Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Don't you? Doesn't everyone capable of weighing probability and evidence?"
Really? PLease cite any historian who believes Constantine did this. Good luck.
"EDIT: Ordered, funded and approved as opposed to actually writing it, but yes, responsible for it being made."
Evidence please. You will need to explain how this could be when the canon of the Bible had already been established long before Constantine was even born. How about you present some evidence and scholarship rather than merely asserting what you *think* you know.
"Evidence please. You will need to explain how this could be when the canon of the Bible had already been established long before Constantine was even born."
I know you think you're smarter than everybody else, and you're probably much cleverer than I, but you just asked for evidence on the grounds of a claim for which you have no evidence.
But yes, you are right not to accept my assertion without evidence, and I suggest you go on believing what you want.
I'll go on accepting what historians agree, based on the evidence thanks. If you can produce any who disagree that the four gospels were established as canonical long before Constantine's time, please produce them now. Good luck with that.
"If you can produce any who disagree that the four gospels were established as canonical long before Constantine's time, please produce them now. Good luck with that."
Why would I want to produce such evidence when I never claimed anything like what you stated here? You are acting like a little child bully. I thought maybe you were just trying to keep people honest (at least in your own head) without any maliciousness, but now I'm getting the picture that your sole purpose is to insult others and cause negativity. You are behaving as a troll. I won't be answering any more of your gross assumptions, because I am now convinced that you make them deliberately. Good day to you.
@C. M. Allen:
Absolutely. The first bible comes out of the Council of Nicaea, in fact, being in possession of any other gospel that hadn't been approved in Nicaea became a risky sport that culminated in the murder of Hypatia in 416 AD. and the consummation of the murder of the classical world by the Catholic religion born of Nicaea.
And the crazy pseudo history just keeps on coming from this guy.
"The first bible comes out of the Council of Nicaea"
Evidence please.
" being in possession of any other gospel that hadn't been approved in Nicaea became a risky sport that culminated in the murder of Hypatia in 416 AD"
Hypatia's murder was in 415 AD. And it had nothing to do with the possession of any gospels.
"and the consummation of the murder of the classical world by the Catholic religion"
Catholicism didn't exist in 415 AD. And the learning of the classical world continued to be studied after Hypatia's political assassination and was *preserved* by the Catholic, Orthodox and Nestorian churches. It's thanks to them that you can read the learning of the Classical world today.
Now please let us know when you will be showing us those "minutes of the Council".
"Catholicism didn't exist in 415 AD."
Actually, Catholicism has existed since the first century. Ignatius of Antioch mentions it in his letter in 107 AD to the Christians in Smyrna. But even then it's not such a widely used term as Christians just belonged to one church so calling Christians by another name, "Catholic" was unprecedented. When heresies sprung up, the term needed to be used more often to distinguish the "one, true Christian faith" from the heretical ones. The term "Catholic" has been used by Cyril of Jerusalem and Augustine of Hippo.
Now, the term is more widely used by us, Catholics to distinguish us from non-Catholic denominations. In fact in my country, if you say you're Christian, it's assumed you're protestant unless you categorically state that you are Catholic.
"Actually, Catholicism has existed since the first century. Ignatius of Antioch mentions it in his letter in 107 AD to the Christians in Smyrna."
That is a reference to the Christian church as καθολικός or "universal". The institution now known as the "Catholic Church" can't be said to have come into being until the Great Schism in 1054. People with no grasp of history like that Montero guy use it anachronistically, a bit like people who call the Catholic Church "the Vatican" when they are talking about periods long before the Papacy was based anywhere near Vatican Hill. These are historical terms and they have meanings.
@TimONeill:
Evidences? Read the Acts of the Council of Nicea, not link a biased list of canons like anything great, the acts.
No, the assassination of Hypatia is symbol of the culmination of the murder of the classical world by the Catholic Church and the new “Imperium Christianum”.
After the Council of Nicaea, the possession of any gospel other than the four included during the Council resulted in the burning of the library, the death of its owners and, in the case of North Africa, the loss of land and property in favor of the new offices of catholica ecclesia. Archbishop Chrysostom wrote with satisfaction: "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has been extirpated from the face of the earth", Or are you going to deny what he wrote?
It's of such stupidity to say that the catholic ecclesia didn't exist in 415 AD that it isn't worth mentioning it, only to say that who baptizes as catholica ecclesia to the new religion that leaves the Council of Nicea is the own Constantine in his letter sent to the proconsul of Africa, Anulino, following the Donatist schism, include two points that clarify what his intentions are. It is the first writing in which appears the concept of catholica ecclesia -that's universally recognized-, and the exemption of clerici from the curial charges... this is history and you CANNOT refuted it, except lying like a scoundrel.
