

... oh get your hands out of my pants you weirdo

Funny

[notmyself]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

85% of the world's population are religious.

There is no way you can back that up.

15-18% of the population of the world via various polls identify themselves as either agnostic or atheist I will grant you but that includes Buddhist's being non agnostic and non atheist.

This whole "85% of the world's population are religious" is a ridiculous statement in any case because that figure is with regard to belief in a god.... Unless belief in a god = religious?

[notmyself]

China and N.Korea suffer another type of problem which has similarities to 'requiring belief in deism.' In China and N.Korea, their manifestos and top leaders are put on God-like platforms. Non-compliance can be mighty painful or fatal. Not much different than the Spanish Inquisition

You mean a bit like pre WW2 Japan, and another country whose name escapes me, shyt its on the tip of my tongue, puut mai ork.

When Stalin was sixteen, he received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi. Although his performance had been satisfactory, he was expelled in 1899 after missing his final exams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Keke was right to note Stalin's intellect, which soon became apparent to his teachers. Stalin excelled in school and earned a scholarship to the Tiflis Theological Seminary in 1894. However, there were signs that Stalin was not destined for the priesthood. Prior to entering the seminary, Stalin was not only a choirboy, but also the ruthless leader of a street gang. Notorious for his cruelty and use of unfair tactics, Stalins gang dominated the rough streets of Gori.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/ss/Stalin_2.htm

(Please note that About.com. is an FTA (Free To Air) internet contributor so there is no copyright infringement)

Stalin simply replaced himself as a figurehead in the sea of credulity and Mao later done exactly the same. Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung and Hoxha in Albania all used the same thing. The problem with this, as we have seen, is that credulity is not static. You cannot guarantee because knowledge will eventually pass from person to person. Ask yourself, why are people in N Korea forbidden outside information? Why is there a great firewall of China? To call any of these countries atheist is stupidity of the highest order.

Edited January 28, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

85% of the world's population are religious.

There is no way you can back that up.

15-18% of the population of the world via various polls identify themselves as either agnostic or atheist I will grant you but that includes Buddhist's being non agnostic and non atheist.

This whole "85% of the world's population are religious" is a ridiculous statement in any case because that figure is with regard to belief in a god.... Unless belief in a god = religious?

Kanuckamuk please come back, In the absence of any real opposition Notmyself is arguing against him self,

And he is loosing

[notmyself]

What really irks me is people who say 'x' did 'y' in the name of their religious faith. No, sorry... I did not fall of the back of a turnip truck my friend. This is a puerile attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a direct consequence 'of' and by no means whatsoever in the name 'of'. Slavery for example and how to treat them is via divine edict on the NT. All this BS about OT being supplemented is highlighted with slavery. Thou shalt not own another human being is missing for some reason? Why is that you could and should ask. Well, the God of Abraham makes you a slave so why not enslave others?

To believe theism to be true is to accept to be a slave, to accept being owned. If you wish to be owned and be a slave than go do it yourself but don't expect me to respect you for it and don't try to impose rules upon myself for you doing it.

I'd still like to get into the child issue. An adult believing something on faith but 'teaching' it to children as a truth is in every way wrong. Perhaps I should quote it..........

I believe it on faith but know it to be true

Weird.

[canuckamuck]

The whole "debate" as usual is based on a false premise...

I (and most of the world's population) have no interest in Theism one way or the other....

if Theists want to propose that something exists it would be useful if they provided some evidence.

85% of the world's population are religious.

There is no way you can back that up.

15-18% of the population of the world via various polls identify themselves as either agnostic or atheist I will grant you but that includes Buddhist's being non agnostic and non atheist.

This whole "85% of the world's population are religious" is a ridiculous statement in any case because that figure is with regard to belief in a god.... Unless belief in a god = religious?

Kanuckamuk please come back, In the absence of any real opposition Notmyself is arguing against him self,

And he is loosing

The 85% was a number I picked up, I can't even remember where. I used it to dismiss an argument that most if the world doesn't have any interest in religion, or something like that. But it seems that Notmyself has added credit to that statistic, so thanks for that. A little late though.

I grow weary of defending and deconstructing semantics. People are like a dog with a bone over definitions, when it is clear that the dictionary often has many definitions of the same word. I despise religion but most people would probably describe me as religious because I go to church and believe in God. Christianity is considered a religion (there are actually many religions under that heading) but in my view it stops being real when people do things solely out of custom or because someone setup a pattern to follow.

