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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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reliance on arguments from silence, lacking positive evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable or outdated methodologies, either no explanation or wild explanations of origins of Christian belief and early churches, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1]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.

That seems like the most likely scenario.

[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:

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/article/tel-dan-stele-us-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?

You don’t think the independent evidence shows that he existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That seems like the most likely scenario.

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.or...yth_theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That seems like the most likely scenario.

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.or...yth_theory

Are you trying to deny that he existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That seems like the most likely scenario.

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.or...yth_theory

Are you trying to deny that he existed?

Professors Brain Fart and Laughing Emoji are the deniers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That seems like the most likely scenario.

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.or...yth_theory

Are you trying to deny that he existed?

Professors Brain Fart and Laughing Emoji are the deniers.

You seem confused. No one here has denied.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Still confused, huh?

Try the Entertainment forum. It might be easier for you to follow.

[Anonymous]

There is no evidence Supernatural miracle-making Jesus was real, even if a man existed that the myth evolved to.

You’d think all those miracles would have made GREAT press in those days. Water into Wine! Raise The Dead! Fishes and Loaves!

But they did not.

That’s certainly curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence Supernatural miracle-making Jesus was real, even if a man existed that the myth evolved to.

You’d think all those miracles would have made GREAT press in those days. Water into Wine! Raise The Dead! Fishes and Loaves!

But they did not.

That’s certainly curious.

This!

What some of you posters don't understand is that even if a historical person that fits some of the tales around Jesus were true, that then does not make it also true that he was the son of god (or part of god - the trinity concept is really nonsensical) or could perform any miracles or raise from the dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence Supernatural miracle-making Jesus was real, even if a man existed that the myth evolved to.

You’d think all those miracles would have made GREAT press in those days. Water into Wine! Raise The Dead! Fishes and Loaves!

But they did not.

That’s certainly curious.

This!

What some of you posters don't understand is that even if a historical person that fits some of the tales around Jesus were true, that then does not make it also true that he was the son of god (or part of god - the trinity concept is really nonsensical) or could perform any miracles or raise from the dead.

+1. and I imagine some DCUM posters are very disappointed right now as they recognize this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no evidence Supernatural miracle-making Jesus was real, even if a man existed that the myth evolved to.

You’d think all those miracles would have made GREAT press in those days. Water into Wine! Raise The Dead! Fishes and Loaves!

But they did not.

That’s certainly curious.

This!

What some of you posters don't understand is that even if a historical person that fits some of the tales around Jesus were true, that then does not make it also true that he was the son of god (or part of god - the trinity concept is really nonsensical) or could perform any miracles or raise from the dead.

+1. and I imagine some DCUM posters are very disappointed right now as they recognize this.

They don’t recognize this though. They happily live in their little bubble and don’t want to lose their safety blanket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try a search on this topic. It's been here before.

My take? I don't care what you believe or practice as long as it doesn't harm anyone (including through restriction of freedoms, such as the FLDS) and you don't bring it to my doorstep.

I wouldn’t care either if it was like someone’s favorite flavor of ice cream for example…totally innocuous and almost entirely inside their own heads. However, even discounting the more blatant harms that Bible believers sometimes commit, there are insidious harms that destroy families and lives every single day. I can cite examples if you want but I have personal knowledge of many people and the harm that was done to them. Including some who no longer are welcome in their families , who have had siblings commit suicide due to shunning , etc etc.
And before anyone says “that’s just the fringe or the fundamentalists “, no it is not. Not to mention , as has been stated by many , moderate Christianity gives cover to the more extreme versions. And at least one of those extreme versions wants to make this country into a Christian taliban and sincerely believes that god is now in charge. Look up what the current speaker of the house believes and what he and other Christian nationalists are trying to accomplish for their god.
Some scary crap. Much scarier than someone’s opinion on an ice cream flavor ..

This is why “atheists care”.

You have personal knowledge of people harmed by people who believe in the Bible?

Who, what, when, where, why?

Me - by my Bible-believing sibling who stopped speaking to me because I was an atheist and didn't attend a family funeral because I was there, along with other non-believing family members.

+1. I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm the PP that you both are replying to. After something happened within my own family, which I won't give the details of but suffice it to say that it destroyed relationships that were very very important in our family and almost destroyed one of my children, I have spent the past 2 years reading about, listening to, and learning about the cult mentality that bible literalists have. The harm is very real, very huge, and world wide. There is an entire organization in Australia, for example, just to help people that have been kicked out of their families for either questioning their faith or being gay, or both. Many of these people are teenagers.
This is a worldwide epidemic. There are organizations being started all the time in order to address the religious trauma people are experiencing and dealing with. Recovering From Religion, The Secular Therapy Project, etc. Because I have a child involved, I recently spoke to a therapist that herself has not spoken to her parents for 10 years because they found out she was gay. She was so devastated at being shunned by her own parents that she went back to school to become a therapist and counselor for others like her.
Watch the documentary "Witness Underground", and especially watch the part of the show where the man cries about not being allowed to attend his beloved brother's funeral because he was being shunned. I can give more examples, but I'm sure people will ignore what they don't want to face.
I've said it before, but the christians that use the Bible by cherry picking the loving parts, and use it to make themselves better people and treat others well are not the ones I have any problems with. But anyone that takes the Bible literally and REALLY reads what is in there, and lives by the words in there, are terrible human beings. They may be good Christians, but they are terrible human beings.
In my family, for example, it was 1 Corinthians 5 that destroyed relationships between my children. It's right there...and it's horrific.

[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/article/tel-dan-stele-us-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.

It also doesn't mean he was the son of a god, or that he came back from the dead after "dying for us" or that he is coming back one day, or anything of the sort. Listen to Bart Ehrman's lectures a little more and you will see where he stands on Jesus's divinity.

[Anonymous]

Why do you (yes, it’s you) start endless threads whining about what atheists do or don’t do, or say or don’t say, or think or don’t think? It’s bizarre and bordering on pathological. If you were truly secure in your own faith, you wouldn’t waste the time or mental energy to give it a single thought.