Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers?

You know, some years back there were stories of finding the grave site of Jesus’s brother or supposed to be. I recall they were from a couple reliable sources . Damned if I can recall the details. The stories might be online if you are interested in searching and have the time.

The foundation(s) of the story seem to have been built on sand and the sand continues to shift. :slight_smile:

OTH … surviving 2,000 years of ‘shifting sands’ points to a living ‘core’.

Such paucity of supporting physical evidence for a ‘story’ of such magnitude. Contrast this with the story of Confucius … in Qufu a cemetery with 75+ generations of one family … survived the vicissitudes of 2,500+ years. Hmmm!

What support? It was just a comment about the history of this type of discussion. If some wish to research for or against it , this is just an avenue.

oops! … likewise … I was just generalizing.

Been thinking about it some more though … the paucity of physical evidence may be a blessing in disguise … sort of unintentional consequences.

Substantial corroberating evidence would have chained the “story” to the visual facts. In the absence of substantive evidence the story was free to travel beyond the boundaries of fact … into la la land.

Afterall, most people believe the essence of the story is a journey through la la land … until this particular la la land … the place/time/space becomes part of human consciousness.

Either Jesus’ proposed moral system is worth trying or it’s not. Jesus didn’t have to exist for the moral system to be effective or ineffective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:44

Good idea or dumb idea?

Nobody else can make you certain. If evidence isn’t the kind of thing that moves you, that’s not anybody else’s problem. Jesus obviously existed to those of us for whom facts and evidence are key.

Well, take you for example. You’re a stubborn sort who won’t accept even basic premises no matter how obviously and clearly they are presented to you. Your ability to discuss and think about philosophy consists of repeating maybe 7 statements over and over again, and from what I can tell you aren’t interested and capable of logical analysis.

Take Ecmandu for example. He’s crazier than a shithouse rat and can’t keep a train of thought for more than 2 sentences.

Take PK, take me, take any number of examples you like.

Given the kinds of people that are in the world, why would you expect us all to agree on anything, even exceedingly obvious things?

Not really. That’s like saying all philosophy is ‘ultimately’ in the service to answer the question ‘what is true’. There’s such a thing as taking something to such a high level of abstraction that it loses all meaning. The religions and the philosophies they inspire are quite a bit different from each other and seek to answer very different questions from each other- that you can group them all up with one pat statement is more indicative of the classification abilities of language, not of the religions.

There is no ‘it’. You’ve created a vague abstraction so broad and insipid that it applies to every religion no matter how different they are. There’s not going to be any answer to any question about this “It” you’ve created. You may as well ask “Who’s better at stuff?”

I don’t give a shit. Dasein is a bunch of retarded nonsense, especially the way you present it. So take that as example; I think dasein is a bunch of retarded nonsense. You think it’s so important that it’s literally the only thing you talk about and you insist on turning every conversation about every subject into a conversation about dasein. Do you see how lumping our ideas in the same category of ‘how ought one live’ creates something so broad and anemic that nothing firm can be said about it? Of course you don’t. You only ask questions, you don’t answer them or take occasion to introspect.

I think he’s probably the “Vaguely Protestant Christian but I don’t think about it much except on Christmas Eve and maybe Easter” sort that typifies American life at present.

Would not call it la la land as it is somewhat insulting and can take any decent conversation about opposing views to a break down. You do have a point though. I don’t think many here would have heard of the discovery due to media lack and , heck I was a teen back then. I did a real quick search and was surprised at the amount of articles, I honestly thought I would find nothing. Here is just one article and piece of research

google.com/amp/amp.livescie … ent=safari

Well, there are clearly those who have their doubts: alternet.org/belief/5-reason … er-existed

And that’s before we get to the part that differentiates the existence of an actual historical figure who thought of himself as Christ [or was thought of as Christ by others] and a demonstration that he was in fact the son of God [God on Earth?].

And that’s before we get to all the other evidence presented by all the other folks that embrace the existence of their own [entirely different] God.

Or, in regards to the Moslems and Jews, vouch for the existence of God [the God of Moses and Abraham] but insist that Jesus Christ was…was what exactly?

And [of course] that’s just here on earth.

I suspect that, even among religious scholars, there are conflicting accounts.

Okay, as succinctly as you are able, articulate a logical analysis that might persuade an atheist who is not like me – one that you respect – to believe in the existence of God.

What does that argument sound like?

Note to others: Really, how much closer does he get to producing a God, the God, his God by making me the argument here?

No but there seems to be something “obvious” that [to me] you keep sweeping under the rug:

That with so much at stake – sin on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation and Divine Justice on the other side – mere mortals would need to be pretty damn clear regarding which God to worship and adore and how to please Him on this side of the grave.

Or, as I speculated on another thread:

[b][i]Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes. The first one is successful. The folks in the first tribe accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and are baptized in the faith. The second is not successful. The folks in the second tribe refuse to accept Christ as their personal savior and instead continue to embrace their own god…their own religion. The third missionary is not even able to find the tribe he was sent out to save.

