Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[notmyself]

Glad I said...

Extensive research has been done by many people over a considerable time.

I personally wouldn't quote Baigant though much of his work is valid.

[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.

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?

I said papyrus survived in the Dead Sea area, just not Jerusalem. The Dead Sea area is arid.

We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus then we have of nearly any historical figure of the era

Here is a snippet I grabbed. from a Google search. There is more, but this is a good start.

Historical Textual Evidence for Jesus’ Existence

There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

1. 9 Traditional New Testament Authors

A. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

2. 20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament

A. Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.

3. 4 Heretical Writings

A. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.

4. 9 Secular Sources

A. Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.

​This is not exactly weak evidence. We have only 10 writers discussing Emperor Tiberius Caesar within 150 years of his life, but no one doubts his existence.

[notmyself]

Great list... Josephus is laughable but I have to go to bed so will address it later. Josephus lol

[drx13]

Come on guys let's bring some serious analysis here.

For example, the perennial issue to the catholic church of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"

To start you off..

Anders Sandberg has presented a calculation based on theories of information physics and quantum gravity, establishing an upper bound of 8.6766×10⁴⁹angels.^[11]

[rgs2001uk]

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.

If for arguements sake we take what I call the third book in the trilogy, the Koran, what does it say?

[notmyself]

If for arguements sake we take what I call the third book in the trilogy, the Koran, what does it say?

With regard to?

Islam considers the Jesus figure to be a prophet and not the son of God so no resurrection I'm afraid.

[notmyself]

The title of the thread is 'Are you an Atheist/Believer?' so only applicable answer without going off topic would be either yes or no. Since it has become ever so polite and is for the most part about philosophical issues I feel it would not be out of order to point out the following.

Archbishops criticise Nigerian and Ugandan anti-gay laws

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have written to the presidents of Nigeria and Uganda, after being asked about laws there penalising gay people.

The letter said homosexual people were loved and valued by God and should not be victimised or diminished.

Nigeria and Uganda have both passed legislation targeting people with same-sex attraction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25959942

I'm all for it and consider it a positive move though it is a bit hypocritical given the CoE's stance of the ordination of women.

However...

Uganda archbishop responds to Welby on anti-gay laws

The head of the Anglican Church in Uganda has given a critical response to a letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York warning that gays and lesbians should not be victimised.

[...]

Archbishop Stanley Ntagali responded that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture".

He is of cause entirely correct. The following should also be noted....

Matthew 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

From the first link above...

Archbishop Welby has said some gay couples have loving, stable and monogamous relationships of "stunning" quality.

But he says he still supports the Church of England's opposition to active homosexuality.

The head of the CofE should perhaps read his Bible.

It is issues just as these which have resulted in me being on the side of Creationist's and the Taliban. They don't try to worm their way out of scripture.

[sirineou]

It is issues just as these which have resulted in me being on the side of Creationist's and the Taliban. They don't try to worm their way out of scripture.

on the side of the Creationists and Taliban?

Huh

Have you being hitting the Lao Cao again?

[notmyself]

It is issues just as these which have resulted in me being on the side of Creationist's and the Taliban. They don't try to worm their way out of scripture.

on the side of the Creationists and Taliban?

Huh

Have you being hitting the Lao Cao again?

Totally nuts but at least they don't try and lie about the scripture.

[sirineou]

It is issues just as these which have resulted in me being on the side of Creationist's and the Taliban. They don't try to worm their way out of scripture.

on the side of the Creationists and Taliban?

Huh

Have you being hitting the Lao Cao again?

Totally nuts but at least they don't try and lie about the scripture.

The problem is that, they are the problem.

People like Archbishop Welby are keeping an open mind and are willing to adjust their position as information changes.

I think these are the people we should be with. I say good,let them change incrementally

I am looking forward to The Atheist Anglican Church, and The Agnostic Catholic Church,

Edited February 1, 2014 by sirineou

[boomerangutang]

If you talk about current Christian clerics or Islam Imman espousing on current hot-button issues: like gays or contraceptives, it's like trying to fit wooden wagon wheels under a jetliner. Relgionists are waaaaay out of the loop. They still think our one species should multiply and cover the earth. They still think that all the planet's species exist to serve Man. They still think that certain peoples' thoughts can be transferred (to other people, to animals, to inanimate things) and have tangible affects on those things. I let religion go like a person would shed an old crusty overcoat when arriving in a tropical climate. It's liberating.

