Disprove god!

[Traitorfish]

Yet Christianity exists, which contradicts Jesus not existing. Seriously, Christianity was all about Jesus, it didn't just come up suddenly in the Middle Ages like you seem to be implying. Then you have to whole problem of saying what Christianity believed in before it became dominate. Then you have the other problem of explaining why people would give up worldly pleasures and face humiliation by their peers just to follow the teachings of a man who didn't exist.

In all fairness, that's not much more difficult than explaining why people would give up worldly pleasures and face humiliation by their peers just to follow the teachings of a crazy hobo.

 

[Lone Wolf]

"The Middle Ages" didn't exist also! They're just an invention of We$tern Europeans who wanted to destroy the memory of the Russo-Tatar empire

 

[Berzerker]

When I asked for some evidence I expected something more substantial than: this is my theory, so it must have happened this way. I'm really interested in this stuff, so please point me to some evidence. (wrt the moon)

And I did not what I accused you of. I did pick 2 myths randomly to see what's what. I did not select them because I knew their content. I wiki'd them on the spot.

1. Find an observation.
2. Select myths using this observation, ignore those who don't.
3. !!!!!!!!!!!
4. Proven it.

And where exactly did I say every myth you "randomly" pick from wiki or wherever says the same thing? It would help if you knew what HB and I were talking about before jumping in with this BS, seriously Ziggy. And you did cherry pick 1 myth and accused me of cherry picking myths

this is supposed to be the classier forum?

For all the mentions of the number nine cropping up in various mythologies and how they accurately describe the nature of the solar system, I'd like to remind you all that there are eight planets in the solar system.

(Cue references to random religions that use the number eight at some point in their creation myth.)

Why would the authors of these texts care how you define planet? Go ahead and cue those references... And the authors of these ancient texts cited 9 planets, not 8... Each one played a role in their creation story.

The ancients only knew of five planets, as far as any literature will tell us.

What literature would that be? You haven't read the Babylonian Epic of Creation, and I just gave several references to the #9 in ancient cosmology.

 

[GoodGame]

"The Middle Ages" didn't exist also! They're just an invention of We$tern Europeans who wanted to destroy the memory of the Russo-Tatar empire

You're right! The Capitalist Huns actually conquered Western Europe and then use criminal monetary policy to cause this to happen.

 

[GoodGame]

Many people live every day without being sure of anything. Those who are sure, can be divided into a false security or a true security. I do not think that any one can speak for any one else on the matter. Only you can know if you are sure or not. IMO, your hypothesis does not matter, nor reflect what you yourself can be sure of.

Apply your argument to yourself? Does that validate or invalidate your argument? Do you have a hypothesis that matters? And why introduce a possible ad hominen to a discussion about existence? It seems ludicrous.

What about those who are unsure? Are they divided into some kind of dichotomy?

And hmmm...you argue about 'security' in sureness---is this introducing the concept of degrees of accuracy to the argument?

 

[Leoreth]

Why would the authors of these texts care how you define planet? Go ahead and cue those references... And the authors of these ancient texts cited 9 planets, not 8... Each one played a role in their creation story.

They certainly didn't "cite nine planets". They mentioned nine things which you or whoever you use as your source then proceeded to attribute to the planets, even though this is certainly completely baseless.

Because at the time where these texts were created three of the "nine" planets weren't actually known. Uranus was only discovered in 1781, for example. And before you chime in with "clearly these ancient texts already knew how the universe works!", you have given the answer to this claim in your own post. Who cares how planets are defined? It's a completely arbitrary category. There are more than nine objects that orbit the sun. So if you want to hold the position that Pluto was a planet all along, then so is Eris, which is larger and more massive than Pluto, as well as other trans-Neptunian objects. In any case, you can't come up with a consistent definition of "planet" that results in nine planets in the solar system.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You do know that the Islam, Judaism and Christianity all track back to the God of Abraham, right?

Yes. Funny how if there is supposed be a God and a Jesus that all disagree about them, isn't it?

I mean if Jesus really had been the son of god and really actually did exist you would of thought that all tehse major religions would be able to agree on his role. But no. All 3 of those religions you mentioned have a different view of him.

 

[NBAfan]

Yes. Funny how if there is supposed be a God and a Jesus that all disagree about them, isn't it?

I mean if Jesus really had been the son of god and really actually did exist you would of thought that all tehse major religions would be able to agree on his role. But no. All 3 of those religions you mentioned have a different view of him.

How does disagreement disprove something? Just because some is true, doesn't mean everyone embraces it to be true. Just look at evolution unbelievers

 

[Arakhor]

I think it's more the point that anyone who claims that the God of Abraham is not the same god in all three religions almost certainly has a political axe to grind.

 

[NBAfan]

Some people put Jedi on their census form. Doesn't mean that The Jedi religion is real, just means that people say they are Jedi


That is not at all what I am implying. Christianity grew in strength over a prolonged peroid, eventually reaching a stage where it was accepted as 'fact' and it was 'heresy' to believe otherwise. This has of course now influenced how history is percieved now.

You're missing the point, in order for Christianity to have existed in the first place, it must have believed in a real Jesus who existed.
What you are saying is so silly. It basically this, "hey, lets start a religion. We don't know what we will believe in and it will probably get us killed by the Romans, but lets start it anyway. (fast forward 300 years) Hey, this Christian religion seems pretty pointless, lets make up a story about a man named Jesus, it has magical mind control powers!"

There are many similarites between Christianity and other religions. Surely you know the term Paganism?

As for Jesus himself, well again similarities in his story and that of other religions.

So? There are some similarities with Pegans, but they are mostly coincidences, just like with many other things, not just Christians. This doesn't disprove Christianity being false either. Rather, it shows Christianity confirms what was true in other religions.

Because Christianity sets down rules such as not sleeping with your neighbours wife or using violence against people. Poeple liek law and order, and Christianity was an effective way of implenting it and installing it in people's way of life.

I'm sure the Romans were pretty ordered, no need to give up your life and lifestyle to join some crazy Christan religion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And where exactly did I say every myth you "randomly" pick from wiki or wherever says the same thing?

Nowhere. I never claimed you did.

It would help if you knew what HB and I were talking about before jumping in with this BS, seriously Ziggy.

It would help immensely to substantiate claims you make with supporting evidence.

And you did cherry pick 1 myth and accused me of cherry picking myths

I cannot cherry pick 2 myths if I don't know beforehand what's in them can I?

Post you quoted:
I did pick 2 myths randomly to see what's what. I did not select them because I knew their content. I wiki'd them on the spot.

And well done avoiding:
When I asked for some evidence I expected something more substantial than: this is my theory, so it must have happened this way. I'm really interested in this stuff, so please point me to some evidence. (wrt the moon)

Surely you have something beyond "take my word for it" when you say:

How did people all over the world "guess" right about what the world was like 4 billion years ago before our first evidence of life and plate tectonics? These myths claim a water covered world existed before the creator arrived on the scene and some "disturbance" between the two resulted in life and land. And these are not prophecies, they are what our ancestors believed about the world and our "sky".

I have yet to see a myth that states what our world was like 4 billion years ago. And I still don't think 4 billion years ago the Earth was covered with water. I think that was later, but I'm not sure. All I'm saying is: show me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes. Funny how if there is supposed be a God and a Jesus that all disagree about them, isn't it?

I mean if Jesus really had been the son of god and really actually did exist you would of thought that all tehse major religions would be able to agree on his role. But no. All 3 of those religions you mentioned have a different view of him.

Why? People disagree about lots of stuff that self-evidently exists; it took us millennia to come to some settled conclusion about how the sky worked, but that didn't imply at any point that the sky didn't exist.

The argument against the divinity of Christ really isn't that the various descriptions don't match up, but that none of them are remotely convincing. If one was true, it would be true regardless of how false the rest were, and if they're false, they're false regardless of how consistent they are.

 

[timtofly]

Apply your argument to yourself? Does that validate or invalidate your argument? Do you have a hypothesis that matters? And why introduce a possible ad hominen to a discussion about existence? It seems ludicrous.

What about those who are unsure? Are they divided into some kind of dichotomy?

And hmmm...you argue about 'security' in sureness---is this introducing the concept of degrees of accuracy to the argument?

You asked, "How can I be sure?" Only you can answer that for yourself. I have been unsure on occasion and have heard from others that they are not sure either. It could just be a state of mind. Even if it is, some have a false sense of security while others seem to be more sure of things. So what in the brain allows some to be sure, without relying on another human to enforce that?

I think it's more the point that anyone who claims that the God of Abraham is not the same god in all three religions almost certainly has a political axe to grind.

Would that not be a "bilblical axe" not a political one. All of them would fall under a theocracy.

Yes. Funny how if there is supposed be a God and a Jesus that all disagree about them, isn't it?

I mean if Jesus really had been the son of god and really actually did exist you would of thought that all tehse major religions would be able to agree on his role. But no. All 3 of those religions you mentioned have a different view of him.

Well Judaism rejected Jesus and Islam recognizes a prophet that lived hundreds of years after Jesus. It would seem that only the followers of Jesus, would be considered Christ followers. In todays world view, people want to label it as a culture thing, that one is "raised" that way. I do not look at it that way, I think a person can easily choose what they want to believe, if anything at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You're missing the point, in order for Christianity to have existed in the first place, it must have believed in a real Jesus who existed.

What you are saying is so silly. It basically this, "hey, lets start a religion. We don't know what we will believe in and it will probably get us killed by the Romans, but lets start it anyway. (fast forward 300 years) Hey, this Christian religion seems pretty pointless, lets make up a story about a man named Jesus, it has magical mind control powers!"

That is what L Ron Hubbard did in the 1950s when he started Scientology.

But, I do think that the likelihood of an actual Jesus is pretty high. I don't think that a "let's create a religion for fun" mentality would have been particularly common and actually trying to do so, high on anyone's to do list.

 

[ComradeDavo]

How does disagreement disprove something? Just because some is true, doesn't mean everyone embraces it to be true. Just look at evolution unbelievers

Answered well by.....

I think it's more the point that anyone who claims that the God of Abraham is not the same god in all three religions almost certainly has a political axe to grind.

Exactly. Because religion was a very important political tool. Still is in many places.

You're missing the point, in order for Christianity to have existed in the first place, it must have believed in a real Jesus who existed.
What you are saying is so silly. It basically this, "hey, lets start a religion. We don't know what we will believe in and it will probably get us killed by the Romans, but lets start it anyway. (fast forward 300 years) Hey, this Christian religion seems pretty pointless, lets make up a story about a man named Jesus, it has magical mind control powers!"

So wait, are you saying every single religion ever is real? Because if your not, then your argument is redundant because your just picking and choosing based on your beliefs and ignoring others. And if you are, well they can't all be right can they?

So? There are some similarities with Pegans, but they are mostly coincidences, just like with many other things, not just Christians. This doesn't disprove Christianity being false either. Rather, it shows Christianity confirms what was true in other religions.

Right so christmas just happens to correspond with the Roman festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti for no reason? Thats there Sun God btw. In fact lots of Pagans had winetr festivals. Just a coincidene that Christmas replaced them all for Christians? I think thats a little naive if you think that.

Also look up the Egpytian god Horus. Alot of similarities to Jersus there.

And by the way. the ancient Phrygo-Roman god Attis is often depicted as have been born of a virgin mother on December 25th. And guess what? Apparantly was killed and resurrecting afterwards

And Easter? Well you can talk forever about that. There was a Pagan festival called Spring Equinox. There was a pagan godess named Eostre. Many pre-christians cultures had a sping celebration. Bunnies? eggs? all left over Pagan traditions.

Coincidences?

I'm sure the Romans were pretty ordered, no need to give up your life and lifestyle to join some crazy Christan religion.

Well thats a long historcal debate. No doubting though that religion was a very important tool of government then (still is in many countries).

Why? People disagree about lots of stuff that self-evidently exists; it took us millennia to come to some settled conclusion about how the sky worked, but that didn't imply at any point that the sky didn't exist.

The argument against the divinity of Christ really isn't that the various descriptions don't match up, but that none of them are remotely convincing. If one was true, it would be true regardless of how false the rest were, and if they're false, they're false regardless of how consistent they are.

Just pointing out that given how all these religions are supposed to guided by God, he/she hasn't given much guidance on the Jesus issue, which if he/she did exist would be rather odd don't you think?

Well Judaism rejected Jesus and Islam recognizes a prophet that lived hundreds of years after Jesus. It would seem that only the followers of Jesus, would be considered Christ followers. In todays world view, people want to label it as a culture thing, that one is "raised" that way. I do not look at it that way, I think a person can easily choose what they want to believe, if anything at all.

You live in the West I take it? Ever been to a Muslim country? Not so easy to go against your peers.

That is what L Ron Hubbard did in the 1950s when he started Scientology.

But, I do think that the likelihood of an actual Jesus is pretty high. I don't think that a "let's create a religion for fun" mentality would have been particularly common and actually trying to do so, high on anyone's to do list.

Actually you've sort of answered your second sentance with your first there. Scientology...great way for it's leaders to make money, have power. Applicable to many of Chrstianity's past leaders. The preiesthood did well for itself. Fo to any old Christian city and look a the old buildings. The religious ones always the nicest, the biggest, the most full of art. Not saying everyone, but for many in the religion and thsoe in government who used it wealth and power certainally came along with the faith.

 

[Borachio]

And by the way. the ancient Phrygo-Roman god Attis is often depicted as have been born of a virgin mother on December 25th. And guess what? Apparantly was killed and resurrecting afterwards

Well, now. Golden Bough, and just.... stuff, you know. Like mythology.

 

[History_Buff]

Pretty much all of the Jesus mythology can be found in other gods, which is common. Gods in the Mediterranean were often seen as the direct successors, combinations, or the offspring of others. By giving Jesus all the powers you've ever heard of, you're trying to say "pay attention to my guy, he's important."

 

[NBAfan]

So wait, are you saying every single religion ever is real? Because if your not, then your argument is redundant because your just picking and choosing based on your beliefs and ignoring others. And if you are, well they can't all be right can they?

Way to miss my whole point, that historically Jesus existed and that it is totally illogical to believe otherwise. Give actual solid historical sources for your argument rather then cherry picking hundreds of years of pagan myths that most people in ancient Judea could not have possibly known about without modern archeology.
Which religion is true or not is a totally different argument that I'm not getting into.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd imagine that many people were aware of "hundreds of years of pagan myths", as the Romans were very good at religious syncretism, i.e. compiling lots of religious beliefs into a cohesive belief system.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actually you've sort of answered your second sentance with your first there. Scientology...great way for it's leaders to make money, have power. Applicable to many of Chrstianity's past leaders. The preiesthood did well for itself. Fo to any old Christian city and look a the old buildings. The religious ones always the nicest, the biggest, the most full of art. Not saying everyone, but for many in the religion and thsoe in government who used it wealth and power certainally came along with the faith.

Not really. It took many decades for any semblance of an organized church to appear. If Christianity had been started as a lark, the founders would not have seen much benefit, earned any riches or gained wealth. All that came many many years later.