Ten oz

I think too much is made of individual belief and behavior in the middle east. I believe that the exploitation of resources in the region and lack of power of the people to instigate sovereignty leads to the animosity, disorder, and etc we see today. At their beheading worst more are still killed from bombs dropped by western societies and industrial accidents (oil, mining, construction) caused by human rights violations in the labor laws countries like Kuwait, Bahrian, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. The drama of who hate or aligns with whom makes good press but ultimately it is just systematic of they way the region is treated by outside trillion dollar influences.

Good explanation. By this standard the New Testement doesn't even qualify as hearsay scene authorship is unknown. We know that it can not be relied on as a source based on that alone. Add in miracles, virgin births, and resurrection and it becomes something that is most probably a total work of fiction. Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark? Does Luke and Acts have the same author and who is it? Who wrote Mathew and Canonical? How many authors does John have and who are they? How many of the Gospels were inspired Paul's letters?

Does the author of a first hand account need to be known? It is not clear who wrote most of the gospels. Surely hearsay from an undetermined source is weaker than that of a known one? Add to it talk of resurrecting the dead along with many other impossible claims and the whole things becomes inadmissible as primary evidence to anything.

Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark? Does Luke and Acts have the same author? Who wrote Mathew and Canonical? How many authors does John have and who are they? How many of the Gospels were inspired Paul's letters? You can not answer the above questions. No scholar can for sure. Which renders your point about the NT being from different sources over time meaningless. It is not clear who those sources are or if they were all just incestuously plagiarizing each others work. The NT simply is not creditable. I think the error you're making conflating theology with science. The methods used by theologians use are speculative. That is not to say some theologians are not intelligent or highly educated but they specialize in concepts related to God. Hints are not of any clear value until they lead to something tangible. You can receive hint after hint about where gold is buried but until you find the gold who is to say any of those hints were of value?

The Pope said evolution and Big Bang are creditable. So perhaps times are changing. A hundred year from now maybe most Christians more accurately label the Bible as a book of religious parables meant to inspire but not believe. Lots of books written about first hand encounters with ghosts and alien abuction are written as true. Doesn't mean they are or that any of us believe in ghosts or aliens abuction.

what if we use the book Forrest Gump? Lots of real bits in that book. Vietnam is a real place, Alabama is real, actual U.S. Presidents are named, and etc. It doesn't mean Forrest himself is real.

I am an atheist. I only commented to pose the conundrum. I mostly agree. My only issue is that Tacitus does not purposely chronicle the life of Jesus. He merely describes Christians. That is circumstantial evidence at best. I don't definitely believe there was not a Jesus. I am a maybe on the issue. I don't think there is enough information to error on the side that he was real.

Who is the creator of hell? Who is the creator of Satan?

Tacitus confirming that Christians existed within decades of Jesus' assumed life is evidence that Jesus himself may have been a real person. It does not confirm it. Jesus could be an amalgamation of several different activists who were crucified in the preceding decades. A unifying idol to rally people into a group. Does the existence of Juadism prove Moses was real or demand a theory for where his story originated? I find the question "They made up Jesus" a confusing one. Confusing because the Gospels and what they say about Jesus clearly contains made up information. They say Jesus was born a virgin, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. IMO those things are obviously made up. If his story and life works were made up why couldn't he be? So the question "They made up Jesus" is really asking for a motive? Because obviously they could have made him up. They made the resurrection up, they weren't bound by reality in their story telling. As for why, it would be highly speculative for me comment on their motives especially when it isn't even known who "they" are. Authorship of many of the Gospels isn't known nor are all the key figures in the early formation of christianity less we assume it was only the apostles and none others were lost to time or subject to edit.

Memory, as it relates to humans, is a very subjective thing. We don't necessary remember things as they are. Memory is a cognitive process where information is encoded and stored along with or in the form of emotional stimulations. Memories have concious reasons and can produce an endless steam of collateral memories. One action can result in a hundred memories. A record is a one to one transaction. A river erodes away dirt and leaves a record of the process in the form of a canyon. No cognitive process. No motivations, purpose, fear, curiosity, or etc.

