show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Justice does not do this. Justice sees that there is a need to punish wrong doing to protect people from being hurt or abused by someone. It is not motivated by anger, but by the desire to protect people from wrongs that people will commit if unhindered.

Ideally, I think this is a far more defensible point of view. Unfortunately, as it is implemented, this is terribly untrue and makes your reasoning problematic.

that only makes sense if you define revenge as anger

this is contrary to the most common uses of the term in history, ie: look at shakespere

it has never been an emotional thing. in fact, the most common interpretation of revenge is that it is justice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't find the evidence even for Jesus' existence amazingly compelling. There's no evidence whatsoever from contemporary sources. And very few from non-Christian ones, whose validity is definitely questionable.

Even if, at most they "prove" that someone that a man at the time existed who had some followers. Not even the crucifixion, or the healings are in any ways substantiated then. So I am not sure what even that matters.

I mean there are plenty of sources referencing his existence, most scholars agree that he was real, usually it's only those who really hate religion that will go so far as to doubt Jesus existed at all.

Here's a nice article though:
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

Although it has been said that some of the sources may have been tampered with.

That being said, I think too few people think about the chaos and what not that would follow if substantial proof existed that any one religion was right. I honestly don't see any good coming from it at all.

Along those lines, there's a new book out that's getting a lot of attention:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Erhman/Forged/prweb8219892.htm

Apparently it's garnered a foothold in the non-religious community because the perception is that Biblical apologists haven't been able to reconcile a lot of arguments he posits in the book.

Scholarship has been able to debunk a lot of myths surrounding Bible creation (like Jesus traveling to learn from Buddhist monks) but very few people think that the New Testament is largely a first-hand account.

Coincidentally, I dislike the link I posted. It says things like "Ehrman reveals that..." instead of "Ehrman makes the argument that..." Seems slanted. It just popped up in the google search first.

Originally posted by Trackz
Here's a nice article though:
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

"Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname)"
Son, you've found yourself a person with no idea what he's talking about.

Lucian was more than a hundred year afterward, talking about what Christian believed not about any actual meeting he had with Jesus. That's evidence of nothing but Christianity.

Suetonius was born after Jesus supposedly died so if he was talking about a Chrestus fellow it wasn't Jesus.

Pliny the Younger just said that people sang songs to Jesus. They sang songs to Odin, too, and there are ballads about Aragorn. Again, evidence of nothing but the existence of Christianity.

Thallus and Phlegon: An eclipse supposedly happened on a certain day that Christians say is important. That's poor evidence of an eclipse and no evidence of Jesus at all.

Mara Bar-Serapion's statement is much more interesting. You can put that in the pro-Jesus column.

Josephus looks like a fine source as well, though I see from wikipedia that there's a good deal of debate about his work.

The Gospels. Yeah that's a circular source. I can prove that Sherlock Holmes existed if we use that standard, after all why would Watson lie about his best friend?

Personally I'd hardly be surprised if Jesus existed, I'd actually be more surprised if convincing evidence turned up. We're talking about a person two thousand years distant who didn't live past his thirties and had no real influence in the world until after he died.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname)"
Son, you've found yourself a person with no idea what he's talking about.

Lucian was more than a hundred year afterward, talking about what Christian believed not about any actual meeting he had with Jesus. That's evidence of nothing but Christianity.

Suetonius was born after Jesus supposedly died so if he was talking about a Chrestus fellow it wasn't Jesus.

Pliny the Younger just said that people sang songs to Jesus. They sang songs to Odin, too, and there are ballads about Aragorn. Again, evidence of nothing but the existence of Christianity.

Thallus and Phlegon: An eclipse supposedly happened on a certain day that Christians say is important. That's poor evidence of an eclipse and no evidence of Jesus at all.

Mara Bar-Serapion's statement is much more interesting. You can put that in the pro-Jesus column.

Josephus looks like a fine source as well, though I see from wikipedia that there's a good deal of debate about his work.

The Gospels. Yeah that's a circular source. I can prove that Sherlock Holmes existed if we use that standard, after all why would Watson lie about his best friend?

Personally I'd hardly be surprised if Jesus existed, I'd actually be more surprised if convincing evidence turned up. We're talking about a person two thousand years distant who didn't live past his thirties and had no real influence in the world until after he died.

Most historians except certain scriptures to be historically accurate, the problem with Jesus is there are people who are actively trying to prove He doesn't exist so most evidence in support of His existence comes under heavier scrutiny. There's less evidence for Achilles but even he is excepted by many.

But, my main question was what type of evidence would really change an Atheists mind, many people always ask this question and then proceed to disrespectfully belittle individuals of faith. Yet, when you think about it what type of evidence would be needed to shift an Atheists thinking, and consequently do you think it would be better or worse for the world.

Originally posted by Trackz
the problem with Jesus is there are people who are actively trying to prove He doesn't exist so most evidence in support of His existence comes under heavier scrutiny

If you do care about evidence the heavier scrutiny is only a problem is he doesn't stand up to it (and he doesn't, like pretty much anyone from the era he can't, for the reasons I mentioned at the end of that post).

Originally posted by Trackz
Most historians except certain scriptures to be historically accurate, the problem with Jesus is there are people who are actively trying to prove He doesn't exist so most evidence in support of His existence comes under heavier scrutiny. There's less evidence for Achilles but even he is excepted by many.

Do people really think there was an Achilles? One who even vaguely resembled the one in the story?

I mean last I heard Homer's existence was being questioned.

Originally posted by Trackz
But, my main question was what type of evidence would really change an Atheists mind

Good evidence. It doesn't have to be of any particular kind. Court records would be nice evidence of Jesus existing (though they wouldn't make me not be an atheist). No good evidence if any kind has ever been turned up, which says all that really matters to me. In my experience the theistic response is to eventually start insisting that evidence doesn't matter, at which point there's no point in having any further conversation.

Originally posted by Trackz
then proceed to disrespectfully belittle individuals of faith

Then perhaps people of faith should not disrespectfully treat atheists as subhuman.

Originally posted by Trackz
Yet, when you think about it what type of evidence would be needed to shift an Atheists thinking, and consequently do you think it would be better or worse for the world.

I doubt the effects would be very large. Changing what people think is true about the world (metaphysically) isn't going to change who they are (morally, spiritually). I expect that the new theists that come out of such a conversion would be as unlike existing ones as atheists are today.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you do care about evidence the heavier scrutiny is only a problem is he doesn't stand up to it (and he doesn't, like pretty much anyone from the era he can't, for the reasons I mentioned at the end of that post).

Do people really think there was an Achilles? One who even vaguely resembled the one in the story?

I mean last I heard Homer's existence was being questioned.

Good evidence. It doesn't have to be of any particular kind. Court records would be nice evidence of Jesus existing (though they wouldn't make me not be an atheist). No good evidence if any kind has ever been turned up, which says all that really matters to me. In my experience the theistic response is to eventually start insisting that evidence doesn't matter, at which point there's no point in having any further conversation.

Then perhaps people of faith should not disrespectfully treat atheists as subhuman.

I doubt the effects would be very large. Changing what people think is true about the world (metaphysically) isn't going to change who they are (morally, spiritually). I expect that the new theists that come out of such a conversion would be as unlike existing ones as atheists are today.

Like I said, yes, they found evidence of the Trojan war and since then many of the individuals from that story have come to be accepted as real. Again there's enough proof that Jesus existed, as much as anyone from that era and before that, if you're going to say there isn't enough evidence for Jesus though then you call into a question a laundry list of historical figures.

I wasn't aware proving Jesus existed was the same as proving that God existed, many atheists do accept Jesus existed (the alternative seems ludicrous in my opinion) but that's not proof enough.

I have plenty of atheist friends and I pray that God judges them by the content of their character over anything else, don't lump the loud and polarized minority with the thousands of other believers who are accepting and loving of all people regardless of their beliefs.

I think that is a terrible underestimation of what would happen if individuals found out that the Christian God (or any other for that matter) was, without a shadow of a doubt, real. People are willing to idiotically kill each other due to differences of religion, people are willing to stretch and bend the Bible's teachings in order to attack innocents and incite tumolt, if God were to proclaim is existence then vanish and let things play their course I don't see any good that would come from that.

Originally posted by Trackz
Like I said, yes, they found evidence of the Trojan war and since then many of the individuals from that story have come to be accepted as real. Again there's enough proof that Jesus existed, as much as anyone from that era and before that, if you're going to say there isn't enough evidence for Jesus though then you call into a question a laundry list of historical figures.

Most historical figures we know of were very prominent during their lives or left large amounts of personal documentation (king, writers) which is why we know about them. There are lots of unambiguous sources that refer to their actions.

Who are you thinking of, though?

Originally posted by Trackz
I wasn't aware proving Jesus existed was the same as proving that God existed, many atheists do accept Jesus existed (the alternative seems ludicrous in my opinion) but that's not proof enough.

I don't think you've been reading my earlier posts. I said up thread that I think Jesus was probably real. The existence of a religious leader who founded a religion is a perfectly plausible idea, in fact it's vastly more plausible than such a person not existing. Historical precedent says that's where religions come from.

However that is a rational argument not an empirical one. No evidence is involved in making it. I personally doubt there will ever be any good evidence to support the idea simply because he of Jesus existing was largely unimportance before he died and incredibly important after he died (which puts all that later evidence in doubt due to people's agendas). Also there's the length of time and the low quality of record keeping.

