You will be A-thei-ssimilated.

[loCAtek]

Nothing but disparagement, yes.

[thestoat]

So, why not just promote logic, reason and science? If the atheist assertion is true, then faith would naturally fade away all by itself with that education.

I suspect it will. I believe in a few hundred years it will have died altogether.

Except, in the historical course of things, over the centuries: it hasn't.

YET. Humankind has shown itself to be a credulous lot up until now (helped by the fact that to disagree with the authorities was likely to bring pain and suffering upon yourself and family). But these days, with freedom of speech starting to creep in, and services like the web allowing wildfire communication, humans are starting to wise up.

God is still here.

Prove it! I don't see him? Ok - I don't want to rehash old arguments. My point is that the only reason any god is still mentioned is because you can't prove a negative.

they want to take over the world.

Eh? You start the post with "in fairness" and then start making things up. How fair is that? Seems loopy to me

[Scooter]

Nothing but disparagement, yes.

So nothing that suggests any desire or attempt to curtail anyone's choice of belief or interfere with their religious freedom.

[loCAtek]

Stoat, that 'take over the world' was a bit tongue in cheek- a joke if you will, but you said it yourself: you see, and would prefer, atheism as dominate in the future.

Again, if that will be the natural course of things, why put pressure on theists with myths like:

Jesus didn't exist

Religion is dependent on indoctrination

Most war and conflicts are based on religion

religion hinders development of society.

Humans are born atheist

There is no existence outside of living matter. (remember out speculation on energy beings?)







Those seem a bit deceitful to perpetuate as facts, why is that necessary?

[Sean]

No more deceitful than Theists asserting myth* as fact. Yet they seem necessary to you.

I see you've fallen back on the old "My bullshit has been shot down in flames so I'll say that I was only joking all along" standby.

*By myth I mean of course things for which there is no actual evidence (ie. the existence of God).

[loCAtek]

No more deceitful than Theists asserting myth* as fact. Yet they seem necessary to you.

Such as?

I see you've fallen back on the old "My bullshit has been shot down in flames so I'll say that I was only joking all along" standby.

Not what I said, I said the delivery of one line was 'tongue in cheek' and if stoat understood it better 'a joke'.

Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously intended and it should not be taken at face value

I did go on to explain what I meant by the hyperbole. Would you care to address the point raised?

*By myth I mean of course things for which there is no actual evidence (ie. the existence of God).

Very well, prove your existence to me Sean, or I'll assume you're a myth.

[Sean]

LMAO - Assume away. I'm not as insecure as your God. I have no need of your worship.

So if I've got this straight... It wasn't a joke at all. It was in fact a joke which is a completely different thing..
At least you've cleared that up.

The fact remains however that when called on your bigotry and intolerence towards Atheists you have attempted to backtrack and pretend that were not being serious. The fact that you were serious is evident to anybody with half a brain who reasd the OP.

[loCAtek]

~Heh, don't flatter yourself, I just wanted to know if you existed. Guess not; you're a myth.

The fact that you were serious is evident to anybody with half a brain who reasd the OP.

Good, then would you seriously like to address the point?

Or will your contribution be mythological as well?

[Sean]

Try reading the thread. I fully addressed your OP and busted all of the myths therein.

Do you have another point? Preferably one that you haven't completely invented...

[loCAtek]

...but you don't exist, the twatbuster is a myth, a fairy tale. I don't believe in it; so don't be such a penis and try to force your dogma down my throat...



That's sexual harassment, man.
No means no.

[Sean]

Again with the sexual posts...

Why is that Lo? I have never posted anything sexual towards you... what causes you to do it to me?

[thestoat]

that 'take over the world' was a bit tongue in cheek

Ah, right-ho. Just that normally you use smilies with jokes, and have asked others why they haven't (remember the "winkie"?). All cleared up

you see, and would prefer, atheism as dominate in the future

I am not sure where I have stated my preferences - perhaps you could enlighten me? I do believe atheism will dominate in the future, but I suspect (and hope) there will always be room for superstitions and myths

Again, if that will be the natural course of things, why put pressure on theists with myths like:

Jesus didn't exist

Religion is dependent on indoctrination

Most war and conflicts are based on religion

religion hinders development of society.

Humans are born atheist

There is no existence outside of living matter.

It is not a case of "putting pressure" - it is merely a case of stating what we believe - just as religious types do. But, now you bring it up, let's go through these points you mention ...

1. Jesus didn't exist
I have a genuine question here - are there many references to him outside of the bible? I know of none - but I wouldn't really. I had read there were very few (if any). Anyone?
2. Religion is dependent on indoctrination
In part that is UTTERLY TRUE and I believe you would be foolish not to understand that. I know many who are religious simply because their parents were and have no answer when I ask them why they believe in a god. There are others who have thought about it, like Timster, and I respect the hell out of that, but it is nonsense to refute that indoctrination has no bearing on religion
3. Most war and conflicts are based on religion
I think many of them are. Most - I don't know - but certainly a load have religious elements to them
4. religion hinders development of society.
Yup. Why would you refute that? Go look at some of the Muslim states that suppress women because of religion and then revisit the statement
5. Humans are born atheist
Interesting - I haven't considered that one. I don't think it is true - humans like to worship unknown powers and have done through history. It is only in the last couple of thousand years that those unknown powers have been used to subjugate
6. There is no existence outside of living matter
Utter bollocks. Rocks exist outside of living matter

[Crackpot]

Josephus has two references to Jesus one (given Josephus' view of messianic figures) is likely heavily edited or added later and one so mind numbingly innocuous (a Side note in a passage about the death of his brother James) that it is likely genuine.

Part of the problem historically is that the Roman Catholic church gained so much power that they were able to edit and or stamp out most extra biblical sources for Jesus in order to "control the message" The irony being that the only reason for the survival of the one independent non-biblical historical account of Jesus probably only survived because it was coupled with a fake one.

As to the historical existence of Jesus...
While he was not mentioned in non religious histories much, his contemporaries are. Acts alone contains many names of different Roman officials that have been historically verified to the proper time and place. Not to mention most (if not all) of the apostles (including Paul) have been externally verified. In the very least in regards to their deaths which points out their willingness to die for their belief which is unlikely (on scale) if they knew they were preaching about someone they knew not to exist.

So in conclusion While it is reasonable to doubt Jesus' divinity. The outright denial of his existence isn't.

[thestoat]

That is interesting, CP (and thanks for answering). So if he isn't mentioned outside of the Bible (am I reading that right?) when why do you draw the conclusion that he definitely existed?

[Crackpot]

Josephus (as I said) mentions him. Those that Jesus surrounded himself with are historically documented (as well as their reasons for dying. Would you willingly die for something you knew was a lie?) aside from that from Acts alone is a litany of minor Roman officials from BFE of the empire that have been confirmed in time and place. The facts surrounding Jesus is just too overwhelming to make a rational claim that the man didn't even exist.

[thestoat]

Ah yes - just that you stated he was only mentioned twice and one of those was a likely addition later. Fascinating though, that he is mentioned so little (I know you state this may have been a Roman plot). From your wikipedia link I found this

In The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) Arthur Drews stated "In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius (about 300 A.D., Ecclesiast. Hist., 1, 11). Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus." as proof that both this passage and the Testimonium Flavianum were interpolations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

When you say

Acts alone contains many names of different Roman officials that have been historically verified to the proper time and place

I don't see how this might imply Jesus lived. That the apostles were willing to die for their beliefs again doesn't suggest to me that Jesus lived. Why would the Romans stamp out the name of Jesus but leave in the apostles?

I'm not trying to ferment any kind of argument here (sorry Gob ) so I am choosing my words carefully. I am genuinely interested because it really does seem to look as if he never existed - which I hadn't even considered before.

[Crackpot]

I didn't say the Romans I sad the Roman Catholic Church. And I wonder why they'd stamp out any skeptical accounts of Jesus'.

and it's not simply that the appostles are dying for thier beliefs it's that they'd be dying for something they knew to be false If Jesus didn't exist they would have definately known that. So they'd have been tourtured and dying for something they'd know to be a lie and extraordinarily few people are crazy enough to do that. (especially without inflicting collateral damage)

Furthermore not much along the ways of Critical accounts exist for the apostles either only their deaths. (and Paul still comes off as an asshole)

[thestoat]

Ah yes - Romans was my shorthand - I meant the RCC. Anyway - all very interesting. Thanks for helping me cement my atheism

[Crackpot]

It's a distinct difference the romans were meticulous record keepers so much so the there are recods of mid level servitor from BFE. The RCC often worked only in it's own short sighted intrests often purging things they saw of threats.

Thanks for helping me cement my atheism

But do you find it likely that Jesus existed?

[thestoat]

But do you find it likely that Jesus existed?

I had always assumed he did, but with so little evidence to support even that I am starting to doubt it. For possibly no record of his life at all to survive someone so apparently important I find quite odd. I appreciate the point about his apostles not dying for nothing, but to me that doesn't necessarily point towards Jesus - I am sure there could be many reasons for it (no idea what since I don't know the text surrounding their deaths). But you must see it as being odd.