Nazareth's Existence (Question)

poolerboy0077
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Nazareth's Existence (Question)

I saw recently this thread started by Rook way back where in a video he makes a case for Nazareth. He mentioned a 2nd century piece of evidence for it as well as archaeological evidence that shows it existed up to 200 BCE. Are there any links to these things anywhere online (perferably a reliable source)?
 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Updates

 

 

 

          Rooks video  is dated   May of 2007,  I am sure he would admit that it is do for an update.  Several studies have been published since. Some of the high lights;

 

              No artifact earlier then 25C.E. has been found.  (Makeing it impossible for Jesus, Mary and Joseph to have lived there in a biblical time frame).

 

 

               The traditional family home of Mary (and ergo the immaculate conception) was buildt on top of an old grave yard. No Jew would have buildt anything on top  of a grave yard, not kosher.

 

 

                The local craftsmen are, then and now, stone cutters. Plus farming. 

 

 

                A population boom happened after 70 C.E. likely refugees from the Romans sacking of Jerusalem.

 

 

              I couldn't find a link to the 2008 study I was looking for but you might find this link helful;

     http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

 

          Has a personal opinion I think storys about some rabbi called Joshua THE Nazarene ( a Jewish cult) later evolved into storys about Jesu OF Nazareth an easy enough mistake to make when  one is trying to create a real person out of thin air, it helps to give him a home town.

           Now all you have to do is accept that responsible adults put a teenage girl, nine months pregnant, on a donkey for a 100 mile rush to Bethlaham.  I don't believe it myself.

 

 

               

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


poolerboy0077
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:I couldn't

Jeffrick wrote:
I couldn't find a link to the 2008 study I was looking for but you might find this link helful;

     http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Aside from the fact that both Salm and Zindler are both mythicists, and although I myself am a mythicist, I do not support them or their conclusions on the issue of Nazareth. I find it hard to believe that two respectable persons would ever stoop to such amateurish arguments and rather fallacious scholarship. I have a hard time understanding why such drivel comes from such intellects.

 

As I understand it, Rook has been against the position that Nazareth is a myth even when there were cases advancing that idea before. From what Rook's said (at least 2 yrs ago), the evidence points to an historic place yet none of this gives support for an historical Jesus. I was mostly interested in what evidence he was talking about in the video so I can look it up myself. Do you happen to know what that was and where I could find it?

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
No myth

 

 

 

      I'm against the idea that Nazareth is a myth,  it's real enough, it just did not exist during the biblical time frame of the new testement.

 

 

      As for Rooks references,  did you try google or wikipedia?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


poolerboy0077
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:I'm against

Jeffrick wrote:
I'm against the idea that Nazareth is a myth,  it's real enough, it just did not exist during the biblical time frame of the new testement.

Yeah, and that's the thing Rook disagrees with in the video. 

Jeffrick wrote:
As for Rooks references,  did you try google or wikipedia?

I wanted to but it's hard when he didn't give the names of them. Does anyone know them?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
poolerboy0077 wrote:Jeffrick

poolerboy0077 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:
I'm against the idea that Nazareth is a myth,  it's real enough, it just did not exist during the biblical time frame of the new testement.

Yeah, and that's the thing Rook disagrees with in the video. 

Jeffrick wrote:
As for Rooks references,  did you try google or wikipedia?

I wanted to but it's hard when he didn't give the names of them. Does anyone know them?

You might try asking him directly on his Facebook page.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


poolerboy0077
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-08-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

poolerboy0077 wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:
I'm against the idea that Nazareth is a myth,  it's real enough, it just did not exist during the biblical time frame of the new testement.

Yeah, and that's the thing Rook disagrees with in the video. 

Jeffrick wrote:
As for Rooks references,  did you try google or wikipedia?

I wanted to but it's hard when he didn't give the names of them. Does anyone know them?

You might try asking him directly on his Facebook page.

Thanks for the link.

Btw, his name is Tom Verenna and not Rook Hawkins? o_O


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
It's very unlikely that

It's very unlikely that Nazareth existed.

Jesus, his brother James and his cousin John were all supposedly Nazirim (plural of "nazir", a person who takes the "nazirite vow" -- no shaving the beard, cutting the hair, etc.).  I forget who else among the 12 were supposedly also nazirim, but the disciples were an extremely radical bunch.  Takes an understanding of Jewish history to tease it all out, but once you do, crucifixion by Rome makes a lot more sense.  Guy walks into Jerusalem during Passover, bazillions of people turn out to greet him, you think Rome is going to let the guy live?  No way!

Most likely "Nazareth" came from a misunderstanding of what "Nazarim" meant after Rome sacked Jerusalem and the Greeks and Romans took over Christianity.

As for building on top of a cemetery -- the best genealogy for Jesus puts him in the Tribe of Levi, and more specific, the House of Aaron.  James is known from Jewish history to have been a priest, which means Joseph was as well, which means no going anywhere NEAR a dead body.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's not great new for Lazarus

 

Is it?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 693
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:It's

FurryCatHerder wrote:

It's very unlikely that Nazareth existed.

Jesus, his brother James and his cousin John were all supposedly Nazirim (plural of "nazir", a person who takes the "nazirite vow" -- no shaving the beard, cutting the hair, etc.).  I forget who else among the 12 were supposedly also nazirim, but the disciples were an extremely radical bunch.  Takes an understanding of Jewish history to tease it all out, but once you do, crucifixion by Rome makes a lot more sense.  Guy walks into Jerusalem during Passover, bazillions of people turn out to greet him, you think Rome is going to let the guy live?  No way!

Most likely "Nazareth" came from a misunderstanding of what "Nazarim" meant after Rome sacked Jerusalem and the Greeks and Romans took over Christianity.

As for building on top of a cemetery -- the best genealogy for Jesus puts him in the Tribe of Levi, and more specific, the House of Aaron.  James is known from Jewish history to have been a priest, which means Joseph was as well, which means no going anywhere NEAR a dead body.

Great info in this thread about how Nazareth didn't exist during the alleged time frame the bible claims Jesus existed.  I knew all along there was no Nazareth during that time.

Rook is a mythicist so there's no way he thinks Nazereth existed when the bible claims it did.  Can someone clarify please?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
The gospels mention a lot of

The gospels mention a lot of towns and cities that very much apparently existed at the times the gospels were written, and there seems to be no good reason why Nazareth should be a special exception.  If "Nazareth" in Galilee is said to be the hometown of Jesus, and there apparently was a "Nazareth" in Galilee in the ancient times, then why should we believe that the gospels made it up?  Is it really more probable that the town was founded post hoc because of Christian legend?  What would be the closest historical comparison to that?  There are far more towns that are incorporated into legend that actually exist.  I think the best argument that Nazareth was merely mythical is that it isn't mentioned by either Philo or Josephus, but only the gospels.  And it isn't such a good argument, because hundreds of small shanty out-of-the-way villages were also unmentioned.  Why not just believe that Nazareth existed?  Is it because we have a mentality that we should by default disbelieve everything in the gospels until rock solid evidence proves otherwise?  I think Rook Hawkins has the right idea.  Being "rational" means finding the best explanations, not just the anti-religious explanations.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't doubt the existence

I don't doubt the existence of such a town but then again I think they could dig a short distance from it and find another settlement. I do however doubt they found a sign that said "nazareth, pop 250" or some such.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The recent idea is

The recent idea is that the population of Nazareth was about 480 in the time of Jesus.  The infancy narratives were created to try to portray that he was born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. But there is little doubt that Nazareth was his actual place of birth an embarassment for the early Jewish Christians.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ApostateAbe wrote:The

ApostateAbe wrote:

The gospels mention a lot of towns and cities that very much apparently existed at the times the gospels were written, and there seems to be no good reason why Nazareth should be a special exception.  If "Nazareth" in Galilee is said to be the hometown of Jesus, and there apparently was a "Nazareth" in Galilee in the ancient times, then why should we believe that the gospels made it up?  Is it really more probable that the town was founded post hoc because of Christian legend?  What would be the closest historical comparison to that?  There are far more towns that are incorporated into legend that actually exist.  I think the best argument that Nazareth was merely mythical is that it isn't mentioned by either Philo or Josephus, but only the gospels.  And it isn't such a good argument, because hundreds of small shanty out-of-the-way villages were also unmentioned.  Why not just believe that Nazareth existed?  Is it because we have a mentality that we should by default disbelieve everything in the gospels until rock solid evidence proves otherwise?  I think Rook Hawkins has the right idea.  Being "rational" means finding the best explanations, not just the anti-religious explanations.

I agree. My master studies was the Historical Jesus and the complete mythic approach does a disservice to atheism in the long run. It also prevents a historical critical approach to the Synoptics from being meaningful. Galilee was the only part of Palestine ever forcefully converted to Judaism. And even in the historical Jesus's time was only about 50% Jewish a reason for laxity of keeping kosher by Galileans,

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
YUUUCK, i did it again!  i

FUUUCK, i did it again!  i keep looking at these resurrected threads and seeing FurryCatHerder!  god (that's right, GOD, not "G-d" ), remembering that supposedly jewish (i always had my reservations, since she was admittedly a convert from christianity) bitch makes me GAG!

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, I have not really

 

Well, I have not really found a good argument for the whole mythicist idea. It seems to me to be mostly based on advancing negative evidence as proof that nothing happened at all. Pretty much, that is equivalent to plowing uphill. Surely, if you want to, nothing is stopping you but Occam's razor would say that there is probably a better way to go on this stuff.

 

Sure, there is some real evidence that Nazareth is not a likely place for the story to be centered on. However, that is little help if any.

 

By comparison, let's say that you have a dead body with a bullet hole in it. That is about as much as the evidence of Nazareth can provide. Now we need the gun and the bullet, neither of which presents as useful information. Really, if we had a shooter, then we could start to prosecute the guy. Sadly, we don't have any of that.

 

What we do have is that, on a per capita basis, there were at least as many wandering preachers then as now. If one of them said “try being nice to people”, well that is astounding enough to go nowhere fast. If one of them caused a fuss in the temple, the same holds.

 

Now take Paul, who never actually saw any of the supposed events and a bunch of stories of events which may well have happened 20+ years earlier. Wrap them all together as one thing and you have a new religion. Sure, there was not one single dude in that idea. There were a hundred dudes, all of whom contributed to the narrative.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I really think that we can

I really think that we can have our cake and eat it too.  There is a historical Jesus that has nothing to do with a Christ figure. He was a messianic pretender who had been a disciple of the Baptist.  He probably taught in ways similar to the wandering Cynic teachers of that period.  He may have taught the end of the world with the idea of baptism and a radical eschatology like in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the apocalyptic literature of the period. He was arrested and killed. The Christ figure is purely mythic and fabricated by Paul and projected onto the Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus's brother James and Peter rejected and fought with Paul over this non-Jewish mythos.  The Jesus movement of Peter, James and John continued as the Ebionites up until the 2nd Jewish revolt where ben Cocba claimed he was the Messiah and got all his people including the original Jesus followers killed.  Paul's stuff and Gnosticism became normal Christianity after that.  There was never one type of Christianity. Rather there were competing ideas located in different geographical areas.  For Peter, James and John (Jewish Christian) Jesus was not born of a virgin, he was not divine. He was a messiah that was cut off. He would return to have the Supper and bring about the general resurrection and Kingdom.  Thsi was completely consumed by the Pauline mythic creation derived from Greek philosophy and mystery religions.  So we can speak of a completely mythic source but we still must defer to a historical figure that was slowly elevated from a teacher to a god in this process. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
i find the mythicist