[sirineou]

If you talk about current Christian clerics or Islam Imman espousing on current hot-button issues: like gays or contraceptives, it's like trying to fit wooden wagon wheels under a jetliner. Relgionists are waaaaay out of the loop. They still think our one species should multiply and cover the earth. They still think that all the planet's species exist to serve Man. They still think that certain peoples' thoughts can be transferred (to other people, to animals, to inanimate things) and have tangible affects on those things. I let religion go like a person would shed an old crusty overcoat when arriving in a tropical climate. It's liberating.

As more and more people are "shedding their religion, political structure will backpedal in an attempt to maintain their power structure.

I would rather have them backpedal than become entrenched in dogma such as the Taliban and other fundamentalists do.

[stedyedy]

Look at what lord jesus represents love,caring all that good stuff seems godly to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[sirineou]

Look at what lord jesus represents love,caring all that good stuff seems godly to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Sounds good to me

If we could only get rid of the later added dogma that has caused so much misery over the ages,I think both me, you and Jesus would be better of and happier.

[kuka]

Religion is all a bunch of fairy tales. It was invented thousands of years ago when people were afraid of the dark.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3

[canuckamuck]

If you talk about current Christian clerics or Islam Imman espousing on current hot-button issues: like gays or contraceptives, it's like trying to fit wooden wagon wheels under a jetliner. Relgionists are waaaaay out of the loop. They still think our one species should multiply and cover the earth. They still think that all the planet's species exist to serve Man. They still think that certain peoples' thoughts can be transferred (to other people, to animals, to inanimate things) and have tangible affects on those things. I let religion go like a person would shed an old crusty overcoat when arriving in a tropical climate. It's liberating.

As more and more people are "shedding their religion, political structure will backpedal in an attempt to maintain their power structure.

I would rather have them backpedal than become entrenched in dogma such as the Taliban and other fundamentalists do.

But at the same time we are seeing quite a growth in Islam, which is a movement in the opposite direction. I know high reproduction is a big part of it, but people are converting as well.

[Siamesepiggster]

Religion = Santa Claus for adults

[Nepal4me]

But at the same time we are seeing quite a growth in Islam, which is a movement in the opposite direction. I know high reproduction is a big part of it, but people are converting as well.

There is an increase in Islam worldwide primarily because of birth rate and heavy indoctrination in those regions. There is also a reduction in those identifying as Christians due to becoming part of the modern world. Today, identifying Christians are heavily in the grey haired group. Young people today are moving away from Christianity because they recognize it as obviously wrong.

This is creating a fast moving change in world percentage of Muslim and Christian. Within a very few years, 10 to 15 at most, Muslims will have a huge lead in percentage of believers. This is expected to continue for decades.

In our kids day, Christians will likely be a very small percentage of the world population and Muslims will be possibly the majority of the population.

This really isn't a problem and isn't a "win" for Islam. Rather than there being Christians and Muslims and the others, there will be Muslims, others and a huge percentage of non believers. Even Muslims, despite their indoctrination and their poor level of education are realizing religion is man made. Over time, there will be secular movements, where participants will not fear for their lives, just as their was in the Christian world.

With the internet today it is very easy to see that religion is man made. Mormonism in particular is very specific in that area, in that it is completely based on lies. Mormon's even 15 years ago wouldn't know about all the false statements, today Mormons are checking sources and coming to the realization their religion is chuck full of BS. Christianity and Islam have so much inertia via hundreds and thousands of years that it's not so easy compared to Mormonism... but still it's pretty easy to see.

With modernization, religion simply has less and less influence in our lives.

[notmyself]

The problem is that, they are the problem.

People like Archbishop Welby are keeping an open mind and are willing to adjust their position as information changes.

I think these are the people we should be with. I say good,let them change incrementally

I am looking forward to The Atheist Anglican Church, and The Agnostic Catholic Church

Empty words from Welby rather than real change as he's just moving the goal posts to avoid addressing the issue. Hate the sin but love the sinner?

The long and the short of it is that 1+1 does equal 2 and saying that 2.1 is closer that 5 is to miss the point entirely as they are both equally incorrect.

To go back to Creationists. They can't accept evolution because it is incompatible with scripture and I fully agree with them in that regard. They may be nuts but at least they are not chopping and changing things to fit in with what we have found out. Once you start doing that you are using reason but reason doesn't work with something faith based. I see no reason why they should not be considered the most devout flavour of Christian. Same with the Taliban. It cannot be said that they are not true believers but it could be said of a so called moderate who likes a bacon sandwich and a cold beer for lunch. What right do others have to say they shouldn't be allowed to stop women being educated or to have intercourse with a 9 year old girl. It is all part of their religion so on what basis can we not allow them to practice it?

