Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 29, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: You need some reality in your life. Go check this forum and see who blames who for violence.
That is because in reality, 1. many people actually blame lack of religion and by extension atheists for most of the world's crime and violence, and 2. in actuality religion is responsible for much of the world's violence.
"Sisters, you know only the north; I have traveled in the south lands. There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar did--not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if a war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."
April 29, 2012 at 6:02 pm (This post was last modified: April 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm by Cyberman.)
(April 27, 2012 at 12:55 am)radorth Wrote: Most atheists would not serve Jesus if he came down healed their mother of stage 12 cancer.
Slight tangent, but why don't we get Jesus to come down, do his thing for the JREF and then give the million dollars he'd inevitably win to good causes? Just imagine all the good that could be done, all the suffering that could be eased. Not to mention all the converts he'd drum up after proving his existence and his demigod status.
Still wouldn't 'serve' the hateful little turd.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(April 27, 2012 at 12:55 am)radorth Wrote: Most atheists would not serve Jesus if he came down healed their mother of stage 12 cancer.
In the unlikely event that Jesus did come down and cure my mother of the cancer that she is, in fact, currently in hospital for, he would get a thank you.
But "serve him" no.
Worship, again no.
I will never understand the theist desire to surrender to the sky daddy all responsibility.
(April 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: No my friend, your sig says if a war begins and the church is on one side..., to me this says nothing about the church starting a war.
Well what does it say about me starting a war? Nothing! Typical theist, always blaming violence on the atheist.
You need some reality in your life. Go check this forum and see who blames who for violence.
And while you're at it, please check this forum and see who tells whom what their own signature really means. I've been wondering.
May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm (This post was last modified: May 1, 2012 at 12:47 pm by radorth.)
(April 28, 2012 at 12:31 am)Minimalist Wrote: I can only assume that you are fairly loose with all your "facts" which is actually pretty typical of xtians throughout history.
I never said he was a Christian, and that has nothing to do with what I said of course. I clearly said he was an atheist
Yeah you assume all kinds of things because of your selective reading habits apparently. I read everything, knowing the truth is probably in the middle somewhere, like any intelligent person does.
My claim is exactly correct. Here is what Wells wrote in his Short History of the world:
"Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels. All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality. One is obliged to say, “Here was a man. This could not have been invented.” 4
....He was clearly a person—to use a common phrase—of intense personal magnetism. He attracted followers and filled them with love and courage. Weak and ailing people were heartened and healed by his presence....
He went about the country for three years spreading his doctrine and then he came to Jerusalem and was accused of trying to set up a strange kingdom in Judea; he was tried upon this charge, and crucified together with two thieves. Long before these two were dead his sufferings were over...
The doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought. It is small wonder if the world of that time failed to grasp its full significance, and recoiled in dismay from even a half apprehension of its tremendous challenges to the established habits and institutions of mankind..."
Edited for relevant info. Read the whole thing yourself on Bartleby.com. It gets worse for your simplistic case.
What you will find is that either you or he is completely full of nonsense. There is no in between. For most atheists it all has to be black and white, like the fundies they disdain. Wells is not a Christian but he doesn't need to be in order to know Jesus was a real and most extraordinary person. I doubt he would bother to converse with Dawkins or Carrier. C.S. Lewis, maybe.
But tell us, why does he say. "This could not have been invented." Obviously he knows what fishermenn can do and what they can't do, unlike yourself.
(May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm)radorth Wrote: I never said he was a Christian, and that has nothing to do with what I said of course. I clearly said he was an atheist
Sigh. He's talking about you being representative of a brand of Christian that is touchy-feely when it comes to facts. For instance, Wells wasn't an atheist.
(April 29, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: You need some reality in your life. Go check this forum and see who blames who for violence.
That is because in reality, 1. many people actually blame lack of religion and by extension atheists for most of the world's crime and violence, and 2. in actuality religion is responsible for much of the world's violence.
^I have yet to say that I don't fancy anyone, but Godschild just simply fucking annoys the shit out of me. You're a damn christian dude! You know how many disasters this world has been susceptible to in the name of religion! And if you are genuinely unaware, I'm not sure how old you are, or where you're from, but you seriously need to do some research or pay attention to what's really going on around you, and not the fuzzy feelings you get when you kneel before your god, because you are more often than not rather ridiculous.
“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.” - Max Stirner.
(April 28, 2012 at 12:31 am)Minimalist Wrote: I can only assume that you are fairly loose with all your "facts" which is actually pretty typical of xtians throughout history.
I never said he was a Christian, and that has nothing to do with what I said of course. I clearly said he was an atheist
Yeah you assume all kinds of things because of your selective reading habits apparently. I read everything, knowing the truth is probably in the middle somewhere, like any intelligent person does.
My claim is exactly correct. Here is what Wells wrote in his Short History of the world:
"Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels. All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality. One is obliged to say, “Here was a man. This could not have been invented.” 4
....He was clearly a person—to use a common phrase—of intense personal magnetism. He attracted followers and filled them with love and courage. Weak and ailing people were heartened and healed by his presence....
He went about the country for three years spreading his doctrine and then he came to Jerusalem and was accused of trying to set up a strange kingdom in Judea; he was tried upon this charge, and crucified together with two thieves. Long before these two were dead his sufferings were over...
The doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought. It is small wonder if the world of that time failed to grasp its full significance, and recoiled in dismay from even a half apprehension of its tremendous challenges to the established habits and institutions of mankind..."
Edited for relevant info. Read the whole thing yourself on Bartleby.com. It gets worse for your simplistic case.
What you will find is that either you or he is completely full of nonsense. There is no in between. For most atheists it all has to be black and white, like the fundies they disdain. Wells is not a Christian but he doesn't need to be in order to know Jesus was a real and most extraordinary person. I doubt he would bother to converse with Dawkins or Carrier. C.S. Lewis, maybe.
But tell us, why does he say. "This could not have been invented." Obviously he knows what fishermenn can do and what they can't do, unlike yourself.
Wow, you ARE dense. Way to go & prove Min's point for him, genius.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
(May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm)radorth Wrote: "Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels.
Buzzzzzz! Wrong!
Mark, assuming he wrong the Book of Mark, wasn't a witness. It's a book of hearsay on top of hearsay by a dubious author written at least 40 years after the fact. Oh, and we know of at least one significant alteration from the original. The original Mark ended at 16:8.
Matt was a proven liar, judging by all his misrepresentations of the OT. His testimony in court would land him in jail on perjury charges.
Luke wasn't a witness and said so in his opening verses.
John's "advanced" theology, very different from the Synoptics, indicates a later, non-contemporary date.
Ergo, we have no "direct sources". Next?
Bold emphasis not mine:
Quote:All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality.
Seriously? What Gospels did you read?
Mark's Jesus was the weakest one who couldn't perform great miracles in his home town because the people there didn't have enough faith.
Matthew's Jesus was the most Jewish, declaring the laws were still in effect and our righteousness would have to exceed the pharisees and that those who don't keep them would be least even if they made it to the Kingdom of Heaven. This Jesus sits oddly alongside the Jesus of Paul who decisively judges only on faith.
The Synoptic Jesus (Matt, Mark and Luke) was separate from and subordinate to his father Yahweh. The Jesus of John claimed that he was one with his father.
Read the NT in the order that the books were written. Start with Revelation, then the Epistles, then Mark, then Matt and Luke and finally John. The story got better with the telling.
Quote:One is obliged to say, “Here was a man. This could not have been invented.” 4
I don't feel any such obligation to make arguments from incredulity.
The other logical fallacy in this statement is the false dilemma. Either Jesus was Lord or somebody just made him up? Seriously?
Quote:....He was clearly a person—to use a common phrase—of intense personal magnetism. He attracted followers and filled them with love and courage. Weak and ailing people were heartened and healed by his presence....
But nobody outside of his evidently insignificant following saw fit to write anything down about him for 100 years.
Quote:He went about the country for three years
Two according to the Gospel of John. Start on Passover, go through another Passover, crucified after the third Passover = 2 years.
Quote:spreading his doctrine and then he came to Jerusalem and was accused of trying to set up a strange kingdom in Judea; he was tried upon this charge, and crucified together with two thieves. Long before these two were dead his sufferings were over...
Any proof outside of Christian mythology (Gospel accounts).
Quote: The doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was the main teaching of Jesus, is certainly one of the most revolutionary doctrines that ever stirred and changed human thought. It is small wonder if the world of that time failed to grasp its full significance, and recoiled in dismay from even a half apprehension of its tremendous challenges to the established habits and institutions of mankind..."
Yeah, because before then, nobody thought about places where the gods dwelt and ways one could satisfy the gods enough to earn a place in Elysium/Valhalla/Heaven.
Quote:What you will find is that either you or he is completely full of nonsense. There is no in between.
The Trilemma is such a fascinating conglomeration of logical fallacies that to do it justice would require its own thread.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
(April 29, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: You need some reality in your life. Go check this forum and see who blames who for violence.
That is because in reality, 1. many people actually blame lack of religion and by extension atheists for most of the world's crime and violence, and 2. in actuality religion is responsible for much of the world's violence.
You're a damn christian dude!
Thank you, I realize much more than you can imagine, I do not let others cloud my views.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
