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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

[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/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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

[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/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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

[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!

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

I once heard Erhman speak at an atheist/humanist conference where he was being honored. He is definitely a non-believer.

[Anonymous]

I only care when they try to infringe upon me and others human rights.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

That’s what theologians are. They study theology. Duh.

I clearly said he does NOT believe the supernatural crap. His “faith” is in the work he does. He cannot provide an unbiased opinion.

I guess that’s why believers who are questioning their faith are obsessed with him.

[Anonymous]

Why do you care what atheists and agnostics think about you practicing your religion? If you are strong in your beliefs it should not matter what others think. And, better, stop pushing your beliefs on others. Be respectful and they will too. Don’t engage in conversations to bully others into believing what you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists and agnostics think about you practicing your religion? If you are strong in your beliefs it should not matter what others think. And, better, stop pushing your beliefs on others. Be respectful and they will too. Don’t engage in conversations to bully others into believing what you do.

Good general advice, but some religions demand, as part of their belief system, that you try to convert people to your religion.

Also, some people are very happy with their religion and simply want to share it with other people so they can be happy too. It doesn't occur to them that their overtures may not be welcomed or that some people are happy without religion, or with the religion they already practice, and prefer to stay that way.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

That’s what theologians are. They study theology. Duh.

I clearly said he does NOT believe the supernatural crap. His “faith” is in the work he does. He cannot provide an unbiased opinion.

I guess that’s why believers who are questioning their faith are obsessed with him.

Is your "faith" in the work that you do? What does that mean, exactly? Would you say that no-one can provide an unbiased opinion about their work? If so, I disagree with you. It could be so, but doesn't have to be so.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

That’s what theologians are. They study theology. Duh.

I clearly said he does NOT believe the supernatural crap. His “faith” is in the work he does. He cannot provide an unbiased opinion.

I guess that’s why believers who are questioning their faith are obsessed with him.

Is your "faith" in the work that you do? What does that mean, exactly? Would you say that no-one can provide an unbiased opinion about their work? If so, I disagree with you. It could be so, but doesn't have to be so.

His entire life, education, and career exist deeply within the framework of Christianity. His work is the Bible.

He’s in the theology department, not history.

No, he can’t give an unbiased opinion about Christianity. He doesn’t have an independent background outside of the Christianity or the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you care what atheists and agnostics think about you practicing your religion? If you are strong in your beliefs it should not matter what others think. And, better, stop pushing your beliefs on others. Be respectful and they will too. Don’t engage in conversations to bully others into believing what you do.

Good general advice, but some religions demand, as part of their belief system, that you try to convert people to your religion.

Also, some people are very happy with their religion and simply want to share it with other people so they can be happy too. It doesn't occur to them that their overtures may not be welcomed or that some people are happy without religion, or with the religion they already practice, and prefer to stay that way.

Respect goes both ways. It’s disrespectful to push your beliefs on others when it’s not welcomed.

[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:

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.

Religious people are so obsessed with Bart. I don’t get the appeal. I guess if they are questioning their faith he’s a good theologian to look to?

The appeal is that Bart Ehrman is a serious theologian who says Jesus is real person. He doesn't say Jesus is the son of god, but people take it that way

Of course the theologians think he existed. It’s part of their “faith”. Even if they don’t believe the supernatural crap.

Erhman is an agnostic. He has no faith. It's his academic opinion, based on his research that tells him that the person Jesus existed. Erhman himself does not believe in God or the "son" of God.

Researched based on his theological sources, not independent sources.

Theologians cannot provide unbiased opinions.

Erhman is not a theologian. He is an academic teaching at a state university. He thinks Jesus existed as a man. He does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Now you’re just being oppositional. Of course, he’s a theologian.

He’s a professor in the religious studies dept, FFS.

https://ehrmanblog.org/about-bart/
Went to Wheaton
Masters & PhD from seminary
Written dozens of books about the Bible
Etc.

He has more invested in religion than you do.

Ehrman is a theologian only in the sense that he studies theology. It seems to me that pp is trying to present him as a believer and he is not.

Ehrman and I are both non-believers.

That’s what theologians are. They study theology. Duh.

I clearly said he does NOT believe the supernatural crap. His “faith” is in the work he does. He cannot provide an unbiased opinion.

I guess that’s why believers who are questioning their faith are obsessed with him.

Is your "faith" in the work that you do? What does that mean, exactly? Would you say that no-one can provide an unbiased opinion about their work? If so, I disagree with you. It could be so, but doesn't have to be so.

His entire life, education, and career exist deeply within the framework of Christianity. His work is the Bible.

He’s in the theology department, not history.

No, he can’t give an unbiased opinion about Christianity. He doesn’t have an independent background outside of the Christianity or the Bible.

It sounds like pp is completely convinced of their point of view that Erhman is a "theologian", whatever that means, who is pushing Christianity, even though he is is a known, stated and recognized agnostic. Readers here needn't be influenced by such conclusions. You can reach conclusions of your own, which I have.