Dear Jesus: A letter to Jesus from a nonbeliever

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Ahhh, but I wrote: "I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed" And not: "I can feel Jesus so therefore he actually existed" Do you acknowledge the difference between making a belief universal as opposed to keeping it personal?

I know you excel at arguing over wordings, but how you word your argument is really irrelevant. Regardless of your reasoning, if you claim Jesus was an actual person, you're in the wrong due to facts I went into in another thread. If you're looking for a pat on the back for finding a clever re-wording, more power to you. Here: you get a super-rare Zhavric smiley. If you're looking to go the next three pages of this thread arguing over the meaning of "is", well... I'm not going to be your Bill Clinton.

But see the problem in that? Someone trying to make their personal belief a universal truth. It contradicts what makes that kind of person that way in the first place.

I call that a cop-out. Look to any point in history when extremists of any type have acted out and you'll find moderates who were silenced / cowed / or just weren't brave enough to stand up to them.

That's over-generalizing again. There are some religions that specifically don't do that, but they are still religions. You've locked yourself into grouping 84% of the world into one gigantic pigeon-hole. Are you truly denying that there are exceptions to your rules?

Oh, I'm all for exceptions. All you have to do is show me the evidence. I'm open to any evidence, but no claim is immune to scrutiny. Answering an unsupported claim with another unsupported claim has no legitimacy. Thus, "I know god is real because I experienced something miraculous" doesn't hold any water.

It's like stating "Dragons are real because I can detect them on my magic dragon detector."

[xyzer]

Xyzer wanted to attack my beliefs, so I created a thread about my beliefs for him - but then he never got around to it. My beliefs are briefly explained there, if you want to read them.

Not so Captain! I just questioned your approach to criticising what you don't believe! To denigrate and spoof anothers values is not a logical convincing argument! I agreed with your subsequent rationale for your doubting the "myth of Jesus" and I asked you to propound yours beliefs?

Ok, what is your reaction to Islam as a religion? They don't have a "myth of Jesus" but they do believe in a God? What about Zorastrianism? Do you believe in the afterlife? It's not too late to write a letter to Zorastor?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: xyzer Not so Captain! I just questioned your approach to criticising what you don't believe! To denigrate and spoof anothers values is not a logical convincing argument! I agreed with your subsequent rationale for your doubting the "myth of Jesus" and I asked you to propound yours beliefs? Ok, what is your reaction to Islam as a religion? They don't have a "myth of Jesus" but they do believe in a God? What about Zorastrianism? Do you believe in the afterlife? It's not too late to write a letter to Zorastor?

I created a thread about my beliefs, just for you.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: xyzer Not so Captain! I just questioned your approach to criticising what you don't believe! To denigrate and spoof anothers values is not a logical convincing argument! I agreed with your subsequent rationale for your doubting the "myth of Jesus" and I asked you to propound yours beliefs? Ok, what is your reaction to Islam as a religion? They don't have a "myth of Jesus" but they do believe in a God? What about Zorastrianism? Do you believe in the afterlife? It's not too late to write a letter to Zorastor?

Zaharathrustra never wrote a great book, neither did his followers. He started a potent religion, but it petered out (although it still exists in relatively small numbers) because it lacked a central book, and it lacked a decent P.R. campaign.

Islam and Christianity have had awesome (but scary) P.R. campaigns.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric I know you excel at arguing over wordings, but how you word your argument is really irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant. It's the difference between me forcing my opinion on others as though it were universal, or realizing that it's based on stuff that is only evidence for me and me alone.

If someone believes Jesus existed and was divine, but they are basing that belief on their own opinion and experience and acknowledge that factual evidence doesn't agree, your argument fails.

It's not clever wording on my part; it's intelligence on the part of the believer.

Quote by: Zhavric Look to any point in history when extremists of any type have acted out and you'll find moderates who were silenced / cowed / or just weren't brave enough to stand up to them.

How about the moderates who didn't care because neither resolution would effect them?

For that matter, if their beliefs don't conform to any specific system other than on a general level, do you still think those things about them?

