The supreme arrogance of religious thinking

[solja247]

I was supposed to be looking for an encyclopedia for you?

What am I? Your fucking secretary?

My point is that no credible book or encyclopedia believes that idea.

[Minimalist]

And you, of course, are completely incapable of investigating anything that isn't written in some book. You love "authority" don't you.

Are heavier books more authoritative than thinner books?

Time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.

[solja247]

By all means I will take back what I said if it is in any credible books or encyclopedias, but it isnt.

[little_monkey]

Yes, if the Tacitus reference is a fraud then it does become an argument from silence. It means that NO ONE linked Nero with any persecution of xtians. Your religious frauds would much rather rely on a forgery that tells them what they want to hear than seek out facts which might undercut their precious beliefs.


Here is a web site I keep handy which deals with the issue.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm

Tacitus is the only writer to connect the fire with the Christians. Nero was blamed, both at the time and in all other subsequent writers on the fire, and supposedly blamed the Christians for arson. He then condemned “large numbers” of them to be crucified and torched during the night. This must have been a big affair and there must have been “large numbers” of so-called Christians.

In his earlier ‘Histories’ Tacitus has a different attitude. The person in charge of persecutions in Rome was the City Prefect, Police Chief of Rome. Under Nero this was a man described by Tacitus in his ‘Histories’ bk. 3, #65, #75 - “His gentle character made him hate bloodshed and killing... His honesty and fair-mindedness are beyond question.” Flavius Sabinus, brother of Vespasian, was City Prefect of Rome from 56-69, covering the Neronian period of the disputed persecutions! Would a man of this character do the things described in the ‘Annals’ and Sulpicius?

The big question is why the Church Fathers know Nothing of this important information from Tacitus? The two partial manuscripts were found in the Medici library dating from 1313 to 1375. It is only after this time, much after, that the story became almost an Article of Faith about the early Church.

Somewhere along the line, xtian apologists have latched onto the mantra "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is, of course, completely false. Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence. It is not PROOF of absence ( a distinction these shitwits have trouble comprehending ) as a future discovery may overturn our current knowledge on a given subject.

Were I to assert that there was a thriving European city on the site of New York 200 years before the Dutch arrived and were someone to dig down to 15th century levels and find nothing it most assuredly would be evidence that my claim was full of shit. There is always the possibility that the Norse or someone were there but until I present positive evidence that my claim is true it must be rejected as false.

Now, Lit_Mon, I grant you this nuanced look at the world is far too complex for your average Talking-Snake believer but that should not stop us from stomping on them when they utter such pointless crap.

Thanks for the link. I will certainly make use of it.

My opponent keeps asserting that the Roman provinces kept record of every Tom, Dick and Harry who was ever excuted. That these records were sent to Rome, and Tacitus, the most reliable historian in all of history, had accessed to these records, otherwise why would Tacitus mention Christ. This is the argument he has built up.

Any suggestion on how to handle this idiot would be greatly appreciated.

[Minimalist]

You like to set the bar real low for yourself....and for your bullshit religion you really have to.

The ultraviolet tests were only undertaken in late 2008 which is a little quick for print encyclopedias to react to something...but you knew that when you set this ridiculous condition for your "test."

Just so you know. I know it too.

Meanwhile, as can be plainly seen from the photo - the text said "chrestianos" before some monk changed it to "Christianos." I understand that you need forgery to support your godboy. He doesn't exist without it.

That and the failure of any sources prior to the renaissance to refer to the passage in Tacitus or to any notion that Nero persecuted xtians is enough to cast deep doubt on the veracity of xtian claims...your precious encyclopedias notwithstanding!

---

My opponent keeps asserting that the Roman provinces kept record of every Tom, Dick and Harry who was ever excuted.

Your opponent is an asshole. I don't know what else to tell you. Demand that he produce a link to those (non-existent) records. It is true that later xtian forgers tried to write a "report" from Pilate to the Emperor in order to fill in the gap. It was an easily detected fraud and even the church disavowed it. As I recall it was addressed to the Emperor Claudius instead of Tiberius! Even back then, xtians were stupid.


Crucifixion was reserved for slaves and rebels. Common criminals were dispatched in the arena for the amusement of the crowd.

[solja247]

Do I sense special pleading?

I was asking you to prove its credibility, but you couldnt.

Thats all I needed to hear.

Meanwhile, as can be plainly seen from the photo - the text said "chrestianos" before some monk changed it to "Christianos." I understand that you need forgery to support your godboy. He doesn't exist without it.

Ths doesnt bring into question God or Jesus, just the context of the early christians.

[Cerrone]

Meanwhile, as can be plainly seen from the photo - the text said "chrestianos" before some monk changed it to "Christianos." I understand that you need forgery to support your godboy. He doesn't exist without it.

Ths doesnt bring into question God or Jesus, just the context of the early christians.

You're really talking nonsense solja boy..

If you're attempting to understand the invention of the christian god you can't dismiss from your mind the nature and actions of the ealry christians who implimented christianity in the first place. It's like trying to understand how a tree grows and completely ignoring its roots while you're doing it.

Drop the defensive remarks and try and have some perspective about where you're coming from with your arguement.

[Hollenfeuer]

If god really and truly exists, he baked an earth sized cookie for a microbe.

[Anomalocaris]

Do I sense special pleading?

I was asking you to prove its credibility, but you couldnt.

Thats all I needed to hear.

Meanwhile, as can be plainly seen from the photo - the text said "chrestianos" before some monk changed it to "Christianos." I understand that you need forgery to support your godboy. He doesn't exist without it.

Ths doesnt bring into question God or Jesus, just the context of the early christians.

In your opinion, are there reasonable and theoretically falsifiable propositions that, if reasonably falsified by evidence, brings into question god or Jesus?