Pope Francis defends atheists

[BettyG]

Minimalist,
No evidence? May I suggest you read two books. The Language of God by Francis Collins and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. They give a great summary of the facts that support Christianity as reasonable and worthy of belief. Francis Collins worked on the human genome project. He writes about the origin of the universe and origin of life on earth. McDowell refutes every accusation against Christianity and Jesus. His book is almost 700 pages. Until you have read them, please do not claim evidence in nonexistent.

[The Grand Nudger]

You should just pick your favorites and make a thread. It would be a simple thing to do, wouldn't it?

[Minimalist]

No evidence? May I suggest you read two books.

You can suggest it but I can assure you that I've had my fill of jesus shit all of which is based on what-they-oh-so-desperately-want-to-believe and not a fact to be seen anywhere.

Try to remember that there is not a single contemporary first century reference to your godboy among all the jewish and Greco-Roman writers of the first century.

I repeat what Robert G. Ingersoll said over a century ago.

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll,

After studying up on this - work on learning what "facts" are.

[ThomM]

---

Well that comes down to 5 questions:
Did he exist?[/quote] Yes

1 -Sorry - No - there is NO proof of his existence - we have not a single document that can be dated to his supposed time that even mentions his name. Even the bible of the dead sea scrolls does not. Just saying "yes" without supporting your answer is NOT an answer

If there was no Adam and Eve and all that Jazz, where did original sin come from?

Begs the question. You have not established Adam and Eve did not exist.


2 - Actually - humans existed LONG before the approximately 6000 years ago story of Adam and eve - so the story of them being the first humans is false. And - as we note - no xtian has even provided proof beyond circular reason (THe bible was written by the religion) that they did exist - there is no reason to believe they did otherwise.

In fact - even the major sects of christianity - representing over 75% of all christians accept that humans evolved from other animals on earth
pope Benedict said this

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth,"

NOTE _ IT IS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT ALL LIVING ORGANISMS DESCENDED FROM THIS FIRST ORGANISM

ANd we have similar statements from the Anglican church and others.


3 - Once you accept that the story of adam and eve is myth - which even the religions say it is - the basis for original sin is lost. However - even the bible says that we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers - Isiah - which contradicts the story of original sin as well - ONLY eve committed that one - in the fairy tale


4 - Without being responsible for the original sin - which is a fairy tale anyway - no need for a sacrifice - the christ is just another part of the myth - and as I noted above - has no proof of existence outside of religious documents that are already proven to be in error on many things.

5 - As far as the last claim - since it actually never happened - no one has EVER proven the existence of a god - or the existence of the christ - it is a moot point

WHen YOU can provide proof of the existence of your god - by all means post it. Any other response supports our position

[BettyG]

Try to remember that there is not a single contemporary first century reference to your godboy among all the jewish and Greco-Roman writers of the first century.

Since you won't read The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. I have to answer your accusation from sources he cites:
Josephus A Jewish historian
The earliest description of Jesus outside of the Gospels is found in Josephus' (37 CE - circa 100 CE .) Jewish Antiquities.
http://josephus.org/ CHAPTER 3, paragraph 3

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Cornelius Tacitus c AD 55-120 A Roman historian
Writng about the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]
The key part of the passage reads as follows:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians.

Lucian of Samosata (125 A.D. and died not long after 180) A Greek historian"The Passing of Peregrinus”
Lucian was not a Christian, nor was he known to be particularly religious. Lucian apparently thought of Christians as being naive, unsophisticated, larval communists:

“They [i.e., Christians] scorn all possessions without distinction and treat them as community property. They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time.”

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Your miracles are too ancient.

Is this miracle recent enough?
Blessed Pope John Paul II.
Vatican investigates second John Paul II miracle
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/201...i-miracle/
Here are some you could see with your own eyes if you want:
The incorruptible bodies of long-dead saints.
http://paranormal.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=...tibles.asp

Any questions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Holy..shit..thank you Betty for bringing that article about John Paul to my attention....

a choice comment......

God bless and The Lord be with you! We believe in every word of the Bible and the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. As an international manufacturer & exporter of tungsten products, I have a personal prayer & healing mission: The Good News Mission, Evangelistic Mission to bring Dr. Jesus Christ, Mt 9:12, Mk 2:17, Lk 5:31, 19:10
Savior & Lord, to everyone we meet, & let them experience the
Omnipresent Healing Touch of Jesus Christ, & experience personal
transformation

-contact info removed-

Combining business and evangelisation, I have seen hundreds of instanteous healings, cures and miracles. I act in faith on Jesus' promises and assurances.

Jesus Lord and Saviour assures those who believe, John 14:12-13 "12
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the
works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go
to the Father.

b-mine
Oh blessed interwebs, at every turn you provide me with my daily bread.

[Minimalist]

Josephus is a 4th century forgery. No xtian writer mentions it prior even Origen who in spite of making specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews knows nothing about the TF but who specifically states that "This writer" (Josephus) "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ" which sort of flies in the face of your pious forgery.

Tacitus is another work not quoted by anyone, xtian or otherwise, until centuries later. But, even if it is authentic, it does not mention any "jesus." "Jesus" seems to be a later development in your story.

Like Tacitus - Lucian of Samosata knows nothing of any jesus. Obviously, that part of the story had not been written yet c 160 but by 180 when Celsus wrote early xtians had invented "jesus."

Yes, I have one question.

What kind of double-digit IQ moron believes in fucking miracles just because the pervert parade that is the catholic church says so?

[pocaracas]

BettyG, since you're new here, I'll lay down the reasons which lead me away from any faith.
1. There are several religions
2. Religions do not share gods... although some of those gods seem to have a common predecessor.
3. Any religion has origins in a very specific location, at a very specific time... often in a very small group of people. Sounds like a brewery of fiction.
4. I'd expect a god worthy of that title to present itself to everyone in a similar fashion.. instead, we get different groups of people with different sets of gods... a sign that someone in that group of people made it up... and spread the word. If you want to counter this with god showing up to different people in accordance with their local specifics, then you're full of it, because this god of yours would be just plain stupid to do that, for it would have (and has) resulted in inter-religious conflict.
5. All religions claim a few miracles that happened in the past and about that small group of people that made it up in the first place... Sounds like something made up with the sole intention of providing "proof" for the gullible.
6. All accounts of human-god interaction are remarkably similar to what is reported by present-day people who require psychological attention.
7. Religion evolution.... first we got animism and shamanism, then polytheism, then monotheism. If there was (an) actual god(s) that actually showed itself(themselves) to the people, then it(they) must have done so to those first shamans... so they would have to be ones who got it right... Everything else is just quackery.

There must be more points, but I can't remember more right now... those are enough

Now your present day miracles...
Miracles of treatments of misdiagnosed illnesses are just dumb. -..-'
I want proper miracles and no discrimination: all amputees get their limbs regrown overnight! That would be a proper miracle.

[BettyG]

Josephus is a 4th century forgery. No xtian writer mentions it prior even Origen who in spite of making specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews knows nothing about the TF but who specifically states that "This writer" (Josephus) "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ" which sort of flies in the face of your pious forgery.

Tacitus is another work not quoted by anyone, xtian or otherwise, until centuries later. But, even if it is authentic, it does not mention any "jesus." "Jesus" seems to be a later development in your story.

Like Tacitus - Lucian of Samosata knows nothing of any jesus. Obviously, that part of the story had not been written yet c 160 but by 180 when Celsus wrote early xtians had invented "jesus."

Yes, I have one question.

What kind of double-digit IQ moron believes in fucking miracles just because the pervert parade that is the catholic church says so?

Just because someone is not quoted does not mean what they wrote is not true. That is an assumption. Would you also say no person existed except those who are quoted somewhere?
Professor Louis Feldman, professor of classics at Yeshiva University and translator for the Loeb edition of Antiquities, states about the Josephus passage I quoted, "Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage."
How about Suetonius, Pliny the Yunger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Babylonian Talmud? All of these non-Christian sources mention Jesus or "Chrestus" or Christians.

The reason I mention Catholic documentation of miracles is because the Vatican is the most scientific about it. They require that reports of miracles be confirmed by non-Christian doctors. Very few make it through their scrutiny. Of the thousand s of reported miracles at the shrine at Lourdes, France, only 70 have been authenticated as true miracles. The Protestants aren't scientific about it and don't keep records like Catholics do.
Like I said, you can go visit the places where the incorrupt bodies of saints are and see them with your own eyes. Their bodies did not decay as normal bodies do. Some of them have rosy skin like they did when they were alive. Or you can go see the tilma at Our Lady of Guadalupe church in Mexico City that has not rotted in five hundred years when it should have rotted a long time ago. It has a miraculous image of Mary on it.
Or go see the shroud of Turin in Italy the next time it is on display. It is the burial cloth of a crucified man who was scoured about 33 AD. It has pollen from the Jerusalem area. The image on it was not painted. Scientists have examined it (I discount the ones who did carbon testing on the wrong area of the cloth) and cannot explain any way a human could forge it.
However, I doubt any thing I say would convince you if you keep discounting the evidence I present. It is the combination of many facts that makes the case, not just a few I have cited. I suspect you have a hidden agenda for not being open to the truth, but I will not speculate on that.
Your foul language gives a black eye to non-Christians. If you want me to take you or non-Christians seriously, I prefer you mind your manners. Would you want me to paint all non-Christians with the same brush as your behavior the way you paint all Catholics as idiots and liars?

---

BettyG, since you're new here, I'll lay down the reasons which lead me away from any faith.
1. There are several religions
2. Religions do not share gods... although some of those gods seem to have a common predecessor.
3. Any religion has origins in a very specific location, at a very specific time... often in a very small group of people. Sounds like a brewery of fiction.
4. I'd expect a god worthy of that title to present itself to everyone in a similar fashion.. instead, we get different groups of people with different sets of gods... a sign that someone in that group of people made it up... and spread the word. If you want to counter this with god showing up to different people in accordance with their local specifics, then you're full of it, because this god of yours would be just plain stupid to do that, for it would have (and has) resulted in inter-religious conflict.
5. All religions claim a few miracles that happened in the past and about that small group of people that made it up in the first place... Sounds like something made up with the sole intention of providing "proof" for the gullible.
6. All accounts of human-god interaction are remarkably similar to what is reported by present-day people who require psychological attention.
7. Religion evolution.... first we got animism and shamanism, then polytheism, then monotheism. If there was (an) actual god(s) that actually showed itself(themselves) to the people, then it(they) must have done so to those first shamans... so they would have to be ones who got it right... Everything else is just quackery.

There must be more points, but I can't remember more right now... those are enough

Now your present day miracles...
Miracles of treatments of misdiagnosed illnesses are just dumb. -..-'
I want proper miracles and no discrimination: all amputees get their limbs regrown overnight! That would be a proper miracle.

2. Religions have different concepts of who God is. Only one of them is true.
3. The Judeo-Christian faith begins with the creation of man and woman. Why would anyone want to make up a religion for ulterior motives? We are all seeking an explanation for why we exist and why the world exists. Christianity does not have the flavor of any myth. Thousands died defending the truth and refusing to convert to another religion. It does not make sense if they died for a lie.
4. God revealed Himself to man through the prophets. Finally, He sent His son to reveal God more fully. A God who loves us would not want to keep us in the dark.
5. Catholics have recorded miracles for 200 years. Why would they make it up and risk damage to their credibility? They have no motive to make it up. I have experienced some miracles myself. They happen all the time.
6 "require psychological attention." So you don't believe in anything that is supernatural? Anyone who relates supernatural events is crazy? Explain why supernatural things are not possible.
7. he Judeo-Christian faith goes back at least 6000 years. True, other religions have elements of truth, but that does not mean they have the whole truth the way Christianity does. Christianity is the most rational and logical of all of them. On top of that, none of their founders claimed to be God or rise from the dead like Jesus did.
It's late. I don't have time to write more tonight.

[The Grand Nudger]

Corpses and sack cloth...really?