My new book: Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed

Homepage Forums Theism My new book: Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed

This topic contains 30 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Clearsky 2 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)
  • Author
  • #10952


    Earle is obviously a strong minded individual, having debunked evolution right here in front of us and mentally staved off all of his homosexual tendencies. I was only reconsidering my lack of belief in the lord when he hit us with such important ethics lessons and knowledge of bronze/iron age history. Lord, thank you so much for sending this wise man to our godless forum.

    Now that I know that whole populations of Megalodon sharks and Neanderthals, malaria and eye-boring worms suddenly appeared on this planet and that my body, including my troublesome cud chewing wisdom teeth were designed…I feel much better about myself, coz my great grand daddy wont no monkee.


    Simon Paynton

    @earlesanborn – “cake shops

    – if it was just cakes, it wouldn’t be such an issue.  But the case is representative of the right to discriminate in wider society against people who’ve done nothing wrong.  This is why “minority” groups defend their seemingly-fairly-trivial position so vigorously.


    For anyone that reads my Sunday School posts you will have seen me writing about how Christians see “The Religious Freedom Act” as the “Religious Privilege Act” that gives them the legal right to discriminate against other citizens. It does not matter if it is the “right” to discriminate against LGBT citizens or the “right” to discriminate against non-Christians by offering money off vouchers in restaurants, putting “In God we trust” on currency, on school wall, in government buildings, courthouses etc. They even demand the “right” to have Creationism taught in schools or allow their own children to die rather than seek medical help. They think that when non-Christians demand that they do not break the law or when they ask for equal treatment that we are persecuting them. They are all corralled into this mindset of being persecuted by Evangelical liars for Jesus, be they pastors, self appointed radio host “religious authorities” or Project Blitz generals like Jeff Sessions or Mike Pence. The stench of Christian piety oozes from the stones they throw at the neighbors they have no love for. Even Jesus must be turning in his grave when he smells it. Well he would if he existed.


    I plan not to respond to another rant like this, your latest.

    No Simon and Pope Beanie, I’m not saying people are purposefully evil, or even evil at all. I have said several times that the words I write in response to things is pretty much never going to change your minds or others. Questions are asked and I try to give a clear, unambiguous answer for discussion.

    This is false. You’ve not answered my questions from the beginning, e.g. starting immediately after your first “not to intrude” intrusion into someone else’s topic. I mistakenly gave you the benefit of the doubt, giving you time and space to make sincere attempts to solicit productive, two-way conversation. But solipcism has been your primary modus operandi, heating and stirring the pot here, and then ignoring any point-by-point replies to your very long speeches. You have proven to be a waste of time and space, other than to serve as an example of the kind of religious movement you shamelessly represent.

    We can all agree that when two guys lie in wait and ambush another and beat him up and steal his wallet- that’s pretty evil right. As far as the cake people. There are so many cake shops why force your ways/views on others. I don’t flaunt my lifestyle- that’s the bullying piece Pope Beanie.

    This is disingeunous, as you would bully not just the flaunting of a lifestyle by the few, but the lifestyle itself. You judge those who hold religious belief that is different from your personal version. Would you (say) claim that anyone who was sinful or convicted of a crime should be welcomed back into society if only they claimed Jesus as their savior? What kind of “absolute moral system” is that, other than a self-serving one? Consideration of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States is not even an issue to address, as long as your chosen style of religious control over civil law can be enforced.

    Why not go to other cake places and be done with it. It’s clear to me that this is all a show- their 15 seconds of fame.

    Right, it’s all about short-lived fame. That could also explain your short-lived purpose here, e.g. “not expecting to change any minds”, or seek productive two-way discussion. Look back… I tried!

    If I believe adultery is always wrong and say so – is that hateful? There are several good reasons for why adultery is wrong- 1. It’s lying to your mate about being faithful. 2. It’s stealing his/her trust. 3. You subject yourself to unknown diseases and perhaps pass them to your mate later – sores, open wounds, etc. 4. When it’s found out and usually always is then the kids are hurt by the impending divorce. 5. It does affect society in a negative way. I think that is quite clear as well. If there is no absolutes regarding morals (lying, cheating, stealing) then who gets to decide? The magazine OMNI from the 1970-1980 had a continuum. Now we have 50 shades of grey. At the end of the day- an action taken is not grey: person steals company cash, person damages his ex-lovers car; guy lies to his wife where he was. Just before the guy swings the ax to kill his nemesis he can stop. We are not without minds.

    That’s quite a long-winded way of saying “nothing is gray,  because everything is black or white”. By the way, should adulterers be stoned to death? That would be one kind of black-and-white, no-brainer mentality for you to condone. Solid proof that religion provides us with the only kind of absolute framework for moral behavior, right?

    Oh no, where goeth my slaves… how our fricken world just goes deeper into hell every day!?

    King Solomon who most certainly existed and documented in many sources wowed the Queen of Sheba and his fame spread for his wisdom when he heard the case of one woman taking the another woman’s live baby and placed her dead baby with that woman. He looked them in the eyes and said bring the baby and cut it in half. Well, the woman who’s baby it wasn’t said good or approved, while the true mother of the baby cried no- give it to the other woman. King Solomon knew then who the true mother was. This passage says a lot about wisdom, understanding, discretion and can be useful tool in deciding your words and actions today.

    Right, heathens like Buddhists and Hindus just wouldn’t get this kind of story, would they? Humans like you need this kind of morality spelled out for them, along with the threat of hell if they don’t please a mythical God with bended knee. (I hope you realize the sarcasm here. Your example is a JOKE, and an insult to common decency.)

    Many times it’s said the truth hurts- especially if we are on the receiving end. Ever have to give a performance report to a co-worker? Usually praise them for what they do well; give them some tips on how to do better at other things; then praise them at the end and wish them luck on doing better this year. Constructive criticism is very tough as the person usually focuses on the things he/she needs to change/do better and forgets the boss praised them for other things they do well. We are here 70-80 years if we are lucky and it’s better to live peacefully with all as you can.

    Nothing new here, unless you can say that this wisdom can also apply to yourself.

    Regards Guys, may I say Happy Sabbath – or is that imposing or hateful?

    Another Earle-only kind of insight on hate, there? Humor? I don’t get it. Unless it’s an Earle-like, holier-than-thou implication.

    I don’t expect any more answers from you, or attempts at two-way discussion, or reasonable point-by-point arguments. Otherwise I would have broken this long post down into shorter, more manageble posts.




    If I believe adultery is always wrong and say so – is that hateful?

    No it isn’t because choosing to deceive your partner is a CHOICE you can EASILY AVOID by not deceiving them. Being gay is NOT A CHOICE. This has been well demonstrated empirically. You don’t wake up one day and say…hey I’d love to be discriminated against and have to hide my sexuality and fear being beaten up…thrown out of my home and be harassed and ridiculed by everyone. It is not a choice. Thousands of boys cry themselves to sleep at night wishing there was a straight pill they could take. Cheating on a partner is a choice. Being an adulterer is a decision made despite knowing how much it will hurt the person you married and promised to be faithful to. Being gay is like being born with white or black skin, being left handed. You wouldn’t justify not serving a black man in a cake shop or because their eyes are green. THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU DENY IT TO SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY WERE BORN????? because of your religion based<b> BIGOTRY AND HATE.</b> If everyone else gets the cake of their lives that everyone else raves about and instead you are denied it because you were a christian and had to drive several towns over and back home, there again to pick it up and back home…all in a second rate bakery YOU WOULD BE PISSED OFF AND HURT. And you would never condone that if it was because of a religion or skin color. Your distain of LGTB+ makes that very clear. Disliking adultery is not hateful. Approving discrimination against women or african americans or LGTB+ is. TRY TO WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCE!

    I write in response to things is pretty much never going to change your minds or others.

    It might if you would ever RESPOND TO OUR BLOODY QUESTIONS! But since you never do, because you are SO INTELLECTUALLY FRAUDULENT AND VACUOUS and you have no reasonable argument, evidence, proof or empirical anything to stand up to scrutiny.  You could change our mind if you were intellectually respectful, BUT YOU ARE NOT and that’s why no one gives a shit anymore about what you say. Go find another website to troll Earl. Most of us are done with you.



