Athiests Ruining History

...

...

...

...

>Da Vinci
Was a Gnostic.
>Copernicus
Censored by the Church.
>Bacon
Rosicrucian occultist.
>Galileo
Censored.
>Descartes
His books were in the Church´s index of forbidden books until the 20th century
>Newton
Deist.

>Da Vinci was a gnostic
Source?

>copernicus was censored
csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/Technology/2013/0219/Copernicus-and-the-Church-What-the-history-books-don-t-say

>Bacon an occultists
No reliable sources.

>Galileo was censored
He was promoting unrelated heresy, and so was censored. Talk shit, get hit.

>Descartes was under forbidden books
((((The Church)))) for ya.

>Newton was deist
Still believed in a God rather than no God.

>1991
>lived on 200 dollars a month
>you can barely live on 10 times that now

...

None of those other sources provide evidence. The best they offer is, "well Christian's told me Jesus did this"

What about the Bible?

Using the Bible to prove Jesus is pointless. You need reliable historical documents and corroboration. It's like saying the Vedas prove Indra, Vishnu, and Shiva.

Old testament: heavily edited by Esra after Jews are brought back from.babylon

New testament: Even the gospels weren't written until at least 100 years after Jesus died, then in the 4th century a council of priests decide what to include in the new Testament.

So clearly the New Testament and the Iliad are both the truth, the rest a mere fiction. The new Testament wasn't even established until the 4th century.

beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/galleries/4-compelling-historical-documents-that-prove-jesus-existed.aspx
bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

>Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Is this what passes for evidence of Jesus?

>despite its reliability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>imfuckingplying
I literally can't believe that i have to stop watching tranny porn to correct your retardation

The people who translated the bible were not trained in koine greek
The bible was molested by monarchs
The bible was rewritten multiple times
Which resulted in the million versions you see here

reliability my ass

>Belief.net

Great sources

Better than our evidence that Augustus Caesar was a man.

>tranny porn
Another startling example of how atheism is somehow better than the common decency laid out in the Bible.

>if it ain't a fedora website, I ain't listening
You don't need a PhD for the Bible, user.

>Better than our evidence that Augustus Caesar was a man.
Got any contemporary portraits of Jesus?

churchpop.com/2015/03/09/6-of-the-oldest-images-of-jesus/

so many damn quotes from the new testament are fucking paul's letters

Is paul divinely inspired? Is he the equivalent of an old testament hebrew "prophet"?

>reliability and historical accuracy

Ancient sources of history tend to be real shitty in general due to the lack of corroborating evidence.

When discussing ancient history you generally have to create a special and lower standard for it in general.

Yes to both your questions but he was also more than a prophet.

Most research into things like the historical Jesus, at least in the states comes from what you might call liberal Christians. While Athiests might be over represented in the field they are not the majority and all but the most hard core Christians except things like the disunity of the early church and the numerous historical errors in the old testament

>all but the most hard core Christians
Funny way of saying "those who are against Christ."

I could have sworn Newton was a Deist...

So your saying conservative Christians have the correct historical interpretation and everyone else including the vast majority of professional historians are wrong?

By listing a group of heretics and nominally christian scientists they seek to prove the church is the true home of science.

Which would kind of like putting together pictures of Albertus Magnus, Cornelius Agrippa and Paracelsus and claiming the church is the true home of occultism

>conservative Christians
>conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
>not changing in the face of "political correctness"
Sounds about right.

>everyone else including the vast majority of professional historians
Does that include the retards that made that "Zeitgeist" shit? Then yes, yes I do.

I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about, the problem with the entire field of biblical studies is that evangelical Christians are wildly over-represented;.

>heretics and nominally christian scientists
You mean men of the faith who were persecuted by the Catholic church, yes? Once again proving our superiority.

Fucking revisionists.

>evangelical Christians
The only people qualified to do the job, considering everyone else has a worldly bias that makes them see the Bible as a lie, and a godless universe where man came from monkies as the truth.

>Does that include the retards that made that "Zeitgeist" shit? Then yes, yes I do.
thing is lad, you are tarring everyone who disagrees with you, with the same brush. putting those people into one easily definable category so its simpler for you to decide who you like and dont. you will grow out of this probably, its a teenage tribal thing that logic and reason cut away from most in their 20s. in fact ots a good way to see if someone has good healthy brain growth, the ability to work with and understand many categories of human at once within the brain space. part of growing up for most.

>>conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Which has no relation one way or another with archeology or the historical method. biblical criticism is a hundred years old and was raising questions long before secular progressives became the norm.

If your religion or lack there of is a large influence on your historical scholarship you are a bad historian.
>Does that include the retards that made that "Zeitgeist" shit

It does not

What about all the other religions?

>where man came from monkeys

Please stop either larping as a evangelical lunatic or read a fucking biology textbook, you amoeba. Don't speak on biology unless you've properly educated yourself.

>inb4 dipshit infograph dump from fringe fundi Christian website

The very fact that you thought Zeitgeist was made by professional historians speaks volumes about your inability to assess sources of information.

That image pisses me off, no true scientist has ever tried to argue that Lucy was anything other than an ape.

The point was she was bipedal to a degree.

Says the man that can't admit someone's waiting for him in the end.
>hint: it ain't Sagan

>Which has no relation one way or another with archeology or the historical method. biblical criticism is a hundred years old and was raising questions long before secular progressives became the norm.
Never questioned its reliability as a whole until fedoras began seeping in like weeds on good crops.
>If your religion or lack there of is a large influence on your historical scholarship you are a bad historian.
There's goes most of your "reliable historians." Everyone has a bias, it's just that ours makes more sense.

Influenced by elder devils, not God.

>doesn't know that in taxonomy, we are technically nothing more than bald upright tailess monkeys

Well that seems to be what has influenced public opinion on the matter.

Exactly, she was a knuckle-walker, like a chimp or a gorilla. She has the wrist-locking mechanism present in the ulna, carrying angle like that of an orangutan, and a large apelike jaw.

you don't deserve these quints

>Ik Onkar
>An "Elder Devil"

It's almost like you fucking WANT a kirpan to the gut.

No matter which way you lean on the debate, it was still an important find.

>Well that seems to be what has influenced public opinion on the matter.

I doubt most people have even heard of it.

>doesn't know that in taxonomy we are technically nothing more than bald upright tailless monkeys

We are apes, not monkeys. Stop larping for (you)s.

>Doesn't know that in taxonomy, we are technically nothing more than mammalian fish that walk upright with no scales, hands, bones in our limbs, feet, legs, arms, and that live on land

Really activated my almonds

>he angery
Me keke, mein fruiter, lmao. Am I being memey enough?

>thinking I care about what the demon thinks

Yeah, in pushing atheism
youtu.be/SyZ0Tgpp1Cw

People use sruff from it in public debates, qnd people think it's true.

And what are apes? Just weird looking tailess monkeys.

You're only proving the insanity of evolution.

>People use sruff from it in public debates,

Show me a serious debate where Zeitgeist has been used as a source.

>qnd people think it's true.

I require an opinion poll to back this up, not worthless fantasising from you.

>Never questioned its reliability as a whole until fedoras began seeping in like weeds on good crops.

Many athiest dont like the current historical consensus either because it accepts that Jesus was at least a historical person.

>There's goes most of your "reliable historians." Everyone has a bias, it's just that ours makes more sense.

Just because you have biases does not mean you should wear them on your sleeve or worse, break from established best practices to get your beliefs across. The whole process is set up to minimize the influence of one persons biases.

>Well that seems to be what has influenced public opinion on the matter.

The general public does not get their information from professional historians. At least not until its filtered though the pop historians on youtube or some TV producer.

>acknowledges that humans, apes, and monkeys are related
>"evolution is insanity"

Wat

I can literally wipe out the entire basis of christianity using basic fucking logic.

1. God is described as omnibenevolent, meaning he loves all, omniscient, meaning he knows all, and omnipotent, meaning he's capable of anything.
2. Hell exists as a punishment. God is all loving, so punishment would require some form of redemption to legitimately show compassion and forgiveness. Yet no chance of redemption from hell is offered once you're there, and since humans experience time on a linear scale god can't expect us to learn a lesson from a punishment without experiencing it first. Hell is just sadism.
3. Accepting god's forgiveness or damnation is treated like a choice of free will, yet for god to truly be omniscient, he'd have to know exactly what will happen for every single moment for all of time, meaning that all your actions are predetermined.
4. Since god knows all and some people are clearly going to hell, he creates people knowing full well they're going to hell, again poking holes in his omnibenevolence
5. Accepting god's forgiveness through jesus is literally considered a complete free pass, meaning I can genocide an entire race and still go to heaven. Meanwhile...
6. I could be a philanthropist who gave to all in need and improved my community yet be Inuit and have never even known Jesus existed, therefore go to hell.

Your religion is a jumble of contradictions and disproportionate punishments that hails a god that can't truly be perfect.

>inb4 faith/mysterious ways/you can't understand as a mortal

If god was truly omnibenevolent, he wouldn't bestow me with the logic that would allow me to come to the conclusion that he can't exist. He was dooming me to hell if he thought that would work out any differently.

And again it can't be my choice if he made me that way.

>unrelated heresy
As in science contradicting the biblical world view

I don't have that shit off-hand, but fedoras use stupid pictures like this (though shown to be false).

>Many athiest dont like the current historical consensus either because it accepts that Jesus was at least a historical person.
Certainly working towards that, aren't they.

>Just because you have biases does not mean you should wear them on your sleeve or worse, break from established best practices to get your beliefs across. The whole process is set up to minimize the influence of one persons biases.
Tell that to the atheists, then.

>The general public does not get their information from professional historians. At least not until its filtered though the pop historians on youtube or some TV producer.
Exactly, they are sheep who need godly shepherds to guide them.

Common designer, m80.

>1
>2.
God is a just God, He works on His terms, not yours.

>3
>he doesn't know about predestination

>4
His ways, not yours, filthy mortal.

>5
Such a Christian wpuld be lukewarm, and spat out.

>6
>what is purgatory?

No, as in questioning the Church's authority, not if the earth goes around the sun.

>don't have that shit off-hand, but fedoras use stupid pictures like this (though shown to be false).

So in other words you are just making things up and just because you thought it was a documentary made by professional historians you decided to project your own imbecility onto everyone else.

>what is purgatory

The place you wait to be sorted between heaven and hell, where the kind pagan would then be sent to hell.

Not knowing and making shit up are two different things.

Perhaps in the case of those born before, the three days He spent in hell were to gather people like him, who did well in their lives, unknowingly doing as the Lord commanded.

There was still a gap of hundreds of years before word of christ's sacrifice even reached such people.

Furthermore, if Christianity is the one true faith and the Christian god wants us to join him in heaven, why did he wait until just a few thousand years prior to reveal his existence and about 2000 years prior to die for our sins if Homo sapiens have been socially modern humans for 50k years?

.
>God is a just God, He works on His terms, not yours.
>>he doesn't know about predestination
>His ways, not yours, filthy mortal.
>Such a Christian wpuld be lukewarm, and spat out.
>>what is purgatory?
>Let me prove that god is evil while trying to defend him fampais.

>Not knowing and making shit up are two different things.

Chickens and badgers are two different things but it doesn't change the fact you thought Zeitgeist was a documentary made by professional historians and that you just made a load of complete bullshit up.

>There was still a gap of hundreds of years before word of christ's sacrifice even reached such people.
>implying their blood isn't on the missionaries' hands
Sucks for those people I guess.

>Furthermore, if Christianity is the one true faith and the Christian god wants us to join him in heaven, why did he wait until just a few thousand years prior to reveal his existence and about 2000 years prior to die for our sins if Homo sapiens have been socially modern humans for 50k years?
>who are the Jews
>implying creation wasn't about 6,000 years ago

*tibs*
But seriously, your argument hinges on God being good in your sense, rather than His.

I never claimed it to be, but if historians want to promote an accurate version of history, then they need to do so now.

Why should I care about "his sense", there's where your argument becomes stupid, where it doesn't matter what reality is but what your book says.

Despite christian opinion, we are very able to form correct opinions on god's judgement, and yours is a lunatic that shouldn't be paid attention to.

You honestly expect missionaries to reach isolated tribes of people within days of Jesus's death?

Also I took the Jews into the account, if you'd learn how to fucking read.

This bait is so sweet I have to keep giving you (you)s.

>I never claimed it to be

Yes you did. And then you made a load of stuff up about how lots of people believe it to be true and how it was regularly cited in public debates.

Your a liar and a fantasist.

How about the Quran? anyone ever look into a lot of interesting things stated in the Quran that people only discovered years later?

>Another startling example of how atheism is somehow better than the common decency laid out in the Bible.
Ah i see you have no argument then? piss off in that case.

But no one ever denied that Jesus existed. He was a real human man, who really claimed to be the son of god (and also that anyone else who tried the same trick after him was totally a faker).

The doubt of Christianity is the assertion that Jesus was a human, and not a god/demigod. There is no unbiased historical account of Jesus casting any of his signature spells.

Furthermore, it's hard to even say for sure if any accounts of said spells could be properly debunked, given the lack of technology or investigative measures back then. Even a cheap ruse could have fooled the greatest critic, so we just can't say for sure.

However, given all the accounts throughout all of history regarding all the people who did not have mutant powers nor close relations to the one true omnipotent/omniscient God (99.99999%), it would seem more likely (99.99999% more likely) that Jesus was actually not someone with mutant powers nor close relations to the one true omnipotent/omniscient God.

Puc related so hard.

>You honestly expect missionaries to reach isolated tribes of people within days of Jesus's death?
Lord made the earrh in six days, Jesus rose in three, I'd think His followers could pick up the pace.

>Yes you did. And then you made a load of stuff up about how lots of people believe it to be true and how it was regularly cited in public debates.
Go to any major news outlet (aside from Fox) and you'll find something related to it somewhere.

>Your a liar and a fantasist.
And you can't spell.

Work of a Pedophilic warlord influenced by a demonic entity.

My "argument" is that one can judge a tree by its fruits, and considering the shit he was talking about, it's safe to say he's wrong on all accounts.

>Lord made the earrh in six days, Jesus rose in three, I'd think His followers could pick up the pace.

Kek, Not even mad anymore user.

He may have made my body, but my spirit was made by the alien God, so let Him be my judge.

>He was a real human man, who really claimed to be the son of god (and also that anyone else who tried the same trick after him was totally a faker).
Considering the only one close was the child-fucker, I think we could've figured it out.

>The doubt of Christianity is the assertion that Jesus was a human, and not a god/demigod. There is no unbiased historical account of Jesus casting any of his signature spells.
>what is tweaking history

>
Furthermore, it's hard to even say for sure if any accounts of said spells could be properly debunked, given the lack of technology or investigative measures back then. Even a cheap ruse could have fooled the greatest critic, so we just can't say for sure.
>man doesn't walk his entire life, even before Christ's birth
>man can walk after one brief encounter

>However, given all the accounts throughout all of history regarding all the people who did not have mutant powers nor close relations to the one true omnipotent/omniscient God (99.99999%), it would seem more likely (99.99999% more likely) that Jesus was actually not someone with mutant powers nor close relations to the one true omnipotent/omniscient God.
This is only if you ignore the Bible completely.

Then you are merely a soulless gollum possessed by a demon.
Have fun either burning in the lake of fire, or nonexistence.

>My "argument" is that one can judge a tree by its fruits, and considering the shit he was talking about, it's safe to say he's wrong on all accounts.
i'm not an atheist though.

Just because you are in love with your religion doesn't mean it's the correct one, I've experienced gnosis, which means my religion is the true one, not yours.

Have fun dreaming with slavery.

16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Then what the hell are you?

>gnostic
You'll be among the first to burn at the stake, heathen.

>Go to any major news outlet (aside from Fox) and you'll find something related to it somewhere.

Go on then, you'll be able to post ten clips of major news networks using Zeitgeist as a source. It should take you about 30 seconds to Google that if your claim is true.

Or are you just going to admit you are a liar?

Let me remind you that the true religion was supposed to be persecuted, mine was and yours isn't.

Enjoy hell.

>Then what the hell are you?
Hindu
t. poo in loo

And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

Judges 1:19

>I've experienced gnosis
what? elaborate

Was on my backyard, suddenly I felt a divine pressence, like god touching my spirit, then my body started becoming lighter, more agile and feeling healthier, then my mind expanded, became clearer, more sharp, more able, at the same time I was experiencing these things, I experienced god inside my body, as if divinity was being held within me.

cnn.com/2017/02/15/living/jesus-debate-man-versus-myth/index.html
One is better than nothing.

>persecution
Heresy often is.
Also
>implying high-standing atheists aren't trying to take away our rights to worship

>worships the many multi-armed forms of a singular elder devil
Odd

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=301

"Illumination" from monsters.

>apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=301

Add not to the word of the lord lest he find you a deceiver and reproach you.

>explanations count as "additions"
Yet the apocrypha get a free pass?

>cnn.com/2017/02/15/living/jesus-debate-man-versus-myth/index.html

That's not even one, that's not using Zeitgeist as a source, it's a report on a recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price.

So once again you have been shown to be just completely and utterly making up bullshit off the top of your head.

I'm not following your same commandments, you as a christian are supposed to be keeping this commandments of not pulling things out of your ass to justify things.

>recent report on a debate
>debate
Fuckin

>correcting mistranslations
>pulling things out of my ass

>>worships the many multi-armed forms of a singular elder devil
well that's not exactly nice of you christcuck, you're also changing the goalposts

it was random? how did you get yourself to experience it?

&humanities was a mistake

It was initiated by God surely, and I dreamt that I would ascend to heaven that very night.

Well then what's the best approximation of your strange beliefs? I did find that Ganesha character rather jolly looking. Bought a statuette at a figure shop.