HardMirror:
please go ahead and mention me when you do

Thanks

hopefulLandlord:


I'll speak for him

please do

lolz! Baba no go stick neck for me make dem cut am o.

I am here. Would take his query myself, your contributions are always welcomed.
Thanks

NPComplete:


Guy u no be good person at all. LMAO

lolz!

Dalamama:


Where is the evidence to show that Jesus existed? By evidence I mean objective and irefutable evidence. We have irrefutable evidence to show that Pharoah that lived over 3000 years ago exist. Where is the irrefutable one for Jesus?

Firstly that's not irrefutable proof that Pharoah lived 3000 years ago. Irrefutable proof is absolute certainty.

Secondly there not being irrefutable proof of Jesus existence doesn't make Richard Carrier any less of an incompetent historian. His arguments for mythcism is laughed at by proffesional historians for a reason, that reason is evidence.

rekinomtla:


Firstly that's not irrefutable proof that Pharoah lived 3000 years ago. Irrefutable proof is absolute certainty.

Secondly there not being irrefutable proof of Jesus existence doesn't make Richard Carrier any less of an incompetent historian. His arguments for mythcism is laughed at by proffesional historians for a reason, that reason is evidence.

The existence of Jesus isn't based on irrefutable historical evidence so isn't a historical fact. Histirical scholarship doesn't even agree to that . There isn't a concensus on it.

Dalamama:

The existence of Jesus isn't based on irrefutable historical evidence so isn't a historical fact. Histirical scholarship doesn't even agree to that . There isn't a concensus on it.

Historians don't consider historical facts to require irrefutable proof. History deals with probability not certainty. And yes the consensus is that Jesus existed.

HardMirror:
lol! Indeed! We fools know nothing

No one is claiming to know, we are all trying to. You on the other hand are not honest to yourself. While claiming to be logical, this thread is an evidence against that.

rekinomtla:


Historians don't consider historical facts to require irrefutable proof. History deals with probability not certainty. And yes the consensus is that Jesus existed.

So there's no certainty that Jesus existed them what is the fuss about? Opinion of scholars matters not so long as there isn't certainty.

Dalamama:


So there's no certainty that Jesus existed them what is the fuss about? Opinion of scholars matters not so long as there isn't certainty.

The fuss is rejecting highly probable evidence based positions due to anti-religious bias.

Rilwayne001:


No one is claiming to know, we are all trying to. You on the other hand are not honest to yourself. While claiming to be logical, this thread is an evidence against that.

really? How am i being illogical? By not agreeing with you?

rekinomtla:


The fuss is rejecting highly probable evidence based positions due to anti-religious bias.

So God the creator of the universe came to sacrifice himself and die for humans so that theyou can achieve salvation and have a personal relationship with him and the only evidence we have is highly probable evidence which os nothing but opinion of others abi? Continue.

Dalamama:

So God the creator of the universe came to sacrifice himself and die for humans so that theyou can achieve salvation and have a personal relationship with him and the only evidence we have is highly probable evidence which os nothing but opinion of others abi? Continue.

Shifting the goalpost. Jesus historical existence is established regardless of whether one believes in the Bible. Non-christian sources even testify to his existence.

rekinomtla:


Shifting the goalpost. Jesus historical existence is established regardless of whether one believes in the Bible. Non-christian sources even testify to his existence.

Established through probability not certainty abi? There is no clear cut evidence to show that Jesus existed only them say them say hear say stories, that may or may not be true.

Dalamama:

Established through probability not certainty abi? There is no clear cut evidence to show that Jesus existed only them say them say hear say stories, that may or may not be true.

Everything in history is established through probability. Any historical textbook would tell you that. History deals with probability not certainty. You can't just make up your own rules for what qualifies as history, I know mythicists love doing thats not how it works. If you only believe things on absolute certainty then its time you drop 99% of your beliefs about science, history and philosophy.