Isn't the overriding driver for our brains and its abilities mutations in DNA? random processes that change ideas is not the difference between my brain and my pet house cat's brain. You see new things everyday but don't necessarily notice them. I live in a large city. Everytime I walk outside my condo I see new faces, cars, bike, dogs on leashes, cats in windows, birds, bugs, etc, etc, etc. I don't remember them all simply because they are new. I also don't remember every particulary nice day (weather) or friend smile of people on the street. ultimately how can I ever truly know how much I have remember, forgotten, or never noticed? Genetic code is a record but not a type of memory.

The NBA 14/15 season is a day away from starting so this thread for any fans and mildly interested posters. I am a LA Lakers fan myself but there are many compelling stories playing out around the league. Beyond seeing how Kobe holds up in his return from an injury plagued season it will be interesting to see: how the Miami Heat perform in the post James era, the return of Derrick Rose to the revamped Bulls, if the Cavs are pretenders or contenders, if Golden State can get over the hump, if Melo can become a true leader, and if Durant can perform to or even above expectations? All thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Mutation is a process of DNA. It is something an animal is born with and not something that develops from life experience. As a matter of chance some animals are born with a mutation that provides then with an advantage or protects them from an environmental change. It is possible for a human to be born with a mutation that makes their mind process information differently than other humans. However the population of humans is currently so large and still growing that short of sometype of apocolytic event I doubt any individual mutation could be of such benifit that it would procreate through the whole species.

I only give negatives when someone has posted something insulting or inflammatory that I view as outside the rules of the forum. I do not do it based on ideology and often do what I can to remove them when others negatively tag posters I am having a discussion with as I do not want them driven away. I think in certian threads as alliances form the positive and negative counts can become exaggerated as multiple posters agruing the same point might all pile. Perhaps a better judgement of post quality might be looking at the different threads a poster has received reputations from. One point positive or negative maximum per thread? Then if a poster had a lot of red it would be clear they were posting negatively received information/ideas several times over and not just in one or two heated exchanges.

Good post. As you and I have dicussed before new physics is needed to understand what is going on inside a black hole. Matter has gravity but matter is simply a state of energy. In a black hole it is possible that matter is transformed back into energy or some other state. Along with that it is not clear what the influence of gravity would do. I believe in black holes because we see their gravitational effects on bodies around them. That is far as I can go though. We simply do not know what is happening inside them.

As a matter of philosophy I do not have any issue with the concept attributed to Jesus. As a matter of fact I rather admire what those inspired by those concepts like Martin Luther king were able to accomplish.

Maybe is not enough because it is directed at a human existence only. I think for "salvation" a person needs to believe in Jesus the supernatural right?

Of the worlds 7 billion people half are either Christian or Muslim. Over 3.5 billion. While Buddhism and Judaism add up to under 400 million. So while I agree that Buddhism and Judaism are ego-centric it is still fair to say most religious people world wide are.

It is "getting close? That is where I have been this whole thread. Jesus may have existed. He also may be entirely fictional. Of course that is in regards to his existence as a real person. As a god, I absolutely do not believe that.

I am not arguing "non-existence" I am arguing that its not clearing known if Jesus did exist. I am not closed to either probability. When you say that Jesus most probably existed you are basically saying the same thing otherwise you'd drop the most probably or likely part and just state that he did. My Caesar comparison was meant to highlight the difference between known history and speculative history. A best guess is still merely a guess. Was Jesus a real person: My answer - maybe Your answer - most likely You continue to ingore why I do not consider the New Testement as solid historical references. You talk about the methods used by historians as if there is universal agreement where there simply isn't. "A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[122][123]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus Beyond debate over the methodology used to determine historical events there is debate over who even wrote the gospels. Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark? Does Luke and Acts have the same author? Who wrote Mathew and Canonical? As for Paul's letters there is a lot of uncertainty over how much has been added and edited over the years. For me all those question marks means it isn't clear and as such I am not going to make any positive speculations based on New Testament. I am an Athiest. Despite that fact if I was asked publically about my beliefs in a forum where I knew my co-workers/peers would be in audience of I would say I was Christian. Because once a person says otherwise it becomes the predominant issue they are known for. It is why politicians are primarily never Athiest. Because once that is admitted religious challanges and debate will consume their identity. Just like it is far easier for me to attend Christmas parties and just bow my head during prayers and say "ahem". Because to not would create a condition where I'd be targeted by the true believes in the room for argument. Similarly the quest for historical Jesus is primarily a theological one. The New Testament serves the most extensive bit of information. Archeologist and Historians of the classics who have not been to seminary and are not biblical scholars don't drive this research, theologians do. Unless a Historical Scholar wants to devote their life's work to Historical Jesus debate like Richard Carrier it is best to just stay out of it. Because once someone wades in they won't be able to give a lecture or write an essay again without people showing up to agrue with them about Jesus. So many just defer to the Theologians and let them have it. As for theologians, let's not pretend that people who devote their lives to biblical study are entirely objective.

