Thy Plague Doctor

He was saying old things in a new way.

I see you’ve finally changed your mind about it and are now no longer of the stubborn opinion that it was somehow new. Now it’s just “in a new way”. That’s what every bloody spiritualist has done since history began. They all say a similar message in a new way. Jesus’s words (of which we have no evidence he…[Read more]

Interesting Simon. Could you please give me the names of a few of those experts and an example of a work of theirs where they make this claim please?

And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament.

It says True sections of the New Testament. That is a fairly large sample of books. We know for a fact that parts of it, especially written by St. Paul are true. The author says nothing about the Gospels because if he did he would be lying. It’s like saying…[Read more]

At the end, it says that a number of sayings attributed to Jesus are thought to be genuine.

Could you please quote the paragraph where it says that? And perhaps the previous and following one. I don’t see any text whatsoever that claims any saying is directly attributable to Jesus. If anything all it does is point out numerous errors and lack of…[Read more]

The New Testament offers nothing new at all

I’ve demonstrated this multiple times but Simon keeps repeating this “truism” that Jesus’s message was some how revolutionary and new. You could reproduce a god damn 25 volume encyclopedia of the people and times who have conveyed the same god damn message. As I teacher I have learnt to hit my head…[Read more]

The extent of our knowledge of Jesus, Simon, is that some man existed in the Levant around 30AD (very roughly) who was Jewish and was executed. We know absolutely NOTHING ELSE. He could have been a criminal, a charlatan, a misfit, an innocent person persecuted for no real reason, a fuck-up, a psycho…we don’t know nor could possibly know. Simon…[Read more]

They don’t sound like the words of Jesus at all, he seems to have taken a very relaxed approach in the other direction.

We don’t know what Jesus actually said. We have multiple conflicting accounts of a purported person saying various things. Christianity is St. Paulism. It is his interpretation of Jesus’s life and saying and his ritualization a…[Read more]

The injustice existed WAY before organized religion.

And yet secular humanist societies have been remarkably successful at limiting these horrors. You think it is just a coincidence that as the christian churches started losing their power and control and society secularized and adopted humanist principles that human rights never seen in the…[Read more]

They are not even smart enough to know how simply stupid we are.

This is a major poison of religion. The inability (on really important things) to say “I don’t know”. But instead have infantile answers that are difficult or impossible to change. And it is not limited to religion but also spirituality. People with the obsession to find a guide to…[Read more]

Then why do you ask for evidence about a piece of literature instead of seeing it for what it really is?

Because a large number of Christians use cherry picked portions of the bible to justify opressive conservative laws and policies (as well as casual biggotry). It’s not just the fundies who do this. In a country like Croatia which has very…[Read more]

That may be the stereotypical definition of a creationist, but that’s not the actual definition.

No. In the context of religion (especially Christianity and most especially evangelicals) a creationist is almost always referred to one who believes animals popped up on Earth as God created them. You are confusing the “actual definition” with what i…[Read more]

Example of an axiom:

Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

This is a stinking mess of an axiom. A very unwise way to  present an argument. It is not just confusing and ambiguous in is best reading but I think the overwhelming majority of people would understand it at all.

To paraphrase, religions in general (as put in pr…[Read more]

Gödel’s “proof” is such an atrocious big hot mess, it is embarrassing, it is in fact so bad and full of layers upon layers of flaws, fallacies and “wtf? moments” that I cannot even remember the last time someone brought it up. Every axiom is dubious. Most of them haven’t been backed up by Gödel with proper explanations, one argues from i…[Read more]