There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[lilpixieofterror]

I've got some serious time issues right now, which is why I still haven't finished my post to you on eyewitness authorship of the gospels. (I've been working on it, honest.) All your questions and comments in this post deserve thoughtful responses, but I'm going to have to add it to my to-do-as-soon-as-possible list.

That's fine by me Doug, unlike The Idiot, you actually come up with good responses and haven't made up your mind that all Christians are deluded/stupid/idiots, so I have far more tolerance with you than with him. Take your time.

[The Pixie]

And you haven't provided any evidence that says otherwise and I did ask you a question and you are now trying to twist my words into something else. How typical of you, but should I be surprised that you are dishonestly leaving out my question to you, which you admitted you didn’t believe in the ‘supernatural’ and have yet to produce any evidence that an atheist believes in the ‘supernatural’ is still an atheist?

Oh, lpot, why do you do this every time?

In my last post I went though our last few exchanges (top of post #3178), providing exactly the evidence you insist I did not present.

Just to be completely clear, here it is again:

lpot: If one doesn’t believe God, gods, or spirits exist, then they, by default, believe nature is all that exist.

Pix: Are those the only possible supernatural entities, influences or forces that can possibly exist? If I may borrow from the ever-helpful RG, what of:
"angels, demons, ghosts, ancestral spirits, mind-body dualism, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, magic, voodoo, wicca, astrology, tea-leaf reading, an afterlife"
Okay, a couple are spirits, but you get the idea.

lpot: That doesn’t answer the question Pixie, do you believe any of these things, happen in reality or not?

Pix, #3091: I was not responding to a question, so maybe that is why my reply does not answer it. What do you think?

lpot, #3096: Most likely, you do not like what the answer says…

Pix, #3112: The answer to a questionyou never asked?

lpot: I asked the question, you just didn’t like the answer and thus dodged it.

Now I invite you, lpot, to look back at where you first said "That doesn’t answer the question Pixie", and then to see why it does not answer the question. You will find it does not answer the question because it was responding to If one doesn’t believe God, gods, or spirits exist, then they, by default, believe nature is all that exist.". Which is not a question.

Now I am sure you asked questions somewhere in your posts, but that is irrelevant. The text I wrote, to which you objected, was not responding to a question.

Thus the pot tries to tell the kettle how black it is. Remember everybody, this is the same person that has refused, several times, to admit he was wrong about anything, even when exposed he is wrong.

You must really work at making the most vague and unsupported accusations possible.

This is also the same person, trying to argue that an atheist can believe in the supernatural, but has been unable to produce evidence that says otherwise and keeps screaming, “The Dictionary agrees with me!” even when I already addressed that argument and he’s been unable/incapable of refuting it.

I also gave you several sites that agree with my definition, the blog of an atheist who believes in ghosts, the support of most atheists at TWeb.

I will also throw in a couple of web pages about atheist Buddists. You will ignore them too, I do not doubt, but others may find them interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...tatheism.shtml
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06...dhist-atheist/

Humanity has an organizing principles and only a truly deluded person would ignore clear evidence against this because after all, what kind of ‘organizing principle’ exist for the idea that the earth is billions of years old? None, but how many people organize around that idea? Atheism does not need an ‘organizing principle’ humanity is quite good at doing that without it.

Christianity has a system of beliefs. This is its organising principle. Atheist has only what people do not believe in. That is not something that generally brings people together.

People who believe in UFOs tend to come together; there is no club for people who do not believe in UFOs. The belief in UFOs is an organising principle. Disbelief in UFO is not an organising principle.

So then why should I take you seriously when it appears that few agree with you? Should I take a ‘Christian’ at his word that he is really a Christian, when his philosophy and theology does not match what traditionally defines a Christian? No, so likewise, why should I take an atheist seriously, that can only find a few atheists that agree with him, and most define atheism to be the denial of all supernatural claims?

Well...

How about the fact that most atheists at TWeb seem to agree with me?

Or the fact that the dictionary agrees with me?

Or the fact that those other web pages I found agree with me?

Or the fact that you said yourself "I continue to find most atheist, reject ghost, angels, demons, etc as well as the idea of God"

Yet, the funny thing is that many atheists wouldn’t call those people atheist. I have seen atheist tear into one another about the definition of atheist (it is quite entertaining to watch really), while of course, they whine about how much Christians argue among themselves. I hate to tell you this, but it is a human tendency and something that crosses all creeds and belief systems. Rather you want to admit it or not.

Interesting assertion - but that is all it is.

Your thread seems to indicate otherwise...

Really? Can you quote someone from that thread saying I am wrong, because I see no dissert there.

Here, I will link to it to make it easy for you:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ply-naturalism

... and I wasn’t aware that the atheist of T web represented the majority of atheist opinion.

It is a small sampling, I agree, but do you have any reason to suppose it is not representative?

It’s too bad that the major atheist groups out there, continue to define an atheist as a person(s) that denies the existence of any supernatural event, rather it be God, gods, ghost, miracles, etc.

Yes, it is too bad that one does. Others do not.

Cute, but still doesn’t answer the question about their personal thoughts on the ‘supernatural’.

Right, because that is not relevant. They are sites talking about atheism, a rejection of God and gods, so they discuss rejecting God and gods. Atheism is not about the non-existence of the supernatural, so of corse they do not mention the supernatural.

Awe, Conservapedia, the web site I go to when I need to laugh at ignorant/stupid Christians and Republicans, much as what I do whenever I read your post or I might use your second to last link to entertain myself with too.

I provided it so you would have a full range of view points.

BTW you did do a good job of proving how much atheist can’t even agree on what an atheist believes. At least Christians can agree on a general creed and definition of what makes a Christian.

This comes back to that organising principle again. Christianity is a positive believe that has a raft history and ideas all wrapped up in it; it has a hierarchy (well several), telling the followers what to think. Atheism does not have that (I appreciate there are people like Dawkins, but he is not employed as an atheist, he is a university lecturer who happens to be an atheist and an author of books promoting atheism; somewhat difference to a bishop.

That's fine by me Doug, unlike The Idiot, you actually come up with good responses and haven't made up your mind that all Christians are deluded/stupid/idiots, so I have far more tolerance with you than with him. Take your time.

Just for the record, I do not think all Christians are deluded/stupid/idiots; lpot just loves to paint me that way.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, lpot, why do you do thi... blah blah blah

No answer to my quesiton yet, thus your ranting is ignored until my question is answered and I'll even be nice enough to re phrase it for you and I also put in in big, bold letters and underlined it so you might answer it this time:

Why did you have to consult a more in depth source then the dictionary, to better define what a Wiccan is, when you're claim is that the dictionary is a 'good enough' source?

Also, why are you cutting my question out? Afraid it will reveal your double standards?

[Doug Shaver]

That's fine by me Doug, unlike The Idiot, you actually come up with good responses and haven't made up your mind that all Christians are deluded/stupid/idiots, so I have far more tolerance with you than with him. Take your time.

I appreciate your indulgence, Crystal. After my classes tomorrow, I should have a few free days for catchup work. But then, I was thinking the same thing this time a week ago :-). Maybe I'll have better luck this time.

[The Pixie]

No answer to my quesiton yet, thus your ranting is ignored until my question is answered and I'll even be nice enough to re phrase it for you and I also put in in big, bold letters and underlined it so you might answer it this time:

Why did you have to consult a more in depth source then the dictionary, to better define what a Wiccan is, when you're claim is that the dictionary is a 'good enough' source?

It gave fuller answer.

Now compare to the American Atheists site, which gave a different answer, which disagreed with several other sites I have quoted and linked to.

See the difference? Of course not.

Also, why are you cutting my question out? Afraid it will reveal your double standards?

Because I find your inane whining irritating, and I can only be bothered to respond to those bits that interest me.

[David Hayward]

If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?

This has to be one of the stupidest questions I have every seen.

I agree with you that that's not good enough: your protagonist seems to think one can only be good for selfish reasons, in order to avoid judgement.

Can one only be good under coercion?! Is not God good without coercion. If we are godly, we will be good without coercion likewise.

It proves Christians don't care about other people at all.
<snip>
Christians never will.
<snip>
But it would all go right over the Christian's heads on this site.

We are commanded to love one another. Also our enemies, just as God does. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is full of these commands, and of Jesus demonstrating them in action.

I am a good person for my own selfish reasons.

The word "selfish" triggers the wrong response; it makes you sound selfish, which I am sure is not at all what you meant: I will assume you meant, "for my own personal reasons".

Being a good person gets me better friends and more of them. It makes my relatives love me more. It gains me respect in the business community. I could go on and on about why people should behave nicely.

Unfortunately you didn't go on enough, for this snippet makes you look as though you are into goodness only for what you can get out of it.

<we> atheists already understand the value of being a good person.

I agree with this, subject to it being a generalisation, and with the usual qualifiers about sociopaths and psychopaths. When I was an atheist I understood the value of being a good person, goodness valued for itself. My confirmation as a Christian was what is called a sacrament, ie an outward sign of an already-existing inner state. And I expect that like me the early Christians became converts not because they were initially evil, but because they were already good people, the good drawn to the good.

David

[lilpixieofterror]

It gave fuller answer.

Now compare to the American Atheists site, which gave a different answer, which disagreed with several other sites I have quoted and linked to.

See the difference? Of course not.

So why should I and others accept those definitions over theirs? Second, not really, many of them were not addressing specifically what an atheist was, but addressing to theist, what an atheist was. Second, I know for a fact that many of those sites contradict one another on their definitions (I know, I looked). Of course, what is entertaining though is how atheist claim how divided Christians are, but can't even agree on a definition for their own beliefs. Yet of course, Christians disagree with each other too much, eh?

Because I find your inane whining irritating, and I can only be bothered to respond to those bits that interest me.

Nah, you're just an idiot and thus get treated like one. Some of the most brutal arguments on the web between atheist have been over what makes a person an atheist. Which is kind of funny, since I've seen many atheist whine about how much Christians disagree with one another.

[Kane]

what is entertaining though is how atheist claim how divided Christians are, but can't even agree on a definition for their own beliefs. Yet of course, Christians disagree with each other too much, eh?

Christians do disagree with each other, historically and presently.

I am curious though, what you think the beliefs of atheists are (belief, of course, being a very loaded word)?

[Jaecp]

Heres my take,

AA is giving a practical definition of both what the atheists who join their organization believe as well as what you are likely to find amongst atheists who identify as atheists, especially in the states.

There are philosophical definitions of atheist that are much more precise than this. The strict "from the greek" a-without theism-gods. Atheists are without gods. I do not believe that AA is actually challenging this.

There are other belief systems where atheism is only one component. For example, most forms of Buddhism do not have gods, but do have various things that are equivalent to Angel's and Demon's in Christianity.

In other words, people who are atheists and believe in the supernatural tend not to self-describe as atheists. Why would a Buddhist greet you and say "Hi, I'm an atheist?", he is one, but that isn't how he's going to put it. Why would someone who doesn't believe in god but does, for example, believe in ghosts and the healing power of mediums introduce herself as an atheist instead of a spiritualist or whatever?

This conversation is so inane :-/

Nah, you're just an idiot and thus get treated like one. Some of the most brutal arguments on the web between atheist have been over what makes a person an atheist. Which is kind of funny, since I've seen many atheist whine about how much Christians disagree with one another.

Really? Where?

The thread you challenged TP to make has been... well, see for yourself,

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...08#post3366708

It's almost like... a calm, civil discussion about what AA meant and what atheism means and what the most likely extra beliefs are of people who describe themselves as atheists will be.

[The Pixie]

The thread you challenged TP to make has been... well, see for yourself,

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...08#post3366708

It's almost like... a calm, civil discussion about what AA meant and what atheism means and what the most likely extra beliefs are of people who describe themselves as atheists will be.

Yeah, but lpot has moved the goalposts since then, and is now demanding I start the thread on an atheist site.

[lilpixieofterror]

Christians do disagree with each other, historically and presently.

Do Christians disagree with one another over the very basic idea of what a Christian is? Can you be a Christian and not believe in God or miracles (for example)?

I am curious though, what you think the beliefs of atheists are (belief, of course, being a very loaded word)?

A loose definition would be one that rejects anything that isn't explained by nature or happens within natural consequences.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, but lpot has moved the goalposts since then, and is now demanding I start the thread on an atheist site.

Sorry idiot, I didn't, but again, it is amusing how atheist whine about Christians disagree with one another, but can't agree with one another on a simple definition of what it means to be an atheist.

[lilpixieofterror]

Heres my take,

AA is giving a practical definition of both what the atheists who join their organization believe as well as what you are likely to find amongst atheists who identify as atheists, especially in the states.

There are philosophical definitions of atheist that are much more precise than this. The strict "from the greek" a-without theism-gods. Atheists are without gods. I do not believe that AA is actually challenging this.

There are other belief systems where atheism is only one component. For example, most forms of Buddhism do not have gods, but do have various things that are equivalent to Angel's and Demon's in Christianity.

In other words, people who are atheists and believe in the supernatural tend not to self-describe as atheists. Why would a Buddhist greet you and say "Hi, I'm an atheist?", he is one, but that isn't how he's going to put it. Why would someone who doesn't believe in god but does, for example, believe in ghosts and the healing power of mediums introduce herself as an atheist instead of a spiritualist or whatever?

This conversation is so inane :-/

It is amazing how many atheist can't even define their own beliefs, while of course, whining about Christians that can't define their beliefs. At least Christians can agree that a belief in miracles is critical to the faith. It seems atheist can't even agree on that one. How funny.

BTW forms of Buddhism are pretty varied from a belief in many gods to no gods. You should really try taking a world religions class because I don't know very many Buddhist that call themselves atheist, do you?

Really? Where?

You should really expand outward and read a bit. I'm sure you don't like it, but there's plenty of rude atheist around my dear and your denial is noted.

The thread you challenged TP to make has been... well, see for yourself,

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...08#post3366708

It's almost like... a calm, civil discussion about what AA meant and what atheism means and what the most likely extra beliefs are of people who describe themselves as atheists will be.

You really have to work on your reading skills Jaecp because here is what I said:

Nah, you're just an idiot and thus get treated like one. Some of the most brutal arguments on the web between atheist have been over what makes a person an atheist. Which is kind of funny, since I've seen many atheist whine about how much Christians disagree with one another.

Why is it that you never read everything people say and ignore key words and phrases, such as the highlighted?

[bertatberts]

Do Christians disagree with one another over the very basic idea of what a Christian is? Can you be a Christian and not believe in God or miracles (for example)?

Yes!

Liberal theologians, be they of Catholic or Protestant denominations deny the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the resurrection.

Jehovah's Witnesses, claim Jesus isn't God/Jehovah, but the Archangel Michael.

Christian Scientists, reject the objective reality of the material world, and as such discard Jesus in the way, most Christians have understood it.

Mormons, don't believe Jesus and God are part of a trinity. They believe they are two totally different people/gods.

[The Pixie]

Pix: Yeah, but lpot has moved the goalposts since then, and is now demanding I start the thread on an atheist site.

lpot: Sorry idiot, I didn't, but again, it is amusing how atheist whine about Christians disagree with one another, but can't agree with one another on a simple definition of what it means to be an atheist.

Yes, lpot, you did. In post #3087 you said:

I would love to watch your thread, in Naturalism, as you are laughed at by your fellow skeptics.

And also in post #3096

No really, you’re actually doing just what I thought you would do. Being too dumb to spot me backing you into a corner. Now let me see you start this thread so I can watch other atheist attack you for what you’re trying to do here. It should be pure entertainment.

When (as I predicted) that failed to produce any sparks, you moved the goalposts, insisting that I start a thread on another site. This is from post #3163:

That’s because many of them want there to be more atheist or are not in this thread. Go to an atheist board though and let them know that you believe atheist can believe in the supernatural and see what kind of reaction you get out of them.

I love the fact that you are in denial about this; it say much about who you are.