Discussions on "Are the Gospels based on a true story?" debate

[Minimalist]

I knew DP would kick chippy's jesus loving ass.

I expect chippy to reply with "if you understood the context then 4 BC and 6 AD are the same."

[FallentoReason]

Jeez... DP you heavyweight! I think I just deconverted again! Behold, I am the world's first atheist^2.

[Aroura]

I'd say DP laid out a very thorough opening argument, and first reply, already. I'm guessing the thread won't last too long, as Chi seems to be using the classic apologists stuff, nothing new at all. Of course, there can't really BE anything new on their end, can there?

[Minimalist]

Nope. Same ole - same ole. It's all they have.

[Simon Moon]

Deist Paladin has already handed him his ass on a plate.

Next up, a lot of tap dancing by Chi Pan.

I'm just waiting for something like, "you have to know how to read and interpret the Bible. If you don't have faith, you can't understand the Bible.".

[Brian37]

I'm seeing a lot of assumption with no sources/explanations to back it up.

Name me one religion that doesn't start with the presuposition that it is the one right religion?

Once you think you are right you can retrofit all sorts of nonsense to justify any holy book.

When anyone of any religion points out historical figures or real places it is till like pretending superman is real because you saw him in the movies flying around New York city.

But no, the godspels were propaganda for a real movement, not a real god. All the success of Christianity proves is the ealily gullible can be lead by the nose through succesfful marketing.

But all religions do that. It is merely the conflation of successful marketing equalling the false assumption that a superstition has any credibility.

[Minimalist]

I just picked up on this line of chippy's...talking about Tacitus' alleged reporting on his godboy.

The only good argument I've heard for this one is that he could have been reporting hearsay rather than fact. If that were the case, however, it would have his usual disclaimer of "these accounts have not been confirmed."

What I wonder is, if this "practice" was so "usual" how come his fucking gospels don't include it with their resurrection horseshit? Talk about accounts that have not been "confirmed."

[Brian37]

Yep that about sums up the title of the thread. I wish society outside this thread would get it, but that is the reason we beat that dead horse, because sometimes people do wake up. It may feel useless in the short term but we have come a long way baby.

[DeistPaladin]

I don't know if it's appropriate for me to post here but I just read Chip's latest response. I'll be responding to it when I get home and have my Bible and other reference materials in front of me. The reason I'm posting this thought here is because it's beside the point of our formal debate and more an observation of how compartmentalized the Christian mind is.

I've often heard this defense from apologists and it amazes me how these Christians can hold these two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time:

1. "The Bible is the Word of God"
2. "Ah, gee whiz, whaddaya want, you nit-picker? So there are a few errors here or a few contradictions there. You expect perfection or something?"

Full disclaimer that this is beside the point of our debate and I don't plan to bring it up but it just astounds me that these two beliefs can be held by the same mind at the same time.

[Minimalist]

I note an astonishing ( but not surprising) lack of fact in his replies. In general all he does is regurgitate bible bullshit which has already been dismissed as being bullshit.

Still, it is the best that these clowns can usually do.