Blind atheism vs blind faith

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Your previous post was really long and I have not had the time to digest it and write a response.

Why do you say Simon Gathercole is "fanatical chrisitan"? He is a professor at Cambridge.

I think I have asked you this before but maybe this is a better way of asking the question.
If they find a hitherto unknown writing of Philo that mentions Jesus.
Then the discover a letter Pilate wrote to Rome explaining that he had to crucify Jesus because the Jews forced him.
Would you then become a Christian? I suspect it would make no difference.
If that is the case, than why should it make any difference to me that we don't have something like that?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

If they find a hitherto unknown writing of Philo that mentions Jesus.
Then the discover a letter Pilate wrote to Rome explaining that he had to crucify Jesus because the Jews forced him.

Then I would, of course accept the existence of an historical Jesus. That is what we call "primary source".

That of course would NOT mean that the magical Jesus as described some 50 years later in the gospels existed.

Like most theists you fail to understand history and evidence. You conflate the magical, divine jesus with an ordinary human figure which may or may not have existed and been sentenced by Pilate. Who was so insignificant, that he escaped one mention during and for 30 years after his alleged lifetime.

When he was mentioned (by someone who had no first hand knowledge), that scribe patently failed to mention virgin births, resurrections and miracles....

That is the issue you never want to face Jo. There is no mention, not one, by ANYONE, of a magical sonofgod jesus until more than 50 years after the alleged events....

Are you beginning to understand your dilemma?

That is the issue Jo.

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Yes, I do understand the dilemma.
I agree with the facts you presented, just not the conclusions.

Why do I find so many references that reach the opposite conclusion you have?
I have mentioned a few before but here is another.
"What they really want to know is: Is there extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existence."
"As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative. A few vocal scholars, however, still deny that he ever lived."

One more.
"One of the more common arguments among online supporters of the Jesus Myth thesis is an argument from silence: “There are no contemporary references to Jesus, therefore he did not exist”. Unfortunately this naïve argument is based on an ignorance of the nature of ancient source material and of how an argument from silence is sustained. As a result, while it may initially seem to have some rhetorical force, it is not an argument that would be accepted by historians…."

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Please do stop posting links to christian apologist sites.

I can post a myriad of links from Jesus Mythers, Islamic sites explaining a human prophet jesus, etc and dozens of others all pushing an agenda and contradicting your obvious confirmation bias.

I stick to FACTS.

There is no contemporary evidence at all for the existence of your jesus figure. An historical approach from you would soon help you realise that.

The probability of a HUMAN 'jesus' figure along the lines of the other dozen or so Messiahs that roamed the middle east in the 1st century is real. But NOT PROVEN, they all have mentions...your god of choice has not.

Read what I wrote Jo...there is no evidence for a human Jesus at all except through hagiographic probability The verdict must be "NOT PROVEN".
There is even less probability( and NO EVIDENCE AT ALL) for a divine Jesus, that is your dilemma.

You persist in your chosen belief even when it has been demonstrated there is no good reason for you to do so. The evidence is just not there.

That is not living in truth Jo, that is delusional.

David Killens's picture
I am going to cut you some

I am going to cut you some slack Jo because I believe that you are truly trying. Where I grew up, I was surrounded by religion and god. Heaven, hell, and angels were accepted like air and water, it just WAS. And when you are surrounded by such a noise, it is almost impossible to separate yourself from the many tales you believe it. But in here, everything falls under the microscope of the cynical and skeptical eye.

The thing is, outside of just one book, the bible, jesus is not mentioned. And when you consider the era and technology available, this does raise strong questions. Two thousand years earlier the Babylonians had sorted out how to preserve writing, on clay tablets. Ink and papyrus was also a new technology. That area of the planet was relatively densely populated, it had thousands of scholars diligently recording everything. The climate was conducive to the preservation of documents.

So, why this gaping hole in history, why this omission on who became the most influential person ever?

