Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 09:15 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  BTW, I LOVE how you transitioned from the vague, uncaused-cause, deistic notion of a God to a specifically hell-and-brimstone-afterlife kinda-Christian version, with no evidence at all.

That's the thing about clueless theists, they inadvertently prove they have a direct ancestry related to frogs - mutated super frogs that can make leaps greater than the Grand Canyon.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense. Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?"

The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own? And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal. How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog? That's too impersonal and degrading. Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming. Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell. Abel gave a propering offering not of his own works and so was saved.

So we know Christianity is true, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened.

Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?
I admire that you stand up for what you believe even if it means being outnumbered 50 to one, insulted, ridiculed, mocked, and negative rep points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense. Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?"

The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own? And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal. How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog? That's too impersonal and degrading. Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming. Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell. Abel gave a propering offering not of his own works and so was saved.

So we know Christianity is true, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.
This is just a string of unsubstantiated claims and poor arguments.

(05-08-2014 12:09 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened.

Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?
I admire that you stand up for what you believe even if it means being outnumbered 50 to one, insulted, ridiculed, mocked, and negative rep points.

Don't confuse bravery for belligerence. He is here to stir the pot, not to discuss things or find answers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
05-08-2014, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 12:38 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense.


No it doesn't.

Quote:Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists,
Was not proven.

Quote:...it is incumbent upon us...
Says who? Maybe god wants us to fuck off.

Quote:...to find out where God reveals Himself...
Your assuming that he does.

Quote:as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself.

According to whose authority? Who says that there can't be more than one god? Who says that a god can't be self-contradictory?

Have you read your bible? Yahweh is the king deity of contradictions.

Quote:He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof.

It was not a proof, it was a presuppositional mess.

Quote:What else does He reveal about Himself?"

Loaded question, we never even determined he revealed anything (much less that he even exists) and here you are assuming he has more to show for himself.

Quote:The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.
Okay first of all, there is nothing saying that for a god to exist, it must be righteous and/or accessible.

Secondly, WTAF?! Why did you only pull out those three religion and deign them to be the only ones worthy of investigating? There are thousands of religions and you didn't even bother to explain why you hand-waved all the other ones.

Quote:But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own?

And what decree says that god is not allowed to be amoral? Who says that god must be morally superior to humans? This seems more like a predisposition borne out of your Christian upbringing than an actually valid point.

Quote:And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal.

This would only be a problem if "sin" was an absolute that must be observed by all religions, which is again a projection of your religion onto others.

Quote:How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog?

Now you're presupposing free will.

Quote:That's too impersonal and degrading.

Subjective judgements aren't suitable substitutes for objective arguments.

Quote:Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.
So we have free will...but not the free will to choose our salvation?

Quote:Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later

Yes you can.

Quote:...and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence

Stating things without evidence has never been a problem for Christianity.

Quote:...and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming.

Proving your ignorance of what constitutes as "overwhelming" evidence.

Quote:Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell.

Went to hell according to whom? Certainly not the original writers of the Old Testament. The Jews didn't have a concept of hell, that was a Christian invention.

Quote:So we know Christianity is true,

I don't even know how many logical fallacies, both explicit and implied, you had to grind through to come to that conclusion. You haven't proven jack shit about Christianity, you haven't weaved a path of logic towards proving your religion, everything has been assumptions and non-sequiturs.

Quote: because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

Your ignorance of biblical scholarship is breathtaking. Those were NOT eyewitness testimonies, they were written after the [supposed]fact.

Quote:The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.

You're a fucking idiot, plain and simple. You didn't prove anything and in the end you just parroted your religion's main gift-wrapped, salesmen-approved, selling tagline.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
05-08-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense. Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?"

The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own? And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal. How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog? That's too impersonal and degrading. Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming. Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell. Abel gave a propering offering not of his own works and so was saved.

So we know Christianity is true, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.

I see a lot of what you think and feel in what you write : " That's too impersonal and degrading" and it seems that your only source for this is the bible "the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings".

But you don't quote any sources, there is no research, only one source or your own personal beliefs.

