Quote:Another weak blurt. I answered Carrier's attack in detail. At length. With a careful deconstruction of his argument that showed he was dead wrong. And Carrier - who is usually on a hair-trigger to respond to the slightest criticism - has been asked how he would respond and yet has ... declined to do so. So perhaps you could actually detail how my reply to him is "inadequate". Simply blurting that it is is not an argument, I'm afraid. 

No you didn't you went long drivel filled rant kind of like your doing now .And he didn't respond because there is nothing to respond too sorry it bruises you ego that Senpai  Carrier won't notice you.

Quote:Oh yeah, well your [sic] a poopyhead, so there!" may be 'engagement' in you are four years old, but I was asking if anyone here is capable of detailed discussion based on the source material. Yet again we see you and the other boneheaded jerk here prancing around and squealing and yet doing everything you can to avoid actually tangling with the topics at hand. If I am so "inadequate", "feckless", "bullshit" and "weak" surely my arguments could be dispatched very easily. So what seems to be the problem?

Long you just love to watch yourself type don't you Timmy? and as i said the only thing anyone needs to do to refute your articles is read them .And yes your writing dispatches them quick to anyone who can read .

Quote:Gosh. Okay, please cite some of the historians who use Bayes the way Carrier does. See if you can actually back up your weak farting noises with some substance for once.

Lol i given you all the substance a hack like you deserves hell almost more the Dr Carrier gave you which is more then enough .

Quote: Oh wow. So we're now reached the "you're not a real atheist, you're actually a Christian" gambit in what seems like record time.

Surely, Timmy, you can't imagine that you are the first to pull that routine? 

Carrier's PH D in History is from Columbia.  Where is yours from?  Bob Jones University?  Liberty University?  A Cheerios box top?

Quote:Oh wow. So we're now reached the "you're not a real atheist, you're actually a Christian" gambit in what seems like record time. As I note every time this pathetic ruse is tried: I have a posting history as an atheist that goes back to 1992, I'm a former state president of the Australian Skeptics and I've been a paid up, subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia for many years. But if you really want to go for this weak tactic - try this: find anything that proves I am actually a Christian and not an atheist. Anything. You have 26 years worth of online material to work with, so it should not be hard to prove I'm lying. Good luck.

Nope i said you were an apologist not a Christian those are not the same thing numb nuts . And yes i have already read your self aggrandizing bio .Sad 26 years of being a tool .

(July 3, 2018 at 8:16 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: One crucial point: someone who identified as Jewish, and wrote about “Judean Antiquities” would not have included those passages in the Testimonium Flaviam that allude to Jesus’ divinity. And if he was somehow secretly convinced of Jesus’ divinity, I highly doubt he would have been so off handed about mentioning it.

There are very strong indications that at least parts of the Testimonium Flaviam were fabricated after Josephus’ time.

Well the fact that it only appeared in 325ce and only in the copy of the well known forger for Jesus, Eusebius is also a dead giveaway. When your contempraries will have nothing to do with you (Origen denounced the passage as an obvious fraud), then why should we?

Tizheruk Wrote:[Empty blurting deleted]

So, it seems we are going to get nothing more from Beavis or Butt Head here other than "Hur hur, you're wrong because we say so". I recall now why I never bothered coming back to this wasteland. Someone PM me if anyone here actually starts discussing history. I'll leave the Dimwit Twins here to fall over their own feet as they try to high five each other while kissing Tricky Dicky Carrier's arse.

Quote:Insert long winded temper tantrum 

Then watch as Timmy bends over and sucks his own dick while telling himself what an intellectual powerhouse he is because he can write lot's of words on his little blog and launch limp wristed attacks on "actual" historians who won't give him the time of day .

---

(July 4, 2018 at 1:35 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: Oh wow. So we're now reached the "you're not a real atheist, you're actually a Christian" gambit in what seems like record time.

Surely, Timmy, you can't imagine that you are the first to pull that routine? 

Carrier's PH D in History is from Columbia.  Where is yours from?  Bob Jones University?  Liberty University?  A Cheerios box top?

Actually he does have actual degrees from a legit university . But then again so does Stephen C. Meyer and i put them on the same level really.

(July 4, 2018 at 1:41 am)TimOneill Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:[Empty blurting deleted]

So, it seems we are going to get nothing more from Beavis or Butt Head here other than "Hur hur, you're wrong because we say so". I recall now why I never bothered coming back to this wasteland. Someone PM me if anyone here actually starts discussing history. I'll leave the Dimwit Twins here to fall over their own feet as they try to high five each other while kissing Tricky Dicky Carrier's arse.

Perhaps you can consider that only history interested atheists care about jesus. Its their thing. From there to be the godboy, a long walk stands before you.

(July 3, 2018 at 11:58 pm)TimOneill Wrote: Gosh. So, despite being an atheist, I'm a "Jesus freak shithead"? How exactly does that work?

And I "wasn't very impressive in person"? I seem to recall that our last exchange ended with me tearing the crappy self, published nonsense article you tried to use a new one and then you ... fell silent. Anyone who wants to can read the exchange HERE.

But since I've found you talk a good game when you think you're talking behind someone's back, let's see if you can do any better this time. Here is my article on why the "Lack of Contemporary Mentions" Mythicist argument doesn't work:

Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”

Let's see if you can actually articulate a coherent counter argument to what I say there, as opposed to making sneering noises. Good luck.

You mean this bollock?

Quote:The ancient world had far lower levels of literacy, far less bureaucracy, far fewer documents about anything and, therefore, many millions of ancient people were born, lived and died without a single scrap of papyrus or parchment noting anything about them.

How many of those many millions of people were known throughout the land and performed miracles on a day to day basis?

Quote:The naïve form of this argument, as found in most the examples from the Guardian article quoted above, usually simply notes the absence of any contemporary references to Jesus and leaps straight to the conclusion that, therefore he did not exist.

Name one historian that states Jesus did not exist based exclusively on the lack of contemporary writings.

You waste much keyboard ink deconstructing Michael Paulkovich writings as though he were a major player in the mythist fraternity. Why bother, most historians consider him to be a fucking idiot.

This thread has been derailed by some angry posters. Too bad. I was enjoying this thread.