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, 10:50 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
http://youtu.be/ciNLop668rU


awesomely put and relevant to our conversation.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 10:49 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 10:44 PM)kunoxian drive Wrote:  I actually like to see what you think of the gospels that didn't make it into the bible.

Only the books of the NT were written before 65 AD. I don't see the point in giving any value to 'other books' or other gospels that come along centuries later. They are too far removed from the life of Jesus 6 BC to 33 AD. Scholars value sources closest to their events not centuries later.

from what i am understanding there's books not included that are before the death of Jesus but i may be wrong. in fact there's one on the flood of the world{the supposed flood.}

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 10:53 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Basically people began writing down the events of the NT as soon as they happened but their final compilation could be no later than 40 or 50 AD and Revelation 95 AD, depending on which of the 27 books we are talking about.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 10:54 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 10:52 PM)kunoxian drive Wrote:  there's books not included that are before the death of Jesus but i may be wrong.

You're wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 10:58 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
http://youtu.be/bjqvwdsrBio


watch this video anf=d you'll see what i am talking about because the gospel of juduus and marry magdolin.... are so called eye witnesses.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 10:43 PM)hbl Wrote:  I like to use the Minimal Facts Approach.

You're literally retarded.

Minimal facts=minimal credibility.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
05-08-2014, 11:23 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
I actually was right..those books where around or about the time of Jesus. so why don't you count there testimony. confirmation bias much.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kunoxian drive's post
05-08-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 12:01 PM)hbl Wrote:  ... 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.

I have a very simple explanation, Troy:

It's all fiction. The "early Church fathers," including Paul "Antichrist" Tarseus, simply made it all up. They only said there were eye witnesses, but the eye witnesses are just as fictional as that hypocritical fictional rabbi "Jesus."

There was no darkness over Jerusalem.
There were no zombie saints in the streets.
No water was walked upon, nor turned into wine, except perhaps by an illusionist's sleight-of-hand.

And one of the models for their new religion, a loud-mouthed street preacher, is now buried under tons of rubble under modern-day Jerusalem, along with everyone else the Romans may have executed that particular day. The Romans were not in the habit of handing over bodies for private burial, nor were they in the habit of respecting Jewish customs regarding burials. They would have let the body of proto-Jesus rot, and stink to the high heavens, until even the carrion birds who had eaten the dead man's eyeballs and liver had had enough of him. (Oh, and they probably would have summarily executed anyone who tried to steal the body to bury it, too.)

Quote:How you respond to Jesus in this life determines where you spend eternity. Amen.

Amun, you mean? Good to see you're praying to the Egyptian pantheon for a change. Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Astreja's post
05-08-2014, 11:48 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 12:15 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 10:53 PM)hbl Wrote:  Basically people began writing down the events of the NT as soon as they happened but their final compilation could be no later than 40 or 50 AD and Revelation 95 AD, depending on which of the 27 books we are talking about.

Zero fucking evidence for any of this. The oldest scraps (yes, scraps, many no bigger than credit cards; and nothing close to complete manuscripts or codices) we have are from centuries after the supposed events. You don't start to see entire codices until the 8th century. Not only that, but the earliest codices and manuscripts vary greatly from later versions (i.e. the story of the woman caught in adultery in John is a latter addition, and the oldest versions of Mark originally ended right after the crucifixion without the resurrection), and show clear signs of purposeful editing, revision, miss-translation, copyist mistakes, and omissions.

Troll harder dumbass, you don't know shit. Drinking Beverage


:EDIT: Because grammar Nazis... Tongue

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-08-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(05-08-2014 10:49 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 10:44 PM)kunoxian drive Wrote:  I actually like to see what you think of the gospels that didn't make it into the bible.

Only the books of the NT were written before 65 AD. I don't see the point in giving any value to 'other books' or other gospels that come along centuries later. They are too far removed from the life of Jesus 6 BC to 33 AD. Scholars value sources closest to their events not centuries later.

Source?

(05-08-2014 10:53 PM)hbl Wrote:  Basically people began writing down the events of the NT as soon as they happened but their final compilation could be no later than 40 or 50 AD and Revelation 95 AD, depending on which of the 27 books we are talking about.

95 AD is well after 65AD last time I checked. Jesus was crucified 33AD. I don't know if you are aware of this, but in the time of jesus 30 years was a long time. Anybody who knew Jesus would likely have been dead by 65 AD. Regardless, the gospel of Mark was probably written around that time, but the gospel of Mathew would not come for 30 years later, and the gospel of Luke further on after that. Eye witness testimony... no so much.

date of jesus Crucifixion, there abouts (they arrived at this date based on inference, by the way, not on an historical record of jesus but on natural phenomenon described around the time of jesus's death):
http://news.discovery.com/history/religi...120524.htm

Dating the gospels:
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/201...rical.html

lie expectancy of Roman and Greeks about the time of the first century:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitys...istory.htm

Paul did no begin his missionary until the 50s, around twenty years after jesus was crucified in 33AD. If Paul met any apostles, they would have been old men. Living to the age of 50 was rare in that region during those times. Besides of which, paul didn't meet any of them. In his letters, when paul wrote about jesus he spoke nothing of his birth, his life, or his upbringing. He only said that he was the savior and was resurrected. It took until the gospel of mark before details of jesus's story came out, and then the other gospels were whole sale copied much from mark, adding bits and getting details mixed up, or flat out wrong, in places along the way. Eye witness testimony indeed.

timeline of paul's life from a biblical source:
http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/1514

similarities between the gospels:
http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html

As an interesting aside, when they were deciding which holy books to include in the new testament (here is something you probably didn't know, there were dozens of gospels in the first and second century AD), revelations very nearly didn't make the cut. Collective bargaining of 3rd century church leaders, or divine inspiration? You take your pick.

How the gospels were chosen:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...gence.html


The only contemporary reference to Jesus anywhere, written in the first century AD, was in the writings of the Roman historian Josephus. He wrote just before the turn of the century, around 93AD. He makes refernces to John the baptist (not disputed), and there is one passage that reads as the following:

Quote:Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Which sounds good for you, only this portion of the text is widely believed to be a forgery, inserted into his writings by a church scribe in the fourth century AD.

From earlychristainwritings.com
Quote:Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Without Josephus, there are no contemporary references to Jesus christ, anywhere, any time during the first century AD. John the baptist, sure, jesus christ, the man who walked on water, brought back the dead, and came back to life, not a word.

Not that you will read this.

You have had your fun. I have been successfully trolled. I think you can have your laughs now, and mercifully stop participating in this bullshit thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: