are atheists less stressed then christians (Commandments, beliefs, doctrine, belief)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Yes, he clearly hated Christians. As such, he would not have reported some claim they made but which he disagreed with as if it were a historical fact. But he isn't saying that Christians claimed that Christ was executed by Pilate. He's saying Christ was executed by Pilate. So how is this not evidence that Christ was executed by Pilate?



And I consider those who promote the Jesus myth theory to be just as irrational as those who promote the idea that the holocaust never happened. They basically ignore or dismiss any evidence to the contrary, then declare that there is no evidence. Even without the New Testament, we have more than enough evidence to show that Christ existed at the very least. To rational people, a historian writing about someone as having recently existed is evidence that the person existed, at least unless there is evidence to the contrary. I cannot think of a single instance where a respected historian wrote about a person now known to be fictional, as if the historian believed the person existed within their recent history. Yet Christ-mythers would have us believe that ALL of the historians who wrote about Jesus were actually writing about a fictional character. How nonsensical is that?

The word Christ simply means "the anointed one". It is not even a name.
So tell me who was the anointed one?

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

No, he didn't. He wrote what others were telling him. It is a critical difference, and clearly one you don't understand.

He didn't write it, but he wrote what others were telling him? If I write down something you told me, I'm still the one doing the writing. How could Tacitus have written it, but also not written it?

The problem comes when the contemporary record is entirely silent on fantastic events, particularly in a notably literate society with a penchant for recording every last detail on all sorts of things spectacular and mundane (the Roman Empire).

And how do you know they were silent on it? Are you seriously saying that the fact that we don't have the records 2000 years later means that no one wrote it down at the time? Do you honestly believe that we have every single text from that era, or even the majority of them?

Seutonius on Caesar and the Rubicon is irrelevant because we have primary, contemporary sources -- both Caesar himself and Cicero.

Neither one of them wrote an account of Caesar's assassination or of the crossing of the Rubicon. For both, the earliest sources are historians who didn't witness either event.

Hilarious! Now you have Tacitus down in the Imperial Archives, studiously pouring over the official execution records of Jesus! No doubt he had the clerks running to and fro as he proofed the galleys his agent forwarded him from the publishing house in Rome!

We know he checked the archives on many matters. Being a Roman Senator, he clearly had access to them. If he had doubts about Jesus existing or being executed, he either would not have written that he was, or he would have checked them against the records before confirming them as true.

Utter nonsense. From archaeology to all manner of primary sources, we know a great deal.

And there is much, much more that we only know about through their being recorded by historians who didn't witness the events, including the assassination of Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon. If were to dismiss all "hearsay" from the ancient historians, we'd lose these two events, and many more. We'd lose most of what we know about Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, and Hannibal, not to mention the Peloponnesian War, the Destruction of Troy, and the Great Roman Fire. That's an awful lot of history to lose just to get rid of Jesus, wouldn't you say?

But what is problematic about Jesus are the spectacular events attributed to him, and the completely and utter silence of every single contemporay historian in the Roman Empire on him. Every last one.

Like who? Which historians, specifically, were writing during the supposed time of Jesus' ministry (30-33 AD) who we know were conspicuously silent on Him?

This is why Tacitus' regurgitation of claims made by the cult of Jesus are so meaningless

The problem is that he wasn't "regurgitating claims", but stating Jesus' execution as historical fact. He didn't say that Christians claimed Jesus was executed by Pilate, but that Jesus was executed by Pilate.

-- they are contradicted.

By who?

It would be as if not a word of the Black Death was made in the historical record until the year 1400 AD, when a handful of historians would allege it occurred. Without some archaelogical evidence, or primary accounts, it would be a baseless claim and entirely suspect.

We don't have archeological evidence or primary accounts for MANY historical events. If you're seriously suggesting that we should dismiss any event for which we have no archeological evidence or primary accounts, but only the after-the-fact writings of historians, then you would be getting rid of the vast majority of what we know about ancient history.

Then you would reject it -- unless your cherished beliefs rested on it, then you'd elevate each of those handful of chroniclers to exemplary purveyors of the solemn truth!

Of course not. I believe that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, even though we have no archeological evidence or primary sources. Even though my cherished beliefs don't rest upon it. For everything written about by historians, even if they didn't witness it, I'm inclined to believe that it really happened, unless I am presented with some sort of evidence to the contrary. You see, I'm a rational person, and that's what rational people do.

