Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Torriden, Never Talk, Gordon, Nearly Sane, Bluehillside....
 Looks like the posse's in town boys...or is it the Hole-in-the -argument gang? Ha ha ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Torriden, Never Talk, Gordon, Nearly Sane, Bluehillside....
 Looks like the posse's in town boys...or is it the Hole-in-the -argument gang? Ha ha ha.

Do you have anything cogent to say?

[jeremyp]

It does seem odd that if Peter was writing something himself, or even someone else writing as if Peter that they don't mention this.

I'm not sure. Most of the New Testament consists of letters between people who were already Christians. If Peter was writing a letter on some theological point to another Christian, he would probably assume that the basics were already believed by the other person.

Nevertheless we must recognise that there is only one eye witness account of the risen Jesus in the entire Bible and that is the one Paul wrote and he describes a vision rather than an in person encounter. Bear this in mind the next time a Christian tries to claim there are loads of eye witnesses.

I would have thought that this actual experience of the resurrected Jesus would be the very first thing he would say to anyone.

"Say" being the operative word. Peter is portrayed in the gospels as being a fisherman from Galilee. It's unlikely he could read or write - much less in Greek.

Obviously, I don't believe Peter actually saw a resurrected Jesus but I'm happy to believe he either believed wrongly he had seem the risen Jesus or pretended he had seen the risen Jesus and I'm happy to accept he told everybody he met about it.  We can't possibly know one way or the other because he didn't write it down and nor did anybody else - or if they did, it hasn't survived.

All very 'I knew a man, whose brother said he met a man who knew the Irish Girl'. Oyster Band reference in case you asked.

Five hundred people saw the risen Jesus at one time. OK, names and address please.

[jeremyp]

There were no eye witness accounts of the actual resurrection, but there are written accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus after the resurrection - including Peter.

The only eye witness account of a resurrected Jesus that has survived to the present day is the one Paul wrote. And it's clear that Paul had a vision.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only eye witness account of a resurrected Jesus that has survived to the present day is the one Paul wrote. And it's clear that Paul had a vision.

Indeed, what Paul describes is clearly not a physical encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus. And he also implies that he was the last of a series of encounters, which he presumably considers to be similar to his - in other words a vision rather than a physical encounter. As far as I'm aware there is nothing in Paul to suggest a physical resurrection whatsoever - no empty tomb, not missing body, no physical interactions etc.

So what we need to consider is that the earliest resurrection traditions was of a vision/spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. This would fit with the expectations of the largely Jewish early adopters of christianity.

Only much later do the traditions of a physical resurrection emerge. We might want to consider why this is, and why there is a classic exaggeration over time. From a kind of vision (Paul), through to an empty tomb but nothing more (the original Mark) and finally to physical encounters in the later gospels and the later doctored Mark.

[jeremyp]

Indeed, what Paul describes is clearly not a physical encounter with a physically resurrected Jesus. And he also implies that he was the last of a series of encounters, which he presumably considers to be similar to his

I think this is absolutely correct. Paul doesn't consider his encounter to be inferior in any way to that of Peter and of James and he had met Peter and James and presumably spoken with them about their experiences.

Another point is that Paul never mentions the empty tomb even in a passage where he is arguing that Christ was raised from the dead with people who presumably weren't so sure. I don't think Paul knew about the empty tomb. I think it is a tradition that didn't arise until after Paul was writing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this is absolutely correct. Paul doesn't consider his encounter to be inferior in any way to that of Peter and of James and he had met Peter and James and presumably spoken with them about their experiences.

Another point is that Paul never mentions the empty tomb even in a passage where he is arguing that Christ was raised from the dead with people who presumably weren't so sure. I don't think Paul knew about the empty tomb. I think it is a tradition that didn't arise until after Paul was writing.

