God doesn't care about morality or human behavior.

agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
God doesn't care about morality or human behavior.

I don't care what other Christians tell you, I read the bible all my life and debated hundreds of law worshiping religions, and atheist. Its all the same, really! If you can read through all this, I will be impressed as most will stop reading in the first 4 lines as they share the same goals. 

First. 

 

All religions in the world go by good deeds, good scales and good works in order to go to heaven. You must do something; however, it seems strange that God been that almighty figure he says he is, would make people pass through all the bullshit other religions tell you to do, when he can simply do it himself and take care of the problem.   

Israel in the old testament always tested God, because they didn't believe in God; in fact many israelites believed they were Gods, therefore worshiping pagan Gods from other cultures, rejecting the God that brought them out of Egypt.   

The bible is meant to be a spiritual book, not physical. Laws in the 10 commandments were spiritual laws, but Israel took those laws to be physical. God was against them because they denied and questions his divinity, not because they sinned like most Christians will tell you. 

Man is in rebellion with God because, men "want to be like God", but not because you do bad things in life, or decide to steal a car.  That is the one thing which infuriates God, that mortal men made of flesh and bone, play with an everlasting consuming fire by claiming that they have power over God and don't agree with him or his work in the cross, claiming they can do a better job or simply rejecting his divinity.   

If there is one thing that unites law worshipers or atheist, is when you claim Jesus is God. Wow, they simply cannot stand it. They will bring you down even though Christ rose up. Its interesting why that bothers so many people, but I guess that if Jesus is not God then "they are god's" and have envy of him because they are not God's. Satan's downfall with God.  

God promised that he would pay a price for those he loved. That means that he chooses who to give the gift of heaven, so Christ came only for a selected few, those will be with God, regardless of what they do.  

Real Christianity is even more liberal than Atheism "would ever be" and most "true" Christians are afraid of telling others that.

In fact: 

I could go right now, kill 3 people, sleep with ten prostitutes, not pay them a dime and lie to my fiance, and God wouldn't judge me for what I do instead, he would bless me.

An atheist would either believe this is shear madness or agree with the fact that, perpetuating acts like killings, drugs, homosexuality is nothing to worry about. Proving that morals is not something God is looking inside me, he doesn't give a shit about my morals as I don't have any.  

He paid the price, so I am not worried about hell; however they are consequences in this world, so if I kill 3 people, chances are that I might go to prison, If I bang 100 prostitutes chances are that I might get aids, get them pregnant etc.. If I don't pay them they might not sleep with me again, and If I keep lying to my fiance chances are that she wont merry me if she finds out.

If I am extremely nice with people, they will fuck me over and take advange of me, but if I am a complete asshole no one will talk to me. So everything in life must be done in moderation, whether its breaking the law, or going by it, because the system here (in this world) will make you pay one way or another, although God won't if your his child as he overlooks your sin as he paid your bill.   

God doesn't care if you steal a pencil or you beat up someone, for him Human kind is meant to fuck up (as we all go by interest) , and knowing this, he doesn't judge people according to their actions, but according to what they say about him, as he wants to be worshiped and take full credit of all the problems in this universe. 

Christians that tell you that go by works, deeds or Good scales...those are worse-off than any atheist or law worshiper, because they technically are telling God "that hey!! we believe you payed it all" but then go back to works, or to preaching strange doctrines. The dog goes back to its vomit. Such things as you will lose your salvation, Jesus is not God, there is no trinity, evolution is true, God pay for you but he wants you to know do good works so you can enter heaven...all of this bullshit is what they preach. Nothing that atheist would care about, but technically share to some degree many common thoughts with them.  

There is no "free will" people don't decide their outcome or what they are going to eat tomorrow, its already all planned, and its ready to be executed. God is already programmed everything, and those he predestine to be in hell, will indeed go there, they have no chance! and those he payed for, will go to heaven as they have no chance to go to hell. He chooses that, its his universe; as when your teacher or boss tells you to design a project, he decides the project that will be done and what it should look like, without your supervision. Same with god, except that he decides everything. 

Their is no morals for true Christians, we can basically do whatever we want as what we do, is what God had plan already, and he thought to be good.   

The only difference between me and a religious person that goes by laws, or an atheist, is that when I die, Jesus Christ took care of my sin. That's all, I am probably worst than most atheist in this room and certantily worst than most religious people; I haven't killed anyone but I've fucked a lot of people somehow or another, and broken so many laws that I know that I need God.

Yes Atheist...that is something that most Christians wont tell you, they will judge you. I don't judge people as I am worst than most, I just say that the God the Son already payed the price, that most will find out that can pay. Morality doesn't exist, but you pay what you borrow in this world. So go on... and get mad with God, many were and are supposed to blaspheme his name, it was written, but the fucked up part is that he controls the thoughts of everyone and that "whom laughs last laughs best, you will never outsmart God.  

 

 

  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
All pretty irrelevant, since

All pretty irrelevant, since there is no good reason to assume anything like the God of the Bible exists.

You are right to the extent that there is no reason to assume any such God, if it somehow did exist, must be like the Christian concept. But OTOH, you are just making equally unjustified assumptions in another direction.

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


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Agent7

 

 

 

                      Just to add to Bob Spence; your jesus charactor is just as fictitious as the god charactor and whatever aspect of christianity your operating on is just as big a waste of time as any other,    or any other religion.

 

 

                      BTW  welcome to the forums and do stick around, you sound very different then other theists.

"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?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually impressed.

I'm actually impressed. You're the first to come out and say that Christians have no morality (absolute or relative) and that what they do doesn't matter as long as they kiss Yahweh's ass.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Poe, or someone trying to

Poe, or someone trying to make a point about the absurdity of Christianity. That's my guess.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Wat?

Wat?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Hello agent7, I must say

Hello agent7, I must say that out of all religious people, Calvinists I respect the most for their intellectual honesty.  To believe the bible literally, you have to conclude a god that doesn't give a shit, is jealous and spiteful.  Anyways, stick around and you should look for Jean Smiling you guys are on the same wavelength.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:I don't care

agent7 wrote:

I don't care what other Christians tell you, I read the bible all my life and debated hundreds of law worshiping religions, and atheist. Its all the same, really! If you can read through all this, I will be impressed as most will stop reading in the first 4 lines as they share the same goals. 

First. 

 

All religions in the world go by good deeds, good scales and good works in order to go to heaven. You must do something; however, it seems strange that God been that almighty figure he says he is, would make people pass through all the bullshit other religions tell you to do, when he can simply do it himself and take care of the problem.   

Israel in the old testament always tested God, because they didn't believe in God; in fact many israelites believed they were Gods, therefore worshiping pagan Gods from other cultures, rejecting the God that brought them out of Egypt.   

The bible is meant to be a spiritual book, not physical. Laws in the 10 commandments were spiritual laws, but Israel took those laws to be physical. God was against them because they denied and questions his divinity, not because they sinned like most Christians will tell you. 

Man is in rebellion with God because, men "want to be like God", but not because you do bad things in life, or decide to steal a car.  That is the one thing which infuriates God, that mortal men made of flesh and bone, play with an everlasting consuming fire by claiming that they have power over God and don't agree with him or his work in the cross, claiming they can do a better job or simply rejecting his divinity.   

If there is one thing that unites law worshipers or atheist, is when you claim Jesus is God. Wow, they simply cannot stand it. They will bring you down even though Christ rose up. Its interesting why that bothers so many people, but I guess that if Jesus is not God then "they are god's" and have envy of him because they are not God's. Satan's downfall with God.  

God promised that he would pay a price for those he loved. That means that he chooses who to give the gift of heaven, so Christ came only for a selected few, those will be with God, regardless of what they do.  

Real Christianity is even more liberal than Atheism "would ever be" and most "true" Christians are afraid of telling others that.

In fact: 

I could go right now, kill 3 people, sleep with ten prostitutes, not pay them a dime and lie to my fiance, and God wouldn't judge me for what I do instead, he would bless me.

An atheist would either believe this is shear madness or agree with the fact that, perpetuating acts like killings, drugs, homosexuality is nothing to worry about. Proving that morals is not something God is looking inside me, he doesn't give a shit about my morals as I don't have any.  

He paid the price, so I am not worried about hell; however they are consequences in this world, so if I kill 3 people, chances are that I might go to prison, If I bang 100 prostitutes chances are that I might get aids, get them pregnant etc.. If I don't pay them they might not sleep with me again, and If I keep lying to my fiance chances are that she wont merry me if she finds out.

If I am extremely nice with people, they will fuck me over and take advange of me, but if I am a complete asshole no one will talk to me. So everything in life must be done in moderation, whether its breaking the law, or going by it, because the system here (in this world) will make you pay one way or another, although God won't if your his child as he overlooks your sin as he paid your bill.   

God doesn't care if you steal a pencil or you beat up someone, for him Human kind is meant to fuck up (as we all go by interest) , and knowing this, he doesn't judge people according to their actions, but according to what they say about him, as he wants to be worshiped and take full credit of all the problems in this universe. 

Christians that tell you that go by works, deeds or Good scales...those are worse-off than any atheist or law worshiper, because they technically are telling God "that hey!! we believe you payed it all" but then go back to works, or to preaching strange doctrines. The dog goes back to its vomit. Such things as you will lose your salvation, Jesus is not God, there is no trinity, evolution is true, God pay for you but he wants you to know do good works so you can enter heaven...all of this bullshit is what they preach. Nothing that atheist would care about, but technically share to some degree many common thoughts with them.  

There is no "free will" people don't decide their outcome or what they are going to eat tomorrow, its already all planned, and its ready to be executed. God is already programmed everything, and those he predestine to be in hell, will indeed go there, they have no chance! and those he payed for, will go to heaven as they have no chance to go to hell. He chooses that, its his universe; as when your teacher or boss tells you to design a project, he decides the project that will be done and what it should look like, without your supervision. Same with god, except that he decides everything. 

Their is no morals for true Christians, we can basically do whatever we want as what we do, is what God had plan already, and he thought to be good.   

The only difference between me and a religious person that goes by laws, or an atheist, is that when I die, Jesus Christ took care of my sin. That's all, I am probably worst than most atheist in this room and certantily worst than most religious people; I haven't killed anyone but I've fucked a lot of people somehow or another, and broken so many laws that I know that I need God.

Yes Atheist...that is something that most Christians wont tell you, they will judge you. I don't judge people as I am worst than most, I just say that the God the Son already payed the price, that most will find out that can pay. Morality doesn't exist, but you pay what you borrow in this world. So go on... and get mad with God, many were and are supposed to blaspheme his name, it was written, but the fucked up part is that he controls the thoughts of everyone and that "whom laughs last laughs best, you will never outsmart God.  

 

 

  

I admit, I will never outsmart God. But I will also never outsmart Pink Unicorns. I'll make you a deal. I'll kiss your god's ass when entropy proves that Angelina Jolie is sucking my dick as I type this.

Humans dream lots of dreams, and the idea of super heros saving humanity has got to be the biggest self serving delusions humans peddle to please themselves which has caused the most division and destruction in our evolution.

So laughing at your god is as easy as taking a dump and far more frequent for me.

 

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So laughing at

Brian37 wrote:

So laughing at your god is as easy as taking a dump and far more frequent for me.

 

You should try more fiber, and less atheist in your diet Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Time and space dictate the

Time and space dictate the outcome of meaning and interpretation according to its place and meaning.  

Unicorns, Zeus, the spaghetti monster, Corn man, and superman are all real characters. You see, Zeus is actually real, there is a statue with his name. Unicorns are a real concept in stories and statues as well ( I could pin point a statue in France) and if you ask the local people what is that statue, they would say "Its a unicorn", they wouldn't say its Angelina Jolie! 

When you write the word unicorn I understand that you are talking about unicorns, because interpretation is decoded for meaning. However, if you wrote "Unicorn" and I didn't know what the fuck a unicorn is, then in "your imagination" you would assume a meaning to be real, that I don't understand.

The word u-n-i-c-o-r-n doesn't mean jack shit, but you believe its the meaning of the word unicorn right? If not, why would you give me an example to disprove something else, if you don't believe its valid? Why would you give a fact that isn't valid to prove your point, if its not real "in your imagination"? 

Any thing imagination that develops and its put into practice is real, these are all concepts, that have interpretations. However, none of those interpretations mean the same thing. The Unicorn is not God, so why put an example of a unicorn to disprove that God doesn't exist; when a unicorn is fucking unicorn, and God is God. Two separate meanings, to prove one meaning? Absurd!Unicorns do exist in the form of statues, and if I put a horn on a fucking white horse and put wings on it, I would call my horse Unicorn and throw his ass from 8 kilometers, he would fly! Therefore unicorns exist.

Just like when you put a Santa Claus dress on a trucker, he suddenly becomes "Santa" and when you go to a mall and ask for santa so your kid takes a picture; every single individual in the mall will point you at the spot where he is located. So Santa is real inside a fucking mall, and they are elf's as well, midgets that need money, but dress like elf's. So if you were in the mall, and you told people Santa is not there because he doesn't exist, people would just be like..well today Larry the trucker is Santa Claus; and if you told them Santa is not there he doesn't exist, they would all say he is in the "second floor" blind man!   

When I say God, you say Bullshit, when you say Fossils, I think of Dog snacks. We interpret things differently according to the meaning you assigned the word to be, so it fits the description you assigned in your brain scan. If you don't assign a machine what to interpret, the fucking machine would go bananas!

Your brain is no different than the machine, the only problem is that you don't recognize your engineer. But your programmed, to believe that Angelina Jolie is blowing you, because you probably get a hard on when you see her on the web, but since you can touch her, you imagine by masturbating that she is there. You believed your imagination, while mentally fucking Angelina, but you wont accept unicorns exist? that seems hypocritical, since now you have cum all over the floor, the same color as the horse with a horn.   

Your words are concepts with interpretations, because if they were not concepts with interpretation then I wouldn't understand your language. So assuming, your words are real and have a meaning I could draw a conclusion. 

Atheist, believe that the spaghetti monster is not real, but I could point to drawings and meanings of interpretation to conclude that to be false, as indeed they are spaghetti monsters in drawings, and even in sculptures. 

The doesn't have a meaning unless you assign him a concept for interpretation. Fossils don't have meaning unless you assign them a concept for interpretation. 

 

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If I understand this: Quote:

If I understand this:

Quote:
God is already programmed everything, and those he predestine to be in hell, will indeed go there, they have no chance! and those he payed for, will go to heaven as they have no chance to go to hell. He chooses that...
then what one does or does not, thinks or thinks not, is completely immaterial to one's fate. It is predestined. So, why is there a god at all if that god is completely irrelevant? Who dictated to your god this behaviour, or why is your god so utterly powerless, so meaningless?


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:If I

Pacioli wrote:

If I understand this:

Quote:
God is already programmed everything, and those he predestine to be in hell, will indeed go there, they have no chance! and those he payed for, will go to heaven as they have no chance to go to hell. He chooses that...
then what one does or does not, thinks or thinks not, is completely immaterial to one's fate. It is predestined. So, why is there a god at all if that god is completely irrelevant? Who dictated to your god this behaviour, or why is your god so utterly powerless, so meaningless?

I don't know, but I read it in this here magic book, and I'm scared shitless of Hell, so I might as well believe I'm one of the random lucky ones. C'mon 7, gimme a 7! Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:Any thing

agent7 wrote:

Any thing imagination that develops and its put into practice is real, these are all concepts, that have interpretations. However, none of those interpretations mean the same thing. The Unicorn is not God, so why put an example of a unicorn to disprove that God doesn't exist; when a unicorn is fucking unicorn, and God is God. Two separate meanings, to prove one meaning? Absurd!

My God can beat up your unicorn, in my imagination! So there!


 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:Just like when

agent7 wrote:
Just like when you put a Santa Claus dress on a trucker, he suddenly becomes "Santa" and when you go to a mall and ask for santa so your kid takes a picture; every single individual in the mall will point you at the spot where he is located. So Santa is real inside a fucking mall, and they are elf's as well, midgets that need money, but dress like elf's. So if you were in the mall, and you told people Santa is not there because he doesn't exist, people would just be like..well today Larry the trucker is Santa Claus; and if you told them Santa is not there he doesn't exist, they would all say he is in the "second floor" blind man!

OMFG! This has got to be a Poe!

Thank you, agent7. Very good job. You made my day!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:If you don't

agent7 wrote:
When I say God, you say Bullshit, when you say Fossils, I think of Dog snacks.

...

If you don't assign a machine what to interpret, the fucking machine would go bananas!

...

You believed your imagination, while mentally fucking Angelina, but you wont accept unicorns exist? that seems hypocritical

...

Atheist, believe that the spaghetti monster is not real, but I could point to drawings and meanings of interpretation to conclude that to be false

Pure. Fucking. Gold.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Define "good". I think you

Define "good". I think you will find it is what is deemed as productive in society. Idea's of "good" have clearly changed over the course of time and quite obviously with the flow of societal progress.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not entirely sure what

I'm not entirely sure what Agent was trying to say. It bounced around too much. So I reserve judgements and opinions for now. He has some good points, but interspersed it with irrelevance and mysticism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
 There is not such things

 There is not such things as Good. 

Lets say I see a beggar in the street,while another guy is watching. I want to give the beggar one dollar, but I don't have any. My intentions, in my "own" imagination "I believed to be Good" but since I didn't give him anything, the guy watching me and the beggar think I am dick head. So Good is a human concept. 

Lets say I do give money to the Beggar, I give him one dollar. Then another person gives the man aa 20 dollar bill. Who did a better job at being good? The world would say the man that gave more money, because we go by the outer appearance and we judge according to plus and minuses. So evidently the guy that gave a 20 dollar bill, did a better job, and that is approved to be a good thing in the eyes of many. 

Now, Imagine that the person that gave the 20 dollar bill just killed his wife, or stolen a piece of candy. Is he Good now? But he did a good thing by giving the beggar twenty dollars? You couldn't say he wasn't "good" because the fact is that in one situation he did Good, but you could also say he was "bad" because he killed his wife, or stole the candy. You cannot measure or scale people from the outside, because you never know. 

Now imagine I help the beggar by giving him a dollar, but that dollar is one less dollar, that my daughter is going to receive for her lunch tomorrow? Did I do good or bad? You could never answer that question, because it would go either way. And we would measure this problem  according to "interest" but since God doesn't have needs, his measurement would be different. As he doesn't need money, nor is he poor, nor does he need to buy lunch for something that is his already. 

Problem with "humanity" is that by thinking we are good, we take so call "good"' decisions that in the end hurt others, wanted or not! By doing good, you are taking a decision that would hurt someone else in time and space. I help build a house for free for my friend, but by not paying me money, this might hurt my relationship with my wife because our outcome is bad, but my neccesity is always greater than my so called "good heart" 

I get along with my neighbors fine, I like jim he is  nice guy. But if war broke out, and neccesity interlocked having no food, seeing my daughter is hungry, if jim did not give me food, I would go to his house beat him up, and feed my daughter. 

We are all bad. No man is Good. 

You are with your girlfriend and you see a hot chick pass by, the moment you imagine her presence your technically cheating with your wife. But your wife also checks dudes out, even dough she might not do anything with them, so she is also cheating in her imagination. No relationship is perfect, therefore is not Good. The only perfect relationship will be is if one of the two, was perfect and could keep everything the perfect way, that's why I gave up "the love of the world" for the love of God since God can give that perfection that the world wont. I will cheat and look at other things, but god wnt cheat one me despite my "bad" nature. 

but of course atheist would not believe this, because the survival of the fittest, means that only the toughest survive. So if, jim is fat and I am skinny, and he about to get hit by an ice cream truck, I wouldn't save him, because I am not fit enough to push his ass out of the dam road. 

Actually, according to the bible and don't let false Christians fool you. If I saw Jim getting hit by a truck, and I saved his ass, I wouldn't "go to heaven" by my good deed, because as stated before I have probably broken the laws so many darn times. That there is no way any one could save me!!  Unless of course I believe in God, as he can save me, as I saved Jim.

When laws are given, they are meant to be broken. A human right activist might be calling others, dick heads, for eating chickens. But the bitch doesn't realize that every time she steps on a park, she is fucking squashing Bugs all around. If all science got together to put together a fucking ant. they wouldn't. But if they did, the whole world would rejoice. And if that same activist that protects larger animals because she thinks she is doing good, stepped on the ant made by scientist.....she would be put in prison for what she does!!! How much more would God do to all of us, does that believe, for all the shit we take as nothing in this world.

Morality is poor bullshit. God doesn't give a rats ass about your Good deeds, no one has any. And If we go by interest, we should consider his instead of ours, because its greater than ours to begin with. But of course this logic doesn't fit the atheist interest, as well as it doesn't fit religions that go by morals or laws.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Contradictions

Agent7, before you told us that everything was predestined, before birth, so I asked what was the point of your god? Not answering that, you now appear to be saying that people should believe in your god so not to go to hell, suggesting there is not predestination but a rational choice to be made.

If the latter is true, please define your god and show some credible evidence for its existence.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote: I just say

agent7 wrote:
I just say that the God the Son already payed the price... 

The biggest non sequitur that completely underpins the Christian 'belief'.

If the price has been paid, then why don't they STFU?

 

This just illustrates how completely and utterly absurd this line of 'reasoning' is.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:Now imagine I

agent7 wrote:

Now imagine I help the beggar by giving him a dollar, but that dollar is one less dollar, that my daughter is going to receive for her lunch tomorrow? Did I do good or bad? You could never answer that question, because it would go either way. And we would measure this problem  according to "interest" but since God doesn't have needs, his measurement would be different. As he doesn't need money, nor is he poor, nor does he need to buy lunch for something that is his already. 

I hope you're a poe, because you read like a very good one.  I will, however, address a few of your many aberrations, lest others, if not yourself, believe you have a point.  You can easily answer that question.  Morality is a subjective quality, and it's relative frame of reference must be defined in order for it to have any meaning.  Let me give you a quick analogy.  If you're in a moving train traveling 5km/h and you run towards the end of the train at 5km/h how fast are you running?  Well, the answer is simple, 5km/h.  Because i have just told you the speed, if I were to ask how fast were you running relative to the someone stationary outside the train, the answer is 0km/h you would seem to be running in place.  

Basically, it's not that you cannot answer a morality question or a speed question, it is that the question is fragmented.  So you have to consider what you want answered.  Let's start over "Now imagine I help the beggar by giving him a dollar" is that good or bad? The simple answer, all other factors non withstanding, withing our current moral paradigm, is YES.  

The question regarding your daughter, if that is the only money she had then NO, you did not do "good".  In the grand scheme of things, your actions represent a given percentage of the morality answer.  Imagine an X,Y axis, take absolute nothing as 0, any good deed has a positive value, and any "evil" deed has a negative value.  Absolute good = 1 and absolute evil = -1.  Now take the above paragraph and let's calculate your "morality" value.  Start with you give the beggar a dollar.  1.  YAY, you're ALL good Smiling, but wait.  As more variables enter the equation, you have to expand the frame of reference to include them.  Ok, let's read on.  Your daughter now has less 1 dollar Sad, that sux, she would have had 5, that's 20% less, she now has 4 dollars.  Ok, let's update... 20% less good, that's -0.20, so your current morality value is 0.8...  Not too shabby.  See we have an answer Smiling 

This is obviously an attempt at levity to illustrate how seemingly mind blowing questions are mostly silly, fragmented, or plain stupid.

 

agent7 wrote:

but of course atheist would not believe this, because the survival of the fittest, means that only the toughest survive. So if, jim is fat and I am skinny, and he about to get hit by an ice cream truck, I wouldn't save him, because I am not fit enough to push his ass out of the dam road. 

 Ok, humour value aside, you are poe-ing someone who clearly has no understanding of how evolution works.  Let me congratulate you on your very convincing application of Poe's law.  "survival of the fittest" is not to be read as only the toughest survive, that's silly.  "survival of the fittest" is to be read as only those individuals that are the best FIT for the current environment will survive.  Meaning that if a highly contagious, airborne virus that turned one's immune system against the body were to develop.  Only the weakest of our species would survive.  Those with very weak, or non existent immune systems.  Smiling  The "toughest" of us would die first.   I appreciate what you're doing here, pointing out the many idiocies that theists claim on regular basis.  One quick observation however, if you were to lower the cardinality of your points and try to stay more focused, you may have a bigger impact. Don't stop Poe-ing Smiling bravo!

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not

Vastet wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what Agent was trying to say. It bounced around too much. So I reserve judgements and opinions for now. He has some good points, but interspersed it with irrelevance and mysticism.

And filled to the brim with stuff he wants, just like the rest of them.

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


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
 Everything is

 Everything is predestined. 

God creates things for his glory. Whether people go to hell, or no, its only for that purpose. Because in the end, you will bow on your knees to your master and glorify his name (when is too late), you are the one that says he doesn't exist, mainly because you a man of flesh, no different than 3 billion other entities out there, believes he is "special". 3 billion opinions cannot be all true, but science is 100% right? lol, no scientist will ever guarantee you that, because their is nothing that is "perfect", so you believing the best so "called methodology" of science chose to deny God.

 You want to fight fire because you are proud, but since your blinded to your own opinion, you couldn't possibly do anything, because God is not going to open your mind. Its just like a video Game, if a creator exist,  the programmer decides which are going to be the bad guys and the good guys of his game, but regardless what happens "he is going to win", its unstoppable, he designed the game, and no matter how hard the bad guys "think they are" they are basically fucked from start. They have no option, the minute they were formed it was better to not be programmed, because they will never win, as for that purpose they were created. God will win, using his "own method" without your help, he doesn't need you, and that is the point of the game, that you in the end, will lose, and you will know that he was real. Th bible would be the manual of the game and the CD would be the universe. 

You ask me how GOD does exist? Well if someone that is "rational" really believes in science. They must come to the conclusion that, if all humanity cannot even build a fucking fly with our "so called intelligence" how in the fuck are we going to create all the variety of nature. See you believe nature, creates intelligence, but nature itself is the product of intelligence, because the "laws" of nature must fallow guidelines to "work" and when you have "laws" then is the product of power and intelligence, because in order to create a "universal law" one most have power, and logic behind its intelligence. So the product of nature, is the result of intelligence,and just because you haven't seen the creator yet, it itself, by no means, means that you won't see him anytime soon. 

Science could never, ever, prove that Julius Cesar, Alexander the great, Seneca, Cyrus the great, Hannibal and so forth existed. What did their DNA look like? how could you possibly, test their existence! But fuck that, everyone believes Cesar existed, that's why listen to his stories in History 101. Their is no science behind his existence, but you don't see scientist debating his existence, do you? That is bullshit!  but hey, that is credible, but when you mention God...automatically not credible!! that's unscientific. But whats interesting is that if you had to scientifically prove, all "history" (which is more credible), then your fucking history book would be the size of "50" pages max! 

You only believe what you see. And its funny, because dark matter and dark energy are present, but hey! you know what? you can't fucking detect them! But scientist believe is real, and is taught. Once again, science believes without proving its existence!!?? 

The universe is expanding higher than its original explosion, violating Einsteins law. But hey, what seems impossible seems possible, and science cannot neglect it, its hapening. 

Its funny because evolution is called a science, but it cannot predict and its not observable. Tell me any "macro" so called solving in its later stages? Good luck, because not even the scientist you fallow can find it, but they try, that's why they go to the past, because they can't find evidence in the present, which is why its still a theory! But just because they "try" it doesn't mean is "true". Give me one mathematical equation, that could predict evolution. How does it mathematically happen? you say your rational right? well lets use, math and physics, as that is true logic! Good luck!  

Evolution goes against engineering an intelligence, and if it where to be a real science, then random processes themselves would be predictable and useful for replication; in other words, fuck computer engineers, electrical and mechanical engineers, as a matter fact fuck all engineers from every field, because chance would produce "intelligent systems' by itself. So don't worry about wasting your money, on college an learning, because mother nature will blow wind and earth and operate and do "Heart Surgery" or "Fix your computer" or create a new "Play Station 3" ... Evolution violates the word "intelligence" because you can't expect for mater that has no brains, to possibly recreate all the mathematical odds, you need. That is bullshit. Only someone with unlimited power could create such a complex universe, and its funny, because in school itself. I don't see rocks and primordial soups (that have never worked in all the labs they have been tested) to teach a class in how to build a human being. That is why I cannot possibly believe, in such retarded theory, that uses it in the name of science! 

Even the person that "thought of randomness and chance" to insert such absurd theory, was the "creator of the theory", just as intelligence would predict! 

Good luck proving that wrong! 

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If everything is predestined

If everything is predestined then what, exactly, do you imagine is going on in the world? Why does it exist? Does your god like to play noughts and crosses with himself? Even an onanist enjoys more uncertainty than a fully predestined world, leaving your god to be something less than a wanker.

Your evidence for your god relies on the usual ignorance of science and its methods to arrive at the usually begged question of what greater complexity was needed to create the complexity which created the visible complexity.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
This is the typical, throw

This is the typical, throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks, strategy.  Your best defense is the sheer number of fallacies made, my brain goes on overload and it makes it very difficult to follow.  Your logic breaks down in every single case because all your premises are based on arguments from ignorance or begging the question, followed by a slippery slope conclusion.  

If you are truly interested in making a point, try making a atheist vs. theist thread.  Any one of us will try to answer all of your questions to the best of our ability.  You must proceed coherently, this wall of text crap does nothing for your argument.  I would gladly have a civil one on one discussion with you.  One point at the time. 

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:3 billion

agent7 wrote:
3 billion opinions cannot be all true, but science is 100% right? lol, no scientist will ever guarantee you that, because their is nothing that is "perfect", so you believing the best so "called methodology" of science chose to deny God.

You're right 3 billion opinions can't all be true, but this condemns religion, not science. Science doesn't depend on opinion, it depends on evidence. Religion depends on opinion. Just like your mere opinion that your god is the right one, and the 3 billion other opinions are wrong. Talk about arrogance. Where's your evidence of your god? What's that? You don't have any? Colour me surprised.

Quote:
You want to fight fire because you are proud, but since your blinded to your own opinion, you couldn't possibly do anything, because God is not going to open your mind.

Are you talking to us, or to yourself? This is classic projection.

Quote:
Its just like a video Game, if a creator exist,  the programmer decides which are going to be the bad guys and the good guys of his game, but regardless what happens "he is going to win", its unstoppable, he designed the game, and no matter how hard the bad guys "think they are" they are basically fucked from start. They have no option, the minute they were formed it was better to not be programmed, because they will never win, as for that purpose they were created. God will win, using his "own method" without your help, he doesn't need you, and that is the point of the game, that you in the end, will lose, and you will know that he was real. Th bible would be the manual of the game and the CD would be the universe.

If it's all predestined, then what the fuck do you care? Why are you here telling us this? You can't change anything, according to your own beliefs, so why are you blabbering stuff to us. It won't change anything. What's the point?

Quote:
You ask me how GOD does exist? Well if someone that is "rational" really believes in science. They must come to the conclusion that, if all humanity cannot even build a fucking fly with our "so called intelligence" how in the fuck are we going to create all the variety of nature.

What? We don't have to create all the variety of nature. Nature has already done that.

Quote:
See you believe nature, creates intelligence, but nature itself is the product of intelligence, because the "laws" of nature must fallow guidelines to "work" and when you have "laws" then is the product of power and intelligence, because in order to create a "universal law" one most have power, and logic behind its intelligence. So the product of nature, is the result of intelligence,and just because you haven't seen the creator yet, it itself, by no means, means that you won't see him anytime soon.

Seriously. How old are you? Who taught you that kind of nonsense, because you surely did not come up with it on your own. Somebody has been messing with your mind, my friend. Sorry for the rude awakening, but if you can't see how illogical that is, somebody needs to ring the alarm bells so you can wake the fuck up to reality. I'm sorry you've been lied to, but that's no reason to go around repeating the same lies you've been fed. And why should you? It won't change anything when you do, according to your preacher's nonsense, because it's all predestined anyway, right?

Quote:
Science could never, ever, prove that Julius Cesar, Alexander the great, Seneca, Cyrus the great, Hannibal and so forth existed.

Poor kid. The lies you've been fed are poisonous bullshit, my friend. Think about it. Here's how we know Julius Caesar existed, for one. You can look up the evidence for the others on your own, if you really want to know the truth about reality.

