Atheism: What's the point?

[Dakini]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

A cult is basically a religion that is not mainstream. The Romans considered Christianity a cult... we're talking about a Roman opinion of Christianity, are we not?

[DMistan]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

A cult is basically a religion that is not mainstream. The Romans considered Christianity a cult... we're talking about a Roman opinion of Christianity, are we not?

Are we pretending the word "cult" is not pejorative?

I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo.

[Bassyruk]

Atheists get free cookies.

I want a cookie

That's okay, I would rather get nothing and have a purpose than get a cookie and only exist by random chance.

[Bassyruk]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

A cult is basically a religion that is not mainstream. The Romans considered Christianity a cult... we're talking about a Roman opinion of Christianity, are we not?

Oh that clears it up. I thought he said that Christianity is still a cult.

[Dakini]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

A cult is basically a religion that is not mainstream. The Romans considered Christianity a cult... we're talking about a Roman opinion of Christianity, are we not?

Are we pretending the word "cult" is not pejorative?

I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo.

I'm not sure if it necessarily was to the Romans... I mean, they had a lot of cults that seemed reasonably popular, but not as popular as the Roman pantheon.

[Grave_n_idle]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

I believe 'pernicious superstition' is the text usually described. Quibble the wording if you want.

[Tmutarakhan]

However, it's not necessarily an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire. It's more likely an account of how they were thought of in 116CE.

No. It is an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire, as written down by somebody who was there at the time of the fire and ought to be expected to have vivid memories of what people were thinking and saying at the time. If, in 2009, I write down my memories of the Kennedy assassination, I am not going to mention the role of the Westboro Baptist Church just because the WBC exists in 2009, because the WBC has nothing to do with my memories of 1963.

[Bassyruk]

I'm not sure if it necessarily was to the Romans... I mean, they had a lot of cults that seemed reasonably popular, but not as popular as the Roman pantheon.

Yeah, but the Roman pantheon was kinda enforced. Especially on the Celts, Christians and Jews.
[/quote]

[Bassyruk]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

I believe 'pernicious superstition' is the text usually described. Quibble the wording if you want.

I could, but It'd be useless as you'd be to stubborn to listen.

[Grave_n_idle]

However, it's not necessarily an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire..

Unsupportable, without corroboration.

If you can show correlation from another source, you might be able to make a better argument.

As it is - we don't know what was added by Tacitus, or when. All we know FOR SURE, is that the text we, have represented his approach to the facts AT THAT TIME.

[Grave_n_idle]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

I believe 'pernicious superstition' is the text usually described. Quibble the wording if you want.

I could, but It'd be useless as you'd be to stubborn to listen.

Your talk of 'what you could do' is of supreme indifference to me.

Do, or do not do. (Or, as a great philosopher once said: "Noodles... don't noodles".) But your TALK about what you 'can do' is a waste of breath.

[Tmutarakhan]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

I believe 'pernicious superstition' is the text usually described. Quibble the wording if you want.

I could, but It'd be useless as you'd be to stubborn to listen.

The point is going over your head.
What Tacitus writes is not evidence that Christianity was a "pernicious superstition"; I am arguing that it is perfectly good evidence that Romans at the time thought of Christianity as a pernicious superstition. Grave_n_Idle for some reason thinks it more reasonable to believe that Christians themselves made up this business about Christianity being called a "pernicious superstition", to help them get away with sneaking into the history mentions of their founder getting executed, something that never happened at all (their real founder was somebody making up a story about an execution that didn't happen, for motives which are unclear).

[Dakini]

However, it's not necessarily an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire. It's more likely an account of how they were thought of in 116CE.

No. It is an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire, as written down by somebody who was there at the time of the fire and ought to be expected to have vivid memories of what people were thinking and saying at the time.

Why would you think it's an account detailing thoughts from 50 years earlier? Considering that the Christians were making themselves obnoxious around the turn of the second century and it's likely that blaming Christians was an attempt to shift blame for the fire away from Nero. It's much more likely that this is a 116CE interpretation, not a 64CE interpretation.

If, in 2009, I write down my memories of the Kennedy assassination, I am not going to mention the role of the Westboro Baptist Church just because the WBC exists in 2009, because the WBC has nothing to do with my memories of 1963.

If you have a political agenda to support you might.

[Bassyruk]

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

[Grave_n_idle]

The point is going over your head.
What Tacitus writes is not evidence that Christianity was a "pernicious superstition"; I am arguing that it is perfectly good evidence that Romans at the time thought of Christianity as a pernicious superstition. Grave_n_Idle for some reason thinks it more reasonable to believe that Christians themselves made up this business about Christianity being called a "pernicious superstition", to help them get away with sneaking into the history mentions of their founder getting executed, something that never happened at all (their real founder was somebody making up a story about an execution that didn't happen, for motives which are unclear).

If you're going to discuss what I am saying, actually discuss what I'm saying, rather than making up random shit you WISH I'd said.

