NationStates Jolt Archive

There is actually more evidence to Scientology than xtainity. Isn't that a kick in the head.
Oh? There is? Please, go ahead, provide.

what would you count as evidence? do yuo reeally think that over half the worlds population, being christian, believed in one man as the son of God. not only that, but the muslims and jews and others, claimimng he did infact exist.

The number of believers is never a really good measure of the validity of a thing. After all, six hundred years ago, most people believed the earth was flat.

what would you count as evidence? do yuo reeally think that over half the worlds population, being christian, believed in one man as the son of God. not only that, but the muslims and jews and others, claimimng he did infact exist.

what would you count as evidence? do yuo reeally think that over half the worlds population, being christian, believed in one man as the son of God. not only that, but the muslims and jews and others, claimimng he did infact exist.

People claim they are abducted by aliens. A lot of people believe aliens exist. I suppose this proves it for you?

u atheist? if so, how did man evolve from ape, y didnt all da other monkeys evolve as well?

do yuo reeally think that over half the worlds population, being christian..

At last count xtianity was about 33% or 2.1 Billion.

Islam is second at 21% or about 1.5 Billion.

Athiesm is third at 16% or about 1.1 Billion.

u atheist? if so, how did man evolve from ape, y didnt all da other monkeys evolve as well?

How does this bolster your claim of divinity? The question on the table is proof of the existence of your 'biblical' 'jesus'. Your deflection is noted however.

Care to take a stab at evidence to the topic?

the belief of God is just that, a belief. Wether u think ull rot in hell or live eternal life in heaven is up to you, as for me and anyone related to me, we go to heaven. Good luck to you, youre gonna need it.

At last count xtianity was about 33% or 2.1 Billion.

Islam is second at 21% or about 1.5 Billion.

Athiesm is third at 16% or about 1.1 Billion.

Can you source this? And does the source have a distribution over areas?

You are delusional if you think those are the only options available.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, it seems you have run out of attempts to prove, so attack and condescend as the new tack?

Really, would you expect any better of him?

the belief of God is just that, a belief. Wether u think ull rot in hell or live eternal life in heaven is up to you, as for me and anyone related to me, we go to heaven. Good luck to you, youre gonna need it.

You are delusional if you think those are the only options available.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, it seems you have run out of attempts to prove, so attack and condescend as the new tack?

the belief of God is just that, a belief. Wether u think ull rot in hell or live eternal life in heaven is up to you, as for me and anyone related to me, we go to heaven. Good luck to you, youre gonna need it.Believe in Jesus - OR GO TO HELL! Swell.

How about that "There is actually more evidence to Scientology than xtainity.", Naughty Slave Girls..?

those are the only two options there are, whether you believe it or not. For some atheist the only option is live, die, become worm food, be digested, worm food, again, so on.

Actually that's the only option for you as well, given no religion around right now believes in physical immortality. You're going to be worm food. What happens to your "soul" if you have one afterwards is immaterial. Pun most heartily intended.

those are the only two options there are, whether you believe it or not. For some atheist the only option is live, die, become worm food, be digested, worm food, again, so on.

lol an atheist not believing in luck, thats a first.

I pulled it off http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I did not see a distribution at first blush.

Muchas gracias.

Can you source this? And does the source have a distribution over areas?

I pulled it off http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I did not see a distribution at first blush.

those are the only two options there are, whether you believe it or not. For some atheist the only option is live, die, become worm food, be digested, worm food, again, so on.

Yawn.

lol an atheist not believing in luck, thats a first.

Well a xtain places all their eggs in the "I hope so" Basket.

Thinkers tend to figure out solutions instead of giving up.

So naughty, how do u think the world came into being? it cant just appear can it? it has to come out of some place. afterall, a "great" atheist thinkr like u, or any other "great" atheist thinkr shud b able to pull dis one off.

Honestly, how old are you? You can't even spell correctly, much less debate meaningfully. Grow up a little, then come debate with us grown-ups.

So naughty, how do u think the world came into being? it cant just appear can it? it has to come out of some place. afterall, a "great" atheist thinkr like u, or any other "great" atheist thinkr shud b able to pull dis one off.

Muchas gracias.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

They show xtianity at 32% and dropping
Islam at 19% and growing
Hinduism at 13% and stable

They separate out Atheism and no religion in a different methodology and show no religion at 12% and dropping.

So naughty, how do u think the world came into being? it cant just appear can it? it has to come out of some place. afterall, a "great" atheist thinkr like u, or any other "great" atheist thinkr shud b able to pull dis one off.

How does this bolster your position on the existence of the 'godman'?

Come on, try to stay on topic. These wild tangents are just showing your inability to debate on topic.

How does this bolster your position on the existence of the 'godman'?

Come on, try to stay on topic. These wild tangents are just showing your inability to debate on topic.

Not to mention the resorting to ad hominem. You have to admit, though, he is entertaining. For what it's worth.

how do u kno this adherents.com is accurate? what, did Darwin and his monkeys make it for ya.

how do u kno this adherents.com is accurate? what, did Darwin and his monkeys make it for ya.

Why don't you read about the methodology before attempting to impune it's credibility? I actually read your bible. Did you?

the topic is about jesus, yet that does not mean that i cannot ask u a simple question, seeing how this is about religion and ur an atheist. actually giv me an answer instead of sayin im off topic

the topic is about jesus, yet that does not mean that i cannot ask u a simple question, seeing how this is about religion and ur an atheist. actually giv me an answer instead of sayin im off topic

I suggest you start a thread on the subject. That way, you won't look like you are squirming so badly on topic.

yet again you give me no answer

Any atheist with half a brain doesn't think earth just popped into existance. It's called the big bang theory, and honestly you're the 1st person I know of who hasn't heard of it, including religious types. Get your facts straight before you say something.

So naughty, how do u think the world came into being? it cant just appear can it? it has to come out of some place. afterall, a "great" atheist thinkr like u, or any other "great" atheist thinkr shud b able to pull dis one off.

yet again you give me no answer

If you expect people to think you're serious (right now I happen to think you're a troll puppet), then you're going to have to start writing instead of just typing. That means meaningful sentences and proper spelling as well as actually replying to what people say. Even if you're trolling, doing so would make it more effective.

the topic is about jesus...

Yes, but which one?

Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada (He was actually crucified)

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

So out of curiousity...which was it?

Yes i kno abput the big bang theory, just because i didnt mention it doesnt mean i havnt heard of it. Besides, if the BBT is real, den wat blew up, nothing?

Yes, but which one?

Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada (He was actually crucified)

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

So out of curiousity...which was it?

Actually what it should alert you to is that over time other religions were incorporated into Christianity, not that there isn't an palpable origin. Proving Christmas wasn't the birthday of Christ just proves Christmas is messed up but nothing about Christianity.

Incidentally, when you talk about spelling things properly, you might try typing Christian. I promise, you won't be struck by lightning.

yet again you give me no answer

Ask about the topic and I would be happy to answer. I just don't think a tangent on the origin of the species, where silicon comes from, or the mating habits of Martian bacteria would help your claim.

lol im not here to b spelling right, although i agree it makes people think you serious, im just here 'cause im bored.

Naughty and others out there, what makes you believe or disbelieve in a religion? I just want to see where we stand on this.

Believe in Jesus - OR GO TO HELL! Swell.

How about that "There is actually more evidence to Scientology than xtainity.", Naughty Slave Girls..?

You haven't learned the cardinal rule of NSG. There are often people who attempt to discredit a group by, first, pretending they are all homogenous, and, second, only addressing the weakest arguments presented by the weakest debators.

That's what she's doing. That's why you'll find several mentions of how Christians behave as if they're a hive mind. Gross generalizations are generally the first sign of an agenda instead of a rational discussion.

Apologies if this was already posted ad nauseum: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ Part I explains where it all began. My opinion? No proof for the Jesus. Just because we don't know how we got here, doesn't mean it had to be some magical being. We used to believe a lot of whack shit, and now we know better.

But you just keep wanting to say the same thing over and over again, as if often repeating it might somehow make it true
.

Your quite guilty of the same thing friend.
Your religious views clearly cloud your own judgement.
I would say since your certainly not a biblical scholar, your opinion is equally as worthless as mine. I can show you the wiki articles again if you like, that highlight the debate around those books if you like, but once again, you will ignore them and pretend that they were written five minutes after Jesus' supposed death.

The simple fact of the matter is that neither you, nor I know for certain.

I think its possible a couple of them may have been written around 70-80 ad, but again, this is just supposition on my part, as oppossed to religious fervor on yours.

One again, the possible dates are anywhere between 70-110 ad for the earliest ones.

Think Im wrong?
PROVE ME WRONG, or kindly shut the hell up.
Have a nice day.

Actually what it should alert you to is that over time other religions were incorporated into Christianity, not that there isn't an palpable origin.

If xtianity is a hodge-podge as you suggest, it merely invalidates it as a religion. So how does this help your argument?

Proving Christmas wasn't the birthday of Christ just proves Christmas is messed up but nothing about Christianity.

Perhaps, but it is the date chosen by the 'church' as the date to perform the rituals and pageantry. I am not clear as to how this is relevant to proving existence.

Incidentally, when you talk about spelling things properly, you might try typing Christian. I promise, you won't be struck by lightning.

I never indicated nor pointed out any spelling errors. You have erroneously attributed that to me. Incidently, xtian is shorthand. You may do well to focus on the topic and not concentrate on the minutia of spelling. grammar, and origins of birthdates.

If xtianity is a hodge-podge as you suggest, it merely invalidates it as a religion. So how does this help your argument?

Um, no, it doesn't. If science gets something wrong or if someone tries to call something scientific that isn't, does that make science invalid or only those who support whatever it is that's invalid? I know the answer. It would really help you here if you did.


Perhaps, but it is the date chosen by the 'church' as the date to perform the rituals and pageantry. I am not clear as to how this is relevant to proving existence.

It's not. It's relevant to discussing the fact that something being invalid about what certain sects practice doesn't invalidate an entire religion. You completely missed that point.



I never indicated nor pointed out any spelling errors. You have erroneously attributed that to me. Incidently, xtian is shorthand. You may do well to focus on the topic and not concentrate on the minutia of spelling. grammar, and origins of birthdates.

No, xtian is not shorthand. Christian is the term. If you're too lazy to actually spell it out, then perhaps you're not really putting the level of effort into this conversation it deserves, which would explain why you couldn't follow my point. The origin of the birthdate isn't the point. In fact, the point was how the origin of the birthdate says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of a religion. Thank you for agreeing, though it pretty much points out everything wrong with your point.

EDIT: For those who aren't aware, the X as an abbreviation is the result of ignorance and bad translation, much like the "virgin" birth. In Greek a letter that looked like an X was used, called Chi. It was not an X however, and an accurate way of carrying on that tradion would be Ctian, not Xtian.

Um, no, it doesn't.

Sure it does.

If science gets something wrong or if someone tries to call something scientific that isn't, does that make science invalid

No. It makes the theory invalid. Therefore in the theory that your 'godman' exists, by adding extraneous and fallacious arguments, merely invalidates the theory. So by extrapolation, a patchwork religion, based and plaigerized on previously debunked or fallatious material, invalidates the theory on it's face.

or only those who support whatever it is that's invalid? I know the answer. It would really help you here if you did.

The problem here is your argument is a sieve.

(pertaining to a supposed birthdte) It's not. It's relevant to discussing the fact that something being invalid about what certain sects practice doesn't invalidate an entire religion. You completely missed that point.

Actually you missed the point. You cannot claim a religion is fact based on the assumption that a lack of a protest = fact.

No, xtian is not shorthand. Christian is the term. If you're too lazy to actually spell it out, then perhaps you're not really putting the level of effort into this conversation it deserves, which would explain why you couldn't follow my point.

There is only one possible response to this. ROTFLMAO

The origin of the birthdate isn't the point. In fact, the point was how the origin of the birthdate says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of a religion. Thank you for agreeing, though it pretty much points out everything wrong with your point.

So you declare victory on a point I never brought up. You are quite the debater. I see no relevance to a birthdate of a person that never existed. When was Santa's birthdate again and how could it be applied to your side again?

EDIT: For those who aren't aware, the X as an abbreviation is the result of ignorance and bad translation, much like the "virgin" birth. In Greek a letter that looked like an X was used, called Chi. It was not an X however, and an accurate way of carrying on that tradion would be Ctian, not Xtian.

XTIAN
meaning christian
the x comes from latin and is the latin letter for christ, i.e. x-tian means christ-tian or christian

also xmas meaning christ-mas

Fundies tend to get up in arms because we do not type out their current religion name.

Sigh...religious arguments over the internet is a mosh pit with Kalashnikovs....


Some would argue (including myself) that religion is completely false, made-up tales to explain the unexplainable. The truth is, Jesus may have been a fictional character, although more likely was a real person, though his deeds were quite exaggerated. The real question is really whether or not he existed, but rather if he was "savior to all mankind".

Sigh...religious arguments over the internet is a mosh pit with Kalashnikovs....


Some would argue (including myself) that religion is completely false, made-up tales to explain the unexplainable. The truth is, Jesus may have been a fictional character, although more likely was a real person, though his deeds were quite exaggerated. The real question is really whether or not he existed, but rather if he was "savior to all mankind".

no thats not the subject of this thread. jesus' savoirhood is a matter of personal belief. his existence is to some extent a question of proof.

Sigh...religious arguments over the internet is a mosh pit with Kalashnikovs....


Some would argue (including myself) that religion is completely false, made-up tales to explain the unexplainable. The truth is, Jesus may have been a fictional character, although more likely was a real person, though his deeds were quite exaggerated. The real question is really whether or not he existed, but rather if he was "savior to all mankind".

Before we bestow deification on him, lets validate he actually existed first.

From JesusNeverExisted.COM

-snip-

Consider, also, the anomalies:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#dennis

i really like that site. i read it through over the weekend. im a bit embarrassed to admit that he needed to point out to me that the gospels cannot BE purely eyewitness accounts because they cover events that happened when no disciple was there and even when no other person was there.

the disciples of jesus obviously werent there at his birth, his flight to egypt, his little disobedience when he was 12, his temptation in the desert, his prayers in the garden at gesthemene.

some of this stuff has to have been written with invented details.

anyway i like the PCOM pages better. the pagan origins of the christ myth. http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

the thing i like is that he has links to everything he talks about. if he quotes an ancient author and that authors writing is online, he provides a link to it.

Sure it does.

Yeah, well when your argument is so compelling, how can I argue?


No. It makes the theory invalid. Therefore in the theory that your 'godman' exists, by adding extraneous and fallacious arguments, merely invalidates the theory. So by extrapolation, a patchwork religion, based and plaigerized on previously debunked or fallatious material, invalidates the theory on it's face.

We're not talking about a particular assertion made by a particular religion. You're suggestion that if a particular assertion is wrong, you toss out the entire religion. The term baby with the bathwater was made for such instances. It's ludicrous. If a theory is wrong in science we don't toss the entirety of science. We toss out that theory. Often times there are parts of a theory that are wrong and it gets revamped to be more correct, like the path of evolution has been several times. Many of things held today by some Christians were not held in early times. That these new beliefs would somehow make the entire religion wrong is absurd and shows your inability to apply logic here rather than your prejudice.




The problem here is your argument is a sieve.

No, it isn't. Only one of us really wants what we say to be true. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to find out. But then I'm also not making gross generalizations or trying to claim that if one claim of a religion is wrong the entire thing should be thrown out. I don't hold that anything mankind creates is infallible. If you find flaws it certainly shows that the religious beliefs are not infallible, but it doesn't invalidate the conclusion.


Actually you missed the point. You cannot claim a religion is fact based on the assumption that a lack of a protest = fact.

Who's claiming that? What are you even talking about? See what I mean about not being able to follow the point. You're making a fallacious argument that if one part of religion is flawed that the entire thing can be tossed. It's a common logical fallacy.

An example would be if I said that 2*2=4. My argument for it is you can get the result of any multiplications by adding the two numbers together. In that case, my argument would be wrong, but my conclusion right. You're doing the equivalent of claiming that if any claim is wrong then a conclusion is wrong, but it only shows that a particular argument is flawed. It doesn't speak to the conclusion at all.

