What do athiests think happened 2009 years ago?

[naughty]

I believe possessing a symmetrical but short thick penis is proof enough for me to believe that I was created by God in her image in my ma's womb and Satan (the fallen angel) caused my folks to have me circumcized instead of having an intact, albeit Christ Like, stinky dick.

Uh, as a man of Jewish descent Christ above all would have been circumsized as a sign of being set apart. So in some ways you are in his image...

 

[B_Just Joe]

i for one am very surprised and yet proud at the same time that this has not degenrated into the usual jackassery and name calling normally found in a thread of this nature (aside from the OP not-so-subtle smugness). Myself i am an agnostic. I believe highly in science even though it a continuously changing thing. but also as a man of science i cannot discount the existance of a higher being or "God" in this case. I do believe Jesus existed as a real person however the hell long ago it was but like all religous text (and i apologize to those im about to offend in a moment) are HIGHLY inaccurate. History has shown as well as human behavior that when we as a people cant or dont understand something we tend to be fearful of it and try to rationalize it, coming up with our own explanations. Look back at what we used to think lightning was. It may vary from culture to culture but it all comes down to the same thing: we made up a story about it to quell or fears and make it less scary. And the best way to do that is to personify it. make it seem more human in someway that we can understand.

so yes i believe jesus was a real man. i believe he had some radical ideas that alot of people and oppressed masses agreed with because it sounded better than what their lives were. but i do not believe in the virgin birth or most of the "miracles" mentioned in the bible. Jesus was more like a man of incredible charisma that could hold the minds of people. He was also more than likely a good man that taught how people to simply be better people. I think somewhere down the line people started venerating him and thats when alot of the stories grew about him. he became more than a man.

now ive rambled on for FAR too long and those that read this whole thing i am grateful you have. and those ive offended i apologize.

one last note though. why is it people like myself (agnostics, scientists etc) are ok with letting people believe what they wish but those of faith will not let us have our own beliefs? just something to think about.

 

[dolfette]

Interesting. :yup: It seems there are as many types of atheists and/or reasons for being atheist as there are grains of sand on the beach. Not sure why that surprises me but it does. I guess I thought atheists were sort of an anti-religion group with core beliefs which were not God, Yahweh, Allah, or Buddha centered.

christians actually have a book to tell them what to believe...yet there are thousands of different sects and subsects.

athiests don't have a book. they aren't even a group. they have in common only one thing...that their belief in non-belief in god as most people see it. outside that, there are millions of variations.

 

[Mem]

The sun rose and the sun set and a year passed, that is what they believe.

 

[Incocknito]

The reasons I don't believe in A God / Creator:

1. There have been thousands if not millions of different religions and deities throughout history (each with their own slightly different Creation stories)

2. Many, many religions predate Christianity. If one religion were to be true then I think the first one would be and if it isn't then surely all religions thereafter are copycats of the ones that came before? Put another way, if the first religion is made up, what makes you think any of the subsequent ones would suddenly be 'real'?

FYI the first religion is generally seen as Prehistoric man's religion. Aboriginies believe the world was created in the Dreamtime and that every living thing is possessed of a spirit eg Emu Man, Tree Man, etc.

3. For example, many Roman gods were 'borrowed' from the Greeks eg Poseidon/Neptune, Aries/Mars.

4. There are other Messaianic figures throughout history, usually they were charlatans or 'faith healers'.

5. Prayer has been proven not to work

6. Evolution makes sense

7. If there is a God, he has killed many of his followers when churches have been set on fire or struck by earthquakes, etc. It seems a bit...counter productive.

8. Concepts of heaven and all other major religious 'selling points' are present in every single culture that has ever existed. For example, Native Americans believed in the Great Hunting Ground, a place where they would hunt in the afterlife and never run out of game. Consequently, you couldn't go to The Great Hunting Ground if you had been scalped. This is why they scalped settlers/invaders.

9. Paedophile Priests. Its sick and its wrong. Why would a God allow some of his most 'dedicated' followers to commit such sick crimes. 10% of the clergy (at least) are paedophiles.

Note that all my reasons are prefectly logical and based on verifiable facts.

Not based on supernatural and subjective concepts such as faith and belief.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

People had enough thought process' to start counting?

 

[Bbucko]

Interesting. :yup: It seems there are as many types of atheists and/or reasons for being atheist as there are grains of sand on the beach. Not sure why that surprises me but it does. I guess I thought atheists were sort of an anti-religion group with core beliefs which were not God, Yahweh, Allah, or Buddha centered.

