How to tell a real freethinker

[frz]

Would you stop compalining about him if he did speak to you? No. And he knows that. Which is why he mostly talks to praying grandmothers I assume.

Well, can somebody get grandma in here for questioning then?

---

The proof for atheism is simple. I looked everywhere, ask all the witnesses and advocates for the god who wasn't there and guess what? He's no where to be found. He's not even invisible. He doesn't exist like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[radorth]

Well, can somebody get grandma in here for questioning then?

---

HA!!!
Good one!

---

Speaking of fallacies, here is one that unbelievers do every day. It's called "false in one part, therefore false in all."

I do not think that only parts of the bible are false. I know that the entire book is fictitious.

Really? How do you know that?

---

Wait I know.

"Cuz I'm a freethinker."

[Esquilax]

Really? How do you know that?

---

Wait I know.

"Cuz I'm a freethinker."

No, because it's demonstrably wrong on far too many counts to be taken seriously anymore. For someone chastizing us for not living up to the name freethinker, you really don't seem too interested in any point of view that doesn't agree with your own, you know.

[Violet]

How to tell a real freethinker

Probably the same way you tell if someone is a real Scotsman: look fer 'is dress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

[Minimalist]

The "historic fact" refers to the fact that the early Christians were persecuted, in case you were confused about that. The Romans, et al, recorded their own widespread persecutions of Christians, until Constantine put an end to it.

You don't know your ass from your elbow, sonny. Grow the fuck up and learn some shit. Start by putting that stupid fucking bible down.


http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index....0062104526

In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.

According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity's inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.

Moss, however, exposes that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.

[radorth]

No, because it's demonstrably wrong on far too many counts to be taken seriously anymore. For someone chastizing us for not living up to the name freethinker, you really don't seem too interested in any point of view that doesn't agree with your own, you know.

I made plenty of unanswered points, so I could say the same. But answer Durant's points here then:

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies -- for example, Hammurabi, David, Socrates -- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

[Esquilax]

I made plenty of unanswered points, so I could say the same. But answer Durant's points here then:

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies -- for example, Hammurabi, David, Socrates -- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

Okay.

Well, for one thing, there's nothing terribly compelling about Durant's objections here; it doesn't matter how compelling the Jesus personality is, or how glitteringly bright his ethics (some argument there from me, both to the actual ethical nature of Jesus' teachings and their originality besides) nor the supposed flaws that any inventor would have kept from their fiction. Why would any of that matter? Why would any of that testify to the reality of the man, let alone his divinity? Fictional characters can be compelling and ethical too, even if they've got some negative traits or events in their stories. This is merely an appeal to emotion, a desperate attempt to conflate happy feelings with evidence and facts.

Besides, even if it were all true, everything Durant says about the history of Jesus and his wonderful ethics and personality, that doesn't say one damn jot about his divinity, which is the only part of this worth talking about.

Also, you're misunderstanding me anyway; when I say things in the bible are demonstrably wrong, I'm talking about a whole host of other things that the bible claims, and yet are contradicted by scads of real world, scientifically verifiable evidence: there was no great flood, the earth was not formed in six days, nor where all the animals therein created in their current forms. The earth and the universe it inhabits are far older than the bible would indicate, and there's a good possibility that we are not the only life in the universe. A supposedly inerrant and divinely inspired book should not have so many errors, yes?

[radorth]

Well, for one thing, there's nothing terribly compelling about Durant's objections here; it doesn't matter how compelling the Jesus personality is, or how glitteringly bright his ethics (some argument there from me, both to the actual ethical nature of Jesus' teachings and their originality besides) nor the supposed flaws that any inventor would have kept from their fiction. Why would any of that matter? Why would any of that testify to the reality of the man, let alone his divinity? Fictional characters can be compelling and ethical too, even if they've got some negative traits or events in their stories. This is merely an appeal to emotion, a desperate attempt to conflate happy feelings with evidence and facts.

Not at all. It's an appeal to simple reason which juries use in fact finding all the time. In fact it is essential that they use the same logic to arrive at a just verdict.

Besides, even if it were all true, everything Durant says about the history of Jesus and his wonderful ethics and personality, that doesn't say one damn jot about his divinity, which is the only part of this worth talking about.

Sorry, this fallacious argument has a name: "Moving the goal posts."

Also, you're misunderstanding me anyway; when I say things in the bible are demonstrably wrong, I'm talking about a whole host of other things that the bible claims,

Do those include a contiuous rejection of God's commands, his prophets, his Son and his Son's teachings by all but a few people?

not to mention and yet are contradicted by scads of real world, scientifically verifiable evidence: there was no great flood, the earth was not formed in six days, nor where all the animals therein created in their current forms. The earth and the universe it inhabits are far older than the bible would indicate, and there's a good possibility that we are not the only life in the universe. A supposedly inerrant and divinely inspired book should not have so many errors, yes?

That is a major logical error too, called "False in one part, therefore false in all." If half of one single book is true, your faulty "logic" would never permit you to know which part is true. May you never sit on a jury either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah foreplay. Got any evidence Radorth?

[Esquilax]

Sorry, this fallacious argument has a name: "Moving the goal posts."

That depends on what the goalposts you originally had were: Are you trying to argue that Jesus was the son of god, or that he was a good person? Only if you were strictly trying to prove the latter would my argument be moving the goalposts, and frankly, I'd be mystified if you were only trying to argue that point to begin with.

Do those include a contiuous rejection of God's commands, his prophets, his Son and his Son's teachings by all but a few people?

Depends: can you prove that your special brand of christianity is correct, and all the other denominations, and all the other religions, are wrong?

That is a major logical error too, called "False in one part, therefore false in all." If half of one single book is true, your faulty "logic" would never permit you to know which part is true. May you never sit on a jury either.

Think of it this way: if something is truly divinely inspired, it shouldn't have any falsities in it, should it?

And let's extend this jury thing: should I as a juror take a witness seriously if he's proven to have lied under oath over and over and never retracted or corrected a single word of those falsehoods?