Other than that, good work. Me saying that Tacitus described Christianity as a 'pernicious superstition' is me saying what HE thought of Christianity, not what I think.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Atheists get free cookies.

I want a cookie

That's okay, I would rather get nothing and have a purpose than get a cookie and only exist by random chance.

Anthropic principle + inflationary cosmology + many worlds interpretation = no need whatsoever to postulate a god for any reason whatsoever

Add in the fact that things behave randomly on the fundamental level, and your insistence that the universe is neat and orderly is an entirely empty one that does not square with reality.

[Bassyruk]

The point is going over your head.
What Tacitus writes is not evidence that Christianity was a "pernicious superstition"; I am arguing that it is perfectly good evidence that Romans at the time thought of Christianity as a pernicious superstition. Grave_n_Idle for some reason thinks it more reasonable to believe that Christians themselves made up this business about Christianity being called a "pernicious superstition", to help them get away with sneaking into the history mentions of their founder getting executed, something that never happened at all (their real founder was somebody making up a story about an execution that didn't happen, for motives which are unclear).

If you're going to discuss what I am saying, actually discuss what I'm saying, rather than making up random shit you WISH I'd said.

Other than that, good work. Me saying that Tacitus described Christianity as a 'pernicious superstition' is me saying what HE thought of Christianity, not what I think.

OK good.

[Dakini]

I'm not sure if it necessarily was to the Romans... I mean, they had a lot of cults that seemed reasonably popular, but not as popular as the Roman pantheon.

Yeah, but the Roman pantheon was kinda enforced. Especially on the Celts, Christians and Jews.

Which is why Romans had the cult of Isis and a number of mystery cults that were fine and trendy?

[Grave_n_idle]

OK good.

Not that it's inappropriate, implicitly, to refer to Christianity as a cult...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

[Dakini]

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33097

You can't just post a link as an argument. Post an argument and use a link (not that one, one that actually has evidence and isn't what appears to be another forum) to support your argument. What are we supposed to take away from this link?

[Bassyruk]

Uhh... look at it

[Bassyruk]

I'm not sure if it necessarily was to the Romans... I mean, they had a lot of cults that seemed reasonably popular, but not as popular as the Roman pantheon.

Yeah, but the Roman pantheon was kinda enforced. Especially on the Celts, Christians and Jews.

Which is why Romans had the cult of Isis and a number of mystery cults that were fine and trendy?

Well, they were "fine and trendy" because those gods were allowed to be worshipped, but only as minor gods, i.e., minor additions to the Pantheon instead of only worshipping your gods.

[Dakini]

Uhh... look at it

I did. I decided it was too much text that you didn't bother to write (but could have written since it's basically presenting an argument). It doesn't have any corroborating evidence. It just shows that you're too lazy to make your own arguments. I give you the courtesy of spending my time typing each response to things that you say. If I was going to highlight a particular link, I would make a statement, follow it with a link and if the page I link is long and the relevant section is not at the top, I would probably quote the relevant portions in my post.

Instead, you just googled "proof of Jesus" and shoved a link in this discussion without an explanation.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Atheists get free cookies.

I want a cookie

That's okay, I would rather get nothing and have a purpose than get a cookie and only exist by random chance.

You'd rather exist at the whim of an omnipotent being who either requires your worship or will send you to a realm of eternal torment, pain and humiliation out of an act of love?

You know, the more I read about this 'God' fellow, the more I'm glad I believe in less... fucked up God.

[Bassyruk]

Uhh... look at it

I did. I decided it was too much text that you didn't bother to write (but could have written since it's basically presenting an argument). It doesn't have any corroborating evidence. It just shows that you're too lazy to make your own arguments. I give you the courtesy of spending my time typing each response to things that you say. If I was going to highlight a particular link, I would make a statement, follow it with a link and if the page I link is long and the relevant section is not at the top, I would probably quote the relevant portions in my post.

Instead, you just googled "proof of Jesus" and shoved a link in this discussion without an explanation.

No, I read it, and I think it's obvious that you should read what's under best answer, but if you insist:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, former professor of law at Harvard University and once recognized by the Supreme Court to be perhaps the greatest authority on legal evidence who has ever lived, made a detailed examination of the evidence relating to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, quoted by L.A. Drummon and P.R. Baxter in the 1986 book How to Respond to a Skeptic. (Chicago: Moody Press, p 117.) He concluded that in any uinbiased courtroom in the world, the evidence would establish the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The documentary evidence has been examined independently by millions of people, each of whom had the opportunity to find mistakes if there were any. St. Luke, for example, turns out to be as meticulous a geographer and historian as anyone now living. Calling his Gospel "mythology" is like calling Caesar's Gallic Wars "legendary." Contempt prior to investigation is no way to determine the facts. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible is filled with specific names, dates, places. Fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to scorn these as legendary or inaccurate, but having such an attitude today requires one to ignore libraries full of research in history, archeology and linguistics. Which of course is your privilege; but the recently-published "Under the Influence" by Alvin Schmidt shows that virtually everything that makes the world today better than it was in Roman times stems directly from the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.