Atheism promotes Nihilism

Originally posted by Iason321

You've bought into a deception that's wide spread.

Nope.

I am not the one being deceived.

reply to post by Iason321



We can all spout walls of text all day long...

Doesn't change FACTS.

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

If you're not prepared to research and accept facts... then it's a pointless discussion.

Good luck

reply to post by blupblup


You are claiming to debunk my 60 sources I listed with 1 flimsy source claiming a lack of outside sources somehow negates the legitmacy of the New Testament,

and I am the one being deceived?

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Annee

 

Yes there is,. .

The article is written by a theologist.

Originally posted by Iason321
This is one of the main problems I see with atheism - it's an unhealthy worldview that can lead to unhealthy habits and promotes all sorts of problems in society (materialism, selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, lack of honor, lack of morals)

Depends on what kind of person you are. If this is what it led you to, then you are that kind of person. Maybe you need some kind of religion to help you be a good person?

Originally posted by Iason321
So let me ask you (specifically atheists), if your an atheist, doesn't that mean your also a nihilist? Obviously if you believe in no Creator or Deity, your life is completely purposeless, you exist for no other reason aside from obtaining treasures on earth and pleasing your flesh, and you have nothing to look forward to except death and non existence.....

I create my own purpose. I don't need some god in my life to give me purpose. That's why people turn to religion, because they NEED something like that. I don't, I can make my own. What's wrong with seeking pleasure? I like vacations. I like theme parks. I like to eat good food. I like to watch my kids play ball, etc. I also like to help others, I find pleasure in that as well.

Originally posted by Iason321
If I'm wrong, and your an upstanding citizen atheist, please explain to me your moral code, where you obtain a sense of direction and hope from, and how you don't buckle to nihilism,

Treat others like you would like to be treated. I don't need a god to do that, do you?

reply to post by blupblup


Also, I've heard all these arguments.

I've debunked all these arguments,

They hold no weight in "debunking" Christ,

they are all bunk.

Every argument an atheist can make, I've heard.

I've read Dawkins books, I've watched Hitchens videos, I've sifted through Harris's work.

It's all bunk and based on false understandings of scripture.

reply to post by Annee


Yeah, and atheists arguments are written by atheists.

Your point?

Just to add...

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish, that's cool.... fine, no worries.

But PLEASE do not try and pass off these tales, fables, parables and stories, ALL of which were products and "achievements" of men.... men who wrote it all down.... and then left bits out, and changed bits, as FACTS.

Because they are not facts.


Believe whatever you like, that's cool.

But that's all it is... a belief.

reply to post by Hydroman


You claim you don't need God,

But you're on here seeking Him daily,

Why is that?

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by blupblup

 

Also, I've heard all these arguments.

I've debunked all these arguments,

They hold no weight in "debunking" Christ,

they are all bunk.

Obviously you've made up your mind from writings you choose to agree with.

Try reading some real factual history.

reply to post by Iason321




Sorry what?

You've Debunked FACTS.... facts that the books were chopped and changed and written YEARS, CENTURIES after.

That's not possible.

As I said, read the thread I linked.


I'm not going to debate..... I'll get more joy and sense from banging my head against a wall.

reply to post by blupblup


No, they weren't.

You can't prove they were either, you're believing in lies.

reply to post by Annee


I read real factual history daily,

Am I missing something?

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Annee

 

Yeah, and atheists arguments are written by atheists.

Your point?

Real Facts are Real Facts.

Keep digging. It took me 20 years.

reply to post by Annee


I've dug and dug.

It all boils down to faith in the end, both sides make excellent arguments.

Dawkins "The God Delusion" and some of his videos on youtube brought me to question my faith in the past, and if I were to have stopped after hearing only his arguments, I'd probably be an atheist today. (actually, I'd be dead, because without God I was a dead man, multiple times over)

It took examining both sides of the fence very closely for me to come to my current beliefs,

and I will never change my stance, until the day I die. God willing.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Hydroman

 

You claim you don't need God,

But you're on here seeking Him daily,

Why is that?

I'm seeking god? I'm seeking truth. If there is a god, I would like to meet him. But, I'm doing just fine without a god...

You guys claim that gods exist, so I want to know if this is true. I feel the same way about aliens. I read those threads too. Am I seeking aliens?

Originally posted by Iason321
It all boils down to faith in the end, both sides make excellent arguments.

That's what I found out as well in my searching. Then I realized that faith is NEVER a good reason to believe something as fact. Otherwise, all gods ever believed in via faith would be true.

reply to post by Hydroman


Logically it all boils down to faith.

Realistically it boils down to faith combined with personal experience and events that shape your beliefs and worldview.

Ive got lots of both,

Apparently you've never had the experiences, I'm sorry for that....keep seeking, you'll find Truth.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Annee

 

I've dug and dug.

It all boils down to faith in the end, both sides make excellent arguments.

Cop out answer.

You don't want the truth in facts.

Originally posted by Iason321
Logically it all boils down to faith.

Realistically it boils down to faith combined with personal experience and events that shape your beliefs and worldview.

Ive got lots of both,

Apparently you've never had the experiences, I'm sorry for that....keep seeking, you'll find Truth.

When Muslims put faith in their beliefs, and have experiences to go with it, are they justified in believing that what they believe is truth, just as you are? Same thing with Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, JW's, etc.?