DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Randy Carson]

Randy thinks his five 'facts' argument is his magic bullet

You can't blame Randy for that....he's just one more mental midget who has been swayed by that con artist Habermas.  Randy, though, does seem impervious to facts.  Wouldn't know one if it bit him on the ass.

Since you've never presented any facts, my ass is in no danger from anything you've posted.

[LastPoet]

No more pages on the word document Randy? Not even the internet? Im sorry if I missed it, but you didn't even take a stab with TAG. I am unimpressed.

[Randy Carson]

I always love these sorts of apologetics, like little echo chambers, where the  apologist presents a simplified version of a contention with his position, and then a list of highly massaged talking points, each one specifically arranged for the apologist to knock down. When he's done painting bullseyes around his bullet holes- all conspicuously without any input from people who actually hold the position he's purporting to rebut- the apologist somehow has it in his head that he's proven his point, rather than just his ability to arrange facsimiles of counterpositions such that his talking points "rebuts" them. It's almost cute, watching them think that going entirely negative in their arguments can add up to positive evidence. So much of apologetics is just about shitting on the real work of others

Esq-

I'll give you this: you appear to be among the brighter members of the forum. So, you may have the ability to actually study the source material that occupies professional historians and to read their analysis of it.

So, why not use your obvious intellectual prowess to explain to everyone here why several thousand PhD's around the globe - each of whom having spent decades of their lives studying ancient languages, travelling to foreign countries, pouring over ancients parchments, scrolls and papyrii, etc - are simply WRONG in their professional judgment that Jesus was a real person and that the five minimal facts that emerge from their studies are valid?

Alternatively, if you do concede that the five minimal facts cannot be denied, then would you care to propose your own theory which takes into consideration and accounts for all five of these facts with greater probability and explanatory scope than the Christian argument for a supernatural resurrection?

Because so far, I don't see that you actually have any real explanation...just a lot of empty denials.

[Randy Carson]

Sure. But it's not the slam-dunk that mythicists and other skeptics believe it to be. This realization enables a more open-minded person to say, "Damn, that's a good argument...perhaps I should take a second look at the Christian argument."

That damn near anything is more likely than a resurection isn't a slam dunk!?!

Then provide YOUR explanation regarding what happened instead of a supernatural event. If you're right, then it should be easy for you to do.

[Randy Carson]

You are not paying attention.

In the the thread, https://atheistforums.org/thread-34162.html, I presented five "minimal facts" accepted by even atheist scholars.

In this thread, I have presented five factors necessary for maintaining a conspiracy.

Although both threads feature five elements, the five facts and the five factors are two different lists.

No, it's not that I'm not paying attention, I'm not paying attention to you or your prior threads.

Noted. I won't expect anymore posts in my threads from you. But you'll be lurking, won't you?

You can post and debate and argue till hell freezes over (hell added for your benefit not mine). You'll never be right. You'll never prove it (maybe to yourself, certainly not to me). Go away until you have irrefutable evidence. To date you have given none.

History is about measuring and evaluating probabilities, MHB. The arguments supporting Christianity just keeping piling up.

When you continue on and on it only supports that you are delusional. Ever heard this definition of insanity? Repeating the same behavior over and over and expecting a different result. I'd suggest you seek help but I believe your idea of help would be a priest and the delusion simply reinforced.

And if you are wrong to deny Christianity, whose help will you seek?

I believe that responding to you here only reinforces your delusions (fantasy and grandeur). I'm going to stop, I hope that others here will also. To continue is simply cruel. It's akin to kicking a puppy that comes every time you call it.

Goodbye.

Well, that's as good an excuse to avoid what you don't want to hear as any other, I suppose: you stop listening for MY benefit.

PS: How's your buddy PiousPaladin?

I do not know this person. Sorry.

[Randy Carson]

So what if all these scholars believe he's was an actual human being?

Ah...so what indeed? You see, Exian, so many members of this forum are taking the intellectually lazy way out: by simply buying into the stupidity of Jesus Mythicism, they can simply not have to think at all. But for real scholars, even atheist scholars who study the material, that is not an option. Jesus existed; now what are they going to do with him?

Unfortunately, before the land can be plowed, planted and harvested, a lot of rocks and stumps have to be ripped out. Mythicism is a big obstacle preventing many atheists from actually evaluating the data that is available about Jesus for themselves.

That's besides your point, which is that this particular human being somehow came back to life, and that that's the most likely occurrence, given that people said so and his tomb was empty.

Do less talking about scholars, and more proving that a resurrection isn't silly.

There are only a handful of alternative theories as to what actually happened (apart from the resurrection simply being true).

The Conspiracy Theory is one of them, and this thread is examining why it fails to persuade.

[Pizza]

We've been over this. "5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty" is not a fact agreed upon by historians. End.

Actually, about 75% of all NT scholars do accept this fact.

And obviously, not all of them accept the supernatural explanation.

75% of how many? This isn't helpful if the sample isn't representative of the population of historians and sampling bias is occurring.

[Exian]

That damn near anything is more likely than a resurection isn't a slam dunk!?!

Then provide YOUR explanation regarding what happened instead of a supernatural event. If you're right, then it should be easy for you to do.

I don't have to know what happened in order to know what didn't happen.

Lets move this away from something you're biased towards: There is an unscalable mountain with a pig on top and an eye-witness who says he saw the pig fly up there. You don't have to know what happened in order to know the pig didn't fly up there.

[Randy Carson]

Then provide YOUR explanation regarding what happened instead of a supernatural event. If you're right, then it should be easy for you to do.

I don't have to know what happened in order to know what didn't happen.

Then you're just asserting that, aren't you? Because you admittedly don't know (and don't seem to care to investigate).

Lets move this away from something you're biased towards: There is an unscalable mountain with a pig on top and an eye-witness who says he saw the pig fly up there. You don't have to know what happened in order to know the pig didn't fly up there.

I'm not biting, Exian.

The Conspiracy Theory is just one alternative explanation of the rise of Christianity. I'm showing why it fails to satisfy.

[Pizza]

I guess pigs can fly.