Re/ Josephus' references added later - Widely accepted by who, and what evidence do they have?
Widely accepted by most non-apologists (including other Christian scholars).
For one thing, no other work of Josephus mentions Jesus at all. Also Origen and other early Christian writers claim that Josephus did not
recognize Jesus as the messiah. Which contradicts what is written in the works that apologists try to quote. Also other Christian writers at the time fail to cite this passage in his works, making it likely that it was added much later.
Furthermore, the text is obviously pro-christian, which also contradicts his other writings, and presents an unlikely stance. Josephus was a Jewish apologist. It is highly unlikely that he was a fan of Jesus in anyway.
Also none of the passages we are talking about were suspiciously not noticed in Josephus' works until several hundred years later.
You seem to have faith in evidence which disproves other evidence, but why is that evidence stronger than the evidence it apparently disproves?
Because the evidence it disapproves doesn't prove anything in the first place. Even if we accept that Josephus actually wrote that, it fails to prove anything since Josephus only wrote long after the fact.
By your reasoning you then have absolutely noth have can be answereding but faith to go on when you say there isn't a God, or an intelligent creator of the universe.
No. It does not require faith to reject a claim made without evidence. That is what an honest person does. I can say there is no god because those who claim his existence have not one shred of actual proof to support such an assertion. Also there exists no need for a god. Every question we have can be answered without one and it has no explanitory power.
It is up to the one who makes the positive claim to provide the evidence for what they claim. If they cannot do that, then the only logical option is to reject the claim.
Best I've heard is...we anticipate soon being able to explain how something came from nothing.
No one says that something came from nothing. Only very stupid Christians and other theists say that because they have no conception of what they are talking about. Theists are the ones who claim that something came from nothing. You claim that your god just happened to exist and then formed the universe from......what exactly?
Point is, no one
claims that the universe came from nothingness.
On a side note, there's another flaw to this. What you say assumes that there even is such a thing as nothingness in the first place. Nothing is an abstract concept. As far as we know there is no place in the universe wherein nothing resides.
It is far more likely that there was always something, just constantly changing forms.
Indeed. You have a different faith than mine. I have faith that a designed world came from a designer. You have faith that random explosions created order, and that the origin of that first explosion will one day be explained, etc etc.
This is an outright lie. We do not have a different faith. This is because I have evidence
for the things that I believe. I can actually justify my ideas. So no, I do not have faith. Faith is believing in spite
of the evidence (or lack thereof). You are not only wrong to say otherwise, but it is inherently dishonest of you to say otherwise because you very well know better than that, or at least should by now.
This is as opposed to you, who not only has no evidence, but cannot even provide a means of distignguishing your beliefs from a made up fanatsy.
I'm not. I don't.
Your behaviour seems to indicate otherwise. See below.
I know you don't like non-atheists deciding what an atheist is, please allow Christians to say that a Christian is somebody who trusts in the deity, death and resurrection of Christ. If someone disputes any of those things, they are not a Christian however much they claim to be. There are different conclusions about Jesus, granted, but CHRISTIANS have come to the conclusions I noted.
This here is a dodge, and a strawman. Not to mention a lie.
I did not at any point try to define what a christian is. What I said was:For that matter, what about the Christians who disagree with what your definition of a Christian is?
You said a Christian was one thing. I asked you what about the people who say they are christians but define it differently. Why is your definition right and theirs wrong?
This still comes down to the same point that you keep running away from. How do you know?
You have said that anyone that comes to a different conclusion of what christianity is, or believes different things is not a true Christian. How do you know this? By what measure do you use to separate the two? What about those who say they are Christians and disagree with you? Why are you the only one who can be right?