Edited February 1, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

Empty words from Welby rather than real change as he's just moving the goal posts to avoid addressing the issue. Hate the sin but love the sinner?

The long and the short of it is that 1+1 does equal 2 and saying that 2.1 is closer that 5 is to miss the point entirely as they are both equally incorrect.

To go back to Creationists. They can't accept evolution because it is incompatible with scripture and I fully agree with them in that regard. They may be nuts but at least they are not chopping and changing things to fit in with what we have found out. Once you start doing that you are using reason but reason doesn't work with something faith based. I see no reason why they should not be considered the most devout flavour of Christian. Same with the Taliban. It cannot be said that they are not true believers but it could be said of a so called moderate who likes a bacon sandwich and a cold beer for lunch. What right do others have to say they shouldn't be allowed to stop women being educated or to have intercourse with a 9 year old girl. It is all part of their religion so on what basis can we not allow them to practice it?

We change as new information becomes available, why they should no have the same right?

Your use of double negatives make it difficult to understand what you are saying, I had to read the following paragraph a couple of time to make sure, and I am still not sure,

"What right do others have to say they shouldn't be allowed to stop women being educated or to have intercourse with a 9 year old girl. It is all part of their religion so on what basis can we not allow them to practice it?"

I don't know, are you saying that if something is part of your religion you should be allowed to practice it?

[notmyself]

We change as new information becomes available, why they should no have the same right?

They should but can't because it would have a negative impact on their belief which is why Creationists HAVE to reject evolution.

Your use of double negatives make it difficult to understand what you are saying, I had to read the following paragraph a couple of time to make sure, and I am still not sure,

I don't know, are you saying that if something is part of your religion you should be allowed to practice it?

Sorry, started off writing one thing and decided to word it in another way. Lazy.

You got it spot on in any case. Not talking about Priests raping boys as that is not in Christian scripture but marrying and having sexual relations with children is in Islamic scripture. Slavery is endorsed in the OT, NT and the Qu'ran yet they are not allowed to practice it. If that is not an imposition upon freedom of religion that I don't know what is.

Edited February 1, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

We change as new information becomes available, why they should no have the same right?

They should but can't because it would have a negative impact on their belief which is why Creationists HAVE to reject evolution.

Your use of double negatives make it difficult to understand what you are saying, I had to read the following paragraph a couple of time to make sure, and I am still not sure,

I don't know, are you saying that if something is part of your religion you should be allowed to practice it?

Sorry, started off writing one thing and decided to word it in another way. Lazy.

You got it spot on in any case. Not talking about Priests raping boys as that is not in Christian scripture but marrying and having sexual relations with children is in Islamic scripture. Slavery is endorsed in the OT, NT and the Qu'ran yet they are not allowed to practice it. If that is not an imposition upon freedom of religion that I don't know what is.

I understand what you are saying

Even though you disagree with their religion , you respect their integrity.

where there are those with in the moderate religious circles that you see as only hypocrites

But remember, like anything else, religion evolves also.

Freedom of religion does not supersede basic human rights and the laws of the land.

Marrying and having sexual relationships with a 9 year old is not only morally reprehensible

it is also illegal in most countries, aside from the moral implications, there are practical reasons for that,

One is that a 9 year old is not mentally mature to give consent. Non Consensual sex is rape. I would hope no one supports rape on religious grounds?

As far as the treatment of women is concern, Women are not chattel to do as you wish with . Regardless of what some illiterate Shepard said two thousand years ago,

That's one of the reasons why many of these countries are so undeveloped,

Imagine half of your population being uneducated,underproducing baby making machines.

Imagine the despair of an intelligent female, not being allowed to achieve her potential, condemned to a life of servitude and baby making.

They are not fooling any one, call it what you want, it is Male chauvinism disguised as religion .

They are free to believe and do what ever they want to themselves, But they are not allowed to force their beliefs on others,certainly not on 9 year old girls, and not on defenseless women.

