What do invented saints tell us about Christianity?

[The Valkyrie]

I went to look at it. Its a Christian site trying to take apart rational arguments. Its main thing is its obsession with people not thinking that jesus is real. It seems to offend them.

Say what? It's Tim O'neill.

So, is his sole purpose to proagate Christian myths in the most arrogant ways possible?


He seems to have a hard on for Aron Ra...

[Belacqua]

Say what? It's Tim O'neill.

So, is his sole purpose to proagate Christian myths in the most arrogant ways possible?


He seems to have a hard on for Aron Ra...

Is the world in total black and white for you? 

Do you think that a man who wants to explain the truth about popular atheist myths can only be an arrogant Christian propagandist? 


Can you conceive of a case where someone just wants us to know the truth about history? 

Or are you, like some others here, indifferent to the truth as long as we're knocking religion?

[The Valkyrie]

So, is his sole purpose to proagate Christian myths in the most arrogant ways possible?


He seems to have a hard on for Aron Ra...

Is the world in total black and white for you? 

Do you think that a man who wants to explain the truth about popular atheist myths can only be an arrogant Christian propagandist? 


Can you conceive of a case where someone just wants us to know the truth about history? 

Or are you, like some others here, indifferent to the truth as long as we're knocking religion?

Wow, I think I struck a nerve.

“Truth” is one thing to call the crap he posts. “Utter bovine excrement” could be another.

Frankly I don’t give a flying fuck if his name is Atheist A. Atheist and he wins the Mr Atheist competition every year.

It seems his opinion is all that matters and nothing else is important. Some of his points are valid, many are not, especially when he quotes from the bible as evidence for his opinions.

Yes, I said he’s arrogant. He deliberately goes out of his way to not use Aron Ra’s preferred name, istead constantly referring to him as “ Nelson”. I’m sure that he might get pissed if I wrote an article about him and continually referred to him as “dickless”.

Of course, I’m sure the Christian fanboys cheering him on is boosting his ego, if not his credibility.

[Belacqua]

“Utter bovine excrement” could be another.

Yet you didn't address a single thing that he's said. You don't make a counter-argument, you write a name-calling  screed.

He writes history, you write tantrums.

But I think you have found a good home on this forum, where saying bad things about religion is far more important than telling the truth.

[GrandizerII]

Some of his points are valid, many are not, especially when he quotes from the bible as evidence for his opinions.

In some cases, the Bible does count as evidence for one's position. It depends on the question you're trying to answer. If you want to know what the early Christians believed about this and that, the New Testament could count as good evidence.

But I suspect what you're referring to is Tim supposedly using the Bible as evidence against mythicism, and if that's your charge, then I think this is a little misleading since Tim isn't using the Bible authoritatively as evidence perse against such views, but rather he is arguing that an honest analysis of the texts in the Bible (using proper and reasonable criteria) may reveal indicators that something this and that may have happened while other this and that probably did not. He uses the Bible as evidence in such a manner in the same way he has used the Bible as evidence to argue that the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are clearly not based on historical facts.

[The Valkyrie]

“Utter bovine excrement” could be another.

Yet you didn't address a single thing that he's said. You don't make a counter-argument, you write a name-calling  screed.

He writes history, you write tantrums.

But I think you have found a good home on this forum, where saying bad things about religion is far more important than telling the truth.

As you don’t feel the need to address others who have brought up points here, I don’t feel the need to spend time correcting an arrogant individual on his posts.

Once again the claim of “truth”. You’re sonding more and more like an apologist who shouts “truth” whatever the facts may actually be.

To the last, if you have such a low opinion of this site and its members, feel free to find the door...

[Succubus]

Some of Carl Sagan's errors about history are addressed in The Cambridge History of Science Volume 2:

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/...-skewered/

Well fuck me, the agnostic apologist Belacqua finds a few errors in a 40 year old television series. The atheist world will be rocked to its foundations!

But then from just last year it is now quite apparent the Turin shroud is the real deal Carbon dating is bollocks.

---

So, is his sole purpose to proagate Christian myths in the most arrogant ways possible?


He seems to have a hard on for Aron Ra...

Is the world in total black and white for you? 

Do you think that a man who wants to explain the truth about popular atheist myths can only be an arrogant Christian propagandist? 


Can you conceive of a case where someone just wants us to know the truth about history? 

Or are you, like some others here, indifferent to the truth as long as we're knocking religion?

What is your opinion of Kenneth Humphreys?

A man who wants to explain the truth about popular Christian myths.

---

“Utter bovine excrement” could be another.

Yet you didn't address a single thing that he's said. You don't make a counter-argument, you write a name-calling  screed.

He writes history, you write tantrums.

But I think you have found a good home on this forum, where saying bad things about religion is far more important than telling the truth.

And the truth is?

[GrandizerII]

What is your opinion of Kenneth Humphreys?

A man who wants to explain the truth about popular Christian myths.

I don't think truth is what this Ken guy is after. Had a look at one of the pages:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

Jesus was never believed to be a sun god. This falsehood is basically a rehash of the Acharya S/Zeitgeist Movie nonsense, and I sure hope nobody here actually believes this to be true when it's clearly false.

[Fake Messiah]

Jesus was never believed to be a sun god. This falsehood is basically a rehash of the Acharya S/Zeitgeist Movie nonsense, and I sure hope nobody here actually believes this to be true when it's clearly false.

Never? So Jesus's traditional birthdate on 25 December, as the Roman sun god Sol Invictus and as traditional birth of the Sun is just a coincidence?

[GrandizerII]

Jesus was never believed to be a sun god. This falsehood is basically a rehash of the Acharya S/Zeitgeist Movie nonsense, and I sure hope nobody here actually believes this to be true when it's clearly false.

Never? So Jesus's traditional birthdate on 25 December, as the Roman sun god Sol Invictus and as traditional birth of the Sun is just a coincidence?

Not necessarily a coincidence, but it doesn't follow that Jesus was ever believed to be a sun god. The much later move to set Jesus' date of birth to December 25 might have been a political one, to replace the official state festival which celebrated the birth of the sun with a festival that celebrated the birth of Christ instead. And that's assuming that the Christians took the date from the pagans in the first place, rather than the other way around.