(September 20, 2011 at 6:59 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(September 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: most people would agree there is more evidence for Christ’s resurrection than for the existence of Thor

Would they? What is this "more evidence?" It is my understanding that evidence for both is pretty much summed up with religious stories and religious texts. There is no physical evidence for either.

Well firstly, what text are you referring to that supports the existence of Thor?

---

Quote: Why? What's that got to do with anything? We all know that Thor is a character from Norse Mythology just like Christ is a character from Christian Mythology.

It’s got everything to do with it, if you can’t even provide any ancient texts that support the existence of Thor then that means that Christ’s Resurrection has more evidence because the best preserved book of antiquity, The New Testament, gives account of his death, burial, and resurrection. I am not sure why you would bring Thor into the discussion since it now looks like comparing the two is nothing more than a false analogy.

why bother with him?

His views are always rational and ours never are. It's pointless. His arguments are as useless in a debate as his testimony is to Jesus.

Yes, Statler, because it's so rational to believe things because an ancient book that was written by people who thought the sun revolved around the earth tells you to believe.

Since you'll believe obvious bullshit, you should buy this car I have for sale. It runs great.

(September 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm)Cinjin Wrote: His views are always rational and ours never are.

“You see ladies and gentlemen, even though the specimen clearly fights it, even though it greatly desires to remain in bondage to the chains of its irrational mind, with persistence and hard work it can be taught, it can learn. There is still hope that someday this poor depraved creature will have a rational mind and be able to carry on with those of us who were created holy and upright. This gives us one thing to hold onto, one thing we have lacked in the past…hope.”

(September 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Yes, Statler, because it's so rational to believe things because an ancient book that was written by people who thought the sun revolved around the earth tells you to believe.

You see this is what I have been talking about! Here you are, trying to make a case that atheism is somehow more rational than Christianity, but while you are trying to make that case you commit a logical fallacy (even if the writers of the Bible did believe the sun revolved around the earth, which they didn’t, it would not automatically make all of their claims false, that’s called poisoning the well my friend). Do you have any idea how much that undercuts your argument? If you can’t string together one single rational argument why should I believe for a second you are more rational than me when all you have done is given me evidence to the contrary?

(September 20, 2011 at 7:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well firstly, what text are you referring to that supports the existence of Thor?

Now, now, I would not say "supports" his existence. Just shows that people believed in him and told his story, just like J.C. There are numerous.

Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum , Grimnismal, Alvismal and several other poems in the Edda that I couldn't spell without having them in front of me. Rhythm and I recently had a conversation about Norse mythology and I was compelled to read up about it after he told me about a female warrior, Sif I think it was. At any rate, the gods of Norse mythology were written about, like J.C. The same goes for Greek Gods and their buddies the Roman Gods, both of which have similar gods to the Norse gods.

If I'm not mistaken, the Edda predates the Bible.

"It’s got everything to do with it, if you can’t even provide any ancient texts that support the existence of Thor then that means that Christ’s Resurrection has more evidence because the best preserved book of antiquity, The New Testament, gives account of his death, burial, and resurrection."

All this shows is that the Norse had the decency to admit it when their gods went extinct.

(September 20, 2011 at 10:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: Now, now, I would not say "supports" his existence. Just shows that people believed in him and told his story, just like J.C. There are numerous.

That's interesting, what do you accept as support for the existence of historical figures?

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, the Edda predates the Bible.

You are mistaken; the only manuscript ever found of the Poetic Edda, the Codex Regius, was not discovered until the 17th century and has been dated back to the late 13th century. So comparing it to the tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament that have been discovered is inappropriate at best.

(September 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm)Epimethean Wrote: All this shows is that the Norse had the decency to admit it when their gods went extinct.

No what it shows is that atheists will toss about any ridiculous comparison and hope it sticks.

(September 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm)Epimethean Wrote: All this shows is that the Norse had the decency to admit it when their gods went extinct.

No what it shows is that atheists will toss about any ridiculous comparison and hope it sticks.

this coming from the undisputed KING of throwing out ridiculous comparisons and hoping they stick.

(September 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 20, 2011 at 10:04 pm)Shell B Wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the Edda predates the Bible.

You are mistaken; the only manuscript ever found of the Poetic Edda, the Codex Regius, was not discovered until the 17th century and has been dated back to the late 13th century. So comparing it to the tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament that have been discovered is inappropriate at best.

I'm not mistaken. It predates the Bible. So you think the more copies of bullshit there are, the more likely it isn't bullshit?

(September 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Three people making baseless assertions doesn’t make the assertions anymore true you know.

Wait, does this goes for tens of thousands as well? In that case, you're contradicting yourself again.

Quote:That's interesting, what do you accept as support for the existence of historical figures?

Reliable contemporary sources. Corroborating text, such as birth certificates, death certificates, more contemporary sources, paintings done during the figure's lifetime, etc. I do not accept texts written more than a lifetime after the supposed figure's life that is not supported by evidence from that person's lifetime.

(September 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Cinjin Wrote: this coming from the undisputed KING of throwing out ridiculous comparisons and hoping they stick.

Can you give an example where I have done this? Or are you just tossing something out and hoping it sticks?

(September 22, 2011 at 4:57 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm not mistaken. It predates the Bible.

The earliest and only manuscript of the Poetic Edda dates to the 13th century, the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament date back to the 1st Century. It does not predate the Bible.

Quote: So you think the more copies of bullshit there are, the more likely it isn't bullshit?

Question begging epithet.

(September 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, does this goes for tens of thousands as well? In that case, you're contradicting yourself again.

People making baseless assertions on a discussion board has nothing to do with scribes copying manuscripts. The more copied manuscripts you have of a document the better preserved the original is because you can do textual comparisons and infer what the original document was.

Quote:
Reliable contemporary sources. Corroborating text, such as birth certificates, death certificates, more contemporary sources, paintings done during the figure's lifetime, etc. I do not accept texts written more than a lifetime after the supposed figure's life that is not supported by evidence from that person's lifetime.

Well the apostles did live at the same time as Jesus, so they are certainly contemporary sources. The earliest manuscript of scripture is from the gospel of Mark which dates back to 53 A.D., so we certainly have manuscripts dating closer to Christ’s life than any other figure from that time period. The New Testament is the best preserved document from antiquity, so it is certainly a reliable document. As for the birth and death certificate point, I am not aware of any birth certificates for any historical figures from that time period so that’s pretty absurd to even ask for. So even when you set the bar artificially high to try count out Christ’s testimony, it still exceeds it.

So do you believe Plato, Caesar, or Homer ever existed? If so, why?