Msgr. Charles Pope points out some interesting data from CARA.
You often hear that ex-Catholics would make up one of the largest denominations. Apparently the category of ex-atheist’s make up a larger percentage. This data relates to people raised in an atheist household, not the retention rate of atheists not raised in such households.
But take a special look at that number at the bottom of the pile, yes the very bottom. Atheists “retain” only thirty percent of their “flock.” To quote the CARA blog: And if you think it is challenging to be a Catholic parent, try being an Atheist parent! Some 70% of Americans raised to believe God does not exist end up being a member of a religion as an adult (about one in five former Atheists drift off to become an open-minded agnostic or None).
N.B this number reflects only those raised as Atheists. A large number of Atheists in this Country are “made” in the sense that they were raised to believe but now are Atheists. It remains to study how many of them remain atheists and for how long.
The Monsignor goes on to write why he thinks this is so and of course the comment section is full of outraged atheists. I must applaud Msgr. Pope for the amount of engagement and his many responses to atheists who mainly assert that the study must be flawed (which of course is always possible).
So what we can take from this study and act on is to obviously raise our kids as atheists so that they will later have some form of belief! Hey it worked in my case raised in an atheist household. Well probably not the best approach, but you do have to wonder if atheist parents will complain about the state of atheist catechesis and the problem of backsliding atheists straying into faith.
38 comments
In before Salvage blows up on the combox.
American Philosopher Richard Rorty advocated for a pragmatist philosophy with no essential eternal truths. But he did admit that he did not know how to pass on ethics to children without fundamental right and wrong.
I remember having a metaphysical discussion with a secular friend about morality. The question in play was, “Does morality actually exist?” He answered, “Yes, but it’s only a concept.” I paused a moment and said, “Are you comfortable teaching your kids that?” I could see the doubt creeping into his eyes as he answered, “No.”
Uh huh.
News
World news
United States
Rising atheism in America puts ‘religious right on the defensive’
High profile of faith-based politicians such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry masks a steady growth in secularism
guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/01/atheism-america-religious-right
What’s hysterical here is how your sad and silly set of superstitions doesn’t come close to ranking number 1.
Hindu. Gosh, that must enrage your god to no end, after all not only do they reject Christ but they have a whole mess of gods!
There’s a deeper irony there but y’all don’t know enough about the history of Hinduism to get it and it’s clear you’re quite resistant to learning so I shall not bother.
Called it!
(((Hindu. Gosh, that must enrage your god to no end, after all not only do they reject Christ but they have a whole mess of gods!)))
You sure know how to call a spade a spade salvage butt then what kind of game are we really playing here? “IT” is obvious that this so call “Christ” must have existed and must have been telling the truth about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute ya otherwise salvage do you posibly think for a split second that if He was not truly “The Son of God” (Good Old Dad) with complete “LOVE” then nun of U>S (usual sinners) stand a chance to ever be as perfect as His Father is?
From what “I” can make of this so called graph is that “IT” would be easier for people to work in a septic tank and believe that they’ll someday become a president while having their mama standing over head looking at them with an old bomb wondering if that’s her son’s spiritual cells cause she’s starting to wonder if “IT” really is her son’s cells cause they are so full of “IT” NOW.
(((it’s clear you’re quite resistant to learning so I shall not bother.)))
Look salvage! Stop waisting your time with these people cause they’ve got a mind of their own. Let’s pretend for a split second that Jesus is just a nice powerful man and you’ve got to admit that many atheist are even admitting that fact. So why not play “IT” safe unless you don’t believe in “Whitchcraft” in which case why don’t you just leave guys like http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5N9z3LmcoOM
indirectly call Jesus The Christ a “Liar” with a smile if ya know what “I” mean?
I hear ya! You believe what you want to believe Victor and I’ll do the same!
What’s that sinner vic? Better safe than sorry! 🙂
Peace
How about we have a look at the Mormons and up, and see what they are doing that we could be doing better?
Well Mormons do two things better; they breed more and they live generally in isolated communities and that insulation prevents straying.
What’s fascinating about Mormonism is how clearly made up the whole thing is, one of South Park’s greatest episodes deals with that, and yet it still has believers. Outside of the Cargo Cults no other religion makes clear what chicanery it all is.
But they do “answer” the nagging question as to why your god seemed to have ignored the world beyond the Middle East and Europe.
The
stats
show
that
there is
hope
for
Salvage, hopefully!
Sure, I could get brain damaged and start believing in magic and superstition. Perhaps if you beg your god nicely it’ll drop something on my head and I’ll become one of you.
(((salvage { 07.10.12 at 9:04 am } Sure, I could get brain damaged and start believing in magic and superstition. Perhaps if you beg your god nicely it’ll drop something on my head and I’ll become one of you.)))
Ha! ha! You make me laugh salvage!
Really you do! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY8YIn5okX8
Peace
Now I’m curious as to what would catch your attention, Salvage. How about Oprah Winfrey as the next Pope?
Well that would certainly be interesting but Oprah being a woman makes her inferior so not eligible to be a Pope. Your god only respects the penis bearers.
But barring that your god doing something realistic if not sensible would certainly do the trick.
It looks as though retention is strongly related to cultural identity. The top retainers seem to be those faiths that are woven throughout the lives and cultures of their adherents. Perhaps that is why Pope BXVI is concerned about restoring authentic Catholic culture.
Interesting statistics. With the exception of Mormons (perhaps), the groups with better retention that Catholicism are all ethnic groups, where religion is parceled with ethnicity in a strong way. Hinduism: you cannot convert to it, you must be a genetic Hindu. And vice versa. And you are still Hindu if you believe nothing. As for Judaism, you can convert, but the only way you cease to be Jewish (this is the rabbinic law in Israel) is to accept Jesus. Otherwise, even if y you are an atheist who practices Buddhism, you are still Jewish. Ask any Greek Orthodox, and he will tell you: It is essential to ethnic identity if you are Greek. And how can you change an ethnic group.
This is a very odd survey. Once we drop the Ethnic Groups that happen to have a religion attached, we are left with the Mormons and Catholics. And, as said, Mormons live often isolated from other religions and have powerful shunning and other control methods to keep people in line.
Factor out the Ethnic and Mind-Control and Catholicism has the best retention rate.
Viva,
I think you are on to something. The early Christians had to abandon much of their former way of life and cling to the Church Community. For that reason they filled all parts of their life with their religion. It was not just another aspect to their life.
I have found this to be very true in most families where their faith is part all aspects of their daily lives. A number of the students I teach only have theological support at religious functions and in theology class, but not at home.
I am not surprised about Hinduism’s high ranking. CS Lewis, after he realized atheism was wrong, said that there were only 2 possible religions that could contain fullness of truth: Christianity or Hinduism.
Yet your god is still going to throw the Hindus into Hell like deadwood for not abiding in it right?
I agree that social factors have a strong influence, but I am convinced that our weak prayer life is a bigger culprit and an easier one to improve at the individual level.
>There’s a deeper irony there but y’all don’t know enough about the history of Hinduism to get it and it’s clear you’re quite resistant to learning so I shall not bother.
Since Salvage, an atheist and former Jew, claims to know the creed and mind of the Christian God better than the people who actually follow Him, I can’t wait to hear what he has to say about Hinduism and its history, especially since it’s full of those icky brown people. It’s particularly laughable that Salvage keeps going on about the supposed misogynistic nature of Catholicism, since the demographics of atheism are so monolithic they put any of the religions to shame. Dawkins infamous A conference had so many pasty white males on parade, it could have been a Star Trek convention. If that weren’t bad enough, one of the few female speakers (the Skepchick) later complained that she’d been sexually harassed.
(((salvage { 07.11.12 at 9:04 am } Yet your god is still going to throw the Hindus into Hell like deadwood for not abiding in it right?)))
Hey salvage we gods won’t throw you and any body else in a fire cause that’s passer for U>S alien gods and we promise to take good care of ya if you simply worship, I mean war ship with U>S (usual sinners) cause we’ve got a LOT of Galaxies to corn her, I mean corner and we could use your type of brain helping out if ya know what we mean salvage?
THAT WILL BE ENOUGH OUT OF YA sinner vic cause you know that you don’t exist and are butt a ficment of my imagination so smarten UP or else I’ll de-begot ya and noone will know that you even existed so ya better wise in “IT” UP or else!
Or else what Victor? You going to yell at me some more? Listen here Victor, you died in 1991 and we’ve replaced you and that’s why our eyes are blue just like the sky and these people you’re talking to don’t really exist either cause they are just a fic of Adam and Eve so instead of U>S behaving your way, we think that you should listen to U>S other wise, we’ll get salvage to con, I mean convince some of Jeff’s spiritual alien cells to do away with all of the crazy stuff you write about and you know that trolls worship the ground we walk on. Don’t ya? Right Victory or is that Victor?
Enough already sinner vic before people start thinking that I’m in need of help. You don’t exist sinner vic so accept “IT” and as far as “I’M” concern, the doctors are wrong, I do need help and what more proff do ya need than this: Panda Rosa { 07.08.12 at 5:04 pm } Victor, I worry you need help.
Victor! Victor! Victor! All your 93% spiritual reality body cells have to say is that when, You’re Right, You’re Right and to top “IT” all we would like to include a few more crazy comments that you’ve made here below http://www.patheos.com/blogs/diaryofawimpycatholic/2012/07/how-to-write-about-sex/ here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/07/10/a-wee-and-angry-word-of-thanks-to-the-bishops/ and here also just to name a few
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18142394&postID=1734052308699510205
Look Victor, the best you could hope for is that your so called 7% Jesus Cells will help you out in some way butt like U>S and the rest of the gods salvage says in many words and on many occasions that they don’t exist and that’s good enough for U>S (usual sinners) and we’re taking “IT” to our bank tomorrow! 🙂
Peace
Salvage, you sound exactly like a Fundie, the way you keep saying “our” god is going to chuck everyone but a minute (self) righteous few into the inferno. Do you write Chick tracts on the side?
Just check it out: stufffundieslike.com
>Since Salvage, an atheist and former Jew, claims to know the creed and mind of the Christian God better than the people who actually follow Him
So…. you don’t need Jesus to get to heaven? Jesus didn’t say that anyone who doesn’t abide in him will be thrown into the fire like deadwood? Are you saying I made that stuff up?
Once again you say I’m wrong but you won’t way why I’m wrong, tell me please!
Unless of course what’s really going on here is that you know that torturing people for the wrong religion is wrong and that your god can’t be wrong creating a cognitive dissonance in your minds that you simply cannot address much less explain?
> I can’t wait to hear what he has to say about Hinduism and its history,
Well it’s a religion that much older than Christianity so I can’t really do it justice but it’s a fascinating tale and unlike Jesus there is much historical evidence for the existence of Buddha and his story. I suggest you read a book.
>especially since it’s full of those icky brown people.
…
So I’m racist now? I’m sensing retardation levels are about to rise…
> It’s particularly laughable that Salvage keeps going on about the supposed misogynistic nature of Catholicism,
So women can be priests and cardinals and popes? Women aren’t supposed to be subservient to their husbands? Once again I have reasons for what I say, facts that none of you disagree with yet act as if they are not so.
Why is that?
>since the demographics of atheism are so monolithic they put any of the religions to shame.
Ha! Ha! Yes! Only Whites are atheists, we see any Blacks reading “The God Delusion” and we slap it out of their hands and yell “Hey boy, whatchyou think ya’ll are doing? You get yo’ Black ass into that Church and you pray to Jesus like a good negro!”
Here’s another fact for ya, you ready to ignore it?
Jesus could not have been White, blond or anything close to European yet if you got through a few of the Catholic blogs you’ll see nothing but images of Honky Jesus and Cracker Mary.
Guess why that is?
Oh and when the South was looking for holy justification for slavery guess which good book they turned to?
And the KKK burn what again?
Mormons didn’t let what race be Priests?
>Dawkins infamous A conference had so many pasty white males on parade, it could have been a Star Trek convention.
That’s because he’s a racist Nazi! He sees any Colored he flips out and rushes them screaming “Killll the evolutionary dead end!!”
> If that weren’t bad enough, one of the few female speakers (the Skepchick) later complained that she’d been sexually harassed.
And we have reached peak retardation! I repeat peak retardation! You went full retard man, never go full retard.
But tell me, this sexual harassment is it better or worse than say RAPING CHILDREN?
And the organization’s reaction? Did they cover it up? Did they move the harassers to other conferences so they could harass her ass some more? Did they lie about it? Did they hire lawyers, PR agents and former Fox News reporters to spin it? No, that’s what you scumbag church did so that MORE CHILDREN COULD BE RAPED. What they did was jump on the problem and dealt with it publically and completely.
Are you really this stupid? This deeply unaware of the reality you find yourself in?
>Salvage, you sound exactly like a Fundie, the way you keep saying “our” god is going to chuck everyone but a minute (self) righteous few into the inferno.
So, your god lets other religions into Heaven? Can you show me where it says that?
Panda Rosa! I can’t wait to hear what score salvage gave him and/or herself? 🙂
>Well it’s a religion that much older than Christianity so I can’t really do it justice but it’s a fascinating tale and unlike Jesus there is much historical evidence for the existence of Buddha and his story. I suggest you read a book.
JEEZ, but you are dense and if you’re checking holy texts, you may want to see the one about motes in others’ eyes. RIGHT BEFORE you tell me to read a book, you come up with a whopper of a mistake regarding Hinduism. Buddha is not the central figure of Hinduism: Buddhism and Hinduism are NOT the same thing, even if they’re both commonly practiced by Asians. Yes, the Buddha used some aspects of Shramana in establishing Buddhism. And Mohammed used Christian teachings in establishing Islam and Jesus was a Jew.
>Here’s another fact for ya, you ready to ignore it?
Yes, Jesus was probably middle Eastern, or Arabic, given the region where he arose from. The Caucasian depictions are definitely a result of cultural influence. However, most of the great art depicting Catholic saints show white people, so that’s what’s on images.
Unlike you, I concede to the facts.
>Oh and when the South was looking for holy justification for slavery guess which good book they turned to?
And Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Quakers and William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglas and John Brown were all inspired by the Bhaghaved Gita, I suppose?
You know, if you ever take your own advice and crack open a book, you’d read about something called “The Second Great Awakening” and its influence on abolition.
>And we have reached peak retardation! I repeat peak retardation! You went full retard man, never go full retard.
And you not only use the term “retard”, you use it as an insult. I suppose that since social Darwinism sees the mentally impaired as evolutionary mistakes, some sensitivity would be to much to ask for.
>So women can be priests and cardinals and popes? Women aren’t supposed to be subservient to their husbands? Once again I have reasons for what I say, facts that none of you disagree with yet act as if they are not so.
Women are supposed to obey their husbands if the husbands love their wives. It’s a supervisor-employee deal. If 1 member violates the contract, then the other side isn’t obligated to hold it up. There’s pages and pages of Cathecism on why women are allowed to serve in the church, just not specifically as priests and popes. Women aren’t allowed to be monks or priests, men can’t be nuns.
>But tell me, this sexual harassment is it better or worse than say RAPING CHILDREN?
Of course the child abuse cover-up was worse, but considering that the number of atheistic organizations out there are outnumbered by the religious by a factor of 50…
Just out of curiosity, why such a visceral reaction to molestation vs mass murder or the killing fields? After all, as you are fond of reminding us, Catholics are supposedly the ones with hang ups about sex.
>What they did was jump on the problem and dealt with it publically and completely.
Oh, BS. The skepchick, PZ Meyers and Dawkins all had a huge spat about it, and Dawkins accused Skepchick of being oversensitive.
>Are you really this stupid? This deeply unaware of the reality you find yourself in?
Since you inhabit some parallel world where the existence of the Buddha validates Hinduism and atheists are a rainbow coalition (contrary to every statistical study out there), maybe we are in different realities…
>Buddha is not the central figure of Hinduism: Buddhism and Hinduism are NOT the same thing,
No but Buddhism came from Hinduism and Buddha was real, unlike your Jesus who was about as real as Robin Hood and King Arthur.
>Yes, Jesus was probably middle Eastern, or Arabic,
No, not probably, certainly and as I predicated you skipped over the point; racism prevent Christianity from acknowledging that fact and still does. Here’s a little experiment for you, next time you see a White Jesus or Mary hanging somewhere ask that they replace it with one that is properly hued and see the reaction.
You will not worship a god that isn’t made in your image, guess why?
>And Harriet Beecher Stowe and the Quakers and William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglas and John Brown were all inspired by the Bhaghaved Gita, I suppose?
Sure, they were all Christians, so what? The Bible approves or disapproves of slavery? Jesus said what about slavery? Simple questions for you not to answer.
> “The Second Great Awakening” and its influence on abolition.
The leaders of the Confederacy, save for the one Jewish guy, were what religion again? They were the guys who went to war to fight for slavery so I guess they weren’t real Christians huh? Because no True Scotsman… etc.
>And you not only use the term “retard”, you use it as an insult.
Well duh.
> I suppose that since social Darwinism sees the mentally impaired as evolutionary mistakes, some sensitivity would be to much to ask for.
Social Darwinism isn’t actually a thing, evolution doesn’t make mistakes but DNA goes askew because the universe is like that but since you think it’s all crafted by your god why does it make people like that?
But I am sorry that you are a retard, is that sensitive enough?
And since you started by calling me a racist for reasons that still don’t make any sense I will continue to call you a retard, retard.
>Women are supposed to obey their husbands if the husbands love their wives.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAH! And I dared to call that misogyny! What was I thinking?!?!
> It’s a supervisor-employee deal.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!
“Woman! I am your boss, you will wear this uniform and name tag, you will speak when spoken to! Now get in the kitchen and make me a snack.”
Are you married? If so she’s a lucky woman, no really, I totally mean that.
>. There’s pages and pages of Cathecism on why women are allowed to serve in the church, just not specifically as priests and popes.
Because your god only respects the penis, I get it.
And that’s not misogynistic at all!
>Women aren’t allowed to be monks or priests, men can’t be nuns.
AHAHAHAHH! I love this! Black people can’t ride in the front of the bus and White people can’t ride in the back, totally fair and not at all racist!
You do know that nuns live in poverty have no say in policy whereas Cardinals and Bishops and Popes live in absolute luxury and set all the rules?
And only because they have a penis… oh… unless… men, they’re superior right? Women are lesser?
>Of course the child abuse cover-up was worse, but considering that the number of atheistic organizations out there are outnumbered by the religious by a factor of 50…
Okay, retard, that makes absolutely no sense. So if there were more atheist organizations than your church it would make a difference to the world wide conspiracy to enable pedophiles to rape children? And even now, to this day, where the facts are undeniable your precious holy infallible church still fights it tooth and nail. The current strategy is delay, hopefully the victims will give up / die / their testimony become unreliable. Hey your church f&^#ed ’em once, why not again?
>Just out of curiosity, why such a visceral reaction to molestation vs mass murder or the killing fields?
Yeah, that atheist revolution really… oh… wait, no, that was communists, killing for a system only slightly less retarded than theism. And considering Europe was washed with blood for some 1,700 years as Christian nations slaughtered each other the body count will always be that much higher on the theistic side of the equation. Stalin would need at least another couple of centuries to even begin to compete.
And once again, bad people doing bad things doesn’t excuse other people doing bad things.
>After all, as you are fond of reminding us, Catholics are supposedly the ones with hang ups about sex.
Supposedly? Not supposedly at all, you people are so twisted up about sex it’s hysterical but I do owe a debt as some of my hottest sex came from two Catholic girls, guilt can be a total aphrodisiac.
>Oh, BS. The skepchick, PZ Meyers and Dawkins all had a huge spat about it, and Dawkins accused Skepchick of being oversensitive.
Yes, Meyers was horrified by the whole thing and a new set of policies was drawn up for the next one so this nonsense doesn’t happen again. Dawkins, as I have mentioned, has turned into a rather fevered ego. He might be a great scientist and an okay writer but I get the feeling the man’s head is slowly working its way up his anus. That happens to some people when they become famous. I call it the Jim Morrison syndrome. I don’t know all the details of the spat, don’t really care but it was brought out into the open immediately. If it was a church thing the woman would be told to obey the penis bearers and know her place.
>Since you inhabit some parallel world where the existence of the Buddha validates Hinduism
No, it validates the existence of Buddha. Isn’t it weird there is no evidence for Jesus? We have more proof of Roman senators than of your god.
>and atheists are a rainbow coalition (contrary to every statistical study out there),
Yes, the study of the racial component of atheists is quite a robust field and as I said atheism is Whites only so ironically the images of Jesus and Mary you all pray to would be welcome.
>maybe we are in different realities…
Sadly, no but the difference is I understand and accept reality whereas you seem to think that myths and magic are real and that’ s just plain retarded.
Retard.
No, Salvage, I’m saying “our” god lets NO other religions into our WhiteSouthernHeteroMaleXtian Heaven, and for exactly the reasons you’ve stated. As You’ve stated all the terms excluding anyone else, You should know that.
Isn’t it sad?
I am reminded of the story from John:
39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
>No but Buddhism came from Hinduism and Buddha was real, unlike your Jesus who was about as real as Robin Hood and King Arthur.
So FRICKING WHAT? Islam was inspired by Christianity and there’s historical evidence for Mohammed, so judging by your logic, Christianity is therefore true.
And there’s historical evidence that King Arthur and Robin Hood were inspired by real people. Read the Welsh Triads and Dobson & Taylor, you moron.
But since your way of dealing with a debate is throwing out non-sequiturs and ad hominem, maybe books are beyond you.
Yeah, try telling a Hundu that: “Your religion is true. I know because Buddha existed.” Chances are they’ll look at you like you’re Agni (have 2 heads).
>The leaders of the Confederacy, save for the one Jewish guy, were what religion again? They were the guys who went to war to fight for slavery so I guess they weren’t real Christians huh? Because no True Scotsman… etc.
Both sides were Christian, so your argument that Christianity supports slavery holds no water. But keep your anti-Christian blinders on, because you’re determined that no Westerners and nothing that’s familiar is any good.
You know what, you *are* a racist. You’ve got a hard on for anything that’s exotic and you can’t see a damn good thing about your own culture while you condescend to other cultures without bothering to understand them.
>Are you married? If so she’s a lucky woman, no really, I totally mean that.
I’m a woman, dumbass. A woman of color too.
>Okay, retard, that makes absolutely no sense. So if there were more atheist organizations than your church it would make a difference to the world wide conspiracy to enable pedophiles to rape children
Listen, douchebag, if you knew dick about statistics, you’d know that the larger the sample size, the better chances you have of finding a phenomenon within them. The Catholic Church is several thousand years old with millions of organizations. There’s less than a hundred atheist organizations and they’re less than 100 years old. So the Catholic Church is bound to have more skeletons in its closet.
>Yes, the study of the racial component of atheists is quite a robust field
If you can’t be bothered to recruit to minorities, don’t blame it on others. Catholics send missionaries all over the globe. Your organizations seem to have plenty of money to throw after frivolous lawsuits, so devote some funds to studying the atheist demographics. After all, statistics ARE science
>Islam was inspired by Christianity and there’s historical evidence for Mohammed, so judging by your logic, Christianity is therefore true.
Still not understanding stuff. By my logic, no, Christianity isn’t true because it’s fairly obvious that there never was a Jesus and there are no such things as gods.
>And there’s historical evidence that King Arthur and Robin Hood were inspired by real people. Read the Welsh Triads and Dobson & Taylor, you moron.
Inspired not by real people but real types of people such as uniting kings and rebellious outlaws.
>But since your way of dealing with a debate is throwing out non-sequiturs and ad hominem, maybe books are beyond you.
Says the guy who accused me of being a racist for mentioning Hindus and that all atheists are sexual harassers.
Facts and self-awareness, just not your things.
>Yeah, try telling a Hundu that: “Your religion is true. I know because Buddha existed.” Chances are they’ll look at you like you’re Agni (have 2 heads).
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said and that would really upset them.
>Both sides were Christian, so your argument that Christianity supports slavery holds no water.
Except for the fact that your holy book supports slavery, so I think it holds an Olympic sized pool full of water. Facts! Don’t you just hate ’em?
>But keep your anti-Christian blinders on, because you’re determined that no Westerners and nothing that’s familiar is any good.
Ha! Ha! Yes! That’s exactly what I said!
>You know what, you *are* a racist. You’ve got a hard on for anything that’s exotic and you can’t see a damn good thing about your own culture while you condescend to other cultures without bothering to understand them.
AHAHAHAH! I am a self-loathing arrogant Westerner! That makes perfect sense and yup, that’s me alllll over! You are very smart.
>I’m a woman, dumbass. A woman of color too.
I am soooo stupid for not realizing your gender and race over the Internet! Damn, I should have been able to tell from seeing you and hearing your voice.
Full retard, you have once again gone full retard.
And so you want to be subservient to your husband? You want to be treated like the fry cook at McDonald’s? All the women I’ve been with have this goofy idea that they’re equals, crazy chicks huh?
> Listen, douchebag, if you knew dick about statistics, you’d know that the larger the sample size, the better chances you have of finding a phenomenon within them.
Once again, the phenomena is not hurting children but rather covering it up and feeding the children to the pedophiles while professing to be holy! Or am I wrong about that as well? The Holy See isn’t anything divine, wasn’t set up by a god? Isn’t a conduit to your god?
That’s the difference you ignore by the way.
> So the Catholic Church is bound to have more skeletons in its closet.
Sure, and that’s why it’s perfectly okay to attack the victims groups and protect the lucre with an army of lawyers and PR men.
And that crazy Vatican bank, cleaning Mafia money, what is up with that? Is that what Jesus would have done?
>Yes, the study of the racial component of atheists is quite a robust field
>If you can’t be bothered to recruit to minorities, don’t blame it on others.
RECRUIT!!! AHAHAHAH! Yes, we should do like your churches and hire marketing agencies to do focus groups to find out why minority X thinks that there are such things as gods and what can we do to convince them otherwise?
The truth is there, people pick it up or they don’t, who care what race they are? You’re the one who is clearly obsessed with skin color. Why is that?
>Catholics send missionaries all over the globe.
Yes, and doing stuff like telling Africans that condoms doesn’t prevent AIDS, truly the work of good and decent people. Oh and the child rape, can’t forget that’s all over the world too. Think maybe it would have been better if they had stayed home?
>Your organizations seem to have plenty of money to throw after frivolous lawsuits,
Not my organization, I wouldn’t join an atheist group, go to a conference or anything like that. I find the idea of people getting together to talk about the lack of gods in the universe to be a colossal waste of time. It’s not like it’s Star Trek, video games or comic books.
Yes, I know, those are pretty Honky too and it’s a well know fact that they’re subcultures rife with racism.
>so devote some funds to studying the atheist demographics. After all, statistics ARE science
They sure are, here’s another one for you, in the last 10,000 years mankind has worshipped about 4,000 major gods, what percentage of them have been real?
What you Jesus fundies didn’t point out about that study is that only 432 people surveyed said that they were raised as atheists. A pretty low number to draw anything too significant from.
And if you’d bother to look at the details of the study you would see that 20% of those atheists became agnostics or “unaffiliated”.
So you end up with about half of atheists remaining non-believers into adulthood.
And then Jesus said, “Praise me, adore me, admire me. But please, for the love of Zeus, stop with the dying for sins bullshit. It’s fucking outrageous and make us look like a bunch of deluded, brain-dead lunatics!!”–Jesus H. Christ, up in the sky.
Salvage:
You do realise there is more evidence for Christ than Alexander the Great, correct? Given the fact that it is approximately 400 years since any written biography about Alexander’s life comes to surface. With only a span of about 70 years maximum after Christ for New Testament Scripture. Not to mention the plethora of historians such as Flavius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, The Talmud and Lucian; references occur to the eclipse at Christ’s crucifixion by Thallus later referenced by Julius Africanus.
Other Christian writers:
Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.
To deny the existence of Christ despite the plethora of historical sources (Scripture counts too, even the gnostic gospels although heretical even acknowledge Christ), places Alexander the Great’s existence as dubious, as well as placing other historical figures such as Julius Caeser at risk.
There’s even approximately other four times the sources for Christ than there is for Tiberius Caesar.
God Bless.
>You do realise there is more evidence for Christ than Alexander the Great, correct?
No I do not because that simply is not true, that is so far from true that if you ever repeat such a thing again you can safely be called a liar.
We have images of Alexander made at the time he was alive, we have his writings, we have the writings of his friends and enemies about him. We have physical evidence of his deeds in everything from art to weapons. We can trace his whole life story from beginning to deeply lame end.
Jesus you have bits of the Bible. Bits that are not confirmed save for the broadest of strokes such as geography (yes, there was a Bethlehem) a few officials of the time (yes, there was a Roman governor and emperor but the specifics? Not a scrap and there is a great deal of evidence that suggests it was made up. Clues like the gospels not quite agreeing with each other and none of the stories about Jesus being original.
If your god came to Earth is sure was quiet about it.
>Not to mention the plethora of historians such as Flavius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, The Talmud and Lucian; references occur to the eclipse at Christ’s crucifixion by Thallus later referenced by Julius Africanus.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, they were all after Jesus and what they wrote about was Christians, not Jesus, Christians.
I have no idea where you’re getting eclipse from, that’s a new one.
>Other Christian writers:
WHO WROTE ABOUT CHRISTIANS AND JESUS BUT WEREN’T ACUTALLY THERE.
You seem to be confused about the difference.
>To deny the existence of Christ despite the plethora of historical sources (Scripture counts too, even the gnostic gospels although heretical even acknowledge Christ), places Alexander the Great’s existence as dubious, as well as placing other historical figures such as Julius Caeser at risk.
What a load of complete nonsense. You are spouting gibberish at this point, the physical and historical evidence for Jesus is none, for Alexander and Caesar indisputable.
I’ve often heard theists babble about this stuff and it still amazes me how incredibly wrong you are and how you will make no effort to correct yourself to maintain the delusion.
Go, find my any reputable history that doubts even slightly Alexander or Caesar and definitely confirms Jesus. Show me the physical evidence like the books of Caesar detailing his campaign in Gaul, events confirmed by archeology.
Or stay in your blissful ignorance but if you ever say that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than Alexander you will be lying through your teeth because you have been told.
1: We have images of Alexander made at the time he was alive, we have his writings, we have the writings of his friends and enemies about him. We have physical evidence of his deeds in everything from art to weapons. We can trace his whole life story from beginning to deeply lame end.
All writings destroyed, even the personal letters, all only accounted for through only four primary sources:
Plutarch (composing two works)
Arrian
Diodorus Siculus.
Quintus Curtius Rufus and Justin also are references, and like the aforementioned, are all post-dated of Alexander’s time.
I’m afraid you need to do better than accuse of lying then only confirming with writings you mentioned possible by the aforementioned.
2: Jesus you have bits of the Bible.
Much more, obviously you just refuse to recognise it.
3: Clues like the gospels not quite agreeing with each other and none of the stories about Jesus being original.
Neither do the accounts of Alexander, should we then rule Alexander’s existence out through the means of conflicting accounts?
4: Wrong, wrong and wrong, they were all after Jesus and what they wrote about was Christians, not Jesus, Christians.
Then you should re-read the accounts.
Joesphus accounts for Christ in Testimonium Flavianum, Tacticus also for example references Christ:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
5: I have no idea where you’re getting eclipse from, that’s a new one.
Then re-read the sources…
6: What a load of complete nonsense. You are spouting gibberish at this point, the physical and historical evidence for Jesus is none, for Alexander and Caesar indisputable.
Tiberius Caser has less sources for his existence than Christ. Alexander is confined to a few due to destruction.
7: Go, find my any reputable history that doubts even slightly Alexander or Caesar and definitely confirms Jesus. Show me the physical evidence like the books of Caesar detailing his campaign in Gaul, events confirmed by archeology.
I don’t deny them, because the evidence is supportive, however I’m not making an extraordinary claim that an historical individual did not exist. Doing so with a certain attitude to sources that you demonstrate, as said, places others at risk.
Now, since you made the first statement regarding existence, demonstrate one individual historian who advocates your proposition, because even radicals like Dawkins do not deny Christ’s existence.
Now, a consensus among historians exist that Christ existed: Brown, Bockmuehl, Dunn, Wright, Ehrman. Van Voorst basically states that claims and statements like yours are refuted.
Dunn: “about once every generation someone reruns the thesis that Jesus never existed and that the Jesus tradition is a wholesale invention”
God Bless.
Tacitus was not around when Jesus was supposed to have been, he make a reference to Christians and what THEY believe. He was not a witness, outside of the Bible there are no records of anyone actually seeing the events.
Odd isn’t it? A god comes to Earth, performs all these miracles and yet not a peep from any contemporary at the time scholar or historian. No graffiti, not a whisper from the lower orders, nothing in the tax records, no murals, not pots, no coins commemorating the event, not a mention in a diary, not carved by a slave’s fingernails in to a cell wall. Zip.
That is all you have, history recording the evolution and rise of Christianity but nothing about Christ coming back from the dead. I know you guys love to insist it’s the same thing but it’s not.
People wrote about Alex and his family and his career, that’s why we know so much about it, record was made of him from Spain to India, it’s it weird that a mere man went further, met more people, converted more cultures than you god ever did.
Well Alex did have the advantage of being real and your god can only seem to travel to places in the minds of its believers. You never find your god where a Christian hasn’t been.
>I don’t deny them,
No, of course not but theists often need to resort to desperate hyperbole when doubts arise about the veracity of their mythology.
There is no debate on Alex or Julius’s existence, the vast majority of the world knows they were real on the other hand only a minority think your Jesus is real as a god and within that minority there is further schism on what he was supposed to be. Fools have even killed each other over it. This makes is painfully obvious that it’s a pot full of crock.
Not to mention the illogical nature of Jesus and his “sacrifice” and other supernatural element that all but eliminate him from reality. Let me know if you want me to list them, most Christians never explain what I’ve gotten wrong, perhaps you’ll be different.
I can get a consensus among zenobiologist that Big Foot is real that don’t make it so.
Jesus came to Earth on some mission from an all-powerful god (that he might have been, bit of confusion that point) and it took some 30-70 years before anyone thought to write about it and another 250-300 for it to have any sort of mass appeal then through war and genocide was spread across Europe leading to more wars and yet has never been the biggest religion on the planet.
So you’ll pardon me if I think the whole thing more than unlikely because I don’t see how a god would be so sloppy in designing both a species and a religion. If real your god is a total screw-up and unworthy of worship. Good thing we’ve gotten smart enough to fix its mistakes. Diabetes for instance? Well done!
1: Tacitus was not around when Jesus was supposed to have been, he make a reference to Christians and what THEY believe. He was not a witness, outside of the Bible there are no records of anyone actually seeing the events.
Neither were Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus and Rufus. Three of these being key to Alexander’s actions are over about 300 years after Alexander, since all originals are destroyed.
To contend this with Christ, again you have to contend these accounts.
2: Odd isn’t it? A god comes to Earth, performs all these miracles and yet not a peep from any contemporary at the time scholar or historian. No graffiti, not a whisper from the lower orders, nothing in the tax records, no murals, not pots, no coins commemorating the event, not a mention in a diary, not carved by a slave’s fingernails in to a cell wall. Zip.
Given again that the accounts are within a timeframe less than Alexander’s (70-100 years whereas Alexander’s ranges over 300 years), and the countless accounts of persecutions etc.
3: People wrote about Alex and his family and his career, that’s why we know so much about it, record was made of him from Spain to India, it’s it weird that a mere man went further, met more people, converted more cultures than you god ever did.
All accounts again are narrowed to Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus since the originals are either destroyed or lost. Which again means over a 300 year gap.
4: Well Alex did have the advantage of being real and your god can only seem to travel to places in the minds of its believers. You never find your god where a Christian hasn’t been.
Yet more sources attesting to Christ than Alexander, and you merely dismiss them all.
5: No, of course not but theists often need to resort to desperate hyperbole when doubts arise about the veracity of their mythology.
No hyperbole, look at the source ratios and see for yourself.
6: There is no debate on Alex or Julius’s existence, the vast majority of the world knows they were real on the other hand only a minority think your Jesus is real as a god and within that minority there is further schism on what he was supposed to be. Fools have even killed each other over it. This makes is painfully obvious that it’s a pot full of crock.
Given the fact that atheism accounts for 2-3% of the world’s population, which even radicals like Dawkins contend that Christ existed, reducing theroies like yours further in reduction.
7: I can get a consensus among zenobiologist that Big Foot is real that don’t make it so.
Comparisons are invalid, especially when the individuals have degrees from locations such as Durham University.
Also you can get a consensus, but when demanding evidence, you’ll be rather hard pressed.
Supporting sources for Christ:
Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, Acts of Pilate, Joesphus, Mara Bar Sarapion, The Talmud, Pauline Epistles, Four Gospels( Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), The Acts of the Apostles, The Gnostics ( Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas), Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Eusebius.
This is just a few.
Your response is on the issue of the dating, within 100 years or so (maximum) of Christ’s death. Again, since Alexander’s originals are lost, and relying upon recordings of sources ( four works) ( originals which are either lost or destroyed) one can argue that Christ’s by numbers is more reliable. The differentiation is huge.
8: So you’ll pardon me if I think the whole thing more than unlikely because I don’t see how a god would be so sloppy in designing both a species and a religion. If real your god is a total screw-up and unworthy of worship. Good thing we’ve gotten smart enough to fix its mistakes. Diabetes for instance? Well done!
So your arguments basically contend with local literacy rates and a challenge of being better than the omniscient in design and practice?
Sounds a little less than reason and more of an issue of Pride.
God Bless.
Once again, they wrote about Alexander based on their sources.
Once again no one wrote about Jesus, they wrote about Christians.
Once again Alexander was just a man who did remarkable things.
Once again you claim that Jesus is a god yet no one at the time seems to have noticed him.
Once again what physical proof do you have for Jesus?
>Given the fact that atheism accounts for 2-3% of the world’s population,
And that’s only a fraction of the total population that don’t believe in Jesus. Are Jews atheists? Are Muslims? Are Hindus?
>degrees from locations such as Durham University.
Oh, so if someone has a degree they must be right?
Do they have physical evidence of Jesus? Do they have first hand accounts?
>Supporting sources for Christ:
Once again, they did not write of Christ, they wrote of Christians, it’s rather telling you won’t acknowledge that point. Do you think they’re the same thing perhaps?
As for Alex they did not write of people who believed Alex conquered the world, they wrote of Alex. See? The stuff the wrote fits with local history, with physical remains, it is one piece in a large puzzle.
>So your arguments basically contend with local literacy rates and a challenge of being better than the omniscient in design and practice?
Uh, no my arguments basically there is no historical evidence that suggests your god impregnated a mortal woman who gave birth to the son / the god who then vanished then came back, did some pointless miracles. raised a raucous then was killed then came back from the dead only to vanish in the exact same way dead people / people who never existed did.
And all of this as part of some weird plan where your god sacrificed itself to itself so it wouldn’t be angry at its creation for behaving exactly as it created it / knew it was going to behave.
One would think if it real it would have left a much larger footprint on history rather than a greasy smudge that people like you insist is enough.
Alexander on the other hand, you have no doubt he was real right? So I’m not sure what you’re point is. Because Alex was real your god has to be real as well?
1: Once again, they wrote about Alexander based on their sources. Once again no one wrote about Jesus, they wrote about Christians. Once again Alexander was just a man who did remarkable things.
Once again the originals are not in existence, leaving the sources to over 300 years ago. Once again they did write about Christ, take some time to look at the language employed. Once again Alexander’s testimony is narrowed to accounts 300 years later where the originals cannot be found. I fail to see the difficulty here.
2: And that’s only a fraction of the total population that don’t believe in Jesus. Are Jews atheists? Are Muslims? Are Hindus?
Muslims acknowledge Christ, the Jews with the Talmud also do, in criticism and mockery though. Not sure about Hinduism. Given the fact that the definition of atheism is no belief whatsoever, I fail to see the purpose of your statement.
3: Oh, so if someone has a degree they must be right?
Do they have physical evidence of Jesus? Do they have first hand accounts?
No, just refuting this nonsense that Historians of all people are compared to questionable subjects with questionable characters like Bigfoot. I mean really…
Again, Alexander has no first hand accounts, given that all surviving accounts are again later, originals ceasing to be. Even King James II has less, and he’s of the 1680s.
4: Once again, they did not write of Christ, they wrote of Christians, it’s rather telling you won’t acknowledge that point. Do you think they’re the same thing perhaps?
I don’t acknowledge your point because I can actually read what they state. Tacitus speaks of Christ Himself, you just seem to refuse that.
5: As for Alex they did not write of people who believed Alex conquered the world, they wrote of Alex. See? The stuff the wrote fits with local history, with physical remains, it is one piece in a large puzzle.
What part of original sources are lost or destroyed and are therefore confined to scriptures about 300 years after his death do you not grasp. Again Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus.
6:Alexander on the other hand, you have no doubt he was real right? So I’m not sure what you’re point is. Because Alex was real your god has to be real as well?
Summary: Alexander (less sources than Christ)
Tiberius Caeser ( less sources than Christ)
James II ( less sources than Christ)
Julius Caeser (less sources than Christ)
Nero (also less)
And yet, when you come to referencing these individuals, some share the same source that also mentions Christ.
So, you have a problem with your position. History goes against you.
God Bless.