Friday, July 24, 2009

"Jesus Never Existed." An example of stage four

Photobucket




The original mission of this blog is to keep tabs on the aspect of atheist community that is a hate group. We want to trace the function of hate in the development of atheism in America. The CARM theists are kids, they are not the serious hate group that I'm really talking about. A good example of that is the site www.Jesusneverexisted.com.

When first I launched Atheist Watch I brought out the seven stage model of hate group development used by the FBI. Now I trun to the first four stages, and I feel this is where hate group atheism (Dawkamentalists) are today:


The seven-stage hate model: The psychopathology of hate groups
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin/March 1, 2003
By John R. Schafer, MA and Joe Navarro, MA






Stage 1: The Haters Gather

Irrational haters seldom hate alone.10 They feel compelled, almost driven, to entreat others to hate asthey do. Peer validation bolsters a sense of self-worth and, at the same time, prevents introspection, which reveals personal insecurities.11 Further, individuals otherwise ineffective become empowered when they join groups, which also provide anonymity and diminished accountability.
Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself

Hate groups form identities through symbols, rituals, and mythologies, which enhance the members' status and, at the same time, degrade the object of their hate. For example, skinhead groups may adopt the swastika, the iron cross, the Confederate flag, and other supremacist symbols. Group-specific symbols or clothing often differentiate hate groups. Group rituals, such as hand signals and secret greetings, further fortify members. Hate groups, especially skinhead groups, usually incorporate some form of self-sacrifice, which allows haters to willingly jeopardize their well-being for the greater good of the cause. Giving one's life to a cause provides the ultimate sense of value and worth to life.12 Skinheads often see themselves as soldiers in a race war.
Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target

Hate is the glue that binds haters to one another and to a common cause.13 By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self-image, as well as their group status. In skinhead groups, racist song lyrics and hate literature provide an environment wherein hate flourishes. In fact, researchers have found that the life span of aggressive impulses increases with ideation.14 In other words, the more often a person thinks about aggression, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next more acrimonious stage.
Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target




We see the evolution of the hate group segment to the level of stage four and holding. I suspect this is because with white supremacists there's always a hope (on their part) that if push came to shove a large segment of the white population would support them, especially if there was violence between whites and blacks. But the atheists who might contemplate violence against churches, if there are any, would not really have a very strong hope. White supremacists can look back to a time when their views represented something close to a majority, that was only a little over 50 years go. Atheists have never been in a majority in any society going back to, the stone age?

That may be why they are in a holding patter, but the Jesusneverexisted.com guys are on the edge of the holding patter. Their sites is pure hate. It exists for no good reason. There's a slew of such sites, Holysmoke.com, Iron Chariots, the "rational" response squad (hysterical response squad) and God Hates Amputees, Atheist Revolution and many more. It's easy to see that these sties exist just to spout bile, just look at them. A thin pretense of ideas and argument but one need not even scratch the surface to the hate seething through.

The bottom of the homepage of Jesusneverexisted.com says:

the cost to humanity of fifteen centuries of Christian savagery – of hundreds of millions of lives brutalised and truncated, sacrificed to war, torture, pogrom, burning, pestilence and plague – is incalculable.

Christianity is the worst disaster in human history


O yea the worst disaster in history. We bult an arms race that could have destoryed the world 11 times over, we have two major wold wars that killed each over a million people, we had a Slatinist regieme along with it's comrades in China and Eastern Europe that killed 100, million people! 100 Million! Going to sunday school really hurts. I can just seem my old savage grandmother hobbling along in her walking mowing people down with her machine gun. The sheer savagery of those flannel board lessons my mother used to do in her Sunday school class!

Every single thing on that site is aimed at mockery and derision. None of the "ideas" they present are given any pretense of a fair discussion. Their writting style is at a level of a fevered propaganda pitch.

Writing about the Ship wreck of Paul:

The ripping yarn of Paul's voyage to Rome is devoid of theology but includes several curious "miracles" and a wealth of nautical detail which is a delight to those who argue for Luke's "accuracy as an historian." Below the surface, however, the author of Acts has drawn on at least two, and possibly several, incompatible sources to concoct his tale of maritime adventure and evangelical pizzazz.

The climax of the fable is a shipwreck on the island of "Melite" – first associated with Malta in the 16th century by the Knights of St John, crusaders who had been kicked out of the Levant and the island of Rhodes and had established a military despotism on the tiny but strategically placed rock. Centuries earlier, an alternative – and better – claim to the holy wreck site had been made for an island off the Dalmatian coast by Benedictine monks. They drew on the work of the the 10th century Greek emperor Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, who had identified, in his book On Administering the Empire, the island of Mljet with the castaway apostle. Like Malta, in antiquity Mljet had been called Melita.


in the left side bar is a bit of a piece on a relic of Paul's hand that was believed to have been venerated in the middle ages. The purpose of showing it is to merely mock how ignorant and stupid Christians are. Let's not terry over the idea that this was the middle ages, no education, no modern science. But hey that's because religion was there. If not for religion we would have had modern science eons ago! These are obviously such fair and even handed (no pun) criticisms.

Wonder of wonders, the Church of St Paul's Shipwreck, Valletta, Malta, claims to possess "a portion of the right wrist bone" of the apostle. What the jewelled reliquary actually contains is anybody's guess.

