Does this help you understand my atheism?

GoldenBoy89 · Jan 14, 2014

I think I get your point.

What makes the man claiming to be the Son of God from 2000 years ago more credible than a man making the same claim today?

Is that the gist of it?

Gottservant · Jan 18, 2014

Crudo89 said:
I think I get your point.

What makes the man claiming to be the Son of God from 2000 years ago more credible than a man making the same claim today?

Is that the gist of it?

I think it runs deeper than that...

...I think the question is "why trust the flesh at all?"

To which the answer is: you should not.

There is such a thing as sin.

variant · Jan 18, 2014

Crudo89 said:
I think I get your point.

What makes the man claiming to be the Son of God from 2000 years ago more credible than a man making the same claim today?

Is that the gist of it?

We actually can find a lot more information about this guy than information on 2000 year ago Jesus. The lack of information seems to be helpful for belief in a counter intuitive way.

PsychoSarah · Jan 19, 2014

Atheism can be hard for the religious to understand. But, being atheist I can say that it isn't for personal gain or as an excuse to sin.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 19, 2014

ThinkForYourself said:
EDIT: Two questions:

1. Why don't you believe in Aussie Jesus?

2. How is his claim to be the son of God different than the biblical claim that Jesus was the son of God?

I'll admit I didn't watch the whole video. I watched the first minute or so and when I heard that he lived on an isolated compound that put up the red-flags immediately.

"Isolated compound" seems incredibly fishy to me. According to the Bible, Jesus worked in public places and was always moving around from place to place.

If someone claims to do miracles on an "isolated compound" where no one can see him doing them, that is fairly suspicious.

Gadarene · Jan 20, 2014

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I'll admit I didn't watch the whole video. I watched the first minute or so and when I heard that he lived on an isolated compound that put up the red-flags immediately.

"Isolated compound" seems incredibly fishy to me. According to the Bible, Jesus worked in public places and was always moving around from place to place.

If someone claims to do miracles on an "isolated compound" where no one can see him doing them, that is fairly suspicious.

Relatively speaking, Jesus did do miracles in isolation. Judea wasn't exactly the bustling heart of the Roman empire that it was a part of.

poolerboy0077 · Jan 20, 2014

theinvisible said:
A man claiming to be Jesus encourgaes an excuse for unbelievers in Jesus to reject Jesus?

Sounds fickle. A lame excuse.

It's not a lame excuse, it's an entirely pertinent one. Consider what author Sam Harris said in a speech to an audience in Mexico about this very point:

I've forwarded to the relevant part of the video

"But the truth is, even if we had multiple, contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus this would not be good enough, because miracles stories abound even in the 21 century. The devotees of the south Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba ascribe all of the miracles of Jesus to him: he reads minds, he foretells the future, he heals, he raises the dead, he was born of a virgin. Sathya Sai Baba is not a fringe figure; you might not have heard of him but they had a birthday party for him a few years ago and a million people showed up. There are vast numbers of people who think he is a living God.

"So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories exactly of the kind that today surround a person like Sathya Sai Baba become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence as attested to by copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek and largely discrepant manuscripts. We have Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eye-witnesses and they don’t even merit an hour on cable television. And yet you put a few miracle stories in an ancient book and half the people on Earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around them. Does anyone else see a problem with that?"

Gottservant · Jan 20, 2014

No, no, no, its not about comparisons, its about words.

The words Jesus spoke were true, for all time.

You can test them, you can repeat them, you can give them to anyone.

That is the message, the miracles were more like the fart that tells you the [bless and do not curse] is there - just because you hear it, doesn't mean you go in poking around looking for more.

PsychoSarah · Jan 21, 2014

Gottservant said:
No, no, no, its not about comparisons, its about words.

The words Jesus spoke were true, for all time.

You can test them, you can repeat them, you can give them to anyone.

That is the message, the miracles were more like the fart that tells you the [bless and do not curse] is there - just because you hear it, doesn't mean you go in poking around looking for more.

Turning water into wine, walking through walls, walking on water... If a modern magician can do it, it kinda proves it might not have been real magic

Given that the Jews had the best medicine of the time, and the power of the placebo effect, coupled with the human tendency to exaggerate, and the people Jesus healed are also not evidence to his divinity.

So few people witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, that the eyewitness testimony just isn't sufficient. Plus, medical conditions, and even medical practices of the time, could have caused the witnesses to have a hallucination.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 21, 2014

Gadarene said:
Relatively speaking, Jesus did do miracles in isolation. Judea wasn't exactly the bustling heart of the Roman empire that it was a part of.

As a side note, I don't really believe that Jesus performed miracles exactly as they were described in the Bible. Many of them are likely exaggerations and mythologizations.

But regardless, your comment has a problem of scale. When I say this guy does his miracles in isolation, I mean he doesn't perform them in public but only within his compound amongst his own followers. It doesn't really matter whether he is in a backwater of the modern world in, say, southern Patagonia or right in the middle of Manhattan, New Yorkif he's off in some private residence surrounded by his own followers, that's fishy.

In the same way, it wouldn't matter if Jesus was in the heart of Rome or in some backwater of the Roman empire. He is said to have performed his miracles in the middle of Jerusalem and in the temple in public with many non-believers around to see. Not in an isolated compound.

Loudmouth · Jan 21, 2014

ThinkForYourself said:
It struck me that my not believing in the Christian Jesus is likely for the same reasons you don't believe in this Aussie Jesus.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts

super animator · Jan 22, 2014

variant said:
We actually can find a lot more information about this guy than information on 2000 year ago Jesus. The lack of information seems to be helpful for belief in a counter intuitive way.

Actually is has something to do with verifying his claims easier than the one 2000 years ago.

super animator · Jan 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts

Is it really the same reason though? That seems a bit hasty generalization thinking.

variant · Jan 22, 2014

super animator said:
Actually is has something to do with verifying his claims easier than the one 2000 years ago.

The lack of information includes the idea that it is harder to verify 2000 year old claims.

It's the same irony either way, the more verifiable the claims the less belief.

Loudmouth · Jan 22, 2014

super animator said:
Is it really the same reason though? That seems a bit hasty generalization thinking.

Ask a christian why they don't believe in Zeus, and then watch their reaction. In my experience you get a look of confusion, why anyone would even consider believing in Zeus. Then comes a smirk or chuckle, as if such a belief should be taken seriously, or considered anything but barbaric or childish.

I think the number of commonalities would surprise you.

Does this help you understand my atheism?

We're Still Here

God loves your words, may men love them also

Happy Cat

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

-______-

Well-Known Member

God loves your words, may men love them also

Chaotic Neutral

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Dreamer

Dreamer

Happy Cat

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency