The Early Disciples and Apostles

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
> did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?

Yeah! What's wrong with you modern Christians? Go show your love for
Jesus like they did in the old days. Go throw yourself in front of an
oncoming lion and show your faith.

Kidding, probably. Just because people die for a cause doesn't mean
the cause is worth dying for. God does not exist because people die in
the name of God. If that were the case, then those Halle Bopp suicide
cult guys were correct; there WAS a spaceship trailing that comet. And
Jim Jones WAS a prophet. And those guys that flew the airplanes into
the World Trade Towers proved Allah exists.

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Indeed, Neil. What I was getting at was the fact that in the Roman
world at the time professing that Jesus had risen from the dead would
have been an automatic ticket to a death sentence or at least jail
time. It would have been a better idea for everyone to keep silent if
the whole thing had merely been a lie.

[Keith MacNevins]

I would like to answer with regard to the religion being successful and, indeed, the most prevalent religion in history. It is because people were convinced of its genuineness.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 28, 8:07 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Indeed, Neil.  What I was getting at was the fact that in the Roman
> world at the time professing that Jesus had risen from the dead would
> have been an automatic ticket to a death sentence or at least jail
> time.  It would have been a better idea for everyone to keep silent if
> the whole thing had merely been a lie.

History is filled with instances of those with political power
oppressing potential rivals (and religious history is rampant with
it), whether the victims spoke up or not. There is nothing unique
about the early Christians. I really hope you're not saying that the
fact that early Christians were put to death for their beliefs is
evidence that Jesus was the son of God.

> On May 28, 10:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
> > > did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?
>
> > Yeah! What's wrong with you modern Christians? Go show your love for
> > Jesus like they did in the old days. Go throw yourself in front of an
> > oncoming lion and show your faith.
>
> > Kidding, probably. Just because people die for a cause doesn't mean
> > the cause is worth dying for. God does not exist because people die in
> > the name of God. If that were the case, then those Halle Bopp suicide
> > cult guys were correct; there WAS a spaceship trailing that comet. And
> > Jim Jones WAS a prophet. And those guys that flew the airplanes into

> > the World Trade Towers proved Allah exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

BTW, all the disciples were early; there were no late disciples.

On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies
> then why did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?

Equally rhetorical question: If heresies were all lies, why did so
many heretics die for their faith?

Is it conceivable that some things that people die for are true and
other things people die for are false? Does many people dying for Jim
Jones show that Jim Jones' teachings were true?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 28, 7:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What's wrong with you modern Christians? Go show your love for
> Jesus like they did in the old days. Go throw yourself in front of an
> oncoming lion and show your faith.

They didn't throw themselves in front of lions in the old days. They
were thrown in front of lions by people other than themselves.

[phillipmont@gmail.com]

Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
have seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a human being who has been
flogged and crucified and then seen walking around. To make something
like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem would have been
suicide. It is my contention then that Jesus did in fact arise from
the dead after having been crucified.

On May 29, 12:46 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Hey! What are you doing?

On May 29, 12:52 am, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Phillip Montgomery]

I am cutting you off because I know exactly what you are about to say, my old friend.  You are probably quoting from a book like The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus and trying to claim that because the disciples were doing something foolish by claiming to have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus their story must be true (Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004, p. 38ff).

I would have to side with Ranjit Matthews here and ask why it should matter if something you are doing is foolish as long as you believe.  Look at the Pentecostals!

--
Phillip Montgomery
Blog at
http://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Heh, I was gonna say. I thought you were an atheist, Philmont!

On May 29, 12:59 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
> have seen the resurrected Jesus.

How do you know that many of the early Christains were claiming to
have seen the resurrected Jesus?

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Well no actually it was in one of Josh McDowell's books, I think. But
anyway, the point is that one would think that the disciples and the
witnesses would have been too demoralized by the death of their
teacher to start a lie or a fraud about him.

On May 29, 12:59 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Observer]

On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
> did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?

Observer
Simply because they were superstitious fools.

Of course that is contingent on the fables of their deaths are
authentic.

psychonomist

[Phillip Montgomery]

Please direct your replies to my last statement to Kevin.  My reply was a ploy to cut him off, but it seems I may have jumped the gun. 

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> To make something like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem
> would have been suicide.

Do you have some reason to suspect that the resurrection story
originated in Jerusalem? Descendants of Christians in Jerusalem were
cursed or disparaged by people like Iraneus, Eusebius, etc. for
failing to believe in such stories.

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Ranjit:
The apostle Paul speaks of the early Christians as does Luke.
Furthermore, Luke even mentions the Christians' speaking with Jesus
before his ascention in the book of Acts. Luke was a very meticulous
writer who was writing Acts as an addendum to the Gospel that bears
his name. It would seem unlikely that he was making something up.

On May 29, 1:07 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please direct your replies to my last statement to Kevin. My reply was a
> ploy to cut him off, but it seems I may have jumped the gun.
>

> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:06 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Observer]

On May 28, 8:07 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Indeed, Neil. What I was getting at was the fact that in the Roman
> world at the time professing that Jesus had risen from the dead would
> have been an automatic ticket to a death sentence or at least jail
> time. It would have been a better idea for everyone to keep silent if
> the whole thing had merely been a lie.

Observer
What do you mean "if the whole thing had merely been a lie." ?

There is not the smallest proof that the christian superstition had
any roots in truth.
Christ the god fraud label placed upon poor Jesus (if indeed he ever
lived) by psychotic Paul who never even new him.( No overlapping life
span)

Would you like to be the first to respond with scientiffically
verifiable substantiating data. ???

Please be our guest.

Regards

Psychonomist

[Keith MacNevins]

Regarding faith there is a quote something like this:

 

"To those who do not believe no explanation is possible."

"To those who believe no explanation is necessary."

 

The psychotic-observer has no comprehension of, and therefore no appreciation of faith. What it means or what its ramifications are. He sees no value in faith, and has no use for it. The Bible says that some are chosen and that God knows us before we are born. Perhaps psychotic-observer is just one of those of whom God put here to be an example for the righteous -- of how not to be.

 

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Observer]

On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
> have seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a human being who has been
> flogged and crucified and then seen walking around. To make something
> like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem would have been
> suicide. It is my contention then that Jesus did in fact arise from
> the dead after having been crucified.

Observer
You are a victim of egregious fraud . There is nothing in the way of
verifiable proof that this completely stupid story has any association
with truth.
Now if you can give us proof we will gladly accept it subject to
verification.

Regards

Psychonomist

[Dag Yo]

Nicely done Neil.

Your arguments are most sound.

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Observer,
According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville: Nelson. p. 120).
Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).

On May 29, 1:07 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please direct your replies to my last statement to Kevin. My reply was a
> ploy to cut him off, but it seems I may have jumped the gun.
>

> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:06 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Phillip Montgomery]

I have noticed that the Christian apologist often makes use of generalities from so-called experts concerning the Bible when trying to defend its veracity.  It is odd that no further evidence than an appeal to authority is given to back that authority's position.  Even the professional scholar needs to back her claims.

[Dag Yo]

> According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville: Nelson. p. 120).

