eddiewinehosen »-
DO you know what I find really irritatign about modern Militant Atheists? It's not realy about Atheism, or even Religion, it's about rejectign Christanity first and foremost, Theism secondarily but not really qyiet s Hostilly, and finally abour invovlign onesself in a mythlogy of 'Ahtirsm" that see's Atheism and Science as basiclaly the same thing, and Humanism as the same as Athesm and Scence.
The relaly frustratgnthign is, nothign you've written isoriginak to you. You didnt come toany of these conclusiosn on yru own, ad havent den the slightest research. What you just posted coudl have been wrtten litterally by any onlien militant Atheit. Its just recycled garbage. The relaly Ironic thign is, as mch as you berate
"Religious people" for blidnly followugn the leader and midbessly parroting the thigns htey are tolkd withotu qeusitonign them, it never dwns on you to uesion the thign syou say.
1. Simply because no religion has been able to present a single shred of evidence for their claims of a deity and an afterlife.
Not all Reigions even beleive in Deities or an Afterlife.
Also, this isn't True. Philosophical arguments for the existence of God have been offered, and all of them, even the 'Debunked" ones liek Aqinas's (WHich aren't as discredited as a lot of Atheist sites say, buy thats much more compelx an issue than I'll get into right now) rely on some form of evidnece.
Lets take a look at one fo them, the Anthropic Principle, or Arugment form design. Please odn't offer counterarguments for it, as I'm not using the Argument to prive that God exists, I'm usign it to prive that evidence is offered for God's existence.
The Argument, in its simplest, and therefre not enturely best, form is that the Uniese seems fine tuned tfor life and the chancesof this are astronomiclaly small. Well, that's base don Ohysical observation, and thus is evidence. Now, there are countrarguments, but one fault of Militant Atheist is the assumption that offerign a COunerarugment means you have proven the originl arugment wrong. This, of ocurse, isn't True. Just oerign a counterarugment means an alternatve explanation for the evidnece exists. The point I'm making then is that, regrdless of if the evidnece ocnvinces you or not, there is evidnece for the existence of God.
In fact, pepel have wrtten enire books on the topic. Rene Des Carte came up with a famous Ontological Aerguent for it, for example, and modern Theologians liek Geilser have too.
So let snot try the "No evinece" bit, tis relaly not acurat.
It's also no why you re an Atheist.
This is imho the main difference between most religious people and atheists,
Atheists are Religious people. Religion is not the opposie of Atheism. Theism is the opposite of Atheism. Religion is not anothr word for Theism and doesnt require it. ( And i've seen the Google definition. CHeck Britannica instead.)
Religion is a Philosophy about how we udnerstand the natue of our exitence, and Ateism can be as much a tenet of a Relgiion as can Theism.
if you provide real evidence I will change my mind but no matter how much evidence science compiles most religious people will not.
This is a bold faced lie and we both know it. Its a trope that Ahtiet ar elogical and Raitonal thinkers who objetivley evaluate Facts hwolst Relgiiosu peopel merleybelive or "Have Faith", but its just propaganda,
I neithe beleive Relgiiosu Peopel (Your usage) are as unwillign to hinslty examien evidnece, or do I beleive that Atheits typiclaly ar eopen minded and will.
Especially form a Christ Myther who talks abotu how Jeuss was simial to other gods.
But more on that later.
2. I go out of my way because my world view and my beliefs are based on what we have evidence for and to the highest extent what is true. Religions try to impose on that worldview without evidence just based on faith.
No they dn't.
Faith foens't even mean beleivign in soemthign without evidence.
This is, again, a claim that's made by Militanrt Atheists, but that is never actually supported.
In fact, its Iornic sicne your makign an assertion withotu any evidence at all right now.
I think that religions are holding us as a species back as it has done on numerous occasions throughout history by suppressing knowledge and learning.
It's part of yoru own Religions mythology that Relgiiin hods back Sicnece and Learning. Relaly if you look at the actual evidence from History, the enture COnflict moel that says Science and Relgiion are at odds, and the Historical Narrative f hos relgiion hodl sback the advancement of Knwoeldge, has no credible bakcing.
It is another Iornic claim sicne its more beleif withotu evidnce.
The best ou cna do is tropt out Galileo and Darwin again of ocurse. Nevr midn that Galileo's Trial wasnt uely about sayign the Eaeh went roudn the SUn, and modern Hisotrians reject the simplisitc point, or that plenry of christain suppored Darwinism evn in the 19th Centiry.
We can take a modern example, we all know that people have sex not just for procreation but for enjoyment and we also know that condoms is the only protection against AIDS in sexual encounters.
No we don't. In fact, what you've just said is entirely wrong.
Poepel ar eprogrammed for sex ourely for rproduction. It is mde enjoyable and peopel are rewared for sex because that way it ensures it happens.
Also, COndoms don't always ebsure that peopel don't catch AIDS, and one can eaisly simply not have casual sex.
By the ay, Critisisng the Catholic CHurhc on this topic is stupid. I'll get to that now.
Yet the Catholic church are going out of their way to discourage people in Africa to use condoms because "it's against gods will"
It's God's Will,not gods will, God is a name n this sentence and thus is capitalised; and you're both oversimplifying the Catholic position, whih is not merley "God said it", and overlooking the Reality of the Situation.
which have lead to the massive spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.
This is actually a TOta Lie, and collapses when you even just think about it.
I mean, seriosoy, the peopel Listen to the Cahtolic Curhc and refuse to wear COndomns but astill have sex wth random prtners or hookers? Does the Catholic CHurch only condemn COndmn use?
You see, he Catholic CHurhc also teaches Chastity. You are supposed to remain without a Sexual Partner until Married, and then remain Faihtful in Marriage. If this were followed, AIDS woudl nto spread.
To suggest that peopel refuse to use COndomsn ebcause the chruch said so onyt obreak its moral Teahcigns on Sex in another way by banign random women they picked up or prostitutes is to make a leap f logic that is comleltey unjustified.
Why aren't the people following the Cahtolic CHurhc on the rest of the Teachings?
Also, the Highest infecton rates are in Muslim Populated Areas. WHy woudl Muslims listen to the Catholic CHurch. ( No I do not blame ISlam n the infections, its just an interestign point that they have the ighest infection rates.)
Also, read this.
It's from Harvard,not the catholic CHurch.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227110/saint-peters-square-harv ard-square/kathryn-jean-lopez
I know this is a popular arugmwent ut its loony. Its also boring since its oversed, like the rest of this garbage.
All you reveal is that you arne't intereste din objective Fact, just discresitign "Religion".
Oh, that remidnds me, hwo does the Catholic CHurhces action prove Relgiion is wrong here? Religion is not one big entity, you know. Just because oen religion does soemthign wrong doesnt mean all of Religion itself is guilty.
Plenty of Protestnats autlaly handed out Ondomsn in africa, but I guess that fesn't help your "Relgiion is bad" agenda.
About 70% of all AIDS-infected humans live in sub-Saharan Africa, there are around 25 million people infected with HIV and frequent condom use could prevent the rapid spread of AIDS.
Not accordign to Dr. Edward C. Green, who says there is no evidnece for this.
3. I think some people have touched on this, Evolution is a fact. The start of life is Abiogenesis and I can't remember their names now but two different scientists have actually successfully created living matter from non-living matter.
And "Religion" is not "Creationism". For that matter, "Religion" is not "Christainity" and "Christainity" is not "Creationism".
Seriosuly, you can't say your an Atheist because Evolution is a Fact, and expect that to be a good arugment. Evolution bign a fact does not mean God doesn't exist.
4. Because no contemporary historical accounts of anyone remotely similar to Jesus exist.
The Jesus Myth Theory is bunk. No Historian takes this seriosuly, and frankly, there's more evidnece for Jesus livign than the vast majority of Ancient Hisotrical Figrures. The New Testament alone, whoel rejected as "One soruce", is acutlaly 27, and the earliest parts were wrtten within a decade of the events. Tjat'd be Pauls EPistles.
