It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: all2human
Why ruin it for people who believe
seriously , I've never understood the motive of science vs religion
If a book or person explains/shows how to be kind and understanding then why knock it?
See the forest, not the tree..
Evangelical Atheist: An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one. Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.
Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem. And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are. The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head” they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead. What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: join us and you can be one of the smart people. In the 1800s, Karl Marx and other thinkers systematized this anti-religious hostility. When the followers of Marx gained power in Russia, they were even more ruthless than the French revolutionaries in their suppression of religion. Similar horrors followed dogmatic Communism wherever it came to power. But most of the English-speaking world was spared this excessive institutional atheism. The United States, in particular, has always zealously guarded the freedom of anyone to practice any religion that does not seriously interfere with public order. That’s why we’re so surprised and baffled by what we call the New Atheism. For the first time in our relatively tranquil history, we’re facing a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely. What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy. And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics. The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. Countering that image means not just answering the atheists’ arguments against God, but also correcting their false impressions of religion.
originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: immoralist
No, Tacitus specifically mentions Jesus, his crucifixion, and is widely accepted as being authentic.
As far as Jospehus, he is discredited because he seemed to be arrogant and liked to build himself up. I believe he was also incorrect about some geologic measurements.....or something like that. That, in no way, indicates he was wrong about Jesus.
The True Authorship of the New Testament
“Let’s see, a story that starts with fishing for men and has a human Passover lamb and a crucifixion scene where one survives out of three and concludes with the condemning of Simon and the sparing of John. Gee, what story could that be?”
- Joseph Atwill on the 'Judean War' by Flavius Josephus
Professor Bruno Bauer, in his work of 1877 "Christ and the Caesars", stated that he had concluded that the Romans had authored the New Testament and that Flavius Josephus was the inventor of Jesus.
James Ballantyne Hannay next wrote about the Roman authorship of the New Testament in his 1925 work "The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion (Christianity)."
Abelard Reuchlin found the key to unraveling just who the actual authors were, and that the authors were to be found in the Roman Piso family, who were a part of the Piso/Flavian dynasty. He authored a booklet that came out in 1979 and is available from The Roman Piso Homepage.
In 2003 Joseph Atwill discovered that the Roman emperor Titus Flavius, working with Flavius Josephus and other authors in his patrimony wrote the New Testament. Atwill deduced this by comparing The 'Judean War' to the New Testament. The 'Judean War', written by Flavius Josephus, was originally part of the Christian Bible, and was removed around 1100 CE. 'The Roman Origin of Christianity', released as 'Caesar's Messiah' by Joseph Atwill documents the creation of the New Testament as a Roman satire devised to win over Judean dissidents by deceiving them into believing that the emperor Titus Flavius Vespasiani was Jesus! I know, it sounds strange, but that seems to be the way it was. Titus took great pleasure in calling himself "the greatest forger in history."
a reply to: Spider879
Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.
name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4
admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor Trajan that too many citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith. "I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger..." Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan Though Pliny states some of the accused denied the charges, a recurring theme in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan is the willingness of the true believer to die for Christ. This would hardly be reasonable if they knew He never existed!
And its commonly known that the Josephus is a fabrication by christian translators and not just disregarded because people find him annoying thats ridiculous actually
A good number of the writers listed weren’t writers at all, but consuls, generals, even a king (Vardanes I) and an emperor (Tiberius). It must be noted that in this category of non-writers there are at least three who are characters in the TV series I, Claudius. Long story short: of the 126 people listed by Paulkovich, there are only 10 or so whom we might expect to have written about Jesus. And it’s probably worth mentioning that there are, of course, writers from the first centuries CE who refer to Jesus, and even write quite extensively about him. But since those authors all got bundled into a collection called the New Testament, we should probably just dismiss them from the discussion. By his own admission, Paulkovich isn’t the first writer (by which we mean philosopher or gynecologist) to take this approach. In 1909, John Remsburg compiled a list—strikingly bereft of characters from I, Claudius—of 41 authors who never mention Jesus. The premise of both lists is the same: if Jesus was super-famous, a “mythical super-Savior,” then how is it that no one talks about him?
originally posted by: dreamingawake
Monotheist religions borrow heavily from Polytheist ones.
Horus to Jesus for example;
1. Identical Life Experiences
1. It is written that both Horus and Jesus existed before their incarnations.
2. Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th in a cave/manger.
3. Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
4. The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew 2:15)
5. He was a child teacher in the temple and was baptized by Anup the Baptizer when he was thirty years old.
6. He had twelve disciples and performed miracles such as feeding bread to the multitude and walking on water.
7. He raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
8. He transfigured on a mount.
9. He also had titles such as the "way, the truth, the light, the Messiah, God's anointed Son, the Son of Man, the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the Word, the Morning Star, the light of the world.
10. He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the lamb, lion and fish ("Ichthys").
11. Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
12. Horus was called "KRST," or "Anointed One.
13. He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
Of course, there are plenty of ancient figures who never wrote anything themselves—Aristotle, for instance. Though let’s not start giving Paulkovich any more ideas.
If Paulkovich’s logic were to stand, we could make similar arguments about other people—people who aren’t mentioned in the major writings of their day, who never wrote an autobiography, but who, based on their own grandiose claims and those of their followers, really should have gotten much more attention than they did. People like, say, Michael Paulkovich. It is safe to say that there are no historians that have, to this point, included Paulkovich in their writings (and let’s be honest, the chances going forward aren’t great). What’s more, not a single mathematician, poet, philosopher, or gynecologist (probably—stupid HIPAA) refers to him even a single time. Paulkovich has written nothing about himself—we have no biographical data on him. (In truth, it is hard to find almost anyone with less of a web presence than Michael Paulkovich—including, for the record, no Twitter account.) Though his name is on a couple of books and articles, someone else probably wrote those. At least, that’s undoubtedly what “Paulkovich” would say if we suddenly discovered a text claiming to have been written by Jesus, right?
originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
This will no doubt enrage christian cult members and other abrahamic cults as well. To think, the author threatens the very existence of ego's afflicted with viral religiosity, by denying the basis for the viral religion itself. There is a book about, by an Italian author that posits the cult of Jesus Christ is in fact the cult of Julius Caesar. Those who submit to the spell of aforementioned cults submit to an unholy will at the peril of eternal slavery.