How Do Atheist Deal With Death?

[Guest amazed]

 

How many people do you think remember who these figures are? How have any of them inspired mankind over the centuries?

 

Had Constantine decided that Mithra made a better glue under which to tie his empire together and extract the divine right of kings then you would no doubt be shedding tears and raising your hands on Sunday to the Yazad.

 

Your understanding of your own religion and its history is pitiful.

How so???

 

How about YOU tell us Constantine's role in the spread of xtianity?

He was the first leader of the empire that made Christianity the offical religion of the empire and called a church council. Through him the persecution of the church stopped.

[Guest amazed]

What it does show is that some kind of immaterial part of man survives with awarness. This fits well with the idea of a soul-spirit that Christianity teaches we have.

 

 

The idea of a soul or spirit is not unique to xtianity in any way.

I agree.

 

 

As I told BDP, many non-Christians, including atheists, have had positive NDE experiences. If NDE's are valid spiritual experiences, then it shows that religion and beliefs play no part in the afterlife.

How do you explain these expierences that clearly show some out of body expierence and the ability to "transport" your immaterial self miles away and observe what others are doing?

[Ouroboros]

He was the first leader of the empire that made Christianity the offical religion of the empire and called a church council. Through him the persecution of the church stopped.

How do you know, since there are less evidence to his existence and what he did compared to Jesus? There's not much we're supposed to know about Jesus, yet it sounds historians know quite a bit about those other non-so-proven-individuals-by-your-standards.

 

We have busts, coins, plenty of stories and historians, and such to confirm his existence and what he did. Even pretty much the exact dates of birth and death. Why don't we have those things for Jesus? Why no picture? Why no exact date? Even year? Why can historians be so exact on some (non-so-supported-by-evidence) individuals but have so little about the (so-friggin'-incredible-super-support-with-fantazillions-of-books-to-prove) Jesus?

 

Just asking.

 

Take a look at the wiki page about Constantine I: link

 

And look at the amount of sources, the pictures, the details in facts, everything, and then compare it to what you know about Jesus. The evidence for Constantine is staggering. For Jesus it's not.

[Snakefoot]

How do you explain these expierences that clearly show some out of body expierence and the ability to "transport" your immaterial self miles away and observe what others are doing?

 

It has been explained, repeatedly, in this thread. You just ignored it or blew it off.

[Snakefoot]

He was the first leader of the empire that made Christianity the offical religion of the empire and called a church council. Through him the persecution of the church stopped.

How do you know, since there are less evidence to his existence and what he did compared to Jesus? There's not much we're supposed to know about Jesus, yet it sounds historians know quite a bit about those other non-so-proven-individuals-by-your-standards.

 

We have busts, coins, plenty of stories and historians, and such to confirm his existence and what he did. Even pretty much the exact dates of birth and death. Why don't we have those things for Jesus? Why no picture? Why no exact date? Even year? Why can historians be so exact on some (non-so-supported-by-evidence) individuals but have so little about the (so-friggin'-incredible-super-support-with-fantazillions-of-books-to-prove) Jesus?

 

Just asking.

 

Take a look at the wiki page about Constantine I: link

 

And look at the amount of sources, the pictures, the details in facts, everything, and then compare it to what you know about Jesus. The evidence for Constantine is staggering. For Jesus it's not.

 

[Guest amazed]

He was the first leader of the empire that made Christianity the offical religion of the empire and called a church council. Through him the persecution of the church stopped.

How do you know, since there are less evidence to his existence and what he did compared to Jesus? There's not much we're supposed to know about Jesus, yet it sounds historians know quite a bit about those other non-so-proven-individuals-by-your-standards.

 

We have busts, coins, plenty of stories and historians, and such to confirm his existence and what he did. Even pretty much the exact dates of birth and death. Why don't we have those things for Jesus? Why no picture? Why no exact date? Even year? Why can historians be so exact on some (non-so-supported-by-evidence) individuals but have so little about the (so-friggin'-incredible-super-support-with-fantazillions-of-books-to-prove) Jesus?

 

Just asking.

 

Take a look at the wiki page about Constantine I: link

 

And look at the amount of sources, the pictures, the details in facts, everything, and then compare it to what you know about Jesus. The evidence for Constantine is staggering. For Jesus it's not.

This is one of the great suprises out here i.e. doubting the existence of Christ. Many atheistic scholars believe He existed. Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so. In terms of exact dates for Christ thats not what was emphasised in ancient historical bios. What matter was how a man lived and died that was impportant. If i remember correctly there are at least 18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ to some degree. Why don't have an image of Christ because images were not something the Jews of time would necessarily do because of the commandment not to have images. This is speculation but i do think it has some merit. I was reading about an account where the woman who was healed by Him had a statute made of Him that survived until the 3rd century but was destroyed by the Ceasar in the persecutions.