Even if that were true, and i'm not saying it is, what exactly would
that prove? It certainly wouldn't prove that Jesus actually existed
-- since a bunch of contradictory stories, written multiple decades
after the guy apparently died by people who never met the guy; is NOT
evidence that Jesus actually existed.

> Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).

Why even mention that? All that proves is that Christians existed,
and no one is doubting that Christians existed.

And it really, Jesus' historicity isn't all that interesting compared
to whether or not Jesus was actually the son of a God who was born to
a virgin -- a hypothesis which is certainly unproven.

On May 28, 9:28 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Turner Hayes]

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ranjit:
The apostle Paul speaks of the early Christians as does Luke.
Furthermore, Luke even mentions the Christians' speaking with Jesus
before his ascention in the book of Acts.  Luke was a very meticulous
writer who was writing Acts as an addendum to the Gospel that bears
his name.  It would seem unlikely that he was making something up.

Ugh, we get this argument once every three months or so. It's absurd.
 

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Dag Yo,
You miss what it was that those Romans were writing about. It is not
Christianity but Jesus that they speak of. Why would they discuss him
if he did not exist and if he was not important?

[dead.kennedy1@googlemail.com]

just as a comment on the verasity of the bible please name the "12
original disciples".

On May 29, 6:12 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Blog athttp://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Observer,
> According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).
> Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>

Kevin.

Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
writings, so does that make Hercules real?

J K Rowling mentioned London in Harry Potter tales, does that make
Hogwarts a real place?

We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
to take a look.

Here's the link: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/eb418ca3b4aee799

Perhaps you should also stop using such absurd arguments from such a
poor authority like Josh McDowell?

[dead.kennedy1@googlemail.com]

and of course the reference to jesus christ in josephus ,as opposed to
the other dozen or so jesus's he mentions, was inserted by a 4c bishop
(content filter prohibits me from naming him)

On 29 May, 11:47, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Observer,
> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).
> > Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>
> Kevin.
>
> Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
> writings, so does that make Hercules real?
>
> J K Rowling mentioned London in Harry Potter tales, does that make
> Hogwarts a real place?
>
> We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
> to take a look.
>

> Here's the link:http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/eb418ca3b4...

>
> Perhaps you should also stop using such absurd arguments from such a
> poor authority like Josh McDowell?
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 1:07 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Please direct your replies to my last statement to Kevin.  My reply was a
> > > ploy to cut him off, but it seems I may have jumped the gun.
>
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:06 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
> > > > > have seen the resurrected Jesus.
>
> > > > How do you know that many of the early Christains were claiming to
> > > > have seen the resurrected Jesus?
>
> > > --
> > > Phillip Montgomery

[Drafterman]

Because people are pretty irrational when it comes to religion in that
they're willing to kill and die for it without ever critically
thinking or questioning it.

On May 28, 10:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Observer]

On May 28, 10:28 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Observer,
> According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville: Nelson. p. 120).
> Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).

Oh I see if they mention someone named Jesus then that validates the
whole idiotic story. Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha

Poorf instant god . Ha Ha Ha ha ha

Spoken like a true christian.

Ha Ha Ha Ha ha.



Now lets see you prove the veracity of the bible .

Ha Ha ha Ha ha

Psychonomist

[manny]

Before you steart writing anything go and look youself in the mirror.
On May 29, 3:59 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
> > did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?
>

[manny]

Well, you don't accept anything even if you see it with your own eyes.
You're, what We call pure evil. You have the devil mind you can't
change
even if you want too. So enjoy your psichotic mind for now it won't be
too long for you...

> > > Jones show that Jim Jones' teachings were true?- Hide quoted text -

[manny]

Well, Well, Well, the first time, I looked in to your profile and
gues what? I was right
all along. You put a pecture of a white girl not andian, but white.
Ask yourself why.
If you can be honest, you know why. You talk about fear and change,
or fear of change
That what you realy mean. You want change so bad.
Well for a person like you. I thing you're not pure evil, but you
have EGO problem.
Your EGO is so big, you can't controle it. It control you and that
bad, to bad to call evil too.
It nothing to do with 9/11 it's you and your EGO, that a lie and you
know it.
So enjoy your EGO.

On May 29, 11:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Observer,
> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).
> > Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>
> Kevin.
>
> Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
> writings, so does that make Hercules real?
>
> J K Rowling mentioned London in Harry Potter tales, does that make
> Hogwarts a real place?
>
> We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
> to take a look.
>

> Here's the link:http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/eb418ca3b4...

>
> Perhaps you should also stop using such absurd arguments from such a
> poor authority like Josh McDowell?
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 1:07 am, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Please direct your replies to my last statement to Kevin.  My reply was a
> > > ploy to cut him off, but it seems I may have jumped the gun.
>
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:06 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
> > > > > have seen the resurrected Jesus.
>
> > > > How do you know that many of the early Christains were claiming to
> > > > have seen the resurrected Jesus?
>
> > > --
> > > Phillip Montgomery

> > > Blog athttp://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[etienne]

It's well known that believers and religious authorities never make
things up. <rolleyes>

On 29 mai, 07:12, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[dead.kennedy1@googlemail.com]

you've gotta admit, s/h/it is funny :0)

> > > > Blog athttp://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Robert]

Let me ask the Christians this.
How many were killed for their belief in Baal?

[zencycle]

The christian martyrs that died didn't know of the lies. They had no reason
to believe they were lies, any more than the pagans that put them to death
had to believe that _their_ gods were not real.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin VanDenBreemen" <fractalc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:42 PM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AvC] The Early Disciples and Apostles

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 29, 7:34 am, Robert <robert.mcdon...@ges.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> Let me ask the Christians this.
> How many were killed for their belief in Baal?

A bunch. Look up Elijah.

[manny]

What's baal? something you play with, or what? o000hh a footbal. I
don't no
ask one of the atheist he my help you with that.

[Trance Gemini]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dead.k...@googlemail.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:53 AM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>
> and of course the reference to jesus christ in josephus ,as opposed to
> the other dozen or so jesus's he mentions, was inserted by a 4c bishop
> (content filter prohibits me from naming him)

It's my understanding that Jesus was a very common name at that time.

[Eris]

I can not find any sources that verify that Christians were killed for
their beliefs, there are on the hand numerous cites for Christians
killing others for not believing in Christianity.

Perhaps you can supply some reputable eyewitness accounts to this.

On May 28, 10:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

> you've gotta admit, s/h/it is funny :0)

He thinks I put a picture of the actress who played Trance Gemini in
Andromeda (whose name I absconded with) because I "want to be white". LMAO!

I wonder how he explains the fact that my real picture is on my blog.

However, I agree. He's so totally stupid he's funny ;-)

That's our Daffy. Lol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. --
Thomas Henry Huxley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dead.k...@googlemail.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Trance,
Can you cite references where Tacitus mentions Hercules as an
historical figure in the way he does Jesus?

On May 29, 6:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Observer,
> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville: Nelson. p. 120).
> > Furthermore, Roman historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>
> Kevin.
>
> Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
> writings, so does that make Hercules real?
>
> J K Rowling mentioned London in Harry Potter tales, does that make
> Hogwarts a real place?
>
> We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
> to take a look.
>

> Here's the link:http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/eb418ca3b4...

[Trance Gemini]

> Trance,
> Can you cite references where Tacitus mentions Hercules as an
> historical figure in the way he does Jesus?

The links were provided in the Quiz.

However here they are again:
http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusapion2.htm

http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php

Simpleton's Quiz Question to us was:

"I was born of a male god and a female mortal.
I performed miraculous feats
I died painfully
I was resurrected
I am god

Josephus (1) and Tacitus (2) mention me.

1. http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusapion2.htm

2. http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php

Who am I?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. --
Thomas Henry Huxley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin VanDenBreemen
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:36 PM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>

[Phillip Montgomery]

Kevin:
I happen to have access to a copy of the very same book from which you quote. 

I am not convinced that Tacitus' quote in the passage you've given is at all convincing.  Tacitus refers to a "pernicious superstition" that was repressed only to break out again.  He also alludes to its originating in Judea.  What I find interesting here is that McDowell makes references to pagan sources attesting to Jesus' existence and subsequent execution but the best he can come up with for attestation of the resurrection of Jesus (a cornerstone of the Christian faith) is a vague reference to a rumour and an italicized passage in Josephus' testimonium (pp. 121, 125).  The latter, as many know, was most likely inserted by later Christian sources. 

I am not impressed.  You need to try harder, my friend.

[hucktunes]

On May 29, 5:55 pm, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can not find any sources that verify that Christians were killed for
> their beliefs, there are on the hand numerous cites for Christians
> killing others for not believing in Christianity.

The same point I was gonna make. Most all of the Christian killed in
the Roman Empire due to persecutions were probably less than one
hundred and occurred in the late third and fourth centuries right
before Christianity became the official religion. And those were
extremists and trouble makers. The vast majority of Christians enjoyed
the benefits and peace offered to all the citizens of Rome. Is is
estimated that more Christians have died in the last fifty years due
to persecutions than all of the first three hundred years of the
church.

On May 29, 6:52 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[BlueSci]

On May 29, 11:22 am, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What's baal?  something you play with, or what?  o000hh a footbal.  I
> don't no
> ask one of the atheist he my help you with that.

Look it up yourself, daffy, it's in the BIBLE!

> On May 29, 3:34 pm, Robert <robert.mcdon...@ges.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me ask the Christians this.

> > How many were killed for their belief in Baal?- Hide quoted text -

[Brock]

On May 29, 12:49 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 28, 7:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with you modern Christians? Go show your love for
> > Jesus like they did in the old days. Go throw yourself in front of an
> > oncoming lion and show your faith.
>

> They didn't throw themselves in front of lions in the old days. They
> were thrown in front of lions by people other than themselves.

Its (martyrdom) still happening in contemporary times[1].

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm

[Brock]

On May 29, 12:52 am, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to

> have seen the resurrected Jesus.  This is a human being who has been
> flogged and crucified and then seen walking around.  To make something
> like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem would have been
> suicide.  It is my contention then that Jesus did in fact arise from
> the dead after having been crucified.

Its an excellent point. Well stated. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BlueSci
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:55 PM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>
>
>

> On May 29, 11:22 am, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What's baal?  something you play with, or what?  o000hh a footbal.  I
> > don't no
> > ask one of the atheist he my help you with that.
>
> Look it up yourself, daffy, it's in the BIBLE!
>

[Trance Gemini]
Makes you wonder if any of these recent Christian additions to AvC have even
read their Bibles?

I can't count the number of times, in the last week alone, that an atheist
had to explain some Biblical statement to Daffy and others.

[Roger Pearse]

On 30 May, 02:50, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Trance,

> > Can you cite references whereTacitus mentions Hercules as an

> > historical figure in the way he does Jesus?
>
> The links were provided in the Quiz.
>
> However here they are again:
> http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusapion2.htm

This is not Tacitus, but book 2 of Josephus, Against Apion. It
doesn't discuss, as far as I can see, whether Hercules was a
"historical figure".

> http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php

This is from the Germania. "They say that Hercules, too, once visited
them; and when going into battle, they sing of him first of all
heroes." But again this does not discuss that issue.

How is it that you are offering 'references' that don't back up your
statements?

But there was a definite idea in antiquity that gods and demi-gods
were merely human kings, whose deeds had been fictionalised and
exaggerated. Eusebius of Caesarea refers to it in his "Praeparatio
Evangelica".

> Simpleton's Quiz Question to us was:
>
> "I was born of a male god and a female mortal.
> I performed miraculous feats
> I died painfully
> I was resurrected
> I am god
>
> Josephus (1) andTacitus(2) mention me.
>
> 1.http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusapion2.htm
>
> 2.http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php
>
> Who am I?"

It never ceases to amaze me that some atheists are this gullible. Can
you really not tell that this is a fraud, and how the fraud is being
done?

The other fraud silently involved in all this is to presume that
atheism is established by default if enough 'objections' can be heaped
up to Christianity. This of course is nonsense; every position must
be evaluated for itself.

Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
period of history in which we all happen to live? And offer some
reasons for this choice of belief-system? Because if not, atheism
falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

On 29 May, 06:28, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> Observer,
> According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).

Correct. Those advocating this are merely the kind of atheists who
give atheism a bad name.

> Furthermore, Roman historians likeTacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the

> Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).

Correct. Those who pretend that Jesus did not exist have no texts to
cite in support of their view from antiquity.

[Roger Pearse]

On 29 May, 06:55, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).
>

> Even if that were true, and i'm not saying it is, what exactly would
> that prove?  It certainly wouldn't prove that Jesus actually existed
> -- since a bunch of contradictory stories, written multiple decades
> after the guy apparently died by people who never met the guy; is NOT
> evidence that Jesus actually existed.

In your opinion. Scholars think differently.

> > Furthermore, Roman historians likeTacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>

> Why even mention that?  All that proves is that Christians existed,
> and no one is doubting that Christians existed.

Some of your friends find it convenient to pretend that they didn't.
But since this argument is merely an excuse to ignore data, we can
safely ignore it.

> And it really, Jesus' historicity isn't all that interesting compared
> to whether or not Jesus was actually the son of a God who was born to
> a virgin ...

Certainly.

[Roger Pearse]

On 29 May, 11:47, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Observer,

> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).

> > Furthermore, Roman historians likeTacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>

> Kevin.
> Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
> writings, so does that make Hercules real?

You tell me. You raise a conundrum, so I fire it straight back. Does
the same apply to every ancient figure mentioned in literary
sources?

One of the things that makes atheism contemptible is the inability of
its advocates to discuss their own position, and their willingness to
repeat obviously fraudulent 'problems'.

> We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
> to take a look.

Change of subject, eh?

> Perhaps you should also stop using such absurd arguments from such a
> poor authority like Josh McDowell?

Perhaps you'd like to stick to honest arguments rather than jeers and
ad hominems.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 31, 1:43 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> period of history in which we all happen to live?

That's how Christians do live. Christians are not particularly known
as non-conformists. To find a non-conformist, try Timothy Leary.

[Roger Pearse]

On 31 May, 11:20, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 1:43 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> > period of history in which we all happen to live?
>

> That's how Christians do live...

Change of subject noted. I note, with amusement, that atheists, as
ever, can't discuss their beliefs.

Oh, and lie noted; unless it's Christians who're pushing sodomy in
your country!

[TLC]

simonsaysbye and other christians, you must be proud of four copies
in Greek, but what date were they written and by whom?? From which
text were they translated into Greek? And do Greek accounts written
almost a couple of hundred years after the imagined event make the
story any more true than ones written 4, 6 or even a 1000 years after
the event? Unless, you think all text written in ancient Greek are
true, in which case you should be worshipping Zeus!

Don't let's get bogged down in details of who was an apostle or
evangelist. If you wish to exclude Luke' myth as only more re-hashed
christian propaganda, I agree. Now, that leaves you with only three
myths to support the historicity of Jesus, Matthew, Mark and John.
And you discount Mark as being an eye-witness, the gospel of Mark is
the oldest surviving gospel, now you have only Matthew and John.

This leaves you with a problem. Because, It is clear that the gospel
of Matthew could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of
the tales it tells. Because, both Matthew and Luke plagiarize d
(largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, (who wasn't
an eye-witness), to which they add sayings of Jesus e and would-be
historical details. The alleged postresurrection appearances reported
in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest
manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles
as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel. Just can't
trust religions!

Now, you are left with only one account, John's, of the
postresurrection myth on which your religion is based! What can one
say about saint Johnny?

No Star of Bethlehem, no embarrassment of pregnant virgins, no hint
that Jesus ever wore diapers, pure spirit from the beginning.
Moreover, in its present form, the gospel of John is the latest of all
the official gospels. Well, it's known that the gospel of John was
compiled around the year 110 CE. If its author had been 10 years old
at the time of Jesus' crucifiction in the year 30 CE, he would have
been 80 years old at the time of writing.

The inauthenticity of the gospel of John would seem to be established
beyond doubt by the discovery that the very chapter that asserts the
author of the book to have been "the disciple whom Jesus loved" [John
21:20] was a late addition to the gospel. Scholars have shown that the
gospel originally ended at verses 30-31 of Chapter 20. Chapter 21 - in
which verse 24 asserts that "This is the disciple which testifieth of
these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony
is true" - is not the work of an eye-witness. Like so many other
things in the bible, it is a fraud. The testimony is not true.

In fact, your myth is no more credible than the one of Joe Smith in
which the Mormans believe or the stories of Ron Hubbard in which the
scientologists accept as being true.

[Roger Pearse]

On 31 May, 12:45, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
><ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 1:43 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
>> > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
>> > period of history in which we all happen to live?

>> That's how Christians do live...

>Change of subject noted. I note, with amusement, that atheists, as
>ever, can't discuss their beliefs.

> simonsaysbye and other christians,  you must be proud of four copies
> in Greek, but what date were they written and by whom??  From which
> text were they translated into Greek?  And do Greek accounts written

> almost a couple of hundred years ... (illiterate nonsense snipped etc)

No answer to my question, then? I thought not.

This is why atheism must be wrong, whether Christianity is right or
not.

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

TLC,

"Now, that leaves you with only three
myths to support the historicity of Jesus, Matthew, Mark and John.
And you discount Mark as being an eye-witness, the gospel of Mark is
the oldest surviving gospel, now you have only Matthew and John. "

How do you come to discount Mark? Also you should note that the
synoptic gospels were likely written within 100 years of the events of
the gospel itself. Not only is that the case but also the epistles of
Paul were written even earlier than the gospels.

John was written for a largely Greek audience, so its tone will
reflect that. For example, the conception of Christ as the word
become flesh sounds more like Platonic thought.

[trog69]

ranjit answered your blatantly false posit. Your projection of
Christian mores onto atheists doesn't pass the smell test. Try again.

[Phillip Montgomery]

Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
period of history in which we all happen to live?

If I am not mistaken, most social groups throughout history have lived this way.  Isn't this the definition of cultural and historical context?  I am also rather surprised by your characterization of atheism as a conformist philosophy when its adherents don't conform to several of the major ideas of the day.  I'll skip the elephant in the room, as it were, look instead at a quick sampling of some statistics.

According to the website religioustolerance.org, some 53% of the American population believed, as of 2007, that good works could earn them a place in Heaven.  39% believe that not acepting Christ as saviour would land them in Hell.  58% of adults with no religious affiliation believed in an afterlife.  See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm

Returning to theism itself, particularly Christian theism, consider the following statistic.  According to the US census the majority of those polled in a random telephone survey in 2001 identified themselves as Christians.   See http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html

I am usually averse to citing statistics in my arguments, as it seems rather easy to argue against them on account of this or that technicality.  Nevertheless, I humbly submit the above to you.  My point is that if atheists do in fact assert that we should all live "in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the period of history in which we all happen to live" then from a statistical viewpoint we are supremely hypocritical. 

And offer some reasons for this choice of belief-system?  Because if not, atheism
falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.

I am curious to know how you define the atheist "belief-system." 

 

[Keith MacNevins]

Genuine Christians certainly have non-conformists among them. We are called to emulate Christ. He was a non-conformist.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Roger Pearse]

While all you can offer is assertions, and while you can't answer my
question, you lose. Try again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

> > Roger Pearse- Hide quoted text -

[Roger Pearse]

On 31 May, 16:11, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> > period of history in which we all happen to live?
>
> If I am not mistaken, most social groups throughout history have lived this
> way.  Isn't this the definition of cultural and historical context?  

Indeed it is. But perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Doesn't every period of history have a menu of acceptable beliefs, not
always consistent with each other. Thus it mattered nothing to a
Roman whether you worshipped Jupiter or followed the Cynic philosophy
and jeered at the gods. But if you were a Christian, you were
outside, even if in many ways you lived like most people. On points
where it pinched, you fundamentally followed a set of teachings. You
didn't just follow whatever the societal values were.

> I am also rather surprised by your characterization of atheism as a conformist
> philosophy when its adherents don't conform to several of the major ideas of
> the day.  

But they do. They conform bionically to some convenient subset of the
societal values of whatever period they live in. To give one obvious
example, in 1900 society rejected sodomy, and atheists did too. In
2008 society makes it very dangerous to reject sodomy, and atheists
curse Christians for their failure to conform.

> According to the website religioustolerance.org, some 53% of the American
> population believed, as of 2007, that good works could earn them a place in

> Heaven... (etc)

The idea that modern America is run on this basis hardly needs
discussion. You export porn, not religion, to us.

> > And offer some reasons for this choice of belief-system?  Because if not,
> > atheism falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.
>
> I am curious to know how you define the atheist "belief-system."

I'm afraid that unless atheists put their positive belief systems on
the table, all such comments and 'questions' have to be seen as
special pleading. It is hardly for me to define this, is it? And
atheists will not. All they do is curse Christians. So what is left,
but conformity?

[Chris]

If it means anything there is greater testament to the deity of Christ
in John's gospel. Why blame it all on Paul?

On May 28, 10:16 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 8:07 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, Neil. What I was getting at was the fact that in the Roman
> > world at the time professing that Jesus had risen from the dead would
> > have been an automatic ticket to a death sentence or at least jail
> > time. It would have been a better idea for everyone to keep silent if
> > the whole thing had merely been a lie.
>
> Observer
> What do you mean "if the whole thing had merely been a lie." ?
>
> There is not the smallest proof that the christian superstition had
> any roots in truth.
> Christ the god fraud label placed upon poor Jesus (if indeed he ever
> lived) by psychotic Paul who never even new him.( No overlapping life
> span)
>
> Would you like to be the first to respond with scientiffically
> verifiable substantiating data. ???
>
> Please be our guest.
>
> Regards
>
> Psychonomist
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:59 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>

> > > wrote:
>
> > > > If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies then why
> > > > did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?
>

> > > Yeah! What's wrong with you modern Christians? Go show your love for

> > > Jesus like they did in the old days. Go throw yourself in front of an
> > > oncoming lion and show your faith.
>

> > > Kidding, probably. Just because people die for a cause doesn't mean
> > > the cause is worth dying for. God does not exist because people die in
> > > the name of God. If that were the case, then those Halle Bopp suicide
> > > cult guys were correct; there WAS a spaceship trailing that comet. And
> > > Jim Jones WAS a prophet. And those guys that flew the airplanes into
> > > the World Trade Towers proved Allah exists.

[Chris]

Observer - what proof would you accept? What proofs do you accept as
the likelihood of anything other then Christianity being the necessary
world view?

On May 28, 10:22 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > Look, the point is that many of the early Christians were claiming to
> > have seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a human being who has been
> > flogged and crucified and then seen walking around. To make something
> > like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem would have been
> > suicide. It is my contention then that Jesus did in fact arise from
> > the dead after having been crucified.
>

> Observer
> You are a victim of egregious fraud . There is nothing in the way of
> verifiable proof that this completely stupid story has any association
> with truth.
> Now if you can give us proof we will gladly accept it subject to
> verification.
>
> Regards
>
> Psychonomist
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 12:46 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > BTW, all the disciples were early; there were no late disciples.

>
> > > On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies
> > > > then why did so many people die for them in the early years of Christianity?
>

> > > Equally rhetorical question: If heresies were all lies, why did so
> > > many heretics die for their faith?
>
> > > Is it conceivable that some things that people die for are true and
> > > other things people die for are false? Does many people dying for Jim
> > > Jones show that Jim Jones' teachings were true?

[Chris]

if you're referring to the instance where they challenged or rather
were challenged by Elijah, it's unlikely they had a chance to escape
given their god didn't perform adequately.

[Phillip Montgomery]

Roger:

I think I ought to have given your entire paragraph in my response previously.  I give it now.

Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the

period of history in which we all happen to live?  And offer some

reasons for this choice of belief-system?  Because if not, atheism
falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.

In response to my questioning you regarding atheists apparently wanting Christians to conform to societal norms you gave several examples of instances in which atheists themselves have conformed to the same norms Christians did (rejection of sodomy, for example).  I am not convinced that this is a discussion that is at all relevant to the veracity of atheism or indeed any other philosophy.  You and I could debate the social adherence among Buddhists and its reflection upon the veracity of Buddhism to much the same effect as our current discussion.

What is of greater interest to me rather is your assertion that a failure to give reasons for one's choice of belief system automatically invalidates that system of belief.  Where did you get this idea from?  I certainly do agree that one who believes something without being able to give reasons as to why she chose that particular belief may need to examine more closely her beliefs in general.  As to the reasons we atheists are such, you might like to peruse this forum for the threads that are occasionally started in which atheists are asked to give their own "testimonies" (to borrow from the Christian evangelists) concerning their lack of faith.

You export porn, not religion, to us.

What do you mean by this?  I am Canadian but to the best of my knowledge, both Canada and America are more than capable of generating their own pornographic "art."  As to my choosing of America for my statistics, Canada would have been a poor place for me to find atheists who were against the norm.  Religion is on the decline in Canada.

I'm afraid that unless atheists put their positive belief systems on
the table, all such comments and 'questions' have to be seen as
special pleading.  It is hardly for me to define this, is it?  And
atheists will not.  All they do is curse Christians.  So what is left,
but conformity?

And I am afraid that you may need to read a few more books.  You might like to read some of the modern atheists who have come to the forefront today.  Dawkins is a good choice, as is Hitchens.  I found a good amount of solace in reading Paine's Common Sense.  Paine may not have been an atheist as we know the term today, but he was most certainly not afraid to question the divinely-appointed monarchs of his day.

[zencycle]

pretty lame 'arguments' roger, even for you.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:50 AM
To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles

>

[zencycle]

From: "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com>

>
> Change of subject noted. I note, with amusement, that atheists, as
> ever, can't discuss their beliefs.

As usual for roger, when his point is refuted, he resorts to attacking the
respondent.
(point of note - ranjit isn't an atheist)

No, roger, it isn't a change of subject, Ranjit made the point that there is
no difference between what you asked and the realties throughout history.

> Oh, and lie noted; unless it's Christians who're pushing sodomy in
> your country!

wow, talk about changing the subject....

We know your prejudiced and ignorant sensibilities are conflating sodomy
with gay marriage so I'll play. The short answer is yes, since only 15% of
the US population are atheists, and 40% of the general public supports gays
marriage, then there are in fact a great number of christians who are
supporting gay marriage. A great many more support keeping what happens in
the bedroom private, so there is implicit support amounrg the majority of
americans - ergo the majority of christians - for sodomy. One last point for
you to consider, many heterosexuals practice anal and oral sex regularly,
again, mostly christian. Read master & johnson and kinsey if you don't
believe me.

so much for not discussing our beliefs....

Your turn: can you explain to us - without invoking god - what's wrong with
sodomy?

> All the best,

And, as usual, your best is pretty pathetic

[zencycle]

From: "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com>

>
>But if you were a Christian, you were
> outside, even if in many ways you lived like most people. On points
> where it pinched, you fundamentally followed a set of teachings. You
> didn't just follow whatever the societal values were.

right, the christians have _always_ been the independent free thinkers......

> But they do. They conform bionically to some convenient subset of the
> societal values of whatever period they live in.

Sure, in a society where 85% of the population is religious, the atheists
are the conformists.

> To give one obvious
> example, in 1900 society rejected sodomy, and atheists did too. In
> 2008 society makes it very dangerous to reject sodomy,

What society? 65% of americans are against gay marriage.

> and atheists
> curse Christians for their failure to conform.

No, you asshat homophobe, atheists curse christians who are trying to make
_us_ conform.

> I'm afraid that unless atheists put their positive belief systems on
> the table

> And

> atheists will not. All they do is curse Christians.

It's been done time and time again. You're just too deluded and prejudiced
to accept anything that doesn't conform to your myopic veiws.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 31, 4:00 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 31 May, 11:20, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 1:43 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> > > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> > > period of history in which we all happen to live?
>
> > That's how Christians do live...

> Change of subject noted.

It's right on topic. You asked why Christians ought to live in
conformity with some subset of societal values. Because they already
do and are welcome to live the way they are living, they should
continue to live in conformity with some subset of societal values.

> I note, with amusement, that atheists, as
> ever, can't discuss their beliefs.
>
> Oh, and lie noted; unless it's Christians who're pushing sodomy in
> your country!

Sodomy is non-conformist in the US, so it would those who don't live
in conformity with societal values who would be pushing it. Indeed,
pushing it would not be in conformity with even most sodomites'
values; they'd be quite disgusted if some sodomite started pushing
sodomy on heterosexuals.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 31, 11:14 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 31 May, 16:11, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> > > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> > > period of history in which we all happen to live?
>
> > If I am not mistaken, most social groups throughout history have lived this
> > way. Isn't this the definition of cultural and historical context?
>
> Indeed it is. But perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
>
> Doesn't every period of history have a menu of acceptable beliefs, not
> always consistent with each other. Thus it mattered nothing to a
> Roman whether you worshipped Jupiter or followed the Cynic philosophy
> and jeered at the gods. But if you were a Christian, you were
> outside, even if in many ways you lived like most people. On points
> where it pinched, you fundamentally followed a set of teachings. You
> didn't just follow whatever the societal values were.

From where did Christians get their requirement for monogamy?

> > I am also rather surprised by your characterization of atheism as a conformist
> > philosophy when its adherents don't conform to several of the major ideas of
> > the day.
> But they do. They conform bionically to some convenient subset of the
> societal values of whatever period they live in. To give one obvious
> example, in 1900 society rejected sodomy, and atheists did too. In
> 2008 society makes it very dangerous to reject sodomy, and atheists
> curse Christians for their failure to conform.

Nonsense. Anyone is free to reject sodomy or even sex altogether. We
don't see anyone curse so and so for not practising sodomy or curse a
nun for not having sex.

> > According to the website religioustolerance.org, some 53% of the American
> > population believed, as of 2007, that good works could earn them a place in
> > Heaven... (etc)
> The idea that modern America is run on this basis hardly needs
> discussion. You export porn, not religion, to us.

Which place is "us"? The US exports both religion and porn, among many
other things. For religion as an export, take a look at Africa. You
can find exported religion just about anywhere that's not Muslim
dominated whereas it wouldn't be all that easy for you to find
exported porn.

[Observer]

On May 31, 11:32 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If it means anything there is greater testament to the deity of Christ
> in John's gospel. Why blame it all on Paul?

Does it matter which lunatic propagated a myth or such a rediculous
nature. There still exists not the smallest corroboration of this
idiotic storey.

And Paul or who ever used his name and re wrote the history ( and i
use the word advisedly in that there is no proof that Jesus(of the
story) ever lived ) turned poor Jesus into a god fraud.


Why do you believe such ludicrous prevarication.? Are you under the
care of a psychiatrist are you trying to recover or are you just brain
dead?

[Observer]

On May 31, 11:34 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Observer - what proof would you accept? What proofs do you accept as
> the likelihood of anything other then Christianity being the necessary
> world view?

Observer
You are the one claiming that this idiotic story is true and that the
god thing had its self tortured to death to save us from its own
wrath. It is up to you to find the proof, what ever that might be,
and offer it for scientific evaluation. If you can not do this then
you must admit that you know not where of your speak and that the
whole superstitious compilation of Neolithic myths are nothing more
than that.
I can not even imagine there being any such proof so it is
genuinely hebetudinous to ask that I formulate one.
When you learn to think for your self and quit accepting what your
told to think you may find ways to intelligently look at issues and
make informed decisions.
Please Get an Education.
Psychonomist

>
> On May 28, 10:22 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 9:52 pm, "phillipm...@gmail.com" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>

> > > Look, the point is that many of theearlyChristians were claiming to

> > > have seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a human being who has been
> > > flogged and crucified and then seen walking around. To make something
> > > like that up in first century Roman-occupied Jerusalem would have been
> > > suicide. It is my contention then that Jesus did in fact arise from
> > > the dead after having been crucified.
>
> > Observer
> > You are a victim of egregious fraud . There is nothing in the way of
> > verifiable proof that this completely stupid story has any association
> > with truth.
> > Now if you can give us proof we will gladly accept it subject to
> > verification.
>
> > Regards
>
> > Psychonomist
>
> > > On May 29, 12:46 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > BTW, all the disciples wereearly; there were no late disciples.

>
> > > > On May 28, 7:42 pm, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > If Christianity and the resurrection of Christ are all lies

> > > > > then why did so many people die for them in theearlyyears of Christianity?

[Phillip Montgomery]

Kevin:

I have gone over the possibility of an appeal to archaeological evidence working in convincing people of the veracity of the Christian story and I must tell you that the odds are not in your favour.  Perhaps you might like to explain what it is you hope to accomplish here in appealing to such things as the historicity of Mark etc. 

We have already discredited your appeal to external sources in demonstrating the existence of Jesus as a person of history.  How then do you intend to make a case for the resurrection of that person?

[Kevin VanDenBreemen]

Phillip:

By appealing to archaeological evidence I am undercutting the
assumption among many atheists that there is no historical basis for
the claims of Christiantiy.

You and I both know that there are mountains of evidence (for example,
the copious number of accurate reproductions of the New Testament,
along with the dead sea scrolls and their copies of Old Testament
documents) for the meticulous preservation of the texts both of
Judaism and of Christianity. The atheist must first ignore this if he
is going to convince anyone of the falsehood of Christianity.

There are also numerous discredited accounts of how Jesus'
resurrection could have been faked. For example, the idea of the
disciples stealing the body of Jesus is ludicrous since they'd first
have to get past Roman soldiers and then roll away a giant boulder in
order to do it. Furthermore, if the gospel writers had been trying to
perpetrate a fraud why would they have reported that women found the
empty tomb? Women were not exactly taken seriously in that period. I
ask then, if there was no resurrection then where is the body of
Jesus?

Ultimately I am creating doubt in the mind of the atheist as to the
certainty of atheism. Oddly enough, that's exactly what you are
trying to do to me, as is every other atheist.

[Observer]

On May 31, 1:45 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 29 May, 06:28, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

Hey Stupid this is not my cut and past . Why did you tag it with my
handle?
************************************************************************************

> > Observer,
> > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville: Nelson. p. 120).

*******************************************************************************************
>

You fucking moron


Psychonomist
> Correct. Those advocating this are merely the kind of atheists who
> give atheism a bad name.

>
> > Furthermore, Roman historians likeTacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
>

> Correct. Those who pretend that Jesus did not exist have no texts to
> cite in support of their view from antiquity.

[manny]

Well what do you know? you think you know, but you don't know a
shit.
How you explain your posts, that jusus was a common name it that time.
do you see anyone called himself jusus now or before. you're in
ignorant,
but find it hard to admite it. Cause your EGO won't let that so enjoy
your ignorace.

On May 31, 12:10 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> > Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BlueSci
> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:55 PM
> > To: Atheism vs Christianity
> > Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>

> > On May 29, 11:22 am, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > What's baal?  something you play with, or what?  o000hh a footbal.  I
> > > don't no
> > > ask one of the atheist he my help you with that.
>
> > Look it up yourself, daffy, it's in the BIBLE!
>
> [Trance Gemini]
> Makes you wonder if any of these recent Christian additions to AvC have even
> read their Bibles?
>
> I can't count the number of times, in the last week alone, that an atheist
> had to explain some Biblical statement to Daffy and others.

>
>
>
> > >  On May 29, 3:34 pm, Robert <robert.mcdon...@ges.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Let me ask the Christians this.

> > > > How many were killed for their belief in Baal?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Phillip Montgomery]

By appealing to archaeological evidence I am undercutting the
assumption among many atheists that there is no historical basis for
the claims of Christiantiy.

Fair enough.

 You and I both know that there are mountains of evidence (for example,
the copious number of accurate reproductions of the New Testament,
along with the dead sea scrolls and their copies of Old Testament
documents) for the meticulous preservation of the texts both of
Judaism and of Christianity.  The atheist must first ignore this if he
is going to convince anyone of the falsehood of Christianity.

Accurate reproduction of a text does not make it true.  For example, "The Secret" has sold millions of copies, each of which is exactly like the others, and you and I both consider the book absolute sentimental garbage.

There are also numerous discredited accounts of how Jesus' resurrection could have been faked

Then each of these accounts makes the dubious assumption that the text that claims Jesus rose from the dead is true.  The disciples went public with their preaching some 50 days after the events of the resurrection are alleged to have taken place (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html).  One wonders what they were doing in the interim, planning and fundraising? 

What's more, Mark, the earliest of the synoptic gospels, is missing the great commission in the the earliest copies of it (Kenneth Barker, ed.  "The NIV Study Bible."  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1995, p. 1528).  I give this example because it contains a rather odd passage in which Jesus is said to have "appeared in a different form" to two of the disciples after having been heralded by a young man dressed in white.

Returning to the resurrection itself, Matthew further embellishes the tale with accounts of an earthquake and of an angel whose appearance was like lightning (Matthew 28:3-4) and which scared those standing guard.  Contrast this with the less dramatic appearance of the young man inside the tomb in Mark 16:5.  Finally, Matthew adds the convenient tale that the Jewish chief priests paid off the Roman guards to make up a story that the disciples had stolen the body.

My point here is that there may be numerous discredited accounts of how the whole thing was faked but the refutations of these accounts depend always on an acceptance of the truth of the gospel story.  Unfortunately, however, the synoptic gospels don't seem very synoptic about the details of the resurrection itself.  Matthew has his conspiracy theory about the Jews circulating a counter-rumour.  No one seems able to agree on how many angels there were or how they appeared, and Jesus apparently decided to appear in another form to two people.  I didn't even have to touch John here.  His account mangles those of Mark and Matthew even more, with Mary Magdelene thinking at first that someone had in fact removed Jesus' body and then going and telling Simon Peter about it before encountering the white angelic beings (John 20:1-9).  I don't recall reading about that in the other gospels. 

Ultimately I am creating doubt in the mind of the atheist as to the
certainty of atheism.

Kevin, you are too smart to fall for the silly tale among Christians that atheism is a faith that asserts that there is no God.   As for doubt, we stir it in you in an effort to engender that other healthy activity, progress.  Doubt is painful, as is progress.  Both are signs of growth and we all know that that is a painful activity also.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 31, 11:48 pm, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kevin:
>
> I have gone over the possibility of an appeal to archaeological evidence
> working in convincing people of the veracity of the Christian story and I
> must tell you that the odds are not in your favour.

They found Troy, does that validate the Greek pantheon?

> Blog athttp://philtheinfidel.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Roger, my point was simply that both Tacitus and Josephus refer to Hercules.

Both are used to justify extra-Biblical support for Jesus being real because
they refer to Jesus.

Does that mean Hercules was also real?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. --
Thomas Henry Huxley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Pearse
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:44 AM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>

> Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the

> period of history in which we all happen to live? And offer some
> reasons for this choice of belief-system? Because if not, atheism
> falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.
>

[Trance Gemini]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. --
Thomas Henry Huxley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-
> Christ...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Pearse
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 4:51 AM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: The Early Disciples and Apostles
>
>

> On 29 May, 11:47, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 1:28 am, Kevin VanDenBreemen <fractalconfus...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >

> > > Observer,
> > > According to one Otto Betz "no serious scholar has ventured to
> > > postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (see McDowell, Josh, "The New
> > > Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Nashville:  Nelson.  p. 120).

> > > Furthermore, Roman historians likeTacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the
> > > Younger, and Thallus mention Jesus in their writings (ibid. 121-122).
> >

> > Kevin.
> > Are you aware that Josephus and Tacitus also mention Hercules in their
> > writings, so does that make Hercules real?
>
> You tell me. You raise a conundrum, so I fire it straight back. Does
> the same apply to every ancient figure mentioned in literary
> sources?
>

[Trance Gemini]

Historical information has to be confirmed over and over again from many
independent sources. If it isn't then yes it's questionable.

It's less important with other ancient figures because no-one is building a
religion about them, claiming the ancient person is divine and a
representative of a god.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Carl Sagan.

> One of the things that makes atheism contemptible is the inability of
> its advocates to discuss their own position, and their willingness to
> repeat obviously fraudulent 'problems'.
>
> > We had a quiz on AvC a little while back on this. Perhaps you'd like
> > to take a look.
>
> Change of subject, eh?
>
> > Perhaps you should also stop using such absurd arguments from such a
> > poor authority like Josh McDowell?
>
> Perhaps you'd like to stick to honest arguments rather than jeers and
> ad hominems.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

Was Homer real?

[hucktunes]

No conclusive proof about Homer.

On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was Homer real?
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[manny]

Well Trancy, the truth is in the heart. First you believe, then you
work on that believe
by trying to leive by the rules which they are in you in your own
instinc. that why there is no escepe from the truth.
After you get to corect your defect of character. Then and only then
you will know the truth which is within you
Otherwise you still got the truth within you but from evil in your
character, mostly from your big and agly
so called EGO. So if you want to stick with it, he will take you to
hell. Your EGO is like a ranaway train he's no breacks
so enjoy the raid.

> > Roger Pearse- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Eris]

We don't have a bunch of sexually dysfunctional people in Clown suits
asking us to obey Homer, so it doesn't really matter, does it?
Praise Homer duh

On Jun 1, 10:28 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was Homer real?
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

Indeed. Maybe Plato did not actually exist. He was a creation to promote a set of philosophical arguments by contemporaries of Aristotle.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

You really are nothing more substantive than an erisache. Homer did not attempt to do anything other than entertain.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Keith MacNevins]

Tee hee. "trancy." You are too kind manny!