To say that the Catholic Church preserved the classical world, when it burned libraries, covered the myth of heaven with mortar in Egypt, or converted academic buildings into monuments to martyrs that never existed is NOT to preserve the classical world. Only in the Soma were burned thousands of philosophical, academic documents about physics, chemistry, astronomy, which have not reached our days and will never come. Likewise, the falsification of texts, beginning with the philosophers that the Catholic Church comes to preserve, Plato, Aristotle and others, lines the ridiculous. And this is also a story that CANNOT be denied... except lying like a scoundrel.
Try again.
"Read the Acts of the Council of Nicea"
Okay. Where are they exactly? That's what I keep asking for and you keep failing to produce them. So, you try again. Produce these "acts of the Council of Nicea" and show us where they mention any priests of "Apolo, Demeter / Ceres, Dionysus / Bacchus, Janus, Jupiter / Zeus, Oannes / Dagon, Osiris and Isis" at the Council.
Stop stalling and produce this evidence.
@Jon the Catholic:
No one "believes" anything, it's a historical and irrefutable certainty.
@LostLocke: "I'm not trying speak for the OP, but I think he means a general creation. As in, a god or deity directly created the universe, or created the conditions under which the universe formed.
Basically, if it weren't for this god, the universe itself wouldn't exist."
Thanks for your help and I will not treat you as an OP poster.
When it come to the creation of the universe it is merely just a claim because it can not be replicated.
The scientist explanation of how the universe created also just that - an explanation. So too the claim of the creation of Adam. If in the future there is a technology or whatever tools found that able to create human from a scratch that would be the answer for the claim, but at this moment we can only accepted as a claim, but something to chase.
The verse that I use above is an example as how far the reach of this claims. People who attack Islam or those who defend Islam need to look first at this claims. Here is an example that will give you an idea the connection of the creator and the creations. He only does it if the creation do:
"Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition"
I don't know that "stages" is really the best term for these 5 descriptions, but either way I think it's okay to lump them all together. They are all claims for which the claimants have no proof.
I guess you could lump the first three and the last two into two groups: the first being a creator god who is neither provable nor disprovable without universal revelation; the second being a controller god (who is not necessarily a creator) for whom there is little or no credible evidence yet a large body of evidence suggesting its nonexistence.
That's just from an argument or debate standpoint. The five types you made could be useful to psychologists and sociologists in describing social/regional archetypes or mental illnesses.
English is not my first language, so I translated it the way I think of it in Greek. Probably "the five levels" would have been more exact. At any case, it's a debate thought, since most of the time, when I debate, theists tend to start at Stage 5 and as they encounter resistance go all the way up to Stage 1 and think that when I say "I don't know" they have "won" the argument all the way down to Stage 5. For example, I had a FB friend use the argument "5 billion people who believe in something can't be wrong". To which I replied "you do realize you cannot ALL be right too?" He did not care.
Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yes, that is a pattern I have seen before. They start at the most invasive version of their god, the one for which there should be some real evidence from direct observation, and then as their arguments crumble they backpedal, shifting the goalposts until they are down to an un-evolved, amorphous god idea that may have not even survived creation. And of course nobody with intellectual integrity is going to say they can prove an unknown entity wasn't the impetus of the universe, so the creationists declaim, "we win, you can't prove god doesn't exist! Hooray for Jesus! It's actually distressing and sad to anyone who is empathetic.
@ TimONeill, among other directives, you've said:
"We atheists are meant to be the rational ones. Unfortunately, I keep finding supposed rationalists who clutch at crackpot ideas because it suits an emotional bias against religion. That isn't rational. Try rationalism."
"Luckily for me I simply said we are *supposed* to be more rational. I can assure you I've had more than enough encounters with atheists who cling dogmatically to nonsense about history to know the gap between the ideal and the reality all too well."
"But what I said is we "are *supposed* to be the rational ones". I can't see how that unremarkable statement could "suggest" anything much to you about how many atheists I may or may not know personally."
"This is *The Da Vinci COde* level crackpottery and atheists should know better than peddling this kind of New Age bullshit. Educate yourself better."
Ever so glad, Tim, you're here to advise folks who are identified as atheist on how to behave. I for one, am thrilled about it since I haven't a religion to tell me how to so. Now I have you!
