Is Atheism a Belief System?

[Byblos]

Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something else

Actually there's a remarkable concordance among historians on the the historicity of Jesus, and many are non-Christian (if theists at all).

There may be some historians who believe Jesus was a historical figure, but they don't agree he rose from the dead after 3 days. There isn't even an agreement with religious folk; only the Christians believe that claim. Ask a Muslim and they will tell you he never even died, that Allah took him directly to Heaven after the religious leaders of that time conspired against him to have him killed

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, maybe a simple myth perpetuated by the followers of Napoleon and believed by the entire world. You believe that's exactly what happened with Jesus (even though many historians actually disagree with you).

Most of the people who agree on Napoleon were not his followers. In 1812 Russia was invaded. the leader of the enemy forces was Napoleon. What happened during that war is a part of Russia and French history. the same for when he invaded Spain, Britain, and all the other countries he was involved in
The idea of a military leader doing what military leaders do does not take a leap of faith; the idea of a religious leader regularly committing actions outside the laws of nature does. As they say, astronomical claims requires an astronomical amount of evidence

Bottom line is you choose to believe one way or the other according to your whims, not according to what history shows or according to some rationally consistent method. It certainly is your prerogative to do so but you can't come here and peddle it as some sort of common sense approach.

Are you seriously trying to make that argument? Are you seriously trying to compare the historical accounts of Jesus with the historical accounts of Napoleon?
Napoleon
Napoleon was a military leader who went to war with a lot of countries. He never did anything outside the laws of nature, all of his success and failures were documented during the event and have been in the archives of those particular countries from the time it happened to current day.

Jesus
Jesus was a religious leader who taught, and was eventually killed. He never wrote anything down, he never instructed his followers to write anything down, then years after his death various people began to write what they could remember of him. Then many, many years later a group of religious leaders (Cannon) came together and voted on which of these ancient writings should be considered authentic and which ones should be dismissed in order to make the Bible.
Why on Earth would you expect a non-religious person to see these historical claims as equal?

Ken

I mentioned Napoleon, who is a much more recent historical figure, in passing. You took it and ran with it.

Forget everything I said about Napoleon, replace it with any other supposedly contemporaneous historical figure like Alexander the Great or Julias Cesar, neither of whom wrote anything about themselves. There's just as much, if not more, historical accounts (both biblical - which at a minimum ought to be considered as historical accounts, and extra-biblical) for Jesus. You have no issue considering the accounts of those figures as historical while denying that for Jesus. That's the point I'm making.

[Jac3510]

Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

[Kenny]

Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something else

Actually there's a remarkable concordance among historians on the the historicity of Jesus, and many are non-Christian (if theists at all).

There may be some historians who believe Jesus was a historical figure, but they don't agree he rose from the dead after 3 days. There isn't even an agreement with religious folk; only the Christians believe that claim. Ask a Muslim and they will tell you he never even died, that Allah took him directly to Heaven after the religious leaders of that time conspired against him to have him killed

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, maybe a simple myth perpetuated by the followers of Napoleon and believed by the entire world. You believe that's exactly what happened with Jesus (even though many historians actually disagree with you).

Most of the people who agree on Napoleon were not his followers. In 1812 Russia was invaded. the leader of the enemy forces was Napoleon. What happened during that war is a part of Russia and French history. the same for when he invaded Spain, Britain, and all the other countries he was involved in
The idea of a military leader doing what military leaders do does not take a leap of faith; the idea of a religious leader regularly committing actions outside the laws of nature does. As they say, astronomical claims requires an astronomical amount of evidence

Bottom line is you choose to believe one way or the other according to your whims, not according to what history shows or according to some rationally consistent method. It certainly is your prerogative to do so but you can't come here and peddle it as some sort of common sense approach.

Are you seriously trying to make that argument? Are you seriously trying to compare the historical accounts of Jesus with the historical accounts of Napoleon?
Napoleon
Napoleon was a military leader who went to war with a lot of countries. He never did anything outside the laws of nature, all of his success and failures were documented during the event and have been in the archives of those particular countries from the time it happened to current day.

Jesus
Jesus was a religious leader who taught, and was eventually killed. He never wrote anything down, he never instructed his followers to write anything down, then years after his death various people began to write what they could remember of him. Then many, many years later a group of religious leaders (Cannon) came together and voted on which of these ancient writings should be considered authentic and which ones should be dismissed in order to make the Bible.
Why on Earth would you expect a non-religious person to see these historical claims as equal?

Ken

I mentioned Napoleon, who is a much more recent historical figure, in passing. You took it and ran with it.

Forget everything I said about Napoleon, replace it with any other supposedly contemporaneous historical figure like Alexander the Great or Julias Cesar, neither of whom wrote anything about themselves. There's just as much, if not more, historical accounts (both biblical - which at a minimum ought to be considered as historical accounts, and extra-biblical) for Jesus. You have no issue considering the accounts of those figures as historical while denying that for Jesus. That's the point I'm making.

How do you know I have no issue considering the accounts of Alexander the Great or Julius Cesar? Did I say I had no issue considering their claims? No. As I said before, I know little about what is said about those men, but tell you what; if the claims are that they rose from the dead, walked on water, or performed various other acts outside the laws of nature, I would reject their claims as well. If it is said they went around doing that countless other humans did during their lifetime, then I have no reason to assume otherwise, and frankly couldn't care less
As I said before, astronomical claims requires an astronomical amount of evidence.

Ken

[Kenny]

The historicity of jesus is, quite frankly, disputable only by those that have no clue how historical figures are attested to.
I don't think you even find educated atheist that fall for that silliness anymore.

The historical acceptance that Jesus existed has nothing to do with the claims of His divinity ( other than the fact that he existed and was human and was killed).

The historical account of the resurrection is attested as well as most historical events and is ONLY disputed because, quite simply, it is a supernatural event.

Who are you addressing this to?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Kenny, how much of what we have about Jesus do you accept? He existed, taught a message of love, had disciples, was crucified. You'd evidently stop at Christ being God, and as such the resurrection.

What about healings, do you believe he may have had such a gift, however such might have been had? Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer? If so, what do you make of such?

[Kenny]

Kenny, how much of what we have about Jesus do you accept? He existed, taught a message of love, had disciples, was crucified. You'd evidently stop at Christ being God, and as such the resurrection.

Yes.

What about healings, do you believe he may have had such a gift, however such might have been had?

No

Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

K

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny, how much of what we have about Jesus do you accept? He existed, taught a message of love, had disciples, was crucified. You'd evidently stop at Christ being God, and as such the resurrection.

Yes.

What about healings, do you believe he may have had such a gift, however such might have been had?

No

Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

K

You make it seem like it is hard to believe God in human flesh can raise the dead,walk on water,etc but it is'nt.It is easy to believe and easier to believe than alot of other things people believe.

[Kurieuo]

Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

Kenny, if interested to piece together your own beliefs about this person of Jesus, read the extra-biblical sources, etc, then there is a page I came across that I'd like to point you to: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

It details the various external non-Biblical sources, so you'll get to read over them and determine for yourself what to make of such. You may not embrace Jesus as God, or the resurrection, but it'll provide you with greater awareness perhaps of certain things to factor in with your beliefs.

[RickD]

Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

Kenny, if interested to piece together your own beliefs about this person of Jesus, read the extra-biblical sources, etc, then there is a page I came across that I'd like to point you to: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

It details the various external non-Biblical sources, so you'll get to read over them and determine for yourself what to make of such. You may not embrace Jesus as God, or the resurrection, but it'll provide you with greater awareness perhaps of certain things to factor in with your beliefs.

Remember? Atheists don't have beliefs. They only lack beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

Are you aware to the extra-biblical sources that speak of Christ being a miracle worker, sorcerer?

No.

Kenny, if interested to piece together your own beliefs about this person of Jesus, read the extra-biblical sources, etc, then there is a page I came across that I'd like to point you to: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

It details the various external non-Biblical sources, so you'll get to read over them and determine for yourself what to make of such. You may not embrace Jesus as God, or the resurrection, but it'll provide you with greater awareness perhaps of certain things to factor in with your beliefs.

Remember? Atheists don't have beliefs. They only lack beliefs.

They believe lots of things. If Kenny's going to believe Jesus existed, taught a message of love, then he ought to be aware of historical sources for such a belief and what they say.

[PaulSacramento]

Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

[Byblos]

Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

[Jac3510]

And so, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Or as Lewis once remarked, the gates of Hell are locked from the inside.

[Hortator]

Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

You can make the same claim about Christ never existing to many other historical figures. Jesus of Nazareth had a multitude of first hand accounts who saw Him, two second-hand accounts from secular sources (Historians Josephus and Tacitus)

But who's to say Julius Caesar didn't just make up his conquest of Gaul just to score political points in Rome as a competent leader, hmm? Just one example you can make of many for the dubious claims made my historical figures who may or may not have been played up to make a grander tale, written or told by nameless folks lost to history.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

This is why I have put forward that atheism is closer to a personality trait than anything else. People who show identify as atheist show traits (prone to arguments, marry at the lowest rate among any group of people, consider generosity and other virtues to be unimportant, etc.) that are more common among their cleave than others, to the point one can describe them as "atheistic" traits.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... moral.html

[Kenny]

Anyone who doubts the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus or of His death, burial, and post-mortem appearances to His disciples should read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.

People that make silly historical claims like Jesus never existed, should really learn a bit about how history actually works.
But they don't because they are more interested in discrediting a given religion ( or all of them) than actual facts and truths.

Exactly. Hence kenny's now famous quote: "Anything but God".

Anything but God.
Humm…. Care to list the context of which I said those words? You wouldn’t want to give the impression I was saying something that you know I was not; would you?

Ken