A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Drich]

again voltare was an atheist his own quotes and stance against the church proove that see some of the other quotes i posted.

2 there is an atheist movement educate your self fool before you speak. there is even a national convention every year:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_movement

3 it is a museum but it is also the head quarters of the Geneva bible society world head quarters.
https://www.scribd.com/document/33127426...le-society

You can have contempt for organized religion without being an atheist, Drich. The definition of atheist is not 'someone who has contempt for religion'.

That Voltaire's house was ever the headquarters of the Geneva Bible Society is a myth if not a 'pious fraud'.

Your source says 226,000 were atheists in 1900. Out of 1.6 billion that would be 0.14%. The definition of atheist is not 'someone who is not religious'.

And he goes straight to Conservapedia for his claim that there is an Atheist Movement. I should get a prize for predicting that. The convention is American Atheists, an organization founded by Madelyn Murray O'Hair in 1963. It has a membership of about 3,500; out of at least a million atheists in America (probably more like 25 million but I'd rather err on the conservative side). American Atheists is a club, not a movement.

---

sorry sport i studied this guy. he was mockingly a deist because he did not have the balls to wear the social stigma that came with being labeled an atheist back then. one could be ban from shops public services like police protection and even having been accused of dark magic. deism was the safest thing this guy could align himself with ans still carry out his attacks on god and the church as his 'nod to god' came in the way of a naturalism where he assigned the title to fit the engine that ran the natural world. IE god to him was not a deity but more of a source of power or energy. Plus on his death bed he refused God stating he at this point would not want to make any more enemies.s just you playing amature anthopologist

being apposed to God does. most of you are not atheist by definition either you all share more with voltare than you will ever admit in that you hate God, not that you do not believe in him. people who do not believe do not waist their time arguing for years over their same points. this is hatred that fuels this passion.
Whatever you want to call voltare he is the father of the movement now known as atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Religious_views
globb. that is not the proper 1763 quote.
The following is the proper quote:
It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?
But these people despise us; they treat us as idolaters! Very well! I will tell them that they are grievously wrong. It seems to me that I would at least astonish the proud, dogmatic Islam imam or Buddhist priest, if I spoke to them as follows:
"This little globe, which is but a point, rolls through space, as do many other globes; we are lost in the immensity of the universe. Man, only five feet high, is assuredly only a small thing in creation. One of these imperceptible beings says to another one of his neighbors, in Arabia or South Africa: 'Listen to me, because God of all these worlds has enlightened me: there are nine hundred million little ants like us on the earth, but my ant-hole is the only one dear to God; all the other are cast off by Him for eternity; mine alone will be happy, and all the others will be eternally damned."
They would then interrupt me, and ask which fool blabbed all this nonsense. I would be obliged to answer, "You, yourselves." I would then endeavor to calm them, which would be very difficult.

The dude is making fun of Buddhist and Muslims. As everything i just quoted is his version of a over simplifies summary of what he thinks they believe, and when he serves it to them in this way, he mocks their preceived response. 
This is what you 'good people' do all the time.

 Not siding with them. here is a link to a legit copy of the 1763 tretis:
https://web.archive.org/web/200601070138...taire.html


I do not need a commentator to think for me. i have spent time in the study of voltare which is why i can run through you guys like water through single ply toilet paper. I understand your foundations even if you do not.
Disputed 

here sport.. this is a map from town town genva to the actual house:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Geneva,+...d46.207642

here is the recorded history of the house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_D%C3%A9lices

here is a link to the bible society so you can scheduled a tour and buy a bible at their gift shop.
https://www.bible-society.org/

doesn't seem disputed to me, unless you mean to say it is shut down at this moment due to covid-19

You studied this guy so much that you know what he said was not what he meant, despite scholars and biographers of Voltaire disagreeing with you. Didn't study him as much as you, eh?

From the Wikipedia article you sourced:

In 1760, Voltaire left Les Délices for Ferney in France, and the house was then occupied by the Tronchin family. In the 1830s, when Colonel Henri Tronchin (1794–1865)[2][3] was a lay president of the recently founded Evangelical Society of Geneva,[4][5] Les Délices is reported to have been used as a repository for Bibles.[6] In view of Voltaire's skeptical attitude to Christianity and its Bible, this ironic report continues to be widely circulated and embellished by religious apologists.[7] Contrary to popular belief,[8][9] Les Délices has never been occupied by the current incarnation of the Geneva Bible Society, which was only founded in 1917.[10]

Italics mine.

everything you said here has already been refuted even by the quoted section of voltares own words in the 1786 tretis that proves him to be an atheist in word and in thought.

His official position as a deist was so he would not be shunned by society. treated as a satanist/put his life in danger.
again already refuted not going to rehash. if you want to talk about those point then please bring them up.

---

In short the gospel is bunk because the oldest copy was written after the rest of the bible was written and compiled into a singular book. then sometime later (100 year or so) the gospel of thomas supposedly hits the scene but is never used or spoken of till 1945?!?!

is you stuped?

Drich,

This is why I have difficulty continuing to "dialogue" with you (emphasis mine):

Attestation

The earliest surviving written references to the Gospel of Thomas are found in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (c. 222–235) and Origen of Alexandria (c. 233).[22] Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20:


This appears to be a reference to saying 4 of Thomas, although the wording differs significantly.
Origen listed the "Gospel according to Thomas" as being among the heterodox apocryphal gospels known to him (Hom. in Luc. 1).
In the 4th and 5th centuries, various Church Fathers wrote that the Gospel of Thomas was highly valued by Mani. In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis: "The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort."[23] and "Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes."[24] The 5th-century Decretum Gelasianum includes "A Gospel attributed to Thomas which the Manichaean use" in its list of heretical books.[25]

Wikipedia -- Gospel of Thomas (Attestation)

and the reason i have great hardship continuing a dialog with most of you is that you not smart enough in this case to understand the difference between the gospel of Thomas being REFERENCED, DISCUSSED, MENTIONED In the writing of Hippolytus of Rome AND M.F.-ing Copy of the Gospel. Because a Reference is not a copy.

but here's the thing that make this whole process infuriating. you can even decipher the difference between a 2nd century mentioning which again is not the same as a full copy of the work and a 1945 claim that some random document which is again a fragment at best of some other Coptic/Gnostic work which happens to be called the gospel of Thomas!!! let round up and say there is a full one thousand and nine hundred years between the mentioning of the gospel of Thomas and the actual copy they are calling complete (which again it is not as it is only saying from supposedly Christ, but no identification of who Christ is or why he should be listen to? Even if you take the date of this work back to the 4th century there is a 200 year gape between the mentioning of the gospel and this copy. which again only appears 100 years after the bible has already been written and compiled.

do you see now?

Supposedly this work of Thomas came before the gospel but without the other gospels and how each of the others actual canonical gospels set up who Christ is
none of the supposed book of Thomas makes any sense.

How about before you put your foot in your mouth next time ask a question as to why i said what i said if it does not make sense. after 25 years of daily study and teaching on this subject. it is ok for you to assume i might know something more than you do. So if i say something that you do not understand it is probably because i have a better understanding or at least more information.

or i could be 100% wrong but when you ask a question you have me commit to my understanding. if and when i do and you are right you will have me dead to rights.

---

I'll give you just one example, out of many:

Wikipedia -- Filioque

Many other examples exist -- conciliarism, infant baptism (not to mention the eternal fates of infants who die without Baptism), innerancy of the Bible, necessity of explicit faith in Jesus, venial versus mortal sin, eternal security ("Once saved, always saved."), predestination, universal salvation, etc., etc.  As for burning heretics, such as episodic.  Jon Hus was burned at the behest of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V, but Pope John Paul II, 500 years after Hus' immolation apologized to modern-day Bohemia for his condemnation.  And, so, was Hus a heretic or not?

The basic doctrines (the most basic tenets of orthodoxy) were well established. The creed was established and remained ... and still remains the same.
The argument over the "filioque" clause, was over HOW TO EXPRESS,  (not whether) Jesus' divinity and "progression" from the Father. Not *if* he "proceeds". How to say it.
The examples you give (without the dates you were asked to give) are minor.
They do not involve the major tenets of orthodoxy.  Whether Hus was a heretic or not is not a question relating to the major tenets of orthodoxy, but an authority question. 
No one says nothing ever changed. Orthodoxy DEVELOPED, but it was far from the chaos you claim, and the major tenets were established, PROVEN be the creeds they recited together every week for centuries. So yeah. You're doing a reductio ad absurdam.

From the beginning it was never meant to be an orthodox Christianity, as there are no master list of Christian laws, as there were with the Jews. Think about it they just came of a few 1000 years of structured Judaism, the apostles knew how to structure an orthodox religious system. But rather than have one single agree upon book of the law, each epistle to each church is it's own self contain book of law given to a specific region dealing with unique problems. Meaning rules for one church say like the church at Rome need not apply to a more mature church say in Corinth. Rather the church has 2 laws. Love God with all you being and your neighbor as yourself. this would flesh out in different ways for all the different cultures which is why we are told to do our best for God and each other rather than have a set standard some could not meet while out could easily meet the min requirements.

