Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

back on topic, you "atheists" appear to be trusting in theology (thus either retards or hypocrites), and often make weak self serving arguments, just like theists.

How do we trust in theology?

This'll be good.

[rsb]

back on topic, you "atheists" appear to be trusting in theology (thus either retards or hypocrites), and often make weak self serving arguments, just like theists.

How do we trust in theology?

This'll be good.

Go back to the beginning of the thread, do you seek to prove that there was no historical jesus based on any evidence, if so state your evidence.

I will assume you cower in fear before my knowledge of evolution and biochemistry.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

How do we trust in theology?

This'll be good.

Go back to the beginning of the thread, do you seek to prove that there was no historical jesus based on any evidence, if so state your evidence.

I will assume you cower in fear before my knowledge of evolution and biochemistry.

You assume wrong.

And my evidence of Jesus not existing?

The fact that less 'significant' historical figures are corroborated by various accounts more than 500 years before his alleged birth?

Yet he is corroborated by...

Well.

[rsb]

are you a sock puppet?

[Mr. Moncrieff]

are you a sock puppet?

Are you a strawman?

[fr0d0]

lol

Well that's an hilarious stand off!

[Mr. Moncrieff]

There is no derivative, contemporary or comparative evidence for the existence of Joshua Ben Joseph as a blessed messiah.

This posited version of 'a Christ' is almost certainly a Euhemeristic concept suggested by highly zealous Pauline ideology. It is crucial to point out that in the Jewish people of this period, you have a culture that viewed the deification of once living people as a normal part of history but they were quick to claim divine inspiration for such an occasion.

Compound that by making the Messianic search that of utmost importance in the conceptualised notions of Judaism, and you have a recipe wherein people are literally straining at the leash to imbue someone, ANYONE with the myth of deification.

There are multiple contradictions across the synoptic gospels, to the point that almost no correlation exists.
The primary and secondary provenance of these documents is laughable. Authorship can be thoroughly questioned, dating is woeful, original texts are non existent and the match up with accepted history and geographical topography is just funny.

[Esquilax]

Go back to the beginning of the thread, do you seek to prove that there was no historical jesus based on any evidence, if so state your evidence.

So essentially you seek to shift the burden of proof away from those making the claim and toward those disbelieving it?

[MitchBenn]

At this VERY MOMENT there's an Australian dude going round the world telling people he's the son of God. He DEFINITELY exists. I saw him on This Morning with Phil & Holly.

Does the fact of his existence have ANY bearing on the validity of his claim?

I think the MAIN reason to steer clear of debating the historicity or otherwise of Jesus if at all possible is that it's irrelevant to the question of the existence of gods. At any given moment there's SOMEBODY going round announcing his own divinity - back in the early 90s Davids Icke and Koresh were at it simultaneously - all of which only goes to suggest that if Jesus DID live 2000 years ago, statistically at least he's far more likely to have been just another nutcase than anything else.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

At this VERY MOMENT there's an Australian dude going round the world telling people he's the son of God. He DEFINITELY exists. I saw him on This Morning with Phil & Holly.

Does the fact of his existence have ANY bearing on the validity of his claim?

I think the MAIN reason to steer clear of debating the historicity or otherwise of Jesus if at all possible is that it's irrelevant to the question of the existence of gods. At any given moment there's SOMEBODY going round announcing his own divinity - back in the early 90s Davids Icke and Koresh were at it simultaneously - all of which only goes to suggest that if Jesus DID live 2000 years ago, statistically at least he's far more likely to have been just another nutcase than anything else.

Did the man on This Morning turn water into wine or raise a person from the dead?

I'm sure it would documented if he did.