Not at all. People who have considered mainstream western religions carefully before rejecting them (as opposed to the petulant types who think that bad times are "punishment" for unknown deeds and just get huffy and resentful) usually form their own core beliefs based on individual experience and observation. They are not usually "joiners"; I know I'm sure not.

I'm no expert on Buddhism, but I believe that "Buddha" refers to an enlightened being generally and not one man specifically. And although Buddhists believe that certain people have found true faith and enlightenment, they are considered teachers by example rather than idols to be worshiped: venerated, yes, worshiped, no.

There are also millions and millions of polytheistic Hindus in the world, and they don't merit so much as a mention in this thread. I think that the main reason for that is because monotheists seem to believe that their beliefs are somehow more "evolved", which is more cultural chauvinism than anything else. This exclusion is especially strange to me because the Vedas are widely recognized as the oldest body of religious documents to have survived (with hat tips to Sumerian and Egyptian texts, which are poorly understood and cannot be properly interpreted as the religions they represent have been dead for millennia).

 

[kalipygian]

please tell us how and when.

There are no contemporary historical references to Jesus. There is a reference to Christians by Tacitus in the context of their being blamed for the great fire of Rome in 64 AD. It says that Jesus was reported to have been executed during the principate of Tiberius in the province of Judea, under the procurator Pontius Pilate.

The references incorporated in the Bible are not closer than fourth hand, and are mostly mythology. No one can possibly know what out of what is attributed to him he actually said.

 

[Enid]

Hey sweet_ass,

I have Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces in PDF format, if you'd like me to send it to you so you can preview it just lemme know via PM!

 

[Pendlum]

One thing I always wondered about religion is why must we make prophets into something "more" than mere humans? Can't we just accept their wisdom without worshiping them as deities? Doesn't calling Jesus the "son of god" because of his insight infer that we as human beings are unable to ever be as wise? Does this not lessen our faith in our own abilities as mere mortals? And why haven't other wise people become gods? Current western civilization owes a lot to many great people throughout history, but we do not pray to Socrates, Da Vinci, Pasteur or others like them.

Christians believe that humans are inherently tainted by the original sin. That being Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Although Adam didn't do it, children still come from women therefore are affected. So you must give yourself to God/Jesus to absolve yourself of this sin. I personally find it degrading as a human.

As for 2009 years ago, don't know. And I don't care unless it could be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I don't trust what the bible has to say. I don't see how anyone can trust the bible when it's just a bunch of cherry picked stories. There are so many books that were not allowed because how they portrayed this or that wrong. How can you trust that? I can't.

I'm athiest, and not agnostic, because I think the idea of a conscious higher power is absurd. It cannot be proven and cannot be disproved. That is what they bank on.

And contrary to popular belief athiesm isn't connected with science. Science hasn't disproved a god, so becoming athiest because of science is ignorant.

 

[B_Hung Jon]

Interesting. :yup: It seems there are as many types of atheists and/or reasons for being atheist as there are grains of sand on the beach. Not sure why that surprises me but it does. I guess I thought atheists were sort of an anti-religion group with core beliefs which were not God, Yahweh, Allah, or Buddha centered.

Just to make a comment. Buddha is not considered a "god" in Buddhism. In fact by most definitions, he would be considered an atheist. Buddha is the man who woke up. That's what his name means. Also Buddhism doesn't have a belief in the supernatural.

 

[Mem]

If you thought that you were making your way
To where the puzzles and pagans lay
I'll put it together:
It's a strange invitation

 

[B_bi_mmf]

And contrary to popular belief athiesm isn't connected with science. Science hasn't disproved a god, so becoming athiest because of science is ignorant.

I disagree. You are correct that science hasn't disproved a god, but there is still a major connection as I see it. Religion developed in an attempt to understand the world around us, to impose some structure on it. Science has given us an understanding of how eclipses occur, of disease processes, and of countless other things that have puzzled people in the past. For me, scientific understanding renders religion ever more outmoded and silly, so that science is intimately connected to my atheism.

As for what I think happened 2009 years ago, to be perfectly frank, not much of note.

 

[simcha]

Q. What do athiests think happened 2009 years ago?

A. The same thing that happened 2009 years plus 1 day ago. Nothing special.

 

[D_Kay_Sarah_Sarah]

I believe there is something responsible for all of us, not so much one man/thing but a series of events known as evolution. What that started from is anyone guess because well, nobody was there in the beginning to see where we originated from.

Also our calendar doesn't hold much reference to where we are in our line of evolution. We all know there were people and living creatures BC so why isn't that time included?

 

[AquaEyes11010]

What I meant by my post is that I currently do not believe that there is a god. However, being a person who bases his opinions on evidence and facts, if there was to be a person who performed truly magical feats before me that had no scientific explanations (such as those ascribed to Jesus and other religious personalities), then I might begin to question my previous beliefs. Since such a possibility seems to me ridiculously remote, I am content in my belief that there is no god. And since no one has yet offered any "proof" of god to me that I cannot explain away more easily scientifically, I am for all intents and purposes an Atheist.

I don't see how being an atheist goes against scientific reasoning, and I'm not sure how you can even bring science into it at all. How can you make a hypothesis out of god? What sorts of predictions can you make based on a theory that god exists? It seems the very nature of science is to come up with non-god explanations of all our observations, and these explanations (theories) make predictions that are correct on repeated experiments.

The statement "there is an omnipotent being" is not falsifiable so I don't see the use in even considering it. The only use of claiming to not be a "true atheist" is to avoid arguments with people that claim you are not being open-minded about the question of god. :tongue:

 

[AquaEyes11010]

My personal opinion is that clear truth backed by evidence needs less defense than religious belief. Fervent Christians must indoctrinate their children and edit out anything offering contradictory theories in the hopes that the religion will "stick" long enough to become ingrained.

I have a roommate who was originally on the verge of an argument anytime I watched an television program about the evolution of humans (or evolution in general or anything else which discussed an ancient earth) but who has mellowed enough to confess that his years in Catholic school gave him a foundation of belief which would be shattered if he simply accepted what I believe as truth, and he has found comfort in his religious teachings that he does not wish to be without by abandoning them.

Perhaps the ease with which non-religious explanations of life and this planet were formed and continued can be taught, alongside copious evidence, similarly engenders vulnerability in those who were taught religion as the be-all and end-all explanation. Perhaps people don't want to lose the feeling that everything their parents told them was true, even if they start to realize it isn't. That Atheists can be happy and content is a threat to the insecurely religious.

Additionally, religions are "clubs." Christianity has been all about "spreading the word" since the beginning. Atheists are for the most part not organized, since by definition they are merely rejecting the notion of religion. It's easy to get a "club" together of people who believe the same set of rules, but that doesn't mean the non-members are automatically in another "club."

I know this is going to sound derogatory, but I'm being honest about my own beliefs. Personally, I think that the lack of a god is true, and religion is just a bunch of B.S. that got sold over time. I look at those who believe in god the way I look at children who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny -- "aw, how cute...you really do think there is one." I don't think it's up to me to destroy their beliefs as long as they're kept personal and not forced upon me. If a god-believer were to challenge my beliefs, however, I take off the gloves. I will not get vicious, but I will not hold back on sharing what I know to be facts about science and about the histories of religions that I've learned, despite any destruction of false security he or she may have.

I was reading God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchins as my train book for a while, ironically around Easter last year. A woman sat on the train next to me and took it upon herself to try to educate me on the errors of my ways by not believing in god and Jesus. She wanted me to come to her church to be saved. I could go into detail about how the rest of that train ride went on (a completely civilized discussion between two strangers for almost half an hour), but this post is already too long. I wondered why she felt it was ok to challenge my beliefs because of my book, and if it would be just as ok for her to have the same discussion with someone reading the Koran or in obvious Orthodox Jewish attire. Somehow, Christians trying to save Atheists is not as offensive as Christians trying to save believers in other religions.

one last note though. why is it people like myself (agnostics, scientists etc) are ok with letting people believe what they wish but those of faith will not let us have our own beliefs? just something to think about.

 

[Principessa]

Just to make a comment. Buddha is not considered a "god" in Buddhism. In fact by most definitions, he would be considered an atheist. Buddha is the man who woke up. That's what his name means. Also Buddhism doesn't have a belief in the supernatural.

I stand corrected. :redface:

Not at all. People who have considered mainstream western religions carefully before rejecting them (as opposed to the petulant types who think that bad times are "punishment" for unknown deeds and just get huffy and resentful) usually form their own core beliefs based on individual experience and observation. They are not usually "joiners"; I know I'm sure not.

I'm no expert on Buddhism, but I believe that "Buddha" refers to an enlightened being generally and not one man specifically. And although Buddhists believe that certain people have found true faith and enlightenment, they are considered teachers by example rather than idols to be worshiped: venerated, yes, worshiped, no.

There are also millions and millions of polytheistic Hindus in the world, and they don't merit so much as a mention in this thread. I think that the main reason for that is because monotheists seem to believe that their beliefs are somehow more "evolved", which is more cultural chauvinism than anything else. This exclusion is especially strange to me because the Vedas are widely recognized as the oldest body of religious documents to have survived (with hat tips to Sumerian and Egyptian texts, which are poorly understood and cannot be properly interpreted as the religions they represent have been dead for millennia).

