Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

I will also respond to this. When evidence is brought to a trial of any kind, one side presents the evidence, the other sides gets to try and counter that evidence. Human Chromosome 2 was introduced as evidence. The defendants could NOT counter this evidence. This is what I mean by stood up in court.

I shouted because YOU are putting words in my mouth.

This is exactly what you said:

In bold I take exception to.

This is what I said:

I said IF...that means hypothetical. I was trying to show you the difference between hearsay evidence, and evidence that has been well tested by many different people.

One of you mantras has been because X amount of scholars believe it, then it must be true. I said bullocks. I then explained the only things I take on peoples word is scientists because I know the rigors of testing that the scientific community does. Thats why I brought up Kitzmiller v. Dover trial because it HAS stood the scrutiny of a court before. This does NOT mean there has ever been one actual court case that questioned the existence of jesus. However IF (NOTICE I SAID IF - this means there never has been one, or there will be one) there was, the evidence for jesus would be thrown out on account of it being hearsay.

 

It's very simple. there are two reasons. One is because there were many "messiahs" and the like at the time and the second is that, as has been crefully explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over again...records may have been well kept by the Romans but much of this has been lost. Any student of ancient history knows this, that Roman records have been lost in fires or weere destroyed in wars between then and now. You can keep ignoring these arguments or you can continue to post drivel.

 

This evidence, about Human Chromosome 2, was given by Kenneth Miller who also believes that Christ was an historical figure. How could he be so ignorant eh? The case proved that Evolution was science, not that it was true and that ID wasn't science but was religion. This is clear.

You see strawmen where they don't exist. I didn't say you said it was tested in court. I stated that it could have been and wasn't.

Bollocks. I said something quite different. I said that it was probable given any evidence to the contrary.

All utter drivel. Science has academic rigour in the same way history does. There is opinion, peer review and scientists rarely say that their views are 100% certain, just robably true based on evidence and judgement. Sceientists disagree as do historians. If there were ever to be a trial on Jesus it is likely that the weight of evidence would find that he probably was an historical figure. This is the opinion of the scientific community. Why would a jury come to any other opinion? And if the case against Jesus was put on the basis of the vulgarized, simplistic, one dimensional infantilism we see in your posts, substantial costs would be awarded in favour of Jesus as well!

 

Bullocks.....if jesus was a threat to the political elite, he would have been all over the Roman records.

All you are doing is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with this nonsense.

Red Herring....what does 'Kenneth Miller who also believes that Christ was an historical figure" and Human Chromosome 2 holding up to court have to do with each other?

NOTHING! Try some intellectual honest.


I wont even bother with the rest of your drivel, until you get some intellectual honest.

 

The difference is that when I call you out for your actions I show you what you did and why it was wrong.

For you .. ad hom one of your primary debate tactics.

 

Dawkins is a joke with an agenda... He's a rich snot nosed kid with a lot of family money who is nothing more than... well anyone else who has a lot of money and wants to be "noticed"...


He is the Paris Hilton of biology...

 

Yup. You have given up. It doesn't have to be like this. You can approach the subject of a Christ's historicity with an open mind and a scholarly interest. I can tell you: it is very rewarding. Making up one's mind when one knows jack crap about a subject and ranting "prove it" over and over again is a very unrewarding activity.

 

Utter garbage. But we expect no more from the site garbologist.

 

By such an argument, you could also declare that contempt like this for Christians might lead such a 'Historian' to revel in the idea that their beloved Christ was nailed to a cross...... Thus the reality of his existence or nonexistence is not relevant to the implied "historical' account.
Again the 'logic' you have used in your argument is highly subjective and without merit!

 

Site garbologist !! ROFL

 

I don't agree. The fact that Christ was crucified is actually another affirmation of Christ's historicity as Christians like Paul would not propagate such a humiliating fate for Jesus were it not to be true. It's like today someone proclaiming the divinity of a criminal. It's unlikely. It is much more likely that Jesus was actually a known political figure who inspired followers and was put to death as a threat to the local elites. This has been an historical tradion that Marxists have followed as well (such as Kautsky and the Terry Eagleton referenced earlier in this thread) that Jesus was a revolutionary and not a divine figure at all.

