Why would evidence for jesus need to be alot?  I think, that if your chosen example for comparison is hannibal, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I love that you're tripling down and rewording the same contention as though it weren't vapidly transparent.

Watch how easy this is.  Hannibal is mythical and legendary, just like jesus.
(crossed the fucking alps with a train of elephants my ass...lol)

ru-roh.

Quote:By that logic, the vast majority of respected Atheist Historians and scholars (who accept his historicity) are not ''true Atheists'' either because they do not toe the line.

You see, Mess.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks.  Also don't tell  us what "atheists" think.  You have enough trouble with your own bullshit.  I am not, like you, always looking for some "authority" to tell me that I'm right.  I am capable of independently evaluating evidence and all you have are the rantings of later believers who survived the purges of your 'holy' church long enough to make it into the Big Book of Fables. 

Find some real evidence.  You have singularly failed to do that.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why would evidence for jesus need to be alot?  I think, that if your chosen example for comparison is hannibal, you're barking up the wrong tree.  I love that you're tripling down and rewording the same contention as though it weren't vapidly transparent.

Watch how easy this is.  Hannibal is mythical and legendary, just like jesus.
(crossed the fucking alps with a train of elephants my ass...lol)

ru-roh.

It's not a ''re-wording'' as I explicitly clarified my point in my original post - it's you who willfully misinterpreted it and used it a strawman, attempting to assert that I said ''No Jesus = No History'' is either a genuine misinterpretation or disingenuous. The context of my post was attempting to stress the historical standard of the ancient world.

-and yet you continue...and do not respond to my explicit demonstration of why your "point" is hollow. The historical standard of the ancient world is, firstly, not so low as you'd have us believe.....but it doesn't matter that your implication is less-than-factual, because even if it were entirely true, that does not speak to or argue against a mythicist position, because it -cannot- even if we grant the assumptions.

Do you understand?

You'd be the first to deny that all the other gods ever written about had a similar historical grain of truth, Mess.  If we don't need a historical Osiris or Vishnu to create religions we don't need any fucking jesus, either.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:By that logic, the vast majority of respected Atheist Historians and scholars (who accept his historicity) are not ''true Atheists'' either because they do not toe the line.

You see, Mess.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks.  Also don't tell  us what "atheists" think.  You have enough trouble with your own bullshit.  I am not, like you, always looking for some "authority" to tell me that I'm right.  I am capable of independently evaluating evidence and all you have are the rantings of later believers who survived the purges of your 'holy' church long enough to make it into the Big Book of Fables. 

Find some real evidence.  You have singularly failed to do that.

You do care what people think.

Your comments towards me proved it.

Instead of just tackling my argument - you attempted to label me as not an Atheist. Another user did this, and you agreed with him --- this blatantly happened, so attempting to deny it is up to you - that is quite damning, because you made Atheism a label which can be given to people with differing opinions.

Perhaps that you're ''independently'' trying to look is the problem; I cross-check my arguments with scholarly standard - I don't say ''I think this might not be true'' because that's not how analysis works; you ''don't care what people think'' because your argument doesn't hold up once put to a scholary standard, you need to apply it to a standard of which it is studied in, hence:

Quote:More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives.

Either way, you attempted to dismiss dissenting opinion as ''non Atheist'' which suggests you view Atheism as an ideology, which is something it is clearly not.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You'd be the first to deny that all the other gods ever written about had a similar historical grain of truth, Mess.  If we don't need a historical Osiris or Vishnu to create religions we don't need any fucking jesus, either.

I hope this example is a joke.

All this thread needs, to settle the debate now and forever, is some "jesus".   It;s the only thing no one ever seems to bring. Fucker just loves to keep people waiting I guess.
(lol, I see that we're now making special pleas....for our special pleas, classic)

(June 7, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: All this thread needs, to settle the debate now and forever, is some "jesus".   It;s the only thing no one ever seems to bring. Fucker just loves to keep people waiting I guess.
(lol, I see that we're now making special pleas....for our special pleas, classic)

He got blown out of our asses.

(June 6, 2015 at 4:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Wow, you've got it in for us huh? It seems you are the one with the emotional attachment to be honest. Why is it so upsetting if we aren't convinced by the evidence that you accept?

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.