Originally posted by Trackz
I think that is a terrible underestimation of what would happen if individuals found out that the Christian God (or any other for that matter) was, without a shadow of a doubt, real. People are willing to idiotically kill each other due to differences of religion, people are willing to stretch and bend the Bible's teachings in order to attack innocents and incite tumolt, if God were to proclaim is existence then vanish and let things play their course I don't see any good that would come from that.

A god who appeared suddenly, said "I'm God" and then left again wouldn't convince many people of anything. It might whip some believers into a frenzy but everyone else would point out that there are tons of equally plausible explanations.

A god who stayed around doing miracles would attract followers, at a minimum, and be able to unambiguously say what things really are and are not part of its religion. I suspect there might be wars fought for control of the god or assassinations planned to test how divine it really is. Religious anger would have a proper target as well.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most historical figures we know of were very prominent during their lives or left large amounts of personal documentation (king, writers) which is why we know about them. There are lots of unambiguous sources that refer to their actions.

Who are you thinking of, though?

I don't think you've been reading my earlier posts. I said up thread that I think Jesus was probably real. The existence of a religious leader who founded a religion is a perfectly plausible idea, in fact it's vastly more plausible than such a person not existing. Historical precedent says that's where religions come from.

However that is a rational argument not an empirical one. No evidence is involved in making it. I personally doubt there will ever be any good evidence to support the idea simply because he of Jesus existing was largely unimportance before he died and incredibly important after he died (which puts all that later evidence in doubt due to people's agendas). Also there's the length of time and the low quality of record keeping.

A god who appeared suddenly, said "I'm God" and then left again wouldn't convince many people of anything. It might whip some believers into a frenzy but everyone else would point out that there are tons of equally plausible explanations.

A god who stayed around doing miracles would attract followers, at a minimum, and be able to unambiguously say what things really are and are not part of its religion. I suspect there might be wars fought for control of the god or assassinations planned to test how divine it really is. Religious anger would have a proper target as well.

I'm more directing my arguments towards the starter of this thread who asked for proof that religion was plausible when it's pretty obvious there's not much scientific proof in support of it and religion hinges upon the faith of it's followers. Moreover, I'm saying if God were to provide proof of His existence it would do more harm than good, because from that point forward He would have to take an incredibly active role in our world and would probably lead to use surrendering our free wills in order to keep us from razing cities to the ground.

Originally posted by Harbinger
Justice does not do this. Justice sees that there is a need to punish wrong doing to protect people from being hurt or abused by someone. It is not motivated by anger, but by the desire to protect people from wrongs that people will commit if unhindered.

Ideally, I think this is a far more defensible point of view. Unfortunately, as it is implemented, this is terribly untrue and makes your reasoning problematic.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by inimalist
that only makes sense if you define revenge as anger

this is contrary to the most common uses of the term in history, ie: look at shakespere

it has never been an emotional thing. in fact, the most common interpretation of revenge is that [b]it is justice. [/B]

Revenge isn't anger, it is born from anger. I've never seen revenge used to mean justice. If it was before, that certainly isn't how it is used today.

It's easy to see the difference between revenge and justice. If someone harms another in some way, and that person responds by killing his family that is an act of revenge. Not justice. No one would classify that act as an act of justice. Would you?

what do people think of the Shroud of Turin?

Originally posted by Trackz
what do people think of the Shroud of Turin?

Every 5 years or so, some network has a special on the Shroud that always ends in "nope, it's not the real thing." It seems even the attention-grabbing networks that will sometimes sacrifice scientific integrity for sensationalism (see: any paranormal investigation show) can't squeeze milk out of the Shroud's udder.

I don't even care about analyzing how it was made, etc... there's no test dating it to the 1st century so really it shouldn't even be under consideration, regardless of how the image got there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Highly unlikely to actually be 2000 years old.

That was found in 2005

Originally posted by Digi
Every 5 years or so, some network has a special on the Shroud that always ends in "nope, it's not the real thing." It seems even the attention-grabbing networks that will sometimes sacrifice scientific integrity for sensationalism (see: any paranormal investigation show) can't squeeze milk out of the Shroud's udder.

Originally posted by Trackz
No, I just read an article that said the reason carbon dating placed in medieval times was because they analyzed a portion that had been mended using invisible weaving. Pieces of thread compared to the original are extremely different making it feasible that it could be 2000 years old.

That was found in 2005

Originally posted by King Kandy
But there is still actually no evidence putting it in the 1st century. Without a positive result we have no special reason to put it anywhere before the middle ages, when it first appeared historically.

Lemme find the test, but apparently the test in 2005 said it's feasible that it comes from first century due to the drastic difference in the valetin levels of the mended and original threads. You're right that it's not conclusive but it does give it credence.

Originally posted by Trackz
Lemme find the test, but apparently the test in 2005 said it's feasible that it comes from first century due to the drastic difference in the valetin levels of the mended and original threads. You're right that it's not conclusive but it does give it credence.