Radical Atheist

Hell is the theological equivalent of, “Boy are you gonna get it when your dad gets home!”

Print Friendly

There’s a debate going on in a forum I belong to regarding Jesus as a man, an ordinary human, and whether or not he existed.

I contend it’s not an important part of my atheism to know whether or not he is a fictional or factual historical figure. All I nned to know is that no one has been able to support the idea that he was a god.

So I received this reply recently:

if you’re going to try to show Christians inconsistancies in their religion, then why not go for the only one that matters: the idea that they think there was a Jesus who in reality never existed?

To which I replied:

The reason I won’t bother trying to “prove” Jesus never existed as a man is that, with the historical record being incomplete and heavily adulterated by the early church, there is no definitive proof one way or the other. All you can do is present more likely scenarios than the Christians. I’ve seen your evidence and while it’s compelling, it’s not convincing. Supposition is not proof, no matter how logical.

Another reason I don’t bother is that Jesus’ existence as a man is not important to Christian faith. It’s his having supposedly been a god that they base their religion on. Debunking the idea that gods exist makes the issue of Jesus having once existed as a man or whether the Pope is god’s ambassador on Earth irrelevant. Atheism extends further than just a disbelief in the Christian theology. Debunk Jesus and the Christian becomes a Jew. Debunk gods and a Christian sees that all religions are nonsensical.

So what’s your opinion? Is it necessary to debunk the idea that Jesus existed as a man to discredit Christianity, or is it a hopeless cause and unimportant to explaining atheism to theists?

Print Friendly

“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”

Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 – 1965)

Print Friendly

How have these survived into the 21st century?

Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874.

Article 19. Miscellaneous Provisions. § 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

-/-/-/-/-
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASESTITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

-/-/-/-/-
The Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

(Full List)

We are seeing this sort of antiquated thinking in the current election.  All the candidates are busy pandering to the religious voters, trying to outdo each other in their profession of devotion to and belief in a “higher power”.  Shouldn’t the office of President of the United States be awarded to the candidate who shows the keenest intelligence, the deepest understanding of world issues, the greatest ability to apply logic and rationality to our country’s problems?  Does it matter what form of superstition they also embrace?  Shouldn’t their profession of belief in an invisible superman in the sky actually be a disqualification from office?

Print Friendly

Better than the original, and only 1:28 minutes long. And PZ can attend this premier.

Print Friendly

Isn’t the Popemobile

a rather obvious indication that even the leader of the Catholic church doesn’t really believe “God’s will be done…”? Shouldn’t he be trusting his god to protect him, or accept god’s will if god’s will dictates he be assaulted?

Print Friendly

Americans United for Separation of Church and State praised today’s federal appeals court ruling that a New Jersey high school football coach does not have a constitutional right to engage in religious activities with students.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected a legal challenge filed by Coach Marcus Borden of East Brunswick High School. Borden said he wanted to bow his head and “take a knee” with players before football games while allegedly voluntary prayers were recited by students.

The court, noting Borden’s 23-year history of organizing and leading prayers with players, said his actions, would be construed by a neutral observer as promoting religion.

“Public schools have the right and responsibility to protect students from religious coercion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Parents, not public school staff, have the right to determine what religious exercises, if any, their children take part in.”

Borden’s actions came under scrutiny when parents complained about his prayer practices. At one point, the coach allegedly told athletes who did not want to participate in the prayers that they could wait in a bathroom. After some cheerleaders voiced concerns about Borden’s promotion of religion, they were attacked and called obscene names on a student-run blog.

After a lower court ruled in Borden’s favor, Americans United agreed to represent the East Brunswick Public Schools. AU Assistant Legal Director Richard B. Katskee argued the Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick case before the 3rd Circuit.

The three-judge panel held that the school district’s policy prohibiting staff participation in student prayer was not unconstitutional, rejecting Borden’s claims that the policies violated his constitutional rights.

“We find that, based on the history of Borden’s conduct with the team’s prayers, his acts cross the line and constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion,” wrote Judge D. Michael Fisher. “Although Borden believes that he must continue to engage in these actions to demonstrate solidarity with his team, which is perhaps good for a football team’s unity, we must consider whether a reasonable observer would perceive his actions as endorsing religion, not whether Borden intends to endorse religion.”

Continued Fisher, “[I]n Borden’s case, the conclusion we reach today is clear because he organized, participated in, and led prayer activities with his team on numerous occasions for twenty-three years. Thus, a reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray.” (Source)

It’s good to see a court actually pay attention to the Constitution. It’s also encouraging to see a reverend acknowledge there’s a place for belief and it’s not in public schools.

Print Friendly

I decided this site needed a fresh face.  I hope you find it pleasing and easy to read/navigate.  Let me know if you have any suggestions, complaints or loose cash laying around you’d like to send my way.

Print Friendly