There is another element of the Paul claim which is completely contradictory to the gospel claims. Paul's encounter was years after Jesus' death, yet the gospels imply that physical post-resurrection encounters happened in a tight time period between the claimed resurrection and the ascension some 40 days later. Paul's encounter doesn't fit with this at all.

So my feeling is that the earliest understanding of 'resurrection' wasn't a physical being alive again for a short period, but a spiritual resurrection which might manifest in visions etc but not in a physical encounter at all. This fits with the jewish writings at a similar time on resurrection.

Later, the notion of a physical resurrection was promulgated, perhaps because the intended readers of the gospels, including those from Roman and Greek traditions wouldn't have found the notion of a merely spiritual resurrection compelling and therefore something more 'impressive' was needed. Notable that by the time documents claiming a physical resurrection began to appear we can be pretty sure that all the original claimed witnesses to the post resurrection Jesus would have all been dead, conveniently meaning they couldn't contradict those claims of physical resurrection.

[ProfessorDavey]

Notable that by the time documents claiming a physical resurrection began to appear we can be pretty sure that all the original claimed witnesses to the post resurrection Jesus would have all been dead, conveniently meaning they couldn't contradict those claims of physical resurrection.

And that is assuming that the versions of Matthew, Luke and John on the post-resurrection appearances that we know today are what was originally written rather than a later interpolation. We know that Mark was doctored later to add post-resurrection appearances because (by luck) we have before/after texts - how do we know the same isn't the case for Matthew, Luke and John.

So it is perfectly plausible that the post resurrection appearances are perhaps 2nd/3rdC additions and aren't anything like the original authors intended, let alone a reliable record of what the people around in AD30 actually saw.

And, of course, we do not know, and we likely cannot know (unless by good luck we get additional early texts), whether Matthew, Luke and John were doctored in the manner that we know that Mark was.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

“Refute” means “disprove”. I don’t need to disprove claims and assertions about supposed gods – I just have to find no good reasons to take them seriously.   

“Witness” is a word religious people use falsely because it reifies its object. What you should have said there was, “what is being asserted without qualification” or similar.     

No you wouldn’t. All you’d have to do would be to ask them to justify their claims, and when those justifications are found to be false their assertions can safely be ignored.

Which accounts fall well below even basic tests of historicity, for reasons that have been explained to you many times.

No, you have encountered many people who have made unqualified assertions about that (see above). People from other faiths have also encountered many people who have made their own unqualified assertions about their various gods, djinns, spooks and ghoulies too.   

Yes, as there are in the accounts of the Norse, of the Sumerians, of the ancient Greeks, of the…

Pretty much all pre-Enlightenment societies made up stories like this to explain their satisfaction the phenomena they observed around them. Oddly (to my mind) some such remain despite the ludicrousness of their claims. 

Possibly, but the more likely explanation is that they lived in a culture in which supernatural explanations of many sorts were commonplace (some of which, like the resurrection story, had been plagiarised from previous traditions – a process called “syncretism”) and they lacked the tools and reasoning to dismiss them.

You clearly have misunderstood what I mean by witness.
I am not referring to unsupported assertions, but real events and experiences.  You do not assert these - you witness to their reality in your life.
Take just one example - Jackie Pullinger's story as told in her book, Chasing the Dragon:

Inside Hong Kong was the infamous Walled City. Strangers were not welcome there. Police hesitated to enter. It was a haven of filth, crime, and sin. Prostitution, pornography, and drug addiction flourished. Jackie Pullinger had grown up believing that if she put her trust in God, He would lead her. When she was twenty years old, God called her to the Walled City. She obeyed. And as she spoke of Jesus Christ, brutal hoods were converted, prostitutes retired from their trade, and heroin junkies found new power that freed them from the bondage of drug addiction. Hundreds discovered new life in Christ. Chasing the Dragon tells the whole amazing story exactly as it happened.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not referring to unsupported assertions, but real events and experiences.

The only claimed first hand experience of the resurrected Jesus is that of Paul, and that is clearly described as a vision rather than a physical encounter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You clearly have misunderstood what I mean by witness.

