Stephen Hawking finally comes out: I'm an Atheist (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

 

[timschochet]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Now we're at the point were we argument about the definition of atheism!

 

[mr roboto]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

I never said you did. Someone else upthread did.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Now we're at the point were we argument about the definition of atheism!

Isn't this what happens in all of these threads? It is part of the atheism is every bit of a religion, requires just as much faith, etc. counters.

 

[dgreen]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Now we're at the point were we argument about the definition of atheism!

Did it really take until page 4 for this? That's pretty good.

 

[joffer]

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

 

[timschochet]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

I never said you did. Someone else upthread did.

OK. Sorry. I do agree with Cliff that religious people get bogged down often trying to define atheism- as if it matters. For my money, anybody who says, "I don't believe there is a god but I don't know for sure" is an atheist. I don't care what the dictionaries say.

 

[mr roboto]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Now we're at the point were we argument about the definition of atheism!

Isn't this what happens in all of these threads? It is part of the atheism is every bit of a religion, requires just as much faith, etc. counters.

I'm not 'countering' anything or trying to score points. Just quoting the definition. Atheism is not non-theism. It just isn't.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

I never said you did. Someone else upthread did.

OK. Sorry.I do agree with Cliff that religious people get bogged down often trying to define atheism- as if it matters. For my money, anybody who says, "I don't believe there is a god but I don't know for sure" is an atheist. I don't care what the dictionaries say.

This is correct. Every 'atheist' has their own opinion on god(s). Some will say definitively 'there is no god(s)', others say 'I have no evidence for a god therefore I do not believe in a god', etc.

Arguing over the definition is a bigger waste of time than Tim Drafts.

 

[timschochet]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

I never said you did. Someone else upthread did.

OK. Sorry.I do agree with Cliff that religious people get bogged down often trying to define atheism- as if it matters. For my money, anybody who says, "I don't believe there is a god but I don't know for sure" is an atheist. I don't care what the dictionaries say.

This is correct. Every 'atheist' has their own opinion on god(s). Some will say definitively 'there is no god(s)', others say 'I have no evidence for a god therefore I do not believe in a god', etc.

Arguing over the definition is a bigger waste of time than Tim Drafts.

i KNOW that timdrafts are awesome.

 

[mr roboto]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Good thing nobody here is.

Is that not the definition of an atheist?

Seriously? Is this shtick?

No

Yikes

Please unpack this.

Atheist means without theism. Doesn't believe in a theistic view of the world where there is an omnipotent god who knows you and judges you, cares about how you live and is typically defined in a holy book.You can be that and still think it is possible there is some controlling force in the universe we aren't aware of yet.

. The bolded is what I was responding to. That's all.

 

[Jayrok]

I thought it was clear many years ago that Hawking was an atheist.

I wouldn't claim that there is 0% chance of some sort of higher power that we would label as a god, so I guess I am agnostic about it.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

More importantly, there is a reason that Yahweh is still worshipped by millions but the Greek and Norse gods are not.

Sure there's a reason. Just not a good one.

I disagree with this. Yahweh, for all his faults, is a positive for the advancement of western civilization and culture.

What does this have to do with Yahweh existing or not?

Nothing. But it has a lot to do with why people believe that Yahweh exists, whereas they don't believe that Thor and Zeus exist, which is why your analogy fails.

There is no analogy. I have the same reasons to believe in Jesus' existence as I have in Thor's (none). Not sure why you are struggling with this.

I asked earlier and you didn't reply - you don't believe that Jesus existed?

I realize this is a minor point in the overall discussion but I need to know whether to take you serious or not.

Jesus the god? I have seen no reason to consider it at all. Jesus the man? Seems possible, maybe even probable although I doubt he resembled the Jesus in your head, and completely an aside to the discussion of the existence of a god.

From the little research I've done on this, it comes down to a "group of scholars" that have spent their entire careers investigating the historicity of Jesus. "Most" agree he was indeed a historical, real person. That's where I stop investigating, as I certainly don't want to dedicate years and years of research to answer this question. I'll take the scholars' word for it. They do diverge rather quickly on some of the details of his life and certainly don't all agree on the question of divinity, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.

Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

 

[skol asylum]

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

Again, no you are wrong. What you are describing is agnosticism. Atheism is very clearly the rejection of any possibility of the existence of a god.

 

[skol asylum]

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

Umm- exactly when did I write that?

I never said you did. Someone else upthread did.

OK. Sorry. I do agree with Cliff that religious people get bogged down often trying to define atheism- as if it matters. For my money, anybody who says, "I don't believe there is a god but I don't know for sure" is an atheist. I don't care what the dictionaries say.

You dont get to make up your very own definition for words Tim.

 

[Jayrok]

Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

That is a whole other topic that probably shouldn't go in this thread, IMO.

On the rest of your post re: the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was probably a historical person, I agree that most scholars at least say Jesus was a real figure in history. However, I believe this topic will start to get readdressed in the future.

In recent years all sorts of books were written about Jesus being just a myth and about how his character was borrowed from other dying/rising gods in antiquity. For the most part, these types of books were panned by actual scholars in the field of NT studies. But there is a new book that was recently released by an actual scholar that takes an indepth look at all this and it just might get some attention in the field. Time will tell I suppose.

My personal take... that the idea that Jesus is myth and based on previous "gods" such as Mithras and other pagan deities is not correct and should not be taken seriously. I think it is entirely possible (maybe even likely), however, that the gospel stories written about Jesus (and the epistles as well) were taken from stories and events right out of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament through the use of midrash. I think the period of writing and the culture/political climate of the region where "Paul" lived and preached are key.

 

[joffer]

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

Lol at the 'I'm an atheist but don't necessarily believe there is no god' schtick.

Merriam Webster

Main Entry: athe·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's not a rejection of 'theism' it's a rejection of 'theos' - God.

It's a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists. It's not a positive claim that a God definitively does not exist.

Again, no you are wrong. What you are describing is agnosticism. Atheism is very clearly the rejection of any possibility of the existence of a god.

Ok.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Off-topic, this whole semantics argument is part of why I refer to myself as agnostic rather than atheist. It's just easier that way. "Atheist" just has such a negative connotation in America today - though, thankfully, not on this board. "Agnostic" just makes me sound like a lovable, bumbling, confused person.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

That is a whole other topic that probably shouldn't go in this thread, IMO.

On the rest of your post re: the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was probably a historical person, I agree that most scholars at least say Jesus was a real figure in history. However, I believe this topic will start to get readdressed in the future.

In recent years all sorts of books were written about Jesus being just a myth and about how his character was borrowed from other dying/rising gods in antiquity. For the most part, these types of books were panned by actual scholars in the field of NT studies. But there is a new book that was recently released by an actual scholar that takes an indepth look at all this and it just might get some attention in the field. Time will tell I suppose.

My personal take... that the idea that Jesus is myth and based on previous "gods" such as Mithras and other pagan deities is not correct and should not be taken seriously. I think it is entirely possible (maybe even likely), however, that the gospel stories written about Jesus (and the epistles as well) were taken from stories and events right out of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament through the use of midrash. I think the period of writing and the culture/political climate of the region where "Paul" lived and preached are key.

I agree that most of the Jesus conspiracy theory stuff, ala the Zeitgeist movement, is rubbish. I'm very interested in the non-biblical evidence for Jesus, which is why I asked the question to AAA. There's just not much out there I don't think.

 

[cstu]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

I don't tell my daughter that there definitively are no unicorns.

 

[Jayrok]

That is a whole other topic that probably shouldn't go in this thread, IMO.

On the rest of your post re: the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was probably a historical person, I agree that most scholars at least say Jesus was a real figure in history. However, I believe this topic will start to get readdressed in the future.

In recent years all sorts of books were written about Jesus being just a myth and about how his character was borrowed from other dying/rising gods in antiquity. For the most part, these types of books were panned by actual scholars in the field of NT studies. But there is a new book that was recently released by an actual scholar that takes an indepth look at all this and it just might get some attention in the field. Time will tell I suppose.

My personal take... that the idea that Jesus is myth and based on previous "gods" such as Mithras and other pagan deities is not correct and should not be taken seriously. I think it is entirely possible (maybe even likely), however, that the gospel stories written about Jesus (and the epistles as well) were taken from stories and events right out of the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament through the use of midrash. I think the period of writing and the culture/political climate of the region where "Paul" lived and preached are key.

I agree that most of the Jesus conspiracy theory stuff, ala the Zeitgeist movement, is rubbish. I'm very interested in the non-biblical evidence for Jesus, which is why I asked the question to AAA. There's just not much out there I don't think.

There isn't much out there. There is much debate over the Josephus and Tacitus references. NT scholar Bart Ehrman believes that Jesus existed and he bases this more on the textual evidence within the gospels themselves using certain criteria. He doesn't believe Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead or performed miracles, but he does believe that early christians certainly believed Jesus rose from the dead and did miracles.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

Why?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Off-topic, this whole semantics argument is part of why I refer to myself as agnostic rather than atheist. It's just easier that way. "Atheist" just has such a negative connotation in America today - though, thankfully, not on this board. "Agnostic" just makes me sound like a lovable, bumbling, confused person.

Kind of like how fat chicks describe themselves as "Titian."

 

[cstu]

Sucks to think when you die, that it's over. Dirt nap. Thast's reality. You won't know that you're dead.

This in itself does not negate the existence of God.

But it leads to an interesting question: would Christianity be so popular if there was no afterlife? Suppose everything else was the same: Jesus comes, tells of the way to live, forgives men for their sins, rises from the grave, etc. But there is no promise of afterlife for anyone else. Would this religion have spread?

"So let me get this right...I can convert to your religion where your God doesn't have an active role in the lives of people AND there's no place I go to when I die? No thanks, I'll stick with praying to Bacchus and make sure I have a good grape crop this year."

 

[CBusAlex]

Obviously the problem is that you can't give an example of anything that is beyond the reach of the human mind

Magnets! How the #### do they work?

 

[cstu]

I do agree with Cliff that religious people get bogged down often trying to define atheism- as if it matters. For my money, anybody who says, "I don't believe there is a god but I don't know for sure" is an atheist. I don't care what the dictionaries say.

 

[skol asylum]

Anybody who believes in Allah is a Christian. I don't care what the dictionary says.

 

[B-Deep]

I like that hawking is not some evangelical atheist that seems to think there is much to be gained by preaching the gospel of no gospel

he seems to have more important fish to fry than worrying about convincing me to not believe in something because he does not

 

[cstu]

From the little research I've done on this, it comes down to a "group of scholars" that have spent their entire careers investigating the historicity of Jesus. "Most" agree he was indeed a historical, real person. That's where I stop investigating, as I certainly don't want to dedicate years and years of research to answer this question. I'll take the scholars' word for it. They do diverge rather quickly on some of the details of his life and certainly don't all agree on the question of divinity, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.

Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and that is the best evidence for his existence in my opinion. Tacitus was known for using official Roman records so it's doubtful to me that he would state the existence of Jesus without having evidence.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Anybody who believes in Allah is a Christian. I don't care what the dictionary says.

Did you even read the definition posted? The very first definition described how it was first used. To mean "ungodly or wicked." Christians used it to describe other Christians sects that they disagreed with.

The distinction between knowledge of the existence of God and the worship of a God is silly. I call myself an atheist. Tasker calls himself an agnostic. Neither of us worship God. We don't go to church. Neither of us base a single moral decision upon what any God would view as morally desirable. There is literally no distinction between how we view God's place in our life.

To even apply the term agnosticism to a truth claim that has been specifically constructed as to be immune to rational analysis is irrational. Agnosticism is a useful descriptor for situations where a situation is amenable to rational or evidence-based analysis, but where the evidence is incomplete. We might be agnostic as to whether minimum-wage laws increase unemployment because the model-based evidence isn't robust enough. But agnosticism in regard to claims that are immune to evidence-based analysis just results in considering nonsense questions. "Would Genghis Khan have enjoyed Cherry Garcia ice cream?"

 

[timschochet]

I like that hawking is not some evangelical atheist that seems to think there is much to be gained by preaching the gospel of no gospel

he seems to have more important fish to fry than worrying about convincing me to not believe in something because he does not

i kind of reject this idea too- it reminds me of the of accusation that there are gay people out there who are attempting to "recruit" our young people and make them gay. I don't always agree with the "loud" atheists out there. But their purpose, as I understand it, is not to make religious people become atheists so m as it is to let fellow atheists in the closet know that their thoughts on this issue are legitimate: that it's OK to be a non-believer.

 

[timschochet]

From the little research I've done on this, it comes down to a "group of scholars" that have spent their entire careers investigating the historicity of Jesus. "Most" agree he was indeed a historical, real person. That's where I stop investigating, as I certainly don't want to dedicate years and years of research to answer this question. I'll take the scholars' word for it. They do diverge rather quickly on some of the details of his life and certainly don't all agree on the question of divinity, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.

Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and that is the best evidence for his existence in my opinion. Tacitus was known for using official Roman records so it's doubtful to me that he would state the existence of Jesus without having evidence.

Some scholars believe that his writing about Jesus was inserted by Cheistians long after he was dead.

