On "Scholarly Consensus"

[Mystical]

I went from believing in hell growing up, to being really depressed when I figured out what that meant for almost everyone I loved---to reasoning that god would save them at the end of times---to believing god has to be faking us out in order to be the god I know and love---to me concluding (based on the Bible) that god means what he says in the Bible and that makes him a magnificent dick hole whom I didn't believe deserves my loyalty even if he did exist. The Biblical god like all other gods, disappoints expectation of the roles it assumes to take and therefore are not real. I'm still looking for signs of a god though. Disappointingly all I'm finding is proof for naturalistic existence with no cause.

[Statler Waldorf]

So, basically, if you don't agree with it, it has no merit, and you'll never let yourself be convinced otherwise. I don't know if that's more ignorance or arrogance, but it certainly puts a damper on your potential for spiritual growth.

Best of luck. You're gonna need it.

How does this relate to anything in my post?

I'm sorry, Stat, but that particular spelling is just not going to fly.

Lol. Even though that’s not relevant to my point, thank you. I tried to go back and fix it but it wouldn’t let me edit the post.

Then you must accept the proclamations of David Icke with the same vigor that you accept the proclamations in the Bible.

Non-sense, reasoning from scripture is a form of deduction.

If you analyze the historicity of the Christian faith, you will see its stories become less and less the "likely" truth. Jesus was of no concern to the Jews or the Romans while he was alive, he only grew in importance with the spread of Christianity to the pagans, and the adaptation of Pagan myths (such as the virgin birth and rising on the 3rd day) and fantasy into the story of his life.

You do realize that none of this is accepted by scholars and is only perpetuated by the internet right? There is no evidence that any of Christ’s stories were borrowed from Pagan myths; in fact there is substantial evidence to doubt that this is even a possibility.

It's entirely possible that these people never even existed and are nothing more than fanciful characters.

As it is also possible that George Washington is a mythical character but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Someone of the stature that Jesus rises to in the bible would have been written about by many different writers…

The Jews thought Jesus was a false prophet and the Romans only viewed him as a Jewish criminal. The Romans rarely mention their own Prefects so it is remarkable that they mentioned Jesus at all.

but all we can find to substantiate Jesus' existence are the bible and a few very questionable external sources.

Very questionable? According to whom? Historians accept Josephus’ and Tacitus’ references to Jesus.

What appears to be most likely is that either no Jesus existed, or the Jesus that did exist was so vastly different from what the bible describes that it's barely valid to say Christ was based on a real person.

Historians, secular and religious, vehemently disagree with this sort of statement.

He specifically said 'unless he finds reasons to doubt it'. Come on man.

Thanks for the response! You don’t have to fight DP’s battles for him though, he’s a big boy.

I know what he said, but he has provided no actual reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus besides the fact that he does not find the evidence compelling which is a merely arbitrary reason.

That evolution happens is known.

No, it’s an inference.

However, you could do with realizing that the colloquial usage of 'proof' simply means 'greatly evidenced'.

Words have meanings.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Why would I (or he, in this case) accept an extraordinary claim on its face?

What do you mean by extraordinary? I thought atheists believed that Christ-like stories were all over the place at that time, but now you’re telling me that Jesus’ story was unique? Well, which is it?

Further, why would you assume that any but an adherent would assume anything else?

I wouldn’t, I knew you assumed the Bible was false a priori which is exactly what the Bible says you do.

Or to make it historical, Socrates?

When I first heard that there was a man named Socrates I did not automatically assume that he did not really exist.

This seems irrelevant.

It was indeed irrelevant, which was my point. He found little evidence in comparison to his own arbitrary and unrealistic expectations of what he would find which demonstrates nothing. I think there is far more evidence for Jesus than I would have expected to find given is socio-economic status and region he lived in.

There tends to be recordings of some sort when something extraordinary supposedly happened.

An example please.

We know of at least a dozen or so "Messiahs" before, during and after Jesus' supposed lifetime, and there were almost certainly more.

That’s merely speculation.

Whether or not they were put to death by Pikate I myself don't know, but I don't think it can be claimed that you know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate (and the Gospels' portrayal of him is historically inaccurate).

Historians believe Jesus was put to death by Pilate. In fact, all but one of the few times Pilate is ever mentioned is in reference to Jesus. Even Roman historians believed it was more important to mention Pilate because he put Jesus to death than to simply mention him as one of their own Prefects. Remarkable eh?

Not always. Especially if they themselves were Christians when they became scholars/historians of it. That's not to say that they're untrustworthy per se, but more that humans are easily affected by confirmation bias, especially when the belief is a deeply held one.

This is an unreasonable standard not held by historians. When learning of Rome it is not inappropriate to cite Roman historians. When learning about early Christianity it is not inappropriate to cite early Christian writings; you are not allowed to construct a special set of rules for this one historical figure.

His point was obviously that ancient Rome is practically silent on Jesus.

…but not totally silent, which is amazing. The most powerful empire on Earth took the time to mention a humble Jewish carpenter in an unimportant region of their empire. Again, nothing short of remarkable.

Even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they believe. "Because I'm the expert and I say so" is not a valid argument. Ehrman needs to do more than assert The Historical Jesus existed. He needs to prove it.

Again, we’re not dealing with proof. Ehrman has an entire book on the subject. You’re not debating with Ehrman though, so it is completely reasonable for me to rely upon the testimony of such experts. You’ve got nothing of your own to rely upon, not even a handful of experts.

"There is no proof" is a perfectly good reason to doubt a claim about a miracle working godman with popular and controversial ministry that nobody paid any attention to.

There is no proof that any historical figure existed; do you therefore reject all of history now? Like all Mythicists you are adopting a special and completely arbitrary standard for Jesus that you do not apply to anyone else in history, which is logically fallacious.

That may be a new signature quote.

You’re absolutely right! I should totally put the fact that you think science deals with proof in my signature.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Yes. When presented with claims of woo, I don't believe them. I assume claims of woo to be untrue until presented with evidence.

Define “woo”.

Just for instance, little in comparison to John the Baptist, who had a much smaller ministry with a smaller following and still got a mention in Josephus.

Josephus mentions Jesus as well. Fail. Don’t bother trying to argue that both references to Jesus by Josephus are merely Christian interpolations, that is merely self-serving speculation and not accepted by historians (even Ehrman accepts Josephus’ references to Jesus as valid evidence).

Why does being executed by Pilate or persecuted by Nero make a reference in Tacitus more plausible?

Because that means Tacitus is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman, most notably.

The man who wrote an entire book demonstrating Jesus existed? Ok.

Invalid comparison. Even the most biased of political propaganda is about real events, however much the propaganda may distort them.

That’s not true at all. You’re just engaging in special pleading.

Religious propaganda (aka sacred texts), by contrast, is about fantasy and woo.

Demonstration needed.

It's about supernatural agents that there's no evidence for doing magical things that there's no evidence ever actually happens, all written about to suit the agenda of a church.

Assertion, demonstration needed.

In a rational world, all religious texts should be assumed to be mythology unless secular sources or evidence can provide corroboration.

“All evidence that contradicts my view of reality must be tossed out and ignored!” is not a rational position. I am glad we live in the world where even secular scholars laugh at people like you.

Well, that means I'm fucked. I've tried to be as nice as possible on this forum, but all I've received from Christians is a lot of shallow-minded, arrogant bullshit. I'm not looking to make enemies, but I'm slowly learning that there are no religious "friends" here to make. Or even respect.

You can thank people like Min and Chuck for that.

I had a brother die when he was 3 months old and he was not baptized. I have had fucktards tell me that he is rotting in hell, since he was not baptized. When will people start to use logic and realize the absurdity of the bible?

I feel honored for being mentioned in your post. I am sorry for your loss, but out of curiosity why would that even bother you if you know hell does not exist? I really don’t let it bother me when atheists tell me what awaits me after death because I know they are wrong.

I think its important to note here that Minimalist has the highest kudos and reps of anyone on this site and probably always will.

I’ve always viewed that as a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise great forum (but I guess it proves that atheists really are not as moral as they claim to be). The most rude, crude, and immature poster on the site also being the most popular poster is not something I’d brag about if I were an atheist.

There are some great posters on here, and they are the reason I have such high regards for this site. Take for instance DeistPaladin- he and I agree on very little (nothing comes to mind), but I genuinely respect him and enjoy my discourse with him. I wish there were more posters like you and him on here but there just isn’t. I suppose it has gotten better though, when I first got on this site it was like the freaking Octagon (I even had someone on here try to steal my identity, scary stuff); all but a couple of those militant atheists are gone now.