In my opinion, average people seek a magic recipe, a routine they can follow, so, for one thing, they can get it right, secondly, so they don't have to spend any time in self examination and openness, and thirdly because people want to belong to a culture to feel acceptance. That is why you see ritual everywhere; it's the easy thing. Just give money and a bowl of fruit to a monk, that will make it all better. The reason 85% of the world is religious is because people are hardwired for belief in a higher power(supernatural realm) and also because religious acts are an easy substitute for actual devotion or worship. it is devotion by fax. If you made all the religions of the world disappear, people would start new ones the next day. it is one of the defining elements of human culture. humans are religious by nature. Certainly the last several thousand years are proof of that.

I think that the atheists come closer to the truth than most of the religious people. Atheists reject religion on its merits because they have seen it to be false, to be sometimes manipulative, corrupt, and a tool of control. Being honest with yourself and being open to truth is the path to not only becoming a thoughtful person, it is the only way to move past delusion.

[sirineou]

What really irks me is people who say 'x' did 'y' in the name of their religious faith. No, sorry... I did not fall of the back of a turnip truck my friend. This is a puerile attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a direct consequence 'of' and by no means whatsoever in the name 'of'. Slavery for example and how to treat them is via divine edict on the NT. All this BS about OT being supplemented is highlighted with slavery. Thou shalt not own another human being is missing for some reason? Why is that you could and should ask. Well, the God of Abraham makes you a slave so why not enslave others?

To believe theism to be true is to accept to be a slave, to accept being owned. If you wish to be owned and be a slave than go do it yourself but don't expect me to respect you for it and don't try to impose rules upon myself for you doing it.

I'd still like to get into the child issue. An adult believing something on faith but 'teaching' it to children as a truth is in every way wrong. Perhaps I should quote it..........

I believe it on faith but know it to be true

Weird.

there are many reasons why people do bad things, Some do it because they are sociopaths, some of these sociopaths use religion as a cover, these people I am not concerned with, they would be sociopaths regardless of religion, in the absence of religion they will find other reasons to rationalize their behavior, IMO what makes religion so dangerous is that it makes good people do bad things, So in that respect I am afraid it can be said that they do what they do in the name of religion.

And let's be fair , religion also makes some bad people do good things, The threat of eternal damnation can be a pretty powerful motivator.

Slavery has being around as for a long time, In pre-christian times the victor would enslave the vanquished and make them do work for him, the alternative was death. It was a transaction arrangement

What Christianity did was create a subclass of people , namely people of color, and empowered others , namely white, to own such people . It made some people less than human.

As far as parents and children are concerned, I will tell you this, as a Parent I have a problem with anyone telling me how to bring up my child. Having said that, of course society should set some standards, But getting in to religion....

I don't know,

abdicating that power to the government is stepping on a very slippery slope.

[sirineou]

The 85% was a number I picked up, I can't even remember where. I used it to dismiss an argument that most if the world doesn't have any interest in religion, or something like that. But it seems that Notmyself has added credit to that statistic, so thanks for that. A little late though.

I grow weary of defending and deconstructing semantics. People are like a dog with a bone over definitions, when it is clear that the dictionary often has many definitions of the same word. I despise religion but most people would probably describe me as religious because I go to church and believe in God. Christianity is considered a religion (there are actually many religions under that heading) but in my view it stops being real when people do things solely out of custom or because someone setup a pattern to follow.

In my opinion, average people seek a magic recipe, a routine they can follow, so, for one thing, they can get it right, secondly, so they don't have to spend any time in self examination and openness, and thirdly because people want to belong to a culture to feel acceptance. That is why you see ritual everywhere; it's the easy thing. Just give money and a bowl of fruit to a monk, that will make it all better. The reason 85% of the world is religious is because people are hardwired for belief in a higher power(supernatural realm) and also because religious acts are an easy substitute for actual devotion or worship. it is devotion by fax. If you made all the religions of the world disappear, people would start new ones the next day. it is one of the defining elements of human culture. humans are religious by nature. Certainly the last several thousand years are proof of that.

I think that the atheists come closer to the truth than most of the religious people. Atheists reject religion on its merits because they have seen it to be false, to be sometimes manipulative, corrupt, and a tool of control. Being honest with yourself and being open to truth is the path to not only becoming a thoughtful person, it is the only way to move past delusion.

