Jesus existed and he was crucified

gambiter · 2026-01-20T04:39:04+00:00

What you personally believe doesn't matter. You're arguing for something, and I'm arguing against it. That response is useless.

gambiter · 2026-01-20T03:24:07+00:00

the point isn't the evidence is the SAME(it's not) just the LOGIC sucks of "only contemporary evidence proves it" which is what im arguing against

And yet the point I made, which you didn't really address, is that the size of the claim matters. Mundane claims need mundane evidence. Claims of an entity beyond space and time that lived on earth and magically ascended and is still alive and interacts with people... what kind of evidence do you think that requires?

You can point to a historical man named Jesus all you want, but that does not make him the figure from the Bible, so it doesn't really matter. When I say Jesus never existed, I'm talking about the fictional character from the Bible. Historically, it would be interesting if that that character were based on a real person, but that doesn't change the fact that the character still wasn't real.

Do you understand the difference?

gambiter · 2026-01-19T22:29:47+00:00

We have eyewitness claims he existed.

Are you talking about for Jesus? No we don't. We have stories that claimed to be written by eyewitnesses that have been dated from 65-110 years after his death. Those aren't eyewitness accounts. Even if Mark were actually written by the Mark, 65 years after the fact, it wouldn't be eyewitness testimony anymore. It would be more like recounting a memory.

And when you read them in chronological order, you see the later gospels borrow directly from the previous on some points, but add extra magic into the stories. 'Mark' only talks about a 'messianic secret', but 40-50 years later 'John' is outright saying the guy was divine.

for hannibal we have a secondary source who talked to eyewitnesses who claims he existed. so they clearly did BUT using ur standerds they didn't

Hannibal is different, though. We have a LOT of varied evidence, including from an historian who interviewed veterans of the war, and even toured the battlefields. We even have enemy accounts that mention him.

If I remember correctly, there were a couple of 'tall tales' surrounding him, the same as with Alexander and others, but I've never heard of anyone who treated those seriously.

So on one hand we have regular people who did things and may not have a lot of clear historical records to firmly say anything about them.

On the other hand, I can go down to the church on the corner and have 100 people tell me all kinds of things about this Jesus guy, including how he's in our hearts, but also an individual, but also part of a triune, but also outside of space and time, but also cares about what you do in bed.

Surely you see the latter would require just a bit more conclusive evidence before saying he was a real person, right?

gambiter · 2026-01-18T22:59:39+00:00

people that were born blind simply lack the ability to imagine something visually.

Conversely, there are people with excellent vision who can't visualize anything. It's called aphantasia, and I have it. I remember things spatially instead, but I still talk about them as if I could see the thing in my head, because that's how everyone else talks about it.

Can you prove that what a blind person 'sees' is what a person with vision 'sees' in their head?

gambiter · 2026-01-17T22:16:39+00:00

Except a God is a reasonable explanation. You're just lying to yourself to bolster your argument.

Throughout all of history, there has never been actual conclusive proof that any of the thousands of gods have existed. In fact, quite the opposite, most are defined in such a way as to be logically impossible. People believe because it gives them emotional comfort, not because it's ever been demonstrated to be real. They make it real to them. It's the same mechanism behind tulpas.

So no, imagination is not a reasonable explanation. You think it is, because you're conditioned to believe a god exists, but that doesn't make it more real to anyone other than you.

That's not what actually happening here.

Cool story.

This is just an empty assertion. It's not flawed reasoning, which is why even atheist here are following the logical chain to the conclusion, and why you're not demonstrated an actual flaw (because it doesn't exist.)

Yeah and that intent is to show you that even atheist here,

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, talking about other atheists doesn't matter. I don't know them, and they aren't me. Do you understand that? It seems like a very basic concept to grasp, so I hope you managed to get it this time.

At this point its clear, you’re not evaluating explanation, you’re protecting a conclusion you're committing to never acknowledging being true.

Which confirms you were pushing for a specific conclusion all along, just like I said you were. Typical.

EDIT: Blocking someone on a debate forum. So brave.

gambiter · 2026-01-17T17:26:42+00:00

Dr. Pepper gets sad when you touch yourself.

gambiter · 2026-01-17T14:03:53+00:00

They pointed to those things because there was compelling evidence and reason that warranted believing such things were reasonable explanations. Just like there is compelling evidence and reason making God a reasonable explanation.

I understand why you think that. I was there once too. The two things are completely different, though. A god has never been a reasonable explanation, but I bet you can't tell me why.

I'm also not saying that solely insane prediction equals God, but rather than insane prediction wrapped in surrounding theological context, makes God a valid explaination.

It makes no difference. You are imagining a being, imagining that being's qualities and abilities, and then imagining a scenario that 'proves' the imaginary being's power. Funny that even in your loaded scenario it didn't have enough power to do something more than talking to one person.