Well, let’s see shall we?

I am not referring to unsupported assertions, but real events and experiences.

No, the “events and experiences” may be real but there are no good reasons to think the causal explanations religious people attach to them are real too. Little Timmy may indeed have recovered when the doctors said he was done for, but there’s no logic to demonstrate that praying to (whichever) god did it.

Try to remember this.   

You do not assert these - you witness to their reality in your life.

Wrong again – you precisely assert these because assertion is all you have after all.

Take just one example - Jackie Pullinger's story as told in her book, Chasing the Dragon:

Inside Hong Kong was the infamous Walled City. Strangers were not welcome there. Police hesitated to enter. It was a haven of filth, crime, and sin. Prostitution, pornography, and drug addiction flourished. Jackie Pullinger had grown up believing that if she put her trust in God, He would lead her. When she was twenty years old, God called her…

Do you see those last three words: “God called her”? That’s called an unqualified assertion. You can’t just assert something to be the case (technically it’s called reification – yet another fallacy); you need argument and evidence to justify the claim.

…  to the Walled City. She obeyed. And as she spoke of Jesus Christ, brutal hoods were converted, prostitutes retired from their trade, and heroin junkies found new power that freed them from the bondage of drug addiction. Hundreds discovered new life in Christ. Chasing the Dragon tells the whole amazing story exactly as it happened.

Yeah right. And the evidence for any of these remarkable turns of events (you know, police records of sudden crime reduction, medical records of sudden drug use reduction etc, rather than just someone claiming it to have happened) would be what exactly?

Can you see now where you’re going wrong by claiming that people “witness” rather than just make claims and assertions with no reasoning or corroborating evidence to support them?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Well, let’s see shall we?

No, the “events and experiences” may be real but there are no good reasons to think the causal explanations religious people attach to them are real too. Little Timmy may indeed have recovered when the doctors said he was done for, but there’s no logic to demonstrate that praying to (whichever) god did it.

Try to remember this.   

Wrong again – you precisely assert these because assertion is all you have after all.

Do you see those last three words: “God called her”? That’s called an unqualified assertion. You can’t just assert something to be the case (technically it’s called reification – yet another fallacy); you need argument and evidence to justify the claim.

Yeah right. And the evidence for any of these remarkable turns of events (you know, police records of sudden crime reduction, medical records of sudden drug use reduction etc, rather than just someone claiming it to have happened) would be what exactly?

Can you see now where you’re going wrong by claiming that people “witness” rather than just make claims and assertions with no reasoning or corroborating evidence to support them?

A very predictable response from you Blue, I could have written your reply for you.

Just look at the facts -
This woman says she had a calling from God to evangelise within the notorious walled city in Hong Kong where even the police feared to tread.
It is not what you would expect from an attractive 20 year old woman.
You appear to make your own assertion that this could not have been a calling from God, but it is hard to see what else could have motivated her.  I must presume that your assertion is solely based upon your belief that God does not exist

Despite all the warning signs that she could not possibly succeed, and would be putting her own life in danger, she follows the calling with the knowledge that if God has called her, God will help her to do whatever He asks.  So Jackie claims the power of prayer enabled her to convert thugs, reform prostitutes and cure heroin addicts all in the name of Jesus Christ.  You seem to cast doubt on her claims - is this because you do not believe her?  And I do not see how you can assert that the power of prayer had no part in her success.

To argue against such witness stories, you have to conclude that the person was either lying or somehow deluded - but her claimed successes were no delusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A very predictable response from you Blue, I could have written your reply for you.

That seems unlikely given that you posted mistakes and poor reasoning and I corrected you on them, but let’s see shall we?

Just look at the facts –

Yes, let’s…

This woman says she had a calling from God to evangelise within the notorious walled city in Hong Kong where even the police feared to tread.

Yes, I know that’s what she says but just asserting a “calling from God” doesn’t of itself mean that there was a calling from God.

Try to remember this.

It is not what you would expect from an attractive 20 year old woman.

It is if that “attractive 20 year old woman” had been inculcated into religious faith beliefs beforehand (“Unable to find support from missionary organizations, she then sought advice from Richard Thomson, a minister. At first she wanted to go to Africa, but then she had a dream that impressed upon her the idea of going to Hong Kong.[4]: 28  She followed the vicar's advice…” – Wiki), but it's irrelevant in any case.

You appear to make your own assertion that this could not have been a calling from God, but it is hard to see what else could have motivated her.  I must presume that your assertion is solely based upon your belief that God does not exist

You’re shifting the burden of proof here and trying a straw man to boot (both logical fallacies by the way). I do not “make the assertion that this could not have been a calling from God” at all. What I’m actually saying is that just asserting that it was does not mean that it really was.

Try to remember this rather than misrepresent what’s being said here.

Despite all the warning signs that she could not possible succeed, and would be putting her own life in danger, she follows the calling with the knowledge that if God has called her, God will help her to do whatever He asks.

Belief, not knowledge. You have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate that she had knowledge of something rather than just a belief in it.

Try to remember this too please.

So Jackie claims the power of prayer enabled her to convert thugs, reform prostitutes and cure heroin addicts all in the name of Jesus Christ.

She does claim that, yes.

You seem to cast doubt on her claims - is this because you do not believe her?

So far, she’s given me no reason to believe her so why should I? Why should anyone possessed of a functioning intellect and an enquiring mind?

And I do not see how you can assert that the power of prayer had no part in her success.

I made no such assertion (see above). It would help here if you would stop telling me I’ve said things I haven’t said at all. It would also help if you’d stop confusing “X is not true” with “there’s no good reason to think X is true”.

Try to remember this too.

To argue against such witness stories, you have to conclude that the person was either lying or somehow deluded - but her claimed successes were no delusion.

First, you’re conflating “her claimed successes” with her assertions about their (supposed) cause.

Second, as her website is entirely (and suspiciously) silent regarding hard data about these “successes” it’s impossible to know how much of that it genuine too.

Third, I don’t have to claim that she’s either lying or deluded at all. All I have to conclude is that she could be mistaken – which, given the total absence of any justification for her theistic claims, seems the most likely option to me.

Oh, and all this suggests that you couldn’t have written my reply at all given that all you’ve done here is substantially repeated the same mistakes I corrected for you.     

[jeremyp]

And that is assuming that the versions of Matthew, Luke and John on the post-resurrection appearances that we know today are what was originally written rather than a later interpolation. We know that Mark was doctored later to add post-resurrection appearances because (by luck) we have before/after texts - how do we know the same isn't the case for Matthew, Luke and John.

The reason we say that the ending of Mark is an interpolation is that there are early copies that don't have it. We don't have such copies of Matthew, Luke and John. It is therefore assumed that the endings are original. It doesn't really matter though: none of the three were written less than 40 years after the alleged resurrection. Also, the stories are all different. They don't share a common source and I think it is no coincidence that they diverge after the real ending of Mark. I think it is reasonable to assume each gospel writer took Mark and added their own resurrection story made up by them or by somebody close to them who had no knowledge of the other gospels.

Basically, the resurrection stories are made up.

[ProfessorDavey]

The reason we say that the ending of Mark is an interpolation is that there are early copies that don't have it. We don't have such copies of Matthew, Luke and John. It is therefore assumed that the endings are original. It doesn't really matter though: none of the three were written less than 40 years after the alleged resurrection. Also, the stories are all different. They don't share a common source and I think it is no coincidence that they diverge after the real ending of Mark. I think it is reasonable to assume each gospel writer took Mark and added their own resurrection story made up by them or by somebody close to them who had no knowledge of the other gospels.

I actually think that trying to understand how and when the stories of physical resurrection emerged is interesting, and to an extent important.