If I claimed I was the richest man in the world, you wouldn't believe me. And you know the world exists, that money exists, an that men exists. So you know that a richest man can exist, buut you still wouldn't believe me that I was the richest man unless I gave you proof of some sort.

You are claiming miracles, people coming back to life, invisible beings and you expect me to believe this without any proof outside of your own beliefs?

I don't believe you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zippo's post
05-08-2014, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 03:06 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(04-08-2014 11:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(04-08-2014 10:33 PM)Astreja Wrote:  You can't have it both ways: You can't claim that infinite regress is "impossible" while simultaneously dismissing recurrences with slight variations.

A slight variation is not a reoccurrence since it is a slight variation. Infinite regress remains impossible either way in cause and effect.

Either way, atheism is false. So to be an atheist is a state of delusion.

ooooh I LOVE word games can I play? Lets do definitions!

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

Case closed. Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-08-2014, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 09:00 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 11:38 AM)Zippo Wrote:  To the OP:

Let's use our imagination a bit. Let's suppose that what you said makes sense and there is a god.

Now those same arguments, could be used by all religions to prove that their gods exist. Can they all exist at the same time?
If not, why not? Which one should one worship if they are all true? Why?

You don't need to suppose since it makes sense. Apparently you didn't read the OP because it says: "Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?"

The One that would be true is the one that proves Himself. Start with God being righteous and accessible. Only 3 religions are accessible: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

But Hinduism is false because its god Brahma is said to be 'amoral' but how can God have standards below our own? And it doesn't effectively address sin since you get endless chances to be reincarnated to try again, often times coming back as an animal. How can the burden of our free choice be relegated to becoming a chicken or a frog? That's too impersonal and degrading. Besides salvation is not by works or one's own strength because that could never meet God's infinitely great standards. God must intercede. Only He qualifies to do so.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming. Likewise, Islam is salvation by works; yet salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. Cain gave an offering of works and perished, going to Hell. Abel gave a propering offering not of his own works and so was saved.

So we know Christianity is true, because nobody is able to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.

Wow so much to throw gasoline on, where do I begin?

"so we know Xianity is true"

Really? How so? because of a fictional easily disproven book says so? You gotta do better than that.

"Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later and claim Jesus didn't die on the cross with no evidence and considering all the evidence we do have is overwhelming."

What evidence outside of hearsay? Please expound.

"explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles seeing and touching and speaking with Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings."

People have group hallucinations or group think all the time, hundreds of people swear they sat on top of a mountain and saw UFOs, doesn't make it true.

NO ONE who wrote of jesus, knew him, no one. Not even the gospels, which by the way were not written by whom you think...


Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. No, his alleged vision/hallucination of a light that spoke to him on the road to Damascus doesn't count. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.


allow me to expound;

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

4) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All of these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

getting the picture yet?


"The consequence, therefore, according to Jesus who spoke on Hell more than anyone is you will go to Hell if you are unwilling to repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Him as Lord and Savior, shedding His precious blood for the sins of the world. Your free choice will be made up by the time you die, so you get this one life to decide. In other words, you won't change your mind after you are resurrected. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen."

sigh

Here, let me teach you about your own religion, there is no fiery hell;


The hell you are talking about doesn't even exist in that capacity under Christian doctrine. hell is allegedly a place devoid of god, thus devoid of good, no fire, no pitchforks, no little demons running around, no eternity in pain...get some education you ignorant, misinformed delusional believer. Because I pity you, I will educate you on your own faith.

Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 – describing hell.

"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell – that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."

So save your made up twisted image of hell for someone a bit less educated on theology than I. Funny how an Atheist knows more than you about your own faith isn't it? I know the abrahamic myth inside and out, and that is WHY I am an atheist.


and as a finale, a paper I wrote on incarnation and atonement Rolleyes


The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.


Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. The Meaning of the Atonement. Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas. Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.


Had enough yet? bring it when you think you can....

Boom, yup, that just happened Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-08-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 03:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Had enough yet? bring it when you think you can....

Boom, yup, that just happened Smartass
ThumbsupThumbsupBanginBangin

Next thing you know, you might start saying something crazy like Moses didn't write anything in the bible either. That's just crazy talk. Big Grin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: