Christopher Hitchens: Lite Fare for the Uninformed

[Pwns]

houndawg, prove to me that Plato and Aristotle existed. Prove to me that Cleopatra existed. Prove to me that Shakespeare existed. If we are going to use that standard for Jesus' existence, might as well do that with a lot of other famous people from history.

[SeattleGriz]

Are you saying Jesus, the Man, never existed in addition to your belief he was a recycled myth?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Dude. I'm typing as slow as I can. I said that the death and resurrection theme was quite common in religion and was around long before Jesus. If he ever was around. All the evidence that he did exist is no better than second-hand and usually farther than that. If you have a first hand account from somebody who actually saw this alleged person by all means share it with us.

Was a simple yes or no question. I had to ask, as there is ample evidence Jesus, the man, existed.

I just find it laughable all your sources are so shoddy. Your stance would be much more believable if you had some scholarly references from those actually educated in the fields.

That is what I have been driving at with my questions. I had never heard the recycled sun god myth outside of this board. My point being that if your claims had any veracity, they would be more mainstream and less foil hat variety.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[D1B]

houndawg, prove to me that Plato and Aristotle existed. Prove to me that Cleopatra existed. Prove to me that Shakespeare existed. If we are going to use that standard for Jesus' existence, might as well do that with a lot of other famous people from history.

There are no first hand accounts of the savior of the world.

[D1B]

Dude. I'm typing as slow as I can. I said that the death and resurrection theme was quite common in religion and was around long before Jesus. If he ever was around. All the evidence that he did exist is no better than second-hand and usually farther than that. If you have a first hand account from somebody who actually saw this alleged person by all means share it with us.

Was a simple yes or no question. I had to ask, as there is ample evidence Jesus, the man, existed.

I just find it laughable all your sources are so shoddy. Your stance would be much more believable if you had some scholarly references from those actually educated in the fields.

That is what I have been driving at with my questions. I had never heard the recycled sun god myth outside of this board. My point being that if your claims had any veracity, they would be more mainstream and less foil hat variety.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

And Ill ask, what evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Lets see it.

[∞∞∞]

There's not much doubt among scientists that Jesus existed. He's referenced in a lot of non-Christian sources in the century he lived, from Roman to Babylonian. A simple wiki search would show this.

[kalm]

houndawg, prove to me that Plato and Aristotle existed. Prove to me that Cleopatra existed. Prove to me that Shakespeare existed. If we are going to use that standard for Jesus' existence, might as well do that with a lot of other famous people from history.

There are no first hand accounts of the savior of the world.

And if I'm not mistaken, Plato and Aristotle didn't claim to be the son of god.

[D1B]

There's not much doubt among scientists that Jesus existed. He's referenced in a lot of non-Christian sources in the century he lived, from Roman to Babylonian. A simple wiki search would show this.

Yeah sure, but no first hand accounts, for the savior of all humanity.

[houndawg]

There's not much doubt among scientists that Jesus existed. He's referenced in a lot of non-Christian sources in the century he lived, from Roman to Babylonian. A simple wiki search would show this.

Yeah sure, but no first hand accounts, for the savior of all humanity.

Nope, nary a one.

[JoltinJoe]

There's not much doubt among scientists that Jesus existed. He's referenced in a lot of non-Christian sources in the century he lived, from Roman to Babylonian. A simple wiki search would show this.

Yeah sure, but no first hand accounts, for the savior of all humanity.

[∞∞∞]

Yeah sure, but no first hand accounts, for the savior of all humanity.

Nope, nary a one.

Isn't the Bible a collection of first-hand accounts, albeit highly dramatized ones?

[D1B]

Nope, nary a one.

Isn't the Bible a collection of first-hand accounts, albeit highly dramatized ones?

No, it's not.

[D1B]

Was a simple yes or no question. I had to ask, as there is ample evidence Jesus, the man, existed.

I just find it laughable all your sources are so shoddy. Your stance would be much more believable if you had some scholarly references from those actually educated in the fields.

That is what I have been driving at with my questions. I had never heard the recycled sun god myth outside of this board. My point being that if your claims had any veracity, they would be more mainstream and less foil hat variety.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

And Ill ask, what evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Lets see it.

[YoUDeeMan]

Nope, nary a one.

Isn't the Bible a collection of first-hand accounts, albeit highly dramatized ones?

Well, sure...if you consider Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek series a first-hand account of interplanetary travel.

[houndawg]

Nope, nary a one.

Isn't the Bible a collection of first-hand accounts, albeit highly dramatized ones?

not even second hand. If there were Joe would have written a post that would make t-man and JSO both look like the souls of brevity.

[JoltinJoe]

Not really. I just don't particularly care to debate the topic.

If you think Jesus did not exist, fine. All historians disagree with you, but you're entitled to your thoughts.

If you think it matters whether the Gospels are first-hand accounts, or second-hand, or third-hand accounts, good for you. I think the Gospels derive from statements of witnesses, passed down orally until written in the later First Century.

I am most interested in the Gospel of John, because if you read it carefully, it does shed light on who the sources for many aspects of the about the Crucifixion accounts: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who later converted to Christianity after the Resurrection, and were witnesses to the trial of Jesus. The story about the woman at the well -- only that woman could be the source. The woman about to be stoned for adultery. She was the source. The story about the Wedding at Cana -- Mary is the source.

In other words, these stories come from people who encountered Jesus while living and became followers of Christianity.

[D1B]

Not really. I just don't particularly care to debate the topic.

If you think Jesus did not exist, fine. All historians disagree with you, but you're entitled to your thoughts.

If you think it matters whether the Gospels are first-hand accounts, or second-hand, or third-hand accounts, good for you. I think the Gospels derive from statements of witnesses, passed down orally until written in the later First Century.

I am most interested in the Gospel of John, because if you read it carefully, it does shed light on who the sources for many aspects of the about the Crucifixion accounts: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who later converted to Christianity after the Resurrection, and were witnesses to the trial of Jesus. The story about the woman at the well -- only that woman could be the source. The woman about to be stoned for adultery. She was the source. The story about the Wedding at Cana -- Mary is the source.

In other words, these stories come from people who encountered Jesus while living and became followers of Christianity.

Just like Greek or Roman mythology, Joe.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of other, lesser people who lived at the same time.

One would think the savior of the world, god incarnate, would have at least more than one, and he doesn't have that.

[JoltinJoe]

Not really. I just don't particularly care to debate the topic.

If you think Jesus did not exist, fine. All historians disagree with you, but you're entitled to your thoughts.

If you think it matters whether the Gospels are first-hand accounts, or second-hand, or third-hand accounts, good for you. I think the Gospels derive from statements of witnesses, passed down orally until written in the later First Century.

I am most interested in the Gospel of John, because if you read it carefully, it does shed light on who the sources for many aspects of the about the Crucifixion accounts: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus ben Gurion. Both were members of the Sanhedrin who later converted to Christianity after the Resurrection, and were witnesses to the trial of Jesus. The story about the woman at the well -- only that woman could be the source. The woman about to be stoned for adultery. She was the source. The story about the Wedding at Cana -- Mary is the source.

In other words, these stories come from people who encountered Jesus while living and became followers of Christianity.

Just like Greek or Roman mythology, Joe.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of other, lesser people who lived at the same time.

One would think the savior of the world, god incarnate, would have at least more than one, and he doesn't have that.

So, is your point that you don't think Jesus existed because you say there no "eyewitness accounts" written by the eyewitnesses themselves (because there are many, many eyewitness accounts transcribed by others)?

Historians don't doubt the fact of Jesus' existence.

[D1B]

Just like Greek or Roman mythology, Joe.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of other, lesser people who lived at the same time.

One would think the savior of the world, god incarnate, would have at least more than one, and he doesn't have that.

