Evidence behind the new testament.

[Claire Diviner]

There was a program not too long ago on The History Channel called "The Real Face of Jesus". The documentary followed experts in their quest to date what is called The Shroud of Turin in an attempt to see if the existence of Christ was real. Turns out, the stains were indeed blood and the shroud was as old as was theorized. Using computer animation, they also formed a 3-D image of what he would've looked like, using the stained silhouette on the shroud. It comes as no surprise that he looked the way many would imagine him.

That said, does it prove that Jesus existed? Perhaps not. For all we know, it could have been a different person. Assuming it was indeed Jesus, and it does prove he existed, it doesn't exactly prove miracles occured, or if he was the Son of God. I will say right now that I personally believe Jesus did exist... but unless there's proof of it, I can't believe he was a miracle worker by the strictest definition of the term on the grounds that a book that's thousands of years old states such a thing. There are a clown car of religions with books and scrolls and other scriptures that claims their god is real, or a man/prophet/martyr existed and performed everything they did as stated in the texts. All religions cannot be correct, so who is to say that the Christian bible is right whilst the rest be wrong?

I'm digressing a bit here. My main point is that it is possible Jesus existed, but I find it unlikely he was really a powerful man capable of raising the dead. I believe he was merely a popular man that preached the word of God and many "higher ups" found him as a heretic as a result of that. As for his crucifixion, I don't remember if the History Channel documentary mentioned anything about that, so that's something I have no say in, unless I feel confident enough to believe he was crucified or not.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'd like to reword my question.

Why build a world around any one person? Doesn't that seem a bit... insane? That's what we've done with Christ. Whether he was real or not, we've built a world around him. We've created millions, billions even, of humans who have grown and died under his warped influence; influence unnaturally established, maintained, and executed by those who initially killed him. Is that not proof enough? The descendents of those who executed Jesus Christ are the ones who decided to legalize worship of the guy, and in doing so, marked the advent of warped religious depictions, showing him as the purple-garbed king of the Roman Empire, sometimes as God, sometimes as a simple shepherd. What are people supposed to believe when their god-king is immortal and unkillable? Constantine and his bishops were wise. They realized that by immortalizing a dead man as a conceptual king of a nation of people, he could not be usurped, and thus those right under his throne would maintain their dominion; their citizens would not turn on them... especially when you promise them damnation to hell.

The history of Christianity is a very clever history. I think that is the right word to describe it all. In countless cases have we seen kings, popes, emperors and the like command people to do whatever they desire under Christ's and God's "word".

Nations are very much like trees. They grow and change form depending on different elements introduced to them, especially in their early years as saplings. America was founded by many differing sects of Christianity, some far more liberal than others. Often times they fought, or just ignored one another for the simple sake of religious differences. Then when a common enemy was revealed, they realized that they could bound together to save themselves. With an unlikely victory came the unification of a bunch of different people. It's almost as if you planted 13 seeds in one patch, and they all grew together, spiraling into one tree. This tree's roots are tainted with war and bloodspill, hence our country's history. Every time it rains, those angry roots drink the water and process anger-filled water upwards, feeding and growing the tree. Naturally, once it was large enough, it saw another tree similar in vein called "Nueva España".

"No way could this fellow tree share my land, they have wholly different religious and cultural ethics than we do!" said America, the tree.

So to war they went. Eventually, America's war-scarred roots spread so far and wide that half of Nueva España died. America had successfully taken hold of the land from yard to shining yard and Nueva España renamed itself Mexico. Mexico's leaves would often fall in America's yard, and America didn't like that. Not a whole lot it could do about it and eventually, the leaves found legal home in America's yard, but time is cyclical and now America don't want no Mexican leaves in its yard anymo'.

Oh and meanwhile America's sister tree Canada is in the backyard just fine and dandy, but once America gets too big for its own yard, it's going to have to spread its roots into the backyard. That is, so long as America doesn't get struck by lightning or is invaded with termites first.

Termites are threats to the infrastructure. They bring no malice; they simply look for a place to transform and call home. However, the word of God stamps the name "Enemy" on so many peoples' heads—even our own—that we might as well just kill everyone and let Earth start over in its attempt to produce a positively thriving, sentient species.[/sarcasm]

Unfortunately, you're confusing the Roman catholic church with the Christian church. Look, basically the church got mixed with the political government, which led to corrupt officials in church high places simply for the power and money. (For crying out loud, they were restricting access to the Bible so they could claim whatever they wanted!) That's what eventually caused Martin Luther and others to lead the Reformation, and is why our founding fathers put the separation of church and state into the constitution.

However, you can't judge Christianity based on everyone who claims to be Christian. Still want to do so? I should probably inform you that some of the worst dictators of the 20th century such as Hitler and Stalin were atheist, so atheism would be responsible for FAR more bloodbaths by that standard. No, the only way to truly judge a religion is by what it teaches. And if everyone followed the standards of Christianity (Treat others as you want to be treated, don't murder, don't steal, etc.), then even you would have to admit that the world would be a far nicer place.

Anyway, I don't see how you could blame what our government has been up to at all on Christianity, so what's the point of those last few paragraphs?


However, here's why I believe in Christ as the Son of God. (I'd actually been writing a post on this recently, as I've been intending to revive this thread. It's still a bit on the incomplete side, but here goes anyway.)

I figured I'd revive this thread, as there's still plenty of debating left to do, IMO.

Let's take this one point at a time.

My argument:

1: The new testament as we have it today is in the same form as it was originally written nearly 2000 years ago.

Proof of 1:
This is fairly simple, as the new testament has a ridiculous number of manuscripts supporting it from all over the place in multiple languages, with some fragments dating all the way back to early second century. To focus on one specific type, there are 306 unical manuscripts (written in all-caps greek letters), which date back to as early as the third century. The most important of these would be the Codex Sinaiticus, which is a complete copy of the new testament (the only one written in this form, actually) which dates to about 350 AD, long before the catholic church would have been doing any significant meddling. As earlier texts agree with it, I think it's fair to say that we have the New Testament as it was originally written. (As a side note: The total number of ancient manuscripts would be around 24,000, far more then we have of any other ancient documents.)

2: Non-biblical evidence about Jesus.
From A Case for Christ, by a historical expert: (slight paraphrasing here)
Even discarding every scrap of the new testament or other Christian writings, we would still know the following about him: First, Jesus was a Jewish teacher. Second, many people believed that he performed miracles. Third, that some people believed he was the Messiah. Fourth, that he was rejected by the Jewish leaders. Fifth, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Sixth, that despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64 (about 30 years after his death). Finally, that all kinds of people (man, woman, slave, free, from all sorts of locations) worshiped him as God.

Proof of 2:
Let's start with the recordings of Josephus. Josephus was a Jewish historian, a priest, and a Pharisee, therefore making him part of the group of Jesus's harshest critics. (Despite this, he was very unpopular with the Jews, as he collaborated with the hated Romans.) His most ambitious work was called "The Antiquities", as a history of the Jews from Creation up until his time. It was completed around 93 AD.

Here's the quote:

"He [Ananias, a high priest] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

This proves the existence of Jesus, and it mentions that Jesus was called the Christ. This is an important point, as Christ means "The Annointed One", or "Messiah". Therefore, some people believed Jesus was the Messiah. As far as I know, NOBODY has successfully debated this passage. (Note the neutral historical tone and a delivery of the bare facts. If there was some Christian addition later on, wouldn't you expect it to be supportive of James?)

Josephus also wrote an even lengthier section about Jesus, which is called the Testimonium Flavianum (which is also REALLY hotly disputed, by the way.)

Here's the quote:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

For obvious reasons this passage is controversial. (Note how supportive it is of Jesus, compared to the former's cold delivery of the facts.) Scholarship has gone through three trends about it. For obvious reasons, early Christians loved it as a corroboration of Jesus's lifetime. Then the entire passage was questioned by some scholars during the Enlightenment. However, today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations. (That is, early Christian copyists inserted some phrases that a Jewish write like Josephus wouldn't have written.) For example, the first line says, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." That is likely authentic, as it isn't normally the way Christians would speak about Jesus, The next phrase says "if indeed one ought to call him a man.", implying Jesus is more than human, and therefore likely an interpolation. The other two points that are likely interpolations would be the two unambiguous statements "He was the Christ", and "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life." Considering how elsewhere Josephus doesn't make these sort of absolute "Christianity is TRUE" sort of statements, you can see how they were likely added later. However, even when you take those out, you end up with the info that Jesus was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who managed to make a large and long-lasting following despite his crucifixion at the hands of Pilate and the request of the Jewish leaders.

Anyway, despite these and other writings, we still have the question, "Why isn't there more backing outside of the gospels?". However, the answer is fairly simple, and has to deal with the persecution of the first-century church.

Let me start with a quote from Tacitus, a Roman historian.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

You see, there was immense persecution of anyone who called themselves a Christian back then. Therefore, people would obviously be either for Christ, against him, or be very careful to have nothing to do with Christianity! In the first case, any significant testimony would count as Christian (and possibly added to the Bible), which we're ignoring for the moment. In the other two cases, would you write significant testimony supporting a figure whose cause was under intense persecution? You might as well put a "Crucify me" sign on your back.

Additionally, Jesus gives people very few options with his claims to divinity. You either have to dismiss him as a lunatic (As C.S. Lewis put it, "On the level of a man who claims he's a poached egg"), condemn him as a liar, or worship him as Lord. Therefore, any testimony about him by it's very nature, would have to either confine itself to the bare facts (and be strictly historical, such as the one by Josephus), condemn him (as the Talmud does, an important work by the Jewish community), or confirm him as Lord (which would therefore be Christian, which we're ignoring for the moment.)

Finally, the same exact question can be applied to any other significant event in ancient history, and time and time again, it turns out that the events of Jesus's lifetime have far more backing then most.

3: The New Testament itself. I claim that this gives an accurate representation of Jesus's life and teachings.

Proof of 3:
Firstly, in all likelihood the authors of the New Testament (not to mention the thousands of other Christians from that time) suffered intense persecution and death for their beliefs. Let me quote another historical source, Pliny the Younger. (This is from a letter he sent to Emperor Trajan.)

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....

 

[Violence]

This post belongs more under this thread (despite being posted in an entirely different topic), so I'll answer it here.

First off, you're thing about religion in general does not apply to Christianity. It was founded under the roman empire, and in fact was persecuted for a long time. It wasn't until 300 AD or so that it even became legal to be a Christian, let alone any sort of political power being attached to the church.

Secondly, please tell me how a crazy convinces enormous multitudes of people to the point of dying for him against the intense opposition of the religious leaders and roman government, even AFTER he died an extremely painful and humiliating death. (For crying out loud, the disciples own testimony says that they deserted him at the scene on the cross!)

Thirdly, how on earth would you prove or disprove a resurrection with archaeology? The proof of the resurrection would be in the acts of the disciples and people that claim to have witnessed it.

Fourthly, I like how you claim evolution to be a fact despite it being hotly contested (and not just by Christians). Besides, why not humanity? Would it have made more sense to use dolphins or insects? As God is primarily a spiritual being, the "man being made in his image" would mean spiritually, not physically.

Finally, all historical texts period have been man-made. So what's your point?

Nicholas, I think there are a few problems with your argument.

You cannot simply say that because there are historical records of people who died for a cause involving the supernatural, that supernatural occurences happened. Extreme claims require extreme evidence.

For example, there are several cases where a person convinces many people that they are the Messiah(Jim Jones, for example) and people bear eyewitness accounts of him performing miracles. In many cases, these people are perfectly willing to die for such beliefs. I don't believe that credits or discredits whether or not the person in question actually performed miracles. It doesn't seem like a valid explanation.



Now, as for your second point, let's go back to the time of Jesus. It is not at all surprising how Jesus got so many followers, even if you discount his miracles.

Why would Jesus gain so many followers and have such an impact, if his miracles were not true?

It is the same reason people like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were such monumental leaders: Jesus was one of the first advocates of equality. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any other prophet in the history of the Bible that said that everyone can be saved based solely on belief alone. In addition, Jesus treated children, the diseased, the wretches, those who opposed him, all with kindness and respect, something which was simply unheard of in his time.

When someone acts like this, would it be surprising that he would gain a huge amount of popularity? He brought hope to the hopeless, and in doing so, of course he became popular.

And when he was gone, don't you think people wanted to believe? To deny that Jesus was the son of God was also to deny his teachings, that we should do unto others as we would like others to do unto us, that everyone can go to heaven. The fact that Jesus himself died for his beliefs(as many martyrs have done in the past), and the resulting guilt of those who abandoned him but wanted to believe in what he was teaching seems like a reasonable explanation for the devotion of the disciples and followers after Jesus's death.

They didn't deny Jesus was the Son of God, nor did they deny the occurrence of miracles, because that was what gave them hope. They were not with some faker or crazy person, they were with the divine Messiah himself, someone who had changed the way they thought about the world, promoted ideas that were so morally correct(for their time), they resounded in those that heard them.

It is not unheard of for such devout followers, people who want to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, to die for their beliefs.

I don't think you can make the argument that because people died for a belief, it lends credit to that belief's veracity. It seems, at least, to me, to be fallacious.



And on the subject of evolution, I will believe your statement if you can produce 1 peer-reviewed scientific journal article within the past decade that opposes the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[GwJ]

Unfortunately, you're confusing the Roman catholic church with the Christian church. Look, basically the church got mixed with the political government, which led to corrupt officials in church high places simply for the power and money. (For crying out loud, they were restricting access to the Bible so they could claim whatever they wanted!) That's what eventually caused Martin Luther and others to lead the Reformation, and is why our founding fathers put the separation of church and state into the constitution.

However, you can't judge Christianity based on everyone who claims to be Christian. Still want to do so? I should probably inform you that some of the worst dictators of the 20th century such as Hitler and Stalin were atheist, so atheism would be responsible for FAR more bloodbaths by that standard.

Yep. Only Hitler and Stalin have killed lots of people.

No, the only way to truly judge a religion is by what it teaches. And if everyone followed the standards of Christianity (Treat others as you want to be treated, don't murder, don't steal, etc.), then even you would have to admit that the world would be a far nicer place.

First of all, you sound like my mom. Second of all, that's a dumb statement. Christianity isn't the only religion that tells you to be nice. Religion isn't even needed to assert that idea.

Anyway, I don't see how you could blame what our government has been up to at all on Christianity, so what's the point of those last few paragraphs?

I do agree with you on this. There's no point in blaming most governments on religion. There have been specific incidents, but they're outliers for the most part.

I figured I'd revive this thread, as there's still plenty of debating left to do, IMO.

Let's take this one point at a time.

My argument:

1: The new testament as we have it today is in the same form as it was originally written nearly 2000 years ago.

Proof of 1:
This is fairly simple, as the new testament has a ridiculous number of manuscripts supporting it from all over the place in multiple languages, with some fragments dating all the way back to early second century. To focus on one specific type, there are 306 unical manuscripts (written in all-caps greek letters), which date back to as early as the third century. The most important of these would be the Codex Sinaiticus, which is a complete copy of the new testament (the only one written in this form, actually) which dates to about 350 AD, long before the catholic church would have been doing any significant meddling. As earlier texts agree with it, I think it's fair to say that we have the New Testament as it was originally written. (As a side note: The total number of ancient manuscripts would be around 24,000, far more then we have of any other ancient documents.)

I've read books older than you have.

2: Non-biblical evidence about Jesus.
From A Case for Christ, by a historical expert: (slight paraphrasing here)

He's actually a journalist, but go on.

Even discarding every scrap of the new testament or other Christian writings, we would still know the following about him: First, Jesus was a Jewish teacher. Second, many people believed that he performed miracles. Third, that some people believed he was the Messiah. Fourth, that he was rejected by the Jewish leaders. Fifth, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Sixth, that despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64 (about 30 years after his death). Finally, that all kinds of people (man, woman, slave, free, from all sorts of locations) worshiped him as God.

What about Mohammed? I hear he was pretty popular back in his day.

Proof of 2:
Let's start with the recordings of Josephus. Josephus was a Jewish historian, a priest, and a Pharisee, therefore making him part of the group of Jesus's harshest critics. (Despite this, he was very unpopular with the Jews, as he collaborated with the hated Romans.) His most ambitious work was called "The Antiquities", as a history of the Jews from Creation up until his time. It was completed around 93 AD.

Here's the quote:

"He [Ananias, a high priest] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

This proves the existence of Jesus, and it mentions that Jesus was called the Christ. This is an important point, as Christ means "The Annointed One", or "Messiah". Therefore, some people believed Jesus was the Messiah. As far as I know, NOBODY has successfully debated this passage. (Note the neutral historical tone and a delivery of the bare facts. If there was some Christian addition later on, wouldn't you expect it to be supportive of James?)

Josephus also wrote an even lengthier section about Jesus, which is called the Testimonium Flavianum (which is also REALLY hotly disputed, by the way.)

Here's the quote:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

For obvious reasons this passage is controversial. (Note how supportive it is of Jesus, compared to the former's cold delivery of the facts.) Scholarship has gone through three trends about it. For obvious reasons, early Christians loved it as a corroboration of Jesus's lifetime. Then the entire passage was questioned by some scholars during the Enlightenment. However, today there's a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations. (That is, early Christian copyists inserted some phrases that a Jewish write like Josephus wouldn't have written.) For example, the first line says, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." That is likely authentic, as it isn't normally the way Christians would speak about Jesus, The next phrase says "if indeed one ought to call him a man.", implying Jesus is more than human, and therefore likely an interpolation. The other two points that are likely interpolations would be the two unambiguous statements "He was the Christ", and "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life." Considering how elsewhere Josephus doesn't make these sort of absolute "Christianity is TRUE" sort of statements, you can see how they were likely added later. However, even when you take those out, you end up with the info that Jesus was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who managed to make a large and long-lasting following despite his crucifixion at the hands of Pilate and the request of the Jewish leaders.

Anyway, despite these and other writings, we still have the question, "Why isn't there more backing outside of the gospels?". However, the answer is fairly simple, and has to deal with the persecution of the first-century church.

Let me start with a quote from Tacitus, a Roman historian.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

You see, there was immense persecution of anyone who called themselves a Christian back then. Therefore, people would obviously be either for Christ, against him, or be very careful to have nothing to do with Christianity! In the first case, any significant testimony would count as Christian (and possibly added to the Bible), which we're ignoring for the moment. In the other two cases, would you write significant testimony supporting a figure whose cause was under intense persecution? You might as well put a "Crucify me" sign on your back.

Additionally, Jesus gives people very few options with his claims to divinity. You either have to dismiss him as a lunatic (As C.S. Lewis put it, "On the level of a man who claims he's a poached egg"), condemn him as a liar, or worship him as Lord. Therefore, any testimony about him by it's very nature, would have to either confine itself to the bare facts (and be strictly historical, such as the one by Josephus), condemn him (as the Talmud does, an important work by the Jewish community), or confirm him as Lord (which would therefore be Christian, which we're ignoring for the moment.)

Finally, the same exact question can be applied to any other significant event in ancient history, and time and time again, it turns out that the events of Jesus's lifetime have far more backing then most.

I'm going to be honest; I have very little knowledge on any of the people you're talking about here, so I'm going to keep my nose out of the cookie jar in case mom put peppers in it.

3: The New Testament itself. I claim that this gives an accurate representation of Jesus's life and teachings.

How do you say that? The new testament as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong.) is the only 'biography' of Jesus. Are there other stuffs that corroborate what's happened to him? (not just the crucifixion; all his miracles and events, et cetera)

Proof of 3:
Firstly, in all likelihood the authors of the New Testament (not to mention the thousands of other Christians from that time) suffered intense persecution and death for their beliefs.

Firstly, in all likelihood atheists of this time are the most hated minority. I've personally been rejected from jobs (plural) because of my stance.

Let me quote another historical source, Pliny the Younger. (This is from a letter he sent to Emperor Trajan.)

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....

First of all, I wish we had cool titles nowadays.

Second of all.....ok? I've been punished for being an atheist. It's cost me jobs. Of course, that's not as extreme as death, but I'd defend my belief (or lack of one) to great ends.

Between you and me though, I'd say I was Christian if it came to life or death, but that's just me.

 

[_Keno_]

I should probably inform you that some of the worst dictators of the 20th century such as Hitler and Stalin were atheist, so atheism would be responsible for FAR more bloodbaths by that standard.

I would just like to say that this is the worst logic I've ever seen you use, Nicholas. Hitler and and Stalin worth atheist, yes, but the difference is that they did not kill in the name of atheism. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever killed in the name of atheism. I know very well that people have killed in the name of Christianity.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Yep. Only Hitler and Stalin have killed lots of people.



First of all, you sound like my mom. Second of all, that's a dumb statement. Christianity isn't the only religion that tells you to be nice. Religion isn't even needed to assert that idea.

So? I'm merely refuting the idea that Christianity is somehow evil (which has got to be one of the more... unusual ones I've come across.).

*snip*



I've read books older than you have.

He's actually a journalist, but go on.

A journalist talking with experts about the evidence. The particular quote I gave was from one of the experts. Anyway...

What about Mohammed? I hear he was pretty popular back in his day.

Islam practically was the government. It was either die or be a muslim! Not hard to get converts that way. I don't know of any other religions (aside from Judaism) that survived such intense persecutions like Christianity did back at its beginning.

*snip*

How do you say that? The new testament as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong.) is the only 'biography' of Jesus. Are there other stuffs that corroborate what's happened to him? (not just the crucifixion; all his miracles and events, et cetera)

The four gospels were written independently, and corroborate nicely. If there was any additional reliable biography of Jesus, it obviously would have been added in with the rest of the Bible, which was compiled after 300 AD or so. However, there are some references to Jesus's miracles scattered among other sources. For example, during Jesus's crucifixion, the gospel writers claim that the earth went dark for part of that time. Now, a historian named Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan war in 52 AD. In 221 AD, it was quoted by Julius Africanus, and it made references to this very same darkness. The quote is, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun -- unreasonably, as it seems to me." So, Thallus did say there was darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, and he speculated it was caused by an eclipse. However, Africanus then argues that it couldn't have been an eclipse simply due to when the Crucifixion occurred. He's not the only one to record this either. Another historian, Tertullian, said that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (also known as 33 AD, the crucifixion), there was "The greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [also known as noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea."

Firstly, in all likelihood atheists of this time are the most hated minority. I've personally been rejected from jobs (plural) because of my stance.

Not during this time, back during 0-100 AD, when Christianity was started.

First of all, I wish we had cool titles nowadays.

Second of all.....ok? I've been punished for being an atheist. It's cost me jobs. Of course, that's not as extreme as death, but I'd defend my belief (or lack of one) to great ends.

Between you and me though, I'd say I was Christian if it came to life or death, but that's just me.

Here's the thing. 99% of Christians back there not only risked death, but faced either renouncing their faith or certain death, but took death anyway. This includes most of the 12 disciples and other early apostles, who would have known if the whole thing was a lie. And that is evidence I just cannot ignore.


Edit:

I would just like to say that this is the worst logic I've ever seen you use, Nicholas. Hitler and and Stalin worth atheist, yes, but the difference is that they did not kill in the name of atheism. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever killed in the name of atheism. I know very well that people have killed in the name of Christianity.

Are you sure about that? As historian Richard Weikart documents, both Hitler and Himmler (his right hand man) were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a "law of nature" that guaranteed the "elimination of the unfit." Weikart argues that Hitler himself "drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy" and concludes that while Darwinism is not a "sufficient" intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a "necessary" one. To put that in plainer terms, he says that without Darwinism, there might not have been Nazism.

History shows that the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in three thousand years not killed nearly as many people as the number killed by atheist regimes in the past few decades. Stalin comes in at around 20 million deaths, Mao (according to some scholars) a staggering 70 million deaths, and Hitler a distant third with around 10 million murders. (And that's not even including a bunch of "lesser" atheist tyrants, like Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro, etc.) The nazis saw themselves promoting the survival of the fittest, in precisely the way evolution has done. (Think about it. Killing every jew, gypsy, "unfit", to promote the supposedly superior German race.) And can anyone seriously deny that Communism was an atheist ideology? Not only was Marx an atheist, but atheism was also a central part of the Marxist doctrine. Atheism became a significant part of the Soviet Union, is still the official doctrine of China, and Mao and Stalin both enforced atheist policies by closing churches, murdering priests and religious believers.

By the way, is it such a big deal whether it's done in the name of atheism or not? If religion A produces one idiot out of one hundred who will kill people "In the name of religion", and religion B produces twenty times that many who will kill for merely personal motives, which do you think represents the greater threat to society?

 

[GwJ]

Good points. Sadly, I know enough about myself to say I'm not knowledgeable enough to continue this discussion with you. I know my limits.

I do have one gripe about it though. You speak like everyone who suffered persecution for it took it like a man because they believed it happened. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. All it takes is one influential person to state something and people will follow. the problem is that after that first person follows, followers pick up easier. I just find it hard to believe that wasn't the case.

 

[Spire]

Islam practically was the government. It was either die or be a muslim! Not hard to get converts that way. I don't know of any other religions (aside from Judaism) that survived such intense persecutions like Christianity did back at its beginning.

Hmm...

Here's the thing. 99% of Christians back there not only risked death, but faced either renouncing their faith or certain death, but took death anyway. This includes most of the 12 disciples and other early apostles, who would have known if the whole thing was a lie. And that is evidence I just cannot ignore.

Contradicting, no? Oh and also, the Trojan War is part of Greek Mythology, not actual history. All of the dates associated with it take place approximately 12 centuries BCE, not in the first century of the Common Era.

And here's a counter to your "Religion A vs. Religion B" argument. Atheism has been around for as long as religion has, but not until these past two centuries has it really taken hold of a great number of the population. Furthermore, you are specifically targetting atheism as if it is no different from those that are non-religious. Taken from wikipedia: 2.3% of the world's population considers itself Atheist and 11.9% of the population considers itself non-religious. If you're going to fight Atheism (those against the idea of a deity), don't attack those who simply aren't religious. See, you have it preset in your mind that God = religion, whereas religion can be virtually anything. It's all about the individual's perception of the world and how they choose to exercise it. Some choose to believe in God, some choose to believe in prophetic figures such as Christ, Mohammed, Buddah, and Darth Vader. Some see color and light as the beautiful truth in nature and all that exists and simply believe in exercising their affection and affinity for that. Is there something wrong with that?

What about the Native Americans? They had never even heard of Christ before the Spanish arrived in the Americas. Does Christ's conquistadors bringing diseases and blight signal some sort of divine plan by God to wipe out the masses and convert those remaining to the warped church of Christ? You say Christianity evokes compassion for one another, exercising the "golden rule", but I'll let you know that nigh all religions of the world contain some form of that. Tell me: what does religion do? What is its purpose?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

However, you can't judge Christianity based on everyone who claims to be Christian. Still want to do so? I should probably inform you that some of the worst dictators of the 20th century such as Hitler and Stalin were atheist, so atheism would be responsible for FAR more bloodbaths by that standard. No, the only way to truly judge a religion is by what it teaches. And if everyone followed the standards of Christianity (Treat others as you want to be treated, don't murder, don't steal, etc.), then even you would have to admit that the world would be a far nicer place.

While Stalin is indeed atheist, in Hitler's case it is not so clear the link below will explain it better.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_did_Hitler_say_he_was_if_any

So more likely then not he was religious in some fashion, considering he had expadsions to obtain religious artifacts (Like the Holy Grail.) During war time he more likely than not had some religious or political motive (maybe even both). Outwardly he gave a religious motive for his political actions. Was he atheist? Maybe, but you claim he is when there is not enough evidence to say absolutely one way or the other. More evidence points to him being possibly more religious than not, though not conclusive ether way, I do not understand where you got the idea that Hitler was atheist.

Edit: After reading more...

Islam practically was the government. It was either die or be a muslim! Not hard to get converts that way. I don't know of any other religions (aside from Judaism) that survived such intense persecutions like Christianity did back at its beginning.

Which Muslim government are we talking about?

Not during this time, back during 0-100 AD, when Christianity was started.

There is not such thing as 0 AD. It skips strait to one AD at the end of BC.

Are you sure about that? As historian Richard Weikart documents, both Hitler and Himmler (his right hand man) were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a "law of nature" that guaranteed the "elimination of the unfit." Weikart argues that Hitler himself "drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy" and concludes that while Darwinism is not a "sufficient" intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a "necessary" one. To put that in plainer terms, he says that without Darwinism, there might not have been Nazism.

Huh? Wait, his point was that no one has killed in the name of atheism. What does this have to do with Atheism?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Edit: Double Post.

 

[Nicholas1024]

While Stalin is indeed atheist, in Hitler's case it is not so clear the link below will explain it better.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_did_Hitler_say_he_was_if_any

So more likely then not he was religious in some fashion, considering he had expadsions to obtain religious artifacts (Like the Holy Grail.) During war time he more likely than not had some religious or political motive (maybe even both). Outwardly he gave a religious motive for his political actions. Was he atheist? Maybe, but you claim he is when there is not enough evidence to say absolutely one way or the other. More evidence points to him being possibly more religious than not, though not conclusive ether way, I do not understand where you got the idea that Hitler was atheist.

Via research. It's true that Hitler used phrases like "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord", but that was merely political propaganda. During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people, including the catholics and lutherans, and to secure this he occasionally used phrases like "I am doing the Lord's work." To claim this makes him a theist is confusing political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bear no relation to the truth but are designed to sway the masses.

Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis quit celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as troublemakers were ordered not to preach, hundereds were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian orginizations to disband, the list goes on.

He was definitely anti-Christian and to a lesser extent anti-religious, and the "Kill all Jews" was racially, not religiously motivated. The Jews were rounded up regardless of views, religion, standing, and such, along with other "undesirables" such as gypsies. (A lot of this info is from the book "What's so great about Christianity", and I believe one of the sources it used in this area is "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart.)

Edit: After reading more...



Which Muslim government are we talking about?

I think the initial founding of Islam.

There is not such thing as 0 AD. It skips strait to one AD at the end of BC.

Ah, you got me there. XD

Huh? Wait, his point was that no one has killed in the name of atheism. What does this have to do with Atheism?

It's not explicitly "in the name of atheism", but the mindset behind the killing process is definitely atheistic, and that to me is more important then some random claim that he's doing his murder for a religion.

Hmm...

Contradicting, no? Oh and also, the Trojan War is part of Greek Mythology, not actual history. All of the dates associated with it take place approximately 12 centuries BCE, not in the first century of the Common Era.

What do you mean contradicting?

There were several historical wars between Greece and Troy. I'm not sure which one he's referring to. And what does the timespan that the history covers have to do with anything? We're concerned with a reference to a miracle, not a general overview of the document.

And here's a counter to your "Religion A vs. Religion B" argument. Atheism has been around for as long as religion has, but not until these past two centuries has it really taken hold of a great number of the population. Furthermore, you are specifically targetting atheism as if it is no different from those that are non-religious. Taken from wikipedia: 2.3% of the world's population considers itself Atheist and 11.9% of the population considers itself non-religious. If you're going to fight Atheism (those against the idea of a deity), don't attack those who simply aren't religious. See, you have it preset in your mind that God = religion, whereas religion can be virtually anything. It's all about the individual's perception of the world and how they choose to exercise it. Some choose to believe in God, some choose to believe in prophetic figures such as Christ, Mohammed, Buddah, and Darth Vader. Some see color and light as the beautiful truth in nature and all that exists and simply believe in exercising their affection and affinity for that. Is there something wrong with that?

Not really, I'm focusing on atheism and atheism alone. I don't see where you're getting that "atheism = non-religious" thing, so I don't see the point of this paragraph.

What about the Native Americans? They had never even heard of Christ before the Spanish arrived in the Americas. Does Christ's conquistadors bringing diseases and blight signal some sort of divine plan by God to wipe out the masses and convert those remaining to the warped church of Christ? You say Christianity evokes compassion for one another, exercising the "golden rule", but I'll let you know that nigh all religions of the world contain some form of that. Tell me: what does religion do? What is its purpose?

Are we going to judge religions by what they preach, or by the actions of people who claim to belong to it? Pick one and stick to it. (I'll warn you, either way Christianity comes out ahead of atheism.) Because I think it's obvious that those Spanish "Christians" weren't acting in line with Christianity.

Anyway, as for the purpose of religion, there's a nice acronym for this.

BIBLE =
Basic
Information
Before
Leaving
Earth

Not an exact match, but you get the drift. Christianity is God showing us where we went wrong, and telling us how to get to heaven.

 

[ballin4life]

In case no one has mentioned them yet:

Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were pretty clear cases of Christians killing people in the name of their religion (which makes no sense given what Jesus seemed to preach). I'm sure there are tons of other examples.

Also I will certainly blame religious governments for things that they do in the name of religion. In fact, the majority of the world's governments were religious until the 20th century. Separation of Church and State is a fairly new development.

 

[jaswa]

I'm going to mass murder lots of Christians in the name of macro-evolution!

More than any religious leader has ever mass murdered before!

Just enough to tip the scales.

Then this argument will be in our favour!

Or maybe it wasn't an argument at all...

Maybe people should listen to Nicholas occasionally...

Judge christianity off its doctrine, not a handful of its members =]

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Judge christianity off its doctrine, not a handful of its members =]

What if this "handful" of members is the pope?

Of course, this only applies to roman catholicism, but my point is that while I do agree with judging a group of people based on the majority of people when one is judging the group of people based on their leader, such as for example Pope Urban II and his Crusades. It is natural to look at peoples history while forming a judgement, we do it all the time especially with politics. I do not see how not factoring in Cristian history into our respective judgement would be remotely fair.

@Nicholas1024 Do not worry I will get back to you later it is 3:20 AM so I am a little tired.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Judge christianity off its doctrine, not a handful of its members =]

this would be valid statement if

-Christianity/Catholicism could agree on its own doctrine (see Christianity's various sects, denominations, and even cults)
-the Crusades and the Inquisition were carried out by a "handful" of people (whole armies and governments)
-the doctrine didn't justify by example the murder of "evil" nonbelievers

Deuteronomy 2:33-34 says, "The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors."

The Flood, the Pestilence, Crusades, etc. would probably make God the biggest mass-murderer in history.

 

[Nicholas1024]

In case no one has mentioned them yet:

Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were pretty clear cases of Christians killing people in the name of their religion (which makes no sense given what Jesus seemed to preach). I'm sure there are tons of other examples.

Also I will certainly blame religious governments for things that they do in the name of religion. In fact, the majority of the world's governments were religious until the 20th century. Separation of Church and State is a fairly new development.

Did you even read any of what I've been saying on that topic? You know, with the atheistic governments of Hitler, Stalin, and how their genocidal mindsets were built on atheism? Because if you get to blame the spanish inquisition and the crusades on Christianity, then I get to blame Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (100 MILLION deaths) on atheism.

@APNS
The doctrine of most groups of Christianity agrees on the key points, with merely minor differences. Judge Christianity by the Bible, as that certainly has the correct doctrine.

The Nazis and Communists certainly weren't just a handful of people either.

Thirdly, if I snuck into a jail and murdered 12 prisoners, even if all of them were under the death sentence, I would still be guilty of a heinous crime. However, if they were killed by the judicial system, then there would be no crime involved, as the system has the right to do so. The same principle applies here. We're all under a death sentence for our sins, and God is our judge.

Additionally, I should put it into perspective that these nations were EVIL. For example, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament (God burned both cities to the ground), Abraham pleaded with God to search for righteous people in the city, and spare it if even 10 righteous people were there. When God sent a couple of angels to check, they found all of one family that wasn't evil, and that was the family of Abraham's nephew! (God still saved that one family, by the way.) For crying out loud, when the angels went inside Lot's (Abraham's nephew) house, there was a mob trying to break down the door, and gang-**** the angels! We don't get as much detail on the perversion of other condemned nations, but I think it's safe to assume they aren't the "innocents" that you make them out to be.

 

[GwJ]

You cant blame atheism on that. By your logic, if i do anything bad, its atheism's fault because i am a self proclaimed atheist.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Did you even read any of what I've been saying on that topic? You know, with the atheistic governments of Hitler, Stalin, and how their genocidal mindsets were built on atheism? Because if you get to blame the spanish inquisition and the crusades on Christianity, then I get to blame Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (100 MILLION deaths) on atheism.

Because there's no difference between a leader of a certain religious affiliation committing genocide without referring to his belief, and them doing it while justifying it with the religion.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Because there's no difference between a leader of a certain religious affiliation committing genocide without referring to his belief, and them doing it while justifying it with the religion.

Tell me, if Hitler had conquered the world, made his own Nazi Atheism Association, and used atheism to justify his slaughter after the fact, would that make the belief of atheism itself worse in any way? After all, it's still the same religion. Besides, the evidence I pointed at earlier shows that atheism WAS a central part of those tyrants' doctrine.

One last point (I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating), suppose you have two religions.

Religion A produces one idiot out of one hundred who will kill in the name of his religion.

Religion B produces twenty morons out of one hundred who will kill for merely personal reasons.

Which is the greater threat to society?

@Gwjumpman
You can't have it both ways. If you want to blame the crusades on me, I get to blame the nazis on you. It's not that I agree with blaming the nazis and communists on atheism, but I'm pointing out that you can't blame the crusades and the roman catholic church on Christianity.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Via research. It's true that Hitler used phrases like "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord", but that was merely political propaganda. During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people, including the catholics and lutherans, and to secure this he occasionally used phrases like "I am doing the Lord's work." To claim this makes him a theist is confusing political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bear no relation to the truth but are designed to sway the masses.

Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis quit celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as troublemakers were ordered not to preach, hundereds were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian orginizations to disband, the list goes on.

He was definitely anti-Christian and to a lesser extent anti-religious, and the "Kill all Jews" was racially, not religiously motivated. The Jews were rounded up regardless of views, religion, standing, and such, along with other "undesirables" such as gypsies. (A lot of this info is from the book "What's so great about Christianity", and I believe one of the sources it used in this area is "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart.)

It's not explicitly "in the name of atheism", but the mindset behind the killing process is definitely atheistic, and that to me is more important then some random claim that he's doing his murder for a religion.

Well, it does not explicitly say atheism, but you do not have me convinced that he was killing in that name. All you prove with that statement previously is that he killed in the name of a corrupt version of the theory of evolution (Called Eugenics as stated by yourself.)

There were several historical wars between Greece and Troy. I'm not sure which one he's referring to. And what does the timespan that the history covers have to do with anything? We're concerned with a reference to a miracle, not a general overview of the document.

I think that you approach to only looking at the miracles and not the new testment as a whole is flawed considering what this topic is about.

Are we going to judge religions by what they preach, or by the actions of people who claim to belong to it? Pick one and stick to it. (I'll warn you, either way Christianity comes out ahead of atheism.) Because I think it's obvious that those Spanish "Christians" weren't acting in line with Christianity.

Not to them it was not! They where getting rid of the false converts who where doomed to hell unless they convert, so by forcing them to convert they where saving there souls. Also by rooting out there worship of their old god they where reinforcing the 10 commandments (They one about one shall not bring other gods before me). Source

Edit:

@Gwjumpman
You can't have it both ways. If you want to blame the crusades on me, I get to blame the nazis on you. It's not that I agree with blaming the nazis and communists on atheism, but I'm pointing out that you can't blame the crusades and the roman catholic church on Christianity.

I disagree, this is presuming atheist are an organized group like the church. With some modern exceptions, atheist are not organized in any way shape or form. Even giving exceptions to the few organized groups a vast majority of atheist are not in a group, and do not represent a moral doctrine of any type shape or form. As (Once again bar those exceptions) for one atheist actions they can not represent the actions of atheist as a whole as they are not affiliated with each other (Unlike organized religion). As for those groups that are founded on atheism you can only judge those groups in particular not atheist as a whole, why? It would be like if I judge all religious people based on one religion.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Well, it does not explicitly say atheism, but you do not have me convinced that he was killing in that name. All you prove with that statement previously is that he killed in the name of a corrupt version of the theory of evolution (Called Eugenics as stated by yourself.)

Don't evolution and atheism go hand in hand? Anyway, this point doesn't matter too much, as even without hitler there are plenty of other atheist tyrants in the past century.

I think that you approach to only looking at the miracles and not the new testment as a whole is flawed considering what this topic is about.

You misunderstand. I was using a secular source for corroborating evidence. That is why I was only looking to the miracle, I'm not interested in the rest of it.

Not to them it was not! They where getting rid of the false converts who where doomed to hell unless they convert, so by forcing them to convert they where saving there souls. Also by rooting out there worship of their old god they where reinforcing the 10 commandments (They one about one shall not bring other gods before me). Source

You know, you can't force someone to convert. It's a personal decision, all you might force is a phony confession. While witnessing to people is justified, torturing them is definitely not, and I defy you to point how the Bible justified it.

Edit:

I disagree, this is presuming atheist are an organized group like the church. With some modern exceptions, atheist are not organized in any way shape or form. Even giving exceptions to the few organized groups a vast majority of atheist are not in a group, and do not represent a moral doctrine of any type shape or form. As (Once again bar those exceptions) for one atheist actions they can not represent the actions of atheist as a whole as they are not affiliated with each other (Unlike organized religion). As for those groups that are founded on atheism you can only judge those groups in particular not atheist as a whole, why? It would be like if I judge all religious people based on one religion.

Or like judging all of Christianity based on one corrupted version (the roman catholic church). Look, Atheism doesn't need an elaborate doctrine, as it can be summed up in the sentence "There is no God." Not to mention, you are understating my case. It's not just one person, it's basically all the major tyrants of the past century.

Again, you can't have it both ways. You claim that the actions of some outlier cult groups that claim to be Christian represent Christianity as a whole, but that the actions of the nazis and the communists are merely a distorted version of evolution, and don't represent atheism as a whole. Pick one and stick to it, but drop the double standard!

 

[Enzo]

Jesus could easily have been someone suffering a mental disorder, such as superiority complexity which he thinks that he "talked" to God.

Don't you think it odd as well, that Archaeologists were able to trace back in time and find that Jesus was in fact real, yet they are completely unable to find his "resurrection".

It is also fact that the Bible (and any other holy book) has been man-made.

It doesn't make sense that God (if there is one) chose us humans and made us superior to other, because it is also a fact that we descend from apes.

Personally I just think that "Religion" in general was created in order to strike fear into people and try to keep them under control. (Take into account that in the years the primary religions of the world were founded, there either wasn't a judicial system or the judicial system at the time was pure ****.)

By putting this fear into people they hoped to keep humans in conduct

Quoted from my post on the Is God... thread because it actually belongs here.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Don't evolution and atheism go hand in hand? Anyway, this point doesn't matter too much, as even without hitler there are plenty of other atheist tyrants in the past century.

To answer your question, no they do not.

You misunderstand. I was using a secular source for corroborating evidence. That is why I was only looking to the miracle, I'm not interested in the rest of it.

Sure, ok. I get what you are saying I still think it is a little weird to ignore even a piece of the new testament, but I get what you are aiming for.

Or like judging all of Christianity based on one corrupted version (the roman catholic church). Look, Atheism doesn't need an elaborate doctrine, as it can be summed up in the sentence "There is no God." Not to mention, you are understating my case. It's not just one person, it's basically all the major tyrants of the past century.

Edit 2: There are a LOT of protestant churches which ones do you wish to talk about?

Edit: Also you misunderstand what atheism is, it is not "There is not god" Atheism is a lack of believe in a god.

Again, you can't have it both ways. You claim that the actions of some outlier cult groups that claim to be Christian represent Christianity as a whole, but that the actions of the nazis and the communists are merely a distorted version of evolution, and don't represent atheism as a whole. Pick one and stick to it, but drop the double standard!

Once again yes we can. After all you guys are a group, atheist are not. Also side note Evolution does not equal atheism, I am not sure where you would get that idea.

 

[Violence]

Don't evolution and atheism go hand in hand?

Wow.

You're telling me I can't believe in God AND that descent with modification is the driving force for the diversity of life?

That's a pretty big claim there, sir.

 

[Reaver197]

Just for the "Hitler was an atheist" claim.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/submissions/hitler_resp.htm

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/list_of_hitler_quotes_in_honor.php

 

[_Keno_]

You can't have it both ways. If you want to blame the crusades on me, I get to blame the nazis on you. It's not that I agree with blaming the nazis and communists on atheism, but I'm pointing out that you can't blame the crusades and the roman catholic church on Christianity.

Why not? The entirety of Christianity was the Catholic Church at that time. The crusades took place for the purpose of Christianity, Hitler's Germany took place for the purpose of Germany and the development of a master race. His "master race" ideas were just a viewpoint on the world, non-relating to atheism, and definitely not for the purpose of atheism.

Don't evolution and atheism go hand in hand? Anyway, this point doesn't matter too much, as even without hitler there are plenty of other atheist tyrants in the past century.

Nicholas, it doesnt matter how many atheists killed how many people, or how many Christians killed how many people, it only matters how many people killed in the name of Christianity or Atheism.

 

[Savon]

Can one even say that Atheism has a real purpose compared to theistic belief systems? Atheism overall is much less unified than Christianity in terms of how the followers interpret ideas. I know so many atheists who "practice" their atheism in different ways. I still do not really understand how a person can be killed in the name of atheism when their is nothing to DO in the name of atheism. There is no real organization or set standard for beliefs besides not believing in a god, but even if hypothetically there was a brutal leader who committed many heinous acts in the name of atheism, could you really say that this is atheism's fault?

I think that it is difficult to compare atheism to Christianity in that sense. Christianity is a unified religion that has a much more unified common ground with much less room for interpretation to atheists. Many of the actions Christians did in the name of their lord such as the Spanish Inquisition were following the idea of converting nonbelievers to their faith so that they could be saved. Keep in mind that those who aren't Christians have no chance of salvation since they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. That is important to keep in mind when looking at the actions people have made in the name of these beliefs.

 

[Enzo]

Wow.

You're telling me I can't believe in God AND that descent with modification is the driving force for the diversity of life?

That's a pretty big claim there, sir.

You can, but in the big picture that would easily be referred to as hypocrisy.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Why not? The entirety of Christianity was the Catholic Church at that time.

While I do agree with most of this post I just wish to correct this factual error. There was one other form of Christianity, eastern orthodox. If memory serves me correctly they where not as influential on the development of the world and compared to every other form of Christianity as well as kind of isolated.

 

[jaswa]

What if this "handful" of members is the pope?

Of course, this only applies to roman catholicism, but my point is that while I do agree with judging a group of people based on the majority of people when one is judging the group of people based on their leader, such as for example Pope Urban II and his Crusades. It is natural to look at peoples history while forming a judgement, we do it all the time especially with politics. I do not see how not factoring in Cristian history into our respective judgement would be remotely fair.

@Nicholas1024 Do not worry I will get back to you later it is 3:20 AM so I am a little tired.

The pope/popes was/were dropkicks. And not even justified in my belief

Wow.

You're telling me I can't believe in God AND that descent with modification is the driving force for the diversity of life?

That's a pretty big claim there, sir.

I think there's scope to believe in both God and evolution, Nicholas was wrong in saying that.

 

[Spire]

I'm going to mass murder lots of Christians in the name of macro-evolution!

More than any religious leader has ever mass murdered before!

Just enough to tip the scales.

Then this argument will be in our favour!

Or maybe it wasn't an argument at all...

Maybe people should listen to Nicholas occasionally...

Judge christianity off its doctrine, not a handful of its members =]

Then you and Nicholas judge atheism off its doctrine, not a handful of its members.

Atheism = the belief that there is no deity. What's wrong with that? That's the reality of some people. Everyone has their own perceived reality, regardless of religious walk. I think it's a thousand times more important to build a world that provides elastic room for religious freedom than to build a world around any religion.

 

[jaswa]

I was just making the point that what you guys were saying about us, can be just as true for you.

I know what atheism is, but I don't think that non-belief is sufficient in dodging metaphysical questions.

 

[GwJ]

Anti-theism is a belief there is no god
Atheism is a lack of a belief in god.

There's a difference.

Atheists have no doctrine.
I'm not actually arguing anything, just stating.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Then you and Nicholas judge atheism off its doctrine, not a handful of its members.

That's actually how I do judge it. However, if you want to judge Christianity off of the acts of a few who claimed to be Christians, don't complain when the same scale is applied to your faith (or lack thereof).

 

[GwJ]

Atheism has no doctrine. You cannot judge us and our actions by a set value(s).

 

[ballin4life]

Don't evolution and atheism go hand in hand?

Jesus Christ no.

You know, you can't force someone to convert. It's a personal decision, all you might force is a phony confession. While witnessing to people is justified, torturing them is definitely not, and I defy you to point how the Bible justified it.

A phony confession that is believed pretty much counts in the eyes of the torturers.

I'm pretty sure I would convert to any mainstream religion if I were tortured. By convert, I mean that I would start acting like the other members. (I'd like to say that I wouldn't convert to some crazy cult that requires me to kill people if I were tortured, but I'm really not sure to be honest. I really wouldn't want to be tortured haha).

Or like judging all of Christianity based on one corrupted version (the roman catholic church). Look, Atheism doesn't need an elaborate doctrine, as it can be summed up in the sentence "There is no God." Not to mention, you are understating my case. It's not just one person, it's basically all the major tyrants of the past century.

Wow. Isn't the Roman Catholic church one of the biggest Christian groups?

Also I'm pretty sure they would condemn past atrocities today.

Again, you can't have it both ways. You claim that the actions of some outlier cult groups that claim to be Christian represent Christianity as a whole, but that the actions of the nazis and the communists are merely a distorted version of evolution, and don't represent atheism as a whole. Pick one and stick to it, but drop the double standard!

No one is bringing up obscure cult groups like Jim Jones or whatever. The things we bring up are examples of mainstream Christian groups of the time (which had tons of members) doing terrible things.

Now you are right to condemn those things, but you can't say that they didn't represent Christianity at the time. A better response would be to say that Christianity has improved itself and that Christianity today would never do such things.

By the way, I don't claim that any of these things are enough to condemn Christianity, specifically because I think they are incredibly out of line with what I know of Jesus' teachings. But it shows some problems with religion in general. People in power use religion to exert control over others and convince them to do terrible things - terrible things that were horribly out of line with what the original religion preached. I can justify anything if I can convince you that it is God's will. These problems still exist today, as seen with suicide bombers.

 

[Spire]

Atheism has no doctrine. You cannot judge us and our actions by a set value(s).

Exactly my point.

Here's where my faith lies: I see lightning, I have faith in nature that I will hear and/or feel thunder. Even when I don't see lightning, I have faith that nature will bring it given the right conditions. Why? Because I have had first hand experience with the phenomenon. What have I not had first hand experience with? Miracles and miracle-makers. Therefore I cannot place faith in a miracle man that exists only in legend.

 

[ballin4life]

Exactly my point.

Here's where my faith lies: I see lightning, I have faith in nature that I will hear and/or feel thunder. Even when I don't see lightning, I have faith that nature will bring it given the right conditions. Why? Because I have had first hand experience with the phenomenon. What have I not had first hand experience with? Miracles and miracle-makers. Therefore I cannot place faith in a miracle man that exists only in legend.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that you only believe in things that you had first hand experience with.

Looks like you can't believe in the moon landings or World War II etc.

 

[GwJ]

We know those happened, it's not up for debate.

 

[_Keno_]

We know those happened, it's not up for debate.

There are people that know that WW2 happened, having been eyewitnesses or participants, but I for one cannot say that I know for sure it happened.

Besides, it wouldn't be uncommon for history to be written down falsely to favour the country that writes it. We dont know what about the past is true or false, we just believe that what is written is trustworthy.

And I can only KNOW things that I've had first hand experience with, but I can believe anything regardless of experience. It is rather silly to say you can only believe in something by having first hand experience.