First, I want to show you how I found this. It is super easy, and will help you discover all sorts of amazing things about reality. I went to http://www.google.com/ and typed in did julius caesar exist into the text box under the Google logo, and then clicked the Google Search button. Try it yourself, it's actually really fun! This is the list I got when I did that:


  1. Did Julius Caesar Exist? – Yes But No evidence of Jesus Christ

    www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html - Cached Julius Caesar – man from 100-44 BC, god thereafter. 100 years before the supposed birth of Jesus another god-man was born: Gaius Julius Caesar. Murdered ... ►
  2. Julius Caesar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar - Cached Gaius Julius Caesar (13 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) was a Roman general and ..... Caesar also wrote that if Octavian died before Caesar did, Marcus Junius ...
  3. Did Julius Caesar exist

    wiki.answers.com › ... › Ancient HistoryAncient RomeJulius Caesar - Cached Did Julius Caesar exist? ... There have been thousands of productions of Julius Caesar since it was first performed ... How did Julius Caesar become Caesar? ...
  4. What time period did julius caesar exist

    wiki.answers.com › ... › Ancient HistoryAncient RomeJulius Caesar - Cached What time did Julius Caesar die? the actual time is not determined, but he ... Show more results from answers.com  
  5. The Meaning of Truth - X. The Existence of Julius Caesar (by William ...

    www.authorama.com/meaning-of-truth-11.html - Cached X. The Existence of Julius Caesar ... The effects may indeed confirm my belief, but the belief was made true already by the fact that Caesar really did exist.' ...
  6. Did Jesus really exist? - Yahoo!7 Answers

    au.answers.yahoo.com › ... › Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality - Cached 22 answers There are far more eyewitness accounts of Jesus than there are of Julius Caesar. Did Julius Caesar exist? The atheists who attempt to rewrite history to give ...
  7. Why did Julius Caesar die? - Yahoo! Answers

    answers.yahoo.com › ... › Education & ReferenceHomework Help - Cached 5 answers - 6 Sep 2006 Top answer: Julius Caesar was assassinated because the polical opponents of the senates were try to claim title of king. Caesar was stabbed 23 times. and there were more ...
    Did Christianity exist before Jesus as the cult of Julius Caesar ...‎ - 19 Jul 2008
    If God doesn't exist, why did Julius Caesar defeat the Belgae ...‎ - 25 Nov 2006
    Is there really more historical evidence for Jesus existing than ...‎ - 7 Sep 2006
    Julius Caesar & Jesus Christ?‎ - 28 Apr 2006

    More results from answers.yahoo.com »

    Show more results from yahoo.com  
  8. Julius Caesar

    www.historylearningsite.co.ukA History of Ancient Rome - Cached Julius Caesar joined the Roman Army in 81 BC and was the first Roman army commander to invade England which he did in 55 BC and again in 54 BC. Caesar ...
  9. BBC - History - Julius Caesar

    www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/caesar_julius.shtml - Cached Discover facts about the life of Julius Caesar - what led him to make himself dictator of Rome? This biography includes details of his romance with Cleopatra and ...
  10. Spreadia | Did Julius Caesar Exist? - Tusculum Caesar

    spreadia.com/Tusculum_Caesar/158445994/Did_Julius_Caesar_Exist - Cached Did Julius Caesar Exist? Jesusneverexisted.com became trending Jun 15, 2010 · Comment · Share ·. Report. Report as Spam; It's Abusing; Duplicate ...
Searches related to did julius caesar exist

did julius caesar live

did julius caesar do

did julius caesar marry

what did julius caesar accomplish

did julius caesar wear

did julius caesar eat

did julius caesar believe

who did julius caesar defeat


Now, Google just lists everything, so you will find both truth and bullshit in the search results. The way to go is to open several different links, and especially check out the links to the websites you don't already agree with. Because if you're being fed lies, then reading more lies isn't going to help you see the lies, it's just going to reinforce them. The only way to know if you're really right is to know what the other side is saying. I mean, that's why you're here at RRS, right? To see if your beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, right? You are curious about that, aren't you?

Personally speaking, I'm always curious about whether I'm right or wrong. Not a day goes by that I don't ask myself, "How do I really know what I think I know?" I realize I'm not perfect, and that sometimes even things I'm absolutely convinced about turn out to be wrong wrong wrong. I've been wrong in the past, and I'm not ashamed to admit that. There's nothing 'wrong' with being wrong about something, as long as you're open to the possibility that you might be wrong. Because if you're open to that possibility (and that's the definition of real open-mindedness, right?), then that is the very first step towards learning something new about reality. Personally, I love learning new things. It's awesome, I love it! So, I'm always open to the possibility that I might be wrong, about anything. That includes your ideas about God. If I'm wrong about that, I really want to know, because that would be the most important thing to really make sure I get right. So far, I'm simply not convinced by anything I've heard, but maybe you've got the crucial piece I've been missing, so I remain open to it.

So, again, Google just lists everything, and you'll want to explore both sides to see if your current beliefs about the impossibility of showing that Julius Caesar lived are correct or incorrect.

Another good reason to look at the other side's arguments is that if you're already correct, you'll be able to see just how badly the other side gets it wrong. It can be lots of fun, so I highly recommend it. It also prepares you better for when you discuss this topic again with other people. Okay, so with that in mind, let's look at some of these links:

1. The first one is from a website called http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/. Yikes! That looks scary! Maybe we should leave that one for last? Okay, but don't forget to see what the other side says too, even if it's just to see how badly they get it wrong.

2. The next one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar . I don't know if you like Wikipedia, but it always has links to external sources, so even if you don't like Wikipedia itself, it's still a good place to start when you're looking for more information on a topic. Just see what external sources they cite and go check those out if you want to verify what is in Wikipedia.

  • Okay, the first part is just the story of his significance in history. Could be all bullshit. But it's interesting that he plays a crucial role in Roman history, and took part in politics, wars (including the conquest of Gaul, which is modern-day France), apparently built a bridge across the Rhine river, was the first Roman to invade Britain, and lots of other historical things. He even had an heir, Octavius. Okay. But I guess it could still all be bullshit. So, moving on...
  • The next section talks about his early life. Blah blah blah. A bit boring, maybe. Let's just snip out the important things that look like they might be real evidence of his existence. (Note the numbered links to references.):

Wikipedia: Julius Caesar wrote:

Caesar issued coins featuring images of elephants, suggesting that he favoured this interpretation of his name.

In 85 BC Caesar's father died suddenly[10]

The following year he was nominated to be the new high priest of Jupiter.[11]

he broke off his engagement to a plebeian girl he had been betrothed to since boyhood, and married Lucius Cinna's daughter Cornelia.[12]

Lacking means since his inheritance was confiscated, he acquired a modest house in a lower-class neighbourhood of Rome.[16]

He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity[21]—a promise the pirates had taken as a joke.

He was elected quaestor for 69 BC,[22] and during that year he delivered the funeral oration for his aunt Julia.

On his return in 67 BC,[25] he married Pompeia, a granddaughter of Sulla, and whom he later divorced.[26]

Caesar won comfortably, despite his opponents' greater experience and standing.[27] When Cicero, who was consul that year, exposed Catiline's conspiracy to seize control of the republic, several senators accused Caesar of involvement in the plot.[28]

In Spain, he conquered two local tribes and was hailed as imperator by his troops, reformed the law regarding debts, and completed his governorship in high esteem.[29]

Faced with the choice between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship.[30]

  • Whew, there was more stuff in there than even I thought! Almost all of those things involve real evidence from his lifetime: Public documents, actual coins, historical records from those alive at the time, records of trials and other legal and political matters at the time of his life
  • Wow, the next few sections are chock full of information about huge historical events that Caesar was a central figure in. You can check those out yourself. Here's an interesting thing about Caesar himself:

Quote:

Parents

Sisters

Wives

  • First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
  • Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
  • Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

Children

  • Julia with Cornelia Cinnilla, born in 83 or 82 BC
  • Caesarion, with Cleopatra VII, born 47 BC. He was killed at age 17 by Caesar's adopted son Octavianus.
  • adopted: Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, his great-nephew by blood, who later became Emperor Augustus.
  • Marcus Junius Brutus: The historian Plutarch notes that Caesar believed Brutus to have been his illegitimate son, as his mother Servilia had been Caesar's lover during their youth.[112]

Grandchildren

  • Grandson from Julia and Pompey, dead at several days, unnamed.

Lovers

Notable relatives

  • That's a lot of relatives! Most of whom are themselves historical figures with independent lines of evidence.
  • Okay, but this could all just be bullshit, right? Oh, wait, what's this:

Quote:

Literary works

Caesar was considered during his lifetime to be one of the best orators and authors of prose in Rome—even Cicero spoke highly of Caesar's rhetoric and style.[119] Among his most famous works were his funeral oration for his paternal aunt Julia and his Anticato, a document written to blacken Cato's reputation and respond to Cicero's Cato memorial. Poems by Caesar are also mentioned in ancient sources.[120] His works other than his war commentaries have been lost, although a few sentences are quoted by other authors.

Memoirs

Commentarii de Bello Gallico, an account written by Julius Caesar about his nine years of war in Gaul

Other works historically attributed to Caesar, but whose authorship is doubted, are:

These narratives were written and published on a yearly basis during or just after the actual campaigns, as a sort of "dispatches from the front". Apparently simple and direct in style—to the point that Caesar's Commentarii are commonly studied by first and second year Latin students—they are in fact highly sophisticated tracts, aimed most particularly at the middle-brow readership of minor aristocrats[citation needed] in Rome, Italy, and the provinces.

  • Oh shit! Looks like other people wrote about him during his own lifetime, too:

Quote:

Primary sources

Own writings

Ancient historians' writings

Damn. Looks like there's a lot of evidence for Caesar's life. At least according to Wikipedia. Let's see some of the other links.


3. This one is from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Julius_Caesar_exist :

answers.com wrote:

Did Julius Caesar exist?

In: Julius Caesar [Edit categories]
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > History, Politics & Society > History > Ancient History > Ancient Rome > Julius Caesar > Did Julius Caesar exist?

Answer:
No, he did not. He was made up by Shakespeare. There is no fossil evidence of him; it just a myth that is carried on by centuries. For all that we know, there is no proof of his existence.


Wait, what? That's it? That's all? No references? No evidence (that Shakespeare made him up). No discussion of the historical evidence?

Who even wrote that? Doesn't sound very well informed to me.

Okay, I guess I can chalk this one up to 'the other side' of the my argument, and you can chalk it up to your side of the argument.


Let's go back to that first link: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

Quote:

Sources:
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Grant, Jesus (Orion, 1999)
Chris Scarre, Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (Thames & Hudson, 1995)
Pierre Grimal, Rome of the Caesars (Phaidon, 1956)
A. N. Wilson, Jesus (Harper Collins, 1993)
Elmar Gruber, Holger Kersten, The Original Jesus (Element, 1995)
Stewart Perowne, Death of the Roman Republic (Hodder & Stoughton, 1969)
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1980)


email the author – Kenneth Humphreys

Wow. Look at that. The sources are the very first thing listed! And there's the author's name and email address if you want to interrogate him. Thanks Mr. Humphreys, for being so upfront about it. Unlike that answers.com site.