 

What do you think of the Shroud of Turin? If it proves to be His burial cloth how would that affect you?

[Snakefoot]

This is one of the great suprises out here i.e. doubting the existence of Christ. Many atheistic scholars believe He existed. Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so. In terms of exact dates for Christ thats not what was emphasised in ancient historical bios. What matter was how a man lived and died that was impportant. If i remember correctly there are at least 18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ to some degree. Why don't have an image of Christ because images were not something the Jews of time would necessarily do because of the commandment not to have images. This is speculation but i do think it has some merit. I was reading about an account where the woman who was healed by Him had a statute made of Him that survived until the 3rd century but was destroyed by the Ceasar in the persecutions.

 

What do you think of the Shroud of Turin? If it proves to be His burial cloth how would that affect you?

 

The gospels are not reliable historical sources for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

 

What are these "18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ"?

 

So what if the Jews did not make images? What about the Samaritans, Romans, and others with whom Jeebus allegedly interacted?

 

What is the source of this alleged information about a healed woman making a statue of Jeebus?

 

The shroud of Turin is a proven hoax. Google it.

[Guest amazed]

This is one of the great suprises out here i.e. doubting the existence of Christ. Many atheistic scholars believe He existed.

 

 

Then those "atheistic" scholars have obviously not done their homework.

 

Ok---

[Guest amazed]

This is one of the great suprises out here i.e. doubting the existence of Christ. Many atheistic scholars believe He existed. Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so. In terms of exact dates for Christ thats not what was emphasised in ancient historical bios. What matter was how a man lived and died that was impportant. If i remember correctly there are at least 18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ to some degree. Why don't have an image of Christ because images were not something the Jews of time would necessarily do because of the commandment not to have images. This is speculation but i do think it has some merit. I was reading about an account where the woman who was healed by Him had a statute made of Him that survived until the 3rd century but was destroyed by the Ceasar in the persecutions.

 

What do you think of the Shroud of Turin? If it proves to be His burial cloth how would that affect you?

 

The gospels are not reliable historical sources for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

If you read the scholarly works on this you will find that they do say they are reliable.

 

What are these "18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ"?

Here are a couple:

"• Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

o "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

 

" The Talmud

o "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

 

 

So what if the Jews did not make images? What about the Samaritans, Romans, and others with whom Jeebus allegedly interacted?

Not that i know of.

 

What is the source of this alleged information about a healed woman making a statue of Jeebus?

I heard it quoted from Paul Mier who is a historian. i don't have the account in front of me right now.

 

The shroud of Turin is a proven hoax. Google it.

There is a new book that has come out and is saying otherwise. We'll see how good the evidence is.

[Guest amazed]

Ok---

 

 

 

There are many atheists who think he was a wise teacher as well.

 

Another conclusion people commonly come to by not doing research.

Have you ever been challenged by other atheist by this claim? Even the Jesus Seminar (which i don't agree with) had scholars on it and they believed He existed.

 

It seems like you don't want him to exist no matter what. Am i correct?

[centauri]

The gospels are not reliable historical sources[/b] for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

If you read the scholarly works on this you will find that they do say they are reliable.

The mass resurrection of the dead in Matthew 27 is confirmed as reliable history by which scholarly work?

[Guest amazed]

The gospels are not reliable historical sources[/b] for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

If you read the scholarly works on this you will find that they do say they are reliable.

The mass resurrection of the dead in Matthew 27 is confirmed as reliable history by which scholarly work?

i don't know of any. Does that mean it did not happen?

What if i were to find some incredible event in history but didn't have much to back it up. Would that mean it did not happen?

[Snakefoot]

What if i were to find some incredible event in history but didn't have much to back it up. Would that mean it did not happen?

 

Muhammed rode to heaven on a winged horse.

 

Krishna kicked the shit out of a dragon.

 

Did it happen? If not, why not?

[centauri]

The gospels are not reliable historical sources[/b] for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

If you read the scholarly works on this you will find that they do say they are reliable.

The mass resurrection of the dead in Matthew 27 is confirmed as reliable history by which scholarly work?

i don't know of any. Does that mean it did not happen?

What if i were to find some incredible event in history but didn't have much to back it up. Would that mean it did not happen?

Then stop making absolutist statements like this:

Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so.

 

Stop advertising things as reliable and proven when they are not.

[Guest amazed]

The gospels are not reliable historical sources[/b] for reasons already (and repeatedly) explained.

