Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

I cite confirmation bias as my reason. I will readily admit that my idea of a personal Christian-type God was indoctrinated. I prefer to believe that there is a God. How about you? Why do you actively prefer to believe that there isn't one? Surely evidence is a mere formality! Edited by Phat, : added features!

Bear in mind that my analysis was directed to Anglagard's assertions about what the scientific method would tell us if we had no evidence for God and no evidence against him (excepting the absence of evidence for). In that case, as I have explained, scientific reasoning would compel "weak" atheism rather than some weaker position still such as agnosticism.If you suppose that there is evidence for God, or if you are happy to abandon rational thought when it comes to theology, or both, then my analysis hardly applies to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The historical Jesus is said to have had the same name (or the local equivalent) and people believed he performed miracles, and the Romans heard rumours of his claiming to be the King of the Jews and subsequently executed him for this.It's the same sense that Niklaus is the historical Santa Claus, Voivode Vlad Tepes III is the historical Count Dracula the Undead. There is evidence, it's just not fantastic or conclusive. The 'king of the Jews' claim is interesting because Jesus' followers did not claim he was king of the Jews (any that were persuaded he was the messiah would have called him 'King of Israel' not 'of the Jews'). This seems to be what the Romans heard when they heard 'king of Israel', its an interesting and unnecessary nuance.This is the kind of evidence that supports, but does not prove, the existence of a real Jesus person - who is presumably as far removed from the Christ character as Dracula is to Vlad Tepes.

Why do you assume everyone else needs to have the same need for belief as you? I do not know any atheists that actively prefer. There either is evidence or there isn't. Since there isn't evidence it seems quite illogical and delusion to believe in a god. Why? Because it is to you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The bible. Nothing else. There is no contemporary evidence at all. There is no evidence that the Romans heard anything at all about Jesus. The first mention in any Roman records is at least 50 years after the supposed crucifixion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Naturally. There is no evidence outside of the Bible, I don't recall saying otherwise. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't. As you well know, because I've told you many times, I actually would prefer that God existed. But more importantly than that, I prefer to believe things that are true.And it's true that there is no such thing as God.

Right, and that "sense" is that there's no such thing as Santa Claus, Dracula, or Jesus Christ. When you say "this seems to be what the Romans heard", precisely what are you referring to? Your own experience with what Romans said or did? No, that can't be right - you're not 2000 years old. Roman writings? Well, no, that can't be the case, there aren't any contemporary Roman writings that mention Jesus at all.I'm at a loss for what your source for what "the Romans heard" could possibly be. What evidence?No, seriously. You say "this is the kind of evidence" but it's like you skipped over the part where you provide an antecedent to the pronoun "this."Another example of the very strange mental lacuna that occurs when people try to present the evidence for a historical Jesus, I guess. It's like their lips move wordlessly, their fingers hover over the keyboard for a little bit, and then they're like "and that's the evidence for Jesus. It's not much, I grant you." I fail to understand why people get so mentally blocked when they try to lay out the evidence for Jesus.

First of all, I didn't go over the entire thread. In fact, I just read your opening post and wanted to give you my 2 cents about that.One thing is pretty clear to me (and I'ld guess to anyone): atheists do NOT have a monopoly on rationality and theists do NOT have a monopoly on irrationality.Atheists are perfectly capable of believing all kinds of pretty silly stuff for sure.Having said that... I think you go one step to far in lumping them all together in some sort of group. Although it's not entirely clear to me what this "group" represents according to you, it seems as if you are trying to call it some sort of "religion" or something.Either way, I think it's wrong to lump them together. It seems to me that the ONLY thing you can be sure of that they have in common is... unbelief in gods.I'm also not quite sure what you mean with "irrational beliefs"... What "beliefs"? If you call them "atheist", the only thing we can really know about them is what they do NOT believe... right?

I believe I already said that. Further, I noted that this was the source of confusion between Jon and his 'extreme atheists', which you seem to have just supported. In all four Gospels the Romans refer to Jesus as King of the Jews. The followers of Jesus would have thought of him at best as a prospective King of Israel. It is a strange nuance that they write 'King of the Jews' in multiple sources. It was as if it was an accurate recording of the charge against Jesus, which would have been a capital offense. Often with these kinds of stories the tellers make errors of reference or knowledge. We might have seen the Romans executing the 'Son of man' or 'messenger of Yahweh'. Instead a consistent message that is somewhat at odds with the viewpoint of the authors. I think, when you are imagining 'evidence' you are picturing killer knockout scientific evidence. But we are talking history, not science. While science can help uncover history, much that is historical doesn't have the support most scientific notions do. There are various methods people employ when presented with an ancient text to try and extract what historical truths may be behind the writings.The historical Jesus is much like the historical Appolonius. Very little can be discerned, but there is some weak support for the notion that an apocolyptic jew called Yeshua or similar, preached an impending end times, people thought he was a messiah, and his contingent was possibly armed, and after he was executed, the apologetics to explain why their Camping didn't fulfill Messianic prophecy started.If you really want to discuss it in any sort of depth it would probably be best left for Reconstructing the Historical Jesus or some other thread.

Right, but what's the evidence that the Romans ever referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews"? What followers of Jesus? What sources? No, I'm imagining evidence. You know, some kind of physical or textual record that would only exist of Jesus was an actual historical person.You seem to be under the impression that it counts as "corroboration" of Alice's story if we ask Bob, Charlie, and David and they tell the same story - never mind the fact that they're just repeating what they heard from Alice.I'm asking for evidence for the historicity of Jesus. You keep telling me there is some but your fingers just seem to wave over the keyboard and it doesn't actually wind up in your posts. Frankly, I'm less interested in the non-existent evidence for Jesus than I am in this strange psychological phenomenon where people become hypnotized into the belief that there's all this evidence for Jesus.

I frequently encounter such distinction. However, it seems to me that this is false. Agnosticism is not a replacement for atheism.You are an atheist if you are not a theist. You can be an agnostic atheist for sure, but you're still an atheist if you are not a theist. There's only 2 options: you believe or you don't. Saying "i don't know" is the same as not believing (positively). Not believing = not being theist = you're an atheist. True. But theists have the burden of proof...
And atheists have science on their side which contradicts the theist mythology for the most part. None of those things are derived from atheism, as there is nothing to derive from atheism (aside from an unbelief in gods).I'm willing to accept that some doctrines or rules within theistic systems rule out such possibilities (as in: christians would not build a communist society where religion is practically forbidden)...But that's the theistic system prohibiting/ruling out something, which is not the same as atheism promoting something...I look at it this way...
Suppose latin americans (and only latin americans) have a gene that makes them immune to HIV. HIV is rampant in africa. From these two points, it would be very wrong to conclude that being African leads to being infected with HIV... Right?Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

This thread isn't about all atheists lumped together in a certain group. As the OP states, this thread is about extremist atheists, anti-theists, religion haters, etc.This thread is about a particular subset of atheists. I gave two examples in the OP of irrationality. Positions that are neither evidenced nor rational can, in my opinion, only be called 'beliefs'.You're free to call them whatever you want, though.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Modulous linked to a thread for discussing this further. Reconstructing the Historical JesusEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Love your enemies!

Put it in whatever thread you like, I don't give a shit.What's the evidence that confirms the historicity of the Biblical Jesus?