I almost put Hindu rather than Buddhist but I don't know much about it and couldn't decide which of the many Gods to list. The exclusion while intentional, was not malicious. It was unfortunately based on my own ignorance of the religion. :frown1:

Midlifebear, thanks for the fascinating narrative.

I found the Web site in question. That line got the following reply:

I see what you mean by "whackadoos." People who make fantasy a basis for belief are not likely to feel constrained by historical evidence. "The idea that Charles Darwin recanted his scientific work is comforting to me; therefore, it actually happened." Wankers.

:lmao: Aren't they a fun bunch. :biggrin1: I realize that whackadoo is neither politically nor medically correct however, I was trying to be polite, yet descriptive. I have frequently had to place myself on temporary suspension from their political forum as their rabid, conservative zealotry makes me want to beat them over the head with my rainbow sticker covered bible or better yet my dads rather heavy lifetime member plaque to the NAACP. :biggrin1:

Hey, I never said I was a good Christian. :smile:​

 

[kalipygian]

My personal opinion is that clear truth backed by evidence needs less defense than religious belief. Fervent Christians must indoctrinate their children and edit out anything offering contradictory theories in the hopes that the religion will "stick" long enough to become ingrained.

I have a roommate who was originally on the verge of an argument anytime I watched an television program about the evolution of humans (or evolution in general or anything else which discussed an ancient earth) but who has mellowed enough to confess that his years in Catholic school gave him a foundation of belief which would be shattered if he simply accepted what I believe as truth, and he has found comfort in his religious teachings that he does not wish to be without by abandoning them.

Perhaps the ease with which non-religious explanations of life and this planet were formed and continued can be taught, alongside copious evidence, similarly engenders vulnerability in those who were taught religion as the be-all and end-all explanation. Perhaps people don't want to lose the feeling that everything their parents told them was true, even if they start to realize it isn't. That Atheists can be happy and content is a threat to the insecurely religious.

Additionally, religions are "clubs." Christianity has been all about "spreading the word" since the beginning. Atheists are for the most part not organized, since by definition they are merely rejecting the notion of religion. It's easy to get a "club" together of people who believe the same set of rules, but that doesn't mean the non-members are automatically in another "club."

I know this is going to sound derogatory, but I'm being honest about my own beliefs. Personally, I think that the lack of a god is true, and religion is just a bunch of B.S. that got sold over time. I look at those who believe in god the way I look at children who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny -- "aw, how cute...you really do think there is one." I don't think it's up to me to destroy their beliefs as long as they're kept personal and not forced upon me. If a god-believer were to challenge my beliefs, however, I take off the gloves. I will not get vicious, but I will not hold back on sharing what I know to be facts about science and about the histories of religions that I've learned, despite any destruction of false security he or she may have.

I was reading God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchins as my train book for a while, ironically around Easter last year. A woman sat on the train next to me and took it upon herself to try to educate me on the errors of my ways by not believing in god and Jesus. She wanted me to come to her church to be saved. I could go into detail about how the rest of that train ride went on (a completely civilized discussion between two strangers for almost half an hour), but this post is already too long. I wondered why she felt it was ok to challenge my beliefs because of my book, and if it would be just as ok for her to have the same discussion with someone reading the Koran or in obvious Orthodox Jewish attire. Somehow, Christians trying to save Atheists is not as offensive as Christians trying to save believers in other religions.

Your roommate probably could have found a progressive priest to talk to. (JPII didn't quite get rid of them all) It was stated in the encyclical Humani Generis in the pontificate of Pius XII that the the teachings of the church and the theory of evolution were not mutually exclusive. Gregor Mendell was in holy orders.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Now here is where I contradict myself. :redface: I'm an art historian and I have no problem with the cave drawings at Lascaux in France. Clearly, these existed before the birth of Jesus Christ. Was God the Father just experimenting? I have to admit to me God has always been an omnipotent, ethereal, mystical being, yet because of my upbringing I have never doubted his existence.

Sorry if someone has picked up on this already and I missed the reply, but this paragraph really needs a "WTF?".

NJ, please explain to me how the Lascaux cave drawings contradict Christianity? Lots of things 'cleary [...] existed before the birth of Jesus Christ' - including the (arguably original) Abrahamic religion from which Christianity stems, i.e. Judaism. What's the problem (which you profess not to have) with the Lascaux cave drawings?

And if you haven't ever doubted God / God's existence then you're a rather two-dimensional Christian - even Christ doubted God / Himself. That room for doubt, that acceptance of doubt and the essential humanity of erring is one of the key parts of Christianity for me.