That's hilarious. The fool who has never once even taken ONE class in the subject thinks he's competent to speak on a subject of which he is completely ignorant. You have no clue what was "meant" from any beginning, AND you posted no reference. Who "meant" this fairy tale you cooked up Drippy ? The apostles knew nothing. They were ignorant fishermen, (if there even were twelve anything). You are totally wrong. IN the epistles they argue where they got their gospels from, and Paul goes to great lengths to SAY where he got his, and to reference where .. (I see you never actually read his letters). They DID expect there to one general church AND they had meetings (some day when you go to school you'll learn about the early *councils*).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

"The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council was held in Jerusalem around AD 50. It is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Law of Moses, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree or Jerusalem Quadrilateral.

Accounts of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 (in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2.[1] Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem (notably because Galatians 2 describes a private meeting) while other scholars dispute the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles."

So yeah, Dripshit, your crap is totally BOGUS. You made it up, as you are a totally ignorant fool, who actually knows NOTHING about this subject.
Agreement and orthodoxy was important to the early communities.
In fact it was so important SINCE the very beginning, that there were many councils held ... to denounce what they felt were all kinds of heresies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_ch...cumenical)

the Council of Rome of 155
the Council of Rome of 193
the Council of Ephesus of 193
the Council of Carthage of 251
the Council of Iconium of 258[13]
the Council of Antioch of 264
the Councils of Arabia of 246–247
the Synod of Elvira of 306
the Council of Carthage of 311
the Synod of Neo-Caesarea of c. 314
the Synod of Ancyra of 314
the Synod of Arles of 314

Then there were seven ecumenical councils  :
First Council of Nicaea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)
First Council of Ephesus (431)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Second Council of Constantinople (553)
Third Council of Constantinople (680–681)
Second Council of Nicaea (787)

So yeah, Christianity always cared about orthodoxy.

Drippy...go get an education before you make a fool of yourself. even further.

1

---

because he was king atheist and started the movement and grandfather the same BS arguments you guys still use

Acutally Voltaire was a deist.  He believed in a god that got the ball rolling and then got out of Dodge, a non interventionist god who started the universe then sat back to see what eventuated.  Definitely not an atheist.

Also, atheism is as old as religion, hell even some religions (mainly centered around India and China) are themselves atheistic.  In the classical west the first atheist school of philosophy was the Greek school of the atomists, who were the first to describe the world without any reference to god (and likely amongst the earliest preludes to modern science), there were plays written about atheists and eventually Greek philosophy resulted in Epicurus, the one person most rightly deserving of the title "grandfather of atheism".  Epicurus died c. two millenia before Voltaire was born.

But you don't care about reality.  It contradicts the fantasy world built inside your head.

in this text Voltaire's philosophical dictionary volume two (what he really means when he says he is a deist among other contradictory statements he makes about himself to be able to function in a theistic society.) pronounces "there is no God." then explains why he as an atheist can never pronounce this publicly.
history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volathe2.html

in the following voltare mocks what people believe about God then mocks how he describe to the preceived evil voltare sees in the nature of God he said anyone with sense would proclaim there is no God but the religious bigot or fear of persecution would have the wiser atheist remain silent or burned over a slow fire as a hertic. 


If there are atheists, whom must one blame, if not the mercenary tyrants of souls, who, making us revolt against their knaveries, force a few weak minds to deny the God whom these monsters dishonour. How many times have the people's leeches brought oppressed citizens to the point of revolting against their king!
Men fattened on our substance cry to us: "Be persuaded that a she-ass has spoken; believe that a fish has swallowed a man and has given him up at the end of three days safe and sound on the shore; have no doubt that the God of the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat excrement (Ezekiel), and another prophet to buy two whores and to make with them sons of whoredom (Hosea). These are the very words that the God of truth and purity has been made to utter; believe a hundred things either visibly abominable or mathematically impossible; unless you do, the God of pity will burn you, not only during millions of thousands of millions of centuries in the fire of hell, but through all eternity, whether you have a body, whether you have not."
These inconceivable absurdities revolt weak and rash minds, as well as wise and resolute minds. They say: "Our masters paint God to us as the most insensate and the most barbarous of all beings; therefore there is no God; but they should say: therefore our masters attribute to God their absurdities and their furies, therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim, therefore God is as wise and as good as they make him out mad and wicked. It is thus that wise men account for things. But if a bigot hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate who is a watchdog of the priests; and this watchdog has them burned over a slow fire, in the belief that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty he outrages.

Remember dont be a dumb ass and bring up some 3rd person wiki commentary. These are voltare's own words and trump anything you have to say, or anything any expert has to say. now keep in mind this is the 2nd or 3rd quote i have provided that has him admit/demonstrate his atheism.

and his own words why he pretends to be a deist.

the argument is over people.

---

Did Voltaire say the words 'I do not believe God is real'?

He had an altar in his home in Ferney with the dedication Erexit deo Voltaire (Raised for God by Voltaire). And he used the Watchmaker Argument to argue for design.

in the post above he is quoted in saying both:

therefore God is the contrary of what they proclaim,

[b]therefore there is no God; [/b]