People often say seeing is believing but that really isn't true. The mind is easily fooled. We have all seen things that weren't. An example we all have experienced something akin to; walking through a neighborhood at night and clearly see a dog standing in a yard. It appears to be looking at you and it breathing can ever be heard. As you get closer it turns out to just be a bush and the breathing is just it moving in a light wind. The more we learn about the brain the more we realize how little of the world is actually seen at any one time. And that everyone has false memories. http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/remember-that-no-you-dont-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/ In my opinion people place too much trust in their own opinions and ideas. The mind is too easily manipulated and biased to be completed trusted. That is why in science things must be peer reviewed and repeatable. Because through no purposeful fault of my own I can be way off the mark regardless of what I think I have seen or experienced. It is why a fresh set of eyes should always be welcome in problem solving and nothing that isn't provably real should be treated as such.

I understand there is no real comparison that can be made between Caesar and Jesus. That is basically my point. Caesar was clearly a real person whose amazing feats were real as well. Being 2,000yrs old doesn't automatically mean there are question marks surrounding evidence of a historical figures life. Jesus is a questionable figure because no one during his life was particularly interested in him enough to write things down, produce art, or save relics. Even after he died only self professed followers wrote anything about his life. If we were talking about anyone else from 2,000yrs ago with zero evidence other than a book of magic everyone here would agree that there just isn't enough information to know one way or another. Because it is Jesus people error on his side. You continually point out that historians practicing historical methods believe Jesus was real but truly it is just Theologians practicing biblical studies. The link you used early from wiki has a section outlining the methods of research and they are primarily biblical criticisms and nothing more. Beneath that are sections explaining that many scholars reject the methods. You lament that I don't accept the New Testemant but yourself refuse to acknowledge that the method is not perfect and has its scholarly critics. Jesus may have been an charasmatic apocolytic preacher, an amalgamation of several charasmatic apocolytic preachers, or entirely made up. I am a rather cut and dry sort of person. Until things are known I consider them unknown. I don't not consider things unprovable but most likely. If Jesus is most likely to have exist than solid evidence should support such a belief. Otherwise it is just faith. I have no faith is the methods of Theologians' biblical critiques. The history I believe in is provable like Caesar.

I think the U.S. the political and media reaction is so overblown in part because there is an election soon ( early voting in a lot of places already underway). Fear is often a technique used to rally voters. The Right is using Ebola to criticize the President, attack the CDC (big govt failing), have yet another reason to secure the boarder, and etc. while the Left is using Ebola to criticize Congress for not allowing the nominated Surgeon General into office, cutting funding for forgiven aid, and fighting against various healthcare programs.

And Jesus was said to be GOD by those whom bothered to chronicle his life.

Earlier in the thread I saw comments made that after 2,000yrs anyone could be said not to have lived. That plus the argument that Jesus' having been real is the best explanation for Christianity feels empty. Julius Caesar lived over 2,000yrs ago and there is an enormous amount of evidence of his life. Much was written about him and art work created contemporarily to his life. Not only in Roman but all the areas he traveled and impacted like Egypt. Ceasar himself wrote things and fragments of those writings exist. No magical claims to dig though searching for cross references. Tons of contemporary work. Everything from portraits, cions that bore his face, to works made from his own hands. one might argue that Caesar can not be compared to Jesus because Caesar was so powerful and influential; what was Jesus? Jesus had he lived was influential enough to convince people he was GOD and start a religion that has gone on to dominate the globe. Billions pray to Jesus today, not Caesar. Yet Caesar has for more documented? Caesar was obviously more important to his contemporaries?