Ask, Seek, Knock

[Drich]

You/we don't know, ergo god.

"We don't know where we came from, ergo god"

"We don't know that the romans didn't write about jesus, ergo god"

Reference something unknown (or more amusingly just assert that something is unknown regardless of whether or not it is), then conclude god. Essentially 90% of your arguments for god, so forgive me if I call BS. You're very familiar with the concept.
Specifically. .wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I did not do this. I am simply keeping your side of the arguement honest. I ca not say "I don't know ergo God" any more than you can say "In the tiny percentage of everything that was recorded in the 1st century we do not have anything written of christ, ergo their was no Christ."

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, hey look, another thinly veiled argument from ignorance.

[Mystic]

While arguments from ignorance are invalid, they sometimes may a strong case regardless. Because often when we can't think of any solution to a problem but one, that solution is the only solution. The argument of evil is actually invalid for this reason, but I still think it's a strong and potent argument that puts the theist on the defense.

[Minimalist]

"In the tiny percentage of everything that was recorded in the 1st century we do not have anything written of christ, ergo their was no Christ."

Point #1 - we do not have any evidence of the Roman empire using machine guns.... that does not leave open the possibility that they did so.
There is no evidence of your godboy from the first century writers who lived at the time and presumably would have been curious about such an absurd story had they heard of it.

Point #2 - you conveniently leave out three facts. One, the decisions on what documents to retain from the Greco-Roman world were made by xtians. That they failed to do so suggests that nothing was written which pertained to the godboy or it would have been celebrated and copied.

Second - the destruction of ancient knowledge was largely carried out by ignorant xtian thugs who thought burning libraries was a great fucking idea. For you to now claim that there is little documentation left is much like the definition of chutzpah: A guy kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan.

Third - xtian forgers and liars made attempts to write the godboy into ancient history which suggests that legitimate references did not exist at all.

Your religion is a fraud.

[Drich]

"In the tiny percentage of everything that was recorded in the 1st century we do not have anything written of christ, ergo their was no Christ."

Point #1 - we do not have any evidence of the Roman empire using machine guns.... that does not leave open the possibility that they did so.
There is no evidence of your godboy from the first century writers who lived at the time and presumably would have been curious about such an absurd story had they heard of it.

Point #2 - you conveniently leave out three facts. One, the decisions on what documents to retain from the Greco-Roman world were made by xtians. That they failed to do so suggests that nothing was written which pertained to the godboy or it would have been celebrated and copied.

Second - the destruction of ancient knowledge was largely carried out by ignorant xtian thugs who thought burning libraries was a great fucking idea. For you to now claim that there is little documentation left is much like the definition of chutzpah: A guy kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he is an orphan.

Third - xtian forgers and liars made attempts to write the godboy into ancient history which suggests that legitimate references did not exist at all.

Your religion is a fraud.

all of these "points" just to mask the fact that you have an incomplete Written Roman Record (say that 5 times fast.) and that you are simly argueing from a position of faith...

It seems that you are only fooling yourself with this arguement Minnie.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's that gap again.

[Drich]

There's that gap again.

If you are bothered by said gap, then You should help minnie close that gap in his line of reasoning. Help him speak from a point of fact rather than speak from a point of faith and mask it as fact.
-or-
Help him to simply admit his faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think Min can handle himself. But I do think it's amusing that since you have found yourself incapable of presenting evidence your only means of lashing out is an attempt to accuse others of faith. One wonders what you hope to achieve with this. You've followed an argument from ignorance with an appeal to hypocrisy. It wouldn't matter if this appeal were factually accurate, it's just another embarrassing chapter in your "work" here. It's almost as if you're intentionally tanking your own talking points.

[John V]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='352611' dateline='1350939887']

Because you make the absurd claim that a dead jew came back to life which would have been BIG FUCKING NEWS in that society.

Can you support that this would have been big news in that society? Others are claiming (perhaps in another thread) that such claims were routine in that time.

[Darkstar]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='352611' dateline='1350939887']

Because you make the absurd claim that a dead jew came back to life which would have been BIG FUCKING NEWS in that society.

Can you support that this would have been big news in that society? Others are claiming (perhaps in another thread) that such claims were routine in that time.

So, if people rountinely made stuff like that up, and there aren't even records for this one, why do you believe it?