You toss of 'historian' as if Tacitus got his PhD in History from the University of Rome.

No, I call him a "historian" because he was one. He was a Roman Senator who wrote in depth about the events from the first century, and is easily one of the most respected historians of ancient times.

Rather, he was a chronicler, like Bede and Adam of Bremen, et cetera.

I have never heard of Bede or Adam of Bremen referred to as "historians", but Tacitus is almost always referred to as such.

And I have little doubt that you happily toss off accounts of Thor, or Apollo, when 'historians' have written of them.

Can you name a historian of anywhere near Tacitus' stature who wrote about Thor or Apollo as if they were real people who existed in the historians' recent history?

And why not? You obviously don't have the vested interest in those 'myths', as you'll undoubtedly call them.

I have yet to see any respected historian claim that Thor or Apollo weren't myths.

Unlike the accounts in which you so desperately want to believe you'll fall all over yourself presenting Tacitus as a professional equal of Hume...

So are you saying that if a historian isn't of Hume's stature, we should dismiss everything they wrote about if they didn't personally witness it? Seriously? The problem is that your idea that we should dismiss everything written by a historian who didn't personally witness the events is something that no respectable historian would ever suggest. You're so desperate to erase Jesus from history that you'll gladly get rid of the majority of what we know about ancient history in order to accomplish it.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The word Christ simply means "the anointed one". It is not even a name.
So tell me who was the anointed one?

Tacitus is clearly talking about someone who was executed by Pilate and whose followers are called "Christians". Does that sound to you like anyone other than Jesus of Nazareth?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

It depends on the type of stresses one faces.

Christianity may increase stress about some issues that atheist don't face, but decrease it in other areas that atheist DO face.

For example, Christians may feel additional stress to adhere to the prohibition against premarital sex, and the additional stress that results from having violated that prohibition.

So it would probably be different from person to person. For some people Christianity would reduce the amount of stress in their lives, for others it would increase it.

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The opinion piece by Raj Raghunathanyou linked to is whacked....

For the second time in a week I find myself rebutting misinformation about atheism being propagated by an educated professional who should know better.

Now I must address statements by Raj Raghunathan, Ph.D., in his article "When the going gets tough, the atheists go praying."

Raghunathan's article provides his personal opinions without going through the pesky exercise of providing supporting evidence. He declares that atheism is "a luxury" that results from having a "comfortable life."

Yeah, quite arrogant in it's face, and yet, when I think that one through, it may contain a minor element of truth. After all, much of theism's faith-based beliefs are based on terror, or hard times, such as the typical conversion to religion that oft accompanies incarceration in our lovely prisons. OJ has converted to God since he finally got his come-uppance. Many others as well. (Note: Boredom may also be a "Driver" here...)

And thus, those of us who had excess time on our hands to casually investigate theism in our earlier days, may have converted, absent any stress, into lazy atheists.

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Huh? What the heck are you referring to? I never said anything about atheists generally living a sinful life, so I don't know where you're getting this from. I only said that getting caught up in a sinful lifestyle creates problems, and that avoiding these problems makes your life less stressful. That goes for everyone, even atheists. When did I say, or suggest, that atheists live a sinful life? Are you simply assuming that this is what I was trying to say, or something?

Wow. So you're saying that anyone who believes in Jesus is being dishonest with themselves? That's mighty arrogant of you. And also completely 100% wrong.

Nope. Not necessarily, but potentially, given the evidence against Him. I see far less compelling evidence against, say, Evolution, proudly presented by devout Christians, than your evidence for a genuine godly Jesus personality.

But given the persistent lack of evidence, plus all the now-established debunks of all the faith-based miracles written up in the bible (notably by a herd of illiterate and easily "awed" prophets many years after the fact...), why should we automatically believe in a Godly savior? Or His son for that matter? Because you feel we should, or that it's always been thus believed by Cristians historically? They also believed in the universe revolving around the earth, may I remind? See below.

Originally Posted by Aganusn

We're stressed out because we live in a society where people discriminate and kill because of a myth. Do you know what it's like to be a minority amongst a majority? It freaking sucks.

I know, I know! I feel your pain: I'm left-handed, an atheist ex-Canadian and a compassionate liberal-Conservative, with difficult arthritis! What else could possibly go wrong?

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

How about the fact that several non-Christian writers, including a few historians, wrote about Him as a historical person? For example, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ being executed by Pilate. How is a historian stating that Christ existed and was executed not evidence that he existed and was executed?

Oh, its quite possible that those prophets, in need of a celebrity guest to focus on, chose to create and inventively bless with extraordinary powers, a local travelling minstrel they named Jesus of Nazareth. Esp. the whole virgin birth thing (technically impossible, except that we have also seen the occasional pregnancy with an apparently unbroken hymen ("virgo intacto" or "inperforate hymen")...

Can a sperm pass through a hymen to get a virgin pregnant? - Yahoo! Answers

..but where it is open sufficiently to allow the passage of them durned persistent and tiny motile semen.

The "doctors" of the day, as such, hardly had the techniques or tools we have today, now did they? Rather, they burned a lamb alive, watching the directions of the curling smoke and listening knowledgeably to the intonations of it's screams, or read spiderwebs or chicken entrails for exacting information on the coming events... quite compelling evidence, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Sure he did. He wrote about it in his text "Annals".

Most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from historians writing four centuries after Alexander's time. Does that mean we should dismiss most of what we know about Alexander the Great? Or should we only dismiss "after the fact" writings by historians if they're about Christ?

Yet he wrote about many things that happened decades before his birth. Should we dismiss all of it, in your opinion? Or just what he wrote about Jesus, and keep the rest?

So, in your opinion, if a historian is writing about something he didn't personally witness, then it shouldn't be considered evidence? Because if we did this, we'd be tossing out almost everything we know about ancient history.

Personally, I'd say that we should accept the writings of historians as evidence for the events they describe, unless we have evidence to the contrary.

Not so. If I write that "a truck drove by my house today!", not only would you have no particular reason to disbelieve me, but you'd tend to believe it unless you knew me to be an inveterate and compulsive liar.

But if now, on the other hand, I wrote that I saw a truck accelerate down the road outside my house, and then take off trailing pink smoke and spewing winged lions out its butt as it arced off at hypersonic speeds into the blue skies, you'd possibly (I'd hope..) tend to look askance at me. After all, how many bottles of bourbon do I drink a day again?

So, extra-ordinary claims, such as turning water into wine, wandering about on the surface of the water, or curing the diseased with a casual wave of his hands, all come under the heading of highly improbable events. Meant to impress and frighten, and to gather a bunch of paying believers. Ditto with flying trucks. Except that I don't accept chickens or lambs as payment.

As in: we have a right to be suspicious, now don't we? Esp. if I, for instance, claimed that the hyper-sonic flying truck incident happened "...like it was only yesterday, about 60 years ago. Trust me! Oh and by the way, I'm gonna attribute it entirely to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my life's savior!"

Now for some other notable comments worth repeating and highlighting....

Originally Posted by Voyageur

No, he didn't. He wrote what others were telling him. It is a critical difference, and clearly one you don't understand.

You think a lot of incorrect things. You should work on that.

I clearly stated that what future historians write may well be correct. But don't let that get in the way of erecting a strawman to knock down! The problem comes when the contemporary record is entirely silent on fantastic events, particularly in a notably literate society with a penchant for recording every last detail on all sorts of things spectacular and mundane (the Roman Empire).

Hilarious! Now you have Tacitus down in the Imperial Archives, studiously pouring over the official execution records of Jesus! No doubt he had the clerks running to and fro as he proofed the galleys his agent forwarded him from the publishing house in Rome!

(Note from rflmn: now THAT's hilarious! Good one, Voyager!)

From archaeology to all manner of primary sources, we know a great deal.

(Note from rflmn: Bingo. You betcha, with evidentiary proof to back out claims up. Not that some folks will believe any of it... all while completely and unquestioningly accepting whatever contradictions the bible or history spews out.)

But what is problematic about Jesus are the spectacular events attributed to him, and the completely and utter silence of every single contemporay historian in the Roman Empire on him. Every last one. This is why Tacitus' regurgitation of claims made by the cult of Jesus are so meaningless -- they are contradicted.

You obviously don't have the vested interest in those 'myths', as you'll undoubtedly call them. Unlike the accounts in which you so desperately want to believe you'll fall all over yourself presenting Tacitus as a professional equal of Hume...

Now now, Voyager. you're obviously the sort of troublesome personality whot breeds unrest!

To summarize, IMHO, what we have here is yet another good demo of Selective Beliefs of Convenience, would you not agree?

[KingDavid8]

Answer: I took some key lines from your previous paragraph about simply doing the right thing in the first place (becoming a Christian?), instead of living a life of sin (as in:living life as an atheist? Do we atheists know how to live within our own respectful self-imposed moral code? Do we know right from wrong?).

I'm not sure what you mean. In the previous paragraph, I only talked about how the "temporary-ness" of our troubles is put into a different perspective if you believe in an eternal God. I never said anything in either of my first two paragraphs about doing the right thing vs/ living a life of sin. That was exclusively in the third paragraph, and did not relate to "being a Christian" vs. "being an atheist". What part of which previous paragraph are you referring to?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but then, what DID you mean? Go back and look at your post!

I'm looking at it, and am still not seeing what I said that you could have misunderstood. I was simply responding to Sahhen1's OP by saying that doing what's right and maintaining a good lifestyle makes your life less stressful, not more stressful. I never said, or suggested, anything about how Christians fit one lifestyle and atheists fit the other.

Nope. Not necessarily, but potentially, given the evidence against Him. I see far less compelling evidence against, say, Evolution, proudly presented by devout Christians, than your evidence for a genuine godly Jesus personality.

Would you like to share the "evidence against Jesus"? (if so, please create a new thread, since we're already way off track in this one - I promise to respond if you create it). So far, all of the "evidence" I've seen would, if applied consistently, disprove many other known historical characters if we applied it consistently. And keep in mind that "miracles cannot happen" is an opinion, not a fact (except in the minds of those who believe it to be true, of course).

But given the persistent lack of evidence,

You mean that besides all of the evidence, there is no evidence?

plus all the now-established debunks of all the faith-based miracles written up in the bible

Established by whom? Refusing to believe in something isn't the same as "debunking" it. Can you debunk the idea that Jesus was resurrected, or by "debunking" it, do you mean that you can propose another totally hypothetical explanation for the resurrection accounts? If so, can you show evidence that your explanation is the right one, and that the "it actually happened" explanation is the wrong one.

why should we automatically believe in a Godly savior? Or His son for that matter? Because you feel we should, or that it's always been thus believed by Cristians historically?

We shouldn't "automatically believe", and I certainly didn't. I'm a former atheist who became convinced of God's existence, and later Jesus' existence, based on their being the best explanations for the universe and the existence of the Gospel accounts, respectively. Sure, the universe COULD have arisen accidentally, and the Gospel writers COULD have been lying or mistaken, but both "mundane" explanations are very, very unlikely in my opinion. Only one who automatically rejects anything supernatural would find them even remotely convincing. If you're the least-bit open-minded about the supernatural, you would have to weigh one explanation against the other, and in doing so, I've become convinced that God's existence and Jesus' resurrection are better explanations than naturalism and that the Gospel authors lied or were mistaken.

Oh, its quite possible that those prophets, in need of a celebrity guest to focus on, chose to create and inventively bless with extraordinary powers, a local travelling minstrel they named Jesus of Nazareth.

And were so convincing that even many non-Christian historians reported His existence as historical fact? This is a perfect example of an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence", but the problem is that this claim has zero evidence in the first place. When asked to believe a claim, I first ask if there is any evidence for it, and then ask if the evidence is convincing. For the resurrection, there is evidence (the accounts of the event) and I find the evidence convincing, personally, though others do not. As for the idea that Jesus was wholly invented by His "followers", I see no evidence in the first place.

Not so. If I write that "a truck drove by my house today!", not only would you have no particular reason to disbelieve me, but you'd tend to believe it unless you knew me to be an inveterate and compulsive liar.

But if now, on the other hand, I wrote that I saw a truck accelerate down the road outside my house, and then take off trailing pink smoke and spewing winged lions out its butt as it arced off at hypersonic speeds into the blue skies, you'd possibly (I'd hope..) tend to look askance at me.