i find the mythicist position to be as oversimplified as the orthodox christian position.  yes, there are the same elements in the jesus story as in other myths.  people quite simply like familiar stories.  they identify with them.  at the same time, however, there had to be a catalyst for the myth.  it's far-fetched to think some dude just said one day, "i'm gonna take [osiris, mithras, dionysus, whatever you please] and turn him into this guy named jesus."  i think if we were able to peal away the layers surrounding most mythical persons--that includes odin, osiris, hercules, krishna, etc.--we would find a real, charismatic historical figure there.  i mean, look at all the folklore that grew up around washington, lincoln, lenin, stalin, etc., even in their own lifetimes.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i find the

iwbiek wrote:

i find the mythicist position to be as oversimplified as the orthodox christian position.  yes, there are the same elements in the jesus story as in other myths.  people quite simply like familiar stories.  they identify with them.  at the same time, however, there had to be a catalyst for the myth.  it's far-fetched to think some dude just said one day, "i'm gonna take [osiris, mithras, dionysus, whatever you please] and turn him into this guy named jesus."  i think if we were able to peal away the layers surrounding most mythical persons--that includes odin, osiris, hercules, krishna, etc.--we would find a real, charismatic historical figure there.  i mean, look at all the folklore that grew up around washington, lincoln, lenin, stalin, etc., even in their own lifetimes.

I think you are right. In the case of Buddhism the historical Buddha is not real important. In the case of Christianity the historical Jesus completely devestates Christianity as a person completely different than what they created.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i find the

iwbiek wrote:

i find the mythicist position to be as oversimplified as the orthodox christian position.  yes, there are the same elements in the jesus story as in other myths.  people quite simply like familiar stories.  they identify with them.  at the same time, however, there had to be a catalyst for the myth.  it's far-fetched to think some dude just said one day, "i'm gonna take [osiris, mithras, dionysus, whatever you please] and turn him into this guy named jesus."  i think if we were able to peal away the layers surrounding most mythical persons--that includes odin, osiris, hercules, krishna, etc.--we would find a real, charismatic historical figure there.  i mean, look at all the folklore that grew up around washington, lincoln, lenin, stalin, etc., even in their own lifetimes.

I think you are right. In the case of Buddhism the historical Buddha is not real important. In the case of Christianity the historical Jesus completely devestates Christianity as a person completely different than what they created.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The recent

TGBaker wrote:

The recent idea is that the population of Nazareth was about 480 in the time of Jesus.  The infancy narratives were created to try to portray that he was born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. But there is little doubt that Nazareth was his actual place of birth an embarassment for the early Jewish Christians.

It's changed so much I don't try to keep up with it anymore ><

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i find the

iwbiek wrote:

i find the mythicist position to be as oversimplified as the orthodox christian position.  yes, there are the same elements in the jesus story as in other myths.  people quite simply like familiar stories.  they identify with them.  at the same time, however, there had to be a catalyst for the myth.  it's far-fetched to think some dude just said one day, "i'm gonna take [osiris, mithras, dionysus, whatever you please] and turn him into this guy named jesus."  i think if we were able to peal away the layers surrounding most mythical persons--that includes odin, osiris, hercules, krishna, etc.--we would find a real, charismatic historical figure there.  i mean, look at all the folklore that grew up around washington, lincoln, lenin, stalin, etc., even in their own lifetimes.

Yes, and I think there are many more historical figures developing into cultic myths that closely parallel the apparent life and myth of Jesus.  And I think perhaps the strongest comparison is with Haile Selassie, the founder and figurehead of the Rastafarian religion.  There was an article published in a philosophy journal last year that explored the comparison very thoroughly and made the point strongly:

Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus

by Edmund Standing

If mythicists can come up with a model of the historical origins of Christianity that explains all of the evidence equally well or better than the model generally accepted by critical New Testament scholars (Jesus as a doomsday cult leader or "apocalyptic prophet" as they tend to say), then such a model of mythicism deserves serious respect.  I don't think such a thing has happened yet, in my opinion, though some have tried, and they deserve credit for the effort.  Such a model will need to explain the evidence with predictive power, not merely accomodate the evidence with ad hoc hand-waving explanations.  Such a model will need to explain all of the evidence, not just most of it and ignore the rest with more ad hoc hand-waving explanations.  Such a model will need to be plausible, closely analogous to what we have already seen elsewhere in history.  It will be tough, because it seems to me that critical scholars have done very well to explain the New Testament and all of the evidence pertaining to the origins of Christianity with the model that they have had since Albert Schweitzer.  I think that is the model we should stick with until mythicist scholars can make a sufficiently competitive case, though of course we may be drawn through wishful thinking to the idea that nearly everything in the New Testament is a complete fabrication.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
This is a totally irrelevant

This is a totally irrelevant topic. It may be fun from a historical debate aspect, but is a needless distraction from fantastic claims.

We know George Washington existed. We know That the city of Washington DC exists. But no sane person would claim that George Washington could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass, much less back then.

"This person existed", "This city existed" is a bullshit distraction away from fantastic claims.

We can see Superman in movies flying around New York city, but no sane person believes a man can fly like that just because the city of New York is real.

FACT, it takes two sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, then onto a baby. Thus, the virgin birth claim is bullshit.

FACT, human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Thus the claim a man ANY MAN IN HUMAN HISTORY, can survive permanent death is bullshit.

The gospels were written after the fact, so it makes sense to sell the propaganda with alleged real people or even real places. But in no way does any of this justify any form of hocus pokus.

The Koran mentions Jesus but no Christians, believe in Allah or 72 virgins.

It would not matter to me in the least if tomorrow Nazzereth or Jesus were proven to be real. You cannot rise from the dead. Humans do not pop out of dirt. You won't get 72 virgins. Multiple armed deities do not exist. There is no such thing as ghost sperm. The moon is not made of cheese. And Thor does not make lightening.

Hollywood produces tons of fictional crap based on real people and real places. Otherwise if we are going to be so stupid, the Force is real and Darth Vader is real because we see REAL humans playing them in the movies.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is a

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic. It may be fun from a historical debate aspect, but is a needless distraction from fantastic claims.

We know George Washington existed. We know That the city of Washington DC exists. But no sane person would claim that George Washington could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass, much less back then.

"This person existed", "This city existed" is a bullshit distraction away from fantastic claims.

We can see Superman in movies flying around New York city, but no sane person believes a man can fly like that just because the city of New York is real.

FACT, it takes two sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, then onto a baby. Thus, the virgin birth claim is bullshit.

FACT, human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Thus the claim a man ANY MAN IN HUMAN HISTORY, can survive permanent death is bullshit.

The gospels were written after the fact, so it makes sense to sell the propaganda with alleged real people or even real places. But in no way does any of this justify any form of hocus pokus.

The Koran mentions Jesus but no Christians, believe in Allah or 72 virgins.

It would not matter to me in the least if tomorrow Nazzereth or Jesus were proven to be real. You cannot rise from the dead. Humans do not pop out of dirt. You won't get 72 virgins. Multiple armed deities do not exist. There is no such thing as ghost sperm. The moon is not made of cheese. And Thor does not make lightening.

Hollywood produces tons of fictional crap based on real people and real places. Otherwise if we are going to be so stupid, the Force is real and Darth Vader is real because we see REAL humans playing them in the movies.

Last year, I argued about the existence of heaven and hell with someone on the Internet. 

The negative arguments were easy: heaven and hell don't make the least bit of sense and we don't have the least bit of evidence for them.  It doesn't make sense for there to be eternal maximum punishment for a limited lifetime of crime, nor does it make sense for the punishment to be known only through religious myth.

Such negative arguments become a helluva lot more convincing when they are paired with alternative explanations to replace them and explain the evidence more soundly: heaven and hell were developed among religious adherents as a means of persuading evangelism, and such religions change and survive the same way living organisms change and survive--through natural selection.

Without sensible alternative models of thought, then the criticisms really get only halfway there, at best.  How do we explain Jesus if he wasn't actually the character the gospels describe?  Do we say, "Who cares, anyone could have just made that up"?  I think we are most effective when we have sensible well-thought-out answers to such questions. 

The guy I was talking with about heaven and hell deconverted within a few months, and he thanked me.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:This is a

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic.

brian, at least 80% of the topics on this site are totally irrelevant.  that's why for most sane people these boards are nothing but a passing hobby.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ApostateAbe wrote:Brian37

ApostateAbe wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic. It may be fun from a historical debate aspect, but is a needless distraction from fantastic claims.

We know George Washington existed. We know That the city of Washington DC exists. But no sane person would claim that George Washington could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of his ass, much less back then.

"This person existed", "This city existed" is a bullshit distraction away from fantastic claims.

We can see Superman in movies flying around New York city, but no sane person believes a man can fly like that just because the city of New York is real.

FACT, it takes two sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, then onto a baby. Thus, the virgin birth claim is bullshit.

FACT, human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Thus the claim a man ANY MAN IN HUMAN HISTORY, can survive permanent death is bullshit.

The gospels were written after the fact, so it makes sense to sell the propaganda with alleged real people or even real places. But in no way does any of this justify any form of hocus pokus.

The Koran mentions Jesus but no Christians, believe in Allah or 72 virgins.

It would not matter to me in the least if tomorrow Nazzereth or Jesus were proven to be real. You cannot rise from the dead. Humans do not pop out of dirt. You won't get 72 virgins. Multiple armed deities do not exist. There is no such thing as ghost sperm. The moon is not made of cheese. And Thor does not make lightening.

Hollywood produces tons of fictional crap based on real people and real places. Otherwise if we are going to be so stupid, the Force is real and Darth Vader is real because we see REAL humans playing them in the movies.

Last year, I argued about the existence of heaven and hell with someone on the Internet. 

The negative arguments were easy: heaven and hell don't make the least bit of sense and we don't have the least bit of evidence for them.  It doesn't make sense for there to be eternal maximum punishment for a limited lifetime of crime, nor does it make sense for the punishment to be known only through religious myth.

Such negative arguments become a helluva lot more convincing when they are paired with alternative explanations to replace them and explain the evidence more soundly: heaven and hell were developed among religious adherents as a means of persuading evangelism, and such religions change and survive the same way living organisms change and survive--through natural selection.

Without sensible alternative models of thought, then the criticisms really get only halfway there, at best.  How do we explain Jesus if he wasn't actually the character the gospels describe?  Do we say, "Who cares, anyone could have just made that up"?  I think we are most effective when we have sensible well-thought-out answers to such questions. 

The guy I was talking with about heaven and hell deconverted within a few months, and he thanked me.

I agree. I've deconverted several people including a Bible College professor by showing the redaction of the Gospels.  Some will turn you off. But those that serious look can no longer support inerrancy which almost caves them in by itself. Then showing why the stories were edited and rewritten convinces a reasonable person.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
ApostateAbe wrote:And I

ApostateAbe wrote:

And I think perhaps the strongest comparison is with Haile Selassie, the founder and figurehead of the Rastafarian religion. 

good analogy, but just to clarify, haile selassie was not the founder of rastafarianism.  he was merely appropriated as their god.  he himself never encouraged nor discouraged them on the issue of his divinity, above and beyond his title (taken before the foundng of the religion) of "conquering lion of the tribe of judah."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic.

brian, at least 80% of the topics on this site are totally irrelevant.  that's why for most sane people these boards are nothing but a passing hobby.

If you treat it like that, they win.

They do not treat their beliefs as a "hobby". They vote and run governments. To them, their positions are not mere "hobbies".

I can only say that the best outcome for humanity would be a "fuck you" when we don't like what each other says.

It is only a "hobby" in that I don't make a living in advocating my position. But it IS important to humanity to get over our tribalism.

I wish god belief were a mere hobby. I wish it was treated like stamp collecting or golf, or painting.

Every human finds a pattern that they think is the "truth" even us. I am fine with opinions and even those who make claims I find absurd. But nothing is a "hobby" when it comes to government or law. If humans are to get along with less violence and more empathy, no one should ignore this issue until it becomes a hobby.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Actually hell is a real

 

Actually hell is a real place, just not quite what we are told about it.

 

Every mention of it in the bible is either Hinnom or Gehenna. Both refer to the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. Like all good garbage dumps, it was almost always on fire. It was also the place where the bodies of executed sinners were dumped (since you can't honor them with a burial).

 

Here is a picture of the place as it currently is:

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic.

brian, at least 80% of the topics on this site are totally irrelevant.  that's why for most sane people these boards are nothing but a passing hobby.

If you treat it like that, they win.

They do not treat their beliefs as a "hobby". They vote and run governments. To them, their positions are not mere "hobbies".

I can only say that the best outcome for humanity would be a "fuck you" when we don't like what each other says.

It is only a "hobby" in that I don't make a living in advocating my position. But it IS important to humanity to get over our tribalism.

I wish god belief were a mere hobby. I wish it was treated like stamp collecting or golf, or painting.

Every human finds a pattern that they think is the "truth" even us. I am fine with opinions and even those who make claims I find absurd. But nothing is a "hobby" when it comes to government or law. If humans are to get along with less violence and more empathy, no one should ignore this issue until it becomes a hobby.

 

 

 

look, your activism in the wider world, whatever it may be, is one thing, but i'm talking strictly about our activity on this particular forum, and i have to say, if you think you're making any significant headway against theism by posting here, i'm skeptical at best.  we come to rrs to sharpen our rhetorical chops, rag each other, and piss and moan, usually all at the same time, and that's pretty much it.  other than people using this site to coordinate practical activism, it's basically playtime here.  and that's ok.  we need that.  it's ok to take the stick out every now and then.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This is a totally irrelevant topic.

brian, at least 80% of the topics on this site are totally irrelevant.  that's why for most sane people these boards are nothing but a passing hobby.

If you treat it like that, they win.

They do not treat their beliefs as a "hobby". They vote and run governments. To them, their positions are not mere "hobbies".

I can only say that the best outcome for humanity would be a "fuck you" when we don't like what each other says.

It is only a "hobby" in that I don't make a living in advocating my position. But it IS important to humanity to get over our tribalism.

I wish god belief were a mere hobby. I wish it was treated like stamp collecting or golf, or painting.

Every human finds a pattern that they think is the "truth" even us. I am fine with opinions and even those who make claims I find absurd. But nothing is a "hobby" when it comes to government or law. If humans are to get along with less violence and more empathy, no one should ignore this issue until it becomes a hobby.

 

 

 

look, your activism in the wider world, whatever it may be, is one thing, but i'm talking strictly about our activity on this particular forum, and i have to say, if you think you're making any significant headway against theism by posting here, i'm skeptical at best.  we come to rrs to sharpen our rhetorical chops, rag each other, and piss and moan, usually all at the same time, and that's pretty much it.  other than people using this site to coordinate practical activism, it's basically playtime here.  and that's ok.  we need that.  it's ok to take the stick out every now and then.

You would be right if this were the only atheist website. You would be right if I were the only atheist posting. You would be right if this was the only place i posted, much less other atheists.

Even if this was the only place I posted, other believers and atheists come here and at a minimum look. If my mere posting here gets a theist to not look at us as monsters, that is not a small thing.

I think you underestimate our collective voice.

I know what it was like to be an atheist in the early 2000s and now. I am not the cause or the apex of our voice. But I do not count myself out as having some impact.

I had a former boss say to me "Brian give up that atheist thing". That was after he read my opinion printed in a local paper in 01,

I doubt he could have seen how much we have grown since then. I doubt he could have seen how big Dawkins and Hitchins and Harris have become.

I do not think I did it all, but if I do nothing, I am sure to make no change at all.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well said Brian.  

 

Well said Brian.

 

Although I would like to point out that your former boss really was not very specific with his advice. There are, of course, lots of ways to not be an atheist and I doubt that he would have been happy had you joined the wrong team.

 

You have a cat and I am sure that he is at least as arrogant as the god of the OT. Except that he does not mind when you say his name. If you ever meet up with him again, tell him that you had an epiphany and then wait for him to praise the fact. Then drop the cat bomb.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=