Edited February 1, 2014 by sirineou

[boomerangutang]

People have a long history of huddling around fires and listening to stories. Groups of humans, from cave-man days, have always had an 'alpha male' leading them. Sometimes he's been kind, but more often he's been oppressive, or at least hoarding (taking the prettiest girls, the best food, etc.) - but you can bet he's always been a story teller. You could almost say that humans have been genetically programmed to look up to, and listen to an alpha male and believe in the accompanying myths. Religion is an extention of that 100,000+ year trend. Religion is, among other things, myths which bond communities together, so you could say it's a component of survival. A group with cohesiveness, is a group that's more likely to survive than a group which is splintered. An elaborate belief system, with one or more Gods, provides that cohesiveness.

[notmyself]

Freedom of religion does not supersede basic human rights and the laws of the land.

Marrying and having sexual relationships with a 9 year old is not only morally reprehensible

it is also illegal in most countries, aside from the moral implications, there are practical reasons for that,

One is that a 9 year old is not mentally mature to give consent. Non Consensual sex is rape. I would hope no one supports rape on religious grounds?

On you second point regarding rape on religious grounds. Sorry to say that there are millions and many are state supported. Bit too in depth to go into at this time of night. Remind me again at some stage....

Marrying and having sexual relationships with a 9 year old is not only morally reprehensible

Sorry for breaking up the quote.

Would that be secular morality?

it is also illegal in most countries

Would these countries have law based on secular values?

Not trying to take the mick in the slightest. Just playing Devil's advocate since theists generally avoid asking questions such as these for reasons I am sure we are both aware of. I've been doing this for a long long time and can easily flip from one side to the other and produce a fairly good argument from the side. I've no doubt you could tear my arguments apart in time but it could be of benefit to others hearing them. The only losers could be you and I given the time along with a bit of space on the TV servers.

By what right does another human being or state sanctioned by human beings have to deny me my freedom of belief?

Edited February 2, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

No State has the right to deny our right to belief or disbelief. as long as these actions do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same

i personally and I am sure most others feel the same, have no problem with believers, in fact I would encourage it.

what do I care if others are deluding theme selves , as long as it does not affect me.

I say more power to you, and if the fear of e celestial magical being makes you behave better, so much the better for me and society. The problem I have is when these believes try to interfere with my beliefs, or non-beliefs.

Hurt your self, it's your problem. Hurt me is my problem, and will soon make it your problem.

[notmyself]

No State has the right to deny our right to belief or disbelief. as long as these actions do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same

I presume you have this in writing lol

Look at Iran for example where the penalty for disbelief is death and it is often carried out. You deny them the ability to do this on what grounds?

[sirineou]

No State has the right to deny our right to belief or disbelief. as long as these actions do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same

I presume you have this in writing lol

Look at Iran for example where the penalty for disbelief is death and it is often carried out. You deny them the ability to do this on what grounds?

Countries do a lot of things they don't have the right to do. and Iran o or the Islamastates are not the only ones, Look at the USA or other western states now and in the Past, Look at Israel. The 51st state,

But they used to do a lot more in the past, and we cut it out, not with out sweat and blood,but we did.

and in the same way we will cut some of the crap that's going on around the world now.

[wym]

Wondered where this thread went 8-)

Good article on the ethics of dealing with religion/spirituality when raising your child

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/is-it-wrong-to-teach-children-to-believe-in-god/

[notmyself]

No State has the right to deny our right to belief or disbelief. as long as these actions do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same

I presume you have this in writing lol

Look at Iran for example where the penalty for disbelief is death and it is often carried out. You deny them the ability to do this on what grounds?

Countries do a lot of things they don't have the right to do. and Iran o or the Islamastates are not the only ones, Look at the USA or other western states now and in the Past, Look at Israel. The 51st state,

But they used to do a lot more in the past, and we cut it out, not with out sweat and blood,but we did.

and in the same way we will cut some of the crap that's going on around the world now.

Unless we kill ourselves off while waiting. We should be looking at 'achieve' rather 'done something'

[sirineou]

Wondered where this thread went 8-)

Good article on the ethics of dealing with religion/spirituality when raising your child

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/is-it-wrong-to-teach-children-to-believe-in-god/

This article start with the wrong premise, and goes from there.

In the title he says:

Christian parents teach their children to believe in God, atheists teach them not to. Who is doing the right thing?

Atheists do not teach their children not to believe in God, As an Atheist I teach my daughter to think. What she thinks is her own business, and if after doing her own thinking chooses to believe in God , I will respect that decision, as I would expect her to respect my decision not to believe. All the rest is nonsense and intellectual contortion to get the beliefs to fit the facts as opposed the facts fitting the beliefs.