Causes of Atheism

[amrchaos]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Not really.

I mean, obviously, the miracle working God Man of the New Testament is a myth, obviously.

As for a "Historical" Jesus, there's no real evidence for that other than the writings of people who never met him personally. The Gospels contradict each other on lots of key points.

The bible has been copied and translated so many times and each had its own agenda to push. I once read that its that "Jesus" is a composite of several/many different teachers, profits and a whole lot of wishful thinking but really, there's no way to know.

OK--so the term "Historical" is in reference to documentations and resources left behind by unbiased sources. Thus, evidence left behind by Christians or evidence that was obviously handled by Christians do not meet this criteria because christians, any christian, is obviously not an unbiased source nor can be considered a trustworthy handler of such information.

OK--I understand completely. So what would be needed is something like a tradesman from India that made remarks about Jesus but, also, has not converted to christianity.

Note that a Jewish rabbi criticizing Jesus or Romans acknowledging the existence of Jesus may not foot the Bill. The records and observer has to be shielded from the reach of Christian influence.

That is a pretty tall order. Pretty much every inch of the Roman empire fell under christian influence. Thus any records found in it could be suspect.

Funny how the evidence of a Historical Moses is actually much more solid than that of Jesus. You could even say that proof of a historical Moses is carved in stone, while the proof of a Historical Jesus is carved in the minds of christians....but then that is the problem.

 

[Disir]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Exactly what I said. No historical Jesus. Of those people with the same name none of them are the big JC. None.

Not at all. It's very easy to defend. Look at the dates that the documents surfaced. Look at the alleged date of birth and the alleged date of death. No eyewitness contemporaries and he didn't bother to write anything down, nobody else during that time frame bothered to write anything down. There is nothing. Everything that has been included has been a forgery. Hell, Josephus isn't even born until 37 CE. Even one of the alleged Pauline epistles says that he met Jesus in a dream. The whole shining star etc. a savior is born. Mithridates IV and it's a comet. Notably comets are a good omen in Persia but not so much when compared to say......ancient cultures in what we now call China. St. Jerome admitted that he knew that he gave the wrong translation for a virgin birth.

And given St. Jerome's birth and death, I think we know why.

The four gospels are referred to as war literature. The first one surfaces during a lull of the Jewish War and then after. We know who was responsible for pulling those four and why.

I hate to make this short but I have to take off.

 

[rdean]

What caused occult and mystical beliefs?

Fear.

Perhaps. Maybe it was simple curiosity.

Curiosity:

Curiosity | Define Curiosity at Dictionary.com

Nothing about the occult or mysticism. I suspect it's mostly to do with things that can be proven to be "real".

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Exactly what I said. No historical Jesus. Of those people with the same name none of them are the big JC. None.

Not at all. It's very easy to defend. Look at the dates that the documents surfaced. Look at the alleged date of birth and the alleged date of death. No eyewitness contemporaries and he didn't bother to write anything down, nobody else during that time frame bothered to write anything down. There is nothing. Everything that has been included has been a forgery. Hell, Josephus isn't even born until 37 CE. Even one of the alleged Pauline epistles says that he met Jesus in a dream. The whole shining star etc. a savior is born. Mithridates IV and it's a comet. Notably comets are a good omen in Persia but not so much when compared to say......ancient cultures in what we now call China. St. Jerome admitted that he knew that he gave the wrong translation for a virgin birth.

And given St. Jerome's birth and death, I think we know why.

The four gospels are referred to as war literature. The first one surfaces during a lull of the Jewish War and then after. We know who was responsible for pulling those four and why.

I hate to make this short but I have to take off.

OK--In other words, all the "historical information" about Jesus is, well, some what questionable and inaccurate.

Hmmm--after reading your post again, I realize the vast understatement I have made of your post.

 

[GISMYS]

LOL!!! little pathetic evil ,sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to argue and fight against GOD for thousands of years just as you are,most of them are dead and in hell,do you really want to join them there???? GOD'S living,eternal WORD lives on for eternity.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You know nothing, all you have is conjecture (and a lot of anger). Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power.

Your continued insistence of knowing all is hilarious.

False equivalence.

Life exists as does the universe. Neither implies the existence of a higher power. Your erroneous conflation of the origin of life and a higher power is based upon nothing but your beliefs. Your beliefs are a mere conjecture that life originated from a higher power. The onus is on you to (a) prove that your higher power exists, and (b) prove that your higher power is responsible for the origination of life.

In essence you are the one with no standing to make any claims on the origin of life since you are basing your position on nothing more than your personal belief sans any evidence whatsoever.

Nonsense. Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Thanks.

You made the following statement;

Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power

Per that statement you made the false equivalence that there must be a connection between the origin of life and the existence/non existence of a higher power.

The onus is on you to prove a connection between life and this "higher power" first. We already have hard evidence that life exists. If it originated with your "higher power" then there should be evidence to that effect. There is none whatsoever.

So demanding that the origin of life is a prerequisite for making that determination is fallacious.

You also made this statement;

Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Use of the terms "genesis" and "enlighten the world" indicate that you embrace religion. Furthermore your erroneous conflation of the origin of life as a requirement for the existence (or not) of your higher power is is yet another indication. A true agnostic would not be dogmatic in the way you are making your unreasonable demand.

 

[amrchaos]

LOL!!! little pathetic evil ,sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to argue and fight against GOD for thousands of years just as you are,most of them are dead and in hell,do you really want to join them there???? GOD'S living,eternal WORD lives on for eternity.

Allegorically, I think I am in flames. And as Disir has demonstrated, there is only more of it. But I really don't think I need anymore, I already got the gist of what religion is, how it is useful and how it can be abused. I mean I could deepen my knowledge of, say, christianity throughout the ages of man.But I consider that to be primarily a theological undertaking that is not necessary except to fill my curiosity.


Now I am assuming that to escape the flames I should accept god and forget the things I have come across. To rewrite my thinking and accept your take on your beliefs. And to do this while you make use of the same psychological tactics that I have learned are vacuous ramblings based on the idea that man is cattle.

That is ok. The flames are not so demanding. I think I will stay here.

 

[GISMYS]

LOL!!! little pathetic evil ,sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to argue and fight against GOD for thousands of years just as you are,most of them are dead and in hell,do you really want to join them there???? GOD'S living,eternal WORD lives on for eternity.

Allegorically, I think I am in flames. And as Disir has demonstrated, there is only more of it. But I really don't think I need anymore, I already got the gist of what religion is, how it is useful and how it can be abused. I mean I could deepen my knowledge of, say, christianity throughout the ages of man.But I consider that to be primarily a theological undertaking that is not necessary except to fill my curiosity.


Now I am assuming that to escape the flames I should accept god and forget the things I have come across. To rewrite my thinking and accept your take on your beliefs. And to do this while you make use of the same psychological tactics that I have learned are vacuous ramblings based on the idea that man is cattle.

That is ok. The flames are not so demanding. I think I will stay here.

SEEK TO KNOW TRUTH=GOD not religion,Knowing GOD and religion are not the same.

 

[MaxGrit]

According to some stupid atheists' fallacious logic, history doesn't exists.

 

[Pennywise]

False equivalence.

Life exists as does the universe. Neither implies the existence of a higher power. Your erroneous conflation of the origin of life and a higher power is based upon nothing but your beliefs. Your beliefs are a mere conjecture that life originated from a higher power. The onus is on you to (a) prove that your higher power exists, and (b) prove that your higher power is responsible for the origination of life.

In essence you are the one with no standing to make any claims on the origin of life since you are basing your position on nothing more than your personal belief sans any evidence whatsoever.

Nonsense. Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Thanks.

You made the following statement;

Unless you can enlighten the world as to the origin of life, you have no standing to make any claims as to the existence or non existence of a higher power

Per that statement you made the false equivalence that there must be a connection between the origin of life and the existence/non existence of a higher power.

The onus is on you to prove a connection between life and this "higher power" first. We already have hard evidence that life exists. If it originated with your "higher power" then there should be evidence to that effect. There is none whatsoever.

So demanding that the origin of life is a prerequisite for making that determination is fallacious.

You also made this statement;

Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Use of the terms "genesis" and "enlighten the world" indicate that you embrace religion. Furthermore your erroneous conflation of the origin of life as a requirement for the existence (or not) of your higher power is is yet another indication. A true agnostic would not be dogmatic in the way you are making your unreasonable demand.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Enlightenment is a spiritual philosophical goal, not a religious tenet. Genesis is a term that has become part of the public vernacular, much like Xerox or Band Aid.

The origin of life is an enigma, but we do know how life is perpetuated, therefore there is no way to know from whence life sprang, and the idea that it was derived of another form is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

I do not embrace religion, nor do I disdain it. But to atheists, anyone who does not discard or mock religion must be a closet theist. That is your narrow mind attempting to function beyond its ability.

 

[amrchaos]

LOL!!! little pathetic evil ,sin loving,GOD rejecting man has been trying to argue and fight against GOD for thousands of years just as you are,most of them are dead and in hell,do you really want to join them there???? GOD'S living,eternal WORD lives on for eternity.

Allegorically, I think I am in flames. And as Disir has demonstrated, there is only more of it. But I really don't think I need anymore, I already got the gist of what religion is, how it is useful and how it can be abused. I mean I could deepen my knowledge of, say, christianity throughout the ages of man.But I consider that to be primarily a theological undertaking that is not necessary except to fill my curiosity.


Now I am assuming that to escape the flames I should accept god and forget the things I have come across. To rewrite my thinking and accept your take on your beliefs. And to do this while you make use of the same psychological tactics that I have learned are vacuous ramblings based on the idea that man is cattle.

That is ok. The flames are not so demanding. I think I will stay here.

SEEK TO KNOW TRUTH=GOD not religion,Knowing GOD and religion are not the same.

Before you can gain the knowledge of God, you must learn the religion that purports this God.

For instance, can you learn about Jesus from Hindi texts? How about Abraham's God?
The answer is no and No. So how do you know about the god you believe in? How did you gain knowledge about this god? From the religion you practiced.

Without the religion, your basic knowledge and understanding about your god simply vanishes. This realization should make you wish that you didn't make that claim about DNA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nonsense. Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Thanks.

You made the following statement;


Per that statement you made the false equivalence that there must be a connection between the origin of life and the existence/non existence of a higher power.

The onus is on you to prove a connection between life and this "higher power" first. We already have hard evidence that life exists. If it originated with your "higher power" then there should be evidence to that effect. There is none whatsoever.

So demanding that the origin of life is a prerequisite for making that determination is fallacious.

You also made this statement;

Explain the origin of life. Without that knowledge there is no way to prove or disprove its genesis.

Use of the terms "genesis" and "enlighten the world" indicate that you embrace religion. Furthermore your erroneous conflation of the origin of life as a requirement for the existence (or not) of your higher power is is yet another indication. A true agnostic would not be dogmatic in the way you are making your unreasonable demand.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Enlightenment is a spiritual philosophical goal, not a religious tenet. Genesis is a term that has become part of the public vernacular, much like Xerox or Band Aid.

The origin of life is an enigma, but we do know how life is perpetuated, therefore there is no way to know from whence life sprang, and the idea that it was derived of another form is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

I do not embrace religion, nor do I disdain it. But to atheists, anyone who does not discard or mock religion must be a closet theist. That is your narrow mind attempting to function beyond its ability.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are a theist masquerading as an agnostic. Only theists insult atheists in the manner that you just did. Genuine agnostics don't care that much about religion or atheists to make that fallacious allegation.

Looks like you just outted yourself!

 

[amrchaos]

By the way. GISMYS, you should be careful about all these claims you make about God

You are creating a body of characteristics that can be used to define God. Why must be careful about this, you say. Because some characteristics are not for a physical being, but a conceptual or spiritual one. Others characteristics can only apply to a concept--not a conceptual being or spiritual one. And some characteristics are only inherited traits of an individual and has nothing to do with a being outside that individual.

In other words, it is possible that you do not have a standard, basic understanding of the god of the Bible. This can be determined by how you jump from characteristic to characteristic in your description of the god of the Bible.

Care must be taking. Or you will find yourself in a mountain of contradictory trouble.

 

[Pennywise]

You made the following statement;


Per that statement you made the false equivalence that there must be a connection between the origin of life and the existence/non existence of a higher power.

The onus is on you to prove a connection between life and this "higher power" first. We already have hard evidence that life exists. If it originated with your "higher power" then there should be evidence to that effect. There is none whatsoever.

So demanding that the origin of life is a prerequisite for making that determination is fallacious.

You also made this statement;



Use of the terms "genesis" and "enlighten the world" indicate that you embrace religion. Furthermore your erroneous conflation of the origin of life as a requirement for the existence (or not) of your higher power is is yet another indication. A true agnostic would not be dogmatic in the way you are making your unreasonable demand.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Enlightenment is a spiritual philosophical goal, not a religious tenet. Genesis is a term that has become part of the public vernacular, much like Xerox or Band Aid.

The origin of life is an enigma, but we do know how life is perpetuated, therefore there is no way to know from whence life sprang, and the idea that it was derived of another form is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

I do not embrace religion, nor do I disdain it. But to atheists, anyone who does not discard or mock religion must be a closet theist. That is your narrow mind attempting to function beyond its ability.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are a theist masquerading as an agnostic. Only theists insult atheists in the manner that you just did. Genuine agnostics don't care that much about religion or atheists to make that fallacious allegation.

Looks like you just outted yourself!

Your grand winning hand is made of air.

Where do you get that "genuine agnostics" don't care about religion? That is the atheist arrogance, a trait that too many of you carry like an albatross. It is what propels you to mark others with a scarlet letter that makes your narrow view easier to live with in the quiet moments.

Genuine agnostics- as though you are even capable to discern such a thing. The arrogance is profound.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Enlightenment is a spiritual philosophical goal, not a religious tenet. Genesis is a term that has become part of the public vernacular, much like Xerox or Band Aid.

The origin of life is an enigma, but we do know how life is perpetuated, therefore there is no way to know from whence life sprang, and the idea that it was derived of another form is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

I do not embrace religion, nor do I disdain it. But to atheists, anyone who does not discard or mock religion must be a closet theist. That is your narrow mind attempting to function beyond its ability.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are a theist masquerading as an agnostic. Only theists insult atheists in the manner that you just did. Genuine agnostics don't care that much about religion or atheists to make that fallacious allegation.

Looks like you just outted yourself!

Your grand winning hand is made of air.

Where do you get that "genuine agnostics" don't care about religion? That is the atheist arrogance, a trait that too many of you carry like an albatross. It is what propels you to mark others with a scarlet letter that makes your narrow view easier to live with in the quiet moments.

Genuine agnostics- as though you are even capable to discern such a thing. The arrogance is profound.

Still your hole even deeper?

Theists call atheists arrogant whereas genuine agnostics don't care.

And then you go using another theist term like "scarlet letter".

I can see why you picked your name, it suits you perfectly!

 

[Pennywise]

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are a theist masquerading as an agnostic. Only theists insult atheists in the manner that you just did. Genuine agnostics don't care that much about religion or atheists to make that fallacious allegation.

Looks like you just outted yourself!

Your grand winning hand is made of air.

Where do you get that "genuine agnostics" don't care about religion? That is the atheist arrogance, a trait that too many of you carry like an albatross. It is what propels you to mark others with a scarlet letter that makes your narrow view easier to live with in the quiet moments.

Genuine agnostics- as though you are even capable to discern such a thing. The arrogance is profound.

Still your hole even deeper?

Theists call atheists arrogant whereas genuine agnostics don't care.

And then you go using another theist term like "scarlet letter".

I can see why you picked your name, it suits you perfectly!

Dear Moron,

I apologize for taking your points far more seriously than they merit.

Your understanding of agnostics is retarded (and I mean that in the clinical sense). You think because one declares to "not know" that one "does not care". You are foolish, like an unschooled child.

Sincerely,

PW

 

[mamooth]

If someone thinks a lack of belief in Santa Claus is a religion, I could see how that that person could use the same awful logic to declare atheism is a religion. However, nobody who can reason correctly would think either was a religion.

So, if you want to know why I'm an atheist, it would be for the same reasons you or I are a-Santaists.

 

[GISMYS]

If someone thinks a lack of belief in Santa Claus is a religion, I could see how that that person could use the same awful logic to declare atheism is a religion. However, nobody who can reason correctly would think either was a religion.

So, if you want to know why I'm an atheist, it would be for the same reasons you or I are a-Santaists.

GOD has told us why you are an atheist===That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???

 

[Disir]

I always get a little quesy when someone states "There was no Jesus"(or something like this) because I really don't have the proper understanding of such a statement.

Are they saying that the Jesus, with all the miracles and so forth as stated in the NT did not exist

Are they saying that even a Jesus, minus those miracles from the NT, did not exist

Or are they saying something else. I hate to ask the question, but what do you mean when you say "There was no Historical Jesus"?

Because depending on what you mean, this statement could be problematic to defend.

Exactly what I said. No historical Jesus. Of those people with the same name none of them are the big JC. None.

Not at all. It's very easy to defend. Look at the dates that the documents surfaced. Look at the alleged date of birth and the alleged date of death. No eyewitness contemporaries and he didn't bother to write anything down, nobody else during that time frame bothered to write anything down. There is nothing. Everything that has been included has been a forgery. Hell, Josephus isn't even born until 37 CE. Even one of the alleged Pauline epistles says that he met Jesus in a dream. The whole shining star etc. a savior is born. Mithridates IV and it's a comet. Notably comets are a good omen in Persia but not so much when compared to say......ancient cultures in what we now call China. St. Jerome admitted that he knew that he gave the wrong translation for a virgin birth.

And given St. Jerome's birth and death, I think we know why.

The four gospels are referred to as war literature. The first one surfaces during a lull of the Jewish War and then after. We know who was responsible for pulling those four and why.

I hate to make this short but I have to take off.

OK--In other words, all the "historical information" about Jesus is, well, some what questionable and inaccurate.

Hmmm--after reading your post again, I realize the vast understatement I have made of your post.

After reading my post, I love me some cryptic speed writing.
People have a tendency to think that Christianity was a bottom up religion and people flocked to it. That was not the case. It was a top down religion. That happens later in the game.

JC was allegedly born somewhere between the 1 CE and the 6 CE and he allegedly dies in 30-35 CE. The Gospel of Mark is written about 70 CE. The Gospel of Matthew is written about 80 CE. The Gospel of John is written between 90-95 CE. The Gospel of Luke is written about 95 CE. In 66 CE we have the Jewish rebellion against Rome beginning. This becomes an internal battle as much as it is an external battle. This is why they are labeled war time literature.

These aren't the only gospels floating around. So, the next questions are who made the executive decision to claim these four as authentic and why?

Well, we have folks like Marcion of Sinope who firmly believes that the Septuagint (the translation of the Tanakh from Hebrew to Greek) should not be included with the NT. His movement surfaces about 144 CE. He loses and the Septuagint becomes the OT. You have this constant back and forth of claiming authenticity by incorporating the Septuagint and putting enough distance between Jews and Christians that this is entirely a new thang. We are also seeing attempts to consolidate power among groups way over there and among groups over here in this area. At this point there are still about 20 gospels floating around. Nobody agrees.

We have folks like Montanus who decided via his direct contact with God that the second coming was imminent (end of the world tomorrow kind) and the new Jerusalem was gonna come down from heaven and land in a place called Pepuza in Phrygia. There were two high ranking women, Priscilla and Maximilla, that spoke in tongues, had visions, etc. that were considered co-creators of this movement. This probably seems strange unless you take into account that the primary deity worshiped in this area was Cybele. This is what I call the straw that broke the camels back.

A bishop by the name of Irenaeus flipped his lid (around 180 CE) and said, ok that will be all and pulled the four gospels and said these are the four authentic gospels. So, by 200 CE there is a canon but not the one that we are accustomed to seeing that comes later. Like 367 CE later.

 

[Disir]

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The above is St. Jerome. He knows that his translation is wrong but carries on. Otherwise, they can't use Isaiah 7:14.