Seriosuly, thee woudkl be far more problems with a Mythical Jeuss than a Real One.
But you dn't have to take my word for it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theoryHere is the Critissm section. Its the tip of the ICeberge. I can give a lot mroe later.
Criticism[edit]
Main article: Historicity of Jesus
Historicity refers to the question of whether alleged past persons and events are genuinely historical or merely mythical. The study of whether the Jesus mentioned in the Christian New Testament was a real person is covered in the article Historicity of Jesus.
In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity, as would have been expected if there had been any doubt at the time.[203][204]
There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[17] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[17] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[14][15][16] Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[205]
Nevertheless, Christ Myth theories find very little support from scholars. According to Bart D. Ehrman (a former Evangelical Christian turned agnostic who has written extensively about the questionable accuracy and authorship of the gospels), most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory. Among professors of early Christian history and religious studies, Ehrman writes that opinion is almost unanimous:
Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed.[206]
Ehrman also notes that these views would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department:
These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.[207]
In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material. He also writes that "most common epithet" of Jesus, "Christ", sounds similar to the name of Indian God, "Krishna".[208] He further suggested that Christians did not create Jesus, but invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.[207]
Christ Myth Theory authors Richard Carrier, Rene Salm, D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Frank Zindler and David Fitzgerald wrote a response to Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? in the 2013 book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? [209] There have also been online responses to Ehrman's works from Carrier,[210] Thomas L. Thompson,[211] and Philip R. Davies.[212]
Maurice Casey also notes that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists" and "demonstrably false", and that "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".[213]
Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".[214] According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view" and wrote
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.[215]
According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[216]
Of coruse you won't change your midn with evidence. You'lll just deny it.
All in the nae of Reasn of course.
The earliest written texts about Jesus is written some 30-40 years after his alleged life and death.
Actually, the Earliest Wirtten Texts were from about a Decade after his Death. THe Pauline EPistles began then, ad mention him quiet a lot. You just ean the Gospels.
Also, this is only a compellign rugment if you ignroe the fact that this was absurdly common in the Ancint World.
Think abotu it, we have one soruce and one soruce alone fot he existence of Socratee,and that's Plato. Plato write of Soctratese 40 Years
later.No one doubts Socratese Existed. Alexander the Great had nothign written abotu him durign his ifetime. Hannible? The Earliest known text is form over a century later.
This was the norm for th TIme, not some unisual blip.
The four gospels was written at least 80 years after his "death".
No they weren't.
Modern Academics htink the Three Synptoc GOspels are related, with Mathew nd Luke borowign from Mark. Mark is thguht to have been written around 60 or so AD, durign the Persecution of CHristains by EMperor Nero. As Jesus died sometime in the Mid 30's AD, that's abotu 30 Years later, not 80. Mathew and Luke are thught ot have come *beep* after, maybe 65-75 AD range. A best then 40 Years later.
The Gospel of Jihsn Hisotry is more complicate dbut unnessisary for now. I'l cover it if you ask, but , the other three prove that you were wrgn about the 80 Year gap.
All these other people you mention have historical accounts from many different contemporary sources and in some cases even material they wrote themselves still exist.
Such as?
I idnt see his list. Do tell.
There are also many older similar myths from India, Greek mythology and Egypt that almost exactly correlates with the Jesus myth.
No, there arent. The claim that variosu ealrier godmen saviours were born of virgins, gthred 12 disiples, healthed the sick, and wwre crucified and rose again, it's all bunk. It was made up in the 19th Century by Gerald Massey and Kersey Graves. You won't find a single shred of evience to back up this ridiculous notion.
And ironiclaly, you claim you only beleive what you have evidence to beevi ein!
Lets face it, all the talk of Ratioanlity, Science, and Evince is a ruse. You, and other Militant Atheists, just get off on attacking Christainity.
You didn't fact check any oftis crap, you just got stock argmentsd from Atheist websites and regurgrtate them. It never even dawned on ou t be Sceptical of these caims. Instead, you blidnly accepted them because they told you what you wanted to hear.
Makign you what you claim to condemn.
5. Don't really know how to address this one cause I don't really understand where you are coming from here. You don't believe in the god of the bible but you believe in Jesus? You call him/her/it "Universal Creator" in what way does that differ from the god of the bible?
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Sicne literlly all of your arugments came ff websites, why not do a basic net searhc on this one too? It's been anseered loads f TImes.
As fo me, let me ask this first. WHy do you beleive withotu evidnce crappy argyments abotu Jeuss not existign and his life beign copied form earlier Pagan Myths? WHy do you belive iwtout vidence that the Cahtoic CHurch kills Afrcans by denyign them COndemns? WHy do you asusmer Relgiion as a whole is guilty of what the Ctholi Curch does? WHy do you ignore the Evidencr that God exsts thats used in Argumetns for God's existence, and claim there is no Evidnce at al?
O better yet, why do you visit Athest websites and copy dwn these arugents nayway? WHy interna;ise hatred of Christains? WHy bother?
If you want to be an Atiets, be an Ahtiest, but why not lay off the hate?
reply
share
eddiewinehosen
10 years ago
When you can write in comprehensive English I could be bothered to read what you wrote until then seek help, this is so full of spelling errors and outright lies about where I get my information from it's not worthy of any other response then the one I offer below!
"Debating an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, *beep* on the board and strut around like it won anyway"
reply
share
ZAROVE
10 years ago
by eddiewinehosen -
When you can write in comprehensive English I could be bothered to read what you wrote until then seek help, this is so full of spelling errors
I'm DYlexic. No SPell Chekc is not the easy solution.
Tht said, my Grammar is flawless. Only my spelling is off. WHat I wrote is comprehensable English.
and outright lies about where I get my information from it's not worthy of any other response then the one I offer below!
The onlyplces you coudl have gotten informaiton about the Jeuss Myth being based on older Pagan godmen wholead near identical lives is from Militat Atheist websites. Thee isn't a single Acadeic website that says this.
So we all know what sort of websites you got your information from.
"Debating an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, *beep* on the board and strut around like it won anyway"
Calling me an idiot after advocatign somethign that can be proven false within 3 minuets using a basic searhc engine is far les sinsulting.
So let me ask three core quesitons;
01: Even if we accept that the Catholic CHurhc is responcibel for making far worse the spread of AIDS in Africa by refusing to hand out condimsn and tellign People they arne't effective (Which itself isn't the Truth but a slanted depiction) how does that prove religion in and of itself is rsponcible? After all, you didn't use that as an exampel fo why Catholsisim was bad, or even Christanity, but Relgiin as a wole? Well, most Religions don't beleive the same thigns as the Catholic CHurch. Not even all Chirstains do. So how is tht a good exampel of the proems in Religion?
One can just as readily point to the Soviet Union's rejection of Genetics and QUantum Theory to prove that Atheism is bad, not ot mention that Mao's Great Leap Forward did kill load of people.
What you're describign isn't what "Relgiion" does, its hwat the Cahtolci CHurhc does.
02: Why do the peopel in Africa liten to the Catholic CHurhc about why they shoudk not us Condomns, but ignore the rest of the Chruches Teaching regarding Sex?
Does that even make sense?
03: Can you show any real evidence that ther wer previosu stories of other saviour godmen who lead similar lives to Jesus? I don'tmean Acharya S's "Truth Be Known" website or soem other sit emakign the same assertion, I want to se the original Myths.
Do you have evidence that these Myths actulaly existed?
Calling me an idiot won't make me wrong. Caling what Ive said Lies won't make them Untrue.
reply
share
nammage
9 years ago
Doesn't matter. S/he's one of those people who use the Bible to prove the Bible is true.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
reply
share