Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Nice judgmental OP.There are a couple threads on this forum about the whether Jesus existed historically. Why don't you post to them or read them instead of posting an attack OP.I am a loony because I acknowledge that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? You expect me to accept his existence on faith alone? Go to the Jesus existence threads and present this reasonable evidence.
EvC Forum: The Existence of Jesus Christ
Espescially look at the posts by Kapyong. All I can say is wow. Projection much. You are doing the same thing here that you accuse others of. Do you think no one has a right to criticize religion?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It's reasonable, yes, to claim that your fallacies support the arguments of your opponents, in so far as your opponent is arguing that you have not supported your own argument.When you make a claim and support it with an argument, but it turns out that the argument is fallacious, then you've not supported your claim. If "TheJackel"'s argument is that you don't have any evidence for the existence of Jesus, then yes, a lack of evidence on your part is certainly support for his position. If that's not his argument, then you'll have to supply more context from these discussions before I can arrive at any judgement. You've yet to demonstrate any degree of irrationality, though. These atheists, after all, may be convinced that their positions are rational because they're rational positions; you've yet to supply any evidence to the contrary. Nobody's testimony carries any weight, because none of us are old enough to personally testify to the events recounted in Genesis. But if Buz had evidence that the Genesis account was accurate, he'd have all the standing in the world to present it, and those who rejected that evidence without consideration based on their judgement of Buz as a person would be the ones in error, not Buz.You can hardly disqualify people from advocating their own positions on the grounds that they believe in themselves. On that basis we'd have to exclude you from this thread. I'm not admitting to being a "fundamentalist atheist loony." I'm telling you that I'm a supporter of a position you seem to have no ability to refute - that there was, in fact, no such person as "Jesus Christ."

What research? Please be specific.

This thread isn't about Jesus.This thread is about fundamentalist atheism. Fundamentalism penetrates all spheres of belief and non-belief.The presumption that being an atheist precludes one from being a fundamentalist is not only ridiculous, but a sentiment typical of fundamental atheists.Anyone who wants to deny the existence of fundamentalist atheism is free to do so, but then there is little reason for them to continue participating in a discussion on the matter.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Then you can't proceed from the basis that denial of the historicity of Jesus is de facto unreasonable. If "fundamentalist atheism" exists, you'll have to provide examples of it that are more than just atheists denying the historicity of Jesus, since that's not actually unreasonable.

But you base your whole argument on Jesus. Without Jesus you have no argument.As of yet you have provided no evidence of fundamentalist atheism and if you can provide no evidence for Jesus you argument for fundamentalist atheism completely falls apart.You claim fundamentalist atheist do not accept clear obvious evidence but you refuse to show us the evidence. It seems you want people to accept your beliefs on faith alone. Bullshit. Do you think that discussions should only be with people that accept your faulty premise? Would be kind of a worthless discussion if all you had were yes men participating.If you are going to propose topics like this, grow some stones and defend them. You have lots of assertions, either defend them or concede you cannot defend them.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

To that end, you should probably acknowledge the controversial nature of the term 'fundamentalist atheist' and your idiosyncratic characterisation of what a fundamentalist is.There are no fundamental dogmas in atheism.You might argue that there are anti-theistic notions which some anti-theists stick to dogmatically and it is to this you are referring to - but these aren't notions that should define anti-theism so can hardly be called 'fundamental'. The idea that the crucifixion is a myth may be held dogmatically by someone, but it is not necessary to have this belief to be an anti-theist by anyone's standards.

Very good, Modulous! Thank you for addressing the topic.According to you, there aren't any specific 'dogmatic' (previously called 'fanatic', as well) standards, if you will, in any spheres of anti-theism (except, perhaps, the obvious: 'there are no gods', but that isn't something I want this thread to devolve into).As you use the term 'fundamentalism', I too would be cautious applying it toward any groups like atheists/anti-theists. The notion of 'defining' characteristicscharacteristics shared by all members of the groupmay be overstepping the evidence. I had mostly made use of this definition:

quote:

---

fundamentalism (noun) from Wiktionary:

​

4. Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

---

But if my use of a word is hindering discussion, let me reverse the claim; taking the denial of an historical Jesus, do you suppose that, though not shared by all anti-theists, that all people who share it are likely to be anti-theists/extreme atheists?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I provided two examples in the OP. That you failed to examine my evidence is hardly my problem.You can take a horse to water... but something something even if you shove his fucking nose in the god damned pond he can still refuse to drink... or another.I'll give you a hint, the FA thread had nothing to do with Jesus, but was related to what I said in the OP about it:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 1:

​

... the OPer in that thread has been arguing for and clinging to a set of ridiculous beliefs regarding the origin of the OT God, most notably that he was originally worshipped as a volcano (or something like that).