In other words, I'm not suggesting that you have to accept the conclusion without evidence, only that you've not proved it false and thus can't claim the religion is invalid.

Now, can you please quote for me where I said "a lack of protest = fact" or the equivalent? I believe it's my turn to laugh.

There is only one possible response to this. ROTFLMAO

Yes, right after you showed you didn't understand the point you laughed that I'd made the claim that you don't understand the point. How incredibly helpful to your credibility.


So you declare victory on a point I never brought up. You are quite the debater. I see no relevance to a birthdate of a person that never existed. When was Santa's birthdate again and how could it be applied to your side again?

I brought up the point. You still don't follow. I was pointing out that no matter how many things a religion got wrong, if they got the conclusion right (which isn't the same for all Christians, incidentally), then it's right. Since you don't know if they're right or wrong, you can't invalidate the religion. The best you can do is say their is no evidence they are right and much evidence that SOME of their claims are wrong. That's all. I know you don't follow. I'm sorry you don't follow. But since you don't, now would be a good time to simply concede and stop talking about the date like it was anything but an example of a part of the religion that really doesn't matter and has no bearing on whether or not a faith should be based on a man called Jesus.

XTIAN
meaning christian
the x comes from latin and is the latin letter for christ, i.e. x-tian means christ-tian or christian

also xmas meaning christ-mas

Fundies tend to get up in arms because we do not type out their current religion name.

Um, no. The X was greek, not latin. It was the letter Chi and the letter Rho was commonly written with it. The fact people use X today is a bad translation. It looked like an X so they treated as one. It's as relevant as the claim that there is a virgin prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. The fact that such an ignorance was passed on with regularity doesn't make it right. I don't claim Jesus was born of a virgin and I don't claim that X is a relevant shortening of his name. Both require me to scrub knowledge from my brain, which I'm not inclined to do. If you really must be so lazy, feel free to write Ctian, as was used by Greeks.

Before we bestow deification on him, lets validate he actually existed first.

Got a time machine? Otherwise, this is not something you can actually do. Even people we know existed have often absorbed some bit of legend over time. And once you go back too far in history there is no real way to seperate the fact from the fiction in any real way. We often know events happened. We often know they are attribute to characters we can find evidence for. We can't really know if the two really do have a tie. Even if we proved there was a preacher named Jesus who was crucified and had followers called Christians, we still couldn't be certain that it is this same preacher that was written about in the Gospels and even if it was it wouldn't make the stories true.

Hell, there are things printed in history books about events from 50 years ago that we know aren't true. As such, even a contemporary telling of person wouldn't prove their existence, and even a complete lack of a contemporary telling wouldn't prove they didn't.

Post 666!

So you didn't bother with post 616?
For shame.

Jesus does not exist, if he did, Jesus would have come back to save the world from Global Warming :D

He did. Jesus is Al Gore.
And Bush stole the vote, without a kiss, even, for how many shekels?

And here it is 2007 and we are all discussing whether He existed 2000 years ago. Don't you find that rather amazing?

That's because we have the rational camp - saying, because there's no good evidence, there's no good reason to believe it... and the irrational camp - saying, it must be true, cuz god-dun-it.

The stories are just too fantastic and excruciatingly soaked with pathos.

Very, very sigworthy. Especially the "crux" part. :)

I think I touched a nerve somehow?
You arent capable of such an action. Please feel free to try.
...is this another part to brandish the buttplug link? :D

j/k

I consider myself fairly open minded but it is difficult to learn much if one is inundated with negative opinions.


Really? I find adversity to be a strong stimulus to learning, personally. Indeed, I believe that is the entire principle behind algetic conditioning...


And if the source is inaccurate then you may present your proof that they are indeed inaccurate.


I don't need to. It's already been done. The earliest linked evidence (provided by that Baldy chap, I believe), gives strong support (although, still remarkably unsubstantiated) for a second century 'earliest record'.

So you want me to accept your assumption regarding the dates in order to make them coincide with your earlier claim? Why would I do that?


No, I don't.


You suggest that I have a closed mind. It would appear to be the other way round. Miracles happen all the time.....maybe not of the the "strangely earthshatteringly" type, as you so need to make you a believer, but they do happen.


Miracles happen all the time? Really? Show me one?

I see no reason to accept that flipping a coin twice and it coming up heads both times is 'a miracle'... I think a miracle (practically by definition) would have to be something that couldn't 'just happen'...


Yet I find your claims unconvincing as to whether Jesus existed or not.


I'm not really making any claims either way. I'm just denying the claim that he must have existed... and I've pointed out that, in the absence of good evidence, there's really no good reason to believe anything other than 'it's a good story'.

The point is that Christians believe in a God, whilst atheists don't. Until we find all the right answers, God bless them all.

Hard to believe, for sure... but there really are more options than 'christians' or 'atheists'.

what would you count as evidence? do yuo reeally think that over half the worlds population, being christian, believed in one man as the son of God. not only that, but the muslims and jews and others, claimimng he did infact exist.

Not evidence of anything except belief.

People can believe mionkeys are flying out of their anuses, but that won't necessarily make it so.

A poopy monkey would be better evidence.

those are the only two options there are, whether you believe it or not. For some atheist the only option is live, die, become worm food, be digested, worm food, again, so on.

Or... like, not.

I'm thinking though... wouldn't that be a form of immortality?

But you just keep wanting to say the same thing over and over again, as if often repeating it might somehow make it true
.
See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2005/260505newbushism.htm
Yup. Hope that has no bearing on his "born-again Christian" status ... oh, wait ....
I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.Lancaster, PA - July 9, 2004
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/oct_2004/bush_god_speaks_through_me.html

Thought as you two have a similar design in mind, you might appreciate that. Tah!

lol an atheist not believing in luck, thats a first.

No, not really.

Seriously - are you actually going to bring anything to the table?

Yeah, well when your argument is so compelling, how can I argue?

You do seem to ramble on about nothing.

We're not talking about a particular assertion made by a particular religion.

We are discussing the assertion in the xtain religion that some mythical person named jesus existed. Did you lose your place in the thread?

You're suggestion that if a particular assertion is wrong, you toss out the entire religion.

Certainly when the entire religion is based upon a particular, unproven, assertion such as the invention of a godman.

The term baby with the bathwater was made for such instances. It's ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is the assumption that your godman exists. Provide proof.

If a theory is wrong in science we don't toss the entirety of science. We toss out that theory.

Thank you for restating exactly what I had said in my previous post.

Often times there are parts of a theory that are wrong and it gets revamped to be more correct, like the path of evolution has been several times.

Again, you have restated my refutation of your ridiculous assertion.

Many of things held today by some Christians were not held in early times. That these new beliefs would somehow make the entire religion wrong is absurd and shows your inability to apply logic here rather than your prejudice.

Building bullshit on bullshit somehow evolves the religion? Look, when the central tenet of your religion is the existence of a godman, and there is no way to validate it's existence, what is the point? You can evolve it any way you like but in the end the central tenet is incorrect. If you were to tell me the bible, which said that insects have four legs was correct, I would have to refute it. We all know the bible is grossly incorrect. Does that invalidate it? No. What invalidates it is you claim the godman is your central pageant figure and he never existed. You cannot have a play without a central figure. In science if someone were to erroneously proclaim life is based on silicon and not carbon, they would have to prove it. If they cannot, it invalidates their theory. If you cannot validate your godman, it invalidates your theory of his existence. Since your entire belief system is based on that belief, your religion fails. The world is not flat. When someone sailed around the world, it invalidated the entire belief it was flat. Big difference.

No, it isn't. Only one of us really wants what we say to be true.

I know you want there to be a godman. I can understand you need the crutch. However wanting to be true and reality are different things.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to find out. But then I'm also not making gross generalizations or trying to claim that if one claim of a religion is wrong the entire thing should be thrown out.

You keep thinking that. You are not grasping the concept very well.

I don't hold that anything mankind creates is infallible. If you find flaws it certainly shows that the religious beliefs are not infallible, but it doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

The belief you hold is a theory. Since you have no evidence, it fails. You can conclude whatever you want or whatever you need to conclude but in the final analysis, until you PROVE it, it is just a theory with no supporting evidence.

Who's claiming that? What are you even talking about? See what I mean about not being able to follow the point. You're making a fallacious argument that if one part of religion is flawed that the entire thing can be tossed. It's a common logical fallacy.

You do have a one track mind. Perhaps try re-reading my post before you speak.

An example would be if I said that 2*2=4. My argument for it is you can get the result of any multiplications by adding the two numbers together. In that case, my argument would be wrong, but my conclusion right.

Your theory of any two numbers when added together is the same result is false. Therefore that belief will not hold up to scrutiny. Your conclusion is not correct because your argument was refuted by evidence. You can play this game all day but in the end you are not using logic. You are pretending to have an answer you do not have.

You're doing the equivalent of claiming that if any claim is wrong then a conclusion is wrong, but it only shows that a particular argument is flawed. It doesn't speak to the conclusion at all.

The only person making that assertion is you. I wish you would learn to read.

In other words, I'm not suggesting that you have to accept the conclusion without evidence, only that you've not proved it false and thus can't claim the religion is invalid.

Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist. Since I do not need to prove a negative (There are not 12 legged jazz players on mars) it is safe to conclude that this is not correct. Since your entire belief system is hinged on this central claim, the theory of xtianity must further be dismissed due to lack of evidence of existence.

Now, can you please quote for me where I said "a lack of protest = fact" or the equivalent? I believe it's my turn to laugh.

Laugh away.

Yes, right after you showed you didn't understand the point you laughed that I'd made the claim that you don't understand the point. How incredibly helpful to your credibility.

It is not my credibilty you should be concerned with.

I brought up the point. You still don't follow. I was pointing out that no matter how many things a religion got wrong, if they got the conclusion right (which isn't the same for all Christians, incidentally), then it's right.

However in this case, the conclusion there is a godman is false due to lack of evidence. Therefore your entire argument is fallacious and pointless. Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct. I suggest you re-examine your theory and try to prove the theory through reproducable means if you intend to convince others of your claim. Not try and back door your argument in by claiming silly points that have nothing to do with the original question. As a reminder, the original question was to provide evidence your godman exists.

Since you don't know if they're right or wrong, you can't invalidate the religion.

Lack of evidence is not proof. Sorry, bad argument.

The best you can do is say their is no evidence they are right and much evidence that SOME of their claims are wrong.

Thick aren't you? IF YOU CANNOT PROVE IT, IT IS A THEORY OR BELIEF YOU HOLD AND THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE!!!

That's all. I know you don't follow.

I follow fine. You argument is ridiculous.

I'm sorry you don't follow. But since you don't, now would be a good time to simply concede and stop talking about the date like it was anything but an example of a part of the religion that really doesn't matter and has no bearing on whether or not a faith should be based on a man called Jesus.

Since you brought up the date and claimed I said it, and you were incorrect, you may withdraw the date as part of your argument at your convenience.

Do you find it stimulating to have your head handed to you every time you post? Or do you just have a need to try and credit certain parts of the conversation to people when you yourself made such claims in a vain attempt to score some point with other readers? I am just trying to figure out why you add parts to the argument and when it goes bad you claim to win a point and dismiss it.

Slanderous claptrap :rolleyes:
R-rowr! Kitten's got claws ;)

So naughty, how do u think the world came into being? it cant just appear can it? it has to come out of some place. afterall, a "great" atheist thinkr like u, or any other "great" atheist thinkr shud b able to pull dis one off.

Atum masturbated the prime forces of creation into existence.

Seriously - you honestly think the Genesis myth is the only creation story out there?

the topic is about jesus, yet that does not mean that i cannot ask u a simple question, seeing how this is about religion and ur an atheist. actually giv me an answer instead of sayin im off topic

But you are off topic.

Even if your god is the real one, that doesn't make Jesus a real, historical person. So - all your prevarications about first creators, evolution, etc... are (not only off-topic, but also) irrelevent.

then you're going to have to start writing instead of just typing. That means meaningful sentences and proper spelling as well as actually replying to what people say. Even if you're trolling, doing so would make it more effective.
Think when you write. This is so high on the list of things all men need to have that we should work for it with zeal & enthusiasm.
Many minutes were dedicated to that. :p
/tangent

Atum masturbated the prime forces of creation into existence.
Sigcheck!

Atum masturbated the prime forces of creation into existence.

Seriously - you honestly think the Genesis myth is the only creation story out there?

ROTFLMAO

Sigcheck!

It's 'true', too... in as much as there is evidence that that particular story was told, at least. :)

I'm withholding judgement (which is apparently more than Atum could withhold) on what Atum might or might not have actually done, on the otehr hand (oops, another accidental 'joke', I guess).

You reminded me I didn't source it - so here's my citation: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2966

"He takes his stand on the primeval hill, and begins his work of creation. Not having a consort, he masturbates to bring forth other gods to assist him in creation. Pyramid Text 1248 graphically describes this event. “Atum evolved growing ithyphallic, in Heliopolis. He put his penis in his grasp that he might make orgasm with it, and the two siblings were born—Shu and Tefnut.” However, Pyramid Texts 1652 and 1653a describe the event without erotic language. “Atum Scarab! When you became high, as the high ground, when you rose, as the benben in the Phoenix Enclosure in Heliopolis, you sneezed Shu, you spat Tefnut.” From his emission or his spittle Shu and Tefnut originate who deify air and moisture respectively. Then, Shu and Tefnut copulate and produce Geb, the earth, and Nut, the sky. Geb and Nut in turn produce five offspring: Osiris, Isis, Horus the Elder, Set, and Nephthys. However, Horus the Elder does not become a member of the Great Ennead. Instead, he, along with Thot, Maat, Anubis, and other deities not clearly identified, constitute the Little Ennead

Really? I find adversity to be a strong stimulus to learning, personally. Indeed, I believe that is the entire principle behind algetic conditioning...


The Hormetic Principle as well. :)

You do seem to ramble on about nothing.

If what you don't seem to follow counts as nothing, we all ramble about nothing.


We are discussing the assertion in the xtain religion that some mythical person named jesus existed. Did you lose your place in the thread?

No, I didn't. I was referencing your claim. You do know how debate works, right? That some people make claims and others dispute them. You claimed that showing that some things aren't true invalidates the entire religion. I'm disputing that point. It's rather important, because it's the reason behind this thread.



Certainly when the entire religion is based upon a particular, unproven, assertion such as the invention of a godman.

First, prove that he was invented. You've not done so. You've shown that some elements of him MAY have been incorporated from other sources. it doesn't speak to his existence however any more than invalidating the story of the cherry tree makes George Washington not exist. Second, religion doesn't require things be proven. They require faith. Are you seriously telling me you don't know what religion means now?

Religion should deny evidence against a claim, but you've not shown evidence against his existence. You've attempted to show there is no compelling evidence. Hell if that worked, science could conclude God doesn't exist. It doesn't of course, because science doesn't appeal to ignorance like you do.

What is ludicrous is the assumption that your godman exists. Provide proof.

Why is proof required? Oh, right, because if you put that proof under your pillow, you'll sleep better at night. That he existed cannot be proven. That you'd even ask is evidence of ignorance. Proof exists in mathematics. Not the real world. What you mean to say is provide evidence. And you've seen evidence. Whether that evidence is compelling is another matter entirely, but as everyone who understands logic and debate knows, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's a reason not to accept an assertion. It doesn't prove it false.



Thank you for restating exactly what I had said in my previous post.

I restated it because it was my initial point. I said. You said it. I said it again. And still you don't get the point. The fact that you don't throw out things in their entirety simply because they got one thing wrong is an argument against you, not for you. You want to throw out the entirety of a religion because over time it incorporated some aspects of certain legends. That's evidence of your bias, not evidence against the religion.


Again, you have restated my refutation of your ridiculous assertion.

Which only proves you're not following. The only person who claimed that you throw out the entirety of something because it got a part wrong, was you. Would you care to retract and restate? You're welcome to. I held and still hold that flaws in a theory or an argument or religion invalidate the things that are flawed, but not the conclusion. If you actually do understand this, then I suppose you won't continue to make the argument that unless someone can "prove" that Jesus existed and it was exactly as some believe today then the whole religion is false. The fact that you don't understand this rather simple point is just sad.


Building bullshit on bullshit somehow evolves the religion? Look, when the central tenet of your religion is the existence of a godman, and there is no way to validate it's existence, what is the point? You can evolve it any way you like but in the end the central tenet is incorrect. If you were to tell me the bible, which said that insects have four legs was correct, I would have to refute it. We all know the bible is grossly incorrect. Does that invalidate it? No. What invalidates it is you claim the godman is your central pageant figure and he never existed. You cannot have a play without a central figure. In science if someone were to erroneously proclaim life is based on silicon and not carbon, they would have to prove it. If they cannot, it invalidates their theory. If you cannot validate your godman, it invalidates your theory of his existence. Since your entire belief system is based on that belief, your religion fails. The world is not flat. When someone sailed around the world, it invalidated the entire belief it was flat. Big difference.

Heh. You've not actually shown the central tenet to be incorrect. You've shown that the evidence is not compelling. So? You've not shown he never existed. You can't. It's not possible to disprove existence. You can certainly question the validity of his existence, but you cannot categorically state that he didn't exist without a leap of faith that would patently unscientific. Thanks for playing.


I know you want there to be a godman. I can understand you need the crutch. However wanting to be true and reality are different things.

Um, I think you don't know what I believe. Again, thanks for playing. Ad hominems aside, do you have an argument that actually refutes mine? Nope. You've utterly failed to prove the Jesus didn't exist. You've certainly given reason to doubt his existence, but since religious beliefs and scientific beliefs don't have the same requirement for evidence, I don't see how that makes any difference. But hey, you're still claiming it's possible to prove things. I'm not sure you'd know the difference if I explained it to you.



You keep thinking that. You are not grasping the concept very well.

That I understand that science and logic don't work the way you want them to is not the problem with this conversation. You claimed you invalidated a religion because you've cast doubt on the existence of the central character. First of all, it demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the spectrum of beliefs that qualify as Christian, especially since many of them have no "godman". Second, it demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the fact that casting doubt on an argument, on evidence, on an assertion, doesn't prove the conclusion false. Logic and science don't work that way. Something you seem to admit right before continuing to make your claim that by casting doubt you've invalidated an entire religion, a religion you've proven repeatedly you don't understand.

The belief you hold is a theory. Since you have no evidence, it fails. You can conclude whatever you want or whatever you need to conclude but in the final analysis, until you PROVE it, it is just a theory with no supporting evidence.

See, you're doing the reverse of what IDers do. They misuse the word theory to try and bring religion into science. You've done the same. They don't claim they can scientifically prove he's a godman. Or at least most of them don't. They have this thing called faith. Your lack of understanding of this very basic element of religion doesn't make it cease to exist. Faith doesn't require supporting evidence. Certainly it shouldn't ignore evidence, but the very concept of a supernatural being denies evidence. It's really sad you're not grasping this.


You do have a one track mind. Perhaps try re-reading my post before you speak.

Nice job avoiding the question. Now try answering it.

Your theory of any two numbers when added together is the same result is false. Therefore that belief will not hold up to scrutiny. Your conclusion is not correct because your argument was refuted by evidence. You can play this game all day but in the end you are not using logic. You are pretending to have an answer you do not have.

Uh, so now you're claiming the conclusion that 2*2=4 is incorrect. Wow. Just wow.


The only person making that assertion is you. I wish you would learn to read.

I'm claiming you made that assertion. Amusingly, you continue to make it while claiming you've not. OR are did you not claim that showing that current versions of the story of Jesus have incorporated aspects of other myths, and when I said I agree, claimed that if it did it invalidates the religion? Remember this forum has a quote function.


Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist. Since I do not need to prove a negative (There are not 12 legged jazz players on mars) it is safe to conclude that this is not correct. Since your entire belief system is hinged on this central claim, the theory of xtianity must further be dismissed due to lack of evidence of existence.

No, it doesn't. You fail at logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's a basic logical fallacy.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html

It's called appeal to ignorance. Your claim was already invalid when you made it. If there is not compelling evidence for p then it's acceptable to not accept p. It does not, however, disprove p.


Laugh away.

I don't need your permission, but given you're arguing from a classic fallacy, I couldn't help it if I did.


It is not my credibilty you should be concerned with.

Right. Unless the rules of logic and debate have been turned on their head, I'm quite okay with my credibility.



However in this case, the conclusion there is a godman is false due to lack of evidence. Therefore your entire argument is fallacious and pointless. Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct. I suggest you re-examine your theory and try to prove the theory through reproducable means if you intend to convince others of your claim. Not try and back door your argument in by claiming silly points that have nothing to do with the original question. As a reminder, the original question was to provide evidence your godman exists.

Addressed. Your fallacy and your ignorance of Christianity are not good arguments.


Lack of evidence is not proof. Sorry, bad argument.
Yes, exactly. Lack of evidence is not proof. Yours IS a bad argument. You're claiming that you've proven that Jesus didn't exist by a lack of evidence. But as you say, lack of evidence is not proof.


Thick aren't you? IF YOU CANNOT PROVE IT, IT IS A THEORY OR BELIEF YOU HOLD AND THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE!!!

Absolutely. I didn't claim it was evidence of existence. You claimed it was evidence of non-existence, which is fallacious. Please tell me where I said a lack of evidence is proof of the existence of Jesus. I'd love to see that quoted.



I follow fine. You argument is ridiculous.

Uh-huh. You don't even realize you're using an appeal to ignorance fallacy or what I'm actually saying. I pointed out that showing a flaw in a theory doesn't invalidate it. You restated. I restated. You complained that I restated and then continued to say absurd things about how finding flaws prove a conclusion false. Which it doesn't. Following yet? Or shall I find a few more sites that point out the ridiculousness of an appeal to ignorance.


Since you brought up the date and claimed I said it, and you were incorrect, you may withdraw the date as part of your argument at your convenience.

No, I didn't. That's what you didn't follow. I brought up the date as an example of something that can be shown to be invalid about some religious beliefs. I used it as an example of how certain beliefs can be flawed without address the validity of the religion whatsoever. I've never claimed you brought it up. Calm down and pay attention. Or quote me attributing some argument to you about Christmas. You do know what an example is, right? It was part of my argument. It was mean to be a comparison to what you were claiming. I said so clearly and when you misunderstood explained it again. Now I am explaining again, that I never attributed that argument to you, only made a comparison. Will I have to explain this again or can you accept that I may use examples at my leisure.


Do you find it stimulating to have your head handed to you every time you post? Or do you just have a need to try and credit certain parts of the conversation to people when you yourself made such claims in a vain attempt to score some point with other readers? I am just trying to figure out why you add parts to the argument and when it goes bad you claim to win a point and dismiss it.

My head handed to me? Seriously? You claimed that you've disproven a "godman" by a lack of evidence, appeal to ignorance. Pointed out the fallacy of claiming a conclusion is flawed because the argument is, right before claiming a conclusion is flawed because the argument is. And about four times claimed that an example I used and brought up was an attempt to attribute it to you. Yeah, if this is how you hand me my head, then yes, I thoroughly enjoy it.

Now, shall I explain to you that a central argument among Christians at the council of Nicea was the divinity of Christ? In other words, it was widely believed among early Christians that he was not a godman. It still is widely believed. So your "godman" claims is just more ignorance.

Many minutes were dedicated to that. :p
/tangent

Agreed and then some. But then since I brought up the point... I also tell myself the same thing about my verbosity. Words and thoughts are not equivalent. Obviously, I don't always do so well on that last bit.

It's 'true', too... in as much as there is evidence that that particular story was told, at least. :)

I'm withholding judgement (which is apparently more than Atum could withhold) on what Atum might or might not have actually done, on the otehr hand (oops, another accidental 'joke', I guess).

You reminded me I didn't source it - so here's my citation: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2966

Dude. Didn't you know. You have to prove something is true or else it's false. It's that "new" logic they're teaching in schools these days. So not only does God not exist, but aliens don't exist, you don't exist, I don't exist, my socks don't exist. Why? Because I can't prove they do, silly. Thus the must be false.

Dude. Didn't you know. You have to prove something is true or else it's false. It's that "new" logic they're teaching in schools these days. So not only does God not exist, but aliens don't exist, you don't exist, I don't exist, my socks don't exist. Why? Because I can't prove they do, silly. Thus the must be false.

I don't exist?

Crap!

*Disappears in puff of logic*

Agreed and then some. But then since I brought up the point... I also tell myself the same thing about my verbosity. Words and thoughts are not equivalent. Obviously, I don't always do so well on that last bit.
No worries, of course. I just think about that stupid mantra every single morning while attempting to force myself to focus for work. :p

I don't exist?

Crap!

*Disappears in puff of logic*

I always love when people appeal to ignorance because they rarely conceive of what the logical extension of allowing such an argument would be. I also love when people continue claim you must "prove" things or the opposite is true. I'd love to take that game on.

Wanna see. I claim that my stinky feet are evidence that feet-cleaning gnomes do not exist. Now when you show the problem with my argument, suddenly and magically my argument becomes false, and wee, we've just claimed to have proven that feet-cleaning gnomes exist.

See why I'm laughing?

EDIT: By the way, what the hell are you doing up? Are you working through the night again? We really gotta fix that. ;p

No worries, of course. I just think about that stupid mantra every single morning while attempting to force myself to focus for work. :p

That mantra? Of all the things you could chant to yourself, that's the one?

Hey, I wanted to tell you and CanuckHeaven how much I appreciate you two at times. You put out a challenge to outline our beliefs, that I found inciteful and which I did my best to meet. I've rarely laid it out so plainly before and it was really cleansinng. I appreciate that. Then I forgot about it until CanuckHeaven quoted me to make a point (incidentally in a thread I asked the mods to close). It was wildly kind to have mentioned me in a light I'm not sure I deserved. Plus, he reminded me that I'd written that for you, which is something I don't again intend to forget.

My personal mantra is to remind myself how lucky I am each day. It's usually not particulary difficult. It's amazing how different the world works when you choose the right events to focus on.

It's 'true', too... in as much as there is evidence that that particular story was told, at least. :)

I'm withholding judgement (which is apparently more than Atum could withhold) on what Atum might or might not have actually done, on the otehr hand (oops, another accidental 'joke', I guess).

You reminded me I didn't source it - so here's my citation: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2966
I usually trust your sources ... but since Verdigroth interloped, i'm starting to think i should *fear* your sources. :p

I usually trust your sources ... but since Verdigroth interloped, i'm starting to think i should *fear* your sources. :p

I like that masturbation doesn't just explain the how, but also the why.

That mantra? Of all the things you could chant to yourself, that's the one?
Weird, huh?
It's either that, the part from Cool Hand Luke where he sings "I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I got muh Plastic Jesus, sittin' on the dashboard of my car" (or however that goes) .... or, "Nookie" from Limp Bizkit, except in the Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine fashion. *nods*
The other more audible one is usually, "It can't be that hard."

Hey, I wanted to tell you and CanuckHeaven how much I appreciate you two at times. You put out a challenge to outline our beliefs, that I found inciteful and which I did my best to meet. I've rarely laid it out so plainly before and it was really cleansinng. I appreciate that. Then I forgot about it until CanuckHeaven quoted me to make a point (incidentally in a thread I asked the mods to close). It was wildly kind to have mentioned me in a light I'm not sure I deserved. Plus, he reminded me that I'd written that for you, which is something I don't again intend to forget.Thank you. *bows* A good thing, then. I am quite inspired by your vigour, and regardless of any personal feelings i have about the subject matter (which sometimes is little, sometimes a lot), i usually prefer to observe a conversation you and anyone else may be having. I've learned a few things from you, to be sure, hopefully good things. :)

My personal mantra is to remind myself how lucky I am each day. It's usually not particulary difficult. It's amazing how different the world works when you choose the right events to focus on.I have a couple, but they're not ones i need to consciously remind myself about usually - and i have the suspicion there's a few more like me on here as well.
*be the change you want to see in the world*
*the brain is never full ... though sometimes spongy*
*i'm not done yet*
:p

I like that masturbation doesn't just explain the how, but also the why.

That reminds me ... The Ten Commandments ... in Smell-O-Vision!
Well, not really, but i read it may make a selective comeback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision
...come to think of it, also remniscient of Kentucky Fried Movie. :p

Weird, huh?
It's either that, the part from Cool Hand Luke where he sings "I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I got muh Plastic Jesus, sittin' on the dashboard of my car" (or however that goes) .... or, "Nookie" from Limp Bizkit, except in the Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine fashion. *nods*
The other more audible one is usually, "It can't be that hard."
Thank you. *bows* A good thing, then. I am quite inspired by your vigour, and regardless of any personal feelings i have about the subject matter (which sometimes is little, sometimes a lot), i usually prefer to observe a conversation you and anyone else may be having. I've learned a few things from you, to be sure, hopefully good things. :)
I have a couple, but they're not ones i need to consciously remind myself about usually - and i have the suspicion there's a few more like me on here as well.
*be the change you want to see in the world*
*the brain is never full ... though sometimes spongy*
*i'm not done yet*
:p

That first quote I used to be much better about. NSG has made cynical. How sad is that?

I actually learned quite a bit from that episode of answering your questions. I've thought about the subject a lot, obviously, but I'd never quite put it together that way. It was nice to see that when I was done it made sense, because it all felt fairly random when it was happening.

I've learned a lot from a lot of people. For example, I learned from GnI to lock my bedroom door when I have guests who clearly have a crush on me. Lye wouldn't cleanse me of that memory. Another less made-up example is that, obviously, I've always known there were rational Christians out there, but I really didn't fully grasp just how many fanatical Atheists there were. I always thought it was something that some rather vocal Christians exaggerate to promote the whole persecuted Christian myth, but really there are some pretty out there Atheists.

Not to derail the thread but I'm working on a theory that is built on paradigms. Much like the fact that a person who works out will make his body respond to working out much differently if he starts young. Same with playing guitar, learning a language, etc. Our body forms a kind of blueprint that becomes set once we hit a certain age (it varies for different people and different aspects of us set at different times). It's something that comes up a lot in ESL classes.

Anyway, given that, perhaps people form a sort of competency for faith. In other words, you meet young people who simply couldn't or didn't drink it in while young, but then convert when they're older and it almost feels like they've made it fill some akward little hole in their mind. Kind of like people you meet who used religion to break a drug habit or something and now are rabid fundamentalists (I hate that word used that way, but it's quickest way to make the point) out to save the rest of us or send us to hell. They seem completely unable to make their faith seem comfortable and natural. It seems forced.

Similarly, you see this rabid fundamentalists turned Atheists who can't seem to stop trying to rid the world of the evils of faith.

That's way to short to completely explain the point, but maybe rational faith, be that faith in God, the lack thereof, one's eventual rise to stardom or whatever it is that we really believe but certainly can't evidence, requires a type of competency that certainly not everyone has equally and that becomes more difficult if not excercised in rational ways while young.

Of course, it would nearly impossible to isolate to any real satisfaction in order to test such a theory, any more than one can easily show that black people are naturally better dancers, or aren't, or whatever. Certain things are so interwoven into who we are as people that any number of thousands of tiny differences could spoil the control group.

That reminds me ... The Ten Commandments ... in Smell-O-Vision!
Well, not really, but i read it may make a selective comeback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision
...come to think of it, also remniscient of Kentucky Fried Movie. :p

I loved that movie. And Amazon Women on the Moon.

Has he existed? Yes.
Has he suffered from genetic mental disorders? Yes.
Would he do good as a marketing student today? Fuck yeah.

Actually two of your own links, links 2 and 3, say the authorship was most likely BEFORE 70 AD and becoming more and more likely as research is progressing… I can’t copy and paste from link 2 but link 3 says this:

Link 3
Without going into much detail on the dating of Mark's Gospel, [10] it was probably written somewhere between AD 50 and AD 55. Consequently, Matthew's Gospel could have reasonably been written anywhere between AD 55 and AD 60. This date allows time for Matthew to have access to Mark's Gospel, and suggests that he completed the Gospel before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, because it would seem strange for the author not to mention this event in light of chapter 24. [11] This dating also allows time for Luke to use Matthew's Gospel in composing his own Gospel, as well as its sequel (Acts, ca. AD 62).

Well, okay, I'll concede that. However, neither source argues that Matthew is a contemporary source for Jesus Christ (Link 3 puts a time between 55-60, and Link 2 doesn't provide a date but does state that the prophecy about Jerusalem was "coloured by subsequent events", indicating it was written well after Jesus Christ's life). That's what is important- since the Matthean account wasn't written during Jesus Christ's life it can't be considered an overwhelmingly reliable source for the historical record as it is too far removed from the events it is covering and thus cannot provide a "great" picture.

Got a time machine? Otherwise, this is not something you can actually do. Even people we know existed have often absorbed some bit of legend over time. And once you go back too far in history there is no real way to seperate the fact from the fiction in any real way. We often know events happened. We often know they are attribute to characters we can find evidence for. We can't really know if the two really do have a tie. Even if we proved there was a preacher named Jesus who was crucified and had followers called Christians, we still couldn't be certain that it is this same preacher that was written about in the Gospels and even if it was it wouldn't make the stories true.

Hell, there are things printed in history books about events from 50 years ago that we know aren't true. As such, even a contemporary telling of person wouldn't prove their existence, and even a complete lack of a contemporary telling wouldn't prove they didn't.

By your account, then, nothing written in the history books would be true, because no sources can be true and that is not correct. History, like science, operates on a "best possible answer" proposition and while the account cannot be considered 100% accurate, the better sourced (as in the amount of quality sources) an event is the more reasonable it is to assume that it happened. There's no reason why, for example, we should say that the Roman Empire never existed because we've found multitudes of writings, monuments, buildings, etc. with their names on it- thus, while we never saw it, we can safely say it existed.

Now, you're right in saying that "non-existence" is unprovable because it discounts the possibility that there are unheard-of sources which could be unearthed to disprove the particular "non-existence" but until such sources are found, the reverse cannot be true- something cannot be considered "true" just because you "might" find sources for it- the entity can only be considered true once you *do* find sources for it.

That first quote I used to be much better about. NSG has made cynical. How sad is that?Sometimes sad, sometimes not. I was thinking the same about songs, today, that are supposed to be emotional, and were at once, but that simply elicit no response from me throughout, other than to just say the riff/line and get'r'done.


I actually learned quite a bit from that episode of answering your questions. I've thought about the subject a lot, obviously, but I'd never quite put it together that way. It was nice to see that when I was done it made sense, because it all felt fairly random when it was happening.That's the hardest part, which is funny, since i'm pretty sure you were here when i was first attempting to make my points seem less random and more lucid to the casual or even interested onlooker - whereas now, i'm kinda off somewhere else with it. Certainly seeming random at times. :)
A lot of things exist for me as one entity, and at times i think i sound a bit like River Tam before you get to see what she's talking about. It seems obvious to me to the point that i kinda ruin what i say.

I've learned a lot from a lot of people. For example, I learned from GnI to lock my bedroom door when I have guests who clearly have a crush on me. Lye wouldn't cleanse me of that memory. Another less made-up example is that, obviously, I've always known there were rational Christians out there, but I really didn't fully grasp just how many fanatical Atheists there were.Certainly there's a mix of the inverse as well - and i'm not sure what great a measure this place provides at times. Every now and again i'll get on to a thread late and take note of the more (in)famous posters, like FreedomAndGlory or Corneliu or UB, and i'll see that they may have made a few rational, considerate posts at times, the onslaught will have already caught on, and i think that perhaps they either enjoy the attention or just feel no one is really listening, and will come back to it again and again until they say it the way they really want to.
I always thought it was something that some rather vocal Christians exaggerate to promote the whole persecuted Christian myth, but really there are some pretty out there Atheists.True, again as well with the inverse. This is a great place for challenges, though, i think because of the availability of information and instant research capacity, whereas a water-cooler conversation or coffee lounge chat or something isn't quite so forthcoming.

Not to derail the thread but I'm working on a theory that is built on paradigms. Much like the fact that a person who works out will make his body respond to working out much differently if he starts young. Same with playing guitar, learning a language, etc. Our body forms a kind of blueprint that becomes set once we hit a certain age (it varies for different people and different aspects of us set at different times). It's something that comes up a lot in ESL classes. I would argue that you've got something there ... and i know of a much more sophomoric form of it to say "when you're young, you're liberal, and when you get older, you get more conservative because of experience".


Anyway, given that, perhaps people form a sort of competency for faith. In other words, you meet young people who simply couldn't or didn't drink it in while young, but then convert when they're older and it almost feels like they've made it fill some akward little hole in their mind. Kind of like people you meet who used religion to break a drug habit or something and now are rabid fundamentalists (I hate that word used that way, but it's quickest way to make the point) out to save the rest of us or send us to hell. They seem completely unable to make their faith seem comfortable and natural. It seems forced.Perhaps it is. At some point, IME, everyone feels the clock ticking, and want to be sure of at least a few things. Even mistakes. Even, moreso, despair.


Similarly, you see this rabid fundamentalists turned Atheists who can't seem to stop trying to rid the world of the evils of faith. Well, as you seem to intimate ... rabid is as rabid does ... or, as i've clucked before, one can truly hate only if one has truly loved. :p

That's way to short to completely explain the point, but maybe rational faith, be that faith in God, the lack thereof, one's eventual rise to stardom or whatever it is that we really believe but certainly can't evidence, requires a type of competency that certainly not everyone has equally and that becomes more difficult if not excercised in rational ways while young. I think experience qualifies that further, too. Which is why i will advocate risk on many occasions, especially of the faith and moral persuasion.

Of course, it would nearly impossible to isolate to any real satisfaction in order to test such a theory, any more than one can easily show that black people are naturally better dancers, or aren't, or whatever. Certain things are so interwoven into who we are as people that any number of thousands of tiny differences could spoil the control group.

Perhaps, and perhaps as well, that's one of the persuasions of social evolution? :p

Well, okay, I'll concede that. However, neither source argues that Matthew is a contemporary source for Jesus Christ (Link 3 puts a time between 55-60, and Link 2 doesn't provide a date but does state that the prophecy about Jerusalem was "coloured by subsequent events", indicating it was written well after Jesus Christ's life). That's what is important- since the Matthean account wasn't written during Jesus Christ's life it can't be considered an overwhelmingly reliable source for the historical record as it is too far removed from the events it is covering and thus cannot provide a "great" picture.



By your account, then, nothing written in the history books would be true, because no sources can be true and that is not correct. History, like science, operates on a "best possible answer" proposition and while the account cannot be considered 100% accurate, the better sourced (as in the amount of quality sources) an event is the more reasonable it is to assume that it happened. There's no reason why, for example, we should say that the Roman Empire never existed because we've found multitudes of writings, monuments, buildings, etc. with their names on it- thus, while we never saw it, we can safely say it existed.

Now, you're right in saying that "non-existence" is unprovable because it discounts the possibility that there are unheard-of sources which could be unearthed to disprove the particular "non-existence" but until such sources are found, the reverse cannot be true- something cannot be considered "true" just because you "might" find sources for it- the entity can only be considered true once you *do* find sources for it.

Um, no. By my account, nothing written in the history books could be proven to be 100% accurate. There is a huge difference.

The reason I brought up the point was in reply to this claim.
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin.
Actually what it should alert you to is that over time other religions were incorporated into Christianity, not that there isn't an palpable origin.
If xtianity is a hodge-podge as you suggest, it merely invalidates it as a religion. So how does this help your argument?

She attempted to claim that if some other characters from history merged with this one that someone it makes not only this character not an actual person but invalidates an entire religion based on the teachings of this character. The idea requires more than a little stretching of the rules of logic and science, but, hey, this is NSG.

The further back we go the more likely it is that we'll see ideas of people being merged together into a form of legend. Hell, even our founding fathers or many of the other heroes of the revolution are much legend, and unlike 2000 years ago, we have a tendency at this point to go back and correct history where it's been recorded wrong. Finding a record that says the Paul Revere was a hero that was rather contemporary doesn't make it true. Yet that made it into the history books so much so that everyone knows his name. What's the name of the guy who really did all the work in warning of the impending British attacks? Yeah, I don't remember either.

Suggesting that one prove that Jesus existed at this point is a false request. The fact is even if I produce a body that was crucified that says the name was Jesus, a carpenter and preacher, the son of Joseph and Mary, and that body bore all of the effects of the punishment portrayed in the Bible, that would still be pretty weak evidence that it is the Jesus discussed in the Bible. Why? Because the Jesus of the Bible could be an actual figure, could have been based on an actual figure like Fire in the Sky was based on actual events, or it could simply be the resurrection of old myths. Finding a body doesn't change that. It would put to rest the claims there is no evidence for the existence of the man, Jesus, but really historically it would change little. It would still not tell us if the stories of the New Testament are made up or not. That a common name was coupled with a common profession and a common form of punishment is circumstancial evidence at best.

Meanwhile, I never suggested something could be considered true just because it hasn't been proven false. Certainly not scientifically. The scientific analysis would be, (assuming that any evidence for the existence of Jesus is discounted in some valid way), there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. I said the opposite of what you claim I said. Our friend, deluded girls or whatever her name is, claimed that the lack of evidence proves that Jesus does not exist and that Christianity is false. I simply said a lack of evidence doesn't prove any such thing and that the only thing that has been done with evidence is to remove some specific claims that some Christians make and cast doubt on others. It's not actually possible to invalidate a faith.

Faith does not require evidence. It simply shouldn't ignore evidence. As such, since you cannot prove non-existence, unless you've got a time machine, you're not likely to ever dent the Christian faith in any rational way.

Faith does not require evidence. It simply shouldn't ignore evidence. As such, since you cannot prove non-existence, unless you've got a time machine, you're not likely to ever dent the Christian faith in any rational way.


Im assuming you dont believe in Fundamentalistic approaches.

What if Christianity didnt need denting so much as redefining?
What if it could evolve, err..to include Evolution?

I think the majority of christians already take this approach, but why is it impossible to just accept scientific research, and proven work, and merely adapt the religion to suit reality, as we understand it?

As for proving non-existance, I present the "Unicorn in a box" question.
If you had a giant box, say, a 20x20ft square room, and asked someone to spend a reasonable lifetime searching this box for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
At the end of this period, when asked if he was succsessful, the answer is always no.
Now, perform this experiment as many times as you like, the results are always the same.
No evidence had been reported that any such Unicorn has been found anywhere within the box.

Now, why would it be illogical to suggest that the Magical Pink Unicorn more than likely does not exist?
Sure, this cannot imply 100% that there is, without question, no unicorn, but the results indicate no traces of it, wich would indicate its possible presence, is neglible.

Im assuming you dont believe in Fundamentalistic approaches.

What if Christianity didnt need denting so much as redefining?
What if it could evolve, err..to include Evolution?

I think the majority of christians already take this approach, but why is it impossible to just accept scientific research, and proven work, and merely adapt the religion to suit reality, as we understand it?

As for proving non-existance, I present the "Unicorn in a box" question.
If you had a giant box, say, a 20x20ft square room, and asked someone to spend a reasonable lifetime searching this box for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
At the end of this period, when asked if he was succsessful, the answer is always no.
Now, perform this experiment as many times as you like, the results are always the same.
No evidence had been reported that any such Unicorn has been found anywhere within the box.

Now, why would it be illogical to suggest that the Magical Pink Unicorn more than likely does not exist?
Sure, this cannot imply 100% that there is, without question, no unicorn, but the results indicate no traces of it, wich would indicate its possible presence, is neglible.

To the first bit, you're asking the wrong guy. I'd say it's more than proven that Christianity can evolve. Does it leave some people behind? Yes. But genetic evolution works that way too.

As the MPU, the problem with Jesus is that we don't have an ability to thoroughly search the box. For the vast majority of people who have ever inhabited the planet, there is little or no evidence of their existence. Add to that, several dozen reasons why it would in the interest of any number of groups to ensure such evidence either didn't survive or isn't readily available, and you have a completely reasonable way for their to be little to no evidence of Jesus.

Want a couple of examples? Well, if you're an Emporer who just orchestrated the creation of a empire-endorsed religion compiled in a way that makes it rather easy to control those unruly Christians and one of the big obstacles to that was the question of the divinity of Christ or if he was just a messenger of God, you'd quite possibly have an interest in destroying certain evidence.

Or how about you have a criminal that led an uprising of some sorts, perhaps one that gained momentum after his death? One might take pains to surpress such evidence.

And, hell, for all we know the Church has evidence we've not been permitted to see because it tells a very different story of Jesus or simply one they think is very different, like perhaps a married Jesus with children.

Does that mean any of this happened? No, of course not. But it's just a few reasonable examples of why evidence of Jesus isn't particularly more likely than evidence of Jerry Christ (yes, I'm aware that Christ was not his actual last name). While there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the lack of evidence or flaws in what evidence we do have, it's nothing close to unicorn in a box theory. Given an infinite amount of time, there is still some aspects of the box we could never search.

EDIT: By the way, if your experiment was even remotely scientific, it would go like this. If there was a unicorn in this box with given traits, then it would leave this evidence. Then you'd search for that evidence and in not finding it, you'd have evidence that a unicorn with those traits was not in the box. That's how science works. But those results are limited. Obviously, that analogy is often compared to God, but the flaw is in the fact that the traits must first be defined and an assumption of what evidence there would be must be made. Lack of evidence only works as evidence of lack in specific circumstances where the expected results are well-defined and well-justified.

To the first bit, you're asking the wrong guy. I'd say it's more than proven that Christianity can evolve. Does it leave some people behind? Yes. But genetic evolution works that way too.

As the MPU, the problem with Jesus is that we don't have an ability to thoroughly search the box. For the vast majority of people who have ever inhabited the planet, there is little or no evidence of their existence. Add to that, several dozen reasons why it would in the interest of any number of groups to ensure such evidence either didn't survive or isn't readily available, and you have a completely reasonable way for their to be little to no evidence of Jesus.

Want a couple of examples? Well, if you're an Emporer who just orchestrated the creation of a empire-endorsed religion compiled in a way that makes it rather easy to control those unruly Christians and one of the big obstacles to that was the question of the divinity of Christ or if he was just a messenger of God, you'd quite possibly have an interest in destroying certain evidence.

Or to promote certain evidence.
Particular texts as opposed to others to be more precise.
Specifically, promoting the idea against evidence to the contary to appease and control the unruly masses.
If you catch my drift here, you'll understand my suspicions on the rise of christianity.


Or how about you have a criminal that led an uprising of some sorts, perhaps one that gained momentum after his death? One might take pains to surpress such evidence.

Or promote the idea, such as in the Council of Nicaea.


And, hell, for all we know the Church has evidence we've not been permitted to see because it tells a very different story of Jesus or simply one they think is very different, like perhaps a married Jesus with children.

That sounds a little "Dan Brown" to me, but as Ive argued recently, the idea isnt out of the realm of possibilty.


Does that mean any of this happened? No, of course not. But it's just a few reasonable examples of why evidence of Jesus isn't particularly more likely than evidence of Jerry Christ (yes, I'm aware that Christ was not his actual last name). While there is plenty of reason to be suspicious of the lack of evidence or flaws in what evidence we do have, it's nothing close to unicorn in a box theory. Given an infinite amount of time, there is still some aspects of the box we could never search.

True, and given that evidence may turn up at some point, is it not a logical conclusion to assume that thus far, based on the evidence presented, that its far likeler that there may be nothing, rather than to assume something might one day, turn up?

What if it could evolve, err..to include Evolution?It already has.

It already has.

I know, but I meant "universally".
I know that Catholicism has, and thats a good start, but theres a good amount of Fundamentalism left out there still.

well to take this one step at a time (as things are getting hot in here..me likey:D)
1st of all..did he existed or not..probably yes..as there were a lots of dissident branches of the Judaic religion in those times..most of them (and i suppose Jesus's one was one of those) were actually some form of political resistance toward the Roman Empire..so from one of those..it could be..
Was that his name?? Probably not..

2nd of all..was he who Christianity is saying he was?..no!
(or yes..if you want to take this in a biblical way..we are all sons of god..'cos he created us)..the things written in the new testament..were..let say transcribed by Paul into Greek and later Latin..

Lets take two things in consideration:
1. Paul didn't knew the guy directly in the 1st place
2. He himself was from a dissident branch of the newly form religion
3. the fact that he was actually a roman meant than he could export his version of the things (in a more acceptable way for the wider area)
- why say messiah means the guy who will save the jews from the romans and be there new king?? Isn't it better if messiah would be the guy that save all mankind
- when was he born? 25 december?..could be..but i guess not (1/365 chances )..it's just that most of the other religion celebrated the solstice around that time..really big magical festivity as the day finally grew again
- were things modified so that the story is more to the hearts of ppl..most likely..what i see here is a clear indication of the old indo-european myth of the Mother and Son (Mother Nature and Life is the Son)
Lets take it apart: Mary appears in 3 stances throughout the story :Virgin, Mother, and Crone (just like Mother nature appeared in that old Myth)
The Son is born -> then he gives all life and crops-> then he dies to be resurrected again next year (Jesus appears as newly born and kid only in few instances-> then jumps to 33 when he gives all his wisdom and cures and miracles, don't forget many were food related :D)-> the he dies to be reborn

Let's end it..I think he was a real person..but in more then many ways differnt from what is written in the bible..and yeah..he was just a dude (probably a bit smarter then those of his time)

He did exist. And on a spiritual note still does.
Yet this forum pursues the historical Jesus and so I'll say a little on that:

We have Four Gospels + the Non-Canonical Gospels, all of which confirm the existence of Jesus. Then we have Paul's epistles and the literature of the Early Church. The Talmud (the Jewish Holy Book NOT Christian) pays reference to him as does the Qu'ran which acknowledges Jesus' existence, albeit as prophet not Messiah. Then we have snapshots from Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny, Celsus, Thallan, Lucian.

Hope that helps. There is archaelogical evidence too but I'm slightly more ignorant on that side of things so I shan't pretend to know what I don't.


You can't use scripture to prove whether or not an historical Jesus existed. That's like in 2000 years time, people using Terry Practchet books to prove the real existance of one Rincewind the magician.

As far as I know there is no historical evidence for the man Jesus, who 2000 years later is known as the only begotten son of God.

Which seem strange does it not? I mean we know of such historical figures as King Herod, because of existing documents, but none for an historical Jesus?

I know, but I meant "universally".
I know that Catholicism has, and thats a good start, but theres a good amount of Fundamentalism left out there still.Orthodoxy (including catholicism) makes up two thirds of Christianity, and for the most part they have no problems with evolution. And the christian spinoff called protestantism contains all kinds of arbitrary beliefs, so it is hard to say what their overall position on evolution really is. At least in europe protestants have no problem with evolution.

... I mean we know of such historical figures as King Herod, because of existing documents, but none for an historical Jesus?That's because he was insignificant at the time. And he left no writings.

That's because he was insignificant at the time. And he left no writings.

I can't believe that, given the biblical account of his life, and what happened towards the end. Not one person wrote about him whilst he was alive?

He was gathering all of these followers, he performed many, many miracles, he preached to thousands upon thousands, and yet not one person chose to write about him?

No 'lunatic overturns money lenders tables' headlines(so to speak)?
You don't think that would have been documented?

I can't believe that, given the biblical account of his life, and what happened towards the end. Not one person wrote about him whilst he was alive? Nope.

He was gathering all of these followers, he performed many, many (alleged) miracles, he preached to thousands upon thousands, and yet not one person chose to write about him?Exactly.

No 'lunatic overturns money lenders tables' headlines(so to speak)?
You don't think that would have been documented?Well, they had no FOXnewspaper in those days...

Well, they had no FOXnewspaper in those days...


Fox has a newspaper?

Fox has a newspaper?If it had existed back then, it surely would have had a newspaper, since television was not available for another nineteenhundredsomething years. ;)

If it had existed back then, it surely would have had a newspaper, since television was not available for another nineteenhundredsomething years. ;)

Ahhh I see where you're coming from, equating the Fox corporation with the great Satan. I like the cut of your jib!(woteverthehellthatmeans):D

I like the cut of your jib!(woteverthehellthatmeans):D
A jib is one name for the triangular sail at the bow (front) of a boat.

The 'cut of your jib' is the way your sail is trimmed; how far it is let out. So it's saying, "I like the way you have set up your boat", i.e., "I like your attitude."

Thank-you and goodnight.

A jib is one name for the triangular sail at the bow (front) of a boat.

The 'cut of your jib' is the way your sail is trimmed; how far it is let out. So it's saying, "I like the way you have set up your boat", i.e., "I like your attitude."

Thank-you and goodnight.

That's what I like about this 'ere interweb thingamy, somebody, somewhere knows the answer!

That's what I like about this 'ere interweb thingamy, somebody, somewhere knows the answer!
If they lived by the sea as a young child and learned how to sail a boat. ;)

If they lived by the sea as a young child and learned how to sail a boat. ;)

Ahhh where as I have grown up in cities, and never moved away from them. So can I interest you in how not to appear a victim to would be muggers?

So can I interest you in how not to appear a victim to would be muggers?
Thanks, but I've been living for some time now in a city (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Glasgow) that, unfortunately, has seen its fair share of violence over the years.

If what you don't seem to follow counts as nothing, we all ramble about nothing.

You have it down to a science.

Let me clarify something. I will use small words so you will be able to understand.

You have not proven your godman exists. The thread's purpose is to that end. You have yet to provide a single shread of evidence to support your theory.

You cannot debate using the tactic of fallacious argument that somehow proves to you your twisted point.

Let me set out the guidelines of how to prove your point, since you have no idea how to proceed.

1: Prove your godman existed using independent sources that are not discredited.
2: Once you have proven step 1, Prove this person was somehow worthy of deification and they were indeed deific.
3: After steps 1 and 2 are satisfied, prove the canonized text accurately protrays the facts, citing independent evidenciary sources.

The rest of your arguments are quite pointless, and I do not need to provide alternate explanations that you will claim satisfies your claim. You have asserted this person exists or existed. Cite your independent evidence or dry up and go away. Pretty simple task really.

Are you up to it? Or should we just assume you have no idea what you are talking about?

You have it down to a science.

Let me clarify something. I will use small words so you will be able to understand.

You have not proven your godman exists. The thread's purpose is to that end. You have yet to provide a single shread of evidence to support your theory.

You cannot debate using the tactic of fallacious argument that somehow proves to you your twisted point.

Let me set out the guidelines of how to prove your point, since you have no idea how to proceed.

1: Prove your godman existed using independent sources that are not discredited.
2: Once you have proven step 1, Prove this person was somehow worthy of deification and they were indeed deific.
3: After steps 1 and 2 are satisfied, prove the canonized text accurately protrays the facts, citing independent evidenciary sources.

The rest of your arguments are quite pointless, and I do not need to provide alternate explanations that you will claim satisfies your claim. You have asserted this person exists or existed. Cite your independent evidence or dry up and go away. Pretty simple task really.

Are you up to it? Or should we just assume you have no idea what you are talking about?

You cannot "prove" anything. I know this has been explained to you already. Prove is not a scientific term.

Meanwhile, not "proving" Jesus existed does not mean he didn't. It doesn't mean he did. Either claim would be a fallacy.

Now what you're attempting to do is drop arguments, because I annihilated them. Which is fine if you admit you were wrong, which you were.

Anywho, Jesus is not considered a "godman" by many, many Christians. You're ignorance of Christianity is simply that. What is and isn't canonized by a pagan emporer has little bearing on that rather clear fact. Your repeated demonstration of your ignorance on the subject does not help your credibility.

Now, since, as I started, it cannot be demonstrated that he didn't exist, nor can it be demonstrated that he did. Science won't produce theories based on his existence and religious folks can continue to have faith without it being irrational. Everyone wins except people who base their claims on appeal to ignorance or who don't understand what religion is (that would be you, sweetie).

Meanwhile, not "proving" Jesus existed does not mean he didn't. It doesn't mean he did. Either claim would be a fallacy.

*snip*

Science won't produce theories based on his existence and religious folks can continue to have faith without it being irrational.

Agreed. So can we all agree that jesus existed and was a small gerbil ?

You cannot "prove" anything. I know this has been explained to you already. Prove is not a scientific term.

Meanwhile, not "proving" Jesus existed does not mean he didn't. It doesn't mean he did. Either claim would be a fallacy.

Now what you're attempting to do is drop arguments, because I annihilated them. Which is fine if you admit you were wrong, which you were.

Anywho, Jesus is not considered a "godman" by many, many Christians. You're ignorance of Christianity is simply that. What is and isn't canonized by a pagan emporer has little bearing on that rather clear fact. Your repeated demonstration of your ignorance on the subject does not help your credibility.

Now, since, as I started, it cannot be demonstrated that he didn't exist, nor can it be demonstrated that he did. Science won't produce theories based on his existence and religious folks can continue to have faith without it being irrational. Everyone wins except people who base their claims on appeal to ignorance or who don't understand what religion is (that would be you, sweetie).

Then I accept this as your concession speech, Sweetums

Agreed. So can we all agree that jesus existed and was a small gerbil ?

Well if he existed I do agree on the rodent analogy.

I can't believe that, given the biblical account of his life, and what happened towards the end. Not one person wrote about him whilst he was alive?

He was gathering all of these followers, he performed many, many miracles, he preached to thousands upon thousands, and yet not one person chose to write about him?

No 'lunatic overturns money lenders tables' headlines(so to speak)?
You don't think that would have been documented?

There are dozens of explanations. First we don't know that "not one person chose to write about him". We simply know that those writings didn't survive 2000 years or we haven't found them. So what you mean to say is "we haven't found writings from one person?" Which given it was 2000 years and most likely, even if he existed and did everything described in the Bible (which isn't a requirement for him having lived), most likely less people would have written about him then than Kind Herod. People act like seeing him perform these things would make him an extreme person of interest. Ever been to India and seen some of the apparent miracles that people perform? Especially when it was possible to do so without being recorded on camera?

But let's assume for a moment that he existed and that he actually performed all of those miracles. Let's even assume that their effect would not have been tempered by fakers, which we can pretty much guarantee there were then just like now. Let's pretend that Jesus was as big a figure as KING Herod at the time. Even then a lack of contemporary writings would really demonstrate anything. You've still got a ton of reasons why people wouldn't care if information about Herod survived and would care if information about Jesus did.

There are a hundred ways to find perfectly logical explanations for a real Jesus on which the gospels were based and still no writings. Again, does that mean he necessarily existed? Nope. Does it mean he necessarily didn't? Nope. And claim either as if you've evidence for them would be relying on an appeal to ignorance.

Then I accept this as your concession speech, Sweetums

Again dropping arguments. You claimed that a lack of evidence PROVES Jesus did not exist. I take it you're retracting that claim, yes?

Again dropping arguments. You claimed that a lack of evidence PROVES Jesus did not exist. I take it you're retracting that claim, yes?

Your twisted version is just a veiled attempt at humor. If you wish to quote me, try using my words and not your ignorant summation.

Your twisted version is just a veiled attempt at humor. If you wish to quote me, try using my words and not your ignorant summation.

Okay, we'll use your words then. They are MUCH better.

"Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist."

That first line was my favorite. And that is, of course, appeal to ignorance.

"However in this case, the conclusion there is a godman is false due to lack of evidence. Therefore your entire argument is fallacious and pointless. Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct. I suggest you re-examine your theory and try to prove the theory through reproducable means if you intend to convince others of your claim. "

There's that word PROVE again and the claim that you can call something FALSE by lack of evidence. Appeal to ignorance.

Shall I keep going? Do you concede that you cannot conclude that Jesus did not exist without using appeal to ignorance or do you want to continue to embarrass yourself by demonstrating your rather complete ignorance of logical fallacies, scientific conclusions and Christianity?

There are dozens of explanations. First we don't know that "not one person chose to write about him". We simply know that those writings didn't survive 2000 years or we haven't found them. So what you mean to say is "we haven't found writings from one person?" Which given it was 2000 years and most likely, even if he existed and did everything described in the Bible (which isn't a requirement for him having lived), most likely less people would have written about him then than Kind Herod. People act like seeing him perform these things would make him an extreme person of interest. Ever been to India and seen some of the apparent miracles that people perform? Especially when it was possible to do so without being recorded on camera?

But let's assume for a moment that he existed and that he actually performed all of those miracles. Let's even assume that their effect would not have been tempered by fakers, which we can pretty much guarantee there were then just like now. Let's pretend that Jesus was as big a figure as KING Herod at the time. Even then a lack of contemporary writings would really demonstrate anything. You've still got a ton of reasons why people wouldn't care if information about Herod survived and would care if information about Jesus did.

There are a hundred ways to find perfectly logical explanations for a real Jesus on which the gospels were based and still no writings. Again, does that mean he necessarily existed? Nope. Does it mean he necessarily didn't? Nope. And claim either as if you've evidence for them would be relying on an appeal to ignorance.

alll very true. and one wonders why none of our other christian defenders felt strong enough to make just such an argument.

jesus WASNT a figure as big as king herod in his own time. he made a brief splash then was crucified. i dont see why anyone would jot down the name and history of an executed criminal. would a jewish official use a bit of precious papyrus to record another messiah wannabe being executed? i dont see why.

jesus is only important after his followers build up enough of a group that they cant keep it all straight and need to start writing stuff down. by then it was so spread out that all sorts of stories got made up to emphasize different ideas on the nature of god and christ.

but having that following and making those stories are not proof of the existence of jesus. (as you know.) which is what seems to make most of the christians in this thread crazy. they refuse to acknowledge the obvious lack of proof as if it is indeed a proof of non-existence.

if you are a believer you shouldnt need an historical record to back up your belief. if you are not a believer, there is no historical record to suggest that you should believe.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

And since you seem to have forgotten the original question... see above. It didn't ask anyone to prove anything. It simply asked the question, which is debatable since the evidence isn't compelling at all. And then it follows up with the question I was addressing that you dropped all the arguments about. You claimed it matters because it invalidates the entire religion, after making the fallacious claim that we can conclude he didn't exist. Convenient for you, but the entirety of your claim was so ridiculous that when I ripped it apart you abandoned it and pretended the thread was about something else entirely.

There are dozens of explanations. First we don't know that "not one person chose to write about him". We simply know that those writings didn't survive 2000 years or we haven't found them.

So with a lack of evidence of writings it is logical to conclude there aren't any. Wasn't it you who said the conclusion outweighs the evidence or something equally as silly?

So what you mean to say is "we haven't found writings from one person?"

No. They stated what they meant. No writings about a mythical 'jesus' has been found. Therefore not one person wrote about him is an acurate conclusion.

Which given it was 2000 years and most likely, even if he existed and did everything described in the Bible (which isn't a requirement for him having lived), most likely less people would have written about him then than Kind Herod. People act like seeing him perform these things would make him an extreme person of interest.

Due to the extreme levels of ignorance of the time he would have attracted crowds from many many kilometers! Turning water into wine would have been a huge draw.

Ever been to India and seen some of the apparent miracles that people perform? Especially when it was possible to do so without being recorded on camera?

Irrelevant. In this day and age we know about camera tricks and other illusionists. Not as big today as it would have been 2000+ years ago.

But let's assume for a moment that he existed and that he actually performed all of those miracles. Let's even assume that their effect would not have been tempered by fakers, which we can pretty much guarantee there were then just like now. Let's pretend that Jesus was as big a figure as KING Herod at the time. Even then a lack of contemporary writings would really demonstrate anything. You've still got a ton of reasons why people wouldn't care if information about Herod survived and would care if information about Jesus did.

Sure! Lets assume aliens landed in Bethlehem! Lets assume they did not want records of their visit so they erased the memories of all inhabitants that saw them. Lets assume they were deities. Lets assume it all! Therefore the only reason there is no historical account of the visit is because they mind erased it!

There are a hundred ways to find perfectly logical explanations for a real Jesus on which the gospels were based and still no writings.

There are? One comes to mind.

Again, does that mean he necessarily existed? Nope. Does it mean he necessarily didn't? Nope. And claim either as if you've evidence for them would be relying on an appeal to ignorance.


You do seem to have the market cornered on ignorance.

alll very true. and one wonders why none of our other christian defenders felt strong enough to make just such an argument.

jesus WASNT a figure as big as king herod in his own time. he made a brief splash then was crucified. i dont see why anyone would jot down the name and history of an executed criminal. would a jewish official use a bit of precious papyrus to record another messiah wannabe being executed? i dont see why.

jesus is only important after his followers build up enough of a group that they cant keep it all straight and need to start writing stuff down. by then it was so spread out that all sorts of stories got made up to emphasize different ideas on the nature of god and christ.

but having that following and making those stories are not proof of the existence of jesus. (as you know.) which is what seems to make most of the christians in this thread crazy. they refuse to acknowledge the obvious lack of proof as if it is indeed a proof of non-existence.

if you are a believer you shouldnt need an historical record to back up your belief. if you are not a believer, there is no historical record to suggest that you should believe.

Of course I agree with all of that BUT the last bit. You shouldn't ignore evidence, I would say, particularly not reliable evidence. Evidence should be incorporated into one's faith. However, as you say, faith doesn't require evidence. It's not a science. Pretending as if faith has the same requirements, whether it be IDers trying to attack the theory of evolution or atheists claiming they've destroyed Christianity, is fallacious.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people of either persuasion who don't understand the boundaries of religion, science, logic and history.

Okay, we'll use your words then. They are MUCH better.

Oh I agree.

"Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist."

That first line was my favorite. And that is, of course, appeal to ignorance.

I agree. You are showing it in abundance. Your theory is invalid due to lack of evidnce.

"However in this case, the conclusion there is a godman is false due to lack of evidence. Therefore your entire argument is fallacious and pointless. Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct. I suggest you re-examine your theory and try to prove the theory through reproducable means if you intend to convince others of your claim. "

There's that word PROVE again and the claim that you can call something FALSE by lack of evidence. Appeal to ignorance.

The ignorance gods are smiling on your appeal.

Shall I keep going?

Please continue! This is providing my with hours of laughter and entertainment.

Do you concede that you cannot conclude that Jesus did not exist without using appeal to ignorance or do you want to continue to embarrass yourself by demonstrating your rather complete ignorance of logical fallacies, scientific conclusions and Christianity?

1: The concession speech you gave was touching.
2: Since the conclusion is valid, there is no dispute over it.
3: The only embarrassing party is you, but it is entertaining.
4: You clearly do not know the religion very well, as you have clearly demonstrated a cursory knowledge of it.

Please, I invite you to continue. I am sure others are laughing as hard as I am.

...if you are a believer you shouldnt need an historical record to back up your belief....what?? of course he should!!

alll very true. and one wonders why none of our other christian defenders felt strong enough to make just such an argument.

jesus WASNT a figure as big as king herod in his own time. he made a brief splash then was crucified. i dont see why anyone would jot down the name and history of an executed criminal. would a jewish official use a bit of precious papyrus to record another messiah wannabe being executed? i dont see why.

Because three kings apparantly found it necessary to travel many, many miles to praise him at his birth. That sort of thing gets noticed - unless of course they were very minor wise men.

Or representations of the other popular gods at the time - just like the stable animals are argued to be by some. But that would again imply Jesus was not a real person but an idea.

You're accusing me of fabricating evidence? What utter disingenuous poppycock....

What part of linking to sources like Oxford, http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/, and Manchester's John Rylands Library http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/, and photographs of artifacts, wiki links for quick looks at other things, quotes with sources and links, what part of any of this makes you think I've fabricated anything? Slanderous claptrap :rolleyes:

Some of your proofs have been crap, certainly not all, you, actually are the one that has done the best job of presenting evidence, I named you primarily because of the people who have posted 'evidence' you are the only one whose name I recognize, so relax

Oh I agree.

"Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist."

This is an appeal to ignorance. It's a standard logical fallacy. Your argument is debunked. It has been since you made it.


I agree. You are showing it in abundance. Your theory is invalid due to lack of evidnce.

Not the same as false, sweetie. That's the left turn you never should have made and got you lost. Invalid is an accurate way to address a conclusion with a lack of compelling evidence.



"However in this case, the conclusion there is a godman is false due to lack of evidence. Therefore your entire argument is fallacious and pointless. Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct. I suggest you re-examine your theory and try to prove the theory through reproducable means if you intend to convince others of your claim. "



The ignorance gods are smiling on your appeal.

Again, that you don't understand the logical fallacies doesn't make them cease to exist. Your claim is by fact, your claim is an appeal to ignorance. It's not an ad hominem to point it out. Rather than refute my claim, you've resorted another logical fallacy, ad hominem. You trying to set a record? This is NSG. Logical fallacies abound. You're not even gonna come close.



Please continue! This is providing my with hours of laughter and entertainment.

I hope so. That makes it more delicious. That you are so unaware of your fallacies that you're laughing at me is wildly fun.


1: The concession speech you gave was touching.
2: Since the conclusion is valid, there is no dispute over it.
3: The only embarrassing party is you, but it is entertaining.
4: You clearly do not know the religion very well, as you have clearly demonstrated a cursory knowledge of it.

Please, I invite you to continue. I am sure others are laughing as hard as I am.

The conclusion is based on a logical fallacy. It's really very simply. Your reply so far to my pointing this out is ad hominems and "nuh-uh".

I don't understand religion? You want to test that little theory? I'm pretty certain when we're done you'll look as silly as you do with your appeal to ignorance claims.

But, hey, at least you're not claiming you didn't say it anymore.

Because three kings apparantly found it necessary to travel many, many miles to praise him at his birth. That sort of thing gets noticed - unless of course they were very minor wise men.kings?

Rotflmao

the topic is about jesus, yet that does not mean that i cannot ask u a simple question, seeing how this is about religion and ur an atheist. actually giv me an answer instead of sayin im off topic

You are off topic, This isn't about whether or not the christian god exists, just whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person.

No, it only implies that the nativity story is a late invention. If young George Washington really managed to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac, such an athletic feat would probably have attracted a lot of notice at the time: does the absence of any contemporary mention tend to show that there was no such person as George Washington, or just that he was the kind of person that people made up tall tales about?

kings?

The wise men are generally referred to as kings. This is still extremely apparant in many countries which celebrate "the feast of the three kings" at january 6th.

Of course, if they truly were kings is uncertain. The complete lack of records suggests not - and that they were not important either.

You are off topic, This isn't about whether or not the christian god exists, just whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person.Nazareth? Was there talk of Nazareth? Or of a Nazarene? Or rather Nazirite?

Nazareth? Was there talk of Nazareth? Or of a Nazarene? Or rather Nazirite?

Ah Nazareth. The town theology created.

Nazareth? Was there talk of Nazareth? Or of a Nazarene? Or rather Nazirite?

wtf? Jesus of Nazareth is refering to the person, specifying Jesus Christ. If you really do not realize that, should you even be arguing in this thread?

The wise men are generally referred to as kings. This is still extremely apparant in many countries which celebrate "the feast of the three kings" at january 6th.

Of course, if they truly were kings is uncertain. The complete lack of records suggests not - and that they were not important either.january 6th is epiphany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(Christian)) (appearance).

So with a lack of evidence of writings it is logical to conclude there aren't any. Wasn't it you who said the conclusion outweighs the evidence or something equally as silly?

Um, no. Again, you fail. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. Appeal to ignorance is a fallacy designed to address that when there is no evidence. You cannot call a claim false simply because it wasn't demonstrated. You can't call a claim true simply because it wasn't demonstrated. As far as the question, seriously, how can you possibly think demonstrating your lack of understanding of the fallacy is going to make you more credible?


No. They stated what they meant. No writings about a mythical 'jesus' has been found. Therefore not one person wrote about him is an acurate conclusion.

It is not. It's an appeal to ignorance. And before you once again demonstrate you don't understand what I mean, please look it up. Appeal to ignorance simply means it's fallacious to base a conclusion (either to conclude it's false or to conclude it's true) on a lack of evidence.




Due to the extreme levels of ignorance of the time he would have attracted crowds from many many kilometers! Turning water into wine would have been a huge draw.

Really? Even the bible talks of similar apparent miracles being done by others. Due to the extreme levels of ignorance at the time, he would have been one of many people capable of performing what appeared to be magic.



Irrelevant. In this day and age we know about camera tricks and other illusionists. Not as big today as it would have been 2000+ years ago.

I'm not talking about camera tricks. These are people who perform on the streets. It's less common today, but 30 years ago, you couldn't spit in a major Indian city and not hit someone performing "miracles".


Sure! Lets assume aliens landed in Bethlehem! Lets assume they did not want records of their visit so they erased the memories of all inhabitants that saw them. Lets assume they were deities. Lets assume it all! Therefore the only reason there is no historical account of the visit is because they mind erased it!

Um, I was repeating his initial assumptions. It wasn't a statement of belief. I was simply taking the most extreme position and showing a perfectly rational way that evidence wouldn't survive. Refusing to address the fact that many, many people had interest in preventing the survival of evidence is unscientific.

Appeal to ridicule is also a fallacy. But, hey, next you're going to cling to the term ridicule rather than look up the fallacy and stop using it, if your past behavior is evidence.


There are? One comes to mind.

Yes, I know. Fortunately, we're not limited to your lack of imagination.


You do seem to have the market cornered on ignorance.

Ah, more ad hominems. Yay. That'll help your claims.

Ah Nazareth. The town theology created.
yes. exactly that one.

wtf? Jesus of Nazareth is refering to the person, specifying Jesus Christ. If you really do not realize that, should you even be arguing in this thread?if don't even have evidence for Jesu existence, how can you know where he's from (with Nazareth being close to impossible) or that he's christ?

Agreed. So can we all agree that jesus existed and was a small gerbil ?

I'll go with that, especially since it sounds like something LG would say ;)

if don't even have evidence for Jesu existence, how can you know where he's from (with Nazareth being close to impossible) or that he's christ?

Sounds like a 'logical fallacy' to attribute an origin for a non-existent individual.

Because three kings apparantly found it necessary to travel many, many miles to praise him at his birth. That sort of thing gets noticed - unless of course they were very minor wise men.

Or representations of the other popular gods at the time - just like the stable animals are argued to be by some. But that would again imply Jesus was not a real person but an idea.

No, it wouldn't. As been shown repeatedly, and repeated again on this page, it is common for legends to spring up around historical figures. George Washington's place in history is widely mixed with legend. Paul Revere's place in history is almost entirely legend simply because his name was easier to rhyme than the guy who really did the ride.

Hell 2000 years from now there may be legend of a world war led by an evil chimpman. When we discover it was really just a local war in the middle east and that the evil chimpman was just a leader who bore a remarkable resemblence to a chimp, will he suddenly pop out of existence?

what?? of course he should!!

Why?

if don't even have evidence for Jesu existence, how can you know where he's from (with Nazareth being close to impossible) or that he's christ?

Hmmmm... I'm almost certain that religious belief doesn't have the same requirements as scientific theory. I think they even have a word for what religious belief is generally based on. It's an obscure word, so I understand why you'd ignore its existence. The word is faith.

However, where he's from, which is most likely an error in translation, as you know, is patently irrelevant. Once again, it doesn't matter if every detail is correct. For many early Christians, he didn't even need to be God, and wasn't accepted to be. For them and for many Christians today, the point is the teachings.

Nazareth? Was there talk of Nazareth? Or of a Nazarene? Or rather Nazirite?

Whichever, it doesn't really matter, I was attempting to make the point of which Jesus I was asking about in the op

january 6th is epiphany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(Christian)) (appearance).

Which is called "three kings" in most countries. To quote the article you linked:

Epiphany (Greek: επιφάνεια, "appearance" or "manifestation") is a Christian feast intended to celebrate the "shining forth" or revelation of God to mankind in human form, in the person of Jesus. The feast is also called Theophany, Twelfth Day—being the twelfth day after Christmas—or Three Kings Day.

No, it wouldn't. As been shown repeatedly, and repeated again on this page, it is common for legends to spring up around historical figures. George Washington's place in history is widely mixed with legend. Paul Revere's place in history is almost entirely legend simply because his name was easier to rhyme than the guy who really did the ride.

Yes but history is pop culture. Since Washington Irving chose Paul Revere over Israel Bissell, we have one source for the legend. However we have no independent corroboration for Paul Revere other than the 19 miles he travelled. (Warning the dean of Harvard? :)

Hell 2000 years from now there may be legend of a world war led by an evil chimpman.

I doubt Clinton will be revered for anything other than a blue dress with a stain on it.

Sounds like a 'logical fallacy' to attribute an origin for a non-existent individual.

Hehe. You really should look up the logical fallacies. Demonstrating that you don't understand what they are or why they are significant isn't going to help be considered a credible debator.

When we discover it was really just a local war in the middle east and that the evil chimpman was just a leader who bore a remarkable resemblence to a chimp, will he suddenly pop out of existence?
Just as a legend may surround a historical personage, it doesn't follow that all myths must have some historical basis.

As I've said before in this thread, we 'know' that Jesus existed as much as we know Beowulf or Oedipus existed. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there might have been a man, or a series of men, whose story was expanded and built up until he was the son of a god, but the fact there exists such a legend doesn't necessitate the existence of this man or men.

Hehe. You really should look up the logical fallacies. Demonstrating that you don't understand what they are or why they are significant isn't going to help be considered a credible debator.

Yes it seems clear anyone who disagrees with you isn't credible. Wrong much?

Why?even a faith must be based on something. something that justifies the faith.

Yes but history is pop culture. Since Washington Irving chose Paul Revere over Israel Bissell, we have one source for the legend. However we have no independent corroboration for Paul Revere other than the 19 miles he travelled. (Warning the dean of Harvard? :)

Yes, that's the point, actually. King Herod would be a larger figure in pop culture than a street preacher who had only a small cadre of loyal followers.

I doubt Clinton will be revered for anything other than a blue dress with a stain on it.

Oh, the cigar will go down in history. I'm sure in 2000 years there will be a legend about a civil war was fought over this woman, Monica. (I've heard a comparison to the face that launched a thousand ships, but it's neither accurate nor appropriate for general consumption so I won't repeat it here.)

Yes, I know. Fortunately, we're not limited to your lack of imagination.

(slow clap) I must offer my respects to you.

if don't even have evidence for Jesu existence, how can you know where he's from (with Nazareth being close to impossible) or that he's christ?

Its simply a name, specifying a person. Whether or not you believe he or the placeactually existed, it still is refering to that person. If you didn't believe in Leonardo Da Vinci, or where he came from, the name "Leonardo Da Vinci" would still refer to that guy.
Whichever, it doesn't really matter, I was attempting to make the point of which Jesus I was asking about in the op

See?

Yes it seems clear anyone who disagrees with you isn't credible. Wrong much?

No, Straughn and I disagree a lot. Straughn is very credible. Ashmoria, TCT, and a plethora of others have ended up on the other side of the fence as I have as and one cannot help but respect their ability to make a credible point. Of course, all of them know what a logical fallacy is and are willing to concede a point when they've had it repeatedly destroyed.

In fact, you'll notice Ashmoria saying the exact same thing as I am about your claim. She simply didn't mention the logical fallacy that invalidates what you've said.

even a faith must be based on something. something that justifies the faith.

Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. Most xtians, despite evidence, continue to believe the lie of their religion. They have faith. No need for knowledge.

No, Straughn and I disagree a lot. Straughn is very credible. Ashmoria, TCT, and a plethora of others have ended up on the other side of the fence as I have as and one cannot help but respect their ability to make a credible point. Of course, all of them know what a logical fallacy is and are willing to concede a point when they've had it repeatedly destroyed.

In fact, you'll notice Ashmoria saying the exact same thing as I am about your claim. She simply didn't mention the logical fallacy that invalidates what you've said.

Still laughing.

Because three kings apparantly found it necessary to travel many, many miles to praise him at his birth. That sort of thing gets noticed - unless of course they were very minor wise men.

Or representations of the other popular gods at the time - just like the stable animals are argued to be by some. But that would again imply Jesus was not a real person but an idea.

absolutely. the stories about jesus' life are obvious fabrications. that still doesnt mean that its impossible for the man to have existed.

it sorta precludes being a bible literalist but those are the minority of christians in the world anyway.

Just as a legend may surround a historical personage, it doesn't follow that all myths must have some historical basis.

As I've said before in this thread, we 'know' that Jesus existed as much as we know Beowulf or Oedipus existed. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there might have been a man, or a series of men, whose story was expanded and built up until he was the son of a god, but the fact there exists such a legend doesn't necessitate the existence of this man or men.

Oh, of course. You're right that it goes both ways. The fact that some is legend doesn't show he didn't exist and the fact that sometimes legends are based on real men doesn't show he existed. We're left with no compelling conclusion either way.

Still laughing.

Still dropping arguments that you cannot refute. I'll tell you what, since you can't understand me, why don't you explain to Ashmoria all about how you can conclude something is false simply because it's not yet proven true.

Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. Most xtians, despite evidence, continue to believe the lie of their religion.

Hmm, I think the definition of faith is "belief without evidence." Criticizing someone for having faith without supporting evidence is kinda redundant.

On a side note, you don't seem to be a very happy person.

even a faith must be based on something. something that justifies the faith.

They have it


hint hint, it's the bible

They have it


hint hint, it's the biblethat's nothing substantial.

Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. Most xtians, despite evidence, continue to believe the lie of their religion. They have faith. No need for knowledge.

You're acting on faith as well. That's the part you don't get. There is a reason why it's not considered a historical fact that Jesus didn't exist. It's because it isn't a historical fact. There is a reason why science doesn't address God. It's because we don't have knowledge of God and science isn't willing to make the leaps of faith that you are.

You don't have knowledge that Christianity is a lie. You don't have knowledge that Jesus didn't exist. You have a lack of proof that either is true, which only casts doubt on them. To claim that a lack of proof is equal to it being false is an appeal to ignorance. It doesn't follow logically.

When you make statements like the above, you demonstrate that your view on this matter is no more balanced and evidence-based than that of your average fundamentalist.

did Mohamed exist?

Still dropping arguments that you cannot refute. I'll tell you what, since you can't understand me, why don't you explain to Ashmoria all about how you can conclude something is false simply because it's not yet proven true.

Lets go the other way with it:

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Thereforee your argument that 'jesus' existed is a fallacy. Therefor assigning an origin for that mythical person is a deductive fallacy.

Therefore your conclusion that 'jesus' exists is an inductive fallacy. In fact there is no evidence to support your claim at all.

So you are appealing to ignorance again?

absolutely. the stories about jesus' life are obvious fabrications. that still doesnt mean that its impossible for the man to have existed.

it sorta precludes being a bible literalist but those are the minority of christians in the world anyway.

Well, some of them are obvious fabrications or misunderstandings anyway.

And, once again, I couldn't agree more.

did Mohamed exist?

He is mentioned by contemporaries, created offspring and left a body.
So probably ;)

Hmm, I think the definition of faith is "belief without evidence." Criticizing someone for having faith without supporting evidence is kinda redundant.

On a side note, you don't seem to be a very happy person.

That would be a fallacy. I am an extremely happy individual.

That would be a fallacy. I am an extremely happy individual.

You do seem angry in your posts fairly often, of course that could just be me reading to much into them

Lets go the other way with it:

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Thereforee your argument that 'jesus' existed is a fallacy. Therefor assigning an origin for that mythical person is a deductive fallacy.

Therefore your conclusion that 'jesus' exists is an inductive fallacy. In fact there is no evidence to support your claim at all.

So you are appealing to ignorance again?

Um. I'm not claiming I have compelling evidence Jesus existed. I'm not claiming that I can logically conclude he existed or that his existence is scientific fact. I'm saying that one cannot conclude either way. Please pay attention.

If I were claiming we can logically or scientifically conclude that Jesus existed since there is no compelling evidence, then I would be making an appeal to ignorance. If I were claiming we can logically or scientifically conclude that Jesus did not exist since there is no compelling evidence, then I would be making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not doing the former, and you're doing the latter. As such, only one of us is appealing to ignorance and it ain't me. Shall I quote you again? The 'due to lack of evidence, there is no evidence" was classic.

You are claiming he doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence. Trying to ascribe the opposite to me isn't going to help you.

I am impressed that you finally decided to look up what a logical fallacy is, though. Perhaps we'll see you apply it now.

that's nothing substantial.

I couldn't agree more, it is, however, enough for a lot of people

Oh, of course. You're right that it goes both ways. The fact that some is legend doesn't show he didn't exist and the fact that sometimes legends are based on real men doesn't show he existed. We're left with no compelling conclusion either way.
As I thought, we totally agree.

And, if you're anything like me, you're finding this thread part-nonsense, part-insubstantial waffling.

You're acting on faith as well. That's the part you don't get.

This should be good.

There is a reason why it's not considered a historical fact that Jesus didn't exist. It's because it isn't a historical fact. There is a reason why science doesn't address God. It's because we don't have knowledge of God and science isn't willing to make the leaps of faith that you are.

I have made no leaps of faith. I am asking for your evidence.

You don't have knowledge that Christianity is a lie.

You haven't read the bible I take it.


You don't have knowledge that Jesus didn't exist.

I have no evidence to the contrary. You have no evidence aliens are snot gobules either.

You have a lack of proof that either is true, which only casts doubt on them.

To claim that a lack of proof is equal to it being false is an appeal to ignorance. It doesn't follow logically.

Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of non-existence.

When you make statements like the above, you demonstrate that your view on this matter is no more balanced and evidence-based than that of your average fundamentalist.

Perhaps in your mind. However, until it is shown to be the truth, there is no compelling reason to believe the presentation.

did Mohamed exist?

dunno.

probably.

but i have no knowledge of what the scholarship might say on the subject and what holes there might be in the proof.

why do you ask?

You do seem angry in your posts fairly often, of course that could just be me reading to much into them

Yes, I would agree with the latter. I have no anger or ill will at all.

Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of non-existence.

The point he's trying to make is that lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

I couldn't agree more, it is, however, enough for a lot of peoplewell, those people are all the same. the funny thing is that they cannot even tell what it is that makes them believe in jesus as christ but not in other gods. they cannot even express their faith's distinguishing element of truth.

Therefore your conclusion that 'jesus' exists is an inductive fallacy.

I, of course, haven't read the 800 or so comments, but from what I've seen, he hasn't concluded that Jesus existed; he has been disproving your assertion that He doesn't exist cause there is no evidence to support it.

Note: As a third party, I am laughing with him as he appears to understand logical fallacies and you don't (as evidenced by your "if A is wrong B is right" thinking and vice-versa.

link to explanations of logical fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Yes, I would agree with the latter. I have no anger or ill will at all.

I am, apparently not the only one who has read such into your posts
:D

The point he's trying to make is that lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.and at the same time he uses lack of evidence as evidence for existence, which is even more braindead. that's why jocabia was the first on my IL.

well, those people are all the same. the funny thing is that they cannot even tell what it is that makes them believe in jesus as christ but not in other gods. they cannot even express their faith's distinguishing element of truth.

It's probably that it is the one they were exposed to first/the most


can you say sheep?

Yes, I would agree with the latter. I have no anger or ill will at all.
the illness of will lies with the believers, not their critics ;)

Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of non-existence.

Its like a textbook example of Appeal to Ignorance. lol

and at the same time he uses lack of evidence as evidence for existence, which is even more braindead. that's why jocabia was the first on my IL.

hadn't noticed that, 'course I've been skimming most of their posts anyways

This should be good.



I have made no leaps of faith. I am asking for your evidence.

You claimed to have knowledge you don't have. That is a leap of faith. Meanwhile, why are you asking me to evidence a claim I didn't make. I didn't claim I could provide evidence that Jesus existed, nor did I claim that Jesus's existence is a scientific or logical claim. In fact, I claimed the opposite.

You haven't read the bible I take it.

You don't realize that Christianity existed before the Bible, I take it? A text compiled on the order of a pagan emporer is hardly representive of an entire faith, particularly when many, many Christians at the time disagreed with the way it was compiled.


I have no evidence to the contrary. You have no evidence aliens are snot gobules either.

Which is why we say "I don't know" in reference to aliens. Rational beings are not afraid to say "I don't know". Try it. It doesn't hurt. You don't know if aliens are snot gobules nor do you know if Jesus existed. See how that works.

Show me the scientific paper with the conclusion that aliens are not snot gobules and I'll concede the point. You can't, because science does not make appeals to ignorance.


Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of non-existence.

Only if you don't know what an appeal to ignorance is.


Perhaps in your mind. However, until it is shown to be the truth, there is no compelling reason to believe the presentation.

There you go. No one is asking to believe anything. You don't have to believe Jesus existed. The evidence isn't compelling. However, believing he didn't exist isn't the only other option. There is an equal lack of evidence for that claim as well.

It's probably that it is the one they were exposed to first/the most


can you say sheep?so belief is basically based on laziness?

i found it always quite funny that christians like to see themselves as the lord's sheep

so belief is basically based on laziness?

i found it always quite funny that christians like to see themselves as the lord's sheep

For a lot of people I'd say yes.

Let's assume for a moment that there is a god, by the style of christianity it's apparent that he does consider people to be sheep. What would it be like if he considered people to be goats?

Its like a textbook example of Appeal to Ignorance. lol

The thread has deteriorated into the minutia of procedure and definitions.

I am actually surprised someone hasn't quoted Godwin's Law yet.

However, Occam's Razor applies here better than anything else.

If there is no evidence of existence, the simplest conclusion is non-existence.

Now if you would like to provide evidence of existence, we can all go away happy.

and at the same time he uses lack of evidence as evidence for existence, which is even more braindead. that's why jocabia was the first on my IL.

No, he doesn't. I'm actually claiming it's not evidence for either existence or non-existence. One cannot logically or scientifically conclude non-existence for God or Jesus Christ. One cannot logically or scientifically conclude existence for God or Jesus Christ.

These are facts.

No, he doesn't. I'm actually claiming it's not evidence for either existence or non-existence. One cannot logically or scientifically conclude non-existence for God or Jesus Christ. One cannot logically or scientifically conclude existence for God or Jesus Christ.

These are facts.

Therefore there is no reason to even discuss the possibility because there is no evidence. How are those Martian Jazz Singers doing?

Yes, I would agree with the latter. I have no anger or ill will at all.

i dont want to look like im pigpiling on you but you might want to stop and realize that jocabia agrees with everything you say except that (and i havent been paying enough attention to your argument to know if this is really what you are suggesting) that it proves that jesus never existed at all.

maybe you enjoy the sniping back and forth but are you wanting to argue this point?

ARE you arguing this point?

i dont want to look like im pigpiling on you but you might want to stop and realize that jocabia agrees with everything you say except that (and i havent been paying enough attention to your argument to know if this is really what you are suggesting) that it proves that jesus never existed at all.

maybe you enjoy the sniping back and forth but are you wanting to argue this point?

ARE you arguing this point?

I never claimed it proved it. I simply stated that without conclusive evidence to support the claim, the logical conclusion is non-existence.

The thread has deteriorated into the minutia of procedure and definitions.

I am actually surprised someone hasn't quoted Godwin's Law yet.

However, Occam's Razor applies here better than anything else.

If there is no evidence of existence, the simplest conclusion is non-existence.

Now if you would like to provide evidence of existence, we can all go away happy.

No, it isn't the simplest conclusion. The simplest conclusion is "I don't know". Science applies Occam's Razor all the time. According to your usage there would be papers concluding God doesn't exist. There would be papers concluding aliens don't exist. I could produce a paper about unicorns and super computer dream sequences that we call life. However, I can't even if those papers were meant to claim they don't exist. Scientific and logical conclusions require evidence. Occam's Razor doesn't allow for a conclusion until such evidence presents itself and then allows for the simplest conclusion based on the evidence that exists.

Their is no compelling evidence in either direction here. Suggesting Jesus Christ is a legend would be accurate. Suggesting it is not based on a man would be an appeal to ignorance.

Their is no compelling evidence in either direction here. Suggesting Jesus Christ is a legend would be accurate. Suggesting it is not based on a man would be an appeal to ignorance.

The problem is, there is no reason to evidence the negative. The evidenciary responsibility is with the claimant, not the critic.

Therefore there is no reason to even discuss the possibility because there is no evidence. How are those Martian Jazz Singers doing?

And, yet, here you are discussing it. I'm curious who forced you into the thread? Meanwhile, if all you're claiming is that one can't claim that Jesus existed logically or scientifically, then you're finally agreeing with me. My problem is that you claimed non-existence, which you cannot do.

I'll give you, though, despite being misapplied, at least you addressed the argument with Occam's Razor.

The problem is, there is no reason to evidence the negative. The evidenciary responsibility is with the claimant, not the critic.

Yes, but you are making a claim. Non-existence is a claim. That's the point of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

It's like this. I claim P. P could be anything.

I present my arguments for P and you debunk them one after another. So suddenly I have no logical way to demonstrate P. So what's the conclusion?

P fails. You may at that point say you don't accept my claim of P.

However, NOT P is also a claim. As soon as you claim NOT P is true, you are now making a counter claim and you are required to provide evidence as well.

You cannot claim P and you cannot claim NOT P without demonstrating them to be true. Now, obviously, either P or NOT P is true, but being unable to demonstrate one of them is true is not the same as demonstrating it is false. That is where the appeal to ignorance fallacy applies. It applies equally to P or NOT P.

This was the reason for my example of making a bad argument for why 2*2 = 4. It doesn't matter if my argument is bad, the conclusion is either true or false. A failed argument simply leaves us undecided on whether it is true or false. To conclude true or false on any conclusion, a positive argument with evidence must be presented that demonstrates the conclusion either true or false.

EDIT: For the record, you can claim NOT P is true if you have debunked all possible arguments (at least all that are known) for P. This is a regular practice of science, actually. However, it requires that you identify every possible path to P and destroy them, something you've not done and cannot do. All you've done is address every path presented thus far (sort of), which is not the same thing.

and at the same time he uses lack of evidence as evidence for existence.
He's distinctly not saying this.

All Jocabia is saying, quite rightly, is that there is no proof either way; something which I think we established in the first five pages of this thread...

EDIT: see the excellent post above this for further clarification.

He's distinctly not saying this.

All Jocabia is saying, quite rightly, is that there is no proof either way; something which I think we established in the first five pages of this thread...

Ding, ding, ding.

He's distinctly not saying this.

All Jocabia is saying, quite rightly, is that there is no proof either way; something which I think we established in the first five pages of this thread...if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.

He's distinctly not saying this.

All Jocabia is saying, quite rightly, is that there is no proof either way; something which I think we established in the first five pages of this thread...

EDIT: see the excellent post above this for further clarification.

Except: He claimed the conclusion of existence was valid despite there being no evidence. This is the error he made and why we are here. So that may well be what he is saying NOW but previously he made the logical fallacy of concluding existence over non-existence.

if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.

Agreed.

Except: He claimed the conclusion of existence was valid despite there being no evidence. This is the error he made and why we are here. So that may well be what he is saying NOW but previously he made the logical fallacy of concluding existence over non-existence.

I did? Please quote me?

if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.

Maybe because religion fills a need he feels that nothing else does?

if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.
I'm not, as I've said many times in this thread.

I can't speak for Jocabia, but I imagine a believer having faith, not through the (non-existent) historical proof of the existence of Jesus, but through 'divine revelation' or something similar.

Not that I expect you to be happy with this.

Maybe because religion fills a need he feels that nothing else does?

Some people need crutches.

if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.

You must assume the possibility unless you've demonstrated it to be impossible. That's the way science and logic work. What's plain idiotic is denying the possibility of something simply because it hasn't been proven.

Meanwhile, many Christians don't believe he was a divine figure, so that's really beside the point.