    Fascinating!  I too hope to write and publish, too, although I would be coming from a completely different perspective! (I’m a Theist – of the Christian variety).  I may not be as well connected as you.  Based on your statement, “I’m working with on reviewing and promoting the book, but its most of the big names in the field.”.   Your claim is that Mark is parroting Paul.  I assume you also see the source for at least three of the gospels as Q or some derivative of Mark.  I would like to get a copy of your book so that I can fully explore your basic thesis.  I’ll look it up on Amazon.



    @regthefronkeyfarmer, you said, “Atheism is a lack of belief, not a denial of anything.” What do you mean?  I am a Theist and I thought that Atheism is indeed denying the existence of God; an affirmation that there is no God reflected well by the statement, “I deny that God exists”  I thought Atheism was a rejection of all religious claims of truth, and the acceptance as fact and a reflection of reality that the material world is all there is. Thus, all observable realities must be viewed from this perspective.  Given that as a domain, it follows that all that we see was derived, evolved or has been established by natural mechanisms that are all based on the laws of chemistry and physics.  What am I not understanding?


    @fullermingjr. That is a good question and it is a common misconception and theists, especially Evangelicals Christians and Muslims. I have also heard it from Atheists! Some quick thoughts for now and we can expand on them later if you wish.

    Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God(s). I am not denying that one or more may exist but I find it so unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence for any. I am not dismissing the possibility but it seems so improbable that I am unable to give my intellectual assent to the idea. I just cannot see how there could be one (or more).

    People tell me about the gods or the version of “God” they claim to believe in.  I do not believe what they are telling me. I do not believe what they believe because I am unable to. I find it what they claim to be “un-believable”.

    I never made decision to not believe in a god. I never believed one existed in the first place so no decision was ever required to be made.

    I don’t deny (your) God exists. I just don’t believe what you believe. All theists claim they have proof or at least evidence but they are never able to demonstrate any or give me any to consider. All we get are subjective opinions which is just conjecture.

    The problem I see with most theists is that they start their arguments with “God says” or “God did” without realizing that they are presupposing the existence of their God.

    I would suggest that you are an atheist too when it comes to the Hindu god Brahma that over 1 billion people believe created the world. You do not believe Brahma is real, just like I don’t. In fact of all the thousands of gods described by man, both of us are atheists when it comes to over 99% of them. We just don’t believe they exist. We cannot deny the existence of something we don’t believe exists. We atheists here just lack belief in one god more than you lack belief in. We have hit 100%.


    Given that as a domain, it follows that all that we see was derived, evolved or has been established by natural mechanisms that are all based on the laws of chemistry and physics. What am I not understanding?

    What you are not understanding is the truth of the sentence you just wrote.

    all that we see was derived, evolved or has been established by natural mechanisms that are all based on the laws of chemistry and physics.

    I do not base my beliefs on what I do not believe. I am an atheist but that does not imply anything about what I believe or understand to be true. My lack of belief in a god did not enter my mind when I came to construct and understand my own worldview.



    Simon Paynton

    I am undecided – I can’t claim to know.  But I view the world as if God doesn’t exist, because I find Him a) redundant; b) downright confusing when you play out all the consequences.

    I don’t believe that this is all there is – I believe in an afterlife.

    I also find that sometimes events can be skewed in one’s favour under certain morally conducive circumstances.



    Hi Interesting discussion on what constitute belief. What a Christian Believe and what an atheist believes.
    For me the main difference is not one of belief but one of knowledge.


    The Atheist bases their world paradigm on Empirical knowledge as a Natural philosopher does.
    What I mean by this usually their knowledge is based on data which is falsifiable. In that it can be proven right or wrong through testing.
    The knowledge that an atheist uses for their world view has 3 basic components, Belief is only one.
    There are 3 components are that as well as belief, or non-belief of a phenomena ( take GOD for example).

    (1) Belief

    (2) Justification of it

    (3) Truth .

    These 3 constitutes  Knowledge
    That belief is Justified(2), by empiricism. ( for example scientific experiment, or personal verification through experience).
    The atheist believe that to make fire you always need fuel, oxygen and heat. There is no instance where this is not true. You can verify this justification . It can be proven true or false in this life. Some religious belief do not have this component.

    The other more important component is that the belief is true. But not true just in a subjective sense or personal opinion. It has to be more than that.

    The Atheist truth has 3 components.


    (2) Coherence

    (3) Pragmatism

    It has corresponds to reality. If I believe that fire is hot, then in every instance of fire when you test it in the objective world. The fire will have a hot temperature when I actually touch it. If I believe the truth corresponds that there is a tree in my garden when I actually go into my garden a tree will be there.
    The second type of truth is coherence, that the truth fits in a coherent system of reality For example say 1+1=2 Then this truth fits in and agrees is coherent with the system of math called arithmetics.
    The 3rd atheist truth is pragmatism. The view that a scientific concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena.

    That the more a theory explains stuff and holds over time that it’s more likely to be true. Like the theory of Evolution, or physica laws like speed is the distance travelled divided by the time taken.
    This stuff is my personal conjecture on what should constitute an Atheist worldview. I am not saying that it represents all atheist thinking. Just what I’ve come to think is a good way of looking at things.
    The atheist uses knowledge in the form of Justified true belief. Like the old Natural Philosopher used to do. Which is different from just pure subjective belief of some religious people.
    We use these kinds of practical thinking  in everyday life to solve problems and to arrive at solutions.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Clearsky.

    Simon Paynton

    @clearsky – I like your 3-point definition of “truth”, and I’m going to use it in my web site.


    I wrote this on TA years ago:

    When someone asserts that they “have a personal relationship with God (Jesus)” what they are doing is expressing their own subjective belief. They are giving their positive assent to the proposition that “God exists” and informing others that this is the case. It may appear as the “Truth” to them but it is still just their opinion. For this belief to have any credibility and to be deemed a Fact it must move from being subjective (in their head only) to being objective (tangible or testable by others).
    For it to become a fact it need to be justifiable. Saying “I believe it” to be the truth is not justification. It can only pass this process of justification by having Evidence for it evaluated. If the evidence is studied and the premise of the proposition can be verified by repetition then it can be accepted as Knowledge and be deemed to be a fact.

    I would suggest that the main qualifier as to whether the proposition is a Fact is that it can exist independently outside of the subjective thoughts of the the theists mind or any knowledge claims that they might make about it.

    It is normal to hear the words “my Faith is not a blind faith but a reasoned one”. So on what basis is it a reasoned one? What clinched it for them? What evidence was used to validate it? It is worth pointing out that most theists consider Arguments and Appeals (there must be a god) to be Evidence. Asking them to consider a court case scenario where a man is on trial for murder. “Your Honor, we believe he is guilty of murder for he threatened the victim that morning”. “Sorry but that is not evidence, case dismissed”. Faith is rationalized rather than reasoned because there simply is no Evidence to support the proposition. None.



    But I view the world as if God doesn’t exist, because I find Him a) redundant; b) downright confusing when you play out all the consequences.

    This is not God’s fault, but the fault of men who misquote Him. (Believe me, He has told me this, personally.)



    This stuff is my personal conjecture on what should constitute an Atheist worldview. I am not saying that it represents all atheist thinking. Just what I’ve come to think is a good way of looking at things.

    I like that caveat, along with the rest of what you’re noting, and I think most scientists would agree.

    Mainly, and also relevant to the context of theist vs atheist world views, I like to emphasize how science “views” around the world consider it highly desirable (if not an ultimate requirement) to pool observations and expect to eventually agree on their views, up to 100% if possible. Contrarily, religion around the world has no such inclination, hanging tightly to their chosen observations and beliefs, regardless of each other’s steadfast differences.

    To stalwart people of faith, science’s inevitable adjustments to past texts are not viewed favorably as the refinements that 90% of the time they are, but as weaknesses. Adjustments to religious texts are historically shunned, if not punishable by death, even.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.