Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement.

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

ANYONE SEE "DRICH" RUN PAST THEIR HOUSE REGARDING MY CHALLENGE ABOVE?

m

Dude, beating your chest over saying something nasty to Drich is the lowest of low-hanging fruits.

FatAndFaithless,


Uh, okay.  Nonetheless, have you seen him around?  I want to add him to my pseudo-christian collection of names on easily refuting his notion 
that Jesus actually existed, okay?

While doing so, you just take your normal position of being a forum "sideline nibbler" where you DO NOT have anything to add
to the discussion at hand, other than to make nondescript insipid statements, okay?  Thanks.

I am sure it was an oversight for you to not call Yahweh Child out upon the same notion in the "Abused by your priest" thread, on page 9, yes?


Kids like FatAndFaithless, ya got to love em, because as Atheists, they are using their training wheels at this time to someday become able to 
actually enter the discussion with relative content.  Therefore, like I do, you have cut them some slack.  




n

---

Well, yeah . . . they do.

But I'm willing to grant them the smallest measure of respect as historical documents, if only to encourage the chew toys to keep coming back. 

The problem with ancient historical documents is that they tend to tell us far more about the times in which they were written than they do about the times they are supposed to be talking about.

So while any document is a "historical document" what it tells us is what later xtians in divergent sects tended to believe at the time they were written.  They don't need a "historical" jesus for that.

Minimalist,

Huh?  Pseudo-christians don't have to prove an historical Jesus that was Yahweh incarnate, or the son of Yahweh, which is the crown jewel and the impetus of their primitive Bronze and Iron Age cultist belief???????  Surely you jest?

I can understand why pseudo-christians try in vain to be insidiously anachronistic, but to give them a pass upon not proving their serial killing Jesus existed is blasphemy!  LOL




m
m

[Crossless2.0]

---

Minimalist
The problem with ancient historical documents is that they tend to tell us far more about the times in which they were written than they do about the times they are supposed to be talking about.

So while any document is a "historical document" what it tells us is what later xtians in divergent sects tended to believe at the time they were written.  They don't need a "historical" jesus for that.



Minimalist,

Huh?  Pseudo-christians don't have to prove an historical Jesus that was Yahweh incarnate, or the son of Yahweh, which is the crown jewel and the impetus of their primitive Bronze and Iron Age cultist belief???????  Surely you jest?

I can understand why pseudo-christians try in vain to be insidiously anachronistic, but to give them a pass upon not proving their serial killing Jesus existed is blasphemy!  LOL




m
m

Wow. Just wow.

You might want to spend a bit of time here before saying stupid shit like, ". . . but to give them a pass . . . ." to Minimalist, of all people. Min doesn't give passes. Ever.

The mere thought of Min giving Christians a pass is so fucking wrong you're in danger of ripping the very fabric of space/time with it.

[Minimalist]

Surely you jest?

I never jest about this shit.

"Jesus" is no more historical than Quetzlcoatl was.

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Surely you jest?

I never jest about this shit.

"Jesus" is no more historical than Quetzlcoatl was.

Minimalist,

YES, you're preaching to the choir! 

Nonetheless, the pseudo-christian puts the cart before the horse, they NEVER think about if the BIBLE JESUS truly existed in the first place. The main reason is the FACT that its too easy to become a member of this primitive Christian cult, whereas you supplicate to the alleged Jesus and throw a few prayers skyward, accept him as you savior, and you're a member post haste!  

Subjectively, you NEVER take away an advantage to make the pseudo-christian even more dumbfounded looking, and where the caveat on this topic, and many others, is we make them think of how primitive their pagan faith actually is, and may get a few of them to jettison their comical belief and enter the 21st century, like I've done many times over the years, whoooo hoooo!  One way of doing this act is to make these fools prove that the BIBLE JESUS existed in the first place!  Every channel they have is some of the most embarrassing apologetics ever seen!  LOL

If Drich is lurking around on this thread, then his inept pseudo-christian mind set knows that he can't prove the  Bible Jesus existed and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath.  As you saw, he conveniently mentions a "Jesus character", whereas, we need the Bible Jesus, where Drich has to prove the alleged one god of the universe named Jesus existed in the time period in question, or the other division of where he is the son of Yahweh god existed.  Seemingly, this is why I haven't heard from him on this topic, and if I ever do, who will have the popcorn and beer processions?  LOL  

WATCH, neither will Drich, Catholic Lady, the ever so inept Yahweh's Child, and of course Phillip2, et al, will touch this topic, but yet they'll still believe by the insidious notion of "faith."
Imagine taking this notion of faith to the REAL WORLD and conducting your life accordingly?  Unfortunately, the innocent kids of the pseudo-christian parents are fed this crap by faith and don't know any better, until some grow of age and leave this damaging "faith" behind where it belongs, in the Bronze and Iron Age of thinking.

The pseudo-christian ruse continues, but New Atheists will stop them dead in their tracks, and always will!!!!




m

[Astonished]

Out of curiosity (and I know this is just peanuts compared to the Jesus historicity thing but I see it as parallel), is there much being done about arguments regarding Joan of Arc and her supposed divine calling, like her 'knowing' the King was just fucking with her and trying to trick her by pretending to be a servant and putting the impostor on the throne?

[Minimalist]

YES, you're preaching to the choir!

I like to think of it as annoying the assholes.

[Astonished]

These kinds of debate topics bother the shit out of me. I mentioned this before in another thread, but it's only by the grace of skeptics humoring the theists (occupying the moral high ground from the start by being congenial in this way) that you can even get to this step. "Do humans ever rise from the dead?" "No." "Did this one particular person do this?" I mean, there's at least half a dozen other debates you'd have to lose to the theists (fat fucking chance) before you could even reasonably approach this one for it to have any point. Because resurrection (or the pretense or any similar act that could be a mistake but seemingly miraculous - miraculous just meaning in defiance of nature as it is understood) in and of itself doesn't have any further implications that can be inferred according to any supernatural-based belief system. You'd be attaching tons of unwarranted, unnecessary contingencies to it. So the lead-up to this debate would have to prove tons of other stuff ahead of time or the entire purpose falls flat on its face. I can't help but wonder if some of the skeptics who engage in debates like this don't realize that, because it seems like a waste of time going through with it unless you make it clear from the start, and your theist opponent acknowledges all of this and agrees not to start attaching all of the conditions that would have required them to win a bunch of other debates beforehand as 'evidence', either for the resurrection or as results of the resurrection.

If that sounded incoherent, I've been awake for almost 24 hours and I'm barely able to keep my eyes open.

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

These kinds of debate topics bother the shit out of me. I mentioned this before in another thread, but it's only by the grace of skeptics humoring the theists (occupying the moral high ground from the start by being congenial in this way) that you can even get to this step. "Do humans ever rise from the dead?" "No." "Did this one particular person do this?" I mean, there's at least half a dozen other debates you'd have to lose to the theists (fat fucking chance) before you could even reasonably approach this one for it to have any point. Because resurrection (or the pretense or any similar act that could be a mistake but seemingly miraculous - miraculous just meaning in defiance of nature as it is understood) in and of itself doesn't have any further implications that can be inferred according to any supernatural-based belief system. You'd be attaching tons of unwarranted, unnecessary contingencies to it. So the lead-up to this debate would have to prove tons of other stuff ahead of time or the entire purpose falls flat on its face. I can't help but wonder if some of the skeptics who engage in debates like this don't realize that, because it seems like a waste of time going through with it unless you make it clear from the start, and your theist opponent acknowledges all of this and agrees not to start attaching all of the conditions that would have required them to win a bunch of other debates beforehand as 'evidence', either for the resurrection or as results of the resurrection.

If that sounded incoherent, I've been awake for almost 24 hours and I'm barely able to keep my eyes open.

Astonished,

Its called the preponderance of the evidence, lack of historicity to prove a point, actual written history to derail an alleged truth, and only relying 
upon "faith" which is not an absolute.  When the dust settles, 99.999% of the time, there was no BIBLE Jesus.

When this topic comes up, and as shown, the pseudo-christian runs away from it as fast as they can.

Again, Carl Sagan said it best relative to pseudo-christians, to wit: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on 
evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” -Carl Sagan (1934-1996)





m

[Astonished]

These kinds of debate topics bother the shit out of me. I mentioned this before in another thread, but it's only by the grace of skeptics humoring the theists (occupying the moral high ground from the start by being congenial in this way) that you can even get to this step. "Do humans ever rise from the dead?" "No." "Did this one particular person do this?" I mean, there's at least half a dozen other debates you'd have to lose to the theists (fat fucking chance) before you could even reasonably approach this one for it to have any point. Because resurrection (or the pretense or any similar act that could be a mistake but seemingly miraculous - miraculous just meaning in defiance of nature as it is understood) in and of itself doesn't have any further implications that can be inferred according to any supernatural-based belief system. You'd be attaching tons of unwarranted, unnecessary contingencies to it. So the lead-up to this debate would have to prove tons of other stuff ahead of time or the entire purpose falls flat on its face. I can't help but wonder if some of the skeptics who engage in debates like this don't realize that, because it seems like a waste of time going through with it unless you make it clear from the start, and your theist opponent acknowledges all of this and agrees not to start attaching all of the conditions that would have required them to win a bunch of other debates beforehand as 'evidence', either for the resurrection or as results of the resurrection.

If that sounded incoherent, I've been awake for almost 24 hours and I'm barely able to keep my eyes open.

Astonished,

Its called the preponderance of the evidence, lack of historicity to prove a point, actual written history to derail an alleged truth, and only relying 
upon "faith" which is not an absolute.  When the dust settles, 99.999% of the time, there was no BIBLE Jesus.

When this topic comes up, and as shown, the pseudo-christian runs away from it as fast as they can.

Again, Carl Sagan said it best relative to pseudo-christians, to wit: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on 
evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” -Carl Sagan (1934-1996)





m

Has there been any attempt to explain why anyone should respect that?

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Astonished,

Its called the preponderance of the evidence, lack of historicity to prove a point, actual written history to derail an alleged truth, and only relying 
upon "faith" which is not an absolute.  When the dust settles, 99.999% of the time, there was no BIBLE Jesus.

When this topic comes up, and as shown, the pseudo-christian runs away from it as fast as they can.

Again, Carl Sagan said it best relative to pseudo-christians, to wit: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on 
evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” -Carl Sagan (1934-1996)





m

Has there been any attempt to explain why anyone should respect that?

Astonished,

Are you saying that one is not to respect logic, reason, written historicity and the lack thereof, revealing biblical axioms, and the like?

Don't make this notion of Jesus' alleged existence harder than it needs to be.


m