Quote:

Evidence that Confirms the Existence of Caesar is Legion

– in stark contrast to the utter dearth of evidence for Jesus!

 

Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.

 
 

An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.

Julius Caesar on denarius from February/March, 44 BC.

Caesar is proclaimed 'perpetual dictator' at the age of 55.

On the reverse of the coin the symbols represent various aspects of Caesar's power and political program.

 

Fantasy Meets Reality

"... more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for anyone else ..."

Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of  2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).

But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.

But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?

 

A complete record of all the things Jesus never said, all the places he never walked, and all the miracles he never worked.

"No Evidence of Non-existence" – Welcome to the Twilight Zone

In an oddly distorted, negative universe Christian apologists declare that there is "no evidence" for their godman's non-existence, as if it should be quite natural to believe in the most fantastic, illogical and unsubstantiated claims unless there was evidence to the contrary. If this stance had any viability, why stop at Jesus? Why not believe in Zeus, leprechauns and the tooth fairy?

A favourite tack of the Saved is to affect a yawn, mutter "that old stuff again" and impatiently declare that Jesus's non-existence is a 19th century rationalist's heresy long since disposed of by "solid evidence".

The ringing claim of "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any other person of his day" is followed by a potpourri of ancient sources, as if a list made long enough could disguise the fact that NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVER QUOTED IS FROM THE TIME OF THE GODMAN.

Early non-Christian writers, including the favourite hostages – Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus – are discussed here.

But stepping around the smokescreen thrown up by evidence that early Christians certainly existed (and had a motley assortment of beliefs!), is the evidence for many of history's greatest heroes and villains really so tenuous?

 

 

In His Own Words

Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career.

The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years.

In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels.

And just who was witness to that fabulous nativity, 30-odd years before the grande finale?

At the most generous understanding, 'Luke' and 'Matthew' were recording hearsay testimony a century after angels, shepherds and wise men went calling.

The unembellished truth is that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses to nothing but their own skills of fabrication.

For good reason, based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, historians give more credence to Caesar's commentaries than to the gospels, no matter how prolifically they were copied.

 

Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar

 

Cicero

Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar.

In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.

In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.

Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.

Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.

Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.

"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops ..."

– Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.

 

 

 

Sallust

Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".

Nepos

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".

Catullus

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".

Asinius Pollio

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.

Virgil

Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".

Ovid

Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): "Metamorphoses".

Near Contemporary Witnesses


Paterculus

Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".

Lucan

Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome.

Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.

Plutarch

Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).

Appian

Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.

Suetonius

The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138).

Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.

 

Interesting reading. Food for thought.

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damn. So much awesome hidden

Damn. So much awesome hidden in the backwaters of a topic. I think that post deserves a front page edition, with slight modification so as to not be a response to a particular post. You tore the hell out of the "ceaser has as much evidence as jesus" argument better than I've ever seen before. It'd be nice to easily reference it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:Science could

agent7 wrote:

Science could never, ever, prove that Julius Cesar, Alexander the great, Seneca, Cyrus the great, Hannibal and so forth existed. What did their DNA look like? how could you possibly, test their existence!

You can't test their existence, because they are already dead. They don't exist now, but they did exist back then. We don't test for their existence now, we test the evidence of their existence in the past.

How do we do this? The same way we convict murderers of murder! We look at the evidence! Have you ever personally witnessed a murder? No? Well then how do you know anyone has ever been murdered?!

Simple. You look at the evidence. It's how our courts work, it's how historians work, it's how science works. It is not how religion works. It is not how faith works. If you had evidence of your god, you wouldn't need faith. You'd have evidence! Who needs faith when you've got evidence?

Quote:
But fuck that, everyone believes Cesar existed, that's why listen to his stories in History 101. Their is no science behind his existence,

Yes, there is. It's called archaeology, the science of studying ancient artifacts, like the coins that Caesar himself issued during his reign, and which carried his likeness stamped right on them.

This is just like the science of forensics which we use to capture and convict murderers of murder which nobody else has directly witnessed. Evidence, my friend, evidence.

Quote:
But whats interesting is that if you had to scientifically prove, all "history" (which is more credible), then your fucking history book would be the size of "50" pages max!

I suggest you go into a library, or search Google. There are not only more than "50 pages", there are more than 50 books, and there are more than 50 times 50 books, and even more than that.

Try to get some perspective on what you are saying. Seriously. Walk into a library and start looking in the History section.

Quote:
You only believe what you see. And its funny, because dark matter and dark energy are present, but hey! you know what? you can't fucking detect them! But scientist believe is real, and is taught. Once again, science believes without proving its existence!!??

Oh, reeeally?

Do you even know why scientists believed dark matter exists in the first place? Do you? I don't think you do.

They believed because of evidence, just like you believe murderers are murderers because of evidence.

From Convincing a Young Scientist that Dark Matter Exists

Quote:

I wasn't entirely convinced. I wanted a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for dark matter. Something that was an entirely new prediction that we could look for -- much like that 1919 eclipse was for general relativity -- and decide whether dark matter predicts what we're going to see.

Well, here's one for you. What would happen if you took two of these clusters of galaxies and smashed them together?

movie.b50.jpg

The individual stars and galaxies should be like bullets fired towards one another: very small and very unlikely to hit one another. In other words, the light-emitting parts of the galaxies -- the stars -- should pass right through one another. But most of the normal matter -- the gas and dust -- should collide, smash together, and heat up.

According to a Universe without dark matter, most of the mass should be where these galaxy clusters smash together, while if these clusters did have dark matter halos, those halos, much like the individual stars, should pass through one another undisturbed.

bullet_optical.jpg

Well, I had the good fortune of being in graduate school at the same place where this guy was working at the time. He was part of a group that examined the cluster above, known as the Bullet Cluster. These are two clusters of galaxies that have just recently collided into one another!

You can look at the gas in them, too, by looking in X-ray light. Where are the X-rays? If these clusters just recently collided, they ought to be in between these two clusters. Let's take a look (in pink), and see what we get.

bullet_xray.jpg

That's just what we expect. But now we have to ask, where's the gravity coming from? If there's no dark matter, the gravity should line up with the gas. But if there is dark matter, the gravity should line up with the individual stars. Let's take a look at what the mass -- due to observations of gravitational lensing (a verified prediction of general relativity) -- is telling us.

2340600058_632194393d.jpg

Not entirely convinced? Let's overlay all three images atop one another and see what we get.

srvr.jpeg

That was the last thing I was waiting for: a new prediction made by dark matter, where the observations gave me exactly what the predictions told me they should.

In other words, before the collision, gravity, stars, and gas all lined up. After the collision, the gas (which is where most of the normal matter is) doesn't line up with the stars. But gravity does. This only works if there's some extra type of matter that doesn't smash together and collide like normal matter (i.e., protons, neutrons, and electrons) does.

1e0657_ill_4panel.jpg

And that's what convinced me that dark matter's a far better explanation than anything else out there for what's going on, gravitationally, in the Universe.


Quote:
The universe is expanding higher than its original explosion, violating Einsteins law. But hey, what seems impossible seems possible, and science cannot neglect it, its hapening.

And how do we know it is happening?   .... Hmmm?   Any guesses?

I'll give you a hint: Starts with an S. No, not your Saviour. The next letter is C. Nope, it's not the SCriptures.

Oh, alright, it's SCIENCE!

And how did scientists figure it out? By looking at the evidence.

The expansion of the universe does not violate Einstein's Relativity. Relativity is about the speed of things moving through space and time. The Expansion of the universe is about the expansion of space itself!

Read this: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/30070#comment-355236


Quote:
Its funny because evolution is called a science, but it cannot predict and its not observable.

Yes, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Quote:
Give me one mathematical equation, that could predict evolution.

The Hardy-Weinberg equation: (p2) + (2pq) + (q2)= 1

Quote:
How does it mathematically happen?

When the observed frequencies of heterozygous and homozygous alleles do not match the terms in the Hardy-Weinberg equation, then we know for sure that evolution is occurring from one generation to the next.

You can test this equation in a first-year university Biology lab with fruit flies. I've done it myself, and so did everyone else in my class. (Fruit flies smell nasty. Yuck.)

 

Quote:
Evolution goes against engineering an intelligence, and if it where to be a real science, then random processes themselves would be predictable and useful

You mean like how random processes and natural selection were used to evolve a microwave antenna for a satellite, and how this antenna qualified as a novel invention and was patented (among many other patented designs generated by evolution)? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna :

Quote:

Evolved antenna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Evolved X-band antenna for NASA's Space Technology 5 Mission

Evolved antennas are antennas designed fully or substantially by an automatic design procedure mimicking Darwinian evolution. The first evolved antenna designs appeared in the mid-1990s from the work of Michielssen, Altshuler, Linden, Haupt, and Rahmat-Samii. Most practitioners use the genetic algorithms technique or some variant thereof to evolve antenna designs.

An example of an evolved antenna is an X-band antenna evolved for a 2006 NASA mission called Space Technology 5 (ST5). The mission consists of three satellites that will take measurements in Earth's magnetosphere. Each satellite has two communication antennas to talk to ground stations. The antenna has an unusual structure and was evolved to meet a challenging set of mission requirements, notably the combination of wide beamwidth for a circularly polarized wave and wide impedance bandwidth. For comparison, a traditional approach to meet the mission requirements might involve a helical antenna design, or specifically, a quadrifilar helix. The ST5 mission successfully launched on March 22, 2006, and so this evolved antenna represents the world's first artificially-evolved object to fly in space.

[edit] References

This antenna is being used in an actual Nasa space mission. See http://nmp.nasa.gov/st5/TECHNOLOGY/antenna.html :

Quote:
Each ST5 spacecraft will have one evolved antenna installed.

Hey dude, I'm sorry you've been lied to so badly. That really sucks. But you don't have to keep your mind trapped in those false beliefs. You don't lose anything by giving up a false belief. You only wake up to reality. And reality is fucking awesome!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:agent7 wrote:3

natural wrote:

agent7 wrote:
3 billion opinions cannot be all true, but science is 100% right? lol, no scientist will ever guarantee you that, because their is nothing that is "perfect", so you believing the best so "called methodology" of science chose to deny God.

You're right 3 billion opinions can't all be true, but this condemns religion, not science. Science doesn't depend on opinion, it depends on evidence. Religion depends on opinion. Just like your mere opinion that your god is the right one, and the 3 billion other opinions are wrong. Talk about arrogance. Where's your evidence of your god? What's that? You don't have any? Colour me surprised.

Quote:
You want to fight fire because you are proud, but since your blinded to your own opinion, you couldn't possibly do anything, because God is not going to open your mind.