So, is your point that you don't think Jesus existed because you say there no "eyewitness accounts" written by the eyewitnesses themselves (because there are many, many eyewitness accounts transcribed by others)?

Historians don't doubt the fact of Jesus' existence.

It's one of many reasons.

[youngterrier]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God. Empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive. Uncertainty and changing one's opinion when evidence arises is a key element of this methodology. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

By default anyone, who tries to ~prove~ God's existence is using some form of empiricism.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

[D1B]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God when empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive, which by any standard definition of God cannot perceive God. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

Welcome back, you arrogant little fuck. Keep this shit up and you'll be grounded for another 8 months.

Hitchens would wipe his ass with your smart mouth. He's forgot more about belief than you'll ever know.

[JoltinJoe]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God when empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive, which by any standard definition of God cannot perceive God. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

I need a translation into English.

Seriously, run-on sentences make my head hurt.

I've never been accused of being an empiricist before. And since I have repeatedly argued that our knowledge and belief about God derives from experience beyond what we tangibly encounter or sense, either you don't know what the word "empiricism" means, or you don't understand what I've been saying.

My point has always been that empiricism is flawed because we do not perceive all reality or truth.

[∞∞∞]

YT's post just went way over my head. It sounds smart, but I'm too simple to understand if it actually is.

[youngterrier]

this conversation sucks.

Hitchens wasn't perfect. He's good at history and enlightenment-esque philosophy, but the problems he had with criticizing religion were not what Joe here makes it out to be.

I apologize for being a dick about this issue in the past, as I have "adjusted" my position (more than slightly), but I still disagree with Joe on a lot of things.

The fact is, and don't take this for a personal attack, is that Joe seems to have this issue with non-believers that he seems to want to insult them or bring up the conversation to attack them. It's rather boring, because his arguments presuppose a sort of empiricism to verify the existence of God when empiricism is inherently an atheist methodology of verification as its based in uncertainty and the physical world or the world we can perceive, which by any standard definition of God cannot perceive God. If we were to quantify God "empirically" he or she would be reduced to a method of nature, like gravity, and that wouldn't really be God would it? At least not by standard definition.

Hegel's conceptualization of God in my opinion is the only one that makes sense or is possible (it's better than Spinoza's). The social and political implications of such a God are a lot better than the common theistic conceptualization.

For Christ sake, let's not use teleology as "proof" because that's totally subjective/hermenuetical.

Joe, like Hitch, has no understanding of how belief in the human mind works. Read Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, they're much more knowledgeable on the subject.

I need a translation into English.

Seriously, run-on sentences make my head hurt.

I've never been accused of being an empiricist before. And since I have repeatedly argued that our knowledge and belief about God derives from experience beyond what we tangibly encounter or sense, either you don't know what the word "empiricism" means, or you don't understand what I've been saying.

My point has always been that empiricism is flawed because we do not perceive all reality or truth.

1) Your elitism is showing, literally no one gives a shit about run on sentences.

2) You may say you're not an empiricist, but your arguments say otherwise. Appealing to evidence from the natural world to prove a point by definition is somewhat of an empirical approach. Modern philosophy (or rather post-modern) doesn't care much for the argument from sense-perception. The concept of God has long been conceded to be beyond that by any philosopher, and thus the concept has been explored more from a hermeneutic approach as a means to reflect on culture.

3) Your posting implies that the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven via classical philosophy, such as Paley and others, but I don't buy that as I feel that the scientific and philosophical works of the enlightenment kind of discredited that perspective. In the same way, post-enlightenment philosophy has pretty much expanded upon epistemology and fields coinciding with it to point out the total absurdity of arguing for God's existence.

You may say that you don't uphold those beliefs, but your actions don't reflect that.

[youngterrier]

I made one run on sentence, and if you can't figure out the message conveyed that's your fault not mine.

Jesus.

[Ibanez]

There are no first hand accounts of the savior of the world.

And if I'm not mistaken, Plato and Aristotle didn't claim to be the son of god.

That isn't his point. Try again.