If Christ was a myth then the crucifixion would have to be a Christian myth. Why would Christians invite such ridicule? And of course whatever Tacitus might say later about Christ, and what he did say was pretty negative, there could be nothing more insulting to Christians to say than that they worshipped a myth, a non-person. The whole basis of Roman criticism of Christianity was that it was superstition and yet neither Tacitus, or the Christian Persecutor Pliny, makes the supreme allegation against superstition, which would be that Jesus was an invention. This would be because they knew of Jesus's actual historicity from sources that are now lost to us, as of course, most sources from the period are. Tacitus, who had many Roman sources at his disposal, firmly puts Christ within the context of Roman rule.

It is of course possible that Tacitus was being sloppy here and relying only on Christian accounts. But, given Tacitus's reputation as having access to many sources and generally being competent about the major historical events he recounts, it is not probable.

There are also later writers (Jerome) who refer to records kept by Pilate, known as the Acts of Pilate, which showed Jesus to be an historical person. These records have been lost. It is extremely common for historians to be aware of primary sources that have been lost and even to deduce these from different secondary sources. This is the case with the constructed source Q which explains the commonality of the synoptic gospels, which were of course scripts written for different political purposes, but clearly sharing the same source of information.

It is very rare for historical evidence on anything to be conclusive, but it is clear that the evidence of Jesus's existence as an historical person is generally accepted by those who have studied all the evidence. There are a few dissenters, but it is not their style to just grunt endlessly "show me one source from when he was alive", because even they know this to be an infantile approach and that even if there was a source that purported to do so, they would still be highly sceptical.

The historicity of Jesus is not generally a matter of dispute amongst serious people; even Dawkins, the subject of this thread, concedes the probability of Jesus the man. It is only part of the adolescent fratboy intellectual thuggery of a strident, dogmatic and ultimately bigoted atheist movement that congregate on web forums. It is, and this is very much the case here, a taunt, a piece of abuse, designed to stifle argument, shut down discussion and bait Christians. It's like taking everything away: not only is there no God, but there wasn't even any Jesus; christians are all ju-ju men worshipping crazy myths. It's more of an insult than even Tacitus and Pliny the Christian killer could manage. It's beyond the stridency of even Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who in quiet moments concede the enormous cultural contribution that Christianity has made to civilization, as well as ill, God or no God. It's simply nastiness and spitefulness, hooligan taunting, to avoid argument and the exchange of ideas, poorly masquerading as debate.

 

There likely was a fellow named Jesus and he may well have been nailed to a cross.

That this fellow was God is a completely different issue.

Early Christians certainly did not think Jesus was the God of Abraham and in fact it was not until around the time of Constantine that Jesus was claimed to be of the same substance as God. Constantine inserted the term homoousios for political reasons.

The early church fathers believed that the Son was "subordinate" to (not the same substance as) the Father.

 

We are talking about an oppressed people, if you read revelations with historical understanding, you will then realize that the beast being depicted is Roman rule..... What better way to inspire a social movement against such an oppressive rule than through a story depicting the superior morals having come from God?......

I want you to seriously consider something here..... Anyone who spoke out against such a rule would meet a swift and terrible demise..... We have historical accounts of Christians being placed still living with a stake through their body entering the rectum and coming through the mouth or neck.... They were displayed in Nero's garden and set ablaze for the final insult. This is what happened when you opposed this rule!

If you created a story where such a rule has essentially destroyed God (keeping in mind that the very moral basis eludes to this very fact through the concept that Roman rule is destroying God within the act of oppression), you can effectively inspire an uprising without it being your own voice or having it lead back to you.

Perhaps the story was always metaphorical in it's origin, and it later evolved where Jesus became a literal figure. Ideas evolve, how do you bring such a thought to a mind that is stuck, adhering to a prior concept within a belief..... Don't we have enough examples on this very forum to reflect upon?

Again your 'logic' is subjective and without merit.