[MindForgedManacle]

I think its important to note here that Minimalist has the highest kudos and reps of anyone on this site and probably always will. Why? because he says outright what even the most polite of us are thinking. He may be rude and crude but most of the time he's right.

It's trivial and irrelevant that one's belief is true if you don't have justification for it. And the problem with saying things outright - meaning usually before you can actuall assess such - is that you're just going to keep theists away, the very people that many here would like to see dwindle in numbers, which is rendered out of reach by constant use of that approach.

It's very much akin to why vehement street preachers in the US, who go up to people shouting "YOU ARE SINFUL TRASH!!11", never get converts: he's on overbearing, angry dick.

[Lemonvariable72]

If God didn't punish unrepentant sinners by separating them from their victims (heaven/hell) then He would be an unjust God.

You can't have it both ways. If there is a so-called "problem" of evil, then it must be dealt with by God by way of a permanent solution - hell. People complain why doesn't God do something about evil? Well He DOES. But if evil (sin) doesn't really exist then neither does hell.

Lion why does someone go to hell? For murder? Slavery? For rape? No for not believing in Jesus. I could be a serial killer but if I accepted Jesus on my deathbed I would go to heaven while ghandi sits in hell.

[Captain Colostomy]

It's very much akin to why vehement street preachers in the US, who go up to people shouting "YOU ARE SINFUL TRASH!!11", never get converts: he's on overbearing, angry dick.

Not even close. Those street assholes are intruding with unsolicited views. The theists here are here on their own volition, and are quite likely looking for debate and discouse...not conversion or to be converted. Time tells the tale.

Manacle- you're young and think you know the score...but trust me, you don't.

---

---

So, basically, if you don't agree with it, it has no merit, and you'll never let yourself be convinced otherwise. I don't know if that's more ignorance or arrogance, but it certainly puts a damper on your potential for spiritual growth.

Best of luck. You're gonna need it.

How does this relate to anything in my post?

I'm sorry, Stat, but that particular spelling is just not going to fly.

Lol. Even though that’s not relevant to my point, thank you. I tried to go back and fix it but it wouldn’t let me edit the post.

Then you must accept the proclamations of David Icke with the same vigor that you accept the proclamations in the Bible.

Non-sense, reasoning from scripture is a form of deduction.

If you analyze the historicity of the Christian faith, you will see its stories become less and less the "likely" truth. Jesus was of no concern to the Jews or the Romans while he was alive, he only grew in importance with the spread of Christianity to the pagans, and the adaptation of Pagan myths (such as the virgin birth and rising on the 3rd day) and fantasy into the story of his life.

You do realize that none of this is accepted by scholars and is only perpetuated by the internet right? There is no evidence that any of Christ’s stories were borrowed from Pagan myths; in fact there is substantial evidence to doubt that this is even a possibility.

It's entirely possible that these people never even existed and are nothing more than fanciful characters.

As it is also possible that George Washington is a mythical character but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Someone of the stature that Jesus rises to in the bible would have been written about by many different writers…

The Jews thought Jesus was a false prophet and the Romans only viewed him as a Jewish criminal. The Romans rarely mention their own Prefects so it is remarkable that they mentioned Jesus at all.

but all we can find to substantiate Jesus' existence are the bible and a few very questionable external sources.

Very questionable? According to whom? Historians accept Josephus’ and Tacitus’ references to Jesus.

What appears to be most likely is that either no Jesus existed, or the Jesus that did exist was so vastly different from what the bible describes that it's barely valid to say Christ was based on a real person.

Historians, secular and religious, vehemently disagree with this sort of statement.

He specifically said 'unless he finds reasons to doubt it'. Come on man.

Thanks for the response! You don’t have to fight DP’s battles for him though, he’s a big boy.

I know what he said, but he has provided no actual reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus besides the fact that he does not find the evidence compelling which is a merely arbitrary reason.

That evolution happens is known.

No, it’s an inference.

However, you could do with realizing that the colloquial usage of 'proof' simply means 'greatly evidenced'.

Words have meanings.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Why would I (or he, in this case) accept an extraordinary claim on its face?

What do you mean by extraordinary? I thought atheists believed that Christ-like stories were all over the place at that time, but now you’re telling me that Jesus’ story was unique? Well, which is it?

Further, why would you assume that any but an adherent would assume anything else?