If you read the scholarly works on this you will find that they do say they are reliable.

The mass resurrection of the dead in Matthew 27 is confirmed as reliable history by which scholarly work?

i don't know of any. Does that mean it did not happen?

What if i were to find some incredible event in history but didn't have much to back it up. Would that mean it did not happen?

Then stop making absolutist statements like this:

Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so.

 

Stop advertising things as reliable and proven when they are not.

They are reliable. You might want to read some scholarly works on this. I think you will be suprised.

[Snakefoot]

They are reliable. You might want to read some scholarly works on this. I think you will be suprised.

 

Why do you ASSume we have not read "scholarly" works on this or any other subject?

[Ouroboros]

This is one of the great suprises out here i.e. doubting the existence of Christ. Many atheistic scholars believe He existed.

Sure. That a man existed who preached and turned the heads of a some people in a cult, and I'm with them, that's what I think too. But even so, to believe that is a stretch compared to other historical figures.

 

You made a claim earlier, that Jesus was the most proven individual in history. The no one character, or person, in history had that much supporting evidence for his or her existence. But I'm sorry to say, it is not true. Constantine got more, and I got more. I have more evidence for the historical person Hans to convince me that I exists in history, so I beat the crap (completely, radically, and permanently) out of the evidence for Jesus. I leave traces (unfortunately everywhere) of my existence.

 

So lets turn it around. If the most proven character in history is the same as Jesus, and to me, I'm the most proven individuals to ever have existed in history (as far as I know), then I'm Jesus.

 

Bow to me.

 

Secondly, we have the 4 gospels which are historically reliable and have been proven to be so.

Not they are not, and not they have not been.

 

Coins from the same time period with the actual historical picture beats 4 so-called eye-witness sci-fi accounts.

 

In terms of exact dates for Christ thats not what was emphasised in ancient historical bios. What matter was how a man lived and died that was impportant. If i remember correctly there are at least 18 extra biblical sources that mention Christ to some degree. Why don't have an image of Christ because images were not something the Jews of time would necessarily do because of the commandment not to have images.

To make it short. Bovine excrement * 4 (since there are four sentences).

 

This is speculation but i do think it has some merit.

Then I might ask, didn't God know beforehand that the historians would want more evidence than some rumors?

 

After all, this was supposedly the greatest event in world history and existence of all Universes for eternity, and yet, epic omni-fail by God to not provide us with better historical evidence.

 

Jesus could have asked his disciples to write exact accounts, live, while it was happening, on platinum tables using laser pens, and record the scenes using Holy Sony HD Vidcams manufactured by Santa Claus's shop. Nothing is impossible for God.

 

Instead we have to speculate because there are some half-asses books, and honestly, one of them even declare that it is not an eyewitness account.

 

I was reading about an account where the woman who was healed by Him had a statute made of Him that survived until the 3rd century but was destroyed by the Ceasar in the persecutions.

Yeah, right.

 

It was God's choice to preserve it or let Caesar to blow it up with C4. Btw, it wasn't Caesar, it was the Alpha Centurians. There were some intergalactic politics involved and some misunderstandings about the possession rights of the Moon. The Alpha's gave up, because they Christians were too annoying.

 

What do you think of the Shroud of Turin? If it proves to be His burial cloth how would that affect you?

DUDE! That's soooooo bad!

 

You believe in the shroud which they have debunked through carbon dating, but you won't believe in the Talpiot tomb because 250,000 people were named Jesus during the time.

 

I mean, religion really does rot the brain. *sigh*

[Ouroboros]

The shroud of Turin is a proven hoax. Google it.

There is a new book that has come out and is saying otherwise. We'll see how good the evidence is.

Oh, A BOOK! Really?! Wow. A book... who would have thought... That does it, it must prove it, it's settled, aliens do exist. I saw a book, and there are some books coming out about it, so aliens exist. No doubt now.

[bdp]

"• Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

o "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

 

" The Talmud

o "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

 

'Christus' not 'Jesus' - Tacitus is repeating things he's heard from other people, he was not a contemporary and knew nothing firsthand of 'Jesus.' Apparently whoever was telling him forgot to tell him that 'Christus' rose from the dead. Note that he calls it a 'superstition' - what do you make of that?

 

Where did this 'forty days before the execution' come from in the Talmud? It's not in the biblical accounts. Talmud also seems not to be aware of any 'resurrection' - if you insist on claiming these two sources, all they prove beyond a nominal existence is a certified death.

[Guest amazed]

The shroud of Turin is a proven hoax. Google it.

There is a new book that has come out and is saying otherwise. We'll see how good the evidence is.

Oh, A BOOK! Really?! Wow. A book... who would have thought... That does it, it must prove it, it's settled, aliens do exist. I saw a book, and there are some books coming out about it, so aliens exist. No doubt now.

I thought you were open-minded at least to look. I guess i was wrong...

[Ouroboros]

I thought you were open-minded at least to look. I guess i was wrong...

I don't trust books. They're full of religious anti-atheist propaganda produced by the multi-national shadow government who is taking over the world. Satan! Begone! In the name of Darwin!

[Snakefoot]

The shroud of Turin is a proven hoax. Google it.

There is a new book that has come out and is saying otherwise. We'll see how good the evidence is.

Oh, A BOOK! Really?! Wow. A book... who would have thought... That does it, it must prove it, it's settled, aliens do exist. I saw a book, and there are some books coming out about it, so aliens exist. No doubt now.

I thought you were open-minded at least to look. I guess i was wrong...

 

There is a new book out about how Santa could use the space-time continuum to get to all the good little boys and girls' houses in one night. I hope you are open-minded enough to read it.

[Guest amazed]

I thought you were open-minded at least to look. I guess i was wrong...

I don't trust books. They're full of religious anti-atheist propaganda produced by the multi-national shadow government who is taking over the world. Satan! Begone! In the name of Darwin!

So you don't even read stuff to support your own view either?

[RankStranger]

Now there's some interesting projection.

[godlessgrrl]

It is true NDE' have been addressed and to say they are all brain activity fails to account how someone in a "state of death" could describe events miles away without using any of the parts of a physical body. This certainly points to some kind of survival after death or at least a dimension of man that is not physical. This goes well with the Christian worldview that teaches we are more than meat machines but we have a spirit.

 

It is possible that you are correct. However, before I arrive at my own conclusions on the matter, I require rigorous evidence. I have no doubt that people see and experience strange, unexplained things all the time; in fact I've had a few odd experiences myself, now and again. But if you are going to assert that individuals close to death have in fact seen things miles away, that this is indicative of a spiritual dimension to humanity, and that it supports your religious views, I will need a little more evidence which you have not yet provided.

 

Evidence I require must be more than anecdotal. Stories and testimonies are interesting, but demonstrate nothing other than that the person telling the story had an unusual experience they can't explain. What I need in addition to stories might be:

 

• The medical records of the individuals having the experiences.
  
• Academic papers documenting the phenomenon, written by qualified researchers affiliated with an accredited public or private university. Think of institutions like Duke University, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and so on - some institution that has been around for awhile and has a proven track record of generally high-quality scholarship. I'd even take a state university, if they're known for doing good research (University of Washington, etc.). No unaccredited schools or fly-by-night paranormal "investigators" will do here.
  
• Academic papers documenting the phenomenon, written by qualified researchers affiliated with a medical or other research facility known for high-quality research work. Think Mayo Clinic here, something like that.
  
• Peer-reviewed articles published in professional journals, books, or periodicals appropriate to a given field of study. No "Psychology Today" or "Newsweek" here, I'm talking something like "The Lancet" or something published by the APA, or by a member organization like the American Academy of Neurology.
  
• Acceptable fields include psychiatry, medicine, neurology, neuropsychology or neuropsychiatry.
  
• Where possible, evidence must be repeatable, verifiable, and preferably falsifiable.
  

 

There's a reason why I require evidence like this, something more rigorous than anecdote. Believe it or not, it isn't because I'm trying to be stubborn. It's because claims to a supernatural realm or the existence of a god are extraordinary. What's more, they matter, in a big way. Thus the evidence behind them has to be extraordinary as well. Something as potentially shattering as the existence of god deserves the highest quality evidence behind it, something far more rigorous than the stories and personal experiences religious adherents provide.

 

As I said, those are interesting, but don't really prove anything other than that someone had an odd experience. I can drop acid and see what I think might be god, but that doesn't demonstrate that god exists outside of the confines of my drug-addled brain.

 

If you can find evidence of the sort I'm looking for, please provide it. No rush, take your time, feel free to be very, very thorough. If you've got something good, I'll at least look at it and think about it.

 

If you don't have it, that's okay, just say so. It's okay to admit that you believe what you believe because it satisfies you somehow, not that there's any solid evidence for it.

 

Until you are able to provide such evidence for review, I will be unable to accept your assertions. All I will be able to do is what I am able to do now: understand that people see and experience strange things which are not yet understood. To come to any other conclusion would be foolish and intellectually dishonest, and I cannot in any good conscience replace gaps in my knowledge with a god. If I don't know something, all I can say is "I don't know."