MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Jackalope]

The audience you are attempting to convince.

Well, I remain unconvinced at the less than convincing objections and "at least I tried" refutations of my arguments.

You aren't part of the audience, jackass. Of course you're convinced by your own argument.

In any case, to claim that you made a compelling case in your first thread was complete fiction.

It was compelling to me.

Care to name one person in the thread, besides yourself, who was convinced?

Honestly, these threads should be merged to keep the bullshit all in one place.

And more than half of the bullshit comes right off of some of you all's fingertips.

You're a regular comedian.

[His_Majesty]

I don't believe in your god

Which is irrelevant to the claim of knowledge that you displayed, which you were asked to prove.

, and I find the arguments that you marshal in support of your faith to be laughably inconclusive.

I wouldn't expect anything different.

Now, I won't try to prove that your god doesn't exist, because I'm not in the habit of wasting my time presenting thoughtful arguments to childish jackasses who don't bother to read links presented to them, as you did above to Cato.

In order for you to look at Cato's intellectual ass whooping, you would have to look past your own.

I'm also not in the habit of saving idiots from their own delusions, because I'm of the belief that those delusions will generally exert their own punishment in the end, for the deluded person who cannot think to escape his own mental shackles.

Who said anything about saving? I asked you to prove the claim of knowledge you made, and you obviously can't...so now you are giving me rhetoric.

[Spooky]

If I had known how entertaining this place was I would have joined much sooner!

[His_Majesty]

Well, I remain unconvinced at the less than convincing objections and "at least I tried" refutations of my arguments.

You aren't part of the audience, jackass. Of course you're convinced by your own argument.

Reading comprehension. I am the audience when it comes to judging whether or not the objections that you people make hold weight to my arguments, which they don't.

Care to name one person in the thread, besides yourself, who was convinced?

No not in the thread, but I can give statistical data which show that over 2 billion people in this world IS convinced. So this thread isn't even one half of a pepperoni on a very large pizza.

So in other words, what I am saying is...on a small scale, people agree with you, but on a large scale, people agree with me.

[The Valkyrie]

You aren't part of the audience, jackass. Of course you're convinced by your own argument.

Reading comprehension. I am the audience when it comes to judging whether or not the objections that you people make hold weight to my arguments, which they don't.

Care to name one person in the thread, besides yourself, who was convinced?

No not in the thread, but I can give statistical data which show that over 2 billion people in this world IS convinced. So this thread isn't even one half of a pepperoni on a very large pizza.

So in other words, what I am saying is...on a small scale, people agree with you, but on a large scale, people agree with me.

Numbers fallacy.

I love number fallacies!

5 billion people in the world aren't Christians so Christianity must be wrong.

Over half the world's population lives in Asia or is of Asian descent, so being non-Asian must be wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't believe in your god

Which is irrelevant to the claim of knowledge that you displayed, which you were asked to prove.

I didn't say "knowledge", dumbass. I'm not a gnostic atheist. I just find your particular conception of deity to be hysterically childish and so full of internal contradictions that it collapses under its own weight.

Who said anything about saving? I asked you to prove the claim of knowledge you made, and you obviously can't...so now you are giving me rhetoric.

I said that -- can't you read? I don't consider you worth saving from your own delusions, especially after you've shown your refusal -- or is it inability? -- to read countervailing evidence.

As we say down here, "Never try to teach a pig to talk. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[Strider]

No not in the thread, but I can give statistical data which show that over 2 billion people in this world IS convinced. So this thread isn't even one half of a pepperoni on a very large pizza.

So in other words, what I am saying is...on a small scale, people agree with you, but on a large scale, people agree with me.

Sweeping blanket statement is sweeping. On a large scale, perhaps many Christians agree with you. On a larger scale, the number of other people not prescribing to your particular brand of dogma is even larger. So on a larger scale, more people disagree with you.

So in other words, what I am saying is...fuck your pizza analogy.

[His_Majesty]

Sweeping blanket statement is sweeping. On a large scale, perhaps many Christians agree with you. On a larger scale, the number of other people not prescribing to your particular brand of dogma is even larger. So on a larger scale, more people disagree with you.

This would be an excellent point if it wasn't for the fact that I was talking about the two worldviews of atheism and Christianity, you know, one of which I hold, and the other of which he holds.

But see, I know you were so hell bent on wanting to jump into the conversation without paying attention to the itty bitty details like that...the kind of guy that would sign the contract without reading the fine print first...those small itsy bitsy words that are so tiny yet they mean so much...shit like that.

So in other words, what I am saying is...fuck your pizza analogy.

You've already demonstrated how someone can jump into a conversation without taking the time to comprehend exactly what the hell is going on...so just go back to wherever you came from and we can pretend as if this intellectual spanking never happened.

---

I didn't say "knowledge", dumbass.

Reading comprehension...I said you made a CLAIM of knowledge when you stated that God didn't say it or whatever it was that you said.

Read comprehension people.

I'm not a gnostic atheist. I just find your particular conception of deity to be hysterically childish and so full of internal contradictions that it collapses under its own weight.

I find the concept of naturalism virtually impossible.

[Jackalope]

You aren't part of the audience, jackass. Of course you're convinced by your own argument.

Reading comprehension. I am the audience when it comes to judging whether or not the objections that you people make hold weight to my arguments, which they don't.

Your sample size is too small.

Care to name one person in the thread, besides yourself, who was convinced?

No not in the thread, but I can give statistical data which show that over 2 billion people in this world IS convinced. So this thread isn't even one half of a pepperoni on a very large pizza.

Ah, so by your very own logic, there are more than 5 billion people who *don't* agree with you.

So in other words, what I am saying is...on a small scale, people agree with you, but on a large scale, people agree with me.

And you're still wrong about the facts on that.

(not that argument ad populum isn't a logical fallacy or anything)

In addition, you also claimed you could present data which supported your claim that most historians believe in a historic Jesus, and I not that you utterly failed to support that claim.

Baseless assertion is baseless.

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, "intellectual spanking".

The only "intellectual spanking" happening here is an internet dolt mentally spanking his monkey.