Information

Atheist Humor

This is the place to post that hilarious irreligious YouTube video, an irreverent, anti-religious cartoon, or other humorous bit of media. Posts that do not reflect an atheist/irreligious theme will be deleted. (Don't make me go Old Testament.)

Members: 2121
Latest Activity: Jul 25

Lewis Black: The Flintstones is not a documentary.

A slightly longer version of the clip that used to be here. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Discussion Forum

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Humor to add comments!

Comment by sk8eycat on July 16, 2015 at 11:34pm

Oh!  My mom made the BEST flan!  YUM!

Comment by The Flying Atheist on July 16, 2015 at 10:25pm

Comment by Daniel W on July 15, 2015 at 11:48pm
Pat, I love that video!
Comment by Joseph P on July 15, 2015 at 10:04pm

Yeah, historicity basically just means that there was a guy named Yeshua who wandered around and preached some stuff at people.  Nothing more.  Christian apologists dishonestly (surprise, surprise) conflate historicity with the miracles claimed in the gospels.

When preaching to their sheep, apologists will say that when scholars are arguing in favor of historicity, they're arguing for the absolute historical accuracy of the gospels.

There's no such thing as an honest apologist.

Comment by Pat on July 15, 2015 at 2:25pm

Is it the historicity of this dude you guys are discussing?

Comment by Joseph P on July 15, 2015 at 12:23pm

Whoah, easy there.  King David and King Solomon are historical.  We have archaeological evidence for them.

They just weren't anything like they are described in the Bible, and the Kingdom of Judah was not unified with Israel, at the time.  The people writing the Jewish scriptures probably just grabbed those names, since they were Kings in vaguely the appropriate times in the right place, while writing their mythologized history.

Moses is almost certainly a complete fabrication, and the conquest of Canaan never happened ... and of course anything before that is almost certainly a complete fabrication, as well.

We can't be as certain about the historicity of Jesus, though.  The idea that there was a Jewish rabbi wandering around the area, whose cult followers told some preposterous stories about him, after his death, is not an extraordinary claim.  The evidence isn't there for the mythicist position, so we're stuck in what is probably a permanently agnostic position, in regards to historicity.

That doesn't mean that this roving rabbi had 12 disciples or that any of the names slapped on those disciples represented real people.  That doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene was a real person, although I have no trouble accepting that a cult leader probably had a number of sexually-available women handy.

Basically, the Christians aren't claiming any marks upon the world that this Jesus guy made, William Lane Craig's asinine Empty Tomb argument not withstanding, and we wouldn't expect him to have made any.  So, we don't know, but like I said, it isn't an extraordinary claim.

Comment by Daniel W on July 15, 2015 at 11:43am
Joseph,
I dont accept a historical Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Eve, Mrs. Noah, Lot, Solomon, David, or Mary Magdalene, No more than I accept characters from the Popol Vu, Gilgamesh, Hindu legends, Chinese gods, or Norse pantheon. They make for great stories, but in absence of historical verification, why accept one over the other?

I do like the crucifixion / cow difference.
Comment by Joseph P on July 15, 2015 at 11:05am

How Bible stories evolve and grow.

Those that were based upon real events in the first place, yeah.  One of the problems with the way that religious people view the Bible and other religious texts is that they insist upon one explanation for the whole damned thing.

Some of those stories could have been based upon the activities of a real guy.  I won't accept the claim that an historical Jesus actually existed, if an argument depends upon it being certain, but I have no problem accepting that it's a possibility.

Even if you could demonstrate that an historical Jesus existed and that some of the stories were based upon his activities, it does nothing for the rest of the Gospels, bits of which could be explained through 5 different processes.  Nor do I think you can determine which parts were based upon real events, if any of them were.

It's just like with the letters of Paul.  A lot of the content of Paul's letters can be explained away by him having an epileptic fit and hallucinating the whole thing.  You could also say that he lied about the whole Damascus Road experience and just made a decision to support this new Christianity thing, after speaking to a few Christians about their theology.

Or he could have really had a vision, but in a dream, and his mind later added the details about having a fit and hallucinating it while lying in the road.

Or he could had a real vision/hallucination in some way or other, and he then made up most of what he included in his letters.  Reality is rarely as simple as people often want it to be.

And hell, almost half of his letters need none of these explanations.  They were forged by later Christians, putting their own words in Paul's mouth.

Comment by Daniel W on July 15, 2015 at 8:41am
Christopher that is perfect!
Comment by Christopher Cosgrove on July 15, 2015 at 8:28am

And a good politically incorrect one I heard on Cognitive Dissonance or Scathing Atheist - "What is the difference between the crucifixion and a cow? You can't milk a cow for 2000 years!"

 

Members (2121)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service