---

Start from scratch shall we?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Like I said, if we started a discussion on why Creationists cling to the Genesis creation myth and a 6000 year old Earth, creationists dropping by to tell us it is because it's truethe earth really is that youngwould hardly be of any value to the discussion; and we certainly wouldn't have to take time away from our discussion to deal with their trolling.I started this thread to discuss the same attitudes held by extremist anti-theists, and so far, the majority of replies to this thread have been extremist anti-theists popping in to say 'nuh uh; no I'm not!'.You can understand why, like their Creationist counterparts, I've little desire to take them seriously. I'm looking for some honest discussion here, preferably with people who aren't so obstinate as to think ignorance a purely religious phenomenon.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

No, you didn't. You provided examples of how you have a congenital ability to grapple with topics. Where is your example of an atheist who asserts that the Old Testament God was "originally worshiped as a volcano"? Please be specific.

Sure.Because we've already had the discussion about the historicity of the Genesis myth, and they lost.Similarly, we've already had the discussion about the historicity of Jesus, and you lost. Your side, anyway. That obviates the possibility of having a discussion predicated on rejecting as "unreasonable" any position that Jesus was not historical. If you'd like to defend the position that it's unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus, you'll need to open a new thread for that and address the unanswered refutations of that position.Until then you'll find that any attempt to assume the historicity of Jesus is so well-established as to be an act of lunacy to deny it is met by people telling you "well, no, actually it's not." At such time as you actually win that debate you can use it as the basis for future discussions. Until then you're putting the cart before the horse, and making yourself out to be the one who won't listen to reason. "Warning: Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy_EUn5bQ0

So, since I question whether Jesus is a historic figure I am an extremist anti-theist? So this is the criteria to meet your definition?Lets see.Jon - Has no evidence and not willing to present evidence for his dogmatic beliefs. Therefore rational theist.Theodoric - Does not see any evidence and willing to consider any evidence given. Radical extremist anti-theist.Is that right?This whole thread is you being what you accuse people of. By trying to expose extremist anti-theists you are exposing yourself as an extremist anti-atheist. Your whole argument is that anyone that questions the existence of Jesus is some extremist looney. That people do not accept your beliefs on faith means there is something wrong with them. Your hypocrisy is astounding. And when you got nothing you resort to insults. Stay classy my friend. I am trying to have an honest discussion, but you have put up a wall. Your definition of an "anti-theist"(whatever that truly is) is so ridiculous that it must be addressed before what your attempted topic is.You do not want a frank discussion, you are hoping for an atheist bashing thread as shown by your ridiculous definitions and your unwillingness to defend your definition of what an anti-theist is.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Interestingly it turns out that there have been serious suggestions that Yahweh was originally a volcano god. I haven't done the research to see how good the evidence is, but I think you are being a bit too quick to dismiss it as simply ridiculous.And again, I think that I need to remind you that the OP as written was not about singling out a few cranks, it was supposedly about views that are more or less mainstream amongst "anti-theists". And arguing that a large majority of people who reject a historical Jesus are anti-theists does not show that. (If you can't see the logic, then think of Harold Camping's recent Rapture prediction - all, or virtually all - of the people who believed it would be Christians, yet could you say that more than a tiny proportion of Christians actually believed it ?)

How does not accepting that Jesus existed make me an anti-Islam, buddhist, Tao, Jain, Hindu or Sikh?The whole premise you are building is christian centric. Christianity is just one group in the theistic world.Maybe if you based your idea of anti-theist on something more reasonable I might be able to agree with you on some level. But to posit that someone is anti-anything because they do not take your beliefs on faith is just plain asinine.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts