How Do Atheist Deal With Death?

[bdp]

amazed - post #379. You didn't think that deserved an answer?

[Guest amazed]

"• 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?

Most of what we know from ancient history is based on what other people said. None of the secular writers knew Jesus first hand either but historians do count their reports as important. I haven't read much on these works myself. Not sure what the context was for the term "superstition" is. I suspect it may have something to do with either the Jesus movement itself that the early Christians were worshipping a man who reportedly was crucified and rose again. The authorities were aware of these things going on.

 

 

 

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.

This is actually negative support for the existence of Christ in that it says He "practiced sorcery" which is a reference to His miracles. Not sure about the 40 days reference. These accounts do show that Jesus was a historical person.

[Snakefoot]

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?

 

Uh, sarcasm? Ever heard of it?

[bdp]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

[Guest amazed]

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."

I'm not an expert in this field (nor any field for that matter-- ) but i know there i a lot of studies on the net and in books. I can recommend a couple. Try Kubler Ross (?). She was a researcher in this area. Kenneth Ring is another researcher. Its quite fancinating. I don't think these researcher were Christians either.

[Guest amazed]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

[Snakefoot]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

 

If you have the intellectual honesty, look around this site for a while: jesusneverexisted.com

[Ouroboros]

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

A joke? Get it?

[bdp]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

 

I doubt that atheist scholars believe the miracle-working 'Christ' who rose from the dead exists.

[Guest amazed]

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

A joke? Get it?

[Guest amazed]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

 

I doubt that atheist scholars believe the miracle-working 'Christ' who rose from the dead exists.

All i'm trying to establish is that He existed historically. There are many as you who don't think He did. If He did not exist then that's the end of Christianity.

[Guest amazed]

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

 

 

You keep mentioning this. Can you give us some names?

Here are some from their website:

•Martin L. Appelt

•Karen Armstrong

•William E. Arnal

•Richard L. Arthur

•Harold W. Attridge

•Robert Bater

•Joseph Bessler

•† Edward F. Beutner

•Anthony Blasi

•Marcus Borg

•Willi Braun

•James R. Butts

•† Marvin F. Cain

•Ron Cameron

•Bruce D. Chilton

•Kathleen E. Corley

•Wendy J. Cotter

•John Dominic Crossan

•Don Cupitt

•Jon Daniels

•Jean Jacques D'Aoust

•Jon F. Dechow

•Arthur J. Dewey

•Joanna Dewey

•† John Dillenberger

•William Doty

•Darrell J. Doughty

•Dennis C. Duling

•Rubén René Dupertuis

•Susan M. Elliott

•Robert T. Fortna

•Robert M. Fowler

•† Robert W. Funk

•David Galston

•Lloyd Geering

•Jennifer Glancy

•James Goss

•Heinz Guenther

•Sakari Hakkinen

[Guest amazed]

Most of the people here have no problem with a person called 'Jesus' - the 'Christ' of the gospels however is pure fiction.

What do you think of atheistic scholars who do believe he did exist. I'm thinking of the Jesus Seminar.

 

If you have the intellectual honesty, look around this site for a while: jesusneverexisted.com

I don't have any....

[bdp]

 

 

All i'm trying to establish is that He existed historically. There are many as you who don't think He did. If He did not exist then that's the end of Christianity.

 

It also ends if Jesus existed but just died like the rest of humanity.

[Guest amazed]

 

 

All i'm trying to establish is that He existed historically. There are many as you who don't think He did. If He did not exist then that's the end of Christianity.

 

It also ends if Jesus existed but just died like the rest of humanity.

Do mean died and stayed dead?

[bdp]

Exactly.

[Guest amazed]

Exactly.

The evidence does point to His resurrection though. I corinthians 15 is one we have looked at.

[bdp]

Exactly.

The evidence does point to His resurrection though. I corinthians 15 is one we have looked at.

 

No, there's no 'evidence' for a resurrection. 1 Cor; he 'appeared to' Paul; Luke says in Acts that it was a vision, nobody else saw it. Or was Luke wrong? Acts 26:19 Paul himself tells Agrippa it was a 'heavenly vision.'

[Snakefoot]

Exactly.

The evidence does point to His resurrection though. I corinthians 15 is one we have looked at.

 

I corinthians 15

doesn't

 

mean

 

Jack

Shit

 

_What^will_it^take to make you understand that?

[godlessgrrl]

I'm not an expert in this field (nor any field for that matter-- ) but i know there i a lot of studies on the net and in books. I can recommend a couple. Try Kubler Ross (?). She was a researcher in this area. Kenneth Ring is another researcher. Its quite fancinating. I don't think these researcher were Christians either.

 

Thanks for the starting point, sounds interesting.

 

Quick question for you: is there something specific in Kubler-Ross and Ring's work that you feel supports your belief about the implications of NDE's?

[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.

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

Frankly, I guess there's just no point in having any dialog with you.

I just got finished asking you to cite a scholarly work that says the mass resurrection of the dead as told in Matt 27 was reliable history.

You provided nothing.

I then asked that you stop advertising things as reliable and proven when you can't establish that they are.

It's not honest and I thought honesty was supposed to be a Christian virtue.

So what do you do next?

You go right back to pumping propaganda about the Gospels being reliable.

You tell me to read scholarly works, none of which you could name, that would validate the mass resurrection of the dead as reliable history.

This was a far bigger event in history than Jesus being resurrected because many dead people rose and strolled into Jerusalem, being seen by many people in the town.

But the risen Jesus only appeared to cult members, which is incredibly convenient for Christianity.

 

The mass resurrection of the dead is huge in terms of history, yet there is no validation for it anywhere.

Not even Luke, the alleged great historian, bothered to mention it.

There are other examples of unconfirmed NT history and it often conflicts with itself.

The birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, the timing of the crucifixion, and where the risen Jesus first appeared to the 11 disciples as a group are some examples of conflict.

What you utterly fail to entertain is the possiblity that the Gospels are not reliable history because they contain embellishments, where authors told a story according to their preferences or the preferences of others.

While a cult leader called "Jesus" could have existed, "Jesus of Nazareth" as portrayed in the Gospels is severely lacking in historical credibility, especially if one buys into the claim that the Gospels were inspired by an infallible sky deity that wants everyone to believe his story.

[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.

Frankly, I guess there's just no point in having any dialog with you.

I just got finished asking you to cite a scholarly work that says the mass resurrection of the dead as told in Matt 27 was reliable history.

You provided nothing.

I then asked that you stop advertising things as reliable and proven when you can't establish that they are.

It's not honest and I thought honesty was supposed to be a Christian virtue.

So what do you do next?

You go right back to pumping propaganda about the Gospels being reliable.

You tell me to read scholarly works, none of which you could name, that would validate the mass resurrection of the dead as reliable history.

This was a far bigger event in history than Jesus being resurrected because many dead people rose and strolled into Jerusalem, being seen by many people in the town.

But the risen Jesus only appeared to cult members, which is incredibly convenient for Christianity.

 

The mass resurrection of the dead is huge in terms of history, yet there is no validation for it anywhere.

Not even Luke, the alleged great historian, bothered to mention it.

There are other examples of unconfirmed NT history and it often conflicts with itself.

The birth narratives, the genealogy of Jesus, the timing of the crucifixion, and where the risen Jesus first appeared to the 11 disciples as a group are some examples of conflict.

What you utterly fail to entertain is the possiblity that the Gospels are not reliable history because they contain embellishments, where authors told a story according to their preferences or the preferences of others.

While a cult leader called "Jesus" could have existed, "Jesus of Nazareth" as portrayed in the Gospels is severely lacking in historical credibility, especially if one buys into the claim that the Gospels were inspired by an infallible sky deity that wants everyone to believe his story.

I did not claim to know anything about those who were resurrected with Christ. Just because i don't have any sources right now to back it up does not matter. What i do have though is the resurrection of Christ. That evidence is quite strong. Now can you deomstrate that the gospels are embellishments? What proof will you offer?

[Guest amazed]

I'm not an expert in this field (nor any field for that matter-- ) but i know there i a lot of studies on the net and in books. I can recommend a couple. Try Kubler Ross (?). She was a researcher in this area. Kenneth Ring is another researcher. Its quite fancinating. I don't think these researcher were Christians either.

 

Thanks for the starting point, sounds interesting.

 

Quick question for you: is there something specific in Kubler-Ross and Ring's work that you feel supports your belief about the implications of NDE's?

I haven't read them in years but i found the stories fancinating to say the least. I remember reading i some thing something in Kubler-Ross.

[Guest amazed]

Exactly.

The evidence does point to His resurrection though. I corinthians 15 is one we have looked at.

 

I corinthians 15

doesn't

 

mean

 

Jack

Shit

 

_What^will_it^take to make you understand that?

Thats not what the scholars who study this say along with a billion Christians. Sorry. Your on the wrong side on this one.. .

[bdp]

Numbers mean nothing.