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.
Jeff, to me a Christian is someone who believes he should do as Christ said and did. Where you get this knowledge of Christ is dependant on the person. I know there is a majority opinion on this, but that does not make it right?
Hello there Vincent.
I try not to commit No True Scotsman fallacies in an argument concerning the many interpretations of Christianity. So while I do respect yours, I ultimately think it is flawed.
For one, how can you believe in the Christian God, or be a Christian while discarding the religious texts the whole religion basis itself on? I understand you use math as you would say to believe in a God. Yet you denounce the Bible. To me you sound more like a deist that imagines the creator as the Christian God, but disregard the Bible due to it's history and the immoral actions involved within it. I would call you a Christian Diest, but to me you sound more like a Diest in general.
I believe the texts of the people were written by people with agendas. no more, no less. they are a referance point to the truth during those periods.
I dont see how the No true Scotsman fallacy is a real fallacy. According to the wikipedia article on it, a person adjusts their views when they encounter someone who does not fit the norm. If the definition in the person's mind excludes those that do not fit the norm, I see no fallacy
Sounds more like deism than Christianity.
I was thinking the same thing. Believing in a god, but not necessarily a specific god such as Allah or Yahweh or Jesus, would make Vincent a deist. Some of America's founding fathers were deists, so he's in good company, at least.
well he could also be a Christian Gnostic.
A deist does not label himself as a christian.
I seriously do not think he knows what he is.
In any case he needs to know what those definitions are:
*Theist--(Christian) Believes in an omniscient,omnipotent, loving god that created everything and revealed himself in some way to us humans.(eg Bible)
*Deist -- believes in a creator/prime mover but no revelation, and knowledge and science is the key to understand this creator better.
*Gnostic Christian -- Takes the bible as an allegory of how one should live and not in the literal interpretation of it. Focus on the god within them. Their bodies are the temple of god.
*Atheist-- just lack belief in the theistic god claim
*Anti-theist--regardless of belief/lack of the theistic claim, he is of the opinion(claim) that theism does more harm to the world then good.
well in that case something close to a gnostic christian. but that died out a long time ago and needs some updating. I believe Jesus was just a man who was worshipped as God by many. The texts are propoganda pieces but they hold elements of truth. I call myself a Christian because I do my best to follow the teachings of Christ (at least the sensible ones). I believe Jesus was primarily a faith healer with a strong theological backbone in hebraic text. But he was upset with the Jewish establishment and that got him killed. After that I don't know and I don't care. If there is an afterlife, I'll find out when I get there
" The texts are propaganda pieces but they hold elements of truth."
How could you know that they are propaganda pieces and then assume that they hold elements of truth.
Eg
Every politician will claim to bring peace and order during his political campaign,
Even though peace and order are good things, one cannot assume that the politician words were the truth.
Which is exactly what you are doing.
Cherry picking the good bits in the bible only shows that it needs cherry picking to even find good things in it.
I would strongly suggest you watch this video that shows they are pieces of propaganda from start to finish:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
Jeff, thank you for this excellent video. It is very informative and sounds quite truthful.
The best propoganda pieces hold an element of truth to them. An outright lie will seldom be accepted by all, but an outright lie doused with some truth sauce may get the masses coming. I did not state that as my explicit view of the Bible, but I do now.
Nonetheless, I do believe there is ample evidence that there was a Jesus who was a moral man who did deeds that were considered miraculous in his day (the miraculous party may be questionable to some, but we can address that later)
As to my cherry picking, I don't claim that I do not cherry pick the bible. there are some very excellent bits in it, and I keep those in my faith and through the rest out. I don't see how this is unreasonable. I already established that I know the Bible is fallable and full of flaws (as are all books), so how can people not cherry pick in general(with books in general)?
As to the Roman business, I suppose I always knew that the Romans were portrayed in a positive light. Only positive things are said about the Roman Empire and its leadership. As to why, I would have to delve deeper into the historical context of the time. One place to start for me, is Hellenistic Jews, Jews that had turned away from the traditional aspects of Jewish life and embraced a Grecian worldview, a worldview, mind you, that was later adopted by The Roman Empire
Also, it must be noted, that it is established knowledge among some experts in the field that MANY MANY MANY gospels of Jesus were written during that period. One had Jesus taming a dragon. Another had him killing a boy because he made him mad. So what could we make of this? Either he IS fiction and people knew he was fiction and wanted to write fun stories about him (which is plausible) or either he was a conspirary by the government (which I find absurd). BUt where does this fiction come from? You don't invent characters whole clothe in fiction. THey come from somewhere.
Now I will counterargue that the four gospels as we know them today were not intended as fiction. The writers seem to believe that there was a real Jesus who did these real things. As to the pro roman thing, maybe Jesus and his followers were just pro roman. It does happen. no need for conspiracy here
Or perhaps Jesus did not care about roman government at all. After all, he did preach of the end of times, the need to be good people in any circumstance, the need to be born again, etc. So the perceived pro roman slant may simply be people living in a peaceful time in rome and taking that as a given
Now I will do a deconstruction of the fallacies found in this movie
Fallacy one- pertaining to the Dead Sea Scrolls
According to the video, which I will accept on faith, the writers of the scrolls wanted to drive non jews out of isreal. He then asks how such a movement could exist in a time when Jesus was peaching pacifism. Firstly, there is a thing called multiculturalism. Secondly, there were many people preaching many things at that time. Thirdly, there were many people claiming to be the Messiah at the time (according to someone I know, one worshipped a rock). Fourthly, it seems clear that this close minded group was underground, otherwise they wouldn't be living in caves (or at least putting their works in caves). Also, these zealots would be crucified for treason, understandably so, by The Roman Government. So they were by neccessity a secret society
Issue 2: his resemblance to a roman figure
THen the movie claims that Jesus closely resembles TItus Flavian. I have NO IDEA who the hell that guy is, so if someone can tell me more about him, that'd be great :) . I cannot assess that part of the video without that missing piece.
Claim 2: Josephus the phophet being a turncoat
THe video states during The Flavian Campaign to destroy the Judean rebellion, a self proclaimed prophet is found. He survives and states that Titus Flavian will one day be emperor, prompting Titus to promote Josephus as a high ranking translator. I have two issues with the specifics of the passage of the video. It states that the prophet was ingenuious and just trying not to die. Firstly, that is hypocritical, none of these academics have a military background and would make up any lie they could to save their own hide. Secondly, prophets were all over the place at that time. They were known to be crazy, some were charlatans, but it is entirely possible this self proclaimed prophet believed he was the real deal.
The second point about the academics, who know nothing of real war, claim Josephus was a turncoat, condemning him in their annals. Firstly, they don't know the man and don't know what he was thinking when he said this. Secondly, him deciding to help pacify the Jews may simply been an attempt of his to try and keep the Jewish race alive. Historically, various peoples have been trying to genocide the Jews and I assume Josephus knew this.
Final Criticism:
For a so called academic video, there are surprisingly few quotes from source material. exactly zero. I'm supposed to take it on faith that their ivory tower types aren't bullshitting me so they can go on paying rent?
Last Christism:
THere is no link in this video that states that Flavian being Christ translates into Jesus being Christ. In fact, the two are contradictory. Granted, I skipped the last 50 minutes of the episode because I realized it was propoganda and bullshit, but still, I hold my position
Cheers :)
First of all I am impressed you watched at least some parts of the video, your reply shows you did not watch the entire video.
So at least you are different from most Christians that do not even open the link before sprouting nonsense.
"fallacies found in this movie"
There are no fallacies, just misunderstanding and fallacious assumptions on your part.
Apart from watching the movie once toughly it requires a second pass to grasp all that is being said.
Some mistakes that prove you missed most of the movie:
1.It explains well who Titus Flavius was, yet you asked here who he was?
Google search the Roman emperors which did miracles and boom you hit the Flavians.
2. The video shows that the Dead Sea Scrolls depict a militaristic messiah like David was(which is to be expected). A messiah that would restore Israel to power in the world.
"how such a movement could exist"
Here he is referring to the Jesus pacifistic scenario depicted in the bible. This is not a true representation of that area at that time.
In around 20 ad to 66 ad Judea was a war zone like Tripoli today, you had the Romans and the zealots(Christians) engaged in a guerrilla type of warfare, where the Christians would hit and run the Romans , confusion, rape, theft was a thing of everyday.
This was drying thin the supplies of the Romans that were allocated that territory to the state of stealing money from the Jewish temple(66 ad) to finance the troops to fight and defend this large territory.
This theft of the temple was the mistake that lead to a complete revolt from the Jewish people against the Romans, basically the Temple Cult which controlled most of the Jews joined the Zealots against the Romans and thanks to faith, the Jews defeated the Romans militarily on the battlefield.
The Romans underestimated the power of faith that gave the will to die to even make a scratch on the enemy.
Thus the Romans being overrun by suiciders could not use their usual tactic of routing the enemy rebels to win but instead they were sustaining a lot of losses every time they engaged the Jews to he point of ending in loosing to them.
For the very first time in history the Jews got their promised land which took from the Romans the province of Palestine(Iran and Iraq together)
Watch the video please!
3. "Claim 2: Josephus the phophet being a turncoat"
"The second point about the academics, who know nothing of real war, claim Josephus was a turncoat, condemning him in their annals."
Flavius Josephus is the guy telling the history, he is the only historian allowed by the Flavians to tell this event.
He is the one saying that he himself was a turncoat.
He himself tells us how the other historians of this era were gathered and executed and their text destroyed.
This is said in the video, but you missed this part for sure.
'exactly zero."
Well the video summarizes well known accepted things that if you do a basic google search you can confirm them yourself.
Do not take anything on faith, the video is just to point you in the right direction.
"I skipped the last 50 minutes" from 1 hr video.
No wonder you asked so much silly questions and maintained a stupid position which is basically an argument from ignorance.
Thank you for being mildly impressed by me :)
I'm not going to defend my positions because I don't have a context to defend them. And to get that context, I would have to do possibly decades of research to find the proper knowledge I need, effectively becoming a Roman and BIblical scholar. Just because people accept it as true does not make it true. We both agree that the Romans and Jews ran misinformation campaigns and that the Romans burned many texts. So most of that knowledge is lost and archeaology only goes so far. So, in light of this video, Jesus may not have existed and if he did, his teaching were warped by people who thought they knew better (like what Plato did to Socrates).
Perhaps Jesus will be like Homer. We may never know if he really existed
A quick google search is not a proper approach to history.
"I'm not going to defend my positions because I don't have a context to defend them."
Well, a respectable choice, but does that mean you do not want to know the truth?
"Just because people accept it as true does not make it true."
Aren't you the one doing exactly that, when you follow the teachings of the bible?
We seem to agree on propaganda used by both, about who the messiah was.
Jews= a militaristic messiah that would fight the Romans
Romans= a pacifistic messiah that will bring peace to the wold. Their Emperor.
In light of the evidence that all the gospels earliest written date are in the Flavian period, and the 3 Emperors (gods) did similar miracles of what Jesus did, One must conclude that either they created the religion eventually or that they used a useful theme for their purpose.
+ everything we know about Jesus is false/twisted in a way that we cannot determine anything with regards of truth.
Thus the logical conclusion is that Christianity started by a pet project by the winners of that propaganda.
Then it evolved(different emperors) and people started to make money off it.(to this day)
The Romans did not need to spend money on standing armies anymore, they could through religion control the people. The people would try to forgive, keep the peace and most of all, be good slaves and servants even if they are treated harshly by their masters.
Armies and soldiers are to this day a very expensive thing to have and always drained the empire finances to keep order.
"A quick google search is not a proper approach to history."
You can verify the found evidence with a quick google search, that was what I said.
Example:
Flavia Domatilla(Daughter or niece of Titus Flavius(Emperor)) donated a catacomb to the Christians in Rome. This can be verified with a quick google search since there is a writing in the catacomb that says that Flavia Domatilla donated it to the Christians. You can find pictures too.
""I'm not going to defend my positions because I don't have a context to defend them.""
"Well, a respectable choice, but does that mean you do not want to know the truth?"
It's more like I don't have the time, energy and interest to pursue it at this time
""Just because people accept it as true does not make it true.""
"Aren't you the one doing exactly that, when you follow the teachings of the bible?
Let's make the analogy simpler. let's say I view the bible as a self help book. some bits are useful, and you can throw the junk away. it's like that.
""We seem to agree on propaganda used by both, about who the messiah was.
Jews= a militaristic messiah that would fight the Romans
Romans= a pacifistic messiah that will bring peace to the wold. Their Emperor.""
Can't find a disagreement here
"In light of the evidence that all the gospels earliest written date are in the Flavian period, and the 3 Emperors (gods) did similar miracles of what Jesus did, One must conclude that either they created the religion eventually or that they used a useful theme for their purpose.
+ everything we know about Jesus is false/twisted in a way that we cannot determine anything with regards of truth."
I am unaware that Romans attributed miracles to their caesars. that sounds silly so I should look into that.
"Thus the logical conclusion is that Christianity started by a pet project by the winners of that propaganda.
Then it evolved(different emperors) and people started to make money off it.(to this day)"
That does not discount the possibility that a pacifist faith healer may have existed during the timeframe
"The Romans did not need to spend money on standing armies anymore, they could through religion control the people. The people would try to forgive, keep the peace and most of all, be good slaves and servants even if they are treated harshly by their masters."
I am in concurrance with your argument
"Armies and soldiers are to this day a very expensive thing to have and always drained the empire finances to keep order."
I am in concurrance with your argument
""A quick google search is not a proper approach to history.""
You can verify the found evidence with a quick google search, that was what I said.
Example:
Flavia Domatilla(Daughter or niece of Titus Flavius(Emperor)) donated a catacomb to the Christians in Rome. This can be verified with a quick google search since there is a writing in the catacomb that says that Flavia Domatilla donated it to the Christians. You can find pictures too.
That just means Flavius liked promoting Christianity. That, by itself, does not prove that he invented it.
Fun chat so far. Never read an argument like this. You are really stressing my intellectual muscles
Cheers :)
Jeff,
what about atheist Christians?
http://www.lifechurch.tv/watch/christian-atheist/
Just Google atheist Christians church.
I'm not American but the preaching is something I'm an expert in.
Seen 30 min in that dudes preaching and guess what, they always start the same.
First they make you feel guilty because you are human and cannot reach what is written in the bible, and then they blame you for it, instead of thinking that the bible is flawed and unrealistic.
They make you feel guilty first to make you accept incredibly ridiculous things later.
It is a proven effective method.
"atheist Christians?"
Propaganda word that does not exist.
You should be ashamed to even mentioning that garbage in a serious debate.
I don't really see how you can be a Christian, and believe in Christ, without believing in at least part of the bible. Now, if you mean that you don't believe the WHOLE thing, fair enough. I don't think the vast majority of normal Christians believe the WHOLE thing, only the parts they like and/or happen to agree with. I fail to see how this makes you very different from regular moderate Christians, you just didn't drink quite as much of the Kool-Aid as the others.
Well, so? That doesn't make you any more right, or less credulous. Matter of fact, it is even less consistent.
Sir Travis, could you elaborate on your meaning?
Absolutely. You have basically rejected the theology, yet tried to keep the god. If one rejects the bible, then they have no real foundation to actually believe any of the things in it. It would be like rejecting Greek mythology, yet continuing to believe in Zeus.
My faith is not in a book. it comes from other sources. And yes, I reject the PREVAILING theology, but that does not mean I do not have a Christian theology of my own.
I did not say I rejected the bible (please, everyone, please stop putting words in my mouth). I said I do not BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE and that the bible is propoganda. that does not mean it cannot be a source for a divine life journey
"My faith is not in a book. it comes from other sources."
That was kind of my point. I can somewhat understand someone buying the whole Jesus bit if it is because they believe that their fictional book is actually true, but outside of that, I don't really see anyone else would buy it.
"And yes, I reject the PREVAILING theology, but that does not mean I do not have a Christian theology of my own."
That is about like rejecting Harry Potter as J. K. Rowling wrote it, but insisting that he is still real anyway.
"I did not say I rejected the bible (please, everyone, please stop putting words in my mouth). I said I do not BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE and that the bible is propoganda."
I do not believe in Zeus.
I reject Zeus.
Explain the difference in these two statements.
"that does not mean it cannot be a source for a divine life journey"
Given that I don't even know what a 'divine life journey' is, I don't even know what you are trying to say here, so I am not going to comment on it.
My faith is not in a book. it comes from other sources"
'That was kind of my point. I can somewhat understand someone buying the whole Jesus bit if it is because they believe that their fictional book is actually true, but outside of that, I don't really see anyone else would buy it.'
It's a wisdom book in my view. it has it's flaws and it has its strengths. I can still be a Buddhist, for example, and hisagree with some of Buddha's teachings.
"And yes, I reject the PREVAILING theology, but that does not mean I do not have a Christian theology of my own."
'That is about like rejecting Harry Potter as J. K. Rowling wrote it, but insisting that he is still real anyway.'
The analogy itself is fine but the specific example is fallacious. J K Rowling wrote the book intending it to be fiction and the readings of the book acknowledge this. A better example would be reading a sci fi book by asimov and seeing if parts of it could be true
"I did not say I rejected the bible (please, everyone, please stop putting words in my mouth). I said I do not BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE and that the bible is propoganda."
'I do not believe in Zeus.
I reject Zeus.
Explain the difference in these two statements.'
not quite. Everything is propoganda. This site is propoganda. People are propoganda mouthpieces. Propoganda is an evil approach, but that does not address the issue of whether something is true or false. So equating my not belief in the bible and recognizing it as propoganda is fallacious. Beliving in something is to use it as the very foundation of your life. I do not do this with the bible. I see it as an interesting view into the lives of people back then. The rest is up to me.
"that does not mean it cannot be a source for a divine life journey"
'Given that I don't even know what a 'divine life journey' is, I don't even know what you are trying to say here, so I am not going to comment on it.'
That's fine. I'm not here to preach
"It's a wisdom book in my view. it has it's flaws and it has its strengths."
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about the merit of the bible.
"I can still be a Buddhist, for example, and hisagree with some of Buddha's teachings."
Perhaps, but you don't have to believe in Buddha in order to be a Buddhist. You do not have to believe in the divinity of Buddha, or that he can save you. Yet, that would seem to be on the list of required beliefs about Christ to qualify as a Christian, according to what I know about Christianity.
"The analogy itself is fine but the specific example is fallacious. J K Rowling wrote the book intending it to be fiction and the readings of the book acknowledge this. A better example would be reading a sci fi book by asimov and seeing if parts of it could be true"
Perhaps, but I don't really see that great a distinction. Hell, I find Harry Potter INFINITELY more plausible than the bible. However, to borrow from your example, it would be like rejecting the majority of Sci Fi by Asimov, but then calling yourself an Asimovian because you find a select few parts that you think could be true.
"not quite. Everything is propoganda. This site is propoganda. People are propoganda mouthpieces."
Wow, and I thought I was cynical.
"Propoganda is an evil approach, but that does not address the issue of whether something is true or false."
I am not sure exactly what that has to do with my point, but I will wait to see if you ever get around to it.
"So equating my not belief in the bible and recognizing it as propoganda is fallacious."
What? I am NOT the one discussing or bringing up propaganda, and I am not the one that asserted that you didn't believe in the bible. Perhaps it is fallacious, but if so, why did YOU do it?
"Beliving in something is to use it as the very foundation of your life."
Nope. I believe in a number of things, but I am not using them as the 'very foundation of my life'. Perhaps that is what some people do, but I base my life more on my responsibilities and my choices than my beliefs.
"I do not do this with the bible. I see it as an interesting view into the lives of people back then. The rest is up to me."
Again, if you do not believe in it, why believe anything in it?
"That's fine. I'm not here to preach"
Cool, I'm not sure I want to know what you mean, sounds rather theisty.
The exact definition of what makes someone Christian is a bit ambiguous; as far as I'm concerned, if you self identify as one: that's good enough for me. I was just commenting that it sounded like deism.
well, I believe miracles are possible. I neither discount or account for the possibility that a possible God intervenes in the universe
Vincent,
How do you define miracle?
If God created the natural processes and forces of the physical world that mathematics can describe, what would be the mathematical formula for a miracle?
I'm having a difficult time envisioning a miracle, as if God were some superman who shows up at our convince to save us, say from a highway accident. Why would God interfere with the natural processes he created in the first place? Biblical stories of miracles are just that: stories. When one writes a story, you can put in anything you want. It is up to the reader to recognize it as a story, and interpret it according to its inherent nature.
"Vincent,
How do you define miracle? "
*shrug
It's generally accepted that being christian means you believe in Jesus Christ -- who is also "generally accepted" to be the "Son of God". Yet you say you follow the teachings of Jesus, much as the followers of Gandhi follow his teachings.
What you have done is to basically invent your own philosophy. It's not a religion -- I'm not a Buddhist, but the Dalai Lama makes a LOT of sense, IMO. You're not a christian, you're an atheist. Specifically, most likely apatheist.
We share one thing in common -- there are passages in the bible that make sense, but by and large, the book is bullshit. You accept the teachings/philosophy of Jesus, while I accept some things the book said, simply by virtue of the fact that they make sense. That HE said any of them is irrelevant to me.
"The love of money is the root of all evil." I happen to agree with this, greed makes people do truly evil things.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A pretty good code of conduct.
Without going back and reviewing the book (I'd rather have a prostate exam), I'm not remembering much else.
I am a declared atheist, and I am convinced that NONE of the "known gods" are real. IF there is a 'god', IT IS AT PRESENT UNDISCOVERED.
labels are hard. but yea, I'm largely an apathiest. Even if God was real, I wouldn't want him meddling in every day affairs. I still regard myself as a christian though for the simple reason it largely means "follower of Christ", which I try to do. I also follow other teachers, but the Jesus of the gospels moreso
perhaps a better term is faitheist
Pages