"Ever so glad, Tim, you're here to advise folks who are identified as atheist on how to behave. I for one, am thrilled about it since I haven't a religion to tell me how to so. Now I have you!"
Hey, it's advice, not some kind of "directive". I can assure you that there are plenty of people out there who laugh at us because we preach to others about checking facts, respecting consensus, being wary of confirmation bias, assessing things objectively etc, and then when it comes to history, many of us do precisely none of the above. There is a whole online group of historians who have a regular chuckle at what they call "the Gnus" and the latest historical bungle by some historically ignorant atheist.
But sure, pay no attention. Believe whatever you like about history. Ignore pesky things like facts, evidence, expert analysis and scholarly consensus and stick to cliches, fringe ideas, outdated polemic and amateur hour bungling by non-specialists. It's a free world. Just don't whine when those of us with a clue laugh at you if you do so.
"But sure, pay no attention. Believe whatever you like about history. Ignore pesky things like facts, evidence, expert analysis and scholarly consensus and stick to cliches, fringe ideas, outdated polemic and amateur hour bungling by non-specialists. It's a free world. Just don't whine when those of us with a clue laugh at you if you do so."
Please point out precisely where I have done any of this. I don't recall posting in this thread up until now.
This is what he does, he doesn't recognize you as an individual saying something by yourself. We are all lumped into one unified body of idiots for him to cast aspersions upon. Classic narcissist behavior, not seeing others as individuals but as fodder for his perverse pleasure.
" I don't recall posting in this thread up until now."
And I don't recall saying you did. But for some odd reason you took some general observations about *some* atheists and some other more particular comments about *other people* and decided to take them rather personally. So I simply noted what may happen IF (there's the operative word) you did the things I mentioned. You don't do those things? Hooray. Go in peace.
V.S.
You are a troll.
"You are a troll."
Nonsense. What I said there was pretty obviously saying "IF YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE MY ADVICE AND DO THESE THINGS, then these are likely to be the consequences". But it seems you can't help but be petty.
What is the difference between some folks reading your posts as directives vs. your insisyance it's advice and Nyar positing an opinion about you behaving like a troll vs. your accusation he's being petty? All in how one looks at it, eh?
What's the difference? One is saying "IF you act this way ..." while the other is saying "you ARE acting this way". That's a pretty clear difference.
fake quote is fake
"fake quote is fake"
Ummm, I'm afraid you don't get to tell *ME* what *I* was saying. Even if you want to wifully misread what I wrote, I'm pretty clear on what I said and what I meant. Do you have any more low level school yard pettiness you need to vent or are we done here?
The citation is bogus; and it is your 2nd bogus citation.
"The citation is bogus"
What "citation"? I'm teling you what *I* meant. You're trying to tell me I'm wrong? How the hell does that work? Your pettiness is now beyond ridiculous. Here's what I said again, with added emphasis:
"But sure, pay no attention. Believe whatever you like about history. Ignore pesky things like facts, evidence, expert analysis and scholarly consensus and stick to cliches, fringe ideas, outdated polemic and amateur hour bungling by non-specialists. It's a free world. Just don't whine when those of us with a clue laugh at you IF you do so."
See that word in capitals?
When your argument needs the canon to be established before Constantine; you go with that, and insult people who disagree. When your argument needs the canon to be established after Constantine; you go with that, and insult people who disagree. You are a troll.
"When your argument needs the canon to be established before Constantine; you go with that, and insult people who disagree. When your argument needs the canon to be established after Constantine; you go with that, and insult people who disagree. You are a troll."
Utter gibberish. As I've clearly said several times, the four gospels were agreed on BEFORE Constantine, but the rest of the NT was agreed on AFTER Constantine, so it makes no sense to claim that the Canon of the whole NT was established BY Constantine. I really can't think of how I can express this any more simply for you, so if you still don't understand I suspect the problem doesn't lie with me.
It now seems that Montero guy has fallen silent because he's realised he can't back up the crazy claims in the lunatic article he posted (hint - fact check things before posting them), while you are finding increasingly smaller circles to spin in, hoping you can find some weaselly way that, if you can't be right, you can be seen to be not totally wrong. None of which looks very good.
As for "insulting" people. If you look at my initial posts I simply politely asked for evidence. When I got bluffing, sarcasm and scorn in response, I gave back as good as I got. If the replies had been "Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that ... " or "Okay, it seems that I got this wrong, but here's why I though that ... " my replies would have had a different tone.
Pages