You keep saying that, but you haven't been able to establish his existence have you?

Rhythm Wrote:You keep saying that, but you haven't been able to establish his existence have you?

i've established it as much as possible. i can provide all the information in the world that Abraham Lincoln exists but if someone can just say no and refute it, then there is no proof for anything.

I don't think that you have, I'm also pretty sure that you've recieved more than a "no" as a response. Is the "jesus or nothing" statement really an accurate representation of the situation or reality? I think not. Try harder, or find some evidence, it's really so simple. Why argue when evidence would do just fine?

He's trying as hard as he can but he has little to work with.

because i already put many documents. they all prove his existance. i've gotten skeptical interjections and answered every single one of them. if you don't believe me read this thread

(January 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The same regurgitated shit that they have tossed up many times before.

Hi, Minimalist,

I hope that your New Year is off to a great start. I realize the rules here allow people to use profanity to describe others' posts’ content. Merely asserting that the information I supplied is “regurgitated shit” or “horseshit” does not count as a legitimate rebuttal, though. I would like to give you an opportunity to support these claims.

I respectfully invite you to join me in a formal debate online regarding Jesus’s existence (We do not necessarily need to debate on Atheist Forums. We could debate on some other forum if you prefer, or in case Atheist Forums moderators would object to limiting a formal online debate to two debaters.). By Jesus I mean: a Jewish man who existed sometime in the first century C.E. who was crucified. Here is the proposed format:

1. Each debater introduces himself and makes his initial case.

2. Each debater posts a rebuttal to his opponent’s opening post.

3. Each debater posts one rebuttal to the other’s first rebuttal post.

4. Each debater supplies a closing argument.

This format will hopefully ensure that each debater’s time is not wasted and will assist each one in maintaining their focus.

Regarding behavioral guidelines:

1. Each debater must cite his sources.

2. Neither debater will commit ad hominen fallacies by calling the other one names.

3. Neither debater will use an “argument from hyperlink” (posting a link to a web page or entire web site as their only form of “rebuttal” to the other’s argumentation). In fact, at least one online debate forum I am aware of bans people if they persistently utilize an “argument from hyperlink.” The moderators’ reasoning is that participants should be able to craft their own arguments and be capable of defending them.


I shall look forward to receiving your response.


Kind regards,

Fpvpilot

I would like to think that the debate would be worth watching, but well, it just wont.

What does FPV have to work with? very little, a few forgerys and the bible.

Or to put it another way zip.

I must put my hand up at this point and say that i think that jesus may very well have been based on a charismatic minor sect leader in the david koesh vien whose exploits got exagerated as time moved on.

My reason for thinking this.

He was executed as a criminal.

His followers then had to come up with some bullshit reason why this happened to their messiah, who was supposed to lead the jews not get killed.

What happened too him does not fit the jewish idea of the messiah and that is the only reason I think it may be based on an actual person.

It's very easy to imagine that there was some person behind the jesus myth, the trouble is that when you remove all of the myth, nothing remains. Whatever or whoever this spark or person was is completely lost. It's just as easy to imagine that there are people behind the Zues, Osiris, or Wotan myths, but what credibility does this lend the stories? None. What else can be said? Nothing. There's really no other way to say this than to be blunt Chip. The Jesus written about in the bible is myth, start to finish, regardless of whether or not there was a rabbi named Yeshua. The miraculous stories of his birth, myth (a Yeshua would require no such thing), his early life and exploits (even what little is written of this) myth, the sermons, the words attributed to, myth. I'm not really sure why this is a problem, or why you would argue against this so strongly, faith requires no evidence. If all one needed was a point of focus for their beliefs the Jesus mentioned in the bible does just fine, but to demand that this story be treated as historical fact, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Once upon a time this wasn't so. You've made mention of this yourself, the fact that less educated people believed. Thing is we're well beyond that now. We don't believe in this sort of stuff anymore because it has not only failed to materialize, but what has presented itself is a picture that is utterly and completely devoid of these sorts of things.

Quote:I supplied is “regurgitated shit” or “horseshit” does not count as a legitimate rebuttal, though. I would like to give you an opportunity to support these claims.

Nonetheless, it is what it is. It's shit and we have heard it all before.

Therefore, I submit that regurgitated is not in the least inappropriate.

You will never understand how utterly fucking exhausted I am by constantly having the same apologetic nonsense put forward. Every theist who shows up here spouts the same line of shit. It gets tiresome.

Not a single writer who was alive during the early part of the first century AD knows the slightest fucking thing about your godboy. A normal person would be embarrassed by that. You simply look for excuses. It is almost impossible to embarrass a believer.

I'm tired of the fucking excuses.

(January 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I supplied is “regurgitated shit” or “horseshit” does not count as a legitimate rebuttal, though. I would like to give you an opportunity to support these claims.

Nonetheless, it is what it is. It's shit and we have heard it all before.

Therefore, I submit that regurgitated is not in the least inappropriate.

You will never understand how utterly fucking exhausted I am by constantly having the same apologetic nonsense put forward. Every theist who shows up here spouts the same line of shit. It gets tiresome.

Not a single writer who was alive during the early part of the first century AD knows the slightest fucking thing about your godboy. A normal person would be embarrassed by that. You simply look for excuses. It is almost impossible to embarrass a believer.

I'm tired of the fucking excuses.

Hi, Minimalist,

Thank you for informing me of your decision not to engage me in formal debate on the existence of Jesus to substantiate your assertion that the argument I offered was problematic. Instead of repeating my response to the “argument from silence” fallacy, I’ll refer readers back to my post (#202) on page 21.

Take care.

Kind regards,

Fpvpilot