Of course. The problem is that the historians simply wrote that Jesus existed, was called the Christ, had a brother named James, was executed by Pilate, and had lots of followers. There's nothing extraordinary about these claims, and even most non-Christians believe these things to be true. So it's much more like your "truck drove by my house today" claim than your "it had winged lions coming out of its butt" claim. There is nothing extraordinary about the idea that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was executed, so mundane claims by respected historians is more than enough to establish His existence.

So, extra-ordinary claims, such as turning water into wine, wandering about on the surface of the water, or curing the diseased with a casual wave of his hands, all come under the heading of highly improbable events. Meant to impress and frighten, and to gather a bunch of paying believers. Ditto with flying trucks. Except that I don't accept chickens or lambs as payment.

Great, except we were simply discussing whether Jesus existed, not whether He was a miracle worker. I actually won't debate whether Jesus was a miracle worker with atheists, since atheists, by their nature, cannot be convinced of the supernatural. Only if you believe in God can you believe that God is capable of miracles, so it's pointless to try to convince people who don't believe in God that God can perform miracles. I prefer to convince them of God's existence first, and then convince them of God's miracles. One thing at a time, you know.

As in: we have a right to be suspicious, now don't we? Esp. if I, for instance, claimed that the hyper-sonic flying truck incident happened "...like it was only yesterday, about 60 years ago. Trust me! Oh and by the way, I'm gonna attribute it entirely to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my life's savior!"

Again, the historians' claims about Jesus were much more mundane, simply that He existed and was executed, etc. A historian writing that a certain individual lived and died 60 years ago should be believed unless there is evidence to the contrary, wouldn't you agree?

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

It may not be the belief or lack of... but less need to stress.
Generally...There are no atheists in foxholes.
"Perhaps atheism is a luxury of the well-to-do."
When The Going Gets Tough, The Atheists Go Praying | Psychology Today

There's a study about how people define religious doctrine can either help or harm their health.
So, stress management (esp. thinking patterns) is more significant than one's belief or lack of.

No atheists in foxholes? Really?

There are no atheists in foxholes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Outreach & Events
Atheists in Foxholes « Atheist Etiquette
Atheists in Foxholes, Newsweek Periscope, 'There are no atheists in foxholes' - Beliefnet.com (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Atheists-In-Foxholes.aspx - broken link)
There ARE Atheists In Foxholes : NPR
Religion: Atheists & Foxholes - TIME
Army Group Says There ARE Atheists in Foxholes | CNSnews.com

There are about 192,000 more links out there.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Even without the Bible, we can easily establish that Christ existed. Even the earliest opponents of Christ and Christianity acknowledged that he existed at the very least.

No, you can't.
The Romans kept very good records.
Where are the records?

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

No atheists in foxholes? Really?

There are no atheists in foxholes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That very first link points out that "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism, not meant to be taken as an absolute. Besides, he did also say "generally", also saying it's not taken to be an absolute. All it means is that during times of stress or fear, people turn to God more than they would during times of calm and peace.

Personally, I do agree that a "hard atheist" would still be an atheist if he was in a foxhole, literally or metaphorically. But I also think that many "soft atheists" or agnostics would turn to God in such situations, though there's also the possibility that they'd turn away from God, blaming Him for their situation. Though I think "turning to" is more common in these situations than "turning from". I could be wrong.

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

No, you can't.
The Romans kept very good records.
Where are the records?

Yes, they kept very good records. The problem is that they didn't keep them for two thousand years. We have no original records of the trials and executions for ANYONE from that era as far as I know, so it's hardly surprising that we don't have them for Jesus. Most of what Rome wrote down has been lost over time. For example, we know that Rome issued literally millions of military pay slips, yet we have less than a dozen that still exist. We also know that Rome ran a daily gazette for centuries (the "acta diurna", which ran from about 130 BC to 330 AD), of which exactly zero copies still exist. Writings eventually getting lost over the course of thousands of years is hardly unusual.

[Swampmonster]

I can only answer for myself...I have MUCH less stress since I was "saved"....for some reason it seemed that the weight of the world's problems and everyday life were instantly removed from my shoulders when I accepted Christ as my Saviour...I still sweat the really small things occasionally,but the big ones do not bother me now...sickness,death,dying etc hold zero fear for me now.