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Eris]

On Jun 2, 12:13 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You really are nothing more substantive than an erisache. Homer did not
> attempt to do anything other than entertain.
>

Oz never gave the tin man anything he didn't already have

[Roger Pearse]

On 31 May, 19:59, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger:
>
> I think I ought to have given your entire paragraph in my response
> previously.  I give it now.
>
> > Can you state just why we should all live, as atheists think we
> > should, in conformity to some subset of the societal values of the
> > period of history in which we all happen to live?  And offer some
> > reasons for this choice of belief-system?  Because if not, atheism
> > falls below the bar of rational choice there and then.
>
> In response to my questioning you regarding atheists apparently wanting
> Christians to conform to societal norms you gave several examples of
> instances in which atheists themselves have conformed to the same norms
> Christians did (rejection of sodomy, for example).  I am not convinced that
> this is a discussion that is at all relevant to the veracity of atheism or
> indeed any other philosophy.  

You must excuse me if I demur. Atheists will not state the system of
beliefs by which they live. But these turn out to be conformity to a
subset of whatever happen to be the societal values of the period in
which they happen to live. It is a refutation of any philosophy to
demonstrate that it involves mindless conformity, surely? Defending
this by asserting "Martians do the same" is not a response.

> What is of greater interest to me rather is your assertion that a failure to
> give reasons for one's choice of belief system automatically invalidates
> that system of belief.  Where did you get this idea from?  

<smile> You need to try much harder to justify atheism than this.

> > You export porn, not religion, to us.
>

> What do you mean ... (etc)

<smile> You know, some of us have seen the trick of responding to
every statement or question with a question or demand for proof
before. Nice try, but no cigar.

> > I'm afraid that unless atheists put their positive belief systems on
> > the table, all such comments and 'questions' have to be seen as
> > special pleading.  It is hardly for me to define this, is it?  And
> > atheists will not.  All they do is curse Christians.  So what is left,
> > but conformity?
>

> And I am afraid that you may need to read a few more books... (snip)

Argument by book snipped.

As I remarked, special pleading.

[Roger Pearse]

On 1 Jun, 07:48, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have gone over the possibility of an appeal to archaeological evidence
> working in convincing people of the veracity of the Christian story and I

> must tell you that the odds are not in your favour.  Perhaps you ... (demands snipped)

If you can offer any evidence for whatever it is that you are
asserting here, I would be interested to see it.

> We have already discredited your appeal to external sources in demonstrating
> the existence of Jesus as a person of history.  

<smile> In view of the fact that every professor of ancient history at
every university in the world believes that such a person existed, I
look forward to you offering some evidence for whatever it is that you
imagine you have proven.

The tendency of atheists to look for excuses for avoiding evidence is
entertaining, but tells us more about atheism than about history.
History is based on data, not excuses to avoid it.

[Roger Pearse]

On 1 Jun, 19:16, "Phillip Montgomery" <phillipm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You and I both know that there are mountains of evidence (for example,
> > the copious number of accurate reproductions of the New Testament,
> > along with the dead sea scrolls and their copies of Old Testament
> > documents) for the meticulous preservation of the texts both of
> > Judaism and of Christianity.  The atheist must first ignore this if he
> > is going to convince anyone of the falsehood of Christianity.
>
> Accurate reproduction of a text does not make it true.  

Of course not. But what *does* make it true?

> > There are also numerous discredited accounts of how Jesus' resurrection
> > could have been faked
>
> Then each of these accounts makes the dubious assumption that the text that
> claims Jesus rose from the dead is true.  The disciples went public with
> their preaching some 50 days after the events of the resurrection are
> alleged to have taken place (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html).  One
> wonders what they were doing in the interim, planning and fundraising?

Does one wonder? Does one wondering signify anything, and if so what,
and on what basis of ancient evidence?

> What's more, Mark, the earliest of the synoptic gospels, is missing the

> great commission in the the earliest copies of it ...

So?

> Returning to the resurrection itself, Matthew further embellishes the tale

You can no doubt produce some ancient evidence which records this
'embellishment'?

> Finally, Matthew adds the convenient tale ...

Ditto. Or are you just asserting something false on a basis of
personal convenience?

> Unfortunately, however, the synoptic gospels don't seem very synoptic
> about the details of the resurrection itself.  

(standard argument; gospels have differences therefore are untrue
snipped)

Most intelligent people read more than one newspaper. Few of them, on
discovering differences in the accounts of events, presume that the
event did not happen.

> > Ultimately I am creating doubt in the mind of the atheist as to the
> > certainty of atheism.
>
> Kevin, you are too smart to fall for the silly tale among Christians that
> atheism is a faith that asserts that there is no God.  

Argument by flattery noted.

The idea that atheism is not a religious position, complete with
'holy' texts, martyrs, and bigotry, hardly needs discussion.

> As for doubt, we stir it in you in an effort to engender that other healthy activity,
> progress.  

Progress, as defined as "movement in a direction which I find
convenient"?

> Doubt is painful, as is progress.  Both are signs of growth and
> we all know that that is a painful activity also.

Perhaps this is why atheists are unable even to state the beliefs by
which they live, relying on evasion and 'question' instead?

It must be embarassing to believe in something you can't even discuss.

[zencycle]

From: "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com>

>
> Atheists will not state the system of
> beliefs by which they live.

You are a liar.

> But these turn out to be conformity to a
> subset of whatever happen to be the societal values of the period in
> which they happen to live.

No different than christians

> It is a refutation of any philosophy to
> demonstrate that it involves mindless conformity, surely? Defending
> this by asserting "Martians do the same" is not a response.

Then how do you justify your willingness to follow the same religion as 25 %
of the planet?

>> What is of greater interest to me rather is your assertion that a failure
>> to
>> give reasons for one's choice of belief system automatically invalidates
>> that system of belief. Where did you get this idea from?
>
> <smile> You need to try much harder to justify atheism than this.

unwillingness to answer the question noted

>> > You export porn, not religion, to us.
>>
>> What do you mean ... (etc)
>
> <smile> You know, some of us have seen the trick of responding to
> every statement or question with a question or demand for proof
> before. Nice try, but no cigar.

unwillingness to answer the question noted

>> And I am afraid that you may need to read a few more books... (snip)
>
> Argument by book snipped.

unwillingness to discuss _your_ point noted.

> All the best,

And, as usual, quite pathetic

[Roger Pearse]

On 2 Jun, 20:04, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com>

> > Atheists will not state the system of
> > beliefs by which they live.
>
> You are a liar.

(snipping all my comments to see where the statement of atheist
beliefs might be...)

> No different than christians

> Then how do you justify your willingness to follow the same religion as 25 %
> of the planet?

> unwillingness to answer the question noted
> unwillingness to answer the question noted

> unwillingness to discuss _your_ point noted.

> And, as usual, quite pathetic

Oh dear.

Atheists... <contempt>

Roger Pearse

[Drafterman]

contempt - open disrespect for a person or thing

Yep, sounds about right.

>
> Roger Pearse

[zencycle]

From: "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com>

>
>> You are a liar.
>
> (snipping all my comments to see where the statement of atheist
> beliefs might be...)
>
>> No different than christians
>> Then how do you justify your willingness to follow the same religion as
>> 25 %
>> of the planet?
>> unwillingness to answer the question noted
>> unwillingness to answer the question noted
>> unwillingness to discuss _your_ point noted.
>> And, as usual, quite pathetic
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Atheists... <contempt>

Complete unwillingness to rationally discuss _anything_ noted.

Roger pearse = asshat

> Roger Pearse
> >
>