Christians BTFO

>cucking for the downfall of western civilization
Thanks user.

>downfall of western civilization
sounds spooky

What have atheists done for Civilization?

Science. literally every advancement in science and medicine etc

>Science. literally every advancement in science and medicine etc
So? Anyone can do fucking Science. Hell even priests can do it. You know the big bang theory? Made by a priest.

He's not coming back, bro

>The Bible doesn't count as evidence
It does to actual historians, which is all that counts

why speak of Atheists as a collective group and why use civilization with such a spooky meaning? I guess if I had to give some names of atheists who helped society I'd say Darwin for one. He was Christian while doing his research but he lost his faith when he came up with evolution. Einstein is another. Atheists have been a minority to the extreme until recently so I don't see why it matters if there aren't a lot of self-proclaimed atheists that are well known

> Anyone can do fucking Science
And anyone can live perfectly without religion.

> I guess if I had to give some names of atheists who helped society I'd say Darwin for one. He was Christian while doing his research but he lost his faith when he came up with evolution
No, he lost faith when his peers in the church laughed at him. He's right, but he lost faith because of them.
Proofs?

Why do Christcucks assume that atheists love Islam? I'd say there is a contempt for all the religions, but considering most atheists reside in (nominally) Christian majority countries, they invest most of their efforts to debunking the religious nonsense they are most familiar with first.

Christcucks are dumb.

historians don't consider the gospels to be made by eye witnesses though and can't agree on which parts of the narrative are historical. the only part they agree on is that a guy named Jesus was crucified and they don't justify this with the gospels. they justify it with rather dubious quotes from various Roman historians

They aren't. If anything they hate it even more because it is legitimately more problematic. At least there is no Christian ISIS.

>muh book

That's your "argument". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Don't ignore the fact that when the Pagan forest-niggers replaced the Romans and forgot everything, it was the Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge and brought it back to civilization.

Religion held people together and built the world around you. The only reason you and I are atheist is because it is easy for us to be.

The amount of faith one has is not indicative of their intelligence.
Oh
>doctors
>scientists
Half of those are Hindu these days aren't they?

Your point? Mendel the geneticist was a priest, but only joined the clergy so that the Church would pay for his education, since his life's goal was to obtain tenure at a university. He wasn't particularly religious and hardly ever devoted time for prayer/observance, and even when he was in the monastery, most of his time was spent in an administrative position and studying for civil service exams.

Hardly what I would call a "Christian". Same with the majority of scientists that have been religious - they are only nominally so.

>Why do Christcucks assume that atheists love Islam?
Because the majority do

> Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge
Nice way to spell Muslim Scholars

>>the only part they agree on is that a guy named Jesus was crucified and they don't justify this with the gospels. they justify it with rather dubious quotes from various Roman historians

The older josephus quote isn't dubious though, he just said a that a guy names jesus got executed in jerusalem. I actually agree with you about christianity and other forms of theism being bunk and nonsense, but a religious/political dissident named jesus(a very common name for the period btw)being executed for defying the roman/jewish authorities is both perfectly sensible and reasonable.

It's all the miracles and magic and other assorted nonsense that are non-credible.

Muslims didn't do shit tbqh

Because being atheist doesn't mean you're smart. Most of them are Dawkins parroting bots, anyway.

So? He didn't shit on the system and said fuck off to Church. He used it to his advantage and he's still a Christian because he didn't give the Church the middle finger and acted like a total fucking cunt about it.
Who burned Alexandera?

yeah the book CONTAINS the arguments. what argument do you have that not only Jesus existed but he was also the son of God?
>muh book

> mfw Richard Carrier tries to argue Bayes theorem proves Jesus didn't exist but uses finite frequentism to obtain his priors

I'm not typing that "M" word. You know what I meant.

>it was the Priests and the Monks and the Church folk who saved all that knowledge and brought it back to civilization

Wrong. This is a shitty meme. The Church never fancied itself a protector of knowledge, and most of the works it did bother to preserve were edited to fall in with a Christian worldview. Those works that were of no use to the Church establishment and those that were deemed contrary to Church thought were either outright destroyed or left to rot.

There isn't one that doesn't begin and end with "muh faith" or something akin to that. But this doesn't make jesus not a historical character. It just means he wasn't the son of any particular deity.

>Those works that were of no use to the Church establishment and those that were deemed contrary to Church thought were either outright destroyed or left to rot.
That was on the shit that didn't matter, point is shit got saved.

> Religion built the world around you.
So is thousand years of hunting and gathering so while church played its role that kind of argument isn't the definitive one because times changed for better or worse.

>yeah the book CONTAINS the arguments.

