Why do Atheists/Agnostics come to CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
so what’s the point? Don’t you think if Josephus honestly believed a god-man rose from the dead, there might be some indication of this belief in his writings & actions?
.
O.K. maybe first-century Roman and Jewish history aren’t your strong point.

Nobody is claiming that Josephus was Christian, believed Christ the Messiah, or followed Jesus . It’s a self-evident point to anyone who has studied a bit of history in this regard. You are always going on about reason being advantageous, so maybe some elementary research on your part wouldn’t hurt.

Everyone knows Josephus was Jewish, not Christian. And I mean everyone who has studied this. Even first-year college students who study this understand this. What we have just been saying is that Josephus mentions Christ in his writings from Rome and Christ’s followers. We quote this because everyone likes third-party references. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Please. Nobody is asking you to become a Christian right now; but try and understand the history of the time before you throw that unicorn quote you like to throw around. I very much enjoy debating with knowledgeable people but if you don’t even know who Josephus was or his religious beliefs…
 
more amazed than frustrated. You’ll say absolutely anything, regardless of how remote it is from truth, just to make an even small and obscure point.
What??? I just said that whoever the scribe was more than likely didn’t have sinister motives for doing what he did (I’ll look into the matter though). Furthermore, I’ve been the one sourcing my responses while all you’ve been doing is offering your unsubstantiated opinions. You have some nerve Yankee.
 
so what’s the point? Don’t you think if Josephus honestly believed a god-man rose from the dead, there might be some indication of this belief in his writings & actions?

You guys can beat this dead horse over the head all you want … we’re still exactly where we were when this discussion started.
Excuse me, but we did establish some truth here, as “AnotherAtheist” was under the impression that Tacitus, Josephus . . . etc. were not valid sources due to misconceptions he had.
 
I’m not criticizing Ms. Frederiksen because she’s religious, merely pointed it out. She’s obviously a qualified woman.
No I’m willing to wager by what you wrote above that you haven’t really had much idea as to her writings. She is not religious by our conventional Catholic terms in any sense, if at all. She is with the liberal wing (for lack of a better term) in Bible Studies. I don’t know what if any religious affiliation she has. If you want, go to PBS and watch From Jesus to Christ where she and fellow skeptical scholars make their best case against conventional views of Christianity in an attempt to be hip. It was a Frontline special. Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen it? Do you know what scholars like Crossan argue (the peoples’ Jesus); are you familiar with any of these debates about the historical Jesus, and if you can’t be bothered, why post on the subject? It would be unreasonable to post on something you know little about or, at least, lecture on it.
 
What??? I just said that whoever the scribe was more than likely didn’t have sinister motives for doing what he did (I’ll look into the matter though). Furthermore, I’ve been the one sourcing my responses while all you’ve been doing is offering your unsubstantiated opinions. You have some nerve Yankee.
how can you say he didn’t have sinister motives (or he might not have had sinister motives). His motives are obvious from his actions, he intentionally forged documents to make his religion more believable (there’s no other reasonable motive).

Yeah, I guess I do have some nerve. When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, I suppose I have the nerve to call it a duck?:rolleyes:
 
No I’m willing to wager by what you wrote above that you haven’t really had much idea as to her writings. She is not religious by our conventional Catholic terms in any sense, if at all. She is with the liberal wing (for lack of a better term) in Bible Studies. I don’t know what if any religious affiliation she has. If you want, go to PBS and watch From Jesus to Christ where she and fellow skeptical scholars make their best case against conventional views of Christianity in an attempt to be hip. It was a Frontline special. Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen it? Do you know what scholars like Crossan argue (the peoples’ Jesus); are you familiar with any of these debates about the historical Jesus, and if you can’t be bothered, why post on the subject? It would be unreasonable to post on something you know little about or, at least, lecture on it.
no you’re right, she’s not a woman I’ve spent anytime studying (why would I?). Obviously she’s a left wing Christian … but from everything I’ve read she’s still a Christian. But like I said, I find her credentials authoritative enough to warrant serious consideration (so I don’t think her personal views on religion are very important in this particular matter, although if she were arguing in support of say the idea that Jesus would endorse gay marriage if he were alive today, she might have some credibility problems given her liberal bias:)).
 
how can you say he didn’t have sinister motives (or he might not have had sinister motives). His motives are obvious from his actions, he intentionally forged documents to make his religion more believable (there’s no other reasonable motive).

Yeah, I guess I do have some nerve. When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, I suppose I have the nerve to call it a duck?:rolleyes:
He did add words that he shouldn’t have, granted, but I don’t believe that it was due to sinister motives, over enthusiasm possibly or even due to what he perceived as offensive to Jesus Christ in that it did not portray him accurately. Anyways, what difference would it have made (to make the religion more believable) as I’m sure that nobody converted on the basis of Josephus’s account when we had the NT scriptures which delineated in full detail the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

p.s. You have some nerve saying I would say just about anything to make a point, that is not true.
 
no you’re right, she’s not a woman I’ve spent anytime studying (why would I?).
Because you are trying to make a case against Christ, so one would assume you actually read some of the historical scholarship around Christ as opposed to lecturing everyone else on it on the basis of … evidently little learning; that’s all. If you don’t know the elementary facts of the time and place, why bother lecturing? Vanity over reason? By posting more, you actually, in my opinion, make the case stronger for Christ by showing the ignorance of the opposing view.

My theory is that by posting so much on this subject willingly and without much understanding, you are actually a secret Christian trying to make atheists and agnostics look ignorant and uninformed, and, in this, you may be succeeding so keep up the posts.😉

God Bless.
 
He did add words that he shouldn’t have, granted, but I don’t believe that it was due to sinister motives, over enthusiasm possibly or even due to what he perceived as offensive to Jesus Christ in that it did not portray him accurately. Anyways, what difference would it have made (to make the religion more believable) as I’m sure that nobody converted on the basis of Josephus’s account when we had the NT scriptures which delineated in full detail the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

p.s. You have some nerve saying I would say just about anything to make a point, that is not true. YOU DON’T KNOW ME.
I know something about you … you made an absurd assertion that seems like it’s obviously not intellectually honest (unless I’m giving you too much credit for intelligence).

The man lied (forged an important historical document) to make his religion more believable. Martin Luther added a single world and that’s all you guys can talk about … yet this character added in entirely new information and he’s really a nice, but often misunderstood guy. Awww … I mean pleeeeeeeeease:rolleyes:
 
Because you are trying to make a case against Christ, so one would assume you actually read some of the historical scholarship around Christ as opposed to lecturing everyone else on it on the basis of … evidently little learning; that’s all. If you don’t know the elementary facts of the time and place, why bother lecturing? Vanity over reason? By posting more, you actually, in my opinion, make the case stronger for Christ by showing the ignorance of the opposing view.

My theory is that by posting so much on this subject willingly and without much understanding, you are actually a secret Christian trying to make atheists and agnostics look ignorant and uninformed, and, in this, you may be succeeding so keep up the posts.😉

God Bless.
Andrew, what motives would you subscribe to the scribe who added in words and thus corrupting the Testimonium, would you chalk it down to something sinister?
 
Because you are trying to make a case against Christ, so one would assume you actually read some of the historical scholarship around Christ as opposed to lecturing everyone else on it on the basis of … evidently little learning; that’s all. If you don’t know the elementary facts of the time and place, why bother lecturing? Vanity over reason? By posting more, you actually, in my opinion, make the case stronger for Christ by showing the ignorance of the opposing view.

My theory is that by posting so much on this subject willingly and without much understanding, you are actually a secret Christian trying to make atheists and agnostics look ignorant and uninformed, and, in this, you may be succeeding so keep up the posts.😉

God Bless.
I understand you will find whatever you can to rationalize your views within your own mind. I didn’t read a single scholar (who by your own account you probably disagree with in virtually every other area besides apparently this one); and that makes it more likely a god-man came back to life after certain death, walked on water, was born of a virgin impregnated by a spirit, etc. etc.

Whatever … :confused:

I think my earlier point is being exceedingly validated through these discussions. Otherwise intelligent people can be completely dumbfounded when it comes to religion.
 
I know something about you … you made an absurd assertion that seems like it’s obviously not intellectually honest (unless I’m giving you too much credit for intelligence).

The man lied (forged an important historical document) to make his religion more believable. Martin Luther added a single world and that’s all you guys can talk about … yet this character added in entirely new information and he’s really a nice, but often misunderstood guy. Awww … I mean pleeeeeeeeease:rolleyes:
It’s not absurd to think he didn’t have sinister motives, and that’s my opinion, I did not state it as if it were fact.

p.s. Martin Luther added a single word to the BIBLE, that is a huge difference to us Christians, especially when scripture warns us that not one person can add or subtract from it.
 
Andrew, what motives would you subscribe to the scribe who added in words and thus corrupting the Testimonium, would you chalk it down to something sinister?
We actually don’t know exactly what scribe may have made any changes and how and when. There still is debate as to how much to include but most agree the mention of Jesus in Josephus is there, both Jewish and Christian scholars. In Ian Wilson’s words in Jesus: The Evidence there was either an interpolation somewhere along the line for added detail or a very clumsy copyist of the manuscript coming across this work. The important thing is that mention is made by Josephus of the real person of Jesus and his followers and this seems quite reasonable to most historians familiar with the work.

We can base this on the fact that similar words used to describe Jesus by Josephus are used by Josephus in describing Elisha. A sinister copyist would not have done that.

We also have the writings of a tenth-century Arabic Christian Agapius for Josephus:

his disciples …reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders

The fact that Josephus uses the term “wise man” in the Antiquities to describe Jesus sounds to most scholars quite like a Josephus term as opposed to one a Christian would use.

There is also the fact that in the Antiquities, Josephus includes a lengthy reference to the unjust execution in Jerusalem of James, whom he describes as “the brother of Jesus called the Christ”. Ian Wilson like many scholars does not see this as an interpolation but as further confirmation of Josephus knowing and writing of Jesus and his followers.

In Wilson’s words, “we then have positive and authoritative corroboration of Jesus’ existence from very nearly the best possible independent source, a man who actually lived in Galilee well within the lifetimes of individuals who would have known Jesus at first hand.” (pg. 44)

In any event, we have the Gospels for goodness sake and Acts and the Epistles, documents which would stand the test of historicity in any modern university apart from the fact that they have engendered so much intense research to disprove them. If anything, further research shows the New Testament stands up very well to the test of time. In the end, as C.S. Lewis stated, Jesus is either a madman or He is what He claimed to be the Son of God and Savior of the World. I’ll choose the latter, as have billions throughout history.
 
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” - G.K. Chesterton - Where All Roads Lead, 1922

😃
 
When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything

It becomes either belief in New Age, Crystals, UFOs, the Maharishi, or any fantasy, or mostly a sick inner-focused pride that makes oneself one’s own God. And this seems quite true.

The quote at the top was made by Malcolm Muggeridge. He began life an agnostic with communist leanings. He then traveled to the paradise where God was pronounced dead. The only belief system there was atheistic communism predicated on human reason. They would have the standard agit-prop parades of priests and rabbis being satirized and humiliated.

Muggeridge, in travelling this atheist wonderland, came across something horrific. He witnessed in 1932-33 the Bolshevik orchestrated genocide against Ukrainian farmers, their churches, and their intelligentsia. He saw the suffering, heard the cases of families so into the madness of the hunger, that mothers would steal any morsel of food from their own children and visa-versa, their own families. Children too weak to walk, collapsing on Ukraine’s streets in the millions in search of food, only to be thrown to the city dumps or cannibalized by others lost to madness. Ukraine became one great fenced-off concentration camp where its people were to learn there is no God but that only atheism was true. 5-7 million people died tragically to put an atheistic communist moral code and civilization into place, all within one year.

Muggeridge was right, no God, then plenty of fantasies like Dialectic Materialism take its place. Hey, here’s the Communist utopia we all can acheive by killing the “superstitious Church” and God.

That society demonstrates perfectly what militant atheism is capable of. As many who witnessed it attested, the lack of belief in God or a higher moral authority other than Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, which was brainwashed into many people, resulted in perhaps the greatest killings of human history. The Black Book of Communism written by prominent French scholars of Communism puts the death toll of atheist communism at 100 million for the last century.

Christianity demands that what one has done to the least of one’s brethren, one has done to Christ. Despite, its numerous human failures, it seeks this. This is a Message ultimately of Love. Most atheist regimes and leaders have no time for love. To Lenin, who rarely used the word love, love was simply bourgeoise sentimentality which would inhibit the revolution. Lenin could watch as a student in complete apathy as people starved around him in the Volga famine, as he believed this would positively accelerate the revolution and what is one individual life in the grand scheme of atheist collectivism.

Muggeridge like many others, and not ones like us who type all sorts of witticisms comfortably from our keyboard, got to witness Incredible Evil, face-to-face. He realized the danger to the World was not in the Church, it was belief in the death of God in human history. He converted to Roman Catholicism. More than most I would venture on this particular thread, he saw Incredible Suffering on a Grand Scale face-to-face. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge

Hitler, a believer in Nordic paganism, too barely used the word love. Stalin as well.

It’s funny that this word Love is the central one that Christians always accentuate as a Virtue. We believe in a God of Love.

The alternative of believing in nothing apart from yourself is a recipe for disaster and for self-gratification i.e. morality is what I make it or think reasonable. The fact as many philosophers have argued is that human reason has limitations too. It is not at all perfect.

Thomas Jefferson’s compatriots in the French Revolution, the radical Jacobins threw Christ out of Notre-Dame replacing Him with the Goddess of Reason. The Christian calendar was de-Christianized and France was to become de-Christianized by the guillotine and by throwing priests, monks, nuns, normal people into locked barges which were then submerged.

Maximilien de Robespierre, leader of the French Revolution and a believer in Reason alone, in his Speech before the Convention on February 5, 1794: “Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, secure and inflexible.”

The Vendee resistance against the French Revolution in defense of the Church, in which some 300,000 French Catholic peasants were massacred in defending Christianity shows something of the extent to which French peasantry didn’t think that the Church was just venal and corrupt but were indeed faithful Catholics. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once pointed out that the mass murders of Christians in the Soviet Union was directly inspired by the massacres in the Vendee.

The French Revolutionary Terror was severe and it is utter falsehood to claim the Terror saved France. Throughout the autumn and winter of 1793, the Terror maintained unabated and Robespierre hoped to persuade the militant “sans-culottes” (Paris artisans if you want) that they shared a common cause. 3,000 executions took place in Paris; 14,000 in the provinces. Countless people feared the sound of a knock in the door in the middle of the night when most arrests took place (as in the Soviet Terror).

Saint-Just (Robespierre’s colleague) exclaimed: “We must rule by iron…You must punish not just traitors but the indifferent as well”. In Lyons, two Jacobins decided that the guillotine was too slow an instrument for their purpose and had over 300 victims mowed down by cannon fire. The Jacobins reported to Paris bluntly: “The butchery has been good”. Another eyewitness proclaimed: “What a delicious moment! How you would have enjoyed it. Worthy indeed of liberty…Wish bon jour to Robespierre.”

The Loire River became so choked with penal barges that had the Terror’s victims stripped naked and bound together in couples, that ships weighing anchor in the river would bring up anchors full of the dead. When a priest was tied up with a nun to drown together Birds of prey circled overhead, gorging themselves on human flesh, whereafter the fish became so contaminated, that orders had to be given forbidding the catching of fish. There were the infamous “republican marriages” where a man and woman, priest and nun would be stripped, tied together, and tossed overboard to die.

All this was done in the process of attempting to deChristianize France and make out of Human Reason a goddess. Well, the experiment failed, with the loathsome Robespierre finally being guillotined himself by those who had had enough.

My point is that of Dostoevsky’s: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”.

(continued)
 
On what moral basis could an atheist have gone up to Robespierre and say that he should stop killing innocent people en masse. Robespierre worshipped human reason too. How could an atheist explain to Robespierre that his killings were morally wrong.

Does atheism actually have a code of ethics, or is it basically, each person is his own god and should do as he/she wishes and thinks? Boy that sounds like a grand adolescent design. What is the Morality of Atheism and on what does it rely on for authority?
 
On what moral basis could an atheist have gone up to Robespierre and say that he should stop killing innocent people en masse. Robespierre worshipped human reason too. How could an atheist explain to Robespierre that his killings were morally wrong.

Does atheism actually have a code of ethics, or is it basically, each person is his own god and should do as he/she wishes and thinks? Boy that sounds like a grand adolescent design. What is the Morality of Atheism and on what does it rely on for authority?
While it does not stand for every athiest or agnostic out there. I can say that Humanism is a definite possible answer. Having recently left my faith (a little over a year ago) and struggling with the idea of organized religion and whether god exists, Humanism has at least allowed me some solid ground on which to base my belief in a “moral” right or wrong. Of course this morality would come from the intellectual thought and reasoning of mankind.

I should say that I tend toward agnostic as opposed to atheism at the moment, although I do not officially see myself as either. So I am not fully convinced that morality is solely man’s creation.
 
On what moral basis could an atheist have gone up to Robespierre and say that he should stop killing innocent people en masse. Robespierre worshipped human reason too. How could an atheist explain to Robespierre that his killings were morally wrong.

Does atheism actually have a code of ethics, or is it basically, each person is his own god and should do as he/she wishes and thinks? Boy that sounds like a grand adolescent design. What is the Morality of Atheism and on what does it rely on for authority?
Atheists can sleep comfortably at night knowing they are protected by the moral system set up by the religious.
 
On what moral basis could an atheist have gone up to Robespierre and say that he should stop killing innocent people en masse. Robespierre worshipped human reason too. How could an atheist explain to Robespierre that his killings were morally wrong.

Does atheism actually have a code of ethics, or is it basically, each person is his own god and should do as he/she wishes and thinks? Boy that sounds like a grand adolescent design. What is the Morality of Atheism and on what does it rely on for authority?
I can’t speak for atheists, but as an agnostic, will say that if I take the premise that religion is really a reflection of Man’s awe of the universe he lives in, his understanding that by mere chance he lives one day, dies the next, his appreciation of the love and creativities that his fellow humans are capable of or, in the opposite, his fear of their powers, hatreds and depravities, then from this same mix that is clearly symbolically represented in all sorts of religions, Man can still establish (he MUST establish) moral codes by which to live.

Reason dictates it is better to live peacefully with neighbors, to co-opperate in building community, to apply thought and discourse to resolve problems, build tools, towns and institutions.

Furthermore, it is best and rational that we control human urges towards anger, retribution, unfettered sexual couplings, all the things that religions traditionaly help us to do. The problem is that religions rely on fears or death, pain and superstition to achieve these nobel and moral ends. Religions had to do this given the lack of education and learning in early times. But now that has greatly (though not perfectly) changed. We are far more an educated world and its only natural that large, ancient religions slip away.

However, the benefits that moral codes bring to us are still as valuable as ever, so the rationalist (I speak only for myself as an agnostic) will always want to see strong moral codes and I too mourn the diminishment of those codes and will work in raising my children under a moral code so that they are proper, healthy, cooperative human beings within the bubble of life who will bring happiness to others in their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top