Now, imagine one member of each tribe dying on the same day a week later. What will be the fate of their souls? Will the man from the first tribe ascend to Heaven having embraced the Christian faith? Will the man from the second tribe burn in Hell for having rejected the Christian faith? And what of the man from the third tribe—he will have died never having even been made aware of the Christian faith. Where does his soul end up?[/i][/b]

How do you react to this? Or, sure, is this just not scholastic enough for you?

Well, I suspect that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of true believers out there who might beg to differ. Religion and God [aside from the part about metaphysics and politics] is all about this very, very crucial relationship for mere mortals who, if the atheists are right, are likely to fall over into an abyss that is oblivion for all of eternity; and with no recourse [on this side of the grave] but to embrace one another subjective/subjunctive, historical/cultural rendition of “humanism”.

You’re accusing me of that! On the contrary, the whole point of creating this thread – viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929 – is to explore the actual existential parameters that flesh and blood human beings become entangled in out in a particular world. So, it doesn’t surprise me that you and your ilk avoid it like the plague.

Indeed, the “scholars” no doubt love to approach, to explore and then to assess God and religion in these terms and on this level.

That way they more or less become Will Durant’s “epistemologists”; and the world that we actually live one – one bursting at the seams with liberals and conservatives at each other’s throats – is ever and always just sort of “out there” somewhere.

Okay, this is how I construe the meaning of dasein in a general analysis: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And, from the perspective of an atheist, this is how I situate that analysis out in a particular world pertaining to a particular value judgment:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Now, “as succinctly as you are able, articulate a logical analysis” that might persuade others that it is just “retarded nonsense”.

That is because my interest in philosophy has now come down to this: “How ought one to live?”

And how would it not be fundamentally important here to explore the relationship between one’s sense of identity, one’s value judgments, and one’s actual existential “becoming” as that pertains to historical, cultural and experiential contexts awash in contingency, chance and change.

And wealth and power.

Of course the objectivists/religionists always get around to reducing all of this down to one or another Ideology or Scripture. Or, re folks like James and Jacob, to one or another TOE.

Yet here is a man whose policies will certainly impact the lives [for better or for much, much worse] of millions upon millions of actual flesh and blood human beings.

And that’s all you find it necessary to consider here with respect to your own faith/belief in a God, the God?

Figures.

“I don’t think that Jesus existed”

“I don’t think that there is a god.”

“I’m not convinced.”

Maybe those are your final answers. Why not? Why does there need to be anything else? Why does the answer have to be the same for everyone?

You wouldn’t recognize it. And is your issue.

In other words, we answer the very “it comes down to this” question, and you refuse to hear any such thing while relegating it all to derogatory insinuations simply because it does in fact answer your question.

It wouldn’t matter who said what to you.

You are merely a disingenuous nihilist preacher.

Must a Christian be able to answer these questions?

What if he says “I don’t know”?

What if he says “I don’t care”?

What if he says “It’s up to God to decide”?

Kriswest … I’m familiar with the popular and unpleasant connotation associated with the expression “la la land” … that wasn’t my intention.

Your comments triggered new thoughts … I will try to be more explicit.

The expression “la la land” is often used to describe “one who lives in his/her own world” … implying a disconnect from reality as the majority understands it.

IMO … the expression “la la land” as defined above … states a profound truth. At the end of the day each of us “lives in our own world” … it’s simply a question of degree.

Sure lots of “overlap” with other minds exist … we refer to the more substantial/intense “overlap” instances as ‘soul mate’ … ‘true friend’ … ‘my other half’ and so on.

Less substantial/fragile ‘overlap’ exists with family/religious/political/class etc communities.

While thinking about this it occured to me there must be a mathematical relationship underpinning this phenomenon.

The left side of the equation quantifies the degree/elasticity of the ‘overlap’ … the right side of the equation quantifies the resulting energy/force/power.

The above equation is manifest in the well known axioms … no two minds are alike … two heads are better than one … united we stand divided we fall … divide and conquer … he/she won the hearts and minds of the masses … control the story/control the empire and so on.

The fact that we all live in our own world may also help explain the statement … “It’s better together though why is it so hard”.

Efforts to control people’s personal world … their minds … are self evident since time immemorial. The effort expended to maintain “unity” within the various religions is simply a kind way of promoting ‘control’.

The good news is no attempt has ever been successful … seems the diversity/complexity of ‘individual minds’ is the fuel that propels humanity forward.

Those individual minds must be lonely in their isolation.

Just beneath the surface of what it means to be human … unspeakable lonliness and isolation.

Some human beings function better when alone and isolated and do not find it unspeakable at all

YES … and thank God for that … can’t imagine what humanity would look like if all people only functioned well in the “crowd” :smiley:

I certainly do not function well in the crowd and so am grateful that I can be myself away from it where I function far better

Your last comment reminds me of Thomas Kempis … author of the book Imitation of Christ … a book still in print 600 years later.

He spent all of his adult life in a monastery … lived to the ripe old age of 91 … probably an extraordinary life span for that era.

He said … paraphrasing … “Every time I go out into the world … leave the monastery … I come back more vexed than before I left.”

Seems a few people are capable of functioning in both worlds … in the ‘crowd’ … and in ‘isolation’.

Yet very few … if any … of these few enjoy both … like you … those who prefer isolation find functioning in the ‘crowd’ a real trial.