I never claimed it proved it. I simply stated that without conclusive evidence to support the claim, the logical conclusion is non-existence.

what im suggesting--given that i mostly agree with you--is that you seek to redefine your debate with jocabia (yeah i know you have already tried) and limit it to the point you want to make.

all of the "who is and who is not making a logical error" is so much side detail.

unless you are having great fun with the muddied debate in which case carry on. (my husband loves to go on and on in a muddied debate so i know that it can be quite amusing at times)

I'm not, as I've said many times in this thread.

I can't speak for Jocabia, but I imagine a believer having faith, not through the (non-existent) historical proof of the existence of Jesus, but through 'divine revelation' or something similar.

Not that I expect you to be happy with this.

This is an answer I can agree with. It is not presumptuous or arrogant.

Some people need crutches.

My thoughts exactly

..., but I imagine a believer having faith, not through the (non-existent) historical proof of the existence of Jesus, but through 'divine revelation' or something similar.oh, please. telepathy or what?

Maybe because religion fills a need he feels that nothing else does?what need?

Some people need crutches.

Is love a crutch? Delicious food? The smell of a meadow? Because I seek these things out though they do not fulfill any scientific or logical quest, are they crutches? Or is possible that I simply find them fulfilling in a way that logic and science cannot provide? None of these are requirements for survival. Hell, knowledge isn't even a requirement for survival. What we "need" is really not pertinent at all.

Some people need crutches.but couldn't they pick crutches that work?

Except: He claimed the conclusion of existence was valid despite there being no evidence. This is the error he made and why we are here. So that may well be what he is saying NOW but previously he made the logical fallacy of concluding existence over non-existence.
I don't believe he did; perhaps you could show us where?

Again, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13324462&postcount=943) post explains things nicely.

what im suggesting--given that i mostly agree with you--is that you seek to redefine your debate with jocabia (yeah i know you have already tried) and limit it to the point you want to make.

all of the "who is and who is not making a logical error" is so much side detail.

unless you are having great fun with the muddied debate in which case carry on. (my husband loves to go on and on in a muddied debate so i know that it can be quite amusing at times)

It can be frustrating. Jocabia likes to quote out of context or apply statements to the wrong people. I prefer straightforward debate. I restated the reason for the thread many times but the side streets Jocabia goes down makes me laugh.

This is an answer I can agree with. It is not presumptuous or arrogant.

Interesting that I said the same thing.

You must assume the possibility unless you've demonstrated it to be impossible.

In practice that does get a bit unwieldy...
Jesus the Gerbil it is.

but couldn't they pick crutches that work?

they did, for them

they did, for themdid it really?

In practice that does get a bit unwieldy...
Jesus the Gerbil it is.

Look out for the spaghetti monster.

In practice that does get a bit unwieldy...
Jesus the Gerbil it is.

Accepting something is possible is not the same as treating it as probable. It's possible I'll be stabbed this afternoon running to the store. I'm not going to say a tearful goodbye to my nephews as if I'm expecting it. Improbable and impossible are not the same thing. They are remarkably confused unfortunately.

Accepting something is possible is not the same as treating it as probable. It's possible I'll be stabbed this afternoon running to the store. I'm not going to say a tearful goodbye to my nephews as if I'm expecting it.

Agreed.
Which brings us back to the topic:
Why do you consider the existence of Jesus to be probable enough to let it influence your life, as opposed to the stabbing ?

Accepting something is possible is not the same as treating it as probable. It's possible I'll be stabbed this afternoon running to the store. I'm not going to say a tearful goodbye to my nephews as if I'm expecting it. Improbable and impossible are not the same thing. They are remarkably confused unfortunately.

Oh. Well then the existence of a godman is so improbable, mostly due to lack of evidence, that the chance of it's existence are to insignificant to be considered.

However, we won't dismiss it. We will put it's chances just a little shy of the chance of finding ice cubes in the surface of the sun.

It can be frustrating. Jocabia likes to quote out of context or apply statements to the wrong people. I prefer straightforward debate. I restated the reason for the thread many times but the side streets Jocabia goes down makes me laugh.

I am discussing with you two claims you made. You've repeated them and never denied them. That you got confused by some of my examples is not my problem. Focus on the two claims.

One of your claims is that Jesus did not exist. You based this on the fact that if you can't prove P then NOT P. This is a classic logical fallacy.

The second claim you made was that if some aspects of Jesus' life were absorbed from other mythologies then the whole religion is debunked. I disputed this as well, but you eventually dropped that argument and I was happy to let you do so, since when I gave examples of why it was true you argued for two pages that you never claimed anything about the example and therefore I shouldn't have brought it up.

Here are my claims.

1. If you cannot evidence P or NOT P then you cannot conclude either is true.
P is the existence of Jesus.
2. Demonstrating that a religion has over time absorbed some tales or customs from other religions, demonstrates that it is not infallible, but not that it does not have any validity as a religion.

did it really?

obviously, yes, because if it didn't, they wouldn't still believe

Oh. Well then the existence of a godman is so improbable, mostly due to lack of evidence, that the chance of it's existence are to insignificant to be considered.

given that there is not enough evidence of the existence of jesus to be forced into some kind of belief, perhaps the question is "is there some way to believe that recognizes this problem"?

you cant be a "the bible is the inerrant world of god" believer and recognize the lack of evidence/errors of the new testament. but i dont think that even st paul was that kind of believer.

Agreed.
Which brings us back to the topic:
Why do you consider the existence of Jesus to be probable enough to let it influence your life, as opposed to the stabbing ?

Again, you make assumptions. I've given a rather lengthy explanation of what I believe and why I believe it that can found through a casual search of my posts. It was in response to Straughn. I'm not going to repeat it all here, but you'll find that my beliefs are not based on the stories in the Bible.

Did Jesus really exist?

Maybe.

Until you can travel back in time...AND....get back thats the best one can say.

There is no historic record. Yet that does not rule out his existence.

This is the only rational answer.

It is not a sop to believers. It is a rational examination of the data which is available.

/vodka

oh, please. telepathy or what?
I said you wouldn't be happy!

And it's not telepathy, it's just as I said, divine revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_revelation[/url). Which can come in a number of ways, depending on the theologian who's talking. In the Christian tradition it's sometimes described as God literally speaking to you; a booming voice from the clouds. Sometimes it's through observing 'God's handiwork'; the universe around you. Other times, revelation comes through reason and contemplation; the tools God gives you are used to 'find' God. Some thinkers, such as Descartes, believed God had 'imprinted' his image or the concept of himself onto you.

You and I may find all this a tad strange, but, much like Jesus' existence, most of it is hard to prove or disprove.

Another matter of faith.

obviously, yes, because if it didn't, they wouldn't still believewhy?

Oh. Well then the existence of a godman is so improbable, mostly due to lack of evidence, that the chance of it's existence are to insignificant to be considered.

However, we won't dismiss it. We will put it's chances just a little shy of the chance of finding ice cubes in the surface of the sun.

Again, your term "godman" is not an accurate representation of what all Christians believe.

Since you're addressing probability now. What is the probability of the existence of Jesus Christ and how did you calculate it?

I said you wouldn't be happy!

And it's not telepathy, it's just as I said, divine revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_revelation[/url). Which can come in a number of ways, depending on the theologian who's talking. In the Christian tradition it's sometimes described as God literally speaking to you; a booming voice from the clouds. Sometimes it's through observing 'God's handiwork'; the universe around you. Other times, revelation comes through reason and contemplation; the tools God gives you are used to 'find' God. Some thinkers, such as Descartes, believed God had 'imprinted' his image or the concept of himself onto you.

You and I may find all this a tad strange, but, much like Jesus' existence, most of it is hard to prove or disprove.Just show me evidence for divine revelation.

Another matter of faith.weasel.

obviously, yes, because if it didn't, they wouldn't still believe

I have to agree with UB here. There are many reasons to believe in God and Jesus that don't require them to be satisfying or helpful beliefs. Many Christians believe in a rather basic morality that compells them to 'believe" out of fear of retribution or hope for a trip to some happy, happy place where there is no more pain. That's why so many use that silly argument pretending that belief is limiting their risk.

Just show me evidence for divine revelation.

Why? Why does faith require divine revelation? Show me evidence that charity warms your heart? Show me evidence that love is worth it?

A world that denies everything that is not evidenced or isn't a scientific conclusion is a cold and dreary world. Show me evidence that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla? Cuz if you can't you better not believe it is. Or the opposite either.

Again, your term "godman" is not an accurate representation of what all Christians believe.

Since you're addressing probability now. What is the probability of the existence of Jesus Christ and how did you calculate it?

What does it matter? The basic tenet of xtianity is the existence of a godman so what is your point? If they did not believe in the godman they would not be xtians. Mithras or something else perhaps.

Lets see, I would calculate his existence to be really close to a googleplex to 1, give or take 1. (Have to account for error)

I calculated it the same way I did the probability or the existence of ice on the sun, the existence of santa and the tooth fairy, or your giving up on this thread.

Why? Why does faith require divine revelation? Show me evidence that charity warms your heart? Show me evidence that love is worth it?

A world that denies everything that is not evidenced or isn't a scientific conclusion is a cold and dreary world. Show me evidence that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla? Cuz if you can't you better not believe it is. Or the opposite either.

I am wondering if UB is really your jesus suddenly.

I am wondering if UB is really your jesus suddenly.
no need to insult me.

Just show me evidence for divine revelation.
As I don't believe in divine revelation, that'd be a rather fruitless exercise, no?

Anyways, you keep on demanding empirical, scientific proof for things that are, necessarily, unempirical and outside the scientific framework. Another fruitless exercise.

weasel.
Not all the time.

We take a large amount of things on faith, including the commonly held belief which science rests on that if experiment x results in outcome y, then experiment x will always result in outcome y. This is know as the problem of induction, and it's simply a matter of 'faith'. There's no better way to describe it.

no need to insult me.

No insult intended. Was merely pointing out that they love your posts.

What does it matter? The basic tenet of xtianity is the existence of a godman so what is your point? If they did not believe in the godman they would not be xtians. Mithras or something else perhaps.

Um, no. Christianity requires that you follow the teachings of Christ. It doesn't require that he be a "godman". In fact, when the council of Nicea was deciding what aspects of the religion would become supported by their pagan emperor, this was a major topic of dispute. Christians have long disputed whether or not Jesus was God. You are addressing a particular, though popular subset of Christians, which is why I keep correcting you.


Lets see, I would calculate his existence to be really close to a googleplex to 1, give or take 1. (Have to account for error)

I calculated it the same way I did the probability or the existence of ice on the sun, the existence of santa and the tooth fairy, or your giving up on this thread.

So in other words, you made it up. And amusingly, Santa (Nicholas) almost assuredly is based on a real person. However, ignoring that, your probability argument isn't knowledge either. Do you have any arguments that don't require leaps of faith?

I am wondering if UB is really your jesus suddenly.

You make rather distinct efforts to avoid arguments you're losing. I've repeatedly driven you back to the point only for you to avoid it.

Ashmoria quite nicely and patiently attempted to demonstrate what the point was, and yet you still avoid. I take it you've discovered your position is untenable so you've decided to rely on ridicule.

No insult intended. Was merely pointing out that they love your posts.
If by 'they' you refer to myself and Jocabia then the reason I/we quote UB (apart from the fact that we're on a discussion forum) is that his views are so black-and-white; so blunt.

We're trying to inject a modicum of subtlety and critical thinking here, peeps.

So in other words, you made it up. And amusingly, Santa (Nicholas) almost assuredly is based on a real person. However, ignoring that, your probability argument isn't knowledge either. Do you have any arguments that don't require leaps of faith?

My calculations of probability require no leaps of faith on my part. You asked what I assigned as probabilities and I told you. Now then, since you cannot dispute my calculations, based on your earlier statements you cannot dismiss them either.

I did not expect you to accept my calculations, nor did I make any attempt in justifying the voracity of it's significance.

Are you now reduced to ad hominem?

You make rather distinct efforts to avoid arguments you're losing. I've repeatedly driven you back to the point only for you to avoid it.

Ashmoria quite nicely and patiently attempted to demonstrate what the point was, and yet you still avoid. I take it you've discovered your position is untenable so you've decided to rely on ridicule.

So when you lose you attack? Ok, I understand. You have a need to be right. You have a need to twist until your argument becomes something else and claim victory. I feel sorry for you.

If by 'they' you refer to myself and Jocabia then the reason I/we quote UB (apart from the fact that we're on a discussion forum) is that his views are so black-and-white; so blunt.

We're trying to inject a modicum of subtlety and critical thinking here, peeps.

Wasn't referring to you at all. In fact, I think I have only read a couple posts by you.

As I don't believe in divine revelation, that'd be a rather fruitless exercise, no?

Anyways, you keep on demanding empirical, scientific proof for things that are, necessarily, unempirical and outside the scientific framework. Another fruitless exercise.nothing a human can experience is outside the scientific framework. if something can be sensed by human senses it can be measured.

Not all the time."a matter of faith" means to bypass reason out of convenience.

If by 'they' you refer to myself and Jocabia then the reason I/we quote UB (apart from the fact that we're on a discussion forum) is that his views are so black-and-white; so blunt.

We're trying to inject a modicum of subtlety and critical thinking here, peeps.there is no critical thinking that includes christian faith as something meaningful.

My calculations of probability require no leaps of faith on my part. You asked what I assigned as probabilities and I told you. Now then, since you cannot dispute my calculations, based on your earlier statements you cannot dismiss them either.

I did not expect you to accept my calculations, nor did I make any attempt in justifying the voracity of it's significance.

Are you now reduced to ad hominem?

Your assigned probabilities are entirely made up. I can find them invalid. It's possible to dismiss something as valid without claiming the opposite is true. That was the point of my earlier arguments. You don't have to accept the existence of Jesus, but you cannot conclude he didn't exist. If you simply ignore his existence until their is evidence, then you'd be doing what science does when there is a lack of evidence.

You don't know what ad hominem is, I see. I didn't attack you. I pointed out that your arguments require leaps of faith. That's pretty much the opposite of ad hominem.

So when you lose you attack? Ok, I understand. You have a need to be right. You have a need to twist until your argument becomes something else and claim victory. I feel sorry for you.

Seriously, ever time I point out what you've done, you simply flip it on it's head. I'm trying to get you back to the point. That's not an attack.

You claimed I specifically claimed that one could conclude Jesus exists. Please quote or admit you cannot.

You claimed that Jesus does not exist. Provide evidence or admit it is an appeal to ignorance.

You claimed you know the probability of the existence of Jesus. Again, provide evidence or admit once again that you're making leaps of faith.

You claimed that you can invalidate the Christian religion all the while dismissing large sects of it with a "no real Scotsman" fallacy. Again, provide evidence or admit you cannot.

Your assigned probabilities are entirely made up. I can find them invalid. It's possible to dismiss something as valid without claiming the opposite is true.

It is possible, but you cannot disprove my calculations.

I dismiss the claim that 'jesus' was a real person. I dismiss xtianity as a valid religion.

I do not have to supply evidence that 'jesus' did not exist, nor do I have to provide evidence xtianity is false.

You have circular reasoning. You dismiss my calculations because you believe them to be made up, yet you are willing to entertain a possibility that a godman exists.

nothing a human can experience is outside the scientific framework. if something can be sensed by human senses it can be measured.

That a measurement can be made doesn't make that measurement meaningful.

Which is better vanilla or chocolate? Provide emperical evidence or you're not allowed to have a belief as to which is better. Yeah, that's how the world works.:rolleyes:

Again, you make assumptions.

"Again" ?

I've given a rather lengthy explanation of what I believe and why I believe it that can found through a casual search of my posts. It was in response to Straughn. I'm not going to repeat it all here, but you'll find that my beliefs are not based on the stories in the Bible.

*goes on a quest to find it* ;)

That a measurement can be made doesn't make that measurement meaningful.

Which is better vanilla or chocolate? Provide emperical evidence or you're not allowed to have a belief as to which is better. Yeah, that's how the world works.:rolleyes:

Careful, you just invalidated your own conclusion.

Show me evidence that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla? Cuz if you can't you better not believe it is. Or the opposite either.

... you know perfectly well this is a fallacy. Do not lower yourself to the level of some opponents ;)