Jesus never existed

[netcat]

there is this guy who thinks that Jesus was invented by Romans

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451087/American-Bible-scholar-claims-ancient-confessions-prove-story-Jesus-Christ-entirely-fabricated-Roman-aristocrats.html

[SoulMonster]

A new study has also revealed that Mary wasn't God's first choice as mother to Jesus:

http://www.theonion.com/article/researchers-say-virgin-mary-actually-gods-second-c-50778

[Len Cnut]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

Edited July 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

[SoulMonster]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

Today it is the Christians who are stupidly accepting their religion's explanation of a "virgin birth" and come off as ridiculous.

[Len Cnut]

Hey, more power to em if it makes sense of their life, God knows (or would if he existed) I wouldn't mind something to make sense of mine at the moment.

[DieselDaisy]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

Today it is the Christians who are stupidly accepting their religion's explanation of a "virgin birth" and come off as ridiculous.

Not really. As I have demonstrated, even during Western Christendom's most superstitious age they were laughing off the immaculate conception as a piece of nonsense and positioned Joseph off as a figure of fun. They actually possessed a sense of humour in other words unlike atheists.

[Len Cnut]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

Today it is the Christians who are stupidly accepting their religion's explanation of a "virgin birth" and come off as ridiculous.

Not really. As I have demonstrated, even during Western Christendom's most superstitious age they were laughing off the immaculate conception as a piece of nonsense and positioned Joseph off as a figure of fun. They actually possessed a sense of humour in other words unlike atheists.

There's an archetype of a kind of atheist that gets on your thrupenny bits a bit eh?

[netcat]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

if Joseph gave virgin birth by himself, im sure he would have become a well-respected member of ancient Israeli society

[DieselDaisy]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

Today it is the Christians who are stupidly accepting their religion's explanation of a "virgin birth" and come off as ridiculous.

Not really. As I have demonstrated, even during Western Christendom's most superstitious age they were laughing off the immaculate conception as a piece of nonsense and positioned Joseph off as a figure of fun. They actually possessed a sense of humour in other words unlike atheists.

There's an archetype of a kind of atheist that gets on your thrupenny bits a bit eh?

To put it mildly.

[Len Cnut]

If you're gonna try and prove divinity, can't you do better than a virgin birth, i mean you're taking the birds word for it, aren't you? I'd've been more inclined to follow if it had been Joseph that had the baby, now that'd be a fuckin miracle

In medieval times Joseph was seem as a sort of ridiculous figure, a cuckold stupidly excepting his wife's explanation of a 'Virgin birth'.

Today it is the Christians who are stupidly accepting their religion's explanation of a "virgin birth" and come off as ridiculous.

Not really. As I have demonstrated, even during Western Christendom's most superstitious age they were laughing off the immaculate conception as a piece of nonsense and positioned Joseph off as a figure of fun. They actually possessed a sense of humour in other words unlike atheists.

There's an archetype of a kind of atheist that gets on your thrupenny bits a bit eh?

To put it mildly.

How come? (Jus curious)

[DieselDaisy]

The new atheists, the Dawkins crue? Well they are the new zealots. They have inherited all of religion's obsessiveness, bigotry and general smugness. Is there anything more sanctimonious than an atheist on a roll? I can point to a handful of people here who match that description.

[Len Cnut]

The new atheists, the Dawkins crue? Well they are the new zealots. They have inherited all of religion's obsessiveness, bigotry and general smugness. Is there anything more sanctimonious than an atheist on a roll? I can point to a handful of people here who match that description.

I've been listening to a bit of Dawkins lately and he seems very mild and....sort of to the point and, y'know, not vicious or mean spirited or anything. Christopher Hitchens can a bit I suppose but he has a point most of the time, for as far as my limited thinking takes me, I've definitely heard a lot worse. I suppose I see what you mean but I'd've thought you'd love a bit of that, you've quite the blunt acerbic wit yourself on your day.

Dawkins though, seems lovely. I suppose you're talking more about the atheists that like em though so point taken.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

There is a certain decorum lacking. It is hard to describe.

[SoulMonster]

There is a certain decorum lacking. It is hard to describe.

I'd say, its awfully lacking in decorum to reveal the delusions of the poor christians. How frightful.

[DieselDaisy]

There is a certain decorum lacking. It is hard to describe.

I'd say, its awfully lacking in decorum to reveal the delusions of the poor christians. How frightful.

There you are. You have just betrayed why I find atheists annoying. A sense of moral and intellectual smug superiority which simply must be stated at every available opportunity. Awful people. Truly ghastly. I mean Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot were all pricks.

[SoulMonster]

There is a certain decorum lacking. It is hard to describe.

I'd say, its awfully lacking in decorum to reveal the delusions of the poor christians. How frightful.

There you are. You have just betrayed why I find atheists annoying. A sense of moral and intellectual smug superiority which simply must be stated at every available opportunity. Awful people. Truly ghastly. I mean Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot were all pricks.

You find atheists annoying because they ridicule your pompous appeal to "decorum"? Well, no one can blame you for that.

Calling Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot "pricks", is truly an understatement, but unless your intention is to argue that atheism is a gateway realization that leads to genocide, then I find bringing them into the discussion rather irrelevant. On the other hand, I do find it amusing to be connected with such mass murderers, as well as your idea that atheists is an homogenous group of people that are all smug and overbearing. I sense a bit of hasty generalization in the air combined with a sniff of association fallacy.

[DieselDaisy]

You join the dots. 20th century has, no questions asked, produced the worst regimes in history. Whether you are speaking about Mao's China, Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR, that is a fact. Now, join the dots. What is the one thing unifying these three pretentious windbags? I would not normally make such analogies, just that it is usually atheists who produce statements pertaining to the 'historical horror'' inflicted by religion (i.e. Catholicism, because that is the only religion these new self-proclaimed atheists have ever heard of). It deserves a bit of historical perspective.

[SoulMonster]

You join the dots. 20th century has, no questions asked, produced the worst regimes in history. Whether you are speaking about Mao's China, Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR, that is a fact. Now, join the dots. What is the one thing unifying these three pretentious windbags?

Moustaches, surely.

Seriously though, the genocides caused by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot was not as a direct result of their lack of religion. They weren't motivated by atheism in any way. They were motivated by racism, facism, etc. THOSE were the reasons, not the fact that these guys happened to not be religious...or sport moustaches.

But on the flip side, there is plenty of wars that have been directly motivated by religion...

EDIT: Pol Pot didn't have one. Dammit.

EDIT2: You suffer from the fallacy of mistaking correlation with causality.

Edited July 1, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

You join the dots. 20th century has, no questions asked, produced the worst regimes in history. Whether you are speaking about Mao's China, Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR, that is a fact. Now, join the dots. What is the one thing unifying these three pretentious windbags?

Moustaches, surely.

Seriously though, the genocides caused by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot was not as a direct result of their lack of religion. They weren't motivated by atheism in any way. They were motivated by racism, facism, etc. THOSE were the reasons, not the fact that these guys happened to not be religious...or sport moustaches.

Absolute garbage because Fascism and Marxism are inherently, anti-religious. They both adhere to a strict materialistic view of humanity and fail to accept man's benevolence and foibles.

But on the flip side, there is plenty of wars that have been directly motivated by religion...

Please go there - oh please do (atheists love this line of argument yet fail to produce a single European example since the Treaty of Westphalia)!

[SoulMonster]

You join the dots. 20th century has, no questions asked, produced the worst regimes in history. Whether you are speaking about Mao's China, Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR, that is a fact. Now, join the dots. What is the one thing unifying these three pretentious windbags?

Moustaches, surely.

Seriously though, the genocides caused by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot was not as a direct result of their lack of religion. They weren't motivated by atheism in any way. They were motivated by racism, facism, etc. THOSE were the reasons, not the fact that these guys happened to not be religious...or sport moustaches.

Absolute garbage because Fascism and Marxism are inherently, anti-religious. They both adhere to a strict materialistic view of humanity and fail to accept man's benevolence and foibles.

Err, so yes, they were motivated by Fascism and Marxism which can be anti-religious ideologies, and not their atheism which isn't an ideology but simple a lack of belief in gods.

But on the flip side, there is plenty of wars that have been directly motivated by religion...

Please go there - oh please do (atheists love this line of argument yet fail to produce a single European example since the Treaty of Westphalia)!

Why are you now insisting that we only look at the last 300-400 years and only on the region of Europe? This is again moving the goalposts You need a different fallacy now for me to get bingo, not just a repetition of the old ones.

Here you go, learn something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Edited July 1, 2015 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

You join the dots. 20th century has, no questions asked, produced the worst regimes in history. Whether you are speaking about Mao's China, Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR, that is a fact. Now, join the dots. What is the one thing unifying these three pretentious windbags?

Moustaches, surely.

Seriously though, the genocides caused by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot was not as a direct result of their lack of religion. They weren't motivated by atheism in any way. They were motivated by racism, facism, etc. THOSE were the reasons, not the fact that these guys happened to not be religious...or sport moustaches.

Absolute garbage because Fascism and Marxism are inherently, anti-religious. They both adhere to a strict materialistic view of humanity and fail to accept man's benevolence and foibles.

Err, so yes, they were motivated by Fascism and Marxism which can be anti-religious ideologies, and not their atheism which isn't an ideology but simple a lack of belief in gods.

But on the flip side, there is plenty of wars that have been directly motivated by religion...

Please go there - oh please do (atheists love this line of argument yet fail to produce a single European example since the Treaty of Westphalia)!

Why are you now insisting that we only look at the last 300-400 years and only on the region of Europe? This is again moving the goalposts You need a different fallacy now for me to get bingo, not just a repetition of the old ones.

Chronologically, I am only reacting to your grammatical tense - you said 'have been'. And Europe - well your lot are the people who are obsessed with Christianity? I basically assume that a modern day atheist who likes to SHOUT is only really preoccupied with Christianity (Catholicism in particular) or Islam.

[SoulMonster]

Why are you now insisting that we only look at the last 300-400 years and only on the region of Europe? This is again moving the goalposts You need a different fallacy now for me to get bingo, not just a repetition of the old ones.

Chronologically, I am only reacting to your grammatical tense - you said 'have been'. And Europe - well your lot are the people who are obsessed with Christianity? I basically assume that a modern day atheist who likes to SHOUT is only really preoccupied with Christianity (Catholicism in particular) or Islam.

Yes, "have been" as in "before today". Lots of wars have been fought with religion being the main motivating component, also after your arbitrary date of the Peace of Westphalia.

You really should stop assuming so much .

[Val22]

I believe Jesus existed, just not sure if I believe he was the son of God or God in human form?

I think he was a man, who was led to believe he was the son of God. I believe he was a gentle soul who was killed for his beliefs. Something that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[moreblack]

That surprises me a little bit, Len. Understandable with how close to home it is for you, but I see you as a guy who gives almost everything a fair shake, and who tries to see value where many people might see none. I'm no apologist for religion. I wasn't raised religious and I'm not a man of faith, but I appreciate the comfort it brings some in times of need, and I respect the sense of community it wants to create. Religion is out of fashion, if you know what I mean, which makes me less likely than ever to dismiss it out of hand. I'm a bit of a Situationist like that, if you haven't noticed. My feeling is that you are too.

I don't know. I just don't like seeing you so entirely negative about something.

You should see him talk about Manchester United