Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm just gonna peddle "Nailed" by Fitzgerald again, if Joy isn't still afraid of the defunct Index or anything, as a great bite sized idea of why there's no evidence for Jesus
You can also go to YouTube and look for "The Gospel According To Richard Carrier" for like a 40 minute interview.
More and more mainstream scholars are becoming historical agnostics at least, because more and more scholars are no longer bound morally or financially to espouse historical jesus.
See also, Thomas Thompson, a Catholic scholar who promoted the ahistoricity of the patriarchs, found himself unhireable for years, and now his consensus is the mainstream
The Catholic church has a great front, being evolution friendly and having many great scholars and scientists who are somewhat progressive compared to fundamentalists, but their apologetics are self serving circle jerks, and I couldn't see that until I had left Rome for some time.
The history of the roman catholic church is one of status quo, unless they are forced to change. At one time they punished someone for just suggesting that the earth was not the center of everything. Of course now, with such a powerful knowledge base they can not counter, the RC church reversed course and now pretend they know all things astronomical.
"The history of the roman catholic church is one of status quo, unless they are forced to change"
Not just the catholics. Same goes for most organised religions, going back to the cult of Amun 3000 bce in Egypt, and of course Rome, before Christianity.
The quote below is attributed to Seneca , but it seems to me to also apply to christianity, especially to a ruler such as say Constantine ,who was NOT a christian . There is a very convenient Christian tradition that Constantine was finally converted on his death bed. I'm unconvinced due to the poor provenance of the claim .
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Lucius Anneaus Seneca)
“The history of the roman catholic church is one of status quo, unless they are forced to change. At one time they punished someone for just suggesting that the earth was not the center of everything. Of course now, with such a powerful knowledge base they can not counter, the RC church reversed course and now pretend they know all things astronomical”
Statements like these just confirm your biased view of history. First, the entire science community use to believe in a geocentric universe. At the time that was the consensus. One can’t really say it was the Church’s belief – LOL! Then Galileo, a Catholic by the way, along with some other great Catholic scientists suggested a heliocentric theory. This was fine and something that needed to be looked into – as at the time it was still just a theory and not something there was yet a scientific consensus on. But Galileo felt it was his place to suggest his findings contradicted the Bible – they did not. But he continued to speak on theological matters even though it wasn’t his place to do so. This upset some in the Church and they handled the situation poorly. This of course caused the anti-Catholic propaganda to spread the false notion that the Church is against science. Pulease. The Church was against arrogant men speaking for them – big difference! The Church has always been forefront in encouraging scientific endeavor. Anyone who knows history knows this. Do put down your atheist handbook for more than 2 seconds and educate yourself.
Again, it's like what you said about the Church putting the Bible in Latin so as to keep its contents a secret. I can't believe how quick you all are to fall for such propaganda. I mean that is stuff right out of pieces of trashy fiction like the Da Vinci Code. And you eat it up because it fits your narrative. How about you try to learn the real reason the Church does what it does. Ever think about that? Like I said the reason Latin was used was precisely because it is a dead language. Man, it's amazing to me the bubble you all live in and how oblivious you are that there are things you aren't properly informed about.
I guarantee you that we know church history. I lived it, I immersed myself in history and apologetics and church sanctioned stories for literal decades and guess what? You're being lied to. No organization on earth has the reach and ability that the Catholic church does. The history isblitered with pious frauds and forgeries/to this day/. They are still beatifying people who never even existed, men from myths, jusy like they did centuries ago by co opting pagan martyrs and gods into saints. If the church can cover up and destroy evidence of wide spread abuse in the age of information, how much easier is it to rewrite history in an age of illiteracy and superstition?
Or you're a poe. Considering your wording is used in such a way to be perfectly neutral and sound jusy lije an atheists argument towards theists, it's difficult to read your assertions as much more than tongue-in-cheek.
Or maybe you're just trying to earn brownie points at Catholic Answers. Tell Trish hi if shes still aroujd and that she played a pretty big role in my first spell of suicide ideation, ad well as thwt one guy obsessed with hollywood and the sin of movies
“I guarantee you that we know church history.”
Oh, well, if you guarantee it.
“I lived it, I immersed myself in history and apologetics and church sanctioned stories for literal decades”
Same.
“You're being lied to.”
Funny, that’s what I would say to you.
“No organization on earth has the reach and ability that the Catholic church does. “
Hmmm . . . almost miraculous you might say.
“The history isblitered with pious frauds and forgeries/to this day/.”
You mean like every history?
“They are still beatifying people who never even existed”
See? Fake news. I think you’ve been lied to.
“If the church can cover up and destroy evidence of wide spread abuse in the age of information, how much easier is it to rewrite history in an age of illiteracy and superstition?”
The Church hardly stands alone in being guilty of cover up of abuse. The public school system, professional sports teams, Boy Scouts of America, Little League, Hollywood, countless families, etc.
Soooo forgive me if I might think your understanding of history might be a little skewed.
@ Joy
At least you are predictable. When faced with a difficult question, you just invent shit and attack the poster.
FYI, astronomy and it's history is one of my pet hobbies, and I am quite certain my knowledge of Galileo is more complete than yours.
“At least you are predictable. When faced with a difficult question, you just invent shit and attack the poster.”
What are you talking about?
It is pretty obvious in this thread who is being attacked and such potty mouths so many of you have. True colors.
“FYI, astronomy and it's history is one of my pet hobbies, and I am quite certain my knowledge of Galileo is more complete than yours.”
Well, if you’re quite certain.
@ Joy
"Well, if you’re quite certain."
I am.
@ Joy
"It is pretty obvious in this thread who is being attacked and such potty mouths so many of you have. True colors."
So sad.
When you started up in here, yes, you did draw criticism. But you were just as quick to responding with ad hominem attacks. I made every effort to avoid such confrontations. I even posted a criticism on you because of one ad hominem action, hoping you would cease such actions. Even now I make great effort to ensure that my posts are just criticism on your position.
“When you started up in here, yes, you did draw criticism.”
Ya think?
“But you were just as quick to responding with ad hominem attacks.”
Not even. I try very hard to address an argument. That becomes very difficult when no arguments are being made – only name calling and attacks. Please, be my guest and go back thru the thread and see who is being attacked. I don’t call people names. I respond to what they say.
@ Joy
Thank you for the response. For me personally, it pains me to hurl shit at people, I definitely attempt to attack the post while not attacking the poster. I do not want to attack you, my sole goal is to have a dialogue, and hopefully, we can learn from each other.
Between you an I, Joy, I extend my hand in a truce, where we refrain from ad hominem attacks towards each other.
Two days later and Joy did not shake my hand in agreement.
I tried.
@ Joy
Like I said the reason Latin was used was precisely because it is a dead language. "
What a thundering lot of dishonest bollocks this sentence is.
When the Vaticanus was produced Latin was not a "dead" language, in fact common (latin) language was the language of Empire, with Greek the language of scholars.
Latin remained tha language of commerce and scholars and was used much as English is today as a "Lingua Franca".
Every University in Europe taught mainly in Latin until the 17th Century when certain courses and studies were presented in local language.
Latin was the language of Law and Medicine until the 1950's throughout Europe.
Latin as a study is currently making a comeback with more and more teriary institutions offering courses in the Classics. Lating is far from dead both Classical and Vulgar,
Ignorance piled on stupidity. Joy, read some books.
Holy shit y'all
Joy, why are you here? To earn brownie points with jebus? Did you listen to too much Michael Vorris?
Because let me tell you exactly what you're accomplishing; making me realize how fucking stupid I sounded when I was a Catholic and solidifying my happiness at being away from that shit
But theists don't actually care about the good they could do, they care about following their made up laws to spread the gospel so daddy doesn't torture them for eternity
“Because let me tell you exactly what you're accomplishing; making me realize how fucking stupid I sounded when I was a Catholic and solidifying my happiness at being away from that shit”
Yes, you sound very happy . . .
Yeah I'm done, you don't actually have anything of substance to say, you're here to look at the world through papist glasses and reaffirm your indoctrination. Have fun with that. I'm going to have lunch, go home to my beautiful wife, enjoy fixing up our new home together, and draw.
All things that, yes, make me happier than a life spent clutching a rosary to appease a woman who tells a child to eat mud and grass could ever provide
@Mikhael,
You are forgetting, they get to gnaw on Yeshua's body and slurp his blood, yummy and double-yummy, too.
Ah yes, stale ice cream cones!
I notice Joy doesn't want to actually answer any historical points about the origins of the churches.
Joy does not answer when the destruction of the gnostic, ebionite and Syriac texts and the Thomasinian Church are raised
Does not answer when the jewish origins and traditions of the early church are pointed out
Does not answer when the relevance of a human jesus figure is questioned.
Does not answer when questions posed about Papal infallibility and the great schism are raised .
Typical behaviour of a closeted catholic. She can join the ranks of the lurkers trying in vain to discover relevance when the pillars of their faith have been demolished.
BTW Joy, the bible was not originally in Latin "to protect the scriptures" a simple google of the Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus would give you your miseducation back gift wrapped.
For your information Joy, one of my greatest friends in the world, 35 years ago, was a Jesuit priest in high standing.
He pointed me towards many of the historical facts that gnaw the foundations of your church.
He was no stranger to the truth of the origins of the church, but retained his faith. Disciplined many times by his superiors but a great priest indeed.
The same, sadly cannot be said for you and your one eyed sanctimonious, error strewn verbiage on these pages.
“I notice Joy doesn't want to actually answer any historical points about the origins of the churches.”
What are you talking about?
I already posted historical evidence of the beginning of the Church. There is also all the historical records of the early Church fathers.
I also addressed mistaken comments like Luther didn’t believe in the True Presence, mistaken comments that there is no historical evidence Jesus Christ existed, mistaken comments about the Church trying to prevent people from reading the Bible, mistakes that the Church prevented scientific exploration. Lots of false claims in this thread and I addressed them all without name calling. That is much more than I can say for most of you.
“
Joy does not answer when the destruction of the gnostic, ebionite and Syriac texts and the Thomasinian Church are raised”
I addressed this too. These same heresies are reinvented and re introduced all the time.
“Does not answer when the jewish origins and traditions of the early church”
What about it? What is the question?
“Does not answer when the relevance of a human jesus figure is questioned.”
What are you talking about? No serious historian denies the historical evidence for Jesus
“Does not answer when questions posed about Papal infallibility and the great schism are raised .”
Who asked about that? Gee, y’all should really start a new thread. I’m only one gal. What do you want to know about Papal infallibility? Or the Great Schism – which I have a feeling doesn’t refer to what you think it does – another bit of misinformation in the atheist handbook. But I will talk about all of that if you want.
“Typical behaviour of a closeted catholic. She can join the ranks of the lurkers trying in vain to discover relevance when the pillars of their faith have been demolished.”
Yes, the Church has only been around for 2000 years, but this atheist internet site thinks it has demolished the pillars of my faith.
“BTW Joy, the bible was not originally in Latin "to protect the scriptures" a simple google of the Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus would give you your miseducation back gift wrapped.”
Oooh . . . I’ll check it out – Can’t wait to see what spin awaits me.
“For your information Joy, one of my greatest friends in the world, 35 years ago, was a Jesuit priest in high standing.”
Oooh . . . high standing. Priests are called to be servants.
“He pointed me towards many of the historical facts that gnaw the foundations of your church.”
“He was no stranger to the truth of the origins of the church, but retained his faith”
I’m not surprised because there is nothing there that would/should shatter one’s faith. Judas, handpicked by Jesus Himself betrayed him. That doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t still the Truth, the Light, and the Way.
“The same, sadly cannot be said for you and your one eyed sanctimonious, error strewn verbiage on these pages.”
Nothing I have said has been in error. Look, you don’t like me. I’m ok with that, but please don’t pretend that I’m the one calling you all names and hurling personal attacks. If you all are really being honest you would have to admit that.
@ Joy
Get off your high horse, re read my previous posts and either answer them with citations or STFU.
Your constant whining on without substance is tiresome.
@ Joy
"What are you talking about? No serious historian denies the historical evidence for Jesus"
Because to do so violates their integrity. It is basically impossible to prove anyone never existed. And since almost every folk tale has a kernel of truth, it is reasonable to conclude that there was some itinerant dude who was executed.
But the real question is whether any serious historian has stated that this jesus dude was actually divine and performed miracles.
There was no documentation during his lifetime, and only many years later did any writings appear. That fails my standards of evidence.
@ Joy
"the Truth, the Light, and the Way"
That is the definition of traffic lights.
Please, no mumble jumble, be more precise.
@ Old man
@ Joy
"BTW Joy, the bible was not originally in Latin "to protect the scriptures" a simple google of the Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus would give you your miseducation back gift wrapped."
I did not know that. Many years ago I was informed that Latin was used to keep knowledge from the masses.
Joy, I was wrong, and so were you.
Are you big enough and have enough integrity to admit an error?
But I suspect we will see typical theist practice, to ignore new evidence and just maintain lies.
@ David
She already has, misdirecting my argument and creating a strawman.
@ Old man
Is this one fundamental difference between atheists like me and theists like joy? I am willing to change my opinion when faced with new evidence, even admit I was wrong.
Sheesh, Joy makes me look like a saint. Which I am not. I am flawed, I can be a complete asshole and stubborn when it suits me.
Three days ago I extended my hand in initiating a personal truce between myself and Joy, and got zero response.
You know what really gets me? I am acting more like what jesus' teachings wanted us to act, while Joy is definitely not.
You know what would be the ultimate irony? That there is a god, a heaven and hell. And I would be passing by Joy as she rides the down escalator while I am taking the one up. I will make sure I give a friendly wave. And a disrespectful wink, because I'm an asshole.
Joy- Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald, Robert Price.
Three serious historians who doubt the historicity of jesus. Respected historians, 2 of them with phds in relevant fields. Carrier has the first peer reviewed book out on the subject, one that takes 28 hours worth of time as an audiobook.
There. You literally are now lying if you say no serious historian doubts the historicity of jesus.
@ Mikhael
In fairness to Joyless, after wiping egg (?) off her face for the nth time on these forums she did change her sentence to read "Most historians do not doubt.."
Fair enough. But she bolted when I pointed out that it was "most historians" (and a decreasing number) that thought that a human jesus was probable.
And then (as I am sure you read) that even we did find evidence for a short lived itinerant Messianic preacher it was a big step from that to the miraculous 'sonofgod' zombie jesus worshipped in her church.....
Like many of my salient points Joyless seems to developed "selective vision" when reading posts, or just answers with a hand waving denial of easily researched and historical facts.
I think your well made points will get the same treatment. Ignored or hand waved away. Uncomfortable truths are never welcomed by the blinkered.
See how far you have come my friend? Bravo.
I'm sure she also will not stop to give pause to why most historians have heretofore supported historical Jesus- that theology has mostly been the realm of believers or those whose livelihoods depend on espousing belief in a historical Jesus. I again bring up the example of Thomas Thompson, who was unemployable for years for doubting historical patriarchs.
Honestly my friend, having a chance to actually put what I have learned into action is spinning a whole new set of wheels in my brain.
Pages