Atheists and Skeptics Have the Truth. Christians Do NOT. (against, examples, existence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not a game or a contest, Thrill. You will regret your assault on God no matter how valid your frustration is with the bogus religious dogma you were indoctrinated with. God is not at fault for our stupid human beliefs about Him!
The idea that God controls us or anything about our physical life here is human wishful thinking, vanity, and hubris writ large. God is SPIRIT and is concerned only with our spiritual development, period! Yours is not in very good condition right now, IMO.
It's a debate, Mystic. You forgot that one. What I notice when I lay out clear facts about Christianity's checkered history of falsehoods, deceptions and a complete lack of transparency is this:
Christians never offer solid irrefutable evidence to support their position. It's just "You'll be sorry, just you wait." (you). "I'm right, you're wrong. Period!" (Michael Way). "Well, it's likely....it's possibly....maybe....probably more likely....." (MPH) not to mention the rabid Christians with their insults, "Oh no, you don't sucker me into that...." and more if I wanted to dig it up. What a sad, sorry state of affairs when Christians cannot give eve a modicum of decent debate without resorting to subterfuge. Look at my exchange with Michael as a representative example:
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus" period!
Thrillobyte: What about the photo showing an alteration to the text changing "e" to "i"? What about too few Christians in Rome to start a rebellion? What about Eusebius never once mentioning the Tacitus text?
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus". Period! Get help.
That's about it. And what did I offer? Solid Truths:
Truth No 1: there is NO historical evidence for Jesus son of God or the apostles, period. Truth No 2: the two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having so little to no value in trying to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Truth No 3: the gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the apostle. Truth No 4: if God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this. Truth No 5: God, if he exists, does not interfere or participate in human affairs.
To these I can add more truths:
Truth No 6: if Christianity was the one true religion more people would be joining than leaving in 1st World nations Truth No 7: Jesus Christ didn't change the world; Emperor Constantine changed the world.
Truth No 8: if Christianity was the one true religion there would be just one denomination, not 40,000.
Truth No 9: if Christianity was the one true religion more churches would be opening than closing. Truth No 10: if Christianity was the one true religion rapists and murderers wouldn't get to skate into heaven unpunished at the last minute of their lives just for saying, "I accept Jesus" while agnostics who served mankind unselfishly all their lives would still go to hell to suffer for eternity.
Am I alone in my assessment? Hardly. Gerd Ludemann, a one-time Christian preeminent Biblical scholar and historian-turned-atheist had this to say about Christianity:
"People know Christianity is not true, but they won't address it publicly. Theologians will pay almost any price to avoid these conclusions, which follow from the collapse of the idea of a divine creator, from the hoax of your "resurrection.”
The Clergy Project cites over a thousand ministers who have turned atheist. Among them prominent former theists:
Rob Bell, author of Love Wins
Dan Barker, author of Godless
Jerry DeWitt author of Hope After Faith
Matt Dilahunty, host of The Atheist Experience
Michael Shermer editor Skeptic magazine
I have no doubts any one of you Christians could cite just as many atheists turned theist as I could cite Christian turned atheist. Does this prove Jesus is real?
Not at all. What it proves is the Christian experience, whether turning TO it or turning away from it has nothing whatsoever to do with God. It's a purely chemical reaction in the brain; an emotionally uplifting experience or a gut-punching come-to-one's-sense reality check in any case but in no case is God anywhere near this kind of thing because of the capricious arbitrary nature of these experiences.
It's a debate, Mystic. You forgot that one. What I notice when I lay out clear facts about Christianity's checkered history of falsehoods, deceptions and a complete lack of transparency is this:
Christians never offer solid irrefutable evidence to support their position. It's just "You'll be sorry, just you wait." (you). "I'm right, you're wrong. Period!" (Michael Way). "Well, it's likely....it's possibly....maybe....probably more likely....." (MPH) not to mention the rabid Christians with their insults, "Oh no, you don't sucker me into that...." and more if I wanted to dig it up. What a sad, sorry state of affairs when Christians cannot give eve a modicum of decent debate without resorting to subterfuge. Look at my exchange with Michael as a representative example:
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus" period!
Thrillobyte: What about the photo showing an alteration to the text changing "e" to "i"? What about too few Christians in Rome to start a rebellion? What about Eusebius never once mentioning the Tacitus text?
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus". Period! Get help.