I wouldn’t, I knew you assumed the Bible was false a priori which is exactly what the Bible says you do.

Or to make it historical, Socrates?

When I first heard that there was a man named Socrates I did not automatically assume that he did not really exist.

This seems irrelevant.

It was indeed irrelevant, which was my point. He found little evidence in comparison to his own arbitrary and unrealistic expectations of what he would find which demonstrates nothing. I think there is far more evidence for Jesus than I would have expected to find given is socio-economic status and region he lived in.

There tends to be recordings of some sort when something extraordinary supposedly happened.

An example please.

We know of at least a dozen or so "Messiahs" before, during and after Jesus' supposed lifetime, and there were almost certainly more.

That’s merely speculation.

Whether or not they were put to death by Pikate I myself don't know, but I don't think it can be claimed that you know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate (and the Gospels' portrayal of him is historically inaccurate).

Historians believe Jesus was put to death by Pilate. In fact, all but one of the few times Pilate is ever mentioned is in reference to Jesus. Even Roman historians believed it was more important to mention Pilate because he put Jesus to death than to simply mention him as one of their own Prefects. Remarkable eh?

Not always. Especially if they themselves were Christians when they became scholars/historians of it. That's not to say that they're untrustworthy per se, but more that humans are easily affected by confirmation bias, especially when the belief is a deeply held one.

This is an unreasonable standard not held by historians. When learning of Rome it is not inappropriate to cite Roman historians. When learning about early Christianity it is not inappropriate to cite early Christian writings; you are not allowed to construct a special set of rules for this one historical figure.

His point was obviously that ancient Rome is practically silent on Jesus.

…but not totally silent, which is amazing. The most powerful empire on Earth took the time to mention a humble Jewish carpenter in an unimportant region of their empire. Again, nothing short of remarkable.

Even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they believe. "Because I'm the expert and I say so" is not a valid argument. Ehrman needs to do more than assert The Historical Jesus existed. He needs to prove it.

Again, we’re not dealing with proof. Ehrman has an entire book on the subject. You’re not debating with Ehrman though, so it is completely reasonable for me to rely upon the testimony of such experts. You’ve got nothing of your own to rely upon, not even a handful of experts.

"There is no proof" is a perfectly good reason to doubt a claim about a miracle working godman with popular and controversial ministry that nobody paid any attention to.

There is no proof that any historical figure existed; do you therefore reject all of history now? Like all Mythicists you are adopting a special and completely arbitrary standard for Jesus that you do not apply to anyone else in history, which is logically fallacious.

That may be a new signature quote.

You’re absolutely right! I should totally put the fact that you think science deals with proof in my signature.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Yes. When presented with claims of woo, I don't believe them. I assume claims of woo to be untrue until presented with evidence.

Define “woo”.

Just for instance, little in comparison to John the Baptist, who had a much smaller ministry with a smaller following and still got a mention in Josephus.

Josephus mentions Jesus as well. Fail. Don’t bother trying to argue that both references to Jesus by Josephus are merely Christian interpolations, that is merely self-serving speculation and not accepted by historians (even Ehrman accepts Josephus’ references to Jesus as valid evidence).

Why does being executed by Pilate or persecuted by Nero make a reference in Tacitus more plausible?

Because that means Tacitus is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman, most notably.

The man who wrote an entire book demonstrating Jesus existed? Ok.

Invalid comparison. Even the most biased of political propaganda is about real events, however much the propaganda may distort them.

That’s not true at all. You’re just engaging in special pleading.

Religious propaganda (aka sacred texts), by contrast, is about fantasy and woo.

Demonstration needed.

It's about supernatural agents that there's no evidence for doing magical things that there's no evidence ever actually happens, all written about to suit the agenda of a church.

Assertion, demonstration needed.

In a rational world, all religious texts should be assumed to be mythology unless secular sources or evidence can provide corroboration.

“All evidence that contradicts my view of reality must be tossed out and ignored!” is not a rational position. I am glad we live in the world where even secular scholars laugh at people like you.

Well, that means I'm fucked. I've tried to be as nice as possible on this forum, but all I've received from Christians is a lot of shallow-minded, arrogant bullshit. I'm not looking to make enemies, but I'm slowly learning that there are no religious "friends" here to make. Or even respect.

You can thank people like Min and Chuck for that.

I had a brother die when he was 3 months old and he was not baptized. I have had fucktards tell me that he is rotting in hell, since he was not baptized. When will people start to use logic and realize the absurdity of the bible?

I feel honored for being mentioned in your post. I am sorry for your loss, but out of curiosity why would that even bother you if you know hell does not exist? I really don’t let it bother me when atheists tell me what awaits me after death because I know they are wrong.

I think its important to note here that Minimalist has the highest kudos and reps of anyone on this site and probably always will.

I’ve always viewed that as a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise great forum (but I guess it proves that atheists really are not as moral as they claim to be). The most rude, crude, and immature poster on the site also being the most popular poster is not something I’d brag about if I were an atheist.

There are some great posters on here, and they are the reason I have such high regards for this site. Take for instance DeistPaladin- he and I agree on very little (nothing comes to mind), but I genuinely respect him and enjoy my discourse with him. I wish there were more posters like you and him on here but there just isn’t. I suppose it has gotten better though, when I first got on this site it was like the freaking Octagon (I even had someone on here try to steal my identity, scary stuff); all but a couple of those militant atheists are gone now.

---

War and Peace is a haiku compared to this! TL;DR

[Lemonvariable72]

It's very much akin to why vehement street preachers in the US, who go up to people shouting "YOU ARE SINFUL TRASH!!11", never get converts: he's on overbearing, angry dick.

Not even close. Those street assholes are intruding with unsolicited views. The theists here are here on their own volition, and are quite likely looking for debate and discouse...not conversion or to be converted. Time tells the tale.

Manacle- you're young and think you know the score...but trust me, you don't.

---

---

How does this relate to anything in my post?


Lol. Even though that’s not relevant to my point, thank you. I tried to go back and fix it but it wouldn’t let me edit the post.


Non-sense, reasoning from scripture is a form of deduction.


You do realize that none of this is accepted by scholars and is only perpetuated by the internet right? There is no evidence that any of Christ’s stories were borrowed from Pagan myths; in fact there is substantial evidence to doubt that this is even a possibility.


As it is also possible that George Washington is a mythical character but I see no reason to believe that is the case.


The Jews thought Jesus was a false prophet and the Romans only viewed him as a Jewish criminal. The Romans rarely mention their own Prefects so it is remarkable that they mentioned Jesus at all.


Very questionable? According to whom? Historians accept Josephus’ and Tacitus’ references to Jesus.


Historians, secular and religious, vehemently disagree with this sort of statement.


Thanks for the response! You don’t have to fight DP’s battles for him though, he’s a big boy.

I know what he said, but he has provided no actual reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus besides the fact that he does not find the evidence compelling which is a merely arbitrary reason.


No, it’s an inference.


Words have meanings.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today


What do you mean by extraordinary? I thought atheists believed that Christ-like stories were all over the place at that time, but now you’re telling me that Jesus’ story was unique? Well, which is it?


I wouldn’t, I knew you assumed the Bible was false a priori which is exactly what the Bible says you do.



When I first heard that there was a man named Socrates I did not automatically assume that he did not really exist.


It was indeed irrelevant, which was my point. He found little evidence in comparison to his own arbitrary and unrealistic expectations of what he would find which demonstrates nothing. I think there is far more evidence for Jesus than I would have expected to find given is socio-economic status and region he lived in.





An example please.


That’s merely speculation.


Historians believe Jesus was put to death by Pilate. In fact, all but one of the few times Pilate is ever mentioned is in reference to Jesus. Even Roman historians believed it was more important to mention Pilate because he put Jesus to death than to simply mention him as one of their own Prefects. Remarkable eh?



This is an unreasonable standard not held by historians. When learning of Rome it is not inappropriate to cite Roman historians. When learning about early Christianity it is not inappropriate to cite early Christian writings; you are not allowed to construct a special set of rules for this one historical figure.


…but not totally silent, which is amazing. The most powerful empire on Earth took the time to mention a humble Jewish carpenter in an unimportant region of their empire. Again, nothing short of remarkable.


Again, we’re not dealing with proof. Ehrman has an entire book on the subject. You’re not debating with Ehrman though, so it is completely reasonable for me to rely upon the testimony of such experts. You’ve got nothing of your own to rely upon, not even a handful of experts.


There is no proof that any historical figure existed; do you therefore reject all of history now? Like all Mythicists you are adopting a special and completely arbitrary standard for Jesus that you do not apply to anyone else in history, which is logically fallacious.


You’re absolutely right! I should totally put the fact that you think science deals with proof in my signature.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today



Define “woo”.


Josephus mentions Jesus as well. Fail. Don’t bother trying to argue that both references to Jesus by Josephus are merely Christian interpolations, that is merely self-serving speculation and not accepted by historians (even Ehrman accepts Josephus’ references to Jesus as valid evidence).


Because that means Tacitus is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.


The man who wrote an entire book demonstrating Jesus existed? Ok.


That’s not true at all. You’re just engaging in special pleading.


Demonstration needed.



Assertion, demonstration needed.


“All evidence that contradicts my view of reality must be tossed out and ignored!” is not a rational position. I am glad we live in the world where even secular scholars laugh at people like you.


You can thank people like Min and Chuck for that.

I feel honored for being mentioned in your post. I am sorry for your loss, but out of curiosity why would that even bother you if you know hell does not exist? I really don’t let it bother me when atheists tell me what awaits me after death because I know they are wrong.


I’ve always viewed that as a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise great forum (but I guess it proves that atheists really are not as moral as they claim to be). The most rude, crude, and immature poster on the site also being the most popular poster is not something I’d brag about if I were an atheist.

There are some great posters on here, and they are the reason I have such high regards for this site. Take for instance DeistPaladin- he and I agree on very little (nothing comes to mind), but I genuinely respect him and enjoy my discourse with him. I wish there were more posters like you and him on here but there just isn’t. I suppose it has gotten better though, when I first got on this site it was like the freaking Octagon (I even had someone on here try to steal my identity, scary stuff); all but a couple of those militant atheists are gone now.

---

War and Peace is a haiku compared to this! TL;DR

I do not think he is saying min is like a street preacher because that is very far from the truth. I think he is saying the effect is the same though when we make fun of theists.
And start you make Harry potter look like a pamphlet.

[Captain Colostomy]

Fuck Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If anyone here wants to wet nurse others, whip out a titty and have at it. Effectiveness is immaterial here...it's your perogative. Period. But don't. You. Dare. Assume to tell others how to communicate their own thoughts and views either! Don't approve? Tough shit. Worried 'the cause' is being set back? What fucking cause? This is an atheist forum, not a freaking activist group! A forum allows individuals to express themselves, by the by. Bleeding christ.

Yeah...no Harry Potter sized rants from me, sorry. I find morons such as myself appreciate their vitriol in bite sized portions. Your fucking welcome.

[Lemonvariable72]

Fuck Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If anyone here wants to wet nurse others, whip out a titty and have at it. Effectiveness is immaterial here...it's your perogative. Period. But don't. You. Dare. Assume to tell others how to communicate their own thoughts and views either! Don't approve? Tough shit. Worried 'the cause' is being set back? What fucking cause? This is an atheist forum, not a freaking activist group! A forum allows individuals to express themselves, by the by. Bleeding christ.

Yeah...no Harry Potter sized rants from me, sorry. I find morons such as myself appreciate their vitriol in bite sized portions. Your fucking welcome.

Well excuse me, I wasn't trying to tell you what to say or think, if you have a hard time being civil, that's too bad. I was trying to command anyone to say anything anyway, so if you want to go on being insulting to people fine I do not care. Just I want to reach out and change peoples minds and I know that all insulting does is make them forget whatever point you were trying to make.

[Captain Colostomy]

You're deaf as hell. Speaking of...at what point do you determine enough is enough with others' dumb ideas and deaf ears? Imagine others who have crested this point with obstinate jackholes who continue with their stupidity. How would you react? Better yet, don't bother trying, because who cares? You are responsible only for yourself. Let others have the same courtesy, too, m'kay?

[Lemonvariable72]

You're deaf as hell. Speaking of...at what point do you determine enough is enough with others' dumb ideas and deaf ears? Imagine others who have crested this point with obstinate jackholes who continue with their stupidity. How would you react? Better yet, don't bother trying, because who cares? You are responsible only for yourself. Let others have the same courtesy, too, m'kay?

Fair enough, I was only trying to appeal to reason. And I usually draw the line at talk of hell and me or loved ones going there or genocide apologics. and yes seen people like Waldorf and drippy in action, I just do not support blanketing all Christians on here because of the actions of some. I always support the golden rule