 

Apart from your non sequitur abusive bit at the end, I do acknowledge that it is possible that Jesus was a myth. I have never said otherwise. There was a gnostic sect that denied Jesus's historicity in the second century. I just think that Jesus probably did exist, based on what we know. I have argued that it is perfectly logical to deduce the probability of Jesus's existence by taking all the available sources together and analyzing their credibility. Of course the acceptance of an historical Jesus fits your version - that he was a moral teacher, claiming divine and scriptural authority, leading a political movement against the Roman Empire and its Saducee stooges. Why, if you want to invent this, do you make him a criminal, humiliated by the powers that be? Why was he not killed gloriously in battle, for example? According to Christians themselves he was mocked by the Romans: "Jesus Christus Rex Judaeorum". Clearly any historical analysis would suggest that the resurrection story was Christians spinning a myth out of an actual historical defeat. It was a spin on a humiliation suffered by their leader.

But the charge against Christians was not merely rebellion. If you read Pliny and Tacitus it can be seen that the charge was superstition. What greater evidence of superstition could Romans like Pliny and Tacitus, who had access to Roman records, have had, than to demonstrate that Christ was a myth?

And yet they didn't. This logically - however much you may malign my logic - infers that Christ was known to be historical by these Romans. In Pliny's case this analysis is especially apposite, because he was concerned to save the lives of the Christians he condemns, by giving them the chance to repent. Given this, don't you think he might mention that Christ was a myth, and that he sought to persuade Christians of this fact before killing them? He desperately wanted to be seen as wise judge by the Emperor that he wrote to. Pliny and this Emperor, do not share the extent of Nero's barbarism, as you describe it, and despite the fact that they were killers, by the mores of the time were concerned to act justly to give Christians the chance to repent (read Pliny's letters to this Emperor and you will see). They were a bit like medieval protestants in England, whom we now would see to be "progressive" but who would hang, draw (disembowell and castrate whilst alive) and quarter priests for no other crime than practicing their religion, but who would also reprieve them at the hint of repentence and repudiation of their faith, and in many cases would plead with them to do so. Ultimately the persecution was political in Rome and Elizabethan England, but its form was a religious persecution, and in both cases superstition was the charge and it was made in the name of reason. The superstition was not following a political Christ, but the belief that He was divine. The historical Christ is not questioned by these Romans, almost certainly because they knew Him to have existed.

 

I'm not actually arguing the possibility that Jesus was a real man, I am arguing against your line of reasoning in attempting to do so......

Let me now share the only aspect that brings such a question to my mind, can I then declare it is overwhelming proof that Jesus existed? Absolutely not!

The lineage of Jesus is improperly mapped through Joseph who is not the biological father of Jesus...... If we are to prove divinity in the requirements of prophecy where Jesus must come from the seed of David/Abraham, why make such a grave error in doing so if Jesus was a created figure?

 

Oh come on, me pointing something out and then clearly and concisely stated that the logic you are using is subjective and therefore without merit is in no way an attempt at abuse..... Cast aside the injured ego and lets enter into a discussion filled with reason, sense and sensibility!

Someone on this forum recently pointed to a concept that had never entered my mind..... My first instinct was to beat myself up wondering why I hadn't thought of it first.... I had to let go of such an ego and appreciate the mind that had shared it with me.

There is no ego in intellect for the simple knowledge that we are not currently free enough to realize the expressive potential of humanity.... The advancement of knowledge in such an expression would be so rapid, all we could manage to do is grab ahold of it's tail in order to ride upon it's collective brilliance.
The superior intellect is a misnomer, we are meant only to be an observer, a student to brilliance.

 

That's not the basis of my objection. I think it is abusive because it seems gratuitous. I can't see where you are pointing out that my deduction is absurd. I see an alternative explanation from you, but not an exposition of my logic.

I agree with this completely and it's rather nicely put. You may notice that the quality of our discussion is higher than the quality of the discussion I was having earlier. That is because I recognize an intellectual curiosity in your posts which I am trying to respond to.

 

And this essentially is my argument, IF there is a viable and sensible alternative to the logic being used..... Then it is no longer logical, but subjective in nature..... Now we indulge a concept of Proof? Not even in the ballpark!

Let me explain something about myself, I am critical to a fault.... I am highly critical of myself and somehow it lashes out at the people closest to me and the minds I care about..... I see a magnificent mind in you, I know it might not seem like it.... My critical nature is coming from pure respect for your mind...... My delivery is terrible at times, and an awful way of paying you a compliment..... My apologies!

