[Russkie]

An intriguing claim that I think has a lot of merit:

The historical debate about the genealogy of modern atheism continues amongst historians and theologians, blaming various figures such as Duns Scotus, Francisco Saurez, the deists, René Descartes, and many others. I don’t doubt that some of these figures may have contributed in one way or another, but I remain persuaded, at least for the moment, that the main culprit is really Martin Luther.

Now, I say this as a convinced Protestant. I agree 100% with Luther’s sola scriptura. But I think it was probably the cause of atheism. To boil it down: Luther raised the possibility of a Christianity not founded on Papal (or at least clerical, in Councils) primacy, but based on the individual scholar/Christian reading the scriptures for themselves. Unfortunately, those who agreed with Luther on this starting point failed to present a unified front on several of the important issues in theology and ethics, with the result of the (in)famous fragmentation of Protestantism. This fragmentation became (at least perceived to be; see below) violent with the Wars of Religion, with the result that philosophers started to look for a grounding for politics and ethics outside of any kind of theology. This led to a distinctively modern kind of foundationalism, which, combined with a judgment that there was no good evidence for Christianity, led to atheism.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... -atheists/

[Social_Critic]

I don't agree. Atheism is the result of a superior knowledge base and a more evolved central cortex. Scientific studies also show atheists enjoy sex much more than Christians, but less than Hindus.

[Paradigm]

Hyperbolic headline aside, there might be something to this argument. There's a very individualist streak in Protestantism that led to all kinds of factionalism, and could arguably be tied to the deism of the Enlightenment that ultimately led to atheism. That said, there was clearly an atheist tradition in Europe prior to Christianity (see Epicureanism for example), as well as outside of Europe (see Cārvāka), so it clearly didn't require Protestantism to come about.

[annatar1914]

Russkie my friend, i'd go even further, when you realize that the Popes of Old Rome since the 1054 AD Schism have been the first 'Protestants'. The West was once Orthodox, and God willing, will be Orthodox once again.

The Orthodox face the 'Protestantism of the Many' with the followers and offshoots of Martin Luther, but we also face the 'Protestantism of the One' with the Papists. One 'Pope' who determines the Christian Faith's content for his gullable flock or everybody a 'Pope', is the situation concerning 'christianity' in the West.

[Hindsite]

Christian Protestantism is not atheism because atheist don't believe in the existence of God or any god. Christians that protest against some of the teachings of Roman Catholicism are called Protestants, but they continue to believe in God and the main doctrines of Christianity, including the belief in God as a Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as Yahshua (Jesus) taught. HalleluYaH !

[Besoeker]

Christian Protestantism is not atheism because atheist don't believe in the existence of God or any god.

Yes, I agree. But more accurately atheisim is the absence of a belief in any theistic entity. That's what the word means.

A point I have made here and elsewhere is that we are born atheists. Religion is man made.

[Rich]

Well the Christians were the Atheists till they had eliminated the Pagans. Only then did they become the Theists. Modern Atheists argue that Monotheists are 99% Atheists, they say we share your disbelief in Zeus, Aries and Odin. We just believe in one less God than you. I have to say the early monotheists were heartless bastards. They even killed off Yahweh's Asherah leaving him alone for eternity. Its bad enough losing your wife when you're mortal, I can't imagine what its like for an immortal.

[Godstud]

More bullshit from a fundamentalist.

[Hindsite]

But God is not man-made for God made man in His image to have dominion over all creation on the earth. This is what Protestant Christians believe. Atheists can believe or not believe for that is the choice all mankind has been given. But how can they believe if they have never been told? The Shoud of Turin is physical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ and all creation in nature is physical evidence of a supreme Creator that began it all.

[Besoeker]

But God is not man-made for God made man in His image to have dominion over all creation on the earth.

With respect, that's opinion.

[Godstud]

The Shoud of Turin is physical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ and all creation in nature is physical evidence of a supreme Creator that began it all.

The shroud of Turin is just proof that one person died of crucifixion around the time of Christ. There is no proof that that person was special, resurrected, or anything else. That's your faith talking, and not reality, or factual.

But God is not man-made for God made man in His image to have dominion over all creation on the earth.

Opinion that is based on faith in a book made by humans.

[Nets]

The shroud of Turin is just proof that one person died of crucifixion around the time of Christ. There is no proof that that person was special, resurrected, or anything else. That's your faith talking, and not reality, or factual.

How so? It isn't even proof of that. It is from the middle ages.

[Godstud]

Recent dating has put it between 220 BC and 280 AD. Still, it's not proof of anything related to Jesus, except maybe this person died the same way.

[Nets]

Where are you getting this from, Godstud?

In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of AD 1260–1390, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus.[1] Aspects of the 1988 test continue to be debated.[2][3][4] Despite some technical concerns that have been raised about radiocarbon dating of the Shroud,[5][6] most experts assert that it is reliable.[7][8]

[Godstud]

In his recent book, "Il Mistero della Sindone," translated as "The Mystery of the Shroud," (Rizzoli, 2013), Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical engineering at Padua University, said his analysis proves the shroud dates from 280 B.C. to A.D. 220 ― meaning it existed during Jesus' lifetime, the Guardian reports. [Religious Mysteries: 8 Alleged Relics of Jesus]

That doesn't mean the shroud is evidence of a miracle, however, de Wesselow told LiveScience last year. He believes natural chemical reactions caused by a decomposing body and annoiting oils could have created the body imprint on the shroud, which may have then been used as evidence of Christ's resurrection.
http://www.livescience.com/28276-shroud-of-turin.html

[Nets]

I am going to call BS. That this book isn't published by an academic press is a pretty big red flag. Add to that the fact that the study author is a devout Catholic who 100% believes in the shroud's authenticity. The guy talks about having a religious experience in front of the shroud, he is not a disinterested observer.

3. Do you believe the Shroud is likely the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, a fake
relic, or are you uncertain what to believe?

Fanti: I must separate scientific aspects from religious ones.

From a scientific point of view both my researches and the studies performed by
the students (of Mechanical Engineering) in thesis with me ALL lead to a
confirmation of the authenticity of the Shroud even if, up to now, no sure proof
has been evidenced.

From a religious point of view, I am sure that the Holy Shroud is authentic and it
is the most important Relic of Christianity. This because, following a precise
question of mine, I had a personal “answer” in 1998 in front of the Relic.

I see no reason to reject the 1988 scientific consensus that dates this to around 1350 (coincidentally when we first hear about it?)

In fact, the Catholic Church has completely rejected Fanti's analysis.

[Godstud]

Regardless, it's simply not proof of it being Jesus, either way. Even if dated for the time, it's not proof of a resurrection. It's simply a burial shroud.

[Hindsite]

We all have our opinions. This forum is for expressing our opinions. The opinion of many scientists is that chemical dating methods are not reliable because assumptions are made in all those methods. Historical evidence dates the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo long before the first carbon 14 dating of the pieces of the Shroud taken from a proven repaired portion along the edge of the Shroud.

The scientists that examined the Shroud are still unable to determine how the image on the Shroud was made. They were only able to determine how it was not made. Some speculate it was made by some radiation method.

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

[Besoeker]

We all have our opinions. This forum is for expressing our opinions.

It allows us to express opinions. But, as with other forums, opinion is sometimes put forward as fact.
This particulary the case on threads about religion.
You don't know that the god you may choose to believe in made man. Or even that such a supernaturnatural entity esists or even ever existed.
There is no proof*.
Thus, such a belief is opinion.

*Proof, outside of mathematics, is a slippery thing.

[Hindsite]

This forum is about religion and it is primarily opinion on belief and faith. However, facts and evidence are often used in coming to those beliefs. Christianity is a fact because it exists and is believed in various degrees by millions of people today. ISIS is also a fact that should not be ignored. How we each evaluate the facts and evidence determine our beliefs and actions and possibly our future.