You never read it, you wouldn't know that.

>what argument do you have that not only Jesus existed but he was also the son of God?

But you claimed he never existed, retard.

the Josephus section on Jesus is very dubious though. recent scholars have just started saying without justification that parts of it are original even though previous scholars have thrown out the whole thing on the grounds that it breaks up the flow of Josephus's text

>He didn't shit on the system and said fuck off to Church

Why would he? The point is he joined the clergy solely for temporal benefit (free tuition), and not for any religious zeal. He completed the bare minimum in order to become a clergyman, and then devoted his energies to secular pursuits. So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science? He was hardly one. Only nominally because his family baptized him at birth.

You mean meme minority?

What the catholic church thought didn't matter, you mean.

Personally, I don't trust them or their judgement on anything.

>Carrier

No one takes him seriously. Stop shilling.

We all are sons of god in one way or another...

>something happened a few times
>therefore it happens all the time.
Just stop. This fallacy is very harmful.

But there are two different copies of the text in question though? One where jesus is called the christ and an older one where he isn't. Are both of these disputed and by whom? Furthermore, how many of these whom are there?

>That was on the shit that didn't matter

In history, everything matters. The Church has never been a good protector of documents. Look at how it destroyed the books and documents of all the "heretical" sects it could get its hands on, such that we don't even know what many of them actually believed in.

The Church threw out works that contained more practical information (because it was wrong to be concerned about temporal matter, supposedly) such as those on architecture, engineering, mathematics, sculpture, etc. And concerning other disciplines such as philosophy, it destroyed whatever it could not bend towards a more Christian-like tone.

So no, fuck off with your "the Church protected documents!". It absolutely did not.

>So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science?
Because he's part of the clergy you idiot. Doesn't matter that he wasn't religious or wasn't big on the whole preaching shit, he followed the guidelines and is part of the system.
The Church means the Catholic Church.
>Personally, I don't trust them or their judgement on anything.
Who cares?

source for version of the passage without Jesus being called the messiah? my understanding was that all versions of the text we have right now have that

>So no, fuck off with your "the Church protected documents!". It absolutely did not.
Destroying half the shit isn't as bad as destroying everything and having to start off from zero, be glad at what you have.

You are fucking disgusting.

it could be worse is not a valid criticism

So having nothing is better?

> Doesn't matter that he wasn't religious
It does actually. You can be an atheist while being a member of the church or even a priest.

You can't expect us to buy an unknown read and read it through just to shitpost back.
Provide tl;dr or go pray to Dawkins already.

Why the fuck would an atheist join the Church? Why would he follow any of the guidelines if he's an atheist?

TL;DR
You can prove that Christ doesn't existed in 600 different ways.

Christcucks already go out and read stuff from unknown authors and shitpost about it, so what's the harm?

I proved unicorns exist in 600 different ways. Go buy my $1200 book to find out how.

For free tuition, for one.

You can just stop believe after you joined in. There also other reasons and scenarios.

because the other choice is to chill with pagans who rub each other with shit and jizz and eat babies to make the crops grow better.

Even a rational atheist understands the concept of a single, all encompassing God is logical. Whereas pagans were literally holding humanity down, believing natural events were because they didn't do a retarded dance passionately enough.

Then he's part of the system and breaks a promise with it. Are you saying keeping your mouth shut and not spewing shit about what you believe in is what they did? Because most atheists should take a cue from them.

I can paid for your book in 600 different ways. Just buy mine to find how receive the money!

>So why do Christcucks love to hold him up as an example of how Christcucks have contributed to science?

They don't. We literally have a catalog of heart sworn Christian scientist to pick from.

>Are you saying keeping your mouth shut and not spewing shit about what you believe in is what they did?

Obviously, considering atheism was a crime in most of Europe and the Americas back in those times.

>Christian ""scientistis""

Hovind-tier.

How this is different from natural events being an acts of the one True God™?

So then it's a 50/50 shot if they believe or not. Which means they're part of the system, which ergo means they aren't atheists but don't enough about God but at least acknowledges that he exists.

oh let's examine how amazing the gospel is at portraying "historical" events. let's go to Jesus's crucifixion. Jesus and Barabbas? parallel to the Jewish Passover sacrifice where one is sacrificed and the other set free as a "scapegoat". Jesus being dressed in purple and mocked as King of the Jews? stolen from a passage in Philo of Alexandria's writings where the same thing happens to someone. Casting lots for his clothes? stolen from Psalms. being pierced by a spear? stolen from Psalms. Drinking wine from a sponge? Stolen from Psalms. His heart-wrenching cry on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That is the first verse of Psalm 22. Behold the mechanical man Jesus derived from scripture

That's small time

The Romans had no tradition of releasing a prisoner on Passover. That's an invention.

Second, the passage of Barabbas and Jesus is possibly a mistranslation from an original source in which the crowd asks for Jesus to be released, since Barabbas simply means 'son of the father' and is not a proper Jewish name, but more of a religiously-toned epithet. What most likely happened was a Greek scribe thinking Barabbas was a separate character from Jesus and creating this whole little addition to make it fit, when Barabbas was merely a name/title that Jesus was known by.

You can be a part of the system and an atheist. I don't see any contradiction here.

That would mean you have faith in God to be a part of the system.

>The Romans had no tradition of releasing a prisoner on Passover. That's an invention.
yeah, I was talking about how it purposefully parallels the Passover sacrifice, not that the tradition was real

Societal pressure.
Various benefits.

I think he means all the scientists that were born in heavily christian society where atheism was a minority and access to knowledge was often gated by religion.

The point is that you don't really need a faith to participate.

Do you have any physical evidence of an interpolator?

Are you saying lying is good user? Because lying is an awful thing to do.

No I meant scientists who passionately professed their religion in a time when mild deism wasn't uncomon and punishable by death.

all scholars accept that at least parts of the passage are an interpolation. Josephus flat out says Jesus is the Messiah when Josephus was not a christian. there is no way Josephus would have said that. additionally there are several messianic figures that Josephus mentions and looks at in contempt so it is very unlikely that he would look on Jesus in a positive light

It is generally agreed that there is interpolation throughout the entire passage since Josephus writes in an overly praiseworthy fashion, going so far as to affirm the resurrection.

Then there's dispute as to whether or not the entire passage is interpolated or not.

I think my point still stands.

If it's so awful, why do Christcucks spend all their energies in engaging in it? Lying to themselves, lying to their congregations, lying to the gullible would-be converts, lying to everyone.

It's extremely obvious the Josephus "Jesus passage" is an interpolation. One needs only to look at the drastic change in tone and style. It suddenly becomes praiseworthy and exuberant, hailing Jesus as a "man so wise it was likely he was not even a man", when the entirety of the work before and after said passage is quite dispassionate and devoid of such emotive outbursts. It is not Josephus' style. Not to mention anachronisms/oddities like Josephus calling Jesus 'Christ' and 'Messiah'.

I'm not the faggot that lies to get into a thing just to learn.
>some atheiskike trying to defend his actions

>t is generally agreed that there is interpolation throughout the entire passage since Josephus writes in an overly praiseworthy fashion, going so far as to affirm the resurrection.
Do you have an eyewitness account of this interpolation?

don't conflate lying and simply saying something that isn't true. even if their religion isn't correct preaching it isn't neccisarily lying

you don't need an eyewitness account to show it is an interpolation. if the only copy of the Origin of the Species had randomly in the middle of the book "I am a faggot. Dicks are so tasty" don't you think we have good reason to think that that was an interpolation? again, Josephus wasn't a christian. there is no way he would call Jesus the Messiah. he doesn't even say some people claimed he was the Messiah, which would actually be plausible, he flat out says Jesus is the Messiah

Give me some time, lunch arrived a little while ago and I'm still eating.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Ahh fuck it, I spent too much time on this.

All I can really tell here is that Josephus made reference to jesus and he said that he was called the christ.

Meh.

>you don't need an eyewitness account to show it is an interpolation
You should keep your faith based stories out of historical discussion.

> if the only copy of the Origin of the Species had randomly in the middle of the book "I am a faggot. Dicks are so tasty" don't you think we have good reason to think that that was an interpolation?
No, if there's no evidence of a mythical interpolator.

>again, Josephus wasn't a christian. there is no way he would call Jesus the Messiah.
Even if that's the case, it's not evidence an interpolator actually exists.

Atheists BTFO
youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

After I finish showing positive evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, I will address inconsistencies

There are several narratives of Christ: the primary ones are the pagan Christian narrative (Gnostic), the Pharisaic Christian narrative (Gospel of the Hebrews), and the Essenic Christian narrative (Orthodox). We'll be discussing the last narrative. The first thing that should be established is that the Essenes considered telling the truth to be a matter of extreme importance, morally, they saw it as better to die than to lie (contrast this with someone like Odysseus). Essenes put a much greater value on the truth than religious Jews who weren't Essenes. In evidence of this, let's look as Josephus, who says the Essenes forbade oaths, believing that it was indicting yourself if your regular yes or no were no considered trustworthy, but that if you still did need to take an oath, that was it, nothing whatsoever could come between you and that oath; an example is when you were initiated into the Essenes, you had to eat only with them; and if you did something grievous, people would get kicked out, but according to Josephus, they'd often have to live on grass because they said they'd only eat with other Essenes (this of course would eventually kill them, but they were frequently taken back in after many days of privation). This scrupulousness in regard to the truth as highly important, from a moral perspective, was maintained in early Essenic Christianity. In support of this, you only have to see how denying Christ, even on pain of death, was considered absolutely wrong--no other religion is that strict, as far as I know, where you cannot pretend and say you are not be a part of it if threatened with death.
cont

Another support for the immense concern for truth is that Christians had to actively confess their sins to each other--in fact, early Christian account record that confession had to be to the whole congregation. Truth was that important. Christ is recorded as saying when judgement day comes around, you will even have to account for every single idle word you uttered (Matthew 12:36), and I'm sure that would include lies. Finally, in support of this ethos, let us examine Paul's Epistles: he is immensely scrupulous about ensuring every word that is from him is attributed to him, and everything from Christ is attributed to Christ, he does not risk a confusion here, but offers disclaimers left and right, he is very careful about not twisting the truth. Now that we have discussed that, let's see who wrote the Gospels.
Off track: In Orthodox Christianity, monasticism bears much resemblance to the Essenic lifestyle, monks strive to live the purest form of Christianity they can; when Christianity became a very public religion, with its legalization, monks started to establish Christianity communities that still maintained the ascetic lifestyle, they were a Christian's Christian; that is why the monastic tradition is at the heart of the Orthodox faith, we select most of our bishops from monastics, our Liturgical traditions tend to follow the customs of monasteries; Mount Athos, rather than the Phanar, is in fact the Orthodox "Vatican" so to speak.
cont

Back on track: the earliest account of the authorship of the Gospels is the one given by Papias of Hierapolis, which accords with the Orthodox account. The most widely asserted alternative is the Q theory: the reason the Q theory is preferred, is because it is seen as impossible the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem; the reason this is seen as impossible, is because they predict it. Now before we address the Q theory, let me explain to you why the Gospel of John seems so different from the synoptic Gospels: it is because the synoptic Gospels are written for a wide audience, including Catechumens (Christians who are not fully initiated), but the Gospel of John was written exclusively for the initiated--all Catechumens would be dismissed right after the Peace of God (and still are in many Orthodox parishes), and right before the credal confession (the final development of this Creed would be the Nicene Creed, but the first fourteen verses of the Gospel of John might well have been a record of one of the earlier ones); the priest or deacon then shouted (and still does in the Orthodox tradition), "The doors!" because a guard was sent to keep a look out in case anyone was coming by and to give the alarm; this was such a serious issue because the credal confession made it explicitly clear that Christ is God;
cont

to consider him the Messiah who rose from the dead did not technically warrant death in ancient Jewish society, but saying he's God certainly would; now the Synoptic Gospels, being privy to Catechumens and even the general public, preferred to merely imply (albeit quite strongly at times) that Christ is God, whereas the Gospel of John is written without such caution, being intended exclusively for the initiated; and now you know why the Gospel of John seems so different from the Synoptic Gospels. This is also why John 6 gives significant elaboration on the Eucharist, which is the central Christian Mystery partaken of after the Catechumens are dismissed; he explains its reality, a reality that scandalizes even the Apostles.

cont

Now, let's address the Q theory: it holds that the synoptic Gospels cover a great deal of the same material, and therefore had a common source. First of all, it is actually a mark in their *favor* that they cover the same material, insofar as reliability goes, but here it is used against them; however, I will dispute the hypothesis based on this: the Gospels phrase many things differently, and it is altogether more plausible that they are just different people telling the same story, as opposed Sto one source being incorporated into three. Is there any good reason to believe the alternative to the Q Theory, the account by Papias? Yes, there is; first of all, the Four Gospels stand up to what they purport to be. The Gospel of John stands up to being by John, since it has personal details, most particularly Christ entrusting John with his mother; the alternative to believing this happened, would be to suggest the Gospel is not written by John, but by someone simply lying and claiming his name. One piece of evidence used to support this is John giving a different date for the Crucifixion, but in fact John doesn't: Leviticus 23:5 says Passover starts on the 14th day of the first month, which is the day the Passover Lamb is killed--Jewish time reckoning (as well as Orthodox Liturgical reckoning) gives the evening as the *start* of a day, meaning the Mystical Supper takes place on the fist day of Passover, and so does the Crucifixion, with Christ being entombed right before the end of the day. To cement the Gospels, however, the best source is the Gospel of Luke: it is written by the same author as Acts (in fact they were probably originally one work), who participated in Acts judging by the use of first-person plural later into the work.
cont