So it does seem to be significant whether, on the one hand, the gospels when first written incorporated an established tradition of a physical resurrection or, on the other, when first written did not include any physical resurrection appearances and those claims deliberately added later. We don't know which is the case for Matthew, Luke and John (and probably cannot know unless an early manuscript emerges in the future without these claims), but our knowledge that Mark was doctored in this manner certainly demonstrates that those with responsibility for the curation of the NT did not have an issue with amending the texts, presumably for quasi-political purposes.

Basically, the resurrection stories are made up.

Indeed, possibly with the exception of Paul's claim. But this is really the description of a vision and this is hardly unusual - countless people have claimed to have felt the presence of a dead loved on, or seen them in a dream. Hardly anything to write home about.

And a careful analysis of the claimed resurrection appearances lend towards a view that initially these were considered to be Paul-like visions, not physical encounters, with the latter added later to embellish the claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just look at the facts -

Sure - always happy to look at facts and evidence.

This woman says she had a calling from God ...

Yes it is a fact that she claims to have had a calling from god. It is not a fact that she actually had a calling from god as we don't even know whether god exists.

... to evangelise within the notorious walled city in Hong Kong where even the police feared to tread.

I've no doubt that her religious belief was important in her motivation to work in that community. However you should be aware (if you bothered to check) that the time when she started to work there is exactly the time when the authorities and in particular the police began to work more extensively within those communities too. This being late 60s and early 70s.

It is not what you would expect from an attractive 20 year old woman.

FFS AB - why is it relevant that she is attractive. Horrendously sexist comment from you.

You appear to make your own assertion that this could not have been a calling from God, but it is hard to see what else could have motivated her.  I must presume that your assertion is solely based upon your belief that God does not exist

I don't deny that her religious beliefs would likely have been a major motivation. I do deny that this was a calling from god - as you pointed out I do not believe that god exists and therefore I do not believe that anyone can receive a genuine calling from an entity that doesn't exist. They may, of course, have a psychological experience that they inwardly and personally perceive as god, but that isn't the same thing.

Despite all the warning signs that she could not possibly succeed, and would be putting her own life in danger, she follows the calling with the knowledge that if God has called her, God will help her to do whatever He asks.  So Jackie claims the power of prayer enabled her to convert thugs, reform prostitutes and cure heroin addicts all in the name of Jesus Christ.  You seem to cast doubt on her claims - is this because you do not believe her?  And I do not see how you can assert that the power of prayer had no part in her success.

She may well make those claims, but it doesn't mean that they are true. And going back to my earlier point that she was working at a time when the authorities and police themselves started to take a much greater interest in those communities how can you determine whether any reduction in crime etc etc was as a result of her work (whether directed by god or not) or the work of the police and other authorities. While she may claim it to be down to her (and god) I image the police and other authorities may likewise claim it was down to their initiatives.

Also the whole thing sounds a bit uncomfortably 'white saviour' to me.

[jeremyp]

I actually think that trying to understand how and when the stories of physical resurrection emerged is interesting, and to an extent important.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't.

So it does seem to be significant whether, on the one hand, the gospels when first written incorporated an established tradition of a physical resurrection or, on the other, when first written did not include any physical resurrection appearances and those claims deliberately added later.

What I'm saying is that they didn't incorporate an established tradition of a physical resurrection. If there had been an established tradition, the stories each gospel author incorporated would have been, at least, similar. Look at Mark, where we know for sure that the resurrection appearances were added later. Its stories are a précis and harmonisation of the stories in the other gospels. This is what an established tradition looks like.

Note also the story in Luke. Everything after the empty tomb bit happens on the same day: the encounter on the road to Emmaus, the appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem and the ascension: all on one day. Then look at the Book of Acts, apparently written by the same author. The author changes some of the details of the post resurrection appearances and partially contradicts his earlier story (including asserting that Jesus was on Earth for forty days). 

