Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

Wow, you've got it in for us huh? It seems you are the one with the emotional attachment to be honest. Why is it so upsetting if we aren't convinced by the evidence that you accept?

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.

I suppose, just like calling someone a misogynist over and over again would have a different result.

[Pyrrho]

That is a good question.  This is not his first thread that deals with this topic:

A strange but curious question: if you had a time machine...

The arguments are pretty much the same, over and over again.  I guess he figures that doing the same thing again will give him a different result than it did before.

I suppose, just like calling someone a misogynist over and over again would have a different result.

You seem to be confused about the quote function.  My post in which I stated that you are a misogynist was quoted over and over again.  That was not me writing it over and over, that was people using the quote function.  You might want to read up on how message boards like this one function.

You also are confused about the purpose of the post.  It was a response to someone else, not to you.  I did not expect to convince you of anything with it.

You might also want to work on your skills with links, as yours does not take one to any particular post of mine, but to page 14 of a thread.

You really are exposing yourself to ridicule with the things you state.  Of course I do not expect you to stop doing that.

[Minimalist]

You do care what people think.


Your comments towards me proved it.

Hey, Mess....let's get something straight.  You are here at an Atheist Forum sprinkling jesus dust on the carpet.  I did not track you down and tell you that you were wrong at a xtian sight.  You wandered into the cross-hairs.  I know you think you are fucking brilliant and all the "authorities" you choose to cite are unimpeachable but you are wrong.  YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GODBOY.  All you have are the silly ( at best ) rantings of delusional assholes who also believed in stuff that never happened.

When you can deal with that fact, let me know.  BTW, ask the muslims what I think of their bullshit.

[TheMessiah]

I suppose, just like calling someone a misogynist over and over again would have a different result.

You seem to be confused about the quote function.  My post in which I stated that you are a misogynist was quoted over and over again.  That was not me writing it over and over, that was people using the quote function.  You might want to read up on how message boards like this one function.

You also are confused about the purpose of the post.  It was a response to someone else, not to you.  I did not expect to convince you of anything with it.

You might also want to work on your skills with links, as yours does not take one to any particular post of mine, but to page 14 of a thread.

You really are exposing yourself to ridicule with the things you state.  Of course I do not expect you to stop doing that.

Your post is one page - which is good enough; the rhetoric of ''trying many times expecting a different result'' well-fits the misogynist accusation.

You do care what people think.


Your comments towards me proved it.

Hey, Mess....let's get something straight.  You are here at an Atheist Forum sprinkling jesus dust on the carpet.  I did not track you down and tell you that you were wrong at a xtian sight.  You wandered into the cross-hairs.  I know you think you are fucking brilliant and all the "authorities" you choose to cite are unimpeachable but you are wrong.  YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GODBOY.  All you have are the silly ( at best ) rantings of delusional assholes who also believed in stuff that never happened.

When you can deal with that fact, let me know.  BTW, ask the muslims what I think of their bullshit.

Thanks for not addressing my specific concerns.

Not only did you ignore a significant part of my post, but your post, and arguably, your rhetoric is showing me that you see Atheism as an ideology; which I repeat, is something that it is not and never can be. Hence, my point stands - you are viewing it an a tribalistic lense.

[Cyberman]

Mess, how likely is it that you can present your case and discuss such merits as you consider it to have, without discussing the character and motivations of everyone who doesn't automatically accept your position? See, such posturing and muddying of the waters does suggest to the casual observer that your case is so weak, it can only be amplified by subduing other voices.

[TheMessiah]

Mess, how likely is it that you can present your case and discuss such merits as you consider it to have, without discussing the character and motivations of everyone who doesn't automatically accept your position? See, such posturing and muddying of the waters does suggest to the casual observer that your case is so weak, it can only be amplified by subduing other voices.

I think you are confused, I am not ''subduing'' anyone's voice nor am I attacking their character - I've responding to those claims, it begs to question why I have been accused of being ''pretend Atheist'' at-least two or three times. That's not just ''discussing character motivations'' --- that's me responding to accusations which are a blatant attempt to frame me as ideologically biased; as if being an Atheist is now somehow an ideology.

If by your own admission, discussing character motivations evidences a weak case, then logically speaking, the accusations of calling me a ''pretend Atheist'' for not toeing the line fit that statement quite well; if one's case is so weak that they resort to calling their opponent a Christian, it does in fact do what you just said.

[Cyberman]

You are also impugning the character and motivations of your interlocutors. One is justified in wondering why. Don't you ever say I'm confused again.

[abaris]

I've responding to those claims, it begs to question why I have been accused of being ''pretend Atheist'' at-least two or three times.

That would be because you do nothing but argue the theist case in all of your threads.

[TheMessiah]

You are also impugning the character and motivations of your interlocutors. One is justified in wondering why. Don't you ever say I'm confused again.

Accusing someone of being a ''pretend Atheist'' is not a valid justification; that's an attempt to frame the opponent as ideologically biased - hence I'm using that to simply meet your own criteria of a weak case. I never said Atheism in itself made one bias against religious figures, that would be Anti-Theism.

[TheMessiah]

I've responding to those claims, it begs to question why I have been accused of being ''pretend Atheist'' at-least two or three times.

That would be because you do nothing but argue the theist case in all of your threads.

It's not a Theist claim. It's a Historical claim. There is a difference.

It's not ''Christians believe Jesus existed'' and ''Atheists don't'' --- it's more along the lines of ''Atheist Historians agree he existed'' whereas ''Non Historian Atheists do not.''

It's why the historicity of Jesus is accepted among most Atheist scholars/historians; that changes across Atheist Historians and non-Atheist Historians.