Why do atheists and anti-theists care about the beliefs of religious people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Yes, providing citations is important.

It’s important to be able to back up your claims with evidence.

Ie: Jesus existed. It’s not my opinion. It’s based on real evidence.

Pp is just posting her personal opinion that is not backed up with any evidence.

My opinion is that he mostly likely existed.

We can’t say 100% due to lack of independent evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Yes, providing citations is important.

It’s important to be able to back up your claims with evidence.

Ie: Jesus existed. It’s not my opinion. It’s based on real evidence.

Pp is just posting her personal opinion that is not backed up with any evidence.

My opinion is that he mostly likely existed.

We can’t say 100% due to lack of independent evidence.

And your opinion is supported by? Nothing? Just a brain fart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Virtually all serious scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure. The idea that Jesus was mythical is considered a fringe theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The existence of Jesus is supported by a large body of work, including the writings of Paul, the Gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus.

The crucifixion of Jesus is widely accepted as a historical event, though scholars disagree on the details.

The idea that Jesus was mythical has been a fringe theory for over two centuries.

Some historians who are atheists have defended the historicity of Jesus.

If you believe Jesus didn’t exist, or is a fable, you are considered on the fringe… like holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers.


Not good company to be in.

Of course all of the theologians believe that he was a real person. They invested decades of their lives on it. Their opinions are biased.

No one here has denied that he existed.

As I said, Jesus most likely was a real man. We just don't know 100%.

But that’s just your opinion; you have no evidence or proof to back it up. You are a scholar? Where do you study/teach? What are your degrees?

That’s my whole point.

I believe he most likely existed. But we don’t have sufficient evidence to say 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

You repeatedly post the laughing emoji. No one believes you are serious or have a lot going on upstairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

You repeatedly post the laughing emoji. No one believes you are serious or have a lot going on upstairs.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BC they enjoy trolling and being insufferably annoying. Maybe that's their true religion.

sounds like it's yours.

No, I'm Catholic. Atheists can be very pita. On one hand they can be insecure that you get something out of your faith and then on the other pissed off that you don't agree with what is in their mind their superior atheist insights. Usually an insufferably annoying white male left-leaning know-it-all.

Atheism is primarily white males.

Atheists and agnostics are particularly likely to be non-Hispanic whites. Fully eight-in-ten atheists and agnostics (82%) are white, 3% are black, 6% are Hispanic, and the remainder is of some other race or of mixed race.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/10/...%20of%20mixed%20race

Atheists are 64% male, according to the same citation.

So white males are disparaging religious people, hmmmm. That’s certainly a vibe.

What % of people on DCUM are men?

Do you know? How would I know? People here post anonymously. I don’t understand how you would expect me to know percentages based on anonymous posters?

Plus- people on the internet lie about themselves, anyway. No way of really knowing the truth.

Seems.....odd.....to think that most of the atheists posting on a mommy website are men.

But heck, if you like your little narrative that you have crafted then why bring in any facts/reality to ruin it.

Facts and statistics are a narrative?

You tell us the percentage of male atheists posting on dcum. We will await your percentage, with documented evidence of course.

Are you claiming that the atheists on DCUM are mostly white men?

Your statistics don't support that because they are generated from a different population.

No one here has any idea because it’s completely anonymous.

They aren’t my statistics.

In the U.S., atheists are mostly men and are relatively young, according to a Center survey conducted in summer 2023. Around six-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (64%). And seven-in-ten are ages 49 or younger, compared with about half of U.S. adults overall (52%).
Atheists also are more likely than the general public to be White (77% vs. 62%) and have a college degree (48% vs. 34%). Roughly eight-in-ten atheists identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/...acts-about-atheists/

I am not Pew Research.

Jeff has demographic data from his ad companies.

DCUM isn't representative of all US adults so your statistics are irrelevant.

Where is his demographic data for the religion forum? Can we see it?

Maybe you should ask him.

You know about it, how? Did he give you information about the religious forum demographics?

In the past, he has mentioned that he has DCUM demographic info.

You are better off asking him directly.

It seems like you may not be aware, but many (most?) people see posts from the religion forum on recent topics.

Are the religion forum posters the same demo as all other forums?

Seems like if you sincerely wanted to know you would just ask him.

But maybe you just want to stick with your narrative instead of getting more accurate info.

So you are sticking with your narrative then. Why let facts ruin a good story, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

You repeatedly post the laughing emoji. No one believes you are serious or have a lot going on upstairs.

Citation?

The historical consensus that Jesus of Nazareth referred to in the bible was born, baptized and crucified is debated by people online with no credentials.

The consensus among historians is that Yeshua was a rabbi and itinerant preacher.


He was executed by Roman authorities in Jerusalem around Passover.


Brain fart poster and laughing emoji poster, professors of dcum religion forum university, stand against the professors of antiquity, the historians, the archaeologists, the scholars, from every accredited institution in the western world! How stunning and brave they are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Virtually all serious scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure. The idea that Jesus was mythical is considered a fringe theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The existence of Jesus is supported by a large body of work, including the writings of Paul, the Gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus.

The crucifixion of Jesus is widely accepted as a historical event, though scholars disagree on the details.

The idea that Jesus was mythical has been a fringe theory for over two centuries.

Some historians who are atheists have defended the historicity of Jesus.

If you believe Jesus didn’t exist, or is a fable, you are considered on the fringe… like holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers.


Not good company to be in.

Of course all of the theologians believe that he was a real person. They invested decades of their lives on it. Their opinions are biased.

No one here has denied that he existed.

As I said, Jesus most likely was a real man. We just don't know 100%.

But that’s just your opinion; you have no evidence or proof to back it up. You are a scholar? Where do you study/teach? What are your degrees?

That’s my whole point.

I believe he most likely existed. But we don’t have sufficient evidence to say 100%.

That’s my whole point.

“I believe he most likely existed. But I don’t have sufficient evidence to say 100%.”

This is where you make an error.

You don’t have enough evidence to believe Jesus was a real man.

Everyone else does.

You are a fringe theory embracer; take your place with the flat earthers, the holocaust deniers, and the climate change deniers.

You can only speak for yourself, which you are not doing when you pretend there isn’t enough historical evidence for Jesus.

[Anonymous]

The idea that Jesus was not a historical person is called the Christ myth theory. This theory is considered a fringe view and has not gained much support among scholars.

The non-historicity of Jesus has never garnered significant support among scholars.[8][web 1][9][10] Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity,[11][12][web 2][note 1] and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries.[q 2][13][8]

Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as for commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1]

While rejected by mainstream scholarship, with the rise of the Internet the Christ myth theory has attracted more attention in popular culture,[14][15] and some of its proponents are associated with atheist activism.[16][17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

You repeatedly post the laughing emoji. No one believes you are serious or have a lot going on upstairs.

Citation?

The historical consensus that Jesus of Nazareth referred to in the bible was born, baptized and crucified is debated by people online with no credentials.

The consensus among historians is that Yeshua was a rabbi and itinerant preacher.


He was executed by Roman authorities in Jerusalem around Passover.


Brain fart poster and laughing emoji poster, professors of dcum religion forum university, stand against the professors of antiquity, the historians, the archaeologists, the scholars, from every accredited institution in the western world! How stunning and brave they are!

The independent evidence shows us that he most likely existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Jesus was not a historical person is called the Christ myth theory. This theory is considered a fringe view and has not gained much support among scholars.

The non-historicity of Jesus has never garnered significant support among scholars.[8][web 1][9][10] Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity,[11][12][web 2][note 1] and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries.[q 2][13][8]

Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as for commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1]

While rejected by mainstream scholarship, with the rise of the Internet the Christ myth theory has attracted more attention in popular culture,[14][15] and some of its proponents are associated with atheist activism.[16][17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

You seem to have trouble following.

No one here has denied that a man named Jesus existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists think?

Same reason, just the opposite perspective.

I will note that not one atheist I know complains when a theist attempts to defend their position. They relish the chance to discuss it, in fact.

Wonder why that is?

When atheists represent God incorrectly (God gives babies cancer) is when I care.

If I posted that atheists sacrifice babies to Satan you would care, because it’s an obvious and disgusting lie.

Constantly posting that God gives babies cancer and allows them to suffer and dir because He is a cruel bastard is definitely on that level. It’s not true.

Who gives babies cancer, then?

In Christianity, disease is believed to be a result of sin and the fall of humanity.

So sinful babies get cancer. Got it.

Can you post the scripture you found in the Bible that supports your statement that “sinful babies get cancer?”

You just didn’t make that up? Right? You have a solid theological view from Christianity that supports your statement. Please share.

I am extrapolating from the response I got to my question “who gives babies cancer?” I think it’s bullshit that sin and cancer have anything to do with each other, but according to the PP, Christianity thinks otherwise. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with her, not me.

So you are making it up.

Hon. Everything about religion is made up. That’s why it’s called “faith” or “belief.” You don’t have to have faith or belief in things that can be scientifically proven.

Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He’s not made up.

His apostles were real men.

Archeologists found evidence of King David.

Ancient artifact confirming King David's existence to be exhibited in the US

The world-famous Tel Dan Stele artifact will be on display in the U.S. for two months starting in a little more than two weeks.


The Tel Dan Stele dates back to 9th century B.C. and was discovered in the mid-1990's in Israel. It is archaeological proof of the existence of King David outside of the passages of The Bible. An inscription on the artifact is translated to "king of the House of David."
"The discovery of the stele caused an earthquake in the archaeological community," Brad Macdonald, curator of the Kingdom of David and Solomon Discovered Exibit, said in a statement. "It vanquished the common belief that King David was a fictional character and bolstered the credibility of the Bible as a valuable historical source. This is just one reason that it is one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever found."
The Tel Dan Stele is on loan from the Israel Museum.

https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/artic...display-19742149.php

So not everything about religion is “made up.”

He most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.


Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Bart Denton Ehrman[a] (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He subsequently turned into a liberal Christian, remaining in the Episcopal Church for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2][3][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Yes, the theologian has a lot invested in the existence of jesus so of course he's going to believe it.

Jesus most likely was a real man. We don't know 100%.

Fables often have an element of truth to them.

Where are your citations and links?

Citation poster strikes again!

Probably the same poster who posts pages of Wikipedia posts without understanding what they mean.

You think wikipedia is hard to read and comprehend? That’s a you problem.

I understand Wikipedia. The person who frequently posts off topic Wikipedia entries clearly doesn’t.

You repeatedly post the laughing emoji. No one believes you are serious or have a lot going on upstairs.

Citation?

The historical consensus that Jesus of Nazareth referred to in the bible was born, baptized and crucified is debated by people online with no credentials.

The consensus among historians is that Yeshua was a rabbi and itinerant preacher.


He was executed by Roman authorities in Jerusalem around Passover.


Brain fart poster and laughing emoji poster, professors of dcum religion forum university, stand against the professors of antiquity, the historians, the archaeologists, the scholars, from every accredited institution in the western world! How stunning and brave they are!

The independent evidence shows us that he most likely existed.

Who is us? Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Jesus was not a historical person is called the Christ myth theory. This theory is considered a fringe view and has not gained much support among scholars.

The non-historicity of Jesus has never garnered significant support among scholars.[8][web 1][9][10] Mythicism is rejected by virtually all mainstream scholars of antiquity,[11][12][web 2][note 1] and has been considered a fringe theory for more than two centuries.[q 2][13][8]

Mythicism is criticized on numerous grounds such as for commonly being advocated by non-experts or poor scholarship, being ideologically driven, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1]

While rejected by mainstream scholarship, with the rise of the Internet the Christ myth theory has attracted more attention in popular culture,[14][15] and some of its proponents are associated with atheist activism.[16][17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

You seem to have trouble following.

No one here has denied that a man named Jesus existed.

Exactly. Jesus existed and walked the earth. He was a real man.