Pontius Pilate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

I will try to keep this short and without inciting more answers, because this doesn't belong in here. I just feel obliged to answer what claims have already been made.

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us. The majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter, but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one.

---

Actually, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Atheist does indeed mean that one does not believe in any god, but it means that one believes there IS NO god. Not believing in a god, yet not rejecting the existence of a god/gods, is called Agnosticism, which is a belief in which one has no need to deny, or accept and praise, the existence of a higher power. If you don't believe me, wiki the term.

And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief, in which one believes in the non-existence of gods, therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s, and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.

It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'. I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.

And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Valerius

i suppose the OT has many interesting features in it referring to the political constellation of those times. but you have to realise it was written later. as i recall the actual OT came into being during the babylonian exile (ending with the persian conquest) which grouped the whole hebrew elite together. i think the only historical thing about the OT is mentioning for example urartu. like biblical accounts of 'gods' miraculous intervention during warfare.

like this one: the liberation of jerusalem from the assyrian siege under Sennacherib (701 bce) in 2 Kings 19:35 "the angel of the lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the assyrians", thereafter Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. divine intervention! or not... in 2 Kings 18:14-16 King Hezekiah of Judah pays Sennacherib a great tribute to leave.

---

With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:

Quote:

---

when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."

---

In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:



In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:

---

I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.

I don't think anyone will know for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"Gentle Jesus" does not exist. I'm also not keen on people saying they want to be more "Christlike" because the Christ was not the nicest or gentlest of people, though he may have been fair, just and compassionate he was also harsh, unilatteral and judgemental.

The "I come not to bring peace..." statement refers to family strife specifically and nothing creates more strife in families than Christianity.


In general those who attack Christianity as "fake" or "cobbled together" are usually attacking modern right-wing Evangelical Christianity.

Pullo, Jolt; I suggest you dig a lot deeper before making any pronouncements.

---

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

---

Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.

---

I don't think anyone religion as original or genuine, but Christianity is one truly well documented example of a patchy faith, so it deserves mention on that.

You want me to be respectful? Well I don't exactly appreciate being shot down by some high-strung arsehole, telling me "I'm wrong" every fucking time I post here. This place knows how to make a man feel welcome. Theres my fucking respect. Bye bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magister Militum Titus Pullo

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

---

:inquisitive: Did you actually read what I wrote? Go back and take another look. I have admitted the dubious nature of the early religion. However, it was always admitted those things were borrowed. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury recently said (over Christmas in fact) that he's fairly sure Jesus wasn't born of 25/12/00. In the same vein, the Church has always known that our calender is miscalculated by five years.

My point was that the fundamentalist Evangelical groups in America take the end result dogma and preach it as scripture. So saying "Jesus' birthday is on a pagan holiday" to me or the Pope, or any other serious theologin will simply recieve a "yes, and?" If you want to be an atheist fine, but you have to do a lot of reading, both Christian and non-Christian before you have a grasp of the arguements against belief.

I'm sorry, but thus far you haven't demonstrated that reading. May I suggest you begin with Epicurus, google him and you'll likely find his disproof of a good God fairly easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justinian II

I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.

---

at the time of Sennacherib the 25th dynasty ruled. they weren't egyptian, well, by means of defining them based upon location, since they were nubian/kushite and came from way beyond the 4th cataract (Napata), from Meroë. they were of course 'egyptian' in culture, and for that, very orthodox ones. they marched from the south to the delta, reuniting egypt with their divine mission by amon and later got their ass kicked by the assyrians, the farao ran away to nubia never to return :laugh4: :egypt:





- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine. the funny thing with miracles is they all happened in times they couldn't be recorded. any footage of miracles? video-images? no... since we have photo and camera miracles seemed to have disappeared. and if they happen nobody can prove them.

and thats the point. you wanna believe? fine. i think your beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't make them necessarily bad, if it helps ppl to live their lives. but you cant convince a believer to not believe. rational arguments dont work cause religion is irrational, it has no scientific basis.

historically religious documents can shed interesting light, if you approach them with the necessary scepticism.


SO PPL WTF ARE YOU/WE DOING DISCUSSING FAITH... loooool


its easier to explain the basics of quantumphysica to a retarded squirrel than to try to convince ppl in religious matter.

PS: the squirrel is entirely fictional, as of yet nobody has tried to do so and i also have no knowledge of any existence of a retarded squirrel :clown:

Quote:

---

- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine.

---

Imagine a swimming pool of wine...

Oh, yon Hangovers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Imagine a swimming pool of wine...

Oh, yon Hangovers!

---

i think i'd die in there :dizzy2: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Actually, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Atheist does indeed mean that one does not believe in any god, but it means that one believes there IS NO god. Not believing in a god, yet not rejecting the existence of a god/gods, is called Agnosticism, which is a belief in which one has no need to deny, or accept and praise, the existence of a higher power. If you don't believe me, wiki the term.

---

Wrong again. Agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale. Agnosticism handles knowledge, atheism handles belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

Look at what you're saying. Atheism means not holding a belief in a god or gods, or "not-theism". So you're saying that agnosticism is not theism, but not "not-theism" either? But due to double negativity, that would make it theism!

It's just a common misconception to think that agnosticism is somewhere in between, some middle ground. It's not. You can believe that you can't know if there is a god or not, but believe in one anyway. (Agnostic theist.) You can also think that you can't know if there is a god or not and not believe in one. (Agnostic atheist.)

Oh, and by the way, you conceeded that atheism means that one does not believe in any god. But that includes those who just don't believe, the very people you call agnostics!

Quote:

---

And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief

---

So you're saying that not holding a belief is a belief. Brilliant.

Quote:

---

in which one believes in the non-existence of gods

---

Already answered this.

Quote:

---

therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s

---

Wait... a theist talks about LOGIC? That's a laugh!

But anyway, since atheism is just a negative category there can't be any branches of it. There CAN'T. See, for there to be "branches", there must be a "trunk". There is no such thing in atheism, or in any other negative category.

Quote:

---

and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.

---

Was that an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Because it's the one making the positive claim who has the burden to proof it. The theist claims that there is a god. If you cannot prove it, it is to be concidered false.

And you are delusional.

Quote:

---

It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'.

---

Oh, please! No belief deserves respect. If that were so, please don't tell the guy who believes that all Americans are idiots he's wrong, because you should respect his beliefs! Don't bother telling people that Santa Claus doesn't exist, because that's their belief! Don't you dare tell people that there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars orbiting the sun too small for our telescopes to see, it's their belief! Don't be rude, man!

How is it contradictory, by the way?

Quote:

---

I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.

---

If I believed that killing Christians is the very essence of good, and refraining to do so when given a chance is the very essence of evil, and I based my whole life on it, should we "respect my beliefs" then? Or should we classify me as mental and lock me up?

Quote:

---

And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.

---

Only a half-right there, but that's better than nothing. Anti-theism would be someone who is against theism. It could be because it's erroneous, it could be because much pain and suffering is caused by it, it could be because it's a great tool for controlling people, it could be for the brainwashing, it could be because of the unconstitutional special rights theists get, it could be because many faiths, such as Christianity, are truly disgusting and call for all sorts of hineous crimes, it could be because religion creates bigotry, holier-than-thou mentality, it could be because it removes all critical thinking of a person, it could be because... all of these things and more!

But you're right, I am anti-theist in the sense that until theists learn to keep their ignorant faith completely for themselves (and that includes saving their own children from their indoctrination), I will continue to oppose theism in any shape or form it may occur. If it ever truly comes to that, I would think that, given that everyone gets a a good education, theism would die of itself.

Oh crap, you made me respond OT again! Please, stop doing it! Don't force me to contact the Holy God of Topic Keeping - he would smite thee asunder! (And he would give me a good deal of spanking, too.)

Quote:

---

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of god or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.

---

Quote:

---

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of god, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

---

Clear now?

(From Wikipedia)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

Wrong again. Agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale. Agnosticism handles knowledge, atheism handles belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

Look at what you're saying. Atheism means not holding a belief in a god or gods, or "not-theism". So you're saying that agnosticism is not theism, but not "not-theism" either? But due to double negativity, that would make it theism!

It's just a common misconception to think that agnosticism is somewhere in between, some middle ground. It's not. You can believe that you can't know if there is a god or not, but believe in one anyway. (Agnostic theist.) You can also think that you can't know if there is a god or not and not believe in one. (Agnostic atheist.)

Oh, and by the way, you conceeded that atheism means that one does not believe in any god. But that includes those who just don't believe, the very people you call agnostics!


So you're saying that not holding a belief is a belief. Brilliant.


Already answered this.


Wait... a theist talks about LOGIC? That's a laugh!

But anyway, since atheism is just a negative category there can't be any branches of it. There CAN'T. See, for there to be "branches", there must be a "trunk". There is no such thing in atheism, or in any other negative category.


Was that an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Because it's the one making the positive claim who has the burden to proof it. The theist claims that there is a god. If you cannot prove it, it is to be concidered false.

And you are delusional.


Oh, please! No belief deserves respect. If that were so, please don't tell the guy who believes that all Americans are idiots he's wrong, because you should respect his beliefs! Don't bother telling people that Santa Claus doesn't exist, because that's their belief! Don't you dare tell people that there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars orbiting the sun too small for our telescopes to see, it's their belief! Don't be rude, man!

How is it contradictory, by the way?


If I believed that killing Christians is the very essence of good, and refraining to do so when given a chance is the very essence of evil, and I based my whole life on it, should we "respect my beliefs" then? Or should we classify me as mental and lock me up?


Only a half-right there, but that's better than nothing. Anti-theism would be someone who is against theism. It could be because it's erroneous, it could be because much pain and suffering is caused by it, it could be because it's a great tool for controlling people, it could be for the brainwashing, it could be because of the unconstitutional special rights theists get, it could be because many faiths, such as Christianity, are truly disgusting and call for all sorts of hineous crimes, it could be because religion creates bigotry, holier-than-thou mentality, it could be because it removes all critical thinking of a person, it could be because... all of these things and more!

But you're right, I am anti-theist in the sense that until theists learn to keep their ignorant faith completely for themselves (and that includes saving their own children from their indoctrination), I will continue to oppose theism in any shape or form it may occur. If it ever truly comes to that, I would think that, given that everyone gets a a good education, theism would die of itself.

Oh crap, you made me respond OT again! Please, stop doing it! Don't force me to contact the Holy God of Topic Keeping - he would smite thee asunder! (And he would give me a good deal of spanking, too.)

---

/chuckle

Talk about contradictory. Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves but he's also advocating telling people how they have to raise their own children.

Ah well - discussion of faith brings out loons of all sorts - be it Christian or Athiest.

OT - I have little doubt that the PP portrayed in the NT is distorted to broaden Christian appeal to the Romans. My OP, of course.

Just about time for: :dancinglock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Just about time for: :dancinglock:

---

I gotta say I agree with that. I tried to tell Magister etc Titus Pullo, rather forcibly, to cool it, and he told me, essentially (let's be polite) to screw off, though not using those exact words. The themes that have arisen here are better discused via pm's than on the thread.

On a side note, I just wanna say that I never intended all of this when I started the thread, though I gotta say I shoulda seen it coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chairman

I'd like to say that the Bible actually isn't any more biased than the great Livy himself.

---

Yep, Livy is a very flawed source for history. Parts of the Bible are at least that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chairman

... For the Bible, much of it is either written contemporary to events (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Gospels, Acts and the whole NT really, plus many other parts)....

---

I disagree, based on the source I mentioned above..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starforge

...I have little doubt that the PP portrayed in the NT is distorted to broaden Christian appeal to the Romans. My OP, of course.

---

I feel you are correct.

Funny how no-one has mentioned those exercises he invented.

lol has anyone ever tried to claim Livy was flawless??????? he's writing an apologetic history of rome, without factual basis, since archives from that length didn't exist. BUT there is still a difference between a religious document and a semi-historical document. Livy is a flawless source for how contemporary romans looked back at their history. the bible tells us to KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL TURN OTHER CHEEK KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL... even if you disagree... all ppl ever did since the 'oh so tolerant christian church' became statereligion, was destroying and persecuting all other religions who tolerated them. christianity was intolerant from the start. hypocritical by accepting slavery, jesus would have been pissed i suppose though i dont know his view on slavery.



however i respect your choice to believe, but it should be kept indoor in the private sphere of society. i dont blame all you believers for your ancestors faults, your not to blame of course. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us.

---

Atheism is a philosophical belief. Like any belief, its adherents belief's alter slightly. That would be called the branches of atheism.

As for your second part, that's exactly what I just said. I said the branch of atheism that says there is no gods is called Anti-Theism.

Quote:

---

'majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one'

---

lol, I think you're mistaking your definition of atheism. That's actually agnosticism. Agnostics don't hold belief for or against the existence of God(s) due to a lack of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

No. Again with the fundamentalism. What set of rules/principles does anti-deism (btw, Christianity isn't a deistic faith) have?

---

What set of principles does anti-agnosticism have? Not every philosophy has a contradictory opposite.

Agnosticism is more a lack of interest in the whole issue. Eg. insofar as I'm concerned it's one and the same whether the divine exists or not, and if then in what form - but I know that if it turns out it does I'm going to complain about grossly defective information distribution to someone. That aside it seems pointless to me to claim the existence or nonexistence of something that cannot be perceived or proven; IMO you might as well be arguing passionately over the intimate life of the Alpha Centaurians who may or may not exist.

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the position that the divine definitely does not exist; which insofar as I can see is equally a matter of sheer subjective faith as claiming it definitively does.

Although in all honesty I find the religious more annoying than the anti-religious, chiefly because the former much more commonly demonstrate a bad habit of claiming dumb things on really dodgy premises and arguments also in contexts which their divine hobby horse has no business with. I often find their lines of argumentation to personally insult my intellect.

The fervent atheists tend to be almost as annoying in discussions involving the issue of religion, but are far less prone to displaying structurally buggered reasoning in other matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the position that the divine definitely does not exist...The fervent atheists tend to be almost as annoying in discussions involving the issue of religion, but are far less prone to displaying structurally buggered reasoning in other matters.

---

To my understanding, I believe the branch of atheism that says God(s) definitely do not exist and can be disproved is 'Anti-Theism,' and is a religion itself.

As far as I'm concerned theres religous people who follow an organised religion on whatever level. Theres agnostic people who are at a loss as to whats going on or aren't sure whether a God or Gods exist. There's atheists, like me, who believe that there is no God for whatever reason and don't necessarily push other people to believe that. And then theres the apatheteic who really just don't care!

Secular as it may sound people have a right to believe whatever they want. Its not down to me (or anyone else) to change their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

To my understanding, I believe the branch of atheism that says God(s) definitely do not exist and can be disproved is 'Anti-Theism,' and is a religion itself.

---

*shrug* Semantics never interested me. I just call the counter-believers "atheists" and the indifferent (or undecided, if you prefer) "agnostics".

I mean, if I'm going to be disinterested in the existence or lack thereof of something as potentially heavy duty as the divine, it makes little sense to mince words over the exact taxonomy of unbelievers right ? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

As far as I'm concerned theres religous people who follow an organised religion on whatever level. Theres agnostic people who are at a loss as to whats going on or aren't sure whether a God or Gods exist. There's atheists, like me, who believe that there is no God for whatever reason and don't necessarily push other people to believe that. And then theres the apatheteic who really just don't care!....

---

Yeah and then there's the midnight Catholics like me. When its daylight I'm a condescending agnostic know-all (yep I know, oxymoron, but thats me OK), but in the midnight hour, after a beer or two or maybe an Alien movie, all of a sudden I remember the words to the Hail Mary a whole lot better...

If MAA and the thread starter are asking for it to be closed, let it be so!