Are you talking to us, or to yourself? This is classic projection.

Quote:
Its just like a video Game, if a creator exist,  the programmer decides which are going to be the bad guys and the good guys of his game, but regardless what happens "he is going to win", its unstoppable, he designed the game, and no matter how hard the bad guys "think they are" they are basically fucked from start. They have no option, the minute they were formed it was better to not be programmed, because they will never win, as for that purpose they were created. God will win, using his "own method" without your help, he doesn't need you, and that is the point of the game, that you in the end, will lose, and you will know that he was real. Th bible would be the manual of the game and the CD would be the universe.

If it's all predestined, then what the fuck do you care? Why are you here telling us this? You can't change anything, according to your own beliefs, so why are you blabbering stuff to us. It won't change anything. What's the point?

Quote:
You ask me how GOD does exist? Well if someone that is "rational" really believes in science. They must come to the conclusion that, if all humanity cannot even build a fucking fly with our "so called intelligence" how in the fuck are we going to create all the variety of nature.

What? We don't have to create all the variety of nature. Nature has already done that.

Quote:
See you believe nature, creates intelligence, but nature itself is the product of intelligence, because the "laws" of nature must fallow guidelines to "work" and when you have "laws" then is the product of power and intelligence, because in order to create a "universal law" one most have power, and logic behind its intelligence. So the product of nature, is the result of intelligence,and just because you haven't seen the creator yet, it itself, by no means, means that you won't see him anytime soon.

Seriously. How old are you? Who taught you that kind of nonsense, because you surely did not come up with it on your own. Somebody has been messing with your mind, my friend. Sorry for the rude awakening, but if you can't see how illogical that is, somebody needs to ring the alarm bells so you can wake the fuck up to reality. I'm sorry you've been lied to, but that's no reason to go around repeating the same lies you've been fed. And why should you? It won't change anything when you do, according to your preacher's nonsense, because it's all predestined anyway, right?

Quote:
Science could never, ever, prove that Julius Cesar, Alexander the great, Seneca, Cyrus the great, Hannibal and so forth existed.

Poor kid. The lies you've been fed are poisonous bullshit, my friend. Think about it. Here's how we know Julius Caesar existed, for one. You can look up the evidence for the others on your own, if you really want to know the truth about reality.

First, I want to show you how I found this. It is super easy, and will help you discover all sorts of amazing things about reality. I went to http://www.google.com/ and typed in did julius caesar exist into the text box under the Google logo, and then clicked the Google Search button. Try it yourself, it's actually really fun! This is the list I got when I did that:


  1. Did Julius Caesar Exist? – Yes But No evidence of Jesus Christ

    www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html - Cached Julius Caesar – man from 100-44 BC, god thereafter. 100 years before the supposed birth of Jesus another god-man was born: Gaius Julius Caesar. Murdered ... ►
  2. Julius Caesar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar - Cached Gaius Julius Caesar (13 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) was a Roman general and ..... Caesar also wrote that if Octavian died before Caesar did, Marcus Junius ...
  3. Did Julius Caesar exist

    wiki.answers.com › ... › Ancient HistoryAncient RomeJulius Caesar - Cached Did Julius Caesar exist? ... There have been thousands of productions of Julius Caesar since it was first performed ... How did Julius Caesar become Caesar? ...
  4. What time period did julius caesar exist

    wiki.answers.com › ... › Ancient HistoryAncient RomeJulius Caesar - Cached What time did Julius Caesar die? the actual time is not determined, but he ... Show more results from answers.com  
  5. The Meaning of Truth - X. The Existence of Julius Caesar (by William ...

    www.authorama.com/meaning-of-truth-11.html - Cached X. The Existence of Julius Caesar ... The effects may indeed confirm my belief, but the belief was made true already by the fact that Caesar really did exist.' ...
  6. Did Jesus really exist? - Yahoo!7 Answers

    au.answers.yahoo.com › ... › Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality - Cached 22 answers There are far more eyewitness accounts of Jesus than there are of Julius Caesar. Did Julius Caesar exist? The atheists who attempt to rewrite history to give ...
  7. Why did Julius Caesar die? - Yahoo! Answers

    answers.yahoo.com › ... › Education & ReferenceHomework Help - Cached 5 answers - 6 Sep 2006 Top answer: Julius Caesar was assassinated because the polical opponents of the senates were try to claim title of king. Caesar was stabbed 23 times. and there were more ...
    Did Christianity exist before Jesus as the cult of Julius Caesar ...‎ - 19 Jul 2008
    If God doesn't exist, why did Julius Caesar defeat the Belgae ...‎ - 25 Nov 2006
    Is there really more historical evidence for Jesus existing than ...‎ - 7 Sep 2006
    Julius Caesar & Jesus Christ?‎ - 28 Apr 2006

    More results from answers.yahoo.com »

    Show more results from yahoo.com  
  8. Julius Caesar

    www.historylearningsite.co.ukA History of Ancient Rome - Cached Julius Caesar joined the Roman Army in 81 BC and was the first Roman army commander to invade England which he did in 55 BC and again in 54 BC. Caesar ...
  9. BBC - History - Julius Caesar

    www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/caesar_julius.shtml - Cached Discover facts about the life of Julius Caesar - what led him to make himself dictator of Rome? This biography includes details of his romance with Cleopatra and ...
  10. Spreadia | Did Julius Caesar Exist? - Tusculum Caesar

    spreadia.com/Tusculum_Caesar/158445994/Did_Julius_Caesar_Exist - Cached Did Julius Caesar Exist? Jesusneverexisted.com became trending Jun 15, 2010 · Comment · Share ·. Report. Report as Spam; It's Abusing; Duplicate ...
Searches related to did julius caesar exist

did julius caesar live

did julius caesar do

did julius caesar marry

what did julius caesar accomplish

did julius caesar wear

did julius caesar eat

did julius caesar believe

who did julius caesar defeat


Now, Google just lists everything, so you will find both truth and bullshit in the search results. The way to go is to open several different links, and especially check out the links to the websites you don't already agree with. Because if you're being fed lies, then reading more lies isn't going to help you see the lies, it's just going to reinforce them. The only way to know if you're really right is to know what the other side is saying. I mean, that's why you're here at RRS, right? To see if your beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, right? You are curious about that, aren't you?

Personally speaking, I'm always curious about whether I'm right or wrong. Not a day goes by that I don't ask myself, "How do I really know what I think I know?" I realize I'm not perfect, and that sometimes even things I'm absolutely convinced about turn out to be wrong wrong wrong. I've been wrong in the past, and I'm not ashamed to admit that. There's nothing 'wrong' with being wrong about something, as long as you're open to the possibility that you might be wrong. Because if you're open to that possibility (and that's the definition of real open-mindedness, right?), then that is the very first step towards learning something new about reality. Personally, I love learning new things. It's awesome, I love it! So, I'm always open to the possibility that I might be wrong, about anything. That includes your ideas about God. If I'm wrong about that, I really want to know, because that would be the most important thing to really make sure I get right. So far, I'm simply not convinced by anything I've heard, but maybe you've got the crucial piece I've been missing, so I remain open to it.

So, again, Google just lists everything, and you'll want to explore both sides to see if your current beliefs about the impossibility of showing that Julius Caesar lived are correct or incorrect.

Another good reason to look at the other side's arguments is that if you're already correct, you'll be able to see just how badly the other side gets it wrong. It can be lots of fun, so I highly recommend it. It also prepares you better for when you discuss this topic again with other people. Okay, so with that in mind, let's look at some of these links:

1. The first one is from a website called http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/. Yikes! That looks scary! Maybe we should leave that one for last? Okay, but don't forget to see what the other side says too, even if it's just to see how badly they get it wrong.

2. The next one is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar . I don't know if you like Wikipedia, but it always has links to external sources, so even if you don't like Wikipedia itself, it's still a good place to start when you're looking for more information on a topic. Just see what external sources they cite and go check those out if you want to verify what is in Wikipedia.

  • Okay, the first part is just the story of his significance in history. Could be all bullshit. But it's interesting that he plays a crucial role in Roman history, and took part in politics, wars (including the conquest of Gaul, which is modern-day France), apparently built a bridge across the Rhine river, was the first Roman to invade Britain, and lots of other historical things. He even had an heir, Octavius. Okay. But I guess it could still all be bullshit. So, moving on...
  • The next section talks about his early life. Blah blah blah. A bit boring, maybe. Let's just snip out the important things that look like they might be real evidence of his existence. (Note the numbered links to references.):

Wikipedia: Julius Caesar wrote:

Caesar issued coins featuring images of elephants, suggesting that he favoured this interpretation of his name.

In 85 BC Caesar's father died suddenly[10]

The following year he was nominated to be the new high priest of Jupiter.[11]

he broke off his engagement to a plebeian girl he had been betrothed to since boyhood, and married Lucius Cinna's daughter Cornelia.[12]

Lacking means since his inheritance was confiscated, he acquired a modest house in a lower-class neighbourhood of Rome.[16]

He had them crucified on his own authority, as he had promised while in captivity[21]—a promise the pirates had taken as a joke.

He was elected quaestor for 69 BC,[22] and during that year he delivered the funeral oration for his aunt Julia.

On his return in 67 BC,[25] he married Pompeia, a granddaughter of Sulla, and whom he later divorced.[26]

Caesar won comfortably, despite his opponents' greater experience and standing.[27] When Cicero, who was consul that year, exposed Catiline's conspiracy to seize control of the republic, several senators accused Caesar of involvement in the plot.[28]

In Spain, he conquered two local tribes and was hailed as imperator by his troops, reformed the law regarding debts, and completed his governorship in high esteem.[29]

Faced with the choice between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship.[30]

  • Whew, there was more stuff in there than even I thought! Almost all of those things involve real evidence from his lifetime: Public documents, actual coins, historical records from those alive at the time, records of trials and other legal and political matters at the time of his life
  • Wow, the next few sections are chock full of information about huge historical events that Caesar was a central figure in. You can check those out yourself. Here's an interesting thing about Caesar himself:

Quote:

Parents

Sisters

Wives

  • First marriage to Cornelia Cinnilla, from 83 BC until her death in childbirth in 69 or 68 BC
  • Second marriage to Pompeia, from 67 BC until he divorced her around 61 BC
  • Third marriage to Calpurnia Pisonis, from 59 BC until Caesar's death

Children

  • Julia with Cornelia Cinnilla, born in 83 or 82 BC
  • Caesarion, with Cleopatra VII, born 47 BC. He was killed at age 17 by Caesar's adopted son Octavianus.
  • adopted: Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, his great-nephew by blood, who later became Emperor Augustus.
  • Marcus Junius Brutus: The historian Plutarch notes that Caesar believed Brutus to have been his illegitimate son, as his mother Servilia had been Caesar's lover during their youth.[112]

Grandchildren

  • Grandson from Julia and Pompey, dead at several days, unnamed.

Lovers

Notable relatives

  • That's a lot of relatives! Most of whom are themselves historical figures with independent lines of evidence.
  • Okay, but this could all just be bullshit, right? Oh, wait, what's this:

Quote:

Literary works

Caesar was considered during his lifetime to be one of the best orators and authors of prose in Rome—even Cicero spoke highly of Caesar's rhetoric and style.[119] Among his most famous works were his funeral oration for his paternal aunt Julia and his Anticato, a document written to blacken Cato's reputation and respond to Cicero's Cato memorial. Poems by Caesar are also mentioned in ancient sources.[120] His works other than his war commentaries have been lost, although a few sentences are quoted by other authors.

Memoirs

Commentarii de Bello Gallico, an account written by Julius Caesar about his nine years of war in Gaul

Other works historically attributed to Caesar, but whose authorship is doubted, are:

These narratives were written and published on a yearly basis during or just after the actual campaigns, as a sort of "dispatches from the front". Apparently simple and direct in style—to the point that Caesar's Commentarii are commonly studied by first and second year Latin students—they are in fact highly sophisticated tracts, aimed most particularly at the middle-brow readership of minor aristocrats[citation needed] in Rome, Italy, and the provinces.

  • Oh shit! Looks like other people wrote about him during his own lifetime, too:

Quote:

Primary sources

Own writings

Ancient historians' writings

Damn. Looks like there's a lot of evidence for Caesar's life. At least according to Wikipedia. Let's see some of the other links.


3. This one is from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Julius_Caesar_exist :

answers.com wrote:

Did Julius Caesar exist?

In: Julius Caesar [Edit categories]
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > History, Politics & Society > History > Ancient History > Ancient Rome > Julius Caesar > Did Julius Caesar exist?

Answer:
No, he did not. He was made up by Shakespeare. There is no fossil evidence of him; it just a myth that is carried on by centuries. For all that we know, there is no proof of his existence.


Wait, what? That's it? That's all? No references? No evidence (that Shakespeare made him up). No discussion of the historical evidence?

Who even wrote that? Doesn't sound very well informed to me.

Okay, I guess I can chalk this one up to 'the other side' of the my argument, and you can chalk it up to your side of the argument.


Let's go back to that first link: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

Quote:

Sources:
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Grant, Jesus (Orion, 1999)
Chris Scarre, Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (Thames & Hudson, 1995)
Pierre Grimal, Rome of the Caesars (Phaidon, 1956)
A. N. Wilson, Jesus (Harper Collins, 1993)
Elmar Gruber, Holger Kersten, The Original Jesus (Element, 1995)
Stewart Perowne, Death of the Roman Republic (Hodder & Stoughton, 1969)
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1980)


email the author – Kenneth Humphreys

Wow. Look at that. The sources are the very first thing listed! And there's the author's name and email address if you want to interrogate him. Thanks Mr. Humphreys, for being so upfront about it. Unlike that answers.com site.

Quote:

Evidence that Confirms the Existence of Caesar is Legion

– in stark contrast to the utter dearth of evidence for Jesus!

 

Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.

 
 

An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.

Julius Caesar on denarius from February/March, 44 BC.

Caesar is proclaimed 'perpetual dictator' at the age of 55.

On the reverse of the coin the symbols represent various aspects of Caesar's power and political program.

 

Fantasy Meets Reality

"... more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for anyone else ..."

Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of  2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).

But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.

But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?

 

A complete record of all the things Jesus never said, all the places he never walked, and all the miracles he never worked.

"No Evidence of Non-existence" – Welcome to the Twilight Zone

In an oddly distorted, negative universe Christian apologists declare that there is "no evidence" for their godman's non-existence, as if it should be quite natural to believe in the most fantastic, illogical and unsubstantiated claims unless there was evidence to the contrary. If this stance had any viability, why stop at Jesus? Why not believe in Zeus, leprechauns and the tooth fairy?

A favourite tack of the Saved is to affect a yawn, mutter "that old stuff again" and impatiently declare that Jesus's non-existence is a 19th century rationalist's heresy long since disposed of by "solid evidence".

The ringing claim of "more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any other person of his day" is followed by a potpourri of ancient sources, as if a list made long enough could disguise the fact that NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVER QUOTED IS FROM THE TIME OF THE GODMAN.

Early non-Christian writers, including the favourite hostages – Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus – are discussed here.

But stepping around the smokescreen thrown up by evidence that early Christians certainly existed (and had a motley assortment of beliefs!), is the evidence for many of history's greatest heroes and villains really so tenuous?

 

 

In His Own Words

Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career.

The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years.

In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels.

And just who was witness to that fabulous nativity, 30-odd years before the grande finale?

At the most generous understanding, 'Luke' and 'Matthew' were recording hearsay testimony a century after angels, shepherds and wise men went calling.

The unembellished truth is that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses to nothing but their own skills of fabrication.

For good reason, based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, historians give more credence to Caesar's commentaries than to the gospels, no matter how prolifically they were copied.

 

Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar

 

Cicero

Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar.

In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.

In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.

Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.

Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.

Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.

"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops ..."

– Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.

 

 

 

Sallust

Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".

Nepos

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".

Catullus

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".

Asinius Pollio

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.

Virgil

Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".

Ovid

Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): "Metamorphoses".

Near Contemporary Witnesses


Paterculus

Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".

Lucan

Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome.

Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.

Plutarch

Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).

Appian

Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.

Suetonius

The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138).

Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.

 

Interesting reading. Food for thought.

 

 

I could also go to wikipedia and "make myself an expert", but you didn't catch the point of what I posted above, I never said you can prove "historically" that Cesar existed (Read Above) the point is you cannot "prove with Science the existence of Julius Cesar." That is show me DNA, or prove me with some sort of scientific method that, Julius Cesar wasn't the best fabricated roman story ever created about an emperor!

 

You, cannot. Good luck! 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 I'll give you that one -

 I'll give you that one - The story of Jesus was the best Roman fabricated story ever.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:I could also go

agent7 wrote:

I could also go to wikipedia and "make myself an expert", but you didn't catch the point of what I posted above, I never said you can prove "historically" that Cesar existed (Read Above) the point is you cannot "prove with Science the existence of Julius Cesar."

I didn't miss that 'point', I ignored it because I was hoping you wouldn't hang on to it desperately, as you just did.

Quote:
That is show me DNA, or prove me with some sort of scientific method that, Julius Cesar wasn't the best fabricated roman story ever created about an emperor!

You, cannot. Good luck! 

Agent7, do you believe anyone has ever been murdered?

Yes or no.

If yes, then how do you know that?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:the point is

jcgadfly wrote:

the point is you cannot "prove with Science the existence of Julius Cesar." That is show me DNA, or prove me with some sort of scientific method that, Julius Cesar wasn't the best fabricated roman story ever created about an emperor!

 

You, cannot. Good luck!

Which is why billions don't give a shit about the claims of lil' magic sperm baby god Jesus being born, or claims that he isn't deader than a doornail after being executed.

I guess all the brainwashing in churches really 'cockblocks' the theist's brain from coming to the realization that by listing all the methods that cannot 'uncover' their 'god', they prove the impossibility they face to rule out every other possibility that goes against their claims.

By saying that 'we' (all of us) can't know for sure, you are stating that you can't know for sure what you think you know is sure.

Way to fucking argue, you morons...

agent7 wrote:
You ask me how GOD does exist? Well if someone that is "rational" really believes in science. They must come to the conclusion that, if all humanity cannot even build a fucking fly with our "so called intelligence" how in the fuck are we going to create all the variety of nature. 

With a lab kit that includes everything in the universe, that can rapidly expand from a singularity, and a few billion years, give or take, to assemble gazzillions of chemical combinations every picosecond, and let them evolve, while taking every 7th day off to rest...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I could also go to

"I could also go to wikipedia and "make myself an expert", but you didn't catch the point of what I posted above, I never said you can prove "historically" that Cesar existed (Read Above) the point is you cannot "prove with Science the existence of Julius Cesar." That is show me DNA, or prove me with some sort of scientific method that, Julius Cesar wasn't the best fabricated roman story ever created about an emperor! You, cannot. Good luck!"

Archeology is science, whether you like it or not. But lets go ahead and take your argument to its logical conclusion:
ALL human history, INCLUDING everything to do with your religion, is just as likely a drunken lie as the truth. So you must immediately cease to follow the false god you follow as you just lost what little evidence you had to support your idea of god, including the bible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
 You believe in science.So

 

You believe in science.

So as a scientist follower, you have to prove me that Julius Cesar existed using a scientific method. If you cannot prove me that Julius Cesar existed using any DNA sampling, then by the own "definition" of the scientific realm evolutionist claim to be the absolute "truth" and believe inn, the existence of Julius Cesar "Cannot" be scientifically proven, therefore History could be disproved! 

If history is not enough, which scientist agree with, then unless genetics finds its way to prove historical figures, then according to modern science... Richard Dawkins, could agree that "hannibal never existed" and that his historical campaigns with Cartago against Rome, could be questioned as mythological accounts written and drawn by his followers, from a conquerer made up by the human imagination. In other words, The Great Hannibal is an historical fluke!   

I am just using what "your scientist call science" to prove and illustrate the existence of any historical figure.

As a matter fact, from now own I am going to be an "scientific extremist" and recreate"history" as "lesser fact"  and tell historians, that old historical figures like "El Cid", "Hannibal", "Alexander The Great", "Nabuchanezar", "Hadriano", "Carlo Magno" etc...or others were we only got "writings and monuments to prove their existence" are not testable, according to science! unless of course, sampling of DNA, could prove this figures as the characters portrait in history and not by human imagination.  

Its just like a crime scene, using "genetics" one could trace back the person that committed the crime! So if we cannot genetically prove the existence of past figures, then we should question their existence, as the case could not be solved according to science!  

Lets just slap history our "historical record", and go by real "raw data", what evolutionist call "science." No DNA, No genetics. then no prove of proving their existence! that simple! 

Using this modern science methodology, it would be impossible to prove the existence of 90% of the founders of human history.  No one can't! 


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
 Archeology is digging

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, I don't "believe" in

No, I don't "believe" in much of anything. I test and research things myself.
Natural already used science to prove the existence of Cesar, you're just ignoring it because it would corrupt the fragile shield of lies you surround yourself with.
All because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for a jesus, and with that lack you must either accept jesus for the lie it is, or you must ignore science and history in favour of fantasy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote: Archeology is

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

Just as soon as you find Jesus - the lack of science for him doesn't seem to be a problem for you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote: Archeology is

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

 

Using this reasoning, the US did not win the Revolutionary War, and US citizens are actually British citizens.  After all, we don't have DNA for Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc.

There are two lines of historical proof necessary for every historical claim. 

Primary evidence - evidence created by the person/people in question.  Their writings, their paintings, their sculpture, and so on.  For the Revolutionary War, we have pamphlets, government documents, newspaper articles, personal letters and so on.  Written by the people who lived at that time in what became the United States.