It seems to me that the gospel stories of the resurrection were written while the tradition of a physical resurrection was forming and then, by the time Acts was written, there was an established tradition that didn't completely accord with Luke's earlier work, so he retconned it.

I think we can see into the process by looking at the works in order

1. Paul - no physical resurrection

2. Mark - implies a physical resurrection by putting words into the mouth of one of the characters but no more

3. Matthew, Luke, John - lots of different stories about a physical resurrection arising

4. Acts - resurrection stories have coalesced and harmonised but not exactly as Luke wrote in his earlier book

5. Long ending of Mark - some scribe adds a summary of all the other resurrection stories because Mark looks a bit silly without them.

[jeremyp]

FFS AB - why is it relevant that she is attractive. Horrendously sexist comment from you.

Ha. Attractive twenty year old women sometimes find it easier to bend recalcitrant men to their will than unattractive fifty year old men. That's not sexism, it's a fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ha. Attractive twenty year old women sometimes find it easier to bend recalcitrant men to their will than unattractive fifty year old men.

Possibly, but that isn't what AB was implying - he didn't add the comment about attractiveness in the context of potentially being better able to win round recalcitrant men. No his comment was that you wouldn't expect an attractive woman to be committed to charitable action - his words:

It is not what you would expect from an attractive 20 year old woman.

That's a sexist comment - defining women's motivations and choices by their attractiveness to men.

[Enki]

In the 50s and 60s I remember there was a general pervasiveness of christianity as the cultural norm and it was common for religious people to talk of 'witnessing to the truth'  or 'witnessing to the changes God has brought about in my life'.  This was often directed towards the uninitiated or the unenthusiastic to impress upon them how they also could become good people and become 'witnesses' in their turn. Indeed, C S Lewis was of the opinion that even unbelievers generally praised christians as good people, something he thought too simplistic, seeing the word 'christian' as meaning so much more.

How times have changed! With the disintegration of christianity in this country and the greater prominence given to a whole variety of faiths and none, christianity is seen more of a backwater by many people and the attitude that in some way it is the font of goodness in society has been very much eroded by accusations such as bigotry, delusion, prejudice and even paedophilia. Hence, the religious use of the word 'witness' as AB is prone to, has become little more than an anachronism relating solely to how a  particular, seemingly out of touch, religious(especially christian) set of enthusiasts see themselves, and an anachronism which can be so easily challenged.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the 50s and 60s I remember there was a general pervasiveness of christianity as the cultural norm and it was common for religious people to talk of 'witnessing to the truth'  or 'witnessing to the changes God has brought about in my life'.  This was often directed towards the uninitiated or the unenthusiastic to impress upon them how they also could become good people and become 'witnesses' in their turn.

Which is exactly the kind of attitude that so often infuriates people who aren't believers - effectively that doing good is somehow inextricably linked to witnessing the christian god. As if you cannot be 'good' without 'god' so to speak. I've heard this casually insulting attitude to atheists plenty of times including (I'm slightly paraphrasing here) being at a church service where one of the prayers was 'pray for non-believers so that they might come to christ and be able to do good'. And that attitude (beyond being flat out wrong) seems to focus on the motivation to do good rather than the act and outcome of doing good. Frankly I'm not so bothered about someone's motivation to do the right thing rather than them actually doing the right thing.

How times have changed! With the disintegration of christianity in this country and the greater prominence given to a whole variety of faiths and none, christianity is seen more of a backwater by many people and the attitude that in some way it is the font of goodness in society has been very much eroded by accusations such as bigotry, delusion, prejudice and even paedophilia. Hence, the religious use of the word 'witness' as AB is prone to, has become little more than an anachronism relating solely to how a  particular, seemingly out of touch, religious(especially christian) set of enthusiasts see themselves, and an anachronism which can be so easily challenged.

Times have changed but I think it isn't so overtly 'look at those odd christians over there'. I think we just have a more balanced view that whether or not you are religious, whether or not you believe in god has no bearing on whether or not you are ethical as a person. And I suspect there is a shift whereby people no longer accept that if you go to church you must somehow be a good person. That's good I feel.

[Dicky Underpants]

Indeed, possibly with the exception of Paul's claim. But this is really the description of a vision and this is hardly unusual - countless people have claimed to have felt the presence of a dead loved on, or seen them in a dream. Hardly anything to write home about.

And a careful analysis of the claimed resurrection appearances lend towards a view that initially these were considered to be Paul-like visions, not physical encounters, with the latter added later to embellish the claims.

Bearing in mind that Paul's were the first NT texts to be written, we should not forget Paul's assertion "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is exactly the kind of attitude that so often infuriates people who aren't believers - effectively that doing good is somehow inextricably linked to witnessing the christian god. As if you cannot be 'good' without 'god' so to speak. I've heard this casually insulting attitude to atheists plenty of times including (I'm slightly paraphrasing here) being at a church service where one of the prayers was 'pray for non-believers so that they might come to christ and be able to do good'. And that attitude (beyond being flat out wrong) seems to focus on the motivation to do good rather than the act and outcome of doing good. Frankly I'm not so bothered about someone's motivation to do the right thing rather than them actually doing the right thing.
Times have changed but I think it isn't so overtly 'look at those odd christians over there'. I think we just have a more balanced view that whether or not you are religious, whether or not you believe in god has no bearing on whether or not you are ethical as a person. And I suspect there is a shift whereby people no longer accept that if you go to church you must somehow be a good person. That's good I feel.

As laudable as that is Christians are now portrayed by some as bad people. In the age of the influencer , that must include people who are upset at the lukewarmness of atheists in their condemnation of the religious or who entitle their programmes ''Religion, the root of all evil?'' and see their public atheism as a tool of payback to religious people. This is not to paint Christianity and religion as victims as the New atheists have just made a religion of themselves, Godless (but so is Buddhism), but with scriptures and saints and apostles. So not persecution , yet, but there is a certain casual antitheism in secular culture and let's face it  low level prejudice of which the prejudice is not aware, always forms part of the history of particular prejudice. 

[Gordon]

As laudable as that is Christians are now portrayed by some as bad people. In the age of the influencer , that must include people who are upset at the lukewarmness of atheists in their condemnation of the religious or who entitle their programmes ''Religion, the root of all evil?'' and see their public atheism as a tool of payback to religious people. This is not to paint Christianity and religion as victims as the New atheists have just made a religion of themselves, Godless (but so is Buddhism), but with scriptures and saints and apostles. So not persecution , yet, but there is a certain casual antitheism in secular culture and let's face it  low level prejudice of which the prejudice is not aware, always forms part of the history of particular prejudice.

I think you need an imagination transplant: the one you've got seems stuck on 'let's imagine utter shite'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As laudable as that is Christians are now portrayed by some as bad people.

Does anyone do that in respect of “Christians” a whole, or just regarding the demonstrably “bad” ones? Believing things for bad reasons doesn’t imply that someone is “bad” you know.

In the age of the influencer , that must include people who are upset at the lukewarmness of atheists in their condemnation of the religious or who entitle their programmes ''Religion, the root of all evil?'' and see their public atheism as a tool of payback to religious people.

Have you any evidence at all that such people exist?

This is not to paint Christianity and religion as victims as the New atheists have just made a religion of themselves, Godless (but so is Buddhism), but with scriptures and saints and apostles.

But not the faith part that religions require, which so your argument (or assertion rather) here fails. 

So not persecution , yet, but there is a certain casual antitheism in secular culture and let's face it  low level prejudice of which the prejudice is not aware, always forms part of the history of particular prejudice.

There’s nothing wrong with anti-theism, any more than there is with anti-marxism, or indeed anti-anything-ism provided it’s justified with reason and evidence. Your paranoia here (“…not persecution, yet…”) is showing again.