Very well said

The path to truth is different for many people. It is the path traveled rather than the destination that's important

one way or an other, for some sooner and for others later, IMHO we are all going to the same place.

[RandomSand]

Sorry to barge in with a question...

If Jesus is suffering for our sins; and in sin we truly do not find pleasure; then where is the pleasure of this whole sinning dynamic?

Well; logically it means that Jesus must be finding pleasure in our sins.

So we must sin to pleasure Jesus?

This statement is aimed at the believers.

In another unwritten statement, as if there will even be a single informed response to the one above, I could demonstrate how the only logical outcome of reality is that a father god is raping the mother goddess.

btw; if anyone knows of a religion that agrees with this raping scenario; please could someone name what it's called? THANKS.

p.s: I'm totally serious in what I write & NO I'm not a moron.

[sirineou]

Sorry to barge in with a question...

If Jesus is suffering for our sins; and in sin we truly do not find pleasure; then where is the pleasure of this whole sinning dynamic?

Well; logically it means that Jesus must be finding pleasure in our sins.

So we must sin to pleasure Jesus?

.

It would be logical if the things you said were true, but...

First , in the christian religion it is believed that Jesus suffered on the cross,

and then was resurrected joined his Father to form the holly trinity , Father , Son and the holly ghost.

This is central to Christianity.

Jesus Suffered then, does not suffer now.

second who say that we do not find pleasure in sin? Pleasure is what makes sin attractive.

But perhaps I misunderstand.

[RandomSand]

Personally I can't understand a trinity unless Jesus is transcendent as the first duality.

Well surely if the book that talks about Jesus is just then it would surely tell us that Jesus either is (a.) eternal in the capacity as stated above, or, (b.) a successor to the prior transcendence.

Edited January 29, 2014 by RandomSand

[sirineou]

Since I don't really believe in any of these, I have not invested too much gray matter on the subject,

As I understand it the Trinity is different aspects of the same God

The Son is God incarnate The Wholly spirit is the word of God. and of course God is all .

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

The Trinity is a nonsense created by a bishop called Anasthaseus, in order to protect Christianity by making it more acceptable to the polytheist Roman empire. It doesn't make sense now because it didn't make sense then. The Trinity did not feature as part of the original Christian doctrine and notably it does not feature in the Old Testament.

[notmyself]

The Trinity is a nonsense created by a bishop called Anasthaseus, in order to protect Christianity by making it more acceptable to the polytheist Roman empire. It doesn't make sense now because it didn't make sense then. The Trinity did not feature as part of the original Christian doctrine and notably it does not feature in the Old Testament.

As was the resurrection. It was added to the Gospel of Mark at a later date and subsequently copied by Matthew, John and Luke. Christianity would certainly have been on the wane as it became evident that the Jesus figure would not be returning.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-28.htm

The story was 'sexed up' in order to make it more appealing by way of making it more like other beliefs at that time. Resurrection was a crowd pleaser so it was introduced for that very reason.

[rgs2001uk]

The Trinity is a nonsense created by a bishop called Anasthaseus, in order to protect Christianity by making it more acceptable to the polytheist Roman empire. It doesn't make sense now because it didn't make sense then. The Trinity did not feature as part of the original Christian doctrine and notably it does not feature in the Old Testament.

As was the resurrection. It was added to the Gospel of Mark at a later date and subsequently copied by Matthew, John and Luke. Christianity would certainly have been on the wane as it became evident that the Jesus figure would not be returning.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-28.htm

The story was 'sexed up' in order to make it more appealing by way of making it more like other beliefs at that time. Resurrection was a crowd pleaser so it was introduced for that very reason.

Michael Baigent addressed this years ago in his book, The Jesus Papers (exposing the greatest cover up in history).

[notmyself]

The Trinity is a nonsense created by a bishop called Anasthaseus, in order to protect Christianity by making it more acceptable to the polytheist Roman empire. It doesn't make sense now because it didn't make sense then. The Trinity did not feature as part of the original Christian doctrine and notably it does not feature in the Old Testament.

As was the resurrection. It was added to the Gospel of Mark at a later date and subsequently copied by Matthew, John and Luke. Christianity would certainly have been on the wane as it became evident that the Jesus figure would not be returning.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-28.htm

The story was 'sexed up' in order to make it more appealing by way of making it more like other beliefs at that time. Resurrection was a crowd pleaser so it was introduced for that very reason.

Michael Baigent addressed this years ago in his book, The Jesus Papers (exposing the greatest cover up in history).

Extensive research has been done by many people over a considerable time. There really is no getting away from the resurrection being inserted at some stage much later. One thing we know for sure is that the resurrection fable was not in the original writings and was added later for a reason, the reason is debatable.

[canuckamuck]

About this Michael Baigant book.

It seemed amazing to me that having been a Christian for a long time that I had missed where someone had proved it was all a hoax. Having never heard of these Jesus papers, I did a little research (not much) into what this was all about. According to the author his proof is based on two pieces of papyrus that were discovered in Jerusalem in 1960 under someone’s house. He does not have these papers, in one version of accounts they ended up in the Vatican and were destroyed, in another version he was shown the papers by a priest but never had them in his care. One thing is for sure, they have never been verified by any archaeological methods. Convenient, yes?

Overlooking the fact that no piece of papyrus has ever survived for 2000 years in humid Jerusalem (around the Dead Sea, or the sands of Egypt, yes, but never Jerusalem) the claims said to be found on these mysterious papers are quite extraordinary.

The author claims: Jesus was actually a political activist for the zealot party; a party that did not exist until 30 years after his death. He actually survived a very public crucifixion, with the help of the Romans (can you imagine agreeing to be crucified as part of a plot to escape) And escaped to Egypt with his wife, of course it is Mary Magdalene, code named the Holy Grail; did Dan Brown help him with this part? And then he teaches something which we have no record of until his death.

The author refutes widely accepted historical evidence where it disagrees with his revisionism, and he is not backed up in his claims by any other credible independent source. Which is shocking considering Jesus is perhaps the most studied historical figure. Why has no one else found this out?

But it sold a lot of books right?

These type of books do pop up once and a while, and they are very popular with Anti-Christians. But it is amazing how they all seem to slowly fade away. I know a lot of Christians and this is the first time I have ever heard of this book. Another thing I find amazing is that atheists generally have very limited knowledge of the Bible, but when one of these books pop up, they are instantly experts and wholeheartedly agree with the findings of the book.

If someone wrote a controversial new theory of astrophysics, I wouldn't feel qualified to agree or disagree with the findings. Because I haven't studied enough to know any better.

Edited January 30, 2014 by canuckamuck

[sirineou]

About this Michael Baigant book.

It seemed amazing to me that having been a Christian for a long time that I had missed where someone had proved it was all a hoax. Having never heard of these Jesus papers, I did a little research (not much) into what this was all about. According to the author his proof is based on two pieces of papyrus that were discovered in Jerusalem in 1960 under someone’s house. He does not have these papers, in one version of accounts they ended up in the Vatican and were destroyed, in another version he was shown the papers by a priest but never had them in his care. One thing is for sure, they have never been verified by any archaeological methods. Convenient, yes?

Overlooking the fact that no piece of papyrus has ever survived for 2000 years in humid Jerusalem (around the Dead Sea, or the sands of Egypt, yes, but never Jerusalem) the claims said to be found on these mysterious papers are quite extraordinary.

The author claims: Jesus was actually a political activist for the zealot party; a party that did not exist until 30 years after his death. He actually survived a very public crucifixion, with the help of the Romans (can you imagine agreeing to be crucified as part of a plot to escape) And escaped to Egypt with his wife, of course it is Mary Magdalene, code named the Holy Grail; did Dan Brown help him with this part? And then he teaches something which we have no record of until his death.

The author refutes widely accepted historical evidence where it disagrees with his revisionism, and he is not backed up in his claims by any other credible independent source. Which is shocking considering Jesus is perhaps the most studied historical figure. Why has no one else found this out?

But it sold a lot of books right?

These type of books do pop up once and a while, and they are very popular with Anti-Christians. But it is amazing how they all seem to slowly fade away. I know a lot of Christians and this is the first time I have ever heard of this book. Another thing I find amazing is that atheists generally have very limited knowledge of the Bible, but when one of these books pop up, they are instantly experts and wholeheartedly agree with the findings of the book.

If someone wrote a controversial new theory of astrophysics, I wouldn't feel qualified to agree or disagree with the findings. Because I haven't studied enough to know any better.

Not having an opinion about the veracity Michael Baigant's book, a couple of questions.

as far as no Papyrus surviving in the dead dead area. What about the dead sea scrolls?

and why is it that weak arguments about his non existence, are dismissed, but equally weak arguments about his existence are taken for gospel?