Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think religion is a man made set of rules and stories that people believe even if they don't make sense.

Atheists reject the man made set of rules and stores. So it's anti-religion.

No. Atheism rejects the concept of a deity. There are atheist scientologists too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with uncertainty. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

+1

Just another supernatural story.

Jesus exited. Did Hansel and Gretel? Rumplestiltskin? Zeus?

A man named Jesus probably lived.
Hansel, Gretel, and Rumplestiltskin were fictional characters created by men in recent time.
A man named Zeus may have existed as well but that goes farther back in ancient times.

Spoiler: none had super powers.

We know Jesus existed; He is abundantly attested to in early historical sources. No reputable scholar, academic, or historian denies the historical fact Jesus existed.

We also know the brother of Jesus existed, through historical records. James’ martyrdom wasn’t just recorded in Christian sources (Hegesippus) but by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus.



In his book Antiquities of the Jews 20.200, Josephus wrote:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.”


JOSEPHUS GIVES US A NICE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WE READ IN THE GOSPELS, ACTS AND EPISTLES OF PAUL. <<<<

Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). The confirmation from Josephus is one reason that even most skeptical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

Agnostics don't assume anything for certain. It is the actual dictionary definition of agnosticism: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty. They do not assume that there is a god or "supernaturalism" as you put it, and they do not assume that there isn't. The only ones making assumptions on this are atheists and theists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with uncertainty. Try again.

I didn’t said that.

I was guessing one reason why people may look to supernatural explanations for uncertain things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

+1

Just another supernatural story.

Jesus exited. Did Hansel and Gretel? Rumplestiltskin? Zeus?

A man named Jesus probably lived.
Hansel, Gretel, and Rumplestiltskin were fictional characters created by men in recent time.
A man named Zeus may have existed as well but that goes farther back in ancient times.

Spoiler: none had super powers.

We know Jesus existed; He is abundantly attested to in early historical sources. No reputable scholar, academic, or historian denies the historical fact Jesus existed.

We also know the brother of Jesus existed, through historical records. James’ martyrdom wasn’t just recorded in Christian sources (Hegesippus) but by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus.



In his book Antiquities of the Jews 20.200, Josephus wrote:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.”


JOSEPHUS GIVES US A NICE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WE READ IN THE GOSPELS, ACTS AND EPISTLES OF PAUL. <<<<

Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). The confirmation from Josephus is one reason that even most skeptical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical figure.

Anyone have any evidence for Zeus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

+1

Just another supernatural story.

Jesus exited. Did Hansel and Gretel? Rumplestiltskin? Zeus?

A man named Jesus probably lived.
Hansel, Gretel, and Rumplestiltskin were fictional characters created by men in recent time.
A man named Zeus may have existed as well but that goes farther back in ancient times.

Spoiler: none had super powers.

We know Jesus existed; He is abundantly attested to in early historical sources. No reputable scholar, academic, or historian denies the historical fact Jesus existed.

We also know the brother of Jesus existed, through historical records. James’ martyrdom wasn’t just recorded in Christian sources (Hegesippus) but by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus.



In his book Antiquities of the Jews 20.200, Josephus wrote:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.”


JOSEPHUS GIVES US A NICE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WE READ IN THE GOSPELS, ACTS AND EPISTLES OF PAUL. <<<<

Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). The confirmation from Josephus is one reason that even most skeptical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical figure.

No need to hash this all out again. As discussed on numerous threads, he probably existed. We just have extremely limited records due to the time period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

Agnostics don't assume anything for certain. It is the actual dictionary definition of agnosticism: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty. They do not assume that there is a god or "supernaturalism" as you put it, and they do not assume that there isn't. The only ones making assumptions on this are atheists and theists.

We’re talking specifically how the universe was formed here, not beliefs in gods.

Theists have supernatural explanations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

+1

Just another supernatural story.

Jesus exited. Did Hansel and Gretel? Rumplestiltskin? Zeus?

A man named Jesus probably lived.
Hansel, Gretel, and Rumplestiltskin were fictional characters created by men in recent time.
A man named Zeus may have existed as well but that goes farther back in ancient times.

Spoiler: none had super powers.

We know Jesus existed; He is abundantly attested to in early historical sources. No reputable scholar, academic, or historian denies the historical fact Jesus existed.

We also know the brother of Jesus existed, through historical records. James’ martyrdom wasn’t just recorded in Christian sources (Hegesippus) but by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus.



In his book Antiquities of the Jews 20.200, Josephus wrote:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.”


JOSEPHUS GIVES US A NICE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WE READ IN THE GOSPELS, ACTS AND EPISTLES OF PAUL. <<<<

Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). The confirmation from Josephus is one reason that even most skeptical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical figure.

No need to hash this all out again. As discussed on numerous threads, he probably existed. We just have extremely limited records due to the time period.

We know He existed, if you don’t find the facts compelling, that’s your mistake.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure and dismiss denials of his existence as a fringe theory.

[Anonymous]

I believe atheist wokeism absolutely meets the Websters dictionary definition of a religion. It's a set of beliefs, deeply held, about what's right and wrong (sin). Could make a list of commandments for it sure