 

No doubt there was a Jesus Christ that lived during the time the biblical jesus supposedly existed. Seeings how Jesus was a popular name back then, its safe to say there were several Jesus Christs that lived during this era, just as I bet I can find at-least 10 Mike Smiths in each state today.

Fact is, there are no records or writings of the biblical jesus christ during the time he supposedly live.

So how did this myth come about? What is behind the virgin mary, What is Bethlehem? Why was that city chosen as the biblical birth place? Why was Dec 25th chosen as the biblical jc birthday? What is the significance of the star in the east?

Most of it is astrological. See Mary was inspired by the constellation Virgo. Virgo the virgin, hence the Virgin Mary. Now, the sign for Virgo has a thing of wheat in her hand due to the time of the year – harvest time. The reason why Bethlehem was chosen as the birth place is because Bethlehem translated means 'house of bread'. After you know the connections between Bethlehem, Mary and the constellation Virgo; Bethlehem is a pretty easy choice.

For christians, December 25th was picked to coincide with the Pagan holidays. But do you realize 16 different messiahs laid claim to Dec 25th as their b-day? The reason for this is quit simple. From Dec 22nd - 24th, the sun sits at the lowest point in the sky in the northern hemisphere. On December 25th the sun rises one degree in the sky, signaling a new year. (Jan 1st is an arbitrary man made date).This is the birth of the sun (son). Consequently, all the messiahs who get resurrected, all get buried for 3 days before being resurrected.

So whats significant about some star in the east? If you like up the sun with orisons belt, it makes a straight line to the star Sirius. Which just happens to be the brightest start in the east. And while you have all this going on, its right by the southern crux, or southern cross.

So, the messiah, dies on the cross, gets buried for 3 days and gets resurrected on the 4th day. This scenario has been played out with more messiahs that just the biblical jesus christ. The only difference is that jc supposedly died 3 days before Easter. But nonetheless, he was buried of 3 days after dieing on cross, only be resurrected.

One you understand the myths behind jesus christ, and you realize there is no records or writings of the biblical jc, you realize its just one gigantic myth.

 

Now we are entering a truly mind bending discussion..... Who knows their astronomy and the ancient history of mapping constellations?
You will have to forgive me, this is going to be a long and intricate explanation that I don't have the time and energy for at the moment......

Is anyone familiar with the crux (cross) and the equinox as it relates to the sun (son)?

Research if you like, I will come back to this discussion!

Sorry, skimmed right past what you were alluding to without seeing it!

 

Don't be too gentle. Can you translate my Moliere?

"The more you love someone, the less you should flatter them; pure love delights in excusing nothing"

I am not so dissimilar. I admit the tone of one small bit did irritate me slightly. I suppose that if you say that using judgement to deduce what is most probable, is subjective, then I would concede that. But it is certainly not illogical for me to prefer my version over yours as the most probable outcome. I have never sought to prove that Jesus existed. I have only asserted that his existence as an historical figure that inspired the gospels and Christianity, is significantly more likely. In an assertion of that probability (it would be a weak argument if I were to assert this as a basis of "proof") I also highlight the dominant opinion of scholars.

I look forward to challenging discussions. God knows we could do with some on here!

 

Really?... Dawkins is poor... Doesn't have an agenda (against Creationist)... and we never see him on the television or hear him on the radio...

Ummm... yea... I'm talking garbage because he's poor, loves Creationist, and nobody knows what he looks like or has heard his voice...

So... Does he have an agenda? Yes... Is he rich? Yes... Have you seen or heard him? Yes...

So, I will say this to you - your post is utter garbage. But we expect no more from the site garbologist.

 

Well said Anikdote!

Evidence is one thing…. .proof is another thing entirely!

 

I do know what it means: It means "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept the assertion as true".

 

If he actually said that then he is not an atheist, he is more of an agnostic.

Because that means he accepts that there is the possibility of there being a god and that he might convert.

So I'm beginning to wonder if maybe this is some sort of reverse psychology from him, that maybe he is really seeking god in his own way, and might not even know that he is.