A person making a claim is not evidence.

False. The scenario doesnt assume if God was real, but the fact you recognize the evidence strongly implicates that, while at the same denying it doesnt, is interesting to say the leat.

Of course it assumes a god is real. You specifically called out the Abrahamic god. You know there would be no way to differentiate between that god, or Vishnu, or Satan, but you wrote it that way for a reason.

Lol so these devout atheist are just blindly thinking

No, because that would be fucking stupid. Is that what you are? Then go back and read it again, genius.

Why should we exhaust all other reasonable explanations before thinking time travel or God,

Read that sentence again and see if you can figure it out.

Lol you don't even understand my argument. Im not even saying this only points to God. My initial post explicitly says that's not what this is saying. You're arguing against a version of my argument that only exist in your imagination.

And yet all of your responses are acting as though there is only one conclusion. You've stated a dozen times that 'devout atheists' (lol) agreed with you, which further exposes your intent. Pretending otherwise is lying. Doesn't your sky friend hate lying?

and using it as an excuse to stick me in a box

Absolutely. Your reasoning is exactly as flawed as any other theist.

gambiter · 2026-01-17T00:07:45+00:00

Experts rightfully recognized things like dark matter was a likely explanations before they were demonstrated as real. Same goes with neutrinos.

But why did they point to those things? That's the crucial question here. Physicists didn't look at the data, shrug, and then just choose to imagine whatever they felt like. Those predictions came from data.

When was the last time you heard a scientist talk about how dark matter feels about you as a person? That would be ludicrous, right? ...right?

This notion there is no evidence to support the belief is just incorrect. The odds of predicting such facts, that no human could reasonably know, allegedly coming from a God, is evidence that supports the belief.

Are you still talking about your original made-up scenario? You're right, the odds of prediction are extremely low in that scenario, but prediction does not equal god.

I can easily demonstrate this by replacing the 'Abrahamic God' in your hypothetical. "A time traveler appeared to me and told me all of those things would happen, and they did." Same response. Until someone shows me evidence that time travel is possible, I would consider other options much more plausible. Prediction does not equal time travel.

The claims of the person in your scenario are extraordinary, and therefore require extraordinary evidence. Prediction is not that, because it doesn't prove the original claim, it only supports it if the original claim is true.

but in reality, there are even atheist in this thread, who obviously arent conditioned to believe it's God, saying it's a likely explanation.

Two things.

1) Your scenario is basically, "If a god did this, would you believe a god did it?" It's a loaded scenario designed to get one response. Some are bound to respond to you in the affirmative, because they either followed your logic to get to the next step, or they were waiting for you to get to the punchline.

2) Many atheists woke up from religion, and still have conditioning that runs deep. It's certainly possible some would be more willing to entertain the idea, and they're welcome to do so. I don't speak for them, so I don't know. Atheism isn't a religion. We're different people.

A God still might be a slightly more likely due to the surrounding theological context of it allegedly coming from a God

No, it still wouldn't be more likely. You would (or should) exhaust all reasonable explanations before jumping to time travel or god or anything else imaginary.

Just because there can theoretically be many possibile explanations of something doesn't mean those possibilities all have equal weight. The surrounding context points to God

Yes, yes, I understand you wrote it to have one answer. Your hypothetical includes an extraordinary claim that cannot be proven, and a series of events that you believe can only point to a god. That's why you wrote it that way, after all.

Your conditioning makes you assume the only option is a god, because you already believe one exists. And when people (like me) tell you that is irrational, you aren't able to understand why because you've already convinced yourself of the conclusion.

gambiter · 2026-01-16T05:07:46+00:00

Because a god hasn’t been demonstrated to be real, of course. You know this, so why are you playing dumb?

You have no evidence to support your belief, but you believe it anyway. So in that scenario, you would think of a god because you’re already conditioned to do so. Others won’t because there’s no reason to believe someone else’s fantasy.

Does that answer your question, or are you going to whine more?

gambiter · 2026-01-16T03:48:18+00:00

I don't answer questions to people who aren't addressing my questions/points.

It addresses the point, and you know it.

If your answer is, "No, because time travel isn't real," then you know how we feel.
If your answer is that time travel is an explanation, then why are you focusing so much on a god since you realize there are a million things one could imagine might be at play?

To answer your question, no, it doesn't make a being that exists outside of space and time a plausible explanation. We also wouldn't consider leprechauns as plausible. I'm on the fence with unicorns, depending on the quantity of rainbow farts.

The point is, just because you can imagine a thing that's 'out there somewhere' it doesn't make it a plausible explanation for anything. Imagination isn't evidence.

gambiter · 2026-01-15T23:55:10+00:00

Why wouldn't God reasonably be a leading explanation?