However since you insisting certainty is required how about you give me a few examples of ancient historical figures you are absolutely certain exists.

rekinomtla:


Everything in history is established through probability. Any historical textbook would tell you that. History deals with probability not certainty. You can't just make up your own rules for what qualifies as history, I know mythicists love doing thats not how it works. If you only believe things on absolute certainty then its time you drop 99% of your beliefs about science, history and philosophy.

However since you insisting certainty is required how about you give me a few examples of ancient historical figures you are absolutely certain exists.

Of course it is agreed that every history is established through probability and not certainty... Its just sounds funny that even the "fact" that the creator sent his son to die for mankind and this is the only way all creations can be saved from eternal damnation is also established through probability and not certainty.

We are jumping from a historical even to an act of an all knowing creator... Yet we are are not jumping from uncertainty to certainty.

I mean if I decide not to believe Hitler ever lived since this history is established through probability and uncertainty, life goes on and its cool. But if I refuse to accept Jesus died for mankind despite it also being established through probability and uncertainty I will be condemned forever by the creator...

Me think its either the creator missed out something in this process or its all pure hogwash.

frank317:

Of course it is agreed that every history is established through probability and not certainty...

You athiest friend disagrees.

Its just sounds funny that even the "fact" that the creator sent his son to die for mankind and this is the only way all creations can be saved from eternal damnation is also established through probability and not certainty.

It sounds funny for you just like atheism sounds funny for me. That's your subjective opinion. Knowledge doesn't require certainty. You can know plenty of things without being absolutely certain.

We are jumping from a historical even to an act of an all knowing creator... Yet we are are not jumping from uncertainty to certainty.

And why would we have to be absolutely certain? Sounds like you just stating your opinion.

I mean if I decide not to believe Hitler ever lived since this history is established through probability and uncertainty, life goes on and its cool. But if I refuse to accept Jesus died for mankind despite it also being established through probability and uncertainty I will be condemned forever by the creator...Me think its either the creator missed out something in this process or its all pure hogwash.

So what would make you absolutely certain that Jesus is who he claimed to be?

rekinomtla:


You athiest friend disagrees.

Not really.

It sounds funny for you just like atheism sounds funny for me. That's your subjective opinion. Knowledge doesn't require certainty. You can know plenty of things without being absolutely certain.

And why would we have to be absolutely certain? Sounds like you just stating your opinion.

Sounds to me like this whole Jesus and God thingy is a matter of opinion to u. Its not about the truth or fact. Isn't this what this what we have been saying all these while. Now I wonder what we are arguing for or about

So what would make you absolutely certain that Jesus is who he claimed to be?

I think God should have thought of this before making the mistake of allowing an important event like the dying of his son a matter of opinion, probability and uncertainty. I must say I am disappointed in this so call all knowing every every.

rekinomtla:


Everything in history is established through probability. Any historical textbook would tell you that. History deals with probability not certainty. You can't just make up your own rules for what qualifies as history, I know mythicists love doing thats not how it works. If you only believe things on absolute certainty then its time you drop 99% of your beliefs about science, history and philosophy.

However since you insisting certainty is required how about you give me a few examples of ancient historical figures you are absolutely certain exists.

We are not talking about other historical figures. I find it absurd that the alleged creator of the universe came to planet earth to kill himself and sacrifice himself for humanity so that he can be in a personal relationship with them and the only evidence is he said, she said historical probability. That is completely absurd.

HardMirror:
With sincerity and delight i want to congratulate my dear muslim brothers and sisters. Home and abroad for another Eid Allah as granted us to be part of. Eid Mubarak!

And to our noble brethren in far away Meccah who are on hajj. May allah count it as ibahdah for them.

Hajj is a time to be tuned with Almighty Allah. And one of the rites is the popular stoning of the devil.

it is heart breaking and sad to see christians, atheists and unbelievers, infidels if you choose to call them that,... all laughing at the millions of faithfuls that are caring out this sacred act of pelting the devil with pebbles.
This is no joking matter. This is a serious act which calls for our solemn reflection and thoughts.


Many among those stoning the devil are DOCTORS, LAWYERS, SCIENTISTS, PROFFESORS, intellectuals, leaders, oldmen and women!


This should be a lesson that stvpidity has no age limit or profession or any boundaries.

Anyone can be fooolish.

This is an act that should instead remind us that majority are not always right. That you have christian scientists that believe in the rubbish in the bible, does not mean they are right.

Logic and only logic can save humanity from the fooolishness that comes with religion.


Think about this.

Some of you called athiest are simply athiest by the state of the mind and not by knowledge.

I am from Muslim background and I feel, I understand this perspective better than the op. The scientist , lawyers and professors stoning in the jammarat are not foolish or gullible as the op thinks . In fact the op seems gullible due to ignorance.


Trying to find a logic or scientific explanation to religion is not always a smart idea. Science is a progressive information. New evidences can prove old theory or rule may not be correct.Still, If you need a reasonable explanation to stoning of Satan, this may help:

Actions influence attitudes....we also have something similar in Atr.

check out cognitive dissonance: changing attitudes to justify behavior

"The theory of cognitive dissonance states that when people become aware that their freely chosen actions violate important or relevant attitudes, the inconsistency produces an uncomfortable state of arousal called dissonance, which motivates people to change their initial attitudes to make them consistent with their behavior. For cognitive dissonance to occur, it is important that the attitude is important and self-relevant." In psychology, actions affect attitudes or beliefs. So stoning satan is an action. Even there maybe no satan there. But you symbolically stone him. At this point your brain work like this: "I stoned satan, I can stone only bad things, So Satan is bad, and after stoning him, how can I do what Satan ask me to do."

At this point your action change your belief and you don't do sin as much as you did before.

So it better we focus on the message the rituals is trying to pass rather than the chracteristics of the ritual. If the message is poor then we should discard it but if it is for the sake of our own benefit, we should embrace it.

HardMirror:
With sincerity and delight i want to congratulate my dear muslim brothers and sisters. Home and abroad for another Eid Allah as granted us to be part of. Eid Mubarak!

And to our noble brethren in far away Meccah who are on hajj. May allah count it as ibahdah for them.

Hajj is a time to be tuned with Almighty Allah. And one of the rites is the popular stoning of the devil.

it is heart breaking and sad to see christians, atheists and unbelievers, infidels if you choose to call them that,... all laughing at the millions of faithfuls that are caring out this sacred act of pelting the devil with pebbles.
This is no joking matter. This is a serious act which calls for our solemn reflection and thoughts.


Many among those stoning the devil are DOCTORS, LAWYERS, SCIENTISTS, PROFFESORS, intellectuals, leaders, oldmen and women!


This should be a lesson that stvpidity has no age limit or profession or any boundaries.

Anyone can be fooolish.

This is an act that should instead remind us that majority are not always right. That you have christian scientists that believe in the rubbish in the bible, does not mean they are right.

Logic and only logic can save humanity from the fooolishness that comes with religion.


Think about this.

Not only logic. Sincerity and love for truth is required because one could have it all wrong even with logic. Those you mentioned above as lawyers, professors are logical people, so are many scientist that disbelieve in a deity. Some of them are blinded by evolution and glorify it as the maker of all things, even when such is absurd. Some will even say there is no deity in the spiritual realm. But which theory have they carried out to arrive at that? Which scientific theory sees the supernatural?

vaxx:
Some of you called athiest are simply athiest by the state of the mind and not by knowledge.

I am from Muslim background and I feel, I understand this perspective better than the op. The scientist , lawyers and professors stoning in the jammarat are not foolish or gullible as the op thinks . In fact the op seems gullible due to ignorance.


Trying to find a logic or scientific explanation to religion is not always a smart idea. Science is a progressive information. New evidences can prove old theory or rule may not be correct.Still, If you need a reasonable explanation to stoning of Satan, this may help:

Actions influence attitudes....we also have something similar in Atr.

check out cognitive dissonance: changing attitudes to justify behavior

"The theory of cognitive dissonance states that when people become aware that their freely chosen actions violate important or relevant attitudes, the inconsistency produces an uncomfortable state of arousal called dissonance, which motivates people to change their initial attitudes to make them consistent with their behavior. For cognitive dissonance to occur, it is important that the attitude is important and self-relevant." In psychology, actions affect attitudes or beliefs. So stoning satan is an action. Even there maybe no satan there. But you symbolically stone him. At this point your brain work like this: "I stoned satan, I can stone only bad things, So Satan is bad, and after stoning him, how can I do what Satan ask me to do."

At this point your action change your belief and you don't do sin as much as you did before.

So it better we focus on the message the rituals is trying to pass rather than the chracteristics of the ritual. If the message is poor then we should discard it but if it is for the sake of our own benefit, we should embrace it.

Nice explanation u got up there.. Unfortunately stoning an invisible Satan has not caused change in attitude in any way.
This is same thing we get with being born again in Christiandom. Everyday we have people claiming to have renounced sin and giving their life to Christ in this country... It changes nothing, they still sin, segregate and so we have people like sciencewatch butterfly lion acting out their sinful nature when pushed to the wall despite all the claims.
Believing the stoning Satan will change attitude is the problem here. 1. Such action has not been proven to have changed anything in the partakers.
2. It only makes people hypocritic blaming their action on an external for, satan and not actually feel guilty when they act badly.
3. Its quite dangerous to think stoning Satan will stop u from sinning. This is like the act of confessing ur sin to the priest every week. People will only behave badly, wait to stone Satan and behave badly against hence the circle continues.
4. Stoning Satan is just an excuse to feel we are not responsible for our evil behaviors

vaxx:
Some of you called athiest are simply athiest by the state of the mind and not by knowledge.

I am from Muslim background and I feel, I understand this perspective better than the op. The scientist , lawyers and professors stoning in the jammarat are not foolish or gullible as the op thinks . In fact the op seems gullible due to ignorance.


Trying to find a logic or scientific explanation to religion is not always a smart idea. Science is a progressive information. New evidences can prove old theory or rule may not be correct.Still, If you need a reasonable explanation to stoning of Satan, this may help:

Actions influence attitudes....we also have something similar in Atr.

check out cognitive dissonance: changing attitudes to justify behavior

"The theory of cognitive dissonance states that when people become aware that their freely chosen actions violate important or relevant attitudes, the inconsistency produces an uncomfortable state of arousal called dissonance, which motivates people to change their initial attitudes to make them consistent with their behavior. For cognitive dissonance to occur, it is important that the attitude is important and self-relevant." In psychology, actions affect attitudes or beliefs. So stoning satan is an action. Even there maybe no satan there. But you symbolically stone him. At this point your brain work like this: "I stoned satan, I can stone only bad things, So Satan is bad, and after stoning him, how can I do what Satan ask me to do."

At this point your action change your belief and you don't do sin as much as you did before.

So it better we focus on the message the rituals is trying to pass rather than the chracteristics of the ritual. If the message is poor then we should discard it but if it is for the sake of our own benefit, we should embrace it.

my mum was a muslim till recent. I know all you just explained now, does not change the fact that they are stvpid.

Dalamama:


We are not talking about other historical figures. I find it absurd that the alleged creator of the universe came to planet earth to kill himself and sacrifice himself for humanity so that he can be in a personal relationship with them and the only evidence is he said, she said historical probability. That is completely absurd.

you are making sense. Of all things god did not think it fit there should be evidence for jesus. But there are evidences for dinosaurs that have nothing to do with the eternal salvation of man.
Only an insincere person wont agree with you on this.

frank317:

Nice explanation u got up there.. Unfortunately stoning an invisible Satan has not caused change in attitude in any way.
This is same thing we get with being born again in Christiandom. Everyday we have people claiming to have renounced sin and giving their life to Christ in this country... It changes nothing, they still sin, segregate and so we have people like sciencewatch butterfly lion acting out their sinful nature when pushed to the wall despite all the claims.
Believing the stoning Satan will change attitude is the problem here. 1. Such action has not been proven to have changed anything in the partakers.
2. It only makes people hypocritic blaming their action on an external for, satan and not actually feel guilty when they act badly.
3. Its quite dangerous to think stoning Satan will stop u from sinning. This is like the act of confessing ur sin to the priest every week. People will only behave badly, wait to stone Satan and behave badly against hence the circle continues.
4. Stoning Satan is just an excuse to feel we are not responsible for our evil behaviors

exactly. There is just no way to whitewash this practice

JMAN05:


Not only logic. Sincerity and love for truth is required because one could have it all wrong even with logic. Those you mentioned above as lawyers, professors are logical people, so are many scientist that disbelieve in a deity. Some of them are blinded by evolution and glorify it as the maker of all things, even when such is absurd. Some will even say there is no deity in the spiritual realm. But which theory have they carried out to arrive at that? Which scientific theory sees the supernatural?

hmmm... thanks. You are right, sincerity is more important

HardMirror:
you are making sense. Of all things god did not think it fit there should be evidence for jesus. But there are evidences for dinosaurs that have nothing to do with the eternal salvation of man.
Only an insincere person wont agree with you on this.

There are corpses and burial tombs of Egyptian Kings that lived 2 thousand years BEFORE Jesus was born existing intact today, yet all we have for Jesus is he said, she said probability.

Dalamama:


Where is the evidence to show that Jesus existed? By evidence I mean objective and irefutable evidence. We have irrefutable evidence to show that Pharoah that lived over 3000 years ago exist. Where is the irrefutable one for Jesus?

Show us the remaining of your great great great grand father, eleribu!

Demmzy15:
Show us the remaining of your great great great grand father, eleribu!

My great great grand father is NOT the creator of the universe that came to sacrifice himself to save humanity from their sins as Christians claim. So the creator of the universe came down to earth and the only evidence for that is what? He said she said tales abi?

Demmzy15:
Show us the remaining of your great great great grand father, eleribu!

What do u want to do with it? Will it take u to heaven?

frank317:

Not really.

Yes really, his own words: “The existence of Jesus isn't based on irrefutable historical evidence so isn't a historical fact.”

Sounds to me like this whole Jesus and God thingy is a matter of opinion to u. Its not about the truth or fact. Isn't this what this what we have been saying all these while. Now I wonder what we are arguing for or about

I’m not the one claiming that unless one has absolut certainty then it’s only a matter of opinion. The two of you are arguing for that position here even though you can’t even be certain that you not just a brain in a vat. Hence your beliefs about almost everything about reality is only a matter of opinion.

I think God should have thought of this before making the mistake of allowing an important event like the dying of his son a matter of opinion, probability and uncertainty. I must say I am disappointed in this so call all knowing every every.

So you can’t even give me an example of what would convince you that Jesus certainly exists. You don’t even believe God exists so I don’t know who you keep mixing the question of whether Jesus existed with whether or not his claims about himself were true. The two are separate questions. Hence you don’t need to believe in God to believe the historical existence of Jesus. It’s perfectly fine to believe he existed but that some of the claims made about him are false, most aheist historians do in fact. What’s next, you going to reject emperor Augustus existence because if he was the Son of God you would have known it for certain? Sounds more like you just don’t want to believe Jesus exists.

Dalamama:

We are not talking about other historical figures.

Oh so in other words you just believe they exist despite there not being absolute proof? You just want absolute proof for Jesus.

I find it absurd that the alleged creator of the universe came to planet earth to kill himself and sacrifice himself for humanity so that he can be in a personal relationship with them and the only evidence is he said, she said historical probability. That is completely absurd.

Well that’s your opinion. Numerous atheist and agnostic historians don’t believe any of the above yet they still accept the evidence for Jesus existence. Seems like you just making excuses to reject Jesus existence by mixing two questions into one. Which is ironic since atheists often accuse christians jumping from Jesus existed to therefore he was the Son of God who die for the sins of man.