Secondary evidence - what other people/persons say or write about the ones we are researching.  For the Revolutionary War, we have documents that are written by other countries about the conflict.  We also have contemporary secondary evidence - we don't sing "God Save the Queen" at a the national cricket match, we don't have a parliamentary government, and so on.

You just saw a long post with massive amounts of primary and secondary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.  You can reject this all you want - your right and privilege.  That doesn't make you right, nor does it make your demand for DNA reasonable. 

For a discussion of proper historical research methods, see Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=not+out+of+africa&x=0&y=0&sprefix=not+out...

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Science is not just about

Science is not just about test-tubes and lab coats, so going on about DNA and 'proof' is irrelevant.

Science is about carefully gathering evidence of any kind, as widely as possible, testing it for consistency with other evidence, encouraging other, ideally independent researchers to study the topic from a different angle if they can.

One then applies thorough analysis and correlation to all the evidence to check it for anomalies, to assess what the balance of the data seems to point to. And where it might suggest we focus the next round of research.

The Bible and other related writings would be at least as consistent with a lying God intent on playing games with us, as a 'loving' creator being, arguably more so. Or with the whole thing being little more than figments of the imagination.

You have no way to estimate the most plausible interpretation without looking at all the other knowledge we have about history, Life, the Universe, and Everything.

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


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, I don't

Vastet wrote:
No, I don't "believe" in much of anything. I test and research things myself. Natural already used science to prove the existence of Cesar, you're just ignoring it because it would corrupt the fragile shield of lies you surround yourself with. All because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for a jesus, and with that lack you must either accept jesus for the lie it is, or you must ignore science and history in favour of fantasy.

 

Stop talking about Jesus defend your point, your point is extremely weak because science cannot prove it, as it can prove fossils, correct? 

Prove me the existence of Julius Cesar, using a scientific method, and stop talking as if history was "science" because if "indeed" it is, then by history I could also prove you the existence of Jesus Christ. 


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:agent7

cj wrote:

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

 

Using this reasoning, the US did not win the Revolutionary War, and US citizens are actually British citizens.  After all, we don't have DNA for Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc.

There are two lines of historical proof necessary for every historical claim. 

Primary evidence - evidence created by the person/people in question.  Their writings, their paintings, their sculpture, and so on.  For the Revolutionary War, we have pamphlets, government documents, newspaper articles, personal letters and so on.  Written by the people who lived at that time in what became the United States.

Secondary evidence - what other people/persons say or write about the ones we are researching.  For the Revolutionary War, we have documents that are written by other countries about the conflict.  We also have contemporary secondary evidence - we don't sing "God Save the Queen" at a the national cricket match, we don't have a parliamentary government, and so on.

You just saw a long post with massive amounts of primary and secondary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.  You can reject this all you want - your right and privilege.  That doesn't make you right, nor does it make your demand for DNA reasonable. 

For a discussion of proper historical research methods, see Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=not+out+of+africa&x=0&y=0&sprefix=not+out...

 

 

I completely agree, therefore by your own definition Jesus Christ can also prove his existence the historical methods you have used, without proving any scientific method; therefore, science cannot prove history, but history can prove history! 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:natural

agent7 wrote:
natural wrote:

Agent7, do you believe anyone has ever been murdered?

Yes or no.

Its just like a crime scene, using "genetics" one could trace back the person that committed the crime! So if we cannot genetically prove the existence of past figures, then we should question their existence, as the case could not be solved according to science! 

I'll take that as a Yes.

Did you know, Agent7, that Genetics, which you admit can be used to 'prove' a crime, comes from Science just like Archaeology comes from Science? They use exactly the same Scientific Method.

You cannot admit that one works and then pretend that the other one doesn't, unless you are desperate to fool yourself.

Genetics is not 100% perfect. When we convict criminals based on genetic evidence, we don't say, "We know absolutely 100% that this guy did it." We can only say, "We know beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy did it."

Same with Archaeology. It's not 100% perfect either, but then again nothing is 100% perfect. When we say that archaeology 'proves' Julius Caesar existed because of archaeological evidence, we don't say, "We know absolutely 100% that Julius Caesar existed." Nobody can say that about anything, not even you, without exposing themselves as foolish. But we can say that , "We know beyond a reasonable doubt that Julius Caesar existed."

Beyond a reasonable doubt! Which you already admitted is a good standard of proof for things like crime.

Since the evidence for Julius Caesar's past existence is overwhelming, that means that your 'doubt' about Julius Caesar is unreasonable.

You continue to doubt Julius Caesar's existence? Somehow, I think you're just putting on an act!

Just like you know convicted murderers are actually guilty of murder, and that the science of genetics can prove this. You also know, by the same standard, that Julius Caesar existed, and that the science of archaeology proves this.

If you continue to pretend that you don't know this, then the only person you are fooling is yourself. None of us give a damn if you choose to fool yourself. It doesn't impress anyone.

We simply go by the same standard that proves people are guilty of murder, and we follow the evidence, which is what science is all about.

We're being consistent and honest. You're just lying to yourself. It does not impress anyone. It just looks foolish.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:cj wrote:agent7

agent7 wrote:

cj wrote:

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

 

Using this reasoning, the US did not win the Revolutionary War, and US citizens are actually British citizens.  After all, we don't have DNA for Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc.

There are two lines of historical proof necessary for every historical claim. 

Primary evidence - evidence created by the person/people in question.  Their writings, their paintings, their sculpture, and so on.  For the Revolutionary War, we have pamphlets, government documents, newspaper articles, personal letters and so on.  Written by the people who lived at that time in what became the United States.

Secondary evidence - what other people/persons say or write about the ones we are researching.  For the Revolutionary War, we have documents that are written by other countries about the conflict.  We also have contemporary secondary evidence - we don't sing "God Save the Queen" at a the national cricket match, we don't have a parliamentary government, and so on.

You just saw a long post with massive amounts of primary and secondary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.  You can reject this all you want - your right and privilege.  That doesn't make you right, nor does it make your demand for DNA reasonable. 

For a discussion of proper historical research methods, see Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=not+out+of+africa&x=0&y=0&sprefix=not+out...

 

 

I completely agree, therefore by your own definition Jesus Christ can also prove his existence the historical methods you have used, without proving any scientific method; therefore, science cannot prove history, but history can prove history! 

Except there is no history behind the Jesus character of the Bible. Please don't let that stop you from trying to prove Jesus' historicity..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We don't need to use DNA

We don't need to use DNA evidence to establish that a person called Julius Caesar existed, and did a whole bunch of things.

DNA is only relevant in proving that a particular individual was physically present at a particular place, or that he was in contact with a particular object, or had a given level of family relationship with another person.

We don't use it to prove that a particular person existed.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:Vastet

agent7 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, I don't "believe" in much of anything. I test and research things myself. Natural already used science to prove the existence of Cesar, you're just ignoring it because it would corrupt the fragile shield of lies you surround yourself with. All because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for a jesus, and with that lack you must either accept jesus for the lie it is, or you must ignore science and history in favour of fantasy.

 

Stop talking about Jesus defend your point, your point is extremely weak because science cannot prove it, as it can prove fossils, correct? 

Prove me the existence of Julius Cesar, using a scientific method, and stop talking as if history was "science" because if "indeed" it is, then by history I could also prove you the existence of Jesus Christ. 

Go for it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We don't

BobSpence1 wrote:

We don't use it to prove that a particular person existed.

Precisely what Bob said.  Even if an archeologist thought he had part of Ceaser's remains that we could extract DNA from what would we compare that DNA to?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:BobSpence1

Watcher wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We don't use it to prove that a particular person existed.

Precisely what Bob said.  Even if an archeologist thought he had part of Ceaser's remains that we could extract DNA from what would we compare that DNA to?

Exactly, Watcher. Agent7 never even thought of that. It's because Agent7 doesn't really care about understanding reality. You can't demand that we give you DNA 'proof', when that couldn't prove anything unless you have something to compare it to. How would we know if it was really Julius Caesar's DNA, and not just some random Roman's?

You need to use archaeological science to know anything about the ancient past. And that includes Jesus.

So, either way, Agent7 is just going around in circles. The standard of evidence is reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt. Agent7 is totally unreasonable.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: So, either

natural wrote:
  Agent7 never even thought of that. It's because Agent7 doesn't really care about understanding reality...

...So, either way, Agent7 is just going around in circles. The standard of evidence is reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt. Agent7 is totally unreasonable.

Agent7=Theists

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:natural

redneF wrote:

natural wrote:
  Agent7 never even thought of that. It's because Agent7 doesn't really care about understanding reality...

...So, either way, Agent7 is just going around in circles. The standard of evidence is reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt. Agent7 is totally unreasonable.

Agent7=Theists

hehe, nice summary.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:cj wrote:agent7

agent7 wrote:

cj wrote:

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

 

Using this reasoning, the US did not win the Revolutionary War, and US citizens are actually British citizens.  After all, we don't have DNA for Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc.

There are two lines of historical proof necessary for every historical claim. 

Primary evidence - evidence created by the person/people in question.  Their writings, their paintings, their sculpture, and so on.  For the Revolutionary War, we have pamphlets, government documents, newspaper articles, personal letters and so on.  Written by the people who lived at that time in what became the United States.

Secondary evidence - what other people/persons say or write about the ones we are researching.  For the Revolutionary War, we have documents that are written by other countries about the conflict.  We also have contemporary secondary evidence - we don't sing "God Save the Queen" at a the national cricket match, we don't have a parliamentary government, and so on.

You just saw a long post with massive amounts of primary and secondary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.  You can reject this all you want - your right and privilege.  That doesn't make you right, nor does it make your demand for DNA reasonable. 

For a discussion of proper historical research methods, see Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=not+out+of+africa&x=0&y=0&sprefix=not+out...

 

I completely agree, therefore by your own definition Jesus Christ can also prove his existence the historical methods you have used, without proving any scientific method; therefore, science cannot prove history, but history can prove history! 

 

Pookie, the bible does not prove anything.  It is one source only.  There are no contemporary secondary sources.  There are no proven primary sources.  We don't know who wrote the bible, we don't know exactly when it was written, and no one who lived at that time in Jerusalem wrote about a "Messiah" whose name was Jesus.  There were other Messiahs mentioned by a historian who actually lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was supposedly alive, but none of those Messiahs fit with the supposed martyr of the new testament.

The best we can do is say "this particular set of passages appears to be written by one person".  This is not proof - historical, scientific, or otherwise.

And for a history lesson, see PaulJohntheSkeptic and Gramps arguing about Daniel in one of the other threads.  The bible is not a very good history book even for the history of the time it was supposedly written in.  Not terribly surprising, given that it is impossible for it to have been dictated by a god/s/dess, and that long distance communication sucked in that time, and that most people couldn't read or write. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Hey CJ,Quote:-- I feel so

Hey CJ,

Quote:

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

Isn't that something I wrote just a few days ago?  I'm flattered.  Eye-wink

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci