Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

Oh nanny nanny poo poo.  You're going from bad to worse, RR.

Sorry I forgot that atheist arguments only apply to the things they want.  I shouldn’t use the “reasoning” elsewhere

I was pointing out the inadequacy of your evidence with sarcasm. That you took it as some sort of constructive principle is simply you being stupid.

[Amarok]

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-...the-bible/

Apologist propaganda

---

We can confirm a lot from writings outside of the Bible about the early beliefs of Christians, what was known of Jesus, and the early practices of the Church

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-...the-bible/

RoadRunner, did you see my critique of Stevels evidence? Do you wan't me to do the same with your link?
It will be trivialy easy. Should I go ahead?

Rip it apart my friend

[Succubus]

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-...the-bible/

Apologist propaganda

---

RoadRunner, did you see my critique of Stevels evidence? Do you wan't me to do the same with your link?
It will be trivialy easy. Should I go ahead?

Rip it apart my friend

The first entry in RRs link:

Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore.

Say fucking what now?

In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus referenced a third-century Christian historian named Julius Africanus, who referenced an unknown writer named Thallus (unknown lifespan, active in 2nd century CE) on the darkness at the crucifixion:

Or did he mean Phallus?

Hay, we don't judge. 

[Amarok]

Apologist propaganda

---

Rip it apart my friend

The first entry in RRs link:

Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore.

Say fucking what now?

In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus referenced a third-century Christian historian named Julius Africanus, who referenced an unknown writer named Thallus (unknown lifespan, active in 2nd century CE) on the darkness at the crucifixion:

Or did he mean Phallus?

Hay, we don't judge. 

I heard both these in Richard Carriers book The Not Impossible Faith

[Succubus]

The first entry in RRs link:


Say fucking what now?


Or did he mean Phallus?

Hay, we don't judge. 

I heard both these in Richard Carriers book The Not Impossible Faith

How come regular people like us, walking around among other regular people would be cringingly embarrassed to make such a faux pas?
And yet there are folk right here in these forums who make cunts of themselves with practically every post they make. And never ever a hint that the rest of the world are mocking them into oblivion.  ut then that's not happening is it.

Nothing gets through to them. How do these people get by on a day to day basis?
How do they eat without poking their eyes out with the fork? How do they put petrol in the car, do they wind down the back window a bit and put the nozzle in the opening?


I've said this before but religion is not the problem, it's a symptom. People are fucking stupid, and that's why I hate them so much. Just one more asteroid please and lets be done with it and then those smug bastard dolphins can have a go.

Ah, but then according to professor Cartman, and I quote:

"If they're so damn smart, how come they get caught in those fishing nets all the time?"

Well, aye, he does have a point. What are those other cleaver cunts, the ones in big fish tanks that come over to the glass and recognise their trainers, sounds like narwhals but without the big spike on their heads. They can do sums n shit.

Nah, they'll probably grow up and learn to be stupid just like the rest of us sad bastards or they'll find a book of stupid and read the fuck out of it and eother way they'll end up fucked. just like us.

Meanwhile a Grahms number of years later the Catholics are still in heaven. The closest hydrogen atoms in the universe is a billion parsecs apart.Knowing there is no way out. The sins of the fathers! You made your choices Christians.

And thers no way out. You can't even kill yourself. Remember god's omnisience?
He knew those sinful thoghts were on your mind so theirs no way he'll let you into heaven anyway.

What's wrong with people?

Catholics!



Look upon our mighty works and despair.

"I am man, I am here".

Jacob Bronowski.

[Minimalist]

Historical scholars care about the WHY and make inferences and tie things together with the WHY.

Yes, but you don't.  You just want some charlatan to tell you that your bullshit is true.  So many of those scholars that you won't read go over your fucking bible with a fine-toothed comb and cannot even agree among themselves what the fuck a historical "jesus" was supposed to have been.  But the ones who are not fundie fuckheads dismiss the miracle stories as nonsense to fool the dolts.  Consider yourself a dolt, Stevie.

[Minimalist]

“The catch is that for most people the New Testament is taken as proof for the conventional picture of Christian origins, and the conventional picture is taken as proof for the way in which the New Testament was written. . . . For this reason the New Testament is commonly viewed and treated as a charter document that came into being much like the Constitution of the United States. According to this view, the authors of the New Testament were all present at the historic beginnings of the new religion and collectively wrote their gospels and letters for the purpose of founding the Christian church that Jesus came to inaugurate. Unfortunately for this view, that is not the way it happened.”

― Burton L. Mack

OH, NOES!   One of those biblical scholars that our resident religitards avoid like the plague!!!

Burton L. Mack (born 1931) is an American author and scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament. He is John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.[1] Mack is primarily a scholar of Christian origins, approaching it from the angle of social group formation. Mack's approach is skeptical, and he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history. He sees the gospels more as charter documents of the early Christian movements, not as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus.

[Huggy Bear]

That's a claim and now that's actual evidence.

Thing is that we need to evaluate the claim and the evidence separately. This is what Huggy didn't understand in the thread about moral behaviour in animals. I used the evidence provided by Frans De Waal but disagreed with his interpretation of that evidence. In other words, the claim.

Uh no...

The claim YOU made was that animals have a sense of morality, and you referenced Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings. The fact that you would reject an experts conclusion of his own research (that YOU referenced), when it contradicts your point speaks volumes.

[Fake Messiah]

Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings.

LOL then how would he call animals? Immoral?

[I_am_not_mafia]

That's a claim and now that's actual evidence.

Thing is that we need to evaluate the claim and the evidence separately. This is what Huggy didn't understand in the thread about moral behaviour in animals. I used the evidence provided by Frans De Waal but disagreed with his interpretation of that evidence. In other words, the claim.

Uh no...

The claim YOU made was that animals have a sense of morality, and you referenced Frans De Waal who expressly stated that he wouldn't call animals moral beings. The fact that you would reject an experts conclusion of his own research (that YOU referenced), when it contradicts your point speaks volumes.

Yes. Because I am also a qualified scientist that has researched the functional role of emotions. That's how science works.

My point still stands though, which you seem unable to grasp. I disagreed with Frans De Waal's claim, not his evidence. This is possible to do in science because the two are specified as such. This is not the case with the Bible or with xtians who do not understand the difference. This is why they end up using circular logic.