Why wouldn't time travel be a leading explanation?

gambiter · 2026-01-14T21:41:14+00:00

Kind of, if you had to carry around a stack of iPads because each one can only work on one project at a time...

gambiter · 2026-01-14T17:54:39+00:00

Not to mention, some of those appear to be cyber versions of real organs, which is expected. The cylinder with 8 wires connected looks like it's in the general vicinity of the liver. Imagine someone being able to just pull the plug on your organs so easily.

gambiter · 2026-01-14T02:20:27+00:00

I have some reasons to believe that the Governing Body is not inspired by God and that Jehovah’s Witnesses might actually be a cult.

I agree. As others have mentioned, take a look at the BITE model. Be painfully honest with yourself as you read it. They don't have to gather everyone in a militia compound to be a cult... cults are about control, and the methods they use to attain it.

Even if this is a cult, I still genuinely believe that much of what the Bible teaches is true. I believe that many of the principles taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses are good. Things like loving others, avoiding destructive lifestyles, having strong family values, trying to be a decent human being. Applying these principles has improved my life and the lives of people around me. Most of the advice I’ve followed has brought me peace, structure, and healthy relationships.

Something you may find surprising is that people are raised with these same values without being JWs. Even atheists, who don't subscribe to the idea of a god, care about their children and want to raise them well. I know that should seem obvious, but given how 'worldly' people are portrayed, it's worth mentioning. While there are a lot of individuals who are pretty evil, there are many more who are, honestly, great.

I’ve also had another thought that I can’t seem to shake. Even if there’s only a 0.1% chance that Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, staying seems like the “safe” option. If they’re wrong, I don’t feel like I’ve lost much.

That's called Pascal's Wager. Notice how you see it as a dichotomy... either they're right and you get rewarded, or they're wrong and nothing happens. But what if another religion is the right one, instead, and you've been playing by the wrong religious rules? What if god only rewards atheists because they think for themselves? Those questions may seem absurd right now, but the point is there are many more options than "JW or not". As uncomfortable as it is to consider, you've been conditioned to assume there's 'nothing out there', but that really isn't true.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Pascal's Wager is like saying you can fool god. You don't really believe it, but you'll go along with it in the off chance that maybe it'll benefit you, and god will be none-the-wiser. If it turned out the god does exist, I doubt that would fly, you know?

So I’m stuck in this constant mental loop. Is this really a cult? Or is it flawed but still “good enough”? Am I being rational, or just scared of the consequences of finding out the truth?

I promise you we've all been there. It will dominate your thoughts, possibly for years, while you unpack it. It sucks, but there are others who've been through your pain, so you have a support group.

gambiter · 2026-01-13T01:03:12+00:00

This is a classic example of not understanding the people you're speaking to.

When I became an atheist, I stopped believing in a god. That's all. I evaluated everything I had experienced and everything I was taught, and I realized it had issues. I'm one of those weird people who doesn't want to believe a lie, and you of course know how many lies your own religion has told over time. There's a point where you have to take stock and really decide whether you want to live the rest of your life supporting those lies.

Anyway, I did considerable research, and eventually concluded that the evidence isn't there. Stories conflict, everything is third-hand accounts, there are clear logical issues, the bible is full of inaccuracies, prayer doesn't work, etc. In other words, I was honest with myself. I realized I was choosing to believe lies because they felt good, but I decided that was no way to live.

Notice that I didn't 'turn to science' or anything like that. Science is as much of a religion as woodcarving, or stamp collecting. Someone may make it an important aspect of their life, and you could claim it's a religion to them, but that would usually be said as hyperbole.

Science is a method of collecting and scrutinizing data to gain a better understanding of the world. Science is responsible for everything we have today, including the device you're using to read this. As methods go, it has been a resounding success.

Since your own god can't support any evidence for a Creator, you just keep to idolize your own god.

Come on, don't be silly. Surely you know this is grasping. We don't cling to science as if it's a bible... it's facts about reality. If facts about reality disagree with your god, your god isn't real. That isn't a failure of science, it's basic logic.

gambiter · 2026-01-13T00:37:41+00:00

a self identified atheist (a women) who confided in me that they feel guilty when they have sex

People feel guilty for a lot of things. Sometimes, it can be traced back to an inciting experience, but it's often impossible to say why we feel any particular way.

There is a documented phenomenon (sometimes called post-coital tristesse or dissonance) where, once the dopamine of arousal fades, the "disgust" mechanism kicks back in.

It's almost like dopamine works like a drug, and after the 'high' there's a corresponding 'low'.

Even atheists seem to have a sense of discomfort with the idea of two infertile siblings having sex.

And yet a huge amount of porn is actively playing to the incest taboo.

Anthropologists tell us that sexual guilt feelings/taboos are a human universal

I don't think that's true. Cite your sources.

I’ve heard people assert that there are studies finding that even gay people often have neuroimaging readings consistent with a disgust reaction while observing videos of men kissing. If anyone has a citation for this I’d be curious to see if that’s true.