"ignorance of the nature of ancient source material"

There is/was a truckload of source material, the christian problem is that the source material mentions jesus zero number of times.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - As a result, while it

Jo - As a result, while it may initially seem to have some rhetorical force, it is not an argument that would be accepted by historians…."

The author of that blog came here to AR; it didn't go so well for him.

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Thanks, I had no idea.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

You would do well to actually read links you post in future, and at least try to understand them.
If you had some knowledge on the origins of your faith you would disregard such imposters. Research the authors Jo....every link you posted is either from an apologist, a committed and fanatical christian or complete fabricator.
Make sure when you quote a line from an historian, ensure you understand what their entire thrust of argument is. You have been caught several times misquoting.

They only fuel your confirmation bias. I warned you not to use apologist sites, they muddle your thinking.

Continually bringing up fraudulent entries in Josephus ( not contemporary either) or partial quotes from Tacitus ( not contemporary and reporting only the beliefs of a jewish sect, not facts) only makes you and the people who repeat such ill researched content complete idiots at best and liars at worst.

Yale university do a lovely video series on the origins of christianity, try reading the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels...available free and above all do this:

This is the Historical Method :
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
- Who is telling us this?
- How do I know if I can trust them?
- Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
- How do I know if this document is genuine? "

Belief has no place in history, facts and evidence do....

Nyarlathotep's picture


Yeah, he sure loved to straw-man, plagiarize, and contradict himself. Told us the bible was canonized 30 years after Constantine. Then told us it was canonized over 100 years before Constantine. Told us Constantine had 50 bibles constructed, then told us the bible didn't exist in Constantine's time. Go figure.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
A Jo

A Jo

Why do you say Simon Gathercole is "fanatical chrisitan"? He is a professor at Cambridge

Jo, your head and your arse are in far too much contact, Gathercole is a doctor of DIVINITY. His bio is reproduced below. Like most apologists not concerned with the truth you appeal to a false authority.

"Dr Gathercole's main academic interest is the interpretation of the New Testament. Having begun as a classicist and also worked in the field of early Judaism, he is particularly fascinated by the connections between the New Testament and the literature contemporaneous with it. His principal theological interests are christology, and the doctrine of the atonement. He is currently writing a book on the way in which canonical and apocryphal Gospels treat the early Christian kerygma.
Dr Gathercole would be particularly interested in supervising doctoral research in Pauline studies, the christology of the Gospels, and extra-canonical Gospels.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "If they find a hitherto

Jo "If they find a hitherto unknown writing of Philo that mentions Jesus.
Then the discover a letter Pilate wrote to Rome explaining that he had to crucify Jesus because the Jews forced him.
Would you then become a Christian?"

How would such a letter demonstrate any objective evidence that Jesus (if he existed), was anything but human Jo?

I find your bar for belief in unevidenced superstition (like all theists) is ridiculously low Jo. Tellingly though, it is only this low for your chosen superstition.

If we found a signed Affidavit from Jesus stating he was entirely human, would you immediately believe this Jo? Now ask yourself why it is you would likely doubt a claim we absolutely know is possible Jo, namely that a human existed, yet based on identical evidence expect us to believe something we have zero evidence has ever occurred, namely a supernatural deity exists, and that it was made flesh?

The era in which these superstitious fantasies originate, and even centuries later when they were fabricated and took hold, were epochs of great ignorance and superstition by any contemporary standard Jo.

If you expect me to believe ANYTHING then I set the same objective standard for belief, that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support any claim.

You on the other hand set an a biased and arbitrary standard, one you don't afford to any other belief, as we have seen evidenced by your response in my thread asking for ten examples of such beliefs outside of your religious beliefs, held without any objective evidence. You couldn't offer even one genuine example Jo.

Yet you keep claiming you try to be objective, as if you don't even grasp what that means. Just as you laughably claimed to be rational, but use known logical fallacies in all your arguments, as if you don't grasp what rational means, despite it being repeatedly explained to you. Then you baulk at people inferring dishonesty when you repeat the same fallacious arguments over and over?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - It is an attempt, by me

Jo - It is an attempt, by me at least, to understand why there are no contemporaneous (is that better) references for Jesus.

Are you going to address you previous statements about Shakespeare?

Sheldon's picture
Oi Leper, whose Yall?

Oi Leper, whose Yall?

Why do so many theists struggle with simple abbreviations?

possibletarian's picture
Why would anyone need to

Why would anyone need to study 'religion' in order to know a all powerful deity who has stated that he loves us deeply is all powerful, all knowing and wants to get to know us, and has supposedly put a deep yearning for him in our hearts ?

And of course which religion ?

Randomhero1982's picture
Is religion even worthy of

Is religion even worthy of wasting time on studying? That is the question!

In my humble opinion? Not in the slightest.

A god so vast and infinite, but cannot be detected, nor evidenced.

A god so smart and wise that he only showed himself to an illiterate peasant and a war lord during the metal ages... despite our technicalogical advances now (which he should know).

A God that is less moral then myself.

A God that suspends the laws of nature apparently, but can't leave a shred of evidence to show that it happened or is even possible.

You add that all up, along with other clear things that I cannot be bothered to go in to and your left with one great big cake, full of utter, utter, utter, utter, utter bollocks.

Calilasseia's picture
Ah, the spicy odour of

Ah, the spicy odour of supernaturalist hubris is in the air again ... you think those of us who paid attention in class don't know the distinction between an epistemological claim and an ontological claim?

Sheldon's picture
Bumping this reponse to the

Bumping this reponse to the end...since Leper's trolling is now matching the stupidity of her posts.

Leper "The word agnostic as used generally means a person who highly doubts God exists"

Sheldon "Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known, or can be known, about the nature of existence of a deity."

Leper "#1 That's another way of putting what I said. #2 Who really cares? #3 An Agnostic is a disbeliever."

#1 No it isn't, and I just posted the dictionary definition.
#2 Don't be a fucking tool, you brought it up in your post ffs.
#3 No they are fucking not, the word is an assertion about the limits of epistemology, and you are being deliberately moronic just to troll, at least I hope you are.

Leper " Usually the arrogant type who says out loud (very loud) "no one can really know anything" and yet disbelieves in his heart and behaviour."

Oh know you are claiming to know what agnostics believe and think outside of the definition of the word, you're just an angry theist with an axe to grind, and your imbecilic trolling is fooling no one, though the irony of you labelling anyone arrogant is truly fucking hilarious.

Leper "After all an atheist can doubt too. An atheist and an agnostic usually are more or less the same thing - they just stamp different labels on themselves depending on which they feel is superior."

Oh ffs, atheism is a statement that donates a lack of belief, agnosticism is a statement about the limits of epistemology, they are not mutually exclusive, but they are demonstrably not the same fucking thing , except to illiterate retarded theists with an axe to grind. Your command of English is execrable. That last sentence is hilariously stupid errant nonsense.

Leper "But at the end of the day the human mind is naturally superstitious which leads to that everyone knows and senses a more powerful being, God exists. But in a different way than the believers."

The fact humans are naturally superstitious doesn't remotely endorse superstition you clown, quite the opposite, it demonstrates an inherent bias that requires the use of complex objective methods like science and logic in order to avoid the kind of moronic apologetics you and your ilk fall for, and then espouse as true, without being able to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence to support your belief in archaic superstitions about magic sky fairies and flying fucking horses.

Leper "Control yourselves. I know this is gonna trigger you bad. Please, take deep breaths and count to ten, yall. "

Mohammed on a fucking bike, how many times must you be told you all is two fucking words, so if you want to abbreviate it, then is y'all, and your illiteracy as vexing as it is, isn't triggering anything but pity and derision.

It's becoming increasingly difficult not to point out how dumb your posts are.

>blockquote>Leper " I'd tell you to drink a glass of water, but since it's something the Prophet Muhammad used to do "

I don't value the opinion of paedophile warlords, and am more than capable of recognising the value of water without recourse to your superstitious guff. Your trolling is as poor as your literacy, and that is fucking poor.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.