Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Pretty sure that "I've spoken with people whose field this is, and they've made these claims" is a slightly stronger claim than "Some guy told me so" I direct your attention to the testimony of expert witnesses in courts. Yes, "It MUST be true because someone with authority said so" is a fallacious claim, but "From my personal experience, this claim has been made by several people educated in the field" is perfectly legitimate for the informal discussion format of this forum.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

jesus was also a carpenter, or so ive heard. He was a real person, but what we don't know is if he was our savior. The basis for religion is faith, get some or get out. honestly people are debating something that cannot be proven. Our believing in god(s) is also like believing in the theory of relativity. So far we accept it because no one has proved it wrong, but there may be grounds further ahead in life that can prove it wrong.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Oh i'm sorry i thought unsubstantiated claims in debate was oh, i don't know. One of the biggest taboos in the field. And you saying "I talked to professionals and they said he exists" is about as substantiated as the Bible itself.

Especially when it took 2 seconds of google to make the "experts" you supposedly talked to liars. Get on your game Devonin. If you want an "informal" discussion then go talk to buddies so they won't yell at you for saying crazy untrue ****.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Stop trolling in my forum. Make your points without the attitude.

Every historical claim about any era or aspect of history is hearsay unless there are physical pieces of evidence that survived to this day, and even then, still hearsay.

How would a book called "My life as a carpenter" by Jesus of Nazareth that is 2000 years old be any more "convincing" to your standards, than Paul writing about his personal experiences with Jesus 40 years after the fact? Anybody could have written that book, anybody could have slapped a made up name on it, and yet this is what you're insisting is necessary to support his existance?

It will be far more likely in 2000 years, that people analyzing the historical record from our day will think Mickey Mouse existed, than will think Grandiagod existed, and you really do exist.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Okay. Your claim that conclusive evidence of Jesus' existence is incredibly untrue and you have no facts to prove it whatsoever. While I linked facts that prove your unsubstantiated assertions incorrect; you will not refute me because you claim to have no evidence on hand.

In short, either retract your assertion or give some proof.

EDIT, your edit didn't bring any proof whatsoever. Sorry you're beating around the subject. There is no secular proof that Jesus existed. If there was then i'd believe it. I still wouldn't believe in his divinity. Come up with proof please.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

haha dev couldn't fight him. well ill give it a shot
your source says that no books were written when he was alive, but none of the sources he used where written in the time he was alive. so where does his proof leads us, absolutely no where. His defense is that book s written about him were not written while he was alive, but nothing was written in his time period saying he wasn't alive. His argument is moot.

something i googled didn't read it yet, but its "proof"

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

o hi religion thread

So apparently you talked with 2000 year old scholars. It's not that I don't believe you... wait no never mind no i dont believe you.


you'd think that a detailed account like this wouldn't just be in the New Testament, but Roman records as well.

if devonin has actual Roman citations that can confirm this, I would really like to see them =)

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Given that I already described my evidence as being the statements made to me by several professors of history, you will either decide to call their knowledge into question, or not.

Regardless, I should never have suggested that there was 100% factual evidence to support -anything- historical, simply because all history, even history that is archaelogy, is pretty much hearsay. So I retract my claim that the existance of a historical jesus is FACT, but I still deny that you've somehow proven he DIDN'T exist, all you've proven is that there is cause to doubt. But there's cause to doubt all of history.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

What the hell are you on about? "A historian of that time period" means someone who studied the history of that time period. A 2000 year old historian would be "A historian FROM that time period" Thanks for taking a shot without knowing what words mean.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I wasn't trying to prove he didn't exist. I was just saying that there's no conclusive evidence he existed. He could have existed but there's nothing to definitely say so. And it's not a point you put up for debate.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Well sorry for the misunderstanding. It sounded like you actually meant you literally spoke with a person, a historian, from that time period.

When I linked that page from Google, I figured if the Romans kept proper records, it would help solidify the argument that a Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist at one point in time.

ps im not good at debating

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I'm not debating the existence of a deity. I'm debating on the belief system people have. Whether the God as defined by religious texts actually exists is irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that he doesn't exist; I'm arguing that it's not logical to believe in him.

Notice also that believing things such as Einstein's theory of relatively are firmly rooted in logic and science. To believe in the principles behind relativity is to believe a fundamental principle of physics that has not only logic behind it, but also tested evidence. Religion has neither. Religion forgoes logic and instead appeals to feelings. It isn't logical to believe in God, but it certainly can feel right.

ps grandia, I'm sure you know the site you linked to is mere propaganda. Jesus certainly did live back then. His parables may be fictional, but they're based on a real person. Seriously... "all claims of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts". Does that mean that nothing is real unless I see it with my own eyes? I've never been to New York City, so does that mean it's a fictional city? All I have as reason to believe it exists is what I've learned from others. Bro, this is a subjective reality, and sometimes we have to trust "hearsay accounts" as fact, PARTICULARLY as far as history is concerned.

Grandia, you're falling prey to the dreaded negative proof fallacy just LIKE THEM. Quick. Recall your call for proof before you make a fool of yourself!

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

there's proof of many things that happened centuries before jesus. Jesus however is not. I have nothing against people believing the religion, but it's tiring to see everyone saying "if god doesn't exist, prove it" when really it would make sense to prove the contrary.


People have faith and a reason to live when they follow religions, this is a good thing. but proving their god exists because they have faith isn't solid proof.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Hearsay accounts in this context mean accounts from people who lived decades after Jesus. You know that, don't play dumb.

Saying there's a lack of concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus is nothing of the sort.

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Can you see the air?
No
Does the air exist ?
Yes
Same for spirit and gods.
He dont need to see something to believe it.
Do you think blind peoples are bored of the life?
No. This help them a lot for the rest of their sense.

So tell me Kommisar...
Do you need to see the Santa to believe in it?
If yes, you must have a problem.