Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 20, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote:
(September 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: It's very much akin to why vehement street preachers in the US, who go up to people shouting "YOU ARE SINFUL TRASH!!11", never get converts: he's on overbearing, angry dick.
Not even close. Those street assholes are intruding with unsolicited views. The theists here are here on their own volition, and are quite likely looking for debate and discouse...not conversion or to be converted. Time tells the tale.
Manacle- you're young and think you know the score...but trust me, you don't.
(September 20, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How does this relate to anything in my post?
Lol. Even though that’s not relevant to my point, thank you. I tried to go back and fix it but it wouldn’t let me edit the post.
Non-sense, reasoning from scripture is a form of deduction.
You do realize that none of this is accepted by scholars and is only perpetuated by the internet right? There is no evidence that any of Christ’s stories were borrowed from Pagan myths; in fact there is substantial evidence to doubt that this is even a possibility.
As it is also possible that George Washington is a mythical character but I see no reason to believe that is the case.
The Jews thought Jesus was a false prophet and the Romans only viewed him as a Jewish criminal. The Romans rarely mention their own Prefects so it is remarkable that they mentioned Jesus at all.
Very questionable? According to whom? Historians accept Josephus’ and Tacitus’ references to Jesus.
Historians, secular and religious, vehemently disagree with this sort of statement.
Thanks for the response! You don’t have to fight DP’s battles for him though, he’s a big boy.
I know what he said, but he has provided no actual reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus besides the fact that he does not find the evidence compelling which is a merely arbitrary reason.
No, it’s an inference.
Words have meanings.
“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today
What do you mean by extraordinary? I thought atheists believed that Christ-like stories were all over the place at that time, but now you’re telling me that Jesus’ story was unique? Well, which is it?
I wouldn’t, I knew you assumed the Bible was false a priori which is exactly what the Bible says you do.
When I first heard that there was a man named Socrates I did not automatically assume that he did not really exist.
It was indeed irrelevant, which was my point. He found little evidence in comparison to his own arbitrary and unrealistic expectations of what he would find which demonstrates nothing. I think there is far more evidence for Jesus than I would have expected to find given is socio-economic status and region he lived in.
An example please.
That’s merely speculation.
Historians believe Jesus was put to death by Pilate. In fact, all but one of the few times Pilate is ever mentioned is in reference to Jesus. Even Roman historians believed it was more important to mention Pilate because he put Jesus to death than to simply mention him as one of their own Prefects. Remarkable eh?
This is an unreasonable standard not held by historians. When learning of Rome it is not inappropriate to cite Roman historians. When learning about early Christianity it is not inappropriate to cite early Christian writings; you are not allowed to construct a special set of rules for this one historical figure.
…but not totally silent, which is amazing. The most powerful empire on Earth took the time to mention a humble Jewish carpenter in an unimportant region of their empire. Again, nothing short of remarkable.
Again, we’re not dealing with proof. Ehrman has an entire book on the subject. You’re not debating with Ehrman though, so it is completely reasonable for me to rely upon the testimony of such experts. You’ve got nothing of your own to rely upon, not even a handful of experts.
There is no proof that any historical figure existed; do you therefore reject all of history now? Like all Mythicists you are adopting a special and completely arbitrary standard for Jesus that you do not apply to anyone else in history, which is logically fallacious.
You’re absolutely right! I should totally put the fact that you think science deals with proof in my signature.
“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today
Define “woo”.
Josephus mentions Jesus as well. Fail. Don’t bother trying to argue that both references to Jesus by Josephus are merely Christian interpolations, that is merely self-serving speculation and not accepted by historians (even Ehrman accepts Josephus’ references to Jesus as valid evidence).
Because that means Tacitus is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
The man who wrote an entire book demonstrating Jesus existed? Ok.
That’s not true at all. You’re just engaging in special pleading.
Demonstration needed.
Assertion, demonstration needed.
“All evidence that contradicts my view of reality must be tossed out and ignored!” is not a rational position. I am glad we live in the world where even secular scholars laugh at people like you.
You can thank people like Min and Chuck for that.
I feel honored for being mentioned in your post. I am sorry for your loss, but out of curiosity why would that even bother you if you know hell does not exist? I really don’t let it bother me when atheists tell me what awaits me after death because I know they are wrong.
I’ve always viewed that as a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise great forum (but I guess it proves that atheists really are not as moral as they claim to be). The most rude, crude, and immature poster on the site also being the most popular poster is not something I’d brag about if I were an atheist.
There are some great posters on here, and they are the reason I have such high regards for this site. Take for instance DeistPaladin- he and I agree on very little (nothing comes to mind), but I genuinely respect him and enjoy my discourse with him. I wish there were more posters like you and him on here but there just isn’t. I suppose it has gotten better though, when I first got on this site it was like the freaking Octagon (I even had someone on here try to steal my identity, scary stuff); all but a couple of those militant atheists are gone now.
War and Peace is a haiku compared to this! TL;DR
I do not think he is saying min is like a street preacher because that is very far from the truth. I think he is saying the effect is the same though when we make fun of theists.
And start you make Harry potter look like a pamphlet.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