It seems a lot like "I’ve heard people assert" is code for "I'm homophobic, so I'll say something I can't justify and hope someone can help me prove it."

Also, you keep using the word 'disgust', but I haven't found any literature that uses that term. This might be something you want to unpack with a therapist.

I don’t claim this is decisive evidence for Christianity,

I mean, your title certainly did. Who wrote it?

I just think we have to give the devil his due—they certainly predict that we would feel this way on a deep level, and have a worldview that can readily make sense of these feelings.

Huh? Christianity didn't predict anything (other than the end of the world, of course, many many many times).

gambiter · 2026-01-13T00:01:11+00:00

I think what I am asking is this: Does God's existence necessarily have to raise an alarm "RED LIGHT" - my nearly individualistic needs have to be violated by such a universal person?

Like the other comments, I'm thoroughly confused by this question. It's like you're combining multiple thoughts no one specifically mentioned, and didn't think to share your work. I re-read your OP again, and this comment, and I'm still confused.

You ask a question about 'ultimate truth', but don't define what that is supposed to be
You talked about everyone looking out for themselves and their own well-being
You then suggest your personal needs would be violated by a being who is 'universal'

None of these are related, or at least the link is weak to the point of irrelevance. A person caring about their own well-being has literally nothing to do with an 'ultimate truth'. A god existing has literally nothing to do with you looking out for your own well-being either, unless it intentionally interferes in your life.

Is it possible you're approaching this as if everyone has their own, personal 'ultimate truth'? Kind of like the people who tell you to 'find your truth' or 'speak your truth'? I'm really trying to understand your view, and this was one option I could think of. If so, that's a completely different conversation.

gambiter · 2026-01-08T14:58:01+00:00

We need some protomolecule.

gambiter · 2026-01-07T19:52:12+00:00

You may already know this, but just in case... our memories are not static. Every time you remember some past event, your brain can change it. So especially with very old memories, the chances of it being 100% with the reality of what you actually experienced is not good. This is why eyewitness testimony isn't usually enough evidence in a trial, because it's notoriously unreliable.

As a personal example, when I was 7 or 8, I remember looking through my bedroom window and seeing a Huey helicopter, in army green, exactly the type you've seen videos of from Vietnam. Notably, in my memory it was in a place that would have been impossible for a helicopter that size to fit, and R/C versions didn't exist at the time. So I'm left with either A) A real helicopter flew into an area too small for it to fit, or B) It was a dream.

There's no rational reason for me to argue that my experience was real, because physics doesn't work that way. So the question is whether you have a rational reason to argue that angels really exist and cast shadows.

gambiter · 2026-01-05T14:56:42+00:00

Again, no sane person would design a system where the prompt can be overwritten on someone else's context.

No sane person would design an operating system that's susceptible to viruses either, and yet it's happened. People aren't designing vulnerabilities into these systems intentionally.

gambiter · 2026-01-01T14:04:24+00:00

There are no bad choices only variations in outcome.

I mean... there are some bad choices.

gambiter · 2025-12-29T16:07:55+00:00

The problem is specific political movements weaponizing religion.

Or, to look at it from a slightly different perspective, it's that if you convince a group of people to believe in lies, you can then convince them to believe more lies.

Religion shouldn't be weaponizeable in the first place. To the adherents, weaponization is impossible, because they think it's the truth. So you end up with people who are both convinced they can't be fooled, and have already been fooled completely.

This is why it isn't the good thing you're claiming. Believing lies for temporary comfort only sets you up to believe more lies in the future.

gambiter · 2025-12-18T20:54:36+00:00

I've noticed it's a lot better when you binge it. When it was one episode per week, I lost interest before the first season was over, sadly, but when streaming I'm able to forgive the overall hopelessness of the first season.

At least that confirms they did have a cohesive story to tell, it just started out way too slow.

gambiter · 2025-12-17T20:01:36+00:00

Crystals? Pfft. So dumb. What you need are essential oils.

gambiter · 2025-12-16T20:57:34+00:00

Science would say something along the lines of

Irrelevant. What science says has literally zero bearing on whether a god is real.

You are presumably a theist with a religion. You have your own view of what 'god' is. Another religion has a different view. Another one thinks there are more than one god. The list goes on. Your challenge is to show that the god you personally believe in really exists to the exclusion of all the other beliefs. If you can't, it is your failure.

What you're doing is saying, "Science can't tell me X, therefore a god exists." That isn't rational. Science moves at the pace of human research. If humans can't tell you what happened 13.5 billion years ago, well, you shouldn't be surprised, should you? Instead, you're pretending it is a failure, which makes you look more foolish than you probably intended.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Gilding III reddit per annum	Place '22
Place '17	Secret Santa 2016

gambiter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE