My sister insists Jesus is real

Okay the question.

What should I say to her if she brings this subject up in the future?

I have already told her I am an atheist, but she still insists that Jesus is real after I said there’s no evidence that he ever existed.

No I am not high, I wish I was.

Edit; I am not meaning to troll, I want advice.

I’ll let the others beat the same drum :drum:


What are you saying exactly?

What should I say to her?

You shouldn’t assume it is your responsibility to talk her out of her religious beliefs.

If you have: perhaps you should re-think that.

If you haven’t: I recommend not assuming that responsibility.


Yea it really isn’t my responsibility as that’s on her.

Yea again that really isn’t my responsibility, I do feel in a way that she’s trying to push it on me. I will never believe in Jesus Christ ever again. I don’t care who says he’s real, I wont believe it unless he actually comes back like the bible says. Then I will still have some questions for him. One main question would be why his father never made things very clear.

But I do not believe in the bible, there’s too many world religions so I chose the one direction few people choose. It’ll be awhile like at least 200 years, but more people will choose to go atheist as they open their minds to the possibility they are wrong.

Thanks for your reply.

Then you are wrong. Why won’t you listen to people Favel? You have already lost the argument by making a stupid and unsupported assumption. You can not prove Jesus was not real. You CAN’T DO IT.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is very poor. What you have are stories, fallacious reasoning, appeals to emotion, appeals to personal experience, appeals to the supernatural, and other inane attempts at reasoning. None of which prove Jesus was not real. All of which demonstrate there is not any good reason to assume, even if this Jesus character was real, he was not well known as the Bible asserts and most likely not imbued with any supernatural powers.

You do not make a counter claim when arguing with a theist. Especially when you are incapable or unable to back up that claim with facts and evidence… “Jesus did not exist is a counter claim,” and I don’t care what you throw at a theist from this position, they have a rational for it. You would be wasting your breath.

Instead, you question the epistemology. How do you know that. Why should I accept what the bible says? What do you mean it was inspired by God, how do you know? Your argument is circular. Can you demonstrate anything you are saying? Etc…

You keep running about making these moronic assertions and myself and others keep telling you to stop. You just don’t listen.


Quite simply put if Jesus did exist in the world at one time, I would expect he would leave something behind.

Yes I guess he could have existed as a normal person, making claims which no, I can not backup.

I suggest you re-think your position. I suggest you always keep your mind open. Just because we do not have any evidence this jesus actually existed, that does not mean that he did not exist, or that one day new evidence may arise the does prove a jesus.


Right. If something surfaces to prove this fine.
But I will keep my atheist position.

Who gives a shit what you would expect. Billions of people have come and gone and left nothing at all behind. Your expectation is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore; it completely ignores the fact that what he left behind are the stories about his life.

You can’t imagine how he existed or if he existed. STOP TRYING. You have already shoved your foot in your mouth. STOP MAKING CLAIMS. STOP DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE. The evidence does not get you there.

All you can possibly know is that the evidence is not good. There is no current evidence contemporary to the life of Jesus that supports his existence and what we have beyond that are stories, personal testimonies, and fanciful tales.

The question is, what actual evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus?

In the entire bible, there appears to be one and only one passage that is hotly contested. (REFERENCING LECTURES I HAVE SEEN) “Paul met with the brother of Jesus.” Richard Carrier insists that “Brother” was a common term used by all Christians to address one another and its use is useless in determining the existence of Jesus. Apologists assert, the passage demonstrates Jesus was real and had a brother. In both cases, all we have are assertions.

Beyond that, you get miracle claims like the resurrection and various mentions of Jesus by some historians who are reporting on Christian believes after the fact or whose writings have been tampered with, likely by Christians. (See Bart Eherman or Richard Carrier)


1 Like

Oh for fucks sakes - what does one have to do with the other?

If Jesus existed, how does that prove god???

Joseph Smith existed. How does that prove his claims?

Hubbard existed. How does that prove fucking aliens blown up in a volcano :volcano: and thetans?


Like what? Teeth? A toe bone?

1 Like

I don’t really know. Anything at all would be nice.

But if evidence can find that he ever lived on this planet I will accept it.

I don’t know if it does.

That is something many theists never consider. Even if one could prove without any doubt that some dude named jesus actually lived at that time and place, then one must go the next step, that this jesus actually performed miracles. Then if that was proven, that still does not prove jesus was the son of god, just some dude that performed miracles.

Each step of the way must be confirmed and solid in evidence, or just like a house of cards, it will topple.


That’s a lie. Where does he live?

My advice is to say, “you have the right believe what you want but I prefer to stick to things for which there is evidence”.

Apart from 2 outside references that mention in passing people believing in Jesus but say nothing more, the only information we have is the Bible, which was written between 30 to 90 years after Jesus’ supposed death by people who did not know him. Even the names of the Gospels are later additions. The early manuscripts we posses have no author’s names. We do not truly know who wrote them but there is nothing in the text to suggest they were disciples as is often believed.

I think it is important to be honest and make it clear that neither you nor her, nor anyone, can know for certain whether or not Jesus was a real person. There is also the theory that he was just one in a long line of itinerant preachers and his message would have remained part of a minor Jewish sect without Paul spreading it to the gentiles.


Just so.

There are scholars who refer to Christianity as “Paulism”***. It was Paul who abolished the ritual commandments, such as circumcision and admitting gentiles.
The minor sect which became Christianity only took off in the fourth century. At that time it was made the state religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius 1.
With the permission and encouragement of the emperor, that merry little band
started murdering any opposition and burning their books. That behaviour continued for over 1000 years.

About a year ago, I discovered Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus. I continue leaning to the opinion that Jesus was almost certainly a mythical figure rather than an historic person.

*** Still wading through “Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle” by popular historian and atheist A N Wilson . Recommended. It was published in 1997. I’m sure any decent library would have at least one copy, and it’s available cheap on line.

Thank you. I read Wilson’s work some years ago. In return may I recommend How Jesus Became God, by Bart D. Ehrman.

I have even gone as far as saying Paul invented Christianity. It seems clear that Jesus intended his ministry only for the Jews. One method of validating old text is to find passages that don’t match the overall theme or intention and which cause difficulty. One such is Matthew 15:22-28, where Jesus initially refuses to heal a non-Jewish woman and says it isn’t right to throw your children’s food to the dogs. Her faith changes his mind and a lot has been speculated about this passage but Jesus’ first thoughts are clear and ugly.
We know that the disciples only spoke to Jews in the early years and this was perfectly in line with the atmosphere of the time, which included many and varied sects within Judaism.

It’s interesting that you refer to Theodosius 1. People often cite Constantine but I have never been convinced by him. I believe his visions and his supposed adoption of Christianity were mere political tools to unify and give purpose to his troops and later the empire. He was only baptised on his death bed and I’m not sure he was ever truly a believer.

Am… right.

Not much more to say really, I am working on a story, and since it is sexual in nature I can not present it here.