 

[Black Box]

From the little research I've done on this, it comes down to a "group of scholars" that have spent their entire careers investigating the historicity of Jesus. "Most" agree he was indeed a historical, real person. That's where I stop investigating, as I certainly don't want to dedicate years and years of research to answer this question. I'll take the scholars' word for it. They do diverge rather quickly on some of the details of his life and certainly don't all agree on the question of divinity, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.

Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and that is the best evidence for his existence in my opinion. Tacitus was known for using official Roman records so it's doubtful to me that he would state the existence of Jesus without having evidence.

Some scholars believe that his writing about Jesus was inserted by Cheistians long after he was dead.

You're thinking of one of the Josephus references. Tacitus is roundly accepted from what I understand.

 

[timschochet]

Oh maybe you're right. My bad .

 

[AAABatteries]

I asked earlier and you didn't reply - you don't believe that Jesus existed?

I realize this is a minor point in the overall discussion but I need to know whether to take you serious or not.

Jesus the god? I have seen no reason to consider it at all. Jesus the man? Seems possible, maybe even probable although I doubt he resembled the Jesus in your head, and completely an aside to the discussion of the existence of a god.

From the little research I've done on this, it comes down to a "group of scholars" that have spent their entire careers investigating the historicity of Jesus. "Most" agree he was indeed a historical, real person. That's where I stop investigating, as I certainly don't want to dedicate years and years of research to answer this question. I'll take the scholars' word for it. They do diverge rather quickly on some of the details of his life and certainly don't all agree on the question of divinity, miracles, rising from the dead, etc.Question back to AAA: what evidence OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE can you present about the historicity of Jesus?

I don't study this stuff at all so I don't know a lot about it but I've seen and read some about Josephus and Tacitus. Maybe it's more of a debate than I thought- I thought even most atheists acknowledged the person existed.

 

[TheIronSheik]

4 pages? The sentient computer is laughing his brain dead human's ### off.

 

[B-Deep]

I like that hawking is not some evangelical atheist that seems to think there is much to be gained by preaching the gospel of no gospel

he seems to have more important fish to fry than worrying about convincing me to not believe in something because he does not

i kind of reject this idea too- it reminds me of the of accusation that there are gay people out there who are attempting to "recruit" our young people and make them gay.I don't always agree with the "loud" atheists out there. But their purpose, as I understand it, is not to make religious people become atheists so m as it is to let fellow atheists in the closet know that their thoughts on this issue are legitimate: that it's OK to be a non-believer.

i don't agree on the second part, not always at least

much as religion, whatever its initial concept, has become a tool for power and money so has atheism among a certain group. i am all for fighting religion creeping into education and the like, but if a person believes in god or not makes no difference to me until they start trying to tell me what i should believe. Then i have a problem, and this goes for both sides

 

[CBusAlex]

I don't care what the dictionary says.

This part appears to be accurate, anyway.

 

[Jayrok]

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and that is the best evidence for his existence in my opinion. Tacitus was known for using official Roman records so it's doubtful to me that he would state the existence of Jesus without having evidence.

It is possible that Tacitus didn't get his information from written records but simply heard about the origin of the name Christians from the Roman populace, who called the followers of the movement Christians (this is actually his word in the passage). He called the leader Christus, presumably from what he was told by his sources on the matter. He also referred to Pilate as a Procurator but he was actually a Prefect.

It could be evidence that Tacitus asked about Christians and where the name came from and his source told him the story that was going around about Jesus and Pilate, etc.

It seems if he got his information from official Roman records, he would have called him Jesus, since that is what would have been written. And he would have known Pilate was the Prefect in Judea. Nothing is concrete, but it is a possible explanation.

In any case, I don't think his mentioning of the leader of the Christian movement in his letter is proof that Jesus existed. It is proof (or solid evidence) that there were in fact a group of people who were called Christians in the second century.

 

[cstu]

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and that is the best evidence for his existence in my opinion. Tacitus was known for using official Roman records so it's doubtful to me that he would state the existence of Jesus without having evidence.

It is possible that Tacitus didn't get his information from written records but simply heard about the origin of the name Christians from the Roman populace, who called the followers of the movement Christians (this is actually his word in the passage). He called the leader Christus, presumably from what he was told by his sources on the matter. He also referred to Pilate as a Procurator but he was actually a Prefect.

It could be evidence that Tacitus asked about Christians and where the name came from and his source told him the story that was going around about Jesus and Pilate, etc.

It seems if he got his information from official Roman records, he would have called him Jesus, since that is what would have been written. And he would have known Pilate was the Prefect in Judea. Nothing is concrete, but it is a possible explanation.

In any case, I don't think his mentioning of the leader of the Christian movement in his letter is proof that Jesus existed. It is proof (or solid evidence) that there were in fact a group of people who were called Christians in the second century.

While it's possible that Tacitus did what you describe, but I don't know of any other examples of Tacitus reporting something that way. He didn't like Christians so it would have been easy for him to deny that Jesus was real.

Considering he wrote this 100 years after Jesus' death, I think if there was any reason to believe that Jesus never existed that he would have known about it and reported it.

I don't read too much into prefect vs. procurator since a procurator is a prefect and the title given to governors during Tacitus' time. No idea if he did this in his other writings.

It's certainly not proof of Jesus' existence, but I have no reason to believe he wasn't a real person.

 

[cstu]

More on this if you want to read about it.

Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, says [sym.Tac, 398] "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He adds [ibid., 281, 282] that Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary."

 

[Christo]

I know most of you hate Tim. He's a smart guy. He gets in your crawl. he's right most of the time. #realtalk

He gets in my what?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has children can tell themselves that there definitively is no God.

I don't believe in you.

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who has seen a child die of cancer can tell themselves that there is a God.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

I like that hawking is not some evangelical atheist that seems to think there is much to be gained by preaching the gospel of no gospel

he seems to have more important fish to fry than worrying about convincing me to not believe in something because he does not

i kind of reject this idea too- it reminds me of the of accusation that there are gay people out there who are attempting to "recruit" our young people and make them gay.I don't always agree with the "loud" atheists out there. But their purpose, as I understand it, is not to make religious people become atheists so m as it is to let fellow atheists in the closet know that their thoughts on this issue are legitimate: that it's OK to be a non-believer.

i don't agree on the second part, not always at least

much as religion, whatever its initial concept, has become a tool for power and money so has atheism among a certain group. i am all for fighting religion creeping into education and the like, but if a person believes in god or not makes no difference to me until they start trying to tell me what i should believe. Then i have a problem, and this goes for both sides

Uhh, yeah, that's kind of the whole point of-as you term it-evangelical atheism. It's pushback on superstitious nonsense constantly being forced into the public sphere. I have zero issue with my friends who want to say a silent prayer before eating out, or care what their family does, or what church they go to.

And how in the world has atheism "become a tool for power and money"? Have I missed something here? Not seeing any evidence of a whole lot of power OR money stemming from atheism. Care to explain what you mean?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I know most of you hate Tim. He's a smart guy. He gets in your crawl. he's right most of the time. #realtalk

He gets in my what?

Stephen Hawking may be smart but he is a party animal at heart. He has been proven wrong more than once before. I think he hopes he will lose this bet too, in time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How can we know what is unknowable?

There are ways.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I know most of you hate Tim. He's a smart guy. He gets in your crawl. he's right most of the time. #realtalk

He gets in my what?

Stephen Hawking may be smart but he is a party animal at heart. He has been proven wrong more than once before. I think he hopes he will lose this bet too, in time.

Not a chance. There is no gamble. We understand reality. No bets to be hedged.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not necessarily. We know there are things that can never be known yet they exist. For example, knowing both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle is impossible, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A particle will have momentum, and it will have position, we just are unable to know both at the same time. They're forever beyond the limits of human understanding due to the nature of the universe.

That's how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is commonly taught in high school, but it may be misleading. Although Heisenberg himself expressed the principle as a limitation on our knowledge, my understanding is that physicists since then have reformulated the principle such that it's not a limitation on our knowledge, but is instead description of reality. Particles have both particle-like and wave-like properties, and the wave-like properties prevent the particle from even having a definite position and definite momentum at the same time. It's all fuzzy and wave-like. We can't measure a definite position and definite momentum not because we suck at measuring stuff, but because they don't exist. As the chemwiki puts it, "in quantum mechanics, a particle cannot have both a definite position and momentum. Thus, the limitations described by Heisenberg are a natural occurrence and have nothing to do with any limitations of the observational system."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind," Hawking told El Mundo.

This is a pretty key basic assumption which I find very flawed. Much of atheism is rooted in this idea which I vehemently disagree with.

In my opinion, reality is limitless and the human brain is limited, thus Hawking's statement is certainly untrue.

Hawking's statement seems untrue to you because it is beyond the reach of your human mind. Hawking thinks in mysterious ways. Ultimately, if you have enough faith that Hawking's statement is true, then you will understand that it is true.