100 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
"Cyber, I took this to mean

"Cyber, I took this to mean that you did not want the sources. I was going to provide them for Travis H as well, since he requested them."

You took it incorrectly.

"But if you did, all the while, want something "substantive" (such as scholarly sources), then your remark is even more puzzling, or...most definitely sassy lol."

The origin of this, if you'll recall, was a request for something substantive, not just assertions like "many" say such and thus (how many and who) or "common knowledge".
This request doesn't fall into any of my burning desire categories. I'm simply asking that you bring real information to the table instead of nebulous assertions.

"Why don't you take a stab at defining it?"
Because I did not call myself by that word, you did.

Travis Hedglin's picture
I am willing to examine the

I am willing to examine the reasons some scholars believe the accounts to be first-hand, I can't promise I will agree with them, but I will promise to try not to let my bias prevent me from dismissing it unfairly. From your earlier comment, you seem to believe they have good evidence or reasons to conclude they are first-hand accounts, I am interested in if they really do.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
watch this, it leaves no

watch this, it leaves no doubt that the gospels are myth making masterpieces.

there are not accounts what so ever, they are very precise literary works created to make a myth or a religion.

Debate of Carrier vs William lain Craig

Travis Hedglin's picture
Well, I can't speak for

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would like to hear the evidence concerning why these scholars believe them to be first-hand accounts. I am not too concerned about the percentage they represent, I am little more intrigued by the evidence they cite for their conclusions, as I am more concerned with accuracy than popularity.

Chris T.'s picture
I really like their

I really like their philosophy. To me, it's among the best and adapted to modern times. Even though some of it is contradictive, most of it is legit. As far as the magik, what they call magik is not what we call magic. To them "magik" is a state of mind not Merlin status. As in mood and character.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
I agree. And thank you for

I agree. And thank you for being one of the only people to actually discuss the original post.

logicsoldier's picture
my best friend is Christian

my best friend is Christian and i am atheist, i know more about Christianity then her.
its sad....

Athena Nicole Pothakos's picture
Jumping in a little late here

Jumping in a little late here... And it's always fun to jump in after someone just had a dispute.

I've been a Satanist for 8 years now. While they do call themselves religious, it's in the context that man is his own god. I don't particularly call myself religious, completely the opposite. My husband is an atheist and I'm a Satanist (aka angry atheist). However, the CoS was founded on the idea that we're not afraid to be human and we're gonna rub this in the face of Christianity by doing everything they see as wrong and calling ourselves religious about it.
I'm proud to be a Satanist. I've found myself so much happier since discovering Satanism. Even though there is an entire community of atheists out there, it's nice to have a sect of atheists who are just as angry as I am about the lies and manipulation of Christianity/Catholicism, specifically.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
Thank you for sharing! It's

Thank you for sharing! It's wonderful to have input from someone who is actually a part of the CoS.


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.