That's about it. And what did I offer? Solid Truths:
Truth No 1: there is NO historical evidence for Jesus son of God or the apostles, period. Truth No 2: the two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having so little to no value in trying to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Truth No 3: the gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the apostle. Truth No 4: if God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this. Truth No 5: God, if he exists, does not interfere or participate in human affairs.
To these I can add more truths:
Truth No 6: if Christianity was the one true religion more people would be joining than leaving in 1st World nations Truth No 7: Jesus Christ didn't change the world; Emperor Constantine changed the world.
Truth No 8: if Christianity was the one true religion there would be just one denomination, not 40,000.
Truth No 9: if Christianity was the one true religion more churches would be opening than closing. Truth No 10: if Christianity was the one true religion rapists and murderers wouldn't get to skate into heaven unpunished at the last minute of their lives just for saying, "I accept Jesus" while agnostics who served mankind unselfishly all their lives would still go to hell to suffer for eternity.
Am I alone in my assessment? Hardly. Gerd Ludemann, a one-time Christian preeminent Biblical scholar and historian-turned-atheist had this to say about Christianity:
"People know Christianity is not true, but they won't address it publicly. Theologians will pay almost any price to avoid these conclusions, which follow from the collapse of the idea of a divine creator, from the hoax of your "resurrection.”
The Clergy Project cites over a thousand ministers who have turned atheist. Among them prominent former theists:
Rob Bell, author of Love Wins
Dan Barker, author of Godless
Jerry DeWitt author of Hope After Faith
Matt Dilahunty, host of The Atheist Experience
Michael Shermer editor Skeptic magazine
I have no doubts any one of you Christians could cite just as many atheists turned theist as I could cite Christian turned atheist. Does this prove Jesus is real?
Not at all. What it proves is the Christian experience, whether turning TO it or turning away from it has nothing whatsoever to do with God. It's a purely chemical reaction in the brain; an emotionally uplifting experience or a gut-punching come-to-one's-sense reality check in any case but in no case is God anywhere near this kind of thing because of the capricious arbitrary nature of these experiences.
All you have ever presented...every day, for years...is nothing but a repeat of the same ranting diatribes that are basically nothing more than a obsessive displeasure with literal interpretations of some portions of ancient Theological Books & Writings, and that so many in the world believe them as a way to connect with The Divine.
And it is a ongoing antagonistic insult to the Faithful Believers.
It has gotten to the point that other members are questioning your condition. But I had it figured out long ago.
All you have ever presented...every day, for years...is nothing but a repeat of the same ranting diatribes that are basically nothing more than a obsessive displeasure with literal interpretations of some portions of ancient Theological Books & Writings, and that so many in the world believe them as a way to connect with The Divine.
And it is a ongoing antagonistic insult to the Faithful Believers.
It has gotten to the point that other members are questioning your condition. But I had it figured out long ago.
Another perfect example of what I'm referring to about Christians.
Another perfect example of what I'm referring to about Christians.
And what "perfect example" is that?
That I, as a Pantheist...accept that the Christians believe as they do, and employ those Beliefs to connect with The Divine.
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."
Agreed, but the 8 different church fathers I have on a list still decided that the gospels used would include our 4 gospels, many of Paul's letters, and Acts. These church fathers argued about whether to include other texts, such as Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, but the basic canon was decided late 2nd century AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
As for as Tacitus or Suetonius is concerned, thrillobyte may be correct, the scripture hadn't been produced yet. Which for me calls into question language adopted for the written word used to refute the oral history, vowels, yes or no?
Tacitus wrote Annals around 116 AD, so if any of the gospels are late 1st century AD, they existed as a possible source. My view is the first gospel, Mark, is a literary invention not based on oral stories.
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Agreed, but the 8 different church fathers I have on a list still decided that the gospels used would include our 4 gospels, many of Paul's letters, and Acts. These church fathers argued about whether to include other texts, such as Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, but the basic canon was decided late 2nd century AD.
I reference Bible Researcher, because back in 2011 (seems to be my oldest book mark to the site) I was looking into the stories that were told when I was young by preachers of my church of the Bible being burned downed to one copy and the 70 scholars (ushered into separate rooms) that interpreted the text. My search to confirm took me to that site. Michael Marlowe seems to have a wealth of information; if Marlowe has missed something I wouldn't know. However, I haven't read everything the site has to offer. (could be you have an accurate list)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
As for as Tacitus or Suetonius is concerned, thrillobyte may be correct, the scripture hadn't been produced yet. Which for me calls into question language adopted for the written word used to refute the oral history, vowels, yes or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Tacitus wrote Annals around 116 AD, so if any of the gospels are late 1st century AD, they existed as a possible source. My view is the first gospel, Mark, is a literary invention not based on oral stories.
Tacitus may have written his Annals around 116 AD, however, there still could be a language barrier if he was utilizing source material.
A few years back (out of nothing else better to do on Christmas days off) I came across a c-d thread titled Nativity, seemed interesting. It was through researching what was being said I found the Ante-Nicene Fathers; within one of those volumes, (probably Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew) it was said that the people told Matthew, you tell great stories, you should write them down. And he did. Within the controversy of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that what they say doesn't mate up ...imo, 2 people can not tell a story twice, the same way. If Mark is a literary invention, he had to get the accounting of events (not from his mind's eye) from some where, possibly not based on eye witnesses. Is that what you're saying?
btw: the part of my post that we left out, the Bible Study website that I used many years ago has been changed, however, its way of defining a church still makes sense to me as ancient cultures and civilizations go.
I reference Bible Researcher, because back in 2011 (seems to be my oldest book mark to the site) I was looking into the stories that were told when I was young by preachers of my church of the Bible being burned downed to one copy and the 70 scholars (ushered into separate rooms) that interpreted the text. My search to confirm took me to that site. Michael Marlowe seems to have a wealth of information; if Marlowe has missed something I wouldn't know. However, I haven't read everything the site has to offer. (could be you have an accurate list)
Thank you for the site, I have bookmarked it for later use.
I will try and find my list, hopefully I have given it an accurate name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Tacitus may have written his Annals around 116 AD, however, there still could be a language barrier if he was utilizing source material.
Tacitus wrote in Latin, but he would also have known Greek, as would any of his sources. One possible source would have been Pliny the Younger, who's source would have been the Christians he interrogated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
If Mark is a literary invention, he had to get the accounting of events (not from his mind's eye) from some where, possibly not based on eye witnesses. Is that what you're saying?
No, I am saying Mark invented his story as an allegory of Paul's teachings. He did not use oral stories, he invented his story out of Jewish scripture (many now in our OT), plus other sources such as Homer.
I have not been super engaged with this thread of late because something about it has been bugging me.
The premise of this thread as I understand it is:
1) Atheists / skeptics possess "truth"
2) The religious do not
Skeptics don't "have the truth", they have evidentiary standards and don't make or endorse claims for which evidence is unavailable or unconvincing or points in the opposite direction.
The religious don't "have the truth", they have assertions that they claim are of divine origin.
Both can be, and at times are, wrong. Being human, and all.
Mystic is right that this is not "a game or a contest". "I have truth." "No, I do. Nyah nyah." Or it should not be at any rate. And need not be unless we make it so.
While I agree with many of Thrill's points and a good deal of his evidence, I'm not interested in winning some sort of crusade against Christianity. It doesn't need me to mount a crusade to save it from itself. It will collapse under its own unsustainability in the fullness of time, and a push from me is not required for that to happen. And the irony is that it can only happen one person at a time. Each and every Christian has to get there on their own. There's even a religious aphorism for it: "God has no grandchildren". Or more generically: "None of us can inherit our reasoning process from someone else".
And as a formerly religious person, I understand that they don't want to be saved anyway. They are trying to save the world, why would they accept that they are in the wrong in any way?
So reducing this to who is "right" is a waste of time IMO.
Especially all this about Jesus mysticism / historicism. If you are convinced by Tacitus, then you are convinced. It is not really even intellectually indefensible to think it is modestly more likely than not that Jesus was a discrete historical person. However, the historicity of Jesus is necessary but far from sufficient to validate the truth claim of Christianity. Jesus could have walked the earth and been crucified by Pilate and still be completely misrepresented by modern Christian orthodoxy. He could have walked the earth and been crucified and never turned water into wine, resurrected or ascended to heaven.
The other thing is motives. Motives are being ascribed to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. The problem is that motives vary by subgroup and certainly by individual. Most Christians, by the sheer numbers, do not have an agenda other than to get through life without ticking off the cranky Jewish war god that they worship (and that is ignoring all the Christians who think they worship a god of Love, meek and mild Jesus or the Comforter, say, rather than Jehovah).
Christian leadership often IS hypocritical and exploitive, but I can assure you from my own experience and observation on the inside that MOST Christians do not think that deeply about theology; they just go along to get along. They are Christians because their parents were and everyone around them is, basically. They want structure and they want the familiar, and their beliefs provide it. They respect their leadership because they're supposed to.
The folks on c-d are not represenatative of typical Christians OR typical atheists. They are the ones interested enough to debate matters, however badly at times.
So I just don't see a Grand Conspiracy on the part of MOST Christians to ruin the world and subject it to clever lies. Threads like this, I think, succeed only in ticking off Christians who see themselves as sincere rather than nefarious, and sharpens the evasion tactics of those who deploy dishonest arguments.
Of course Thrill will argue that he's just trying to shock pew warmers into seeing the untenability of their position, but I'd repeat that if they aren't ready, shocking them won't help. I wasn't ready until I was. I had people try to talk sense to me, and they might as well have put a lampshade on their head and shouted "booga-booga" at me. I KNEW. They didn't. Poor things! The abstraction hadn't sufficiently leaked yet. Later, it did. For some, though, it NEVER does. So it goes. Christianity can be sufficient throughout many people's lives, and as I often say, until the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing, they will go with what they know.
You make a lot of valid points, mordent but a lot of it you get wrong. I haven't figured out how to multi-quote so I"ll just take your paragraphs one by one:
P 2-5: You're a bit put off by the terms, "truth" and "lie". This is a rose by any other name situation. Whether they're called lies, or deceptions, or disinformation or propaganda it's all the same. Christianity has thrived from its inception by its use of deception, misinformation, and a whole grab-bag of synonyms to push their faith forward. I gave ten examples. Nobody with a sense of justice, proportion and rationality could deny them because they are true. They are not deceptive. They are true. That makes them "truths" hence my use of the term. And you're wrong about skeptics not making any claims. Michael Shermer, on-fire Christian-turned atheist is a perfect example. Him at Oxford:
P 6: I never set it up as a game or contest. Those were Mystic's words, not mine. I intended to have a debate with the Christians to address what I perceive are truths that atheists and skeptics possess that Christians don't. These truths are precisely what made former Christians turn to atheism. Ask yourself, "What made me turn to atheism?" Was at least one of my 10 truths on your list of reasons? If you have a different one then tell us, I for one would love to hear it because I could then add it to the list.
Christians don't become atheists because they are running from the truth. Christians become atheists because they are running toward the truth and away from the lies they have been fed to them by Christians all their lives.
Or they become atheists because they're sick and tired of getting up every Sunday morning to go to church. I'm sure there are lots of reasons having nothing to do with the theology. I concentrate on just the false theology.
P 7-9: Christianity has had 2000 years to collapse under the weight of its own sustainability and it is still around. It is true that the Internet is speeding the process, but still there are enough deluded people like the "Political Evangelicals" to keep it going. You're right about most people like them never changing their beliefs. But they won't change at all unless people like you and myself get out there and show them what's wrong with their beliefs. Maybe they won't change all at once. But just maybe a seed will be planted in their mind.
P 10: I don't deal with mysticism. I deal with history. I put the Christian lie "There is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar" right toward the top of my list of Christian lies about Jesus because it is so prevalent, right along with the one I can never escape when listening to a debate between a Christian and an atheist, "All the apostles were willing to die for their belief in Jesus." Pure dishonesty in the sense they have absolutely nothing to prove it because the historical record is completely blank on their existence, much less their supposed martyrdom. It's people like you and me who have to call them on their blatant dishonesty on these things. If we just snooze while Christians are spreading their propaganda then fence-sitters will believe the Christians.
Propaganda like:
People who spent their lives torturing and raping children and then murdering them can still go straight to heaven if on their deathbed they say, "I repent of my sins and accept Jesus", while a non-Christian who spent their entire life devoted to helping the poor and the sick nevertheless with go straight to hell and suffer for eternity because they didn't say, "I accept Jesus". I think of all the sickening Christian doctrine I once accepted as truth, this one is the one that makes me sickest of all.
Can people not comprehend that such nonsense as "justification by faith alone" was invented by the church solely as a means of tricking people into joining Christianity by teaching them that they get a free ride into heaven after a lifetime of sinning merely for saying, "I accept Jesus"????
P 11-end
Hopefully most Christians ARE asleep at the wheel. That makes them less dangerous. But many take this "Go into all the world...." propaganda very seriously. I was one. I spread these idiotic little Chick Tracts around for a long time to my eternal regret.
One of the most effective things an atheist can do is actually engage the Christian in debate which is what I try to do here. I'm not trying to win a contest or game, but I AM trying to win the debate. Has any Christian sincerely tried to debate me on my "truths"? Hardly. Why? Because I am speaking the bald-faced truth and as most people know the truth needs no defense. So what are Christians around here going to defend their side with, the truth? Hardly. What kind of half-way credible defense did any of them put up against me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Bothers ya, huh?
Most unfortunate...because you are completely impotent do anything of note about it.
In my opinion...you are wasting the precious minutes of what is left of your late-life years composing negative diatribes. The negativity just drips off of them.
Best wishes resolving that problem. I will keep you in my best thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
If it helps you OP, then I'll say you are right. Go on thinking you have the universe figured out. You are the king, and Big Man on the Block. Go and celebrate. Just make sure that head doesn't get too full (of something) to where you fall over. LOL
(Cue the circus music)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
It seems you have quite a chip on your shoulder about other people's religious beliefs. I have to wonder, why do you care so much about what religious beliefs others follow? IF you do not share their beliefs, just move on and do your thing. You cannot honestly think your tirades are doing anything to change people, can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback
I'm no scriptural literalist,
But for this thread, I'll make an exception:
Let no one deceive himself.
If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age,
let him become a fool, so as to become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God,
for it is written:
God catches the wise in their own ruses
That was about all I got back--real Einstein-level defenses. To be fair, Gldn and Michael and MPH did try to engage a little and I critiqued their responses in #581. But if that is the best Christianity has to offer then I'd say it is in a world of trouble. No wonder its membership is dropping like a stone in American and Europe where education is first-rate.
Remember: education and knowledge are the mortal enemies of Christianity because Christianity wants people to remain in the dark about their nefarious doings.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-17-2022 at 01:52 PM..
You call it ranting and raving because you don't like my position. I call it straightening out untruths you Christians have been spreading for centuries in a feeble attempt to keep your floundering religion from collapsing entirely.
Just so the readers are clear: Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd are raging Christian theologians so right away before they open their mouths we know they are going to be in a raging biased defense of Christianity. William L. Portier is another raging Christian theologian so same thing--biased defense of Christianity. Why can't you ever quote any secular Biblical scholars who don't have an ax to grind?
I will give you the exact straight dope on Tacitus and Suetonius and some of it will hurt my position: Tacitus wrote "Chrestians" you cannot deny that because we have the earliest text from the 9th century that everyone is forced to use. It clearly shows the "e" in Chrestians whited out so that it looks like an "i". Once again here's the proof.
This Tacitus passage from Book 15 of Annals survives in a single copy at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino. Show us a photocopy of the text from that sole existing copy that shows the word, "Christians" without any tampering to the script and you will have proved your point. Otherwise I have the stronger case with Tacitus having written "Chrestians" in which an attempt was made to change it. Additionally, Suetonius uses the word, "Chrestus"
Suetonius:
“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus.”
So it is not a one-off error by Tacitus. The words, Chrestus and Chrestians was a known word at the time. But was it a reference to Jesus? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Perhaps this might help explain better. I ask the mods to indulge a fairly long quote so I can support my position better:
Lasse Norén: (google it)
Part of this passage in Tacitus clearly indicate that it cannot be about Christians as the group identified as “Chrestianos” was supposedly an “imminence multitude” of the population in Rome. (the passage ends)
“Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
If we use a normal exponential growth of the religion with a starting point in 35 CE (with about 5,000 followers) and a total population of Christians between 5 and 10 million in the year 300 CE (as is estimated by many scholars). Then we expect to see between 10,000 and 12,000 Christians in total in the whole world by the 64 CE.
(A growth-rate of about 2.7% to 2.8% gives you between 5.8M to 7.5M people at 300 CE
Thus with this growth-rate the population at 64 CE would be between 10.8K and 11.1K ) If every single one of them were in Rome during this time they would not be referred to as an “immense multitude” by a writer, as Rome had over one million people living it it at that time.
The scarcity of Christians is also illustrated by the writings of Pliny the Younger who was a magistrate in Rome and who’s uncle was Pliny the Elder (an author and native of Rome during this time). But despite this, Pliny the Younger write that he has never participated in a trial of a Christian in his letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 CE. He has no knowledge about how to go about this.
“IT is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them… ” (Pliny the Younger, Book 10 letter 96)
How is that possible that Pliny has no knowledge about this if an “Immense multitude” of Christians had been tried in Rome jut 50 years earlier and his uncle, who taught him, would have been present at (at least some of) these trials?! There would also have been a “legal presidencies ” in writing about how to do this if the trials of Christians had been common (as is indicated in Tacitus)
If we instead take the word “Chrestianos” to mean “slaves” (as it was a common term used for slaves in the first century CE). Then we do have a multitude of these “chrestianos” in Rome at that time -- some 30% – 40% of the total population. In that case the part of the Tacitus passage that deals with Pilate could be an interpolation. Do note that we only have manuscripts of this passage from the 12th century and that none of the early church fathers (including Eusebius) ever referred to it as a proof of Jesus supposed existence.
We can go on and on like this, Michael, with you contradicting me with weak refutations and me supplying you with stronger ones, or you can just give up and admit I've proven my point better than you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
It's a debate, Mystic. You forgot that one. What I notice when I lay out clear facts about Christianity's checkered history of falsehoods, deceptions and a complete lack of transparency is this:
Christians never offer solid irrefutable evidence to support their position. It's just "You'll be sorry, just you wait." (you). "I'm right, you're wrong. Period!" (Michael Way). "Well, it's likely....it's possibly....maybe....probably more likely....." (MPH) not to mention the rabid Christians with their insults, "Oh no, you don't sucker me into that...." and more if I wanted to dig it up. What a sad, sorry state of affairs when Christians cannot give eve a modicum of decent debate without resorting to subterfuge. Look at my exchange with Michael as a representative example:
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus" period!
Thrillobyte: What about the photo showing an alteration to the text changing "e" to "i"? What about too few Christians in Rome to start a rebellion? What about Eusebius never once mentioning the Tacitus text?
Michael: Tacitus said "Christus". Period! Get help.
That's about it. And what did I offer? Solid Truths:
Truth No 1: there is NO historical evidence for Jesus son of God or the apostles, period. Truth No 2: the two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having so little to no value in trying to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Truth No 3: the gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the apostle. Truth No 4: if God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this. Truth No 5: God, if he exists, does not interfere or participate in human affairs.
To these I can add more truths:
Truth No 6: if Christianity was the one true religion more people would be joining than leaving in 1st World nations Truth No 7: Jesus Christ didn't change the world; Emperor Constantine changed the world.
Truth No 8: if Christianity was the one true religion there would be just one denomination, not 40,000.
Truth No 9: if Christianity was the one true religion more churches would be opening than closing. Truth No 10: if Christianity was the one true religion rapists and murderers wouldn't get to skate into heaven unpunished at the last minute of their lives just for saying, "I accept Jesus" while agnostics who served mankind unselfishly all their lives would still go to hell to suffer for eternity.
Am I alone in my assessment? Hardly. Gerd Ludemann, a one-time Christian preeminent Biblical scholar and historian-turned-atheist had this to say about Christianity:
"People know Christianity is not true, but they won't address it publicly. Theologians will pay almost any price to avoid these conclusions, which follow from the collapse of the idea of a divine creator, from the hoax of your "resurrection.”
The Clergy Project cites over a thousand ministers who have turned atheist. Among them prominent former theists:
Rob Bell, author of Love Wins
Dan Barker, author of Godless
Jerry DeWitt author of Hope After Faith
Matt Dilahunty, host of The Atheist Experience
Michael Shermer editor Skeptic magazine
I have no doubts any one of you Christians could cite just as many atheists turned theist as I could cite Christian turned atheist. Does this prove Jesus is real?
Not at all. What it proves is the Christian experience, whether turning TO it or turning away from it has nothing whatsoever to do with God. It's a purely chemical reaction in the brain; an emotionally uplifting experience or a gut-punching come-to-one's-sense reality check in any case but in no case is God anywhere near this kind of thing because of the capricious arbitrary nature of these experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
You make a lot of valid points, mordent but a lot of it you get wrong. I haven't figured out how to multi-quote so I"ll just take your paragraphs one by one:
P 2-5: You're a bit put off by the terms, "truth" and "lie". This is a rose by any other name situation. Whether they're called lies, or deceptions, or disinformation or propaganda it's all the same. Christianity has thrived from its inception by its use of deception, misinformation, and a whole grab-bag of synonyms to push their faith forward. I gave ten examples. Nobody with a sense of justice, proportion and rationality could deny them because they are true. They are not deceptive. They are true. That makes them "truths" hence my use of the term. And you're wrong about skeptics not making any claims. Michael Shermer, on-fire Christian-turned atheist is a perfect example. Him at Oxford:
P 6: I never set it up as a game or contest. Those were Mystic's words, not mine. I intended to have a debate with the Christians to address what I perceive are truths that atheists and skeptics possess that Christians don't. These truths are precisely what made former Christians turn to atheism. Ask yourself, "What made me turn to atheism?" Was at least one of my 10 truths on your list of reasons? If you have a different one then tell us, I for one would love to hear it because I could then add it to the list.
Christians don't become atheists because they are running from the truth. Christians become atheists because they are running toward the truth and away from the lies they have been fed to them by Christians all their lives.
Or they become atheists because they're sick and tired of getting up every Sunday morning to go to church. I'm sure there are lots of reasons having nothing to do with the theology. I concentrate on just the false theology.
P 7-9: Christianity has had 2000 years to collapse under the weight of its own sustainability and it is still around. It is true that the Internet is speeding the process, but still there are enough deluded people like the "Political Evangelicals" to keep it going. You're right about most people like them never changing their beliefs. But they won't change at all unless people like you and myself get out there and show them what's wrong with their beliefs. Maybe they won't change all at once. But just maybe a seed will be planted in their mind.
P 10: I don't deal with mysticism. I deal with history. I put the Christian lie "There is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar" right toward the top of my list of Christian lies about Jesus because it is so prevalent, right along with the one I can never escape when listening to a debate between a Christian and an atheist, "All the apostles were willing to die for their belief in Jesus." Pure dishonesty in the sense they have absolutely nothing to prove it because the historical record is completely blank on their existence, much less their supposed martyrdom. It's people like you and me who have to call them on their blatant dishonesty on these things. If we just snooze while Christians are spreading their propaganda then fence-sitters will believe the Christians.
Propaganda like:
People who spent their lives torturing and raping children and then murdering them can still go straight to heaven if on their deathbed they say, "I repent of my sins and accept Jesus", while a non-Christian who spent their entire life devoted to helping the poor and the sick nevertheless with go straight to hell and suffer for eternity because they didn't say, "I accept Jesus". I think of all the sickening Christian doctrine I once accepted as truth, this one is the one that makes me sickest of all.
Can people not comprehend that such nonsense as "justification by faith alone" was invented by the church solely as a means of tricking people into joining Christianity by teaching them that they get a free ride into heaven after a lifetime of sinning merely for saying, "I accept Jesus"????
P 11-end
Hopefully most Christians ARE asleep at the wheel. That makes them less dangerous. But many take this "Go into all the world...." propaganda very seriously. I was one. I spread these idiotic little Chick Tracts around for a long time to my eternal regret.
One of the most effective things an atheist can do is actually engage the Christian in debate which is what I try to do here. I'm not trying to win a contest or game, but I AM trying to win the debate. Has any Christian sincerely tried to debate me on my "truths"? Hardly. Why? Because I am speaking the bald-faced truth and as most people know the truth needs no defense. So what are Christians around here going to defend their side with, the truth? Hardly. What kind of half-way credible defense did any of them put up against me?
That was about all I got back--real Einstein-level defenses. To be fair, Gldn and Michael and MPH did try to engage a little and I critiqued their responses in #581. But if that is the best Christianity has to offer then I'd say it is in a world of trouble. No wonder its membership is dropping like a stone in American and Europe where education is first-rate.
Remember: education and knowledge are the mortal enemies of Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You have been given good advice here...even by other Atheists.
That you respond this way ^^^ is just confirmation that their assessment of your status is accurate.
I sympathize with your affliction...and I will keep you in my best thoughts.
Ya know...there is a "Prayer Request" thread. You might get some good energy from there with a proper and sincere appeal. Please think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Get help for your problem thrillobyte. You need it. And again, scholarship is against your rants.
The best and most appropriate response is this ^^^ by Michael Way.
Attempting to require a theist to prove the existence of the divine, is not unlike requiring Steven Hawkings ( R.I.P) to prove the existence of black holes, or dark matter.
Many have written about them. Nobody has " seen " them.
They are not unlike the divine, in that we can only perceive the affects of their existence. The impact they have on surrounding " bodies".
Nevertheless, belief of " their " existence remains.
The affects of The Divine are manifest.
The results are open to debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And again, scholarship is against your rants.