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, I'm all for exceptions. All you have to do is show me the evidence. I'm open to any evidence, but no claim is immune to scrutiny. Answering an unsupported claim with another unsupported claim has no legitimacy. Thus, "I know god is real because I experienced something miraculous" doesn't hold any water.

That's the problem.

The people like me that you call "moderate" have no need to convince you that God is real. We have no empirical evidence at all that can be witnessed by everyone. We believe what we believe based purely on personal experience.

The "exceptions" I wrote of are the people who know that their evidence isn't empirical. That's why I hold that you are wrong; there exist people who acknowledge the lack of empirical proof and know they can't convince people like you.

That doesn't make them right. It just makes your over-generalized claim wrong.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Zaharathrustra never wrote a great book, neither did his followers. He started a potent religion, but it petered out (although it still exists in relatively small numbers) because it lacked a central book, and it lacked a decent P.R. campaign. Islam and Christianity have had awesome (but scary) P.R. campaigns.

I am willing to admit that my comparative religion skills, a personal quest I went on 20 years ago, are a little rusty.

If I remember right, it is not the worship of a figure named Zaharathrustra... did you intend to type Zoroaster? He was more of a prophet/seeker, less of a "God" than Siddhartha. The actual diety's name would be... Ahura Mazda, with a few minor deities involved too. (And for those who are interested, it is related to the car company now owned by Ford )

The two faiths have some similarities, as Joseph Campbell points out... as do all faiths when you explore their myths. And, if I remember right, early christian leaders considered Zoroastrianism to be a threat and some of the rants used in the bible against certain christian gatherings, "churches" if you wish, were directed towards those who let themselves be influenced either by more Gnostic-like trends, or more Zoroastrian-like.

Is it the Zoroastrians who "buried" their dead in open grave sites, up on a hill, so that the elements and animals could take care of the corpses? Sounds gross to us, perhaps, by present day standards, but why would filling a body with poison and preserving this empty vessel for many, many years make any more sense, or even be more "christian?"

[Captain Chaos]

Sorry...

It was Zarathrustra, not Zaharthrustra.

It is another spelling for Zoroaster.

The three wise men were magi - Zoroastrian priests. At least, that is the myth as I understand it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai If someone believes Jesus existed and was divine, but they are basing that belief on their own opinion and experience and acknowledge that factual evidence doesn't agree, your argument fails.

All right. I know the Jews and enemies of the nazis burned the Reichstagg in the early half of the 20th century. Even though there's evidence that demonstates this to be false, the argument that goes with that evidence will always fail because personal opinion (for some reason) outweighs actual fact.

No, sir, that's not how it works. Personal opinion and experience is not greater than actual facts.

Once again, I cannot argue that you want Jesus to be real, but I am under no intellectual obligation to give your want legitimacy.

Any statement which uses personal feelings as evidence must begin and end with the speaker. Additional evidence is required for any truth claim beyond the speaker.

So, " Jesus existed and was divine based on my personal belief & experience" is not an intellectually honest statment.

How about the moderates who didn't care because neither resolution would effect them?

I still feel a mild level of animosity towards them because their worldviews are largely un-evidenced. The more zealous Christians will take the time to know their own propaganda where moderates will "pick and choose". The moderate's stance rarely passes the scrutiny of their extreme bretheren or of non-believers. Jesus doesn't JUST say, "Hey, just be good people" nor did he actually exist.

The people like me that you call "moderate" have no need to convince you that God is real. We have no empirical evidence at all that can be witnessed by everyone. We believe what we believe based purely on personal experience.

You believe what you believe because you're memetically inclined to do so.

The "exceptions" I wrote of are the people who know that their evidence isn't empirical. That's why I hold that you are wrong; there exist people who acknowledge the lack of empirical proof and know they can't convince people like you.

This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. Either your stance is that Jesus existed as an actual person or that he did not.

If you believe he existed as a person, I can prove you wrong.

If you believe he didn't exist as a person, then why would you bother calling yourself a Christian?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric No, sir, that's not how it works. Personal opinion and experience is not greater than actual facts

You're confused.

I never once said that personal opinion counters empirical fact.

I'm saying that if someone acknowledges that the two are contrary but still holds to their personal belief and keeps it personal then you really have no argument.

Quote by: Zhavric So, " Jesus existed and was divine based on my personal belief & experience" is not an intellectually honest statment.

Correct.

I never once suggested that statement. You're slightly altering what I said in order to prove a point that is not relevant. Almost like you're trying to prove you're correct just for the sake of being correct.

Quote by: Me Ahhh, but I wrote: "I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed" And not: "I can feel Jesus so therefore he actually existed"

If you're going to start an argument, make sure you actually argue what I wrote and not a tangent. I'm really not into those kind of games.

Quote by: Zhavric You believe what you believe because you're memetically inclined to do so.

Incorrect.

My belief has nothing to do with any existing meme at all. I believe what I believe because I found my own answers.

Quote by: Zhavric If you believe he existed as a person, I can prove you wrong. If you believe he didn't exist as a person, then why would you bother calling yourself a Christian?

Your own examples cite that there was more than one person alive at that time named Jesus who preached "be nice" and performed miracles.

The choices you list aren't the only two choices.

I can also believe in the message behind the stories and believe it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai You're confused. I never once said that personal opinion counters empirical fact. I'm saying that if someone acknowledges that the two are contrary but still holds to their personal belief and keeps it personal then you really have no argument.

On the contrary, you seem far more confused on this subject.

You are alleging that empirical fact CAN be evidenced by personal feelings so long as those sentiments aren't shared. I find this ridiculous. Either you hold that Jesus is a real person as alleged in the gospels or you do not. Not-so-secretly holding that he's real because you feel he's real doesn't make him real for you. It's a textbook definition of delusion, a word that I greatly dislike, but one which you have left me no choice but to employ with your statement "I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed".

"Feel" cannot evidence "actually existed" in the way you've presented them.

Incorrect. My belief has nothing to do with any existing meme at all. I believe what I believe because I found my own answers.

Click on the link to my memes thread I have in my sig, take a look at the five attributes of a meme, and understand that religion is ALL ABOUT memes.

Your own examples cite that there was more than one person alive at that time named Jesus who preached "be nice" and performed miracles.

Were attributed miracles, but none were EVER evidenced.

You statement of belief is innacurate if you believe in say, Jesus Ben Pandira.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric You are alleging that empirical fact CAN be evidenced by personal feelings so long as those sentiments aren't shared.

No, I'm not.

All I wrote was that a person is perfectly capable of believing in whatever religious doctrine they choose and knowing all the facts that contradict it. As long as that person isn't trying to imply that their person belief is the truth for everyone, they are perfectly in the right.

Quote by: Zhavric understand that religion is ALL ABOUT memes.

Religion is about memes. Having faith isn't.

Or, if you think I'm specifically religious, which religion am I?

Here's the point, written out again in the simplest language possible.

All of your facts and statistics and information do nothing but cast doubt on the doctrine of religion. It does nothing to dissuade the person who believes based on personal choice.

Or to put it another way...

You haven't conclusively proven anything. What you are presenting is purely circumstantial.

[agustine]

To Captain Chaos. With respect to your comment

"Conservative religious types indulge in absolutist thinking in ways that I find disturbing and harmful to society."

Is that statement absolutely true? If it is, do you then include yourself within the ambit of absolutists or exclude yourself? If you include yourself, then the proposition is self-defeating. If you exclude yourself then you have effectively said nothing.

Augustine

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai No, I'm not. All I wrote was that a person is perfectly capable of believing in whatever religious doctrine they choose and knowing all the facts that contradict it. As long as that person isn't trying to imply that their person belief is the truth for everyone, they are perfectly in the right.

Truth isn't subjective. It's absolute. I have no other term for what you're describing other than delusion. "I've decided this is true for me based on my feelings." What else is it?

Religion is about memes. Having faith isn't.

Faith is just another name for the memetic bond you've formed to the dogma of Christianity. You believe / have faith because you're memetically inclined to do so. Why else would an intelligent & rational human being hold to a myth of santa proportions?

All of your facts and statistics and information do nothing but cast doubt on the doctrine of religion. It does nothing to dissuade the person who believes based on personal choice.

Religion... faith... whatever you want to call it... the choices you've made are only available to you BECAUSE of the demonstrably false tale that you've been presented with.

If you want to believe in Santa, more power to you, but that doesn't make him "real to you".

[Zhavric]

Quote by: agustine With respect to your comment Is that statement absolutely true? If it is, do you then include yourself within the ambit of absolutists or exclude yourself?

Pardon me for pointing this out, but what about Captain Chaos' postings would lead you to believe he's a "Conservative religious type"? Please reference specific examples with links.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric Truth isn't subjective.

There is more than one kind of truth. If you reject that, then that aspect of the discussion is over.

Quote by: Zhavric Faith is just another name for the memetic bond you've formed to the dogma of Christianity.

Here's an example of you turning "religion" into "Christianity."

I was specifically commenting on how you presumed to tell me where my faith comes from. It is impossible for anyone but me to say that.

I'm fully aware of what memes are, and I'm telling you that what I believe does not fit into that definition.

Before you tell someone what they think and why they think it, you would do well to probably ask instead.

If you are going to insist on knowing something about me personally that you never actually read in a statement by me, then this part of the discussion is over.

Quote by: Zhavric Why else would an intelligent & rational human being hold to a myth of santa proportions?

Here's the problem with that question...

No matter what I answer, you won't accept it. You will challenge it.

When you ask a question, you shut up and accept the answer. You lack that ability, so answering you is futile. Instead of reading the answer and taking it into consideration, you'll refute it.

Don't ask questions if you're going to challenge the answer like that.

If you're going to disagree with my personal opinion on the answer to that question, then that part of the discussion is over.

Quote by: Zhavric If you want to believe in Santa, more power to you, but that doesn't make him "real to you".

Modern psychology disagrees with you.

If you aren't going to understand that it's possible for someone to believe something is true in their own little world, but also know that it is unknown for the real world, then that part of the discussion is over.

---

Quite honestly, I was stupid to think I could expect intelligent discussion from you. This is what got you banned last time... your consistent need to argue constantly.

If you aren't going to discuss, if you're going to turn it into an argument, then the only people left in this thread will be those who are stupid enough to say that their personal belief is true for the rest of the world.

You will think you're right because you think facts are the only answer to any theological discussion, but you won't consider individual beliefs and faith.

Others will think they are right because they think faith is the only answer to any theological discussion, but they won't consider the facts related to events.

In the end, it's a bunch of people arguing about the one topic that no one can ever prove, and restricting themselves to their support so that they can feel satisfied by their victory at the end of every post.

So if you're not capable of asking questions as though you actually wanted to learn about an intelligent person capable of believing in God and knowing that modern religions are myths, then I'm out.

I'll leave you to arguing so I can find a good discussion instead.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai There is more than one kind of truth. If you reject that, then that aspect of the discussion is over.

No. There isn't and no it's not. I've suspected you've had post-modernist leanings for a while now and you've just confirmed them for me.

Truth is absolute. What is true for me is true for you and what is false for me is false for you.

What you're doing here is using "truth" when you mean to state "belief". You've taken your BELIEF in Jesus and labeled it a "truth", but that's not an accurate description of what we're talking about.

"It's true that I believe X" =/= X is true.

Here's an example of you turning "religion" into "Christianity." I was specifically commenting on how you presumed to tell me where my faith comes from. It is impossible for anyone but me to say that.

"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are part of the same decaying matter as everything else."

-Fight Club

Theists like to romanticize "faith". They dislike when anyone attempts to explain it because (they feel) it challenges that romanticized image. Faith is an emotion and like any other emotion it is explainable and open for discussion. It in no way enjoys any sort of "off limits" status.

For Christians (and most theists), faith is simply a word for the memetic bond they've developed for their specific dogma.

I'm fully aware of what memes are, and I'm telling you that what I believe does not fit into that definition.

Really? That's very interesting since you've claimed to be Christian and Christianity is perhaps THE most potent / contagious meme on the planet.

Before you tell someone what they think and why they think it, you would do well to probably ask instead.

Most people are unaware of memes or how they're affected by them. This is part of how memes work. If I could walk up to someone and say a simple sentence that would destroy their emotional bond it wouldn't be a very effective meme.

Really, there isn't any explanation for Christianity EXCEPT memes, so there's no point in asking.

If you are going to insist on knowing something about me personally that you never actually read in a statement by me, then this part of the discussion is over.

Do you deny being a Christian? Do you deny the statements you made earlier in the thread when you stated you believed in Jesus? Why are you contradicting yourself?

When you ask a question, you shut up and accept the answer. You lack that ability, so answering you is futile. Instead of reading the answer and taking it into consideration, you'll refute it.

lol So, since you don't have an acceptable answer to the question, it will be my fault if I choose to point out that it's invalid / nonsensical / what-have-you?

Please.

You've painted yourself into an untenable corner. That's hardly my problem.

Won't accept the answer...lol... What a dishonest way to debate?

Don't ask questions if you're going to challenge the answer like that.

Textbook example of theistic dogma. Don't ask questions. Don't challenge the answers you're given. Just "have faith", right?

If you're going to disagree with my personal opinion on the answer to that question, then that part of the discussion is over.

If you want a way out, then simply stop posting. This is the third statement where you've mentioned ending the discussion.

Modern psychology disagrees with you. If you aren't going to understand that it's possible for someone to believe something is true in their own little world, but also know that it is unknown for the real world, then that part of the discussion is over.

Watch this:

Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: di-'lü-zh&n, dE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
2b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

While I think psychotic is a bit extreme, your allegation that modern psychology disagrees with me is false.

---

Quite honestly, I was stupid to think I could expect intelligent discussion from you.

Ad hominum. Knock it off.

This is what got you banned last time... your consistent need to argue constantly.

lol I got banned from a debate site for debating?

Look, this is neither complicated nor difficult. You've made claims. I've made claims. I'm prepared to discuss & evidence my claims. I'm prepared to discuss and challenge your claims. You don't sound willing to discuss anything anymore. While I agree that's a problem, it's certainly not mine. I was banned before for being rude. There's no rudeness here. No spite. I am not the great white devil you are trying to paint me as. I didn't even rise to your ad hom.

So discuss if you like, or do not. But don't throw false accusations at me when you're unsure of how your arguments will be received. An untenable argument on your part doesn't constitute fault on mine.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: agustine To Captain Chaos. With respect to your comment Is that statement absolutely true? If it is, do you then include yourself within the ambit of absolutists or exclude yourself? If you include yourself, then the proposition is self-defeating. If you exclude yourself then you have effectively said nothing. Augustine

Nothing I say is absolutely true. It is a nuisance to contstantly use qualifiers in every sentence. So, for future reference: I am a doubter of all things, including my own beliefs.

[Captain Chaos]

Zhav and Fonce...

Perhaps you two should start your own one-on-one thread?

[Fonceai]

This is stupid.

YOU CANNOT DEBATE RELIGION.

This is the perfect reason why...

Read my posts and read Zhavric's posts.

He is hell-bent on disproving any claim a person makes that they believe in Jesus being divine.

Hell, I actually agreed with many of his facts in this and other threads.

A discussion is where two people share opinions and ideas.

I will never debate religion because there is no answer. That's just stupid.

And Zhavric clearly can't discuss religion.

He needs to prove conclusively that Jesus never existed. It's impossible. By citing the definition of "delusion" he includes the words "indisputable evidence."

His evidence is most definitely disputable, but he won't ever accept that it is.

When someone is so thoroughly convinced that they are right, there is no discussion.

When someone is so thoroughly convinced that they are right about religion, there is no debate.

The fact that he lurks in religious threads is a testament to his ability to actually be in a real debate; he can't do it. He needs a subject that is unknown in order to insist he is right.

Not worth my time in any religious thread from this point on.