(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: Sorry, I have to interject on this one because it's something I cover specifically in my book: Jenny said misremember, not that they wouldn't remember it at all.

I understand what she said, I am just saying it shouldn't be said regarding THAT particular subject...we are ultimately talking about a man that supposedly rose from the dead and she is talking about how 20 years later, people forget shit like that...and as I said, bullshit.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: The example I've always used is the Oklahoma City Bombing. I remember sitting in my Biology class when we heard and felt the blast. I remember that when we were told a bomb had gone off downtown, someone asked whether it was downtown Oklahoma City or downtown in our suburb. I remember my exact response: “There’s no way it was Oklahoma City, you moron. Do you realize how big a bomb would have to be to feel it this far away?” (Even then, I was a smart ass and had a habit of putting my foot in my mouth.)

You don't say?

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: I remember my best friend and I jumping into his car and heading downtown since we both had first aid training. (We were young and naïve, thinking we could help, never considering we would probably just get in the way.)

Good intentions has no age requirement.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: I especially remember the screeching U-turn we made when we heard on the radio that investigators thought they might have found additional bombs in the rubble. This was the basis of the story as I retold it over the years, and not surprisingly, that is the extent of what I remember.

Looking back there is much more that I do not remember.

You remembered the bombing tho...they remembered the Resurrection tho. You don't have to remember every little detail, but the jest of it was there was a bombing in OKC.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: I can’t for the life of me remember to whom I had made the sarcastic comment, though I seem to think I could narrow it down to a few specific people who I remember having been in that class.

That is you..everyone is different...Paul remembered, you didn't.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: I have no idea if my friend and I simply left class in the ensuing chaos or if we told anyone what we were doing. I don’t even remember what I did after we turned around—I wouldn’t think I would have gone back to class, but I remember spending some time watching the news on a TV in another class-room. (Though actually, that might have been before we decided to try to go and volunteer. But again, I don’t remember.)

You have a shitty memory, apparently.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm)JonDarbyXIII Wrote: There are also details over which my friend and I have argued as the years have passed. I remember the class immediately coming to a standstill with the interruption. I remember someone sticking her head in to tell us what had happened. My friend, however, specifically remembers us only hearing the news after class had let out—specifically citing someone who had been upset that we hadn’t been informed earlier. Both of us have specific logical reasons that convince us that the events unfolded exactly as we remember them, and although these details don’t appear to be reconcilable, neither of us was ever willing to budge.

Then there are the details that I have crafted in my own mind. A few years after the fact, I couldn’t remember if we had been in Biology or Human Physiology. My friend said he was absolutely certain it had been Biology. Although I concur now, I’m not sure if it’s because I actually remember it or because his certainty convinced me and just made me think I remembered it. Likewise, the exact time of the blast is a matter of historical record, but in my mind, I tend to want to re-member my Biology class being earlier in the morning.

All the examples you gave are the same--I'm sure people remember those events, but I imagine that if pressed, there would be numerous discrepancies to actual occurences.

True, I gotcha...but the main idea is that there was a bombing in OKC...no one is disputing that fact...and likewise; the main idea was that Jesus Resurrected, and no one is disputing that..at least, not the early church.

---

(December 2, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote: He never intimated that it did, you fool. All he said was that indoctrination, as a method of bringing people into a certain belief, leaves them preferring stunted, simplistic answers delivered in a tone of authority, especially if that belief is supposed to govern much of a person's life.

Well, that is what I got out of it because otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how someone came to get their belief...hell, someone could be indoctrinated with truth...so if they were indoctrinated with truth, then all of that other crap doesn't really matter, now does it?

If Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, and someone is indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead...then what would be the problem?

(December 2, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You know what else is a fallacy? The strawman.

Maybe consider, you know, actually responding to what people say in future, instead of what you imagine them to say? All the fallacies you spot seem to be coming from the bits you imagine, after all.

Keeping trying, Esquil...eventually I will let you win an argument against me...eventually.

---

(December 2, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Apparently, you don't know what the genetic fallacy is. Nobody is arguing that your claims are false because of indoctrination; merely that indoctrination typically results in, and universally explains, harebrained idiots such as yourself who refuse to admit, after their claims are refuted and counterarguments are offered, that beneath the veneer of confidence lie empty concepts and hollow delusion.

Usually when someone claims that someone else has been "indoctrinated", the person that is making the accusation usually thinks that the indoctrination is based on something false, naïve, stupid...whatever it is.

I've never heard someone say "He's been indoctrinated with the truth of 2+2=4!!!"

Because as I mentioned before, if the indoctrination was based upon truth, then I doubt the poster would have made the freakin' statement...so again, that's how I took it..and as I said...GENETIC FALLACY.

I can't believe King Tut is still flapping his beef curtains.

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Usually when someone claims that someone else has been "indoctrinated", the person that is making the accusation usually thinks that the indoctrination is based on something false, naïve, stupid...whatever it is.

I've never heard someone say "He's been indoctrinated with the truth of 2+2=4!!!"

Because as I mentioned before, if the indoctrination was based upon truth, then I doubt the poster would have made the freakin' statement...so again, that's how I took it..and as I said...GENETIC FALLACY.

I can see your point...

If I choose to ignore 50+ pages of debate... (assuring you that facts, such as 2+2=4, are demonstrable, and that your faith, by definition, is not).

...Which seems to be something you've quite adeptly perfected.

HM has the power of faith +100 to ignorance +100 to ignoring scientific findings and history.
I have logic and reasoning +99999999inf to not believing what a book and or pastors tell me.

(December 2, 2014 at 11:17 pm)KUSA Wrote: I can't believe King Tut is still flapping his beef curtains.

It's a miracle! The bigger fish he had to fry must have cooked themselves!

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, that is what I got out of it because otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how someone came to get their belief...

Sure it does; you can come to correct beliefs for irrational reasons, and that would mean it would be irrational for anyone else to accept those beliefs sans evidence, even if they turned out to be true.

Additionally, how you come to your beliefs is still a part of what makes you you. As I specifically explained, in the post you're quoting, those who are indoctrinated tend to be more satisfied with simplistic answers given authoritatively.

It's actually kinda bothersome that you assert that it doesn't matter how someone comes to their beliefs, as a response to a post explaining how it does matter.

Quote:hell, someone could be indoctrinated with truth...so if they were indoctrinated with truth, then all of that other crap doesn't really matter, now does it?

You can have correct beliefs for bad reasons. If someone believed in the existence of the Platypus because their parents told them one existed, and this was before we had any evidence of such a thing, then even though they're technically correct, they had no good reason to think that, and other people would not be justified in accepting the claim as true.

The reasons why you hold certain beliefs matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't have spent the past few weeks arguing for intelligent design and the resurrection of Jesus; you understand that the reasons for beliefs matter, or else you wouldn't spend so much time explaining yours.

Quote:If Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, and someone is indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead...then what would be the problem?

Because there would be no method by which that indoctrinated person could distinguish that true belief from any false belief. That seems like a pretty big problem.

Quote:Keeping trying, Esquil...eventually I will let you win an argument against me...eventually.

This is your problem, you're operating under the mistaken belief that you get to decide who wins any given argument or debate. You don't; your position on an argument you're involved in is obviously biased. Of course you think you're in the right and demonstrating it; if you didn't then you wouldn't be holding that position, now would you? But you don't get to spin the fact that you've managed to convince yourself of an idea you already believed into some broader win.

Notice I'm not doing that, because unlike you I understand that my position on this is both obvious- if I'm still holding the position in question- and irrelevant to the actual reality. Actually, your constant appeals to "winning" are very telling; when a rational person argues, he does it from a position where his mind can be changed, if the opposing argument is better. You seem to be focused on something else; the factual accuracy of your position doesn't seem to matter as much to you as winning does. It's like you've chosen your dog, right or wrong, and this is just a game to you.

But truth isn't something you win at, it's something you mold your positions to fit. You need to start leaving the conclusions as to the efficacy of your argument to other, non-biased parties.

The ones who, for some reason, have done nothing but disagree with you.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: With the exception of your trip to Seattle, all of those are events that were reported contemporaneously. IF those events had not been discussed at the time and now, years later one or two guys started talking about it, it would lend much credence would we give to the events? Not much if we're bright.

Now now now Jenny, don't try to change it now. You were SPECIFICALLY talking about whether it is more likely than not that someone would remember something 20 years later...now you are changing it back to the contemporary realm.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And the fact that people have vivid memories about the past does not make those memories anywhere near as accurate as they were at the time. If you think they are, you just aren't thinking.

It depends on how significant the memory is...I don't remember the first candy bar I ever bought...but I damn sure remember my first bike. See how that works?? The candy bar isn't significant, but the bike is.

And besides, creeds were formulated to be easy to remember.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And there was considerable literacy. Probably about 1 to 2 percent. Given the phenomenon described, you'd expect some writing at the time. The events described in the Gospels are huge. Philo of Alexandria(13-20BC-54AD) was there and writing about the Jews. But he didn't mention Jesus in The age of Pilate or any of his other books. But he was there. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Bullshit. What contemporary evidence do you have that Philo of Alexandria existed? Remember, your logic is that in order for someone to exist, someone that lived during the time had to write about him...after all, that is the same crap you are pulling with Jesus...so give me the names of people that can validate Philo's existence...someone that lived during his time, to have met him and wrote about him? Give me a name of anyone that WROTE about him during his life? And how do we know that he actually wrote anything that is contributed to him?

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now you are being ever more childish. The question is not whether someone like a newspaper reporter would follow Jesus around writing down what he said (this is why if he did exist we can be quite certain that the Gospels don't accurately record what he said). The question is why no historian, letter writer of note, temple scribe, new and educated convert, or anyone else even mentioned his existence in writing for 20 years.

Well, give me a list of historians that were living at that particular time, in that particular location. You mentioned Philo of Alexandria, but you would also have to use independent CONTEMPORARY sources that would validate him as well. So go ahead...you seem to be good at doing research...so that is something for you to do.

And what is even more hilarious is that you gave the link to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html, and in that link, the author is citing Josephus' work which mentions Philo, but Josephus was not a contemporary to Philo...Josephus was around 13 at the time of Philo's death...yet Josephus' work is being used as a source for Philo's life??? So where did Josephus get his information from regarding Philo when he WROTE his Antiquities , which is the same book he used when he mentioned Jesus, which you reject because Jospehus never met Jesus...but when he mentions Philo, whom he also never met...that is ok??

The biggest double freakin' standard I've ever witnessed.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Again, that's foolish. It matters very much. Particularly when it isn't even written down by those eyewitnesses, just by folks who might have discussed it with them.

How do you know that the Apostle's Matthew and John didn't write the Gospels that bears their names?

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And then waited 20 years to write it down? That's a big problem.

It is a problem for YOU. Who are you to tell someone when to write something down? You are not the "write it down" police. And again, he was writing to the Church in Corinth, which means that Christianity had already spread from Jerusalem to Corinth, which is about 1890 miles http://www.distancebetweencities.net/jer...ia_greece/

And this was WITHOUT the Gospels....so no wonder Christianity took off even further after that.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Mormonism for example is pretty unbelievable as is, but imagine who much more unbelievable if Smith waited twenty years to write down what was in the golden tablets.

Jenny, regardless of how you think it should have gone, it is still the world's largest religion. So again, what you are proposing SHOULD have happened just wasn't needed.

It is like a music artist going platinum just by selling cd's from the trunk...with no radio promotion...no music videos...no magazine covers or articles...and STILL going platinum...it is rather amazing.

Christianity didn't need any of that special treatment, because as long as God was behind the wheel, it was gonna happen regardless of what anyone thought, said, or did.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The Jesus in Paul is decidedly unfleshly and ethereal, so no I don't.

According to Acts...fleshly.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sorry, a man talking after death is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I feel that inanimate matter coming to life is also a extraordinary claim.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It can hardly be taken for evidence of the resurrected man's life if the "witness" never knew the man when he was alive.

Well, Paul said that he appeared to Peter and the other apostles, and they knew him when he was alive...but that doesn't count tho, right? Or are you gonna move the goal post again?

And not that it matters whether or not Paul knew Jesus anyway...as God can appear to anyone he wants to whether the person knows him or not.

Third, Paul may have not known Jesus, but he certainly knew OF Jesus, which is actually better than knowing him...I would rather someone know OF me that know me...because if they know OF me, then that would mean word got out about me...and I find that...BETTER.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read his post.

Read mines.

---

(December 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 6:28 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But still, it would be nice to carry on with the conversation...

Would be nice to move on to part two. I'm eager to weather the upcoming bullshit Tsunami.

Hey, it would be nice...but to be honest, I thought part 1 would have been the most uncontroversial of all four...if it is this much CRAP over part 1, then the rest is gonna REALLY be hell...but I don't mind it...I was built for it!!

Kinda reminds me of an old army cadence...

"Pain (pain) in my back...I don't care...I LIKE IT THERE!!!"

Pain (pain) in my leg...I don't care....I LIKE IT THERE!!!"

---

(December 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: If I choose to ignore 50+ pages of debate... (assuring you that facts, such as 2+2=4, are demonstrable, and that your faith, by definition, is not).

...Which seems to be something you've quite adeptly perfected.

Huh?

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: With the exception of your trip to Seattle, all of those are events that were reported contemporaneously. IF those events had not been discussed at the time and now, years later one or two guys started talking about it, it would lend much credence would we give to the events? Not much if we're bright.

Now now now Jenny, don't try to change it now. You were SPECIFICALLY talking about whether it is more likely than not that someone would remember something 20 years later...now you are changing it back to the contemporary realm.

Don't use my name again in that condescending way --doing that is a concession you have no real argument, it's like leaving your trousers unzipped.

The question is not if you can remember 20 years ago, but if it were important to the world would you wait 20 years to say so.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And the fact that people have vivid memories about the past does not make those memories anywhere near as accurate as they were at the time. If you think they are, you just aren't thinking.

It depends on how significant the memory is...I don't remember the first candy bar I ever bought...but I damn sure remember my first bike. See how that works?? The candy bar isn't significant, but the bike is.

And besides, creeds were formulated to be easy to remember.

Actually no. The more emphasis you put on a memory the less reliable your memory is. We are story tellers and we humans.

Once again the point is not how well you remember 20 years ago but how likely it is that you are making it up if you suddenly refer to things twenty years ago that you never mentioned before.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And there was considerable literacy. Probably about 1 to 2 percent. Given the phenomenon described, you'd expect some writing at the time. The events described in the Gospels are huge. Philo of Alexandria(13-20BC-54AD) was there and writing about the Jews. But he didn't mention Jesus in The age of Pilate or any of his other books. But he was there. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Bullshit. What contemporary evidence do you have that Philo of Alexandria existed? Remember, your logic is that in order for someone to exist, someone that lived during the time had to write about him...after all, that is the same crap you are pulling with Jesus...so give me the names of people that can validate Philo's existence...someone that lived during his time, to have met him and wrote about him? Give me a name of anyone that WROTE about him during his life? And how do we know that he actually wrote anything that is contributed to him?

oooooh Bullshit. Scary cuss word!. Philoactually wrote things himself. And Josephus, knows of him and discusses him in an unforged paragraph.

Quote:"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now you are being ever more childish. The question is not whether someone like a newspaper reporter would follow Jesus around writing down what he said (this is why if he did exist we can be quite certain that the Gospels don't accurately record what he said). The question is why no historian, letter writer of note, temple scribe, new and educated convert, or anyone else even mentioned his existence in writing for 20 years.

Well, give me a list of historians that were living at that particular time, in that particular location. You mentioned Philo of Alexandria, but you would also have to use independent CONTEMPORARY sources that would validate him as well. So go ahead...you seem to be good at doing research...so that is something for you to do.

Here are 25 historians we know of in the first century AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1s...historians

But the really important one for this discussion is Justis of Tiberius because he was living and writing in Galilee during the purported lifetime of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_of_Tiberias Yet he never mentions Jesus. None of his histories is extant, but they were available in the 9th century and a Christian historian is disappointed to notice that Jesus is not mentioned.

Quote:This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

http://This work has perished, but Photi...code 33).

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote: And what is even more hilarious is that you gave the link to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html, and in that link, the author is citing Josephus' work which mentions Philo, but Josephus was not a contemporary to Philo...Josephus was around 13 at the time of Philo's death...yet Josephus' work is being used as a source for Philo's life??? So where did Josephus get his information from regarding Philo when he WROTE his Antiquities , which is the same book he used when he mentioned Jesus, which you reject because Jospehus never met Jesus...but when he mentions Philo, whom he also never met...that is ok??

The biggest double freakin' standard I've ever witnessed.

Again. Philo, like Josephus actually wrote things.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Again, that's foolish. It matters very much. Particularly when it isn't even written down by those eyewitnesses, just by folks who might have discussed it with them.

How do you know that the Apostle's Matthew and John didn't write the Gospels that bears their names

Because they weren't signed and the traditional authors weren't added until later. Duh.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And then waited 20 years to write it down? That's a big problem.

It is a problem for YOU. Who are you to tell someone when to write something down? You are not the "write it down" police. And again, he was writing to the Church in Corinth, which means that Christianity had already spread from Jerusalem to Corinth, which is about 1890 miles http://www.distancebetweencities.net/jer...ia_greece/

And this was WITHOUT the Gospels....so no wonder Christianity took off even further after that.

If no one writes a thing till twenty years later, especially if it is of general importance, it probably didn't happen. What more needs to be said?

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Mormonism for example is pretty unbelievable as is, but imagine who much more unbelievable if Smith waited twenty years to write down what was in the golden tablets.

Jenny, regardless of how you think it should have gone, it is still the world's largest religion. So again, what you are proposing SHOULD have happened just wasn't needed.

It is like a music artist going platinum just by selling cd's from the trunk...with no radio promotion...no music videos...no magazine covers or articles...and STILL going platinum...it is rather amazing.

Christianity didn't need any of that special treatment, because as long as God was behind the wheel, it was gonna happen regardless of what anyone thought, said, or did.

oooooh Now wer'e adding god behind the wheel. Once again we're begging the question. If there's no evidence because of god then it doesn't follow that there's Jesus unless there is god.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sorry, a man talking after death is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I feel that inanimate matter coming to life is also a extraordinary claim.

Good for you. Explain dust becoming man. Seriously. I don't know how life came about. WTF has that got to do with proof of the historical Jesus?

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It can hardly be taken for evidence of the resurrected man's life if the "witness" never knew the man when he was alive.

Well, Paul said that he appeared to Peter and the other apostles, and they knew him when he was alive...but that doesn't count tho, right? Or are you gonna move the goal post again?

And not that it matters whether or not Paul knew Jesus anyway...as God can appear to anyone he wants to whether the person knows him or not.

Third, Paul may have not known Jesus, but he certainly knew OF Jesus, which is actually better than knowing him...I would rather someone know OF me that know me...because if they know OF me, then that would mean word got out about me...and I find that...BETTER.

Stories of the supernatural need a great deal more than that to believable. Want to talk about the evidence for Nessy? There's more of that.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read his post.

Still stands. Read his first post about Peter v Peter.

HM if i see you in hell I'm going to just point and laugh at you.
Also i will really enjoy the theists disparity and tell them to get over it because
well god only loves specific people.

(December 3, 2014 at 12:22 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: If I choose to ignore 50+ pages of debate... (assuring you that facts, such as 2+2=4, are demonstrable, and that your faith, by definition, is not).

...Which seems to be something you've quite adeptly perfected.

Huh?