A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins

[Freddy Figbottom]

Not a problem, except in your mind .
In the 1950s the big Bang hypothesis and the steady state theory of the universe were directly contradicting each other, until we had enough evidence to say the Big Bang was the correct idea.

The problem with the multiverse inference is that it doesn't explain the origin event.

you're an idiot and this blather is idiotic.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Paul may well have met with Peter and James and others. But he claims his message came not from man, but through revelation from Jesus himself.

Whatever his contacts told him may or may not have been true. No way to tell. Then, his interpretation of what they supposedly told him may or may not have been accurate.

The early church bishops were all over the fucking map on the teachings of Jesus. There was no consensus for hundreds of years. The only reason Christians believe in the Trinity is because Arius lost the vote. All political. Nothing divine about any of it.

And you need to quit lying about my posts on the resurrection. It’s pretty annoying and doesn’t reflect well on you or your credibility.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever claimed he was the son of God, yet that’s the basic tenet of Christianity. Somebody, somewhere made that claim later. Probably, one of the so-called resurrection “witnesses”. Messiahs weren’t supposed to die, so something else was needed to explain what the fuck went wrong.

Joseph Smith was a conman and Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Next.

A good part of the scriptures, including several letters originally attributed to Paul, are forgeries, fraudulent, modified or otherwise not true at all. So much for the inerrancy, huh?

cypress is a fucking idiot.

don't sweat his stupidity.

he's not good at religion or science.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Agreed.

oh look.

two retards agree.

 

[Cypress]

Paul may well have met with Peter and James and others. But he claims his message came not from man, but through revelation from Jesus himself.

Whatever his contacts told him may or may not have been true. No way to tell. Then, his interpretation of what they supposedly told him may or may not have been accurate.

The early church bishops were all over the fucking map on the teachings of Jesus. There was no consensus for hundreds of years. The only reason Christians believe in the Trinity is because Arius lost the vote. All political. Nothing divine about any of it.

And you need to quit lying about my posts on the resurrection. It’s pretty annoying and doesn’t reflect well on you or your credibility.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever claimed he was the son of God, yet that’s the basic tenet of Christianity. Somebody, somewhere made that claim later. Probably, one of the so-called resurrection “witnesses”. Messiahs weren’t supposed to die, so something else was needed to explain what the fuck went wrong.

What on earth have you been reading?

The evidence is that Paul had the sanction and blessing of the Jerusalem church and the apostle Peter. He wasn't a rogue minister giving an unsanctioned opinion.

By the late first century and early second century Paul's writings were considered authoritative by the earliest church fathers and bishops.

There is no evidence anywhere that anybody important - especially the apostles and church fathers - thought Paul was a rogue minister teaching heretical and unorthodox teachings.

Joseph Smith was a conman and Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. Next.

A good part of the scriptures, including several letters originally attributed to Paul, are forgeries, fraudulent, modified or otherwise not true at all. So much for the inerrancy, huh?

All of the important Epistles that contain the core of Christian belief, theology, practice, ethics are universally considered to be authentic works of Paul. Specifically Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Thessalonians, Phillipians.

You could get rid of the epistles whose authorship is debated and it wouldn't change the essence of Christian practice and belief at all.

Mormonism is a cult less than 200 years old, and founded by a known petty criminal. Get back to me when Mormonism persists for two thousand years like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism. That kind of lasting power is a Testament to the way people perceive them to be truth claims

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

What on earth have you been reading?

The evidence is that Paul had the sanction and blessing of the Jerusalem church and the apostle Peter. He wasn't a rogue minister giving an unsanctioned opinion.

By the late first century and early second century Paul's writings were considered authoritative by the earliest church fathers and bishops.

There is no evidence anywhere that anybody important - especially the apostles and church fathers - thought Paul was a rogue minister teaching heretical and unorthodox teachings.

All of the important Epistles that contain the core of Christian belief, theology, practice, ethics are universally considered to be authentic works of Paul. Specifically Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Thessalonians, Phillipians.

You could get rid of the epistles whose authorship is debated and it wouldn't change the essence of Christian practice and belief at all.

Mormonism is a cult less than 200 years old, and founded by a known petty criminal. Get back to me when Mormonism persists for two thousand years like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism. That kind of lasting power is a Testament to the way people perceive them to be truth claims

your whole worldview is an appeal to authority.

that makes you an authoritarian.

