Why do atheists hate Jesus?

Don't like that list? How about Newton, Franklin and Jefferson?

Jefferson:
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Franklin:

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin
Although there are other quotes that indicate he had a personal belief...

Newton:
Yup, he was a "devout" christian.

Although (and this has been pointed out in other threads) religion was pretty much de rigeur in those days and a self-proclaimed atheist would have suffered for it.
Lip service at the very least was only to be expected.
 
You can read that two ways-:cool:

also the more sciens reveals the structure of thw world the closer it gets to God. Personally i think he was holding back a lot.

You mean, the more science reveals the structure of the universe, the closer it gets to killing God. In my opinion, Darwin did that long ago.

Many great scientific minds believed in God (Einstein was not one of them, I could cite several quotes for you to support this), but this doesn't mean that that makes said God more believable. Aquinas, one of the greatest minds acccording to general Catholic opinion, felt that people who opposed the Catholic Church deserved to be slaughtered on the spot, no questions asked. The Catholics themselves would hardly carry this idea with them into the zeitgiest along with his other more reasonable ones simply because he was a great mind.

Yes, Newton is another fine example. His amazing contributions to human life are amplifed throughout the generations, but his belief that he was God isn't, for obvious reasons. The lesson here is that while great minds can contribute wonderful insights to a particular facet of thought, we shouldn't therefore open the door and accept ALL that mind's thoughts in ALL facets. That'd be like saying "Since I'm a genius at poetry, you should listen to everything I have to say about mathematics and attribute it with just as much genius."
 
Last edited:
In those quotes, Jefferson did not say he did not believe in God. Same with Franklin. Sure, Jefferson didn't like Catholic dogma, so what? Luther didn't like it either, but he was still a theist.
 
You mean, the more science reveals the structure of the universe, the closer it gets to killing God. In my opinion, Darwin did that long ago.

Many great scientific minds believed in God (Einstein was not one of them, I could cite several quotes for you to support this), but this doesn't mean that that makes said God more believable. Aquinas, one of the greatest minds acccording to general Catholic opinion, felt that people who opposed the Catholic Church deserved to be slaughtered on the spot, no questions asked. The Catholics themselves would hardly carry this idea with them into the zeitgiest along with his other more reasonable ones simply because he was a great mind.

I told you, i have absolutely no interest in Darwin. We are looking for facts here NOT: 'well darwing said so' or 'i love Darwin' etc...who cares?

Many great scientific minds believed in God (Einstein was not one of them, I could cite several quotes for you to support this)

So then go ahead, i want to read where he explicitly says so.
 
Darwin didn't kill God. So, God uses evolution to bring about us? So what?

I used to think this for a long time too, until I studied evolution and natural selection more. Its implications drove Darwin to a gradual epiphany of great worry and remorse lamenting, "I have killed God." Your harmony stems from an incomplete understanding.
 
Jefferson:
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820
Atheist?

Franklin:
Franklin's complete emancipation from the superstitions of his day came about when, as he said, "Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect the opposite of what was intended by the writer; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word I soon became a thorough Deist." The word "Deist" of Franklin's day has its exact counterpart in the word "Freethinker" to-day. And how many thousands of our leading men and women have been emancipated as a result of theologians quoting Freethought arguments in an endeavor to answer them?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis10.htm

Deist:
Definitions of Deist on the Web:

* One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, but claims to know nothing of either, and denies revelation. An agnostic of olden times.
Agnostic?
 
I told you, i have absolutely no interest in Darwin. We are looking for facts here NOT: 'well darwing said so' or 'i love Darwin' etc...who cares?



So then go ahead, i want to read where he explicitly says so.

And I'll say again what I said in your response to refusing to listen to Dawkins; it's obvious why you choose to not be interested in what these people say, they completely derail your beliefs.

I will be back at my house tonight, look for my citations around then.
 
I used to think this for a long time too, until I studied evolution and natural selection more. Its implications drove Darwin to a gradual epiphany of great worry and remorse lamenting, "I have killed God." Your harmony stems from an incomplete understanding.



evolution does not conflict with the concept of a god existing. it just goes againt biblical text.

peace.
 
So then go ahead, i want to read where he explicitly says so.
Too lazy to Google yourself?

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Einstein's "god" was the universe and what we could learn from it.
 
Einstein didn't make, or play any part in the design of, the bomb.
And his thinking was far better than his engineering.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Of course, God is in my head. My head might be right, and it might not be. So what?

I'm questioning your assertions. Since you assert that Atheists feel some sort of malignance towards some bloke who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, I'm assuming you have some basis other than "My head might be right, and it might not be." Otherwise it just seems insincere.

Unsupervised kids might not be taught to stop punching on the playground. That's why we need religion.

Nope. Just better parents willing to discipline their children.
 
Originally Posted by Celpha Fiael
... I came to the then shocking realization that these people calling themselves atheists were just that, people; people with morals, goals, love, joy, and everything that I had been taught were in total possession of those who knew Christ, and those who knew him only ...

That is very interesting.

We note your use of the passive voice - "had been taught." Who was doing this teaching? Was it one particular individual, or was it a doctrine of a particular sect? If the latter, can you refer us to a Statement of Doctrine that enunciates this?


It was taught to me by the latter, namely Christianity. I would expect it to be rare for you to ever come across a person who claims that other religions are just as truthful as Christianity and also call him/herself a Christian. Where this underlying doctrine of a monopoly on truth is not spoken outwardly (it usually is), it certainly is spoken in practice.

But regardless of that, the account was of mine personally, which means if you don't agree with it, that's fine.

Thank you, kind sir.

So we now see that your claim that "people with morals, goals, love, joy, and everything that I had been taught were in total possession of those who knew Christ, and those who knew him only ... " is in fact not based on the Bible or Christianity, but upon your personal spin that you insist on foisting on the object of your ridicule, i.e., Christianity.

Consider that perhaps you have yet to learn and/or understand basic Biblical teachings and doctrine. Otherwise you would not assert, for example, that love is only possessed by people who "know Christ" when it is plain that the Bible indicates otherwise.

May we be so bold as to inquire as to which sect or denomination of "Christianity" you were involved with?
 

I didnt read the entire thread, but... is this a joke ?
Atheists deny the existence of Jesus, how can you hate anything that does not exist ??? ”

Atheists deny the existence of any god, not just jesus.
We were talking Jesus (title of thread was "Why do atheists hate Jesus? "), but i agree.


I didnt read the entire thread, but... is this a joke ?
Atheists deny the existence of Jesus, how can you hate anything that does not exist ??? ”

I question it, but I think it's likely that Jesus did exist.

I meant Jesus in the biblical sense... like in son of God. But your correct to correct me there.


I didnt read the entire thread, but... is this a joke? Atheists deny the existence of Jesus, how can you hate anything that does not exist ??? ”

*************
M*W: Good point, and welcome to the forum. You're absolutely correct. It's offensive when a christian comes on board and makes a thread stating such garbage. They'll never get it that you can't hate something that doesn't exist, and you're definitely not bitter about it!

Thanks Medicine*Woman! :)
If youre bitter about it you acknowledge Jesus so then you must believe..
 
I once hated Jesus...but then I grew to despise him.

Other than that, I think he was a decent Joe.

But what does Jesus, the local pizza delivery guy, have to do with anything?
 
“Whenever people are certain they understand our peculiar situation here on this planet, it is because they have accepted a religious Faith or a secular Ideology (Ideologies are the modern form of Faiths) and just stopped thinking.”

“People have murdered each other, in massive wars and guerilla actions, for many centuries, and still murder each other in the present, over Ideologies and Religions which, stated as propositions, appear neither true nor false to modern logicians — meaningless propositions that look meaningful to the linguistically naive.”

“I don’t believe anything I write or say. I regard belief as a form of brain damage, the death of intelligence, the fracture of creativity, the atrophy of imagination. I have opinions but no Belief System (B.S.)”

–Robert Anton Wilson
 
Did you get that from The Da Vinci Code? That is not true anyway.
*************
M*W: No. I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, and I don't plan to. I did go see the movie, but I didn't think it was that good. The early church fathers didn't come up with the idea that Jesus was divine until long after the Council of Nicea which took place in 325 AD.

These are excerpts from an essay by Jeff Rath in 1998 entitled "The Historical Background of the Trinity":

"The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins."

Next is an excerpt by Alvan Lamson in 1865 on "The Church of the First Three Centuries"

" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."


"During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was coequal, and coeternal with God, or that he was God the Son, they believed that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God, and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception."

Another excerpt by Williston Walker, "A History of the Christian Church" 2nd Ed. 1985 states:

"AD 200. . Noetus had been expelled from the Smyrnaean church for teaching that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died."

(My side note to these excerpts is that the concept of Jesus's divinity began with the concept of the trinity. Those who lived in the first century did not believe Jesus was divine).

New Bible Dictionary states: "The word trinity is not found in the Bible . . ."

". . . it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

". . . it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in the Bible, . . ."

"Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the trinity, . . ."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia dated 1967 states:

"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."

(Jesus's contemporaries (if he existed) did not believe him to be divine. That idea arose with the advent of the trinity.
 
Back
Top