This dubious relic is unlikely ever to be subjected to the rigors of scientific examination. Its authenticity was vouched for by the Sacrist to His Holiness Pope Pius VII and several other early 19th century papal worthies.


Unlikely to ever be subjected to rigors. O those stupid Christians! they are so dumb they refuse to show that their medieval relic was as fake. How is that for stupid? but when do we need to? Is there any doubt? Do these guys think it might be Paul's writ bone? what if they did test it? Then would say "O what smart Christians trying to test things, Ok I guess they are not so bad." you know they wouldn't! they would say "O see it's proven they are so stupid. this is the kind of thing Christianity leads to." So damned if you do, damned if you don't. Christianity had some ignorant people in it in the middle ages! therefore it will always be Stupid and "igerant."

Hello! It was the middle ages! get it? Everyone was dumb. hello! Anyone home up there atheists?

Of course they keep harping away at the old lie about Nazerath:

Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses.


Of course there is ample proof that Nazareth did exist in the time of Jesus. But these types always ignore little petty things like facts. Of course the claim that Mary was a not virgin is based upon Jewish propaganda (Mary was a Jew but Jewish religious leadership of the ruling party at the time). In alluding to the facts about Mary they give away their game because the propaganda of Mary as a Prostitute (actually hair dresser but that was a stereotype) comes form first century Misha which is actually pretty solid proof that Jesus existed. Rather than say "are you kidding? there was never a Jesus of Nazareth, his enemies admitted he existed but mad up stuff about him and his mother. That is admitted to by Celsus the pagan enemy of Christianity.





In their zeal to vent their hatred against Jesus, these stumble bums actually undermine their own argument.

the Jesus myth trash has come apart at the seems. Their orignial major thinker (Wells) defected to the Jesus lived side and his place was taken by the enigmatic flak Doherty and the "don't confuse me with the facts" crowd marches on. They have been proved hoaxers of "evidence" they have been proved to lie about mythology, yet nothing slows them down. Yet most atheists remain uncommitted on the issue and still voices suspicion that some real guy Named Jesus lived and in some way inspired the idea of Christianity.



The statistical lies I presented last time, the one that played with Prison stats and misread the table is linked through the Holysmoke.com site. These are the true solders of hategroup atheism.

2 comments:

EnoNomi said...

I read the link to the "solid proof that Jesus existed" and found it to not be very solid at all. To frame it a differerent way, there is Santa Claus and there is Bishop (Saint) Nicholas of Myra. The man and the myth are so different as to be two separate things and yet one was the root inspiration for the other. Trying to find the historical Jesus is even worse because all "evidence" for him comes at least a century after his supposed death. The final sentences of the link you provide say, "We may not have the original material to know about Jesus what the Talmudists knew. But it's clear they had some historical data of him and that they always regarded him as a flesh and blood man in history." And the historical evidence they had may have led them to think no better of him than as a David Koresh or Jim Jones. We don't know. We have alot of information about Joseph Smith and that doesn't prevent thousands of people from believing an obviously silly story about golden plates. At some point the myth following the man becomes so different as to make the myth and the man two different things. Santa Claus, as we know him, never existed. I'd say the same is true for Jesus.

Perhaps you'd enjoy the discussion going on at The Jesus Mysteries (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/).

J.L. Hinman said...

Comment, EnoNomi:I read the link to the "solid proof that Jesus existed" and found it to not be very solid at all. To frame it a differerent way, there is Santa Claus and there is Bishop (Saint) Nicholas of Myra. The man and the myth are so different as to be two separate things and yet one was the root inspiration for the other. Trying to find the historical Jesus is even worse because all "evidence" for him comes at least a century after his supposed death.

Meta: No, the Talmud stuff is from the first century. Gospels are first century, 1 Clement is first century. Josephus is first century.




Eno: The final sentences of the link you provide say, "We may not have the original material to know about Jesus what the Talmudists knew. But it's clear they had some historical data of him and that they always regarded him as a flesh and blood man in history." And the historical evidence they had may have led them to think no better of him than as a David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Meta: It's pretty clear they were making up aspects of it for propaganda. Would you really believe his mother was a hooker? Why should we? That clearly something they said to discredit. By modern standards why would it matter if she was anyway.

Besides you are shifting your argument (I'm assuming you are support myther arguments). First you start with "no evidence he existed" then "the evidence shows he was a bad guy," but to say that you have to admit he existed!



Eno:.We don't know. We have alot of information about Joseph Smith and that doesn't prevent thousands of people from believing an obviously silly story about golden plates.

Meta That's just begging the question.


Eno:At some point the myth following the man becomes so different as to make the myth and the man two different things. Santa Claus, as we know him, never existed. I'd say the same is true for Jesus.

MetaYou are ignoring the evidence. Like most JMers you are assuming the Gospels just don't' exist. We know enough about him to understand why the early chruch followed him. We have his teachings, we have the testimony of what he did, we have the evidence for the resurrection, and we have modern experiences of transforomative power that comes through evoking his name.

more than enough.

Eno:Perhaps you'd enjoy the discussion going on at The Jesus Mysteries

MetaIs that Freck and Ghandi? they are proven Hoxers.