 

[Cypress]

you're an idiot and this blather is idiotic!

cypress is a fucking idiot!

he's not good at religion or science.!

ftfy....I doubt most college graduates or well read laypersons think the Big Bang, the multiverse, cosmic order and design are idiotic things to talk about.

I know what atheism's most effective argument against God is even though I haven't been asked.

Complaining about Mesopotamian mythology, asserting that the Gospel authors were lying, or complaining that three of Paul's letters are widely thought to pseudonymous are such weak arguments that even reputable atheist influencers won't dwell on them in a debate with a skilled Christian apologist.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

ftfy....I doubt most college graduates or well read laypersons think the Big Bang, the multiverse, cosmic order and design are idiotic things to talk about.

I know what atheism's most effective argument against God is even though I haven't been asked.

Complaining about Mesopotamian mythology, asserting that the Gospel authors were lying, or complaining that three of Paul's letters are widely thought to pseudonymous are such weak arguments that even reputable atheist influencers won't dwell on them in a debate with a skilled Christian apologist.

appeal to popularity.

yet another fallacy.

you miss the whole point of christianity through your "rigorous studies".

you're an idiot.

 

[Cypress]

appeal to popularity.

Wrong, meth head.
College graduates and erudite laypersons are the minority.

I understand high-school dropouts and drug addicts do not want to hear about the Big Bang, the multiverse, and the arguments about the scientific and philosophical nature of creation and design.

 

[gmark77]

What on earth have you been reading?

The evidence is that Paul had the sanction and blessing of the Jerusalem church and the apostle Peter. He wasn't a rogue minister giving an unsanctioned opinion.

Paul strove against the Jerusalem church on the role of Gentiles and adherence to Jewish Tradition. He was pretty rogue.

Acts 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

Try reading the Bible, Cy.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Wrong, meth head.
College graduates and erudite laypersons are the minority.

I understand high-school dropouts and drug addicts do not want to hear about the Big Bang, the multiverse, and the arguments about the scientific and philosophical nature of creation and design.

appeal to authority then.

have an argument that isn't a fallacy.

you're bad at science and religion, expressly because you mix them, ruining both.

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Paul strove against the Jerusalem church on the role of Gentiles and adherence to Jewish Tradition. He was pretty rogue.

Acts 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

Try reading the Bible, Cy.

cypress works for the war machine, trying to destroy jesus's message of peace and anti-tribalism.

 

[domer76]

What on earth have you been reading?

The evidence is that Paul had the sanction and blessing of the Jerusalem church and the apostle Peter. He wasn't a rogue minister giving an unsanctioned opinion.

By the late first century and early second century Paul's writings were considered authoritative by the earliest church fathers and bishops.

There is no evidence anywhere that anybody important - especially the apostles and church fathers - thought Paul was a rogue minister teaching heretical and unorthodox teachings.

All of the important Epistles that contain the core of Christian belief, theology, practice, ethics are universally considered to be authentic works of Paul. Specifically Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Thessalonians, Phillipians.

You could get rid of the epistles whose authorship is debated and it wouldn't change the essence of Christian practice and belief at all.

Mormonism is a cult less than 200 years old, and founded by a known petty criminal. Get back to me when Mormonism persists for two thousand years like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism. That kind of lasting power is a Testament to the way people perceive them to be truth claims

Paul did not write Thessalonians. That’s what I referred to about forgeries. He also said his preachings were due to revelations, not man.

I never said he was either rogue or unsanctioned. His letters were advice, encouragement, criticism, etc. So fucking what? I can get that from my wife, boss and friends. All opinion.

I know, I know. Teachings are considered authoritative. Whatever the fuck that means.

Other things accepted by Christians. Jesus birth in Bethlehem. That’s almost certainly bullshit. That was chosen later to fulfill OT prophecy. He was from Nazareth. And the two different birth stories gave two different reasons WHY they were in Bethlehem. The reasons result in about an 8 year disparity.

Jesus is the son of God. He never claimed that. Made up later to fix the dead Messiah problem.

The Trinity. Strictly a political decision. A fucking vote Had Arius won, the Christian concept of Jesus is completely different.

The concept of a soul surviving after death. No mention of a soul in either the Old or New Testament.