Atheism

[jem]

Apocrypha or not, the book of Thomas is not in the Bible.

so lets get this straight. A guy (you) who says Jesus never existed is now saying he did exist and he killed people because a 2000 year old book of Thomas said he killed someone.

Everyone else in the world knows the Jesus of the Bible did not kill people. Some people may argue the Jesus of the bible was not divine. Some would say the bible is written by man to make it look like this historical figure fulfilled the prophesy in the old testament regarding the coming of the Messiah. A very slight few non real scholars would say Jesus never existed...

But you are one of the only trolls on the planet who would say the Jesus of the bible never existed but he killed people... because although you don't think he existed... the book of thomas...(not in the bible) said this guy (who does not exist according to you) killed someone.

What's in a name? That which is called a Bible by any other name would sound the same.
Apocrypha; written by man, edited by man and then called the Bible by man, in the name of god.

And Goldilocks never existed either, but no one in their right mind would say it's bogus argument to talk about her in anything else but The Three Bears.

 

[stu]

You've shown many times, and you have just done so again in spades ,that you don't have the intellect for rational discussion.
And you're clearly very angry.

Its perfectly reasonable to talk about a fictional character in the concept of how they are represented in a book that describes them without having to assume or or suggest they ever existed.

Ironically enough, that you have not understood that basic concept and the way you get so angry about these issues speaks volumes.

The Apocrypha of Thomas was simply a book left on the cutting room floor along with many others which did not portray the Jesus character in the way religious believers wanted at the time. They are all very much in the same tone and context and style of the books that were compiled to be called the Bible.

 

[stu]

That means they reject All forms of "Deities"

It means no such thing at all.
It means they have an absence of belief. So in effect and in all reality, have no belief.

For what reason exactly are you squirming around with this rather absurd idea that no belief is belief?

 

[OddTrader]

If you believe that no belief is not a belief at all, that is fine with me!

So long!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Glover thinks that people often manage to find agreements and consensus through philosophy. He says that at the very least, if people do not convert each other, they will hold their own beliefs more openmindedly and will be less likely to go to war over conflicting beliefs.[42][44] the truth with open minded

 

[jem]

1. this would be reasonable...

"Its perfectly reasonable to talk about a fictional character in the concept of how they are represented in a book that describes them without having to assume or or suggest they ever existed."

2. but that is not what you did... you said this...

"Jesus is God according to Christian faith so sure, Jesus would be responsible for the countless millions of people he, as God, killed according to the bible."

that is a absurd statement. When challenged you brought up the The gospel of Thomas which is not in the bible and even so that book does not support your absurd statement.


3. That you would then lie your ass off in an attempt to support your ignorant statement or intentional lies shows your nature.

 

[jem]

you fell for the trick stu has been attempting here for years.

Atheists have been redefining atheism to be the equal of agnosticism for years.
They realize they have no business stating a Creator does not exist so they have tried to be the same as agnostics.

If you wanted to argue definitions you would have been better served citing dictionaries not Wikipedia... because instead of referencing major dictionaries for their definition Wikipedia cited authors.

I would note over the years Stu and I debated... more an more dictionaries have been redefining atheism. So be it... I guess we need to types of agnostics.

If you believe that no belief is not a belief at all, that is fine with me!

So long!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

 

[stu]

"Jesus is God according to Christian faith so sure, Jesus would be responsible for the countless millions of people he, as God, killed according to the bible."

that is a absurd statement.

What's absurd.
All of it?
"Jesus is God"... is that absurd?

It's a statement paraded throughout the Christian faith and you're saying it's absurd? Are you saying the Jesus character would not be responsible for the deaths of countless numbers because he is not God - the one who is said, in what is an absurd story, to have killed almost every living thing on Earth?

When challenged you brought up the The gospel of Thomas

No I didn't. I brought up 'The gospel of Thomas' that states Jesus killed in response to someone who said Jesus never killed.
How come you can never read properly what's in front of you?

And it is true to say the writings in ancient books, of the the same source from which other books were compiled into the Bible, tell of how Jesus killed.

 

[stu]

If you believe that no belief is not a belief at all, that is fine with me!

I've no need to believe it.
The fact that there is absence of belief makes it logically true, and that is fine with me!

 

[jem]

Now of course you play the game where you take things out of context to pretend you meant something different... anyone can go back and look at your exchange with oldtrader.

What's absurd.
All of it?
"Jesus is God"... is that absurd?

It's a statement paraded throughout the Christian faith and you're saying it's absurd? Are you saying the Jesus character would not be responsible for the deaths of countless numbers because he is not God - the one who is said, in what is an absurd story, to have killed almost every living thing on Earth?



No I didn't. I brought up 'The gospel of Thomas' that states Jesus killed in response to someone who said Jesus never killed.
How come you can never read properly what's in front of you?

And it is true to say the writings in ancient books, of the the same source from which other books were compiled into the Bible, tell of how Jesus killed.

 

[stu]

I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief. Immanuel Kant