What is with Atheists these days?
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.
maybe @CHK-C can answer that question for you...
"But to celebrate it as a win is dishonest."
No one was celebrating a "win" - I wasn't even aware there was a contest. All I saw was a perfectly valid attempt to point out to you how dishonest your original summation of your position ended up being. Perhaps you had the best of intentions - but you fell right onto your face.
"Give me a pass on this one guys, and let’s not use the easiest of examples to disqualify an entire religion."
No, you don't "get a pass." You get called out so that maybe, just maybe, you can try and take note of how badly you failed, and try harder next time. And no one used it as an excuse to "disqualify an entire religion." It was entirely about displaying to you how full of crap you were. You're free to try and be less full of crap from here on out... but you've already started a track record. That's how this works. No reset button... no save game and restore... no fresh respawn. You get to deal with who you are and who you were... just like any of us.
"I wasn't even aware there was a contest."
What!! A contest?! What the hell? No one told me. Y'all need to get these memos delivered better...
***tree rumbles off to the forest grumbling about a contest no one told me about***
"maybe @CHK-C can answer that question for you..."
Ahhhhhh...avoidance...Thanks for proving my point without answering.
"maybe @CHK-C can answer that question for you..."
C'mon dawg (see what I did there?), this was a very clever response. Okay, I guess I have to explain it to you. CHK-C's profile picture is an offensive depiction of a religious symbol. Just using it to point out the irony of your comments, just thought that would be enough.
To answer the question: YOU'RE RIGHT! I came off initially as an aggressor, I already gave you that. (although I thought it was more funny than everyone else apparently) The name also is tribute to the fact that a large majority (NOT ALL OF YOU) of atheists are saying that exact thing about religious people. So yes, doG, it was rude. and yes doG, It can hurt dialogue before it begins, and YES DOG, we are all guilty of it. Is that a fair response?
@DAEMS Re: "Clever" response
Erg.... *face palm*... Aaaaaand you STILL don't get it... *rolling eyes*... Okay, I cannot believe I am actually having to explain this, but at this point I really shouldn't be all that surprised. Anyway....
You tossed off your behavior onto CHK-C using the excuse, "(his) profile picture is an offensive depiction of a religious symbol." Offensive to whom, exactly? In case you didn't realize it, you are on an ATHEIST site. And dollars-to-donuts I'm willing to bet most of the folks on here find CHK-C's profile pic to be quite amusing. Personally, I think it is hilarious. Not the least little bit offensive to me. However, let's turn this around a bit. Let's say I used CHK-C's profile pic to visit a theist site under the guise of "wanting to have civil conversations and learn about that particular religion." And the very first remarks I post are a shotgun blast of insults to all theists on that site. How much of a warm welcome do you think I would receive? But wait! It gets better! I then start hurling vicious insults toward individuals, but when called out on them (asuming they haven't booted my ass out yet), my excuses are, "I only do that because you guys are being mean to me, because I was only joking at first and y'all don't have a sense of humor. Besides, I was drunk when I insulted everybody, and that one lady here has an offensive profile pic of Mary holding baby Jesus." Hmmmmm..... *raising an eyebrow*....
Keep on digging that hole, pal. You just might get lucky and find hell long before the rest of us...
It seems to me like you guys are enjoying the input from us theists. Jut look at the recent activity on the threads. If you didn’t like it, we wouldn’t be discussing ;)
O! how true. And at least some can be honest. Even owning up to our own poopoos. ;-P
@DAEMS Re: "It seems to me like you guys are enjoying the input from us theists."
Damn, dude. Looks like I was totally right earlier today when I told a couple of buddies you deflect more than Wonder Woman's bracelets. Thanks for the confirmation... *chuckle*...
Well I will take the fact that you are even discussing me with your “buddies” as a compliment. But what am I deflecting? Trying to answer from my phone and it is difficult. Please pose he question as a new comment on the bottom of the thread and I will address it.
@ DAEMS re: "CHK-C's profile picture is an offensive depiction of a religious symbol."
Don't you mean it is actually a true depiction of how to properly use a torture device?
What makes it religious?
I see a most despicable torture. One the Christians brought back and popularized during the Spanish Inquisition along with burning at the stack. And sometimes they would do both. Hang you on the cross for a day or two, then burn you. Christians… psshh (back at you you insulter)
@arakish: I see a most despicable torture. One the Christians brought back and popularized during the Spanish Inquisition
Crucifixion was the Roman execution method for slaves, rebels, and non-Romans. The Christian use of the cross as a symbol is a constant reminder that the Christians went from being persecuted by the Roman Empire to being the Roman Empire. In fact, the behavior of the Christian church would have embarrassed Caligula and Nero (although Tiberius was a pedophile and would have fitted right in.)
Can you provide a source that shows crucifixion was used during the inquisitions?
For fun I have provided a link that shows the top 10 tortures used during the inquisition (crucifixion not included). Granted it is from “Ranker” it is still interesting. How cruel we can be!
I don't even know if the books still exist. I read them when I was a child and they were probably published in the 50s, maybe even 40s. They were some of the books my dad collected from when he was going to college while in the USAF. I just remember the paintings showing people tied up to an "X" of planks of wood while being burned. Crucifixion then burning. Just how the Carthaginians did it I think. Y'all will have to wait for me to research. My jaw is still bothering me badly (possible infection inside the bone) and I am forcing myself to post here.
Also, if you think about it, what became the Moors that later invaded Spain, were some escaped Carthaginians in some history books I have read. Never researched to see if that was true.
What has been depicted in most books is just a simple utility pole with a person tied to it. Incredible waste of a pole. Two planks tied in a X is less wasteful and easier. Of course, the only surviving texts from that horrible age do say nothing more than tying the person to a stake and burning them.
Using logic, I would use two planks tied in an X, tie the person on the X, prop the X with another stake. With a wooden pole, at least two meters of it would have to be buried else the person can push/pull the thing out of the ground. Sounds a lot easier to use an X with third pole. When tied to the X, the person cannot get any purchase on the ground to try and get away. Lay the X flat. tie each wrist/arm and each ankle/leg securely, then prop the X up with a third stake like a tripod. A lot harder for the person to fight against, and it is less wasteful of wood, and it is easier to construct. Plus the ultimate punishment for witches, warlocks, and unbelievers. Do to them what happened to Heysoos, then burn them.
EDIT: grammar errors
While I do appreciate the “history” lesson, this is a “word salad” to say you have no source. Thank you for your honesty.
"Burning was the punishment under ancient Roman punishment for treason after crucifixion had been abolished in the fourth century." The Inquisition, starting in the 13th Century, lasted 700 years, 1231 A.D. to 1826.
With that said, there is little difference between crucifixion and being burned at the stake other than the fire. The oldest Christian sources assert Jesus was nailed to a pole or a tree (Not A Cross). The Crosses the Romans used for crucifixion were not crosses but more like big letter "T's,"
"The instrument of Jesus' crucifixion (known in Latin as crux, in Greek as stauros) is generally taken to have been composed of an upright wooden beam to which was added a transom, thus forming a "cruciform" or T-shaped structure."
"Most Christian denominations present the Christian cross in this form, and the tradition of the T-shape can be traced to early Christianity and the Church fathers. Nonetheless, some late-19th century scholars maintained that it was a simple stake (crux simplex)."
Crucifixion on a crux simplex ad affixionem: drawing in a 1629 reprint of De cruce of Justus Lipsius (1547-1606):
Point Being: It really does not matter what you call it. People were being hung from poles and tortured.
There isn't a lot of merit to the Christ on the Cross idea. It basically survives because of tradition and not actual facts. The earliest portrays of the death of Jesus have him dying on a pole.
Not even Constantine's vision was one of the Christian Cross: It was a symbol called the Chi Rho, and this is what he painted on the shields of his soldiers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho#/media/File:Simple_Labarum2.svg
In the end - It can not be said that people were "Crucified" during the inquisitions. At the same time, what happened during the inquisition and what allegedly happened to the Jesus character really weren't to different from each other.
Not Justifying anything or even making any sort of assertion. Just looking at the facts. The whole Christian Crucifixion on a Cross thing is largely myth and tradition with not much supporting it. There is no evidence of the Christian view of Crucifixion being used during the Inquisition but that seems to be more of a definition of terms and not factual torture and execution methods.
@DoesAtheism.... Can you provide a source that shows crucifixion was used during the inquisitions?
No. But I didn't say that. It's a good idea to name the person whose post you're replying to.
The link you provided is quite disturbing.
Crucifixion is not a Christian torture. It was used by the Romans, who were pagan. And what’s fascinating is if you look in the Old Testament you will see examples of symbolism of the Cross being used for miraculous reasons. For instance. When Moses parted the Red Sea? He made the sign of the Cross and it was done. Why would Moses use the symbol of the Cross 2000 years prior to Christ’s crucifixion?
@DoesAtheismEven...Why would Moses use the symbol of the Cross 2000 years prior to Christ’s crucifixion?
The cross, in such forms as the Swastika, has been a religious symbol for thousands of years. It's not surprising that it pops up in Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Did you know that a burning cross was used to summon the clans to war in the Scottish highlands? Do you know of any other Klans that use burning crosses? (Clue: Their flag contains the Saltire--the cross of St. Andrew.)
There is no objective evidence Moses existed at all. As for the exodus from Egypt it's a complete myth. After decades of archaeological research throughout the region by religious scholars they've been forced to admit there is no evidence that the Hebrews were ever present in Egypt during that period in any significant numbers. Research this claim for yourself if you doubt it.
What's fascinating is the strident hubris theists and religious apologists attach to claims that have no evidence whatsoever to support them .
You just claimed it's amazing that a fictional character was claimed to have performed a fictional act which resulted in a fictional suspension of known physical laws such as gravity, and you didn't miss a beat.
This is all too familiar of course, and speaks volumes about your ability to objectively examine claims and beliefs that relate to your a priori religious beliefs?
Start with this...
These two lines have just gone into the "Best of Sheldon" folder. Mate....still smiling....10,000 'likes' to you sir....Bravo!
My profile picture is Ronald McDonald being crucified.
How is that offensive to anyone other than McDonald's fans?
Anyone offended by that probably shouldn't watch Monty Python's Life of Brian. For everyone else it's funny as fuck, watch it.
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
Life of Brian should have a health warning. It's so funny it can give you a hernia.
"Are you the popular people's front of Judea?"
"Fuck off, we're the Judean people's popular front."
"You're all different."
"Yes, we're all different."
"Er, I'm not."
"So yes, doG, it was rude. and yes doG, It can hurt dialogue before it begins, and YES DOG, we are all guilty of it. Is that a fair response?"
Well thanks for answering the question and not continuing the dishonesty...and I would agree with you, if this site was not an atheist site. I am here to be with my fellow atheists, You are here to try and discredit what you confuse as our belief system. We can call ourselves funny names, as we are atheists on an atheist site...the atheists here know our intent is to make other atheists smile. Theists coming to an atheist site with a username like yours, are not on a theist site, and are purposefully on an atheist site for other antagonizing reasons...not to hang with atheists...but for an obviously different purpose.
Which leads back to your initial questioning parable...with a new question. Do you think that your self proclaimed and self observed negative atheist responses are warranted when encountered by a theist of your intent on our site?
As Tin-Man pointed out, I did try a theist site. I was getting good discussions going until I posted an essay that completely disproved the Noahacian Flood Myth.
Guess what happened. While I was still perusing the boards, the Admins/Mods banished me from the site. Additionally, they even deleted my essay post.
At least here, we will leave your posts up regardless of what they contain unless, they are just way out in left field, plagiarism, or in foreign language. It is OK to put a sentence or two in a foreign language as long as also provide a translation.
So… see? Us atheists are actually nicer and more moral than you theists. You theists are the ones who cannot handle criticism without losing it. Why is that?
“You theists are the ones who cannot handle criticism without losing it. Why is that?”
More ironic than funny really.
Especially given how many of you start with the pretence you are seeking rational debate and discussion. A veneer that quickly peels away when you realise atheists have given these matters a lot of serious thought, and your facile unevidenced sermons run into sound rational objections.
I mean look how quickly you stopped pretending you wanted to discuss morality when your assertions were questioned.
You claimed it is in your opinion immoral to torture children, but can't even say why despite having had months to answer.
So now you're just dropping in the odd trolling response, and of course true to form it's all the atheists that in your opinion are somehow to blame because you have made irrational unevidenced assertions for objective morality you can't defend when asked to, and which fall apart under even cursory scrutiny.
If you want anyone to pay due deference to any belief or claim the very minimum you should be able to offer is some objective evidence and sound rational responses when they are held up to proper scrutiny and your claims are questioned. You as we have seen can do neither.
Why if you claim objective morality exists, can you not offer a single objective moral assertion that your deity hasn't either broken in your own bible or condoned in its followers?
The BEST you've managed is the asinine evasion tactic of ignoring the question and asking why we care as atheists, as if you haven't noticed it is a logical negation of your whole premise for objective morality.
FYI I am neither angered nor annoyed nor do I particularly care that you believe such an obviously erroneous and facile claim. Yet I can still offer sound reputations.
Your evasion in ignoringthese questions however suggest it is you who is unable to cope with your beliefs and assertions being questioned. I hold no belief I wouldn't call into question if proper evidence demanded it.
Nor do I hold any belief for which sufficient objective evidence isnt demonstrated, and I treat all claims and beliefs the same with an open mind and no bias. Unlike your obvious blinketed and intransigent bias for one unevidenced superstition over all the others.