RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 20, 2015 at 1:30 am
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2015 at 1:33 am by Won2blv.)
(May 19, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This is a moron who believes a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven because he read it in an old book.
He talks about Homer but Homer speaks of Apollo coming down from Mt Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks. Does our catholick pal think that happened, too? If not, why not? It's written in an old book.
And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey? Why don't I see half men half monkey walking around? OK, so not a real feeling have but I think its on par with what you said. The difference is that maybe you're a little more intellectually foolish sounding.
Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience - Mark Twain
I get it that atheist are not evangelist but if you want to sound reasonable then avoid the ad hominem attacks. Thats my new favorite fallacy
(May 20, 2015 at 1:26 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it.
He assumes the "trueness" of it. But the rest is implausible. Reliable to what? We have no idea what the originals said. What is the standard to determine reliability?
So whats the big deal if before his argument to debate the trueness of it, he sets a foundation. I heard the hosts on Atheist Experience get upset with a caller that was trying to use infinite regress as a logical reason for a creative being of the universe because the caller wasn't owning up to the fact that he believed in the christian god. But what is so wrong with setting a simple foundation?
