Old 01-09-2018, 08:03 AM   #16
Egor
Member
 
Egor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: As if I'd say.
Posts: 292
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote View Post
Looks like your arrogance still does you proud!
Thanks. I try to keep it up.


Quote:
SEG wrote View Post
Is that because you have realised that the evidence is just so bad? Mormonism's evidence of the golden plates is a lot better than that of most other Christian sects, including your Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course they are bullshit, but their bullshit evidence is a lot better than your bullshit evidence.

How do you feel about that?
I don't care about Mormons. I don't care about historical evidence. I am a Christian based on what I read in Gospels that are currently on my bookshelf. Because it's the story that matters, not the history. No one really knows the history.

Whole Ph.D.s are gained on biblical archaeology or NT history. It's pointless. It's academic crossword puzzles.

Did Jesus really live? Who knows? Probably. That's as academic as I get.

Now when are we going to talk about the existence of God? That is what atheism is all about isn't it?

To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming.
Egor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 10:27 AM   #17
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568
Paperclip

Quote:
SEG wrote View Post
Try harmonising this problem Egor, set by Mr Barker, my fav atheist atm:
Let me guess - the old Romans that cobbled together the bullshit for their new religion hadn't quite mastered the skills of proofreading and cross-checking their made-up shit.
Am I right?

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 11:38 AM   #18
hertz vanrental
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,680
The problems with pre-christardological Romans were many and varied. For example, they had many gods eg. Bacchus who, amongst other things, was the god of wine. Pre-christardological Romans could pray to whichever god they chose whenever they wanted and howsoever they wanted. Basically, it was a free-for-all without let or hindrance.

In addition, the pre-christardological Romans were 'Shameless' and knew how to throw a party. Saturnalia being just one example.

These things were un-christardological and therefore had to be stopped.

Besides, people enjoying themselves and praying to whichever god they wanted, whenever they wanted and however they wanted was hardly a recipe for control. And boy, did christards want to control. It's probably why the early christards were fed to the lions. They were evil fuckers who were spoil-sports and power hungry, greedy control freaks, as well as paedos. I think that the earl Romans stopped this practice too early, but that's just my opinion.

To high-jack a single Roman god was useless. Only those Romans that prayed to that particular god at that particular time could be controlled. This was highly unsatisfactory.

No, to control the populace, the many gods had to be replaced by one god. The power hungry christards could then control the populace through the one god.

christardology was invented and then, rather stupidly, was endorsed by the fuckin' Romans. From the sublime to the ridiculous in one step. Wankers.

Here endeth today's reading.
hertz vanrental is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 03:50 PM   #19
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,832
Quote:
Egor wrote View Post
There's no one reading this forum. You are fading away, and I'm just getting my second wind.
You're certainly a bit of a blow-hard Egor, no-one will deny that.
The purpose of atheism is to become redundant, we are achieving that quite well thank you.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 03:51 PM   #20
SEG
Junior Member
 
SEG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 41
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote View Post
Let me guess - the old Romans that cobbled together the bullshit for their new religion hadn't quite mastered the skills of proofreading and cross-checking their made-up shit.
Am I right?
Correct. The story made up by the author of Mark just got embellished. Funny how the empty tomb is so central to their resurrection bullshit, hundreds of books and articles having been written about it. Yet when you ask how everyone just forgot where it was, they claim it was nothing special.

'Orta Recens Quam Pura Nites'.
SEG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2018, 04:04 PM   #21
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,832
Quote:
SEG wrote View Post
Correct. The story made up by the author of Mark just got embellished. Funny how the empty tomb is so central to their resurrection bullshit, hundreds of books and articles having been written about it. Yet when you ask how everyone just forgot where it was, they claim it was nothing special.
Good word embellished.
Like how young man became angle, then two men then two angles like they're breeding. It's almost as if someone asked if it was the naked boy who ran through the trees.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational