Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 06:35 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 03:45 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Just as nonsensical as any other deity.

This is typical of your dishonest bullshit.

As an atheist I do not believe there is a god or any supernatural entities.

This is not a lack of position, you lying, manipulative ass. This is what I am convinced is true.

Islam, Christianity, Mormons, Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, Russian Orthodox, Buddhism, Hindu, Wiccan.

On what basis do you reject them and believe whatever you believe?
What evidence made you reject Islam?
What evidence made you reject Buddha?

What evidence made you reject that you were adopted?

I hold my worldview as true, and as result believe any competing worldview currently known or not known by me as false. I can't say I've contemplated any other religion as much as I have my own, so it's possible that I may run across a very well informed muslim, or buddhist who teaches me about his religion, perhaps getting me to second guess my worldview, rejecting what I formally held as true, for his religious perspective. But that hasn't happened yet.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 04:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Is that how you apply logic in your worldview? It isn't an all in choice. It should be a decision made after careful contemplation of all available evidence. No wonder you believe in this nonsense. You refuse to research, think and evolve your knowledge past your "I chose jebus" worldview.

Define truth tomasio.

I always assumed in that in our supposed deterministic universe choices do not exist. That whatever any one of us holds as true, is result of deterministic forces acting upon the neurochemical makeup of our brains.

So truth, is whatever those deterministic forces acting up the neurochemistry of your brain get you to believe is true, or label as true.

It's clearly not logic or reason, that after so many post, you still fail to acknowledge that your claim that Philo was in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus death is false. You have yet to go read Philo, to realize that he makes no such claim placing him there at that time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 03:45 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Just as nonsensical as any other deity.

This is typical of your dishonest bullshit.

As an atheist I do not believe there is a god or any supernatural entities.

This is not a lack of position, you lying, manipulative ass. This is what I am convinced is true.

Islam, Christianity, Mormons, Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, Russian Orthodox, Buddhism, Hindu, Wiccan.

On what basis do you reject them and believe whatever you believe?
What evidence made you reject Islam?
What evidence made you reject Buddha?

What evidence made you reject that you were adopted?

I hold my worldview as true, and as result believe any competing worldview currently known or not known by me as false. I can't say I've contemplated any other religion as much as I have my own, so it's possible that I may run across a very well informed muslim, or buddhist who teaches me about his religion, perhaps getting me to second guess my worldview, rejecting what I formally held as true, for his religious perspective. But that hasn't happened yet.

That's just about the stupidest fucking analogy yet. There is evidence FOR positions, one doesn't find evidence AGAINST positions. That's proving a negative.

Ergo, one doesn't have evidence against themselves being adopted but evidence FOR their parents being their biological parents. Or one has evidence FOR being adopted. A paucity of evidence for adoption and a plethora of evidence for your parents being biologically related to you leads one to the logical conclusion of NOT having been adopted by the people who raised you.

Your backwards attempts to shift the burden of proof have been pointed out before.

Ergo, the burden is on YOU to provide actual evidence of a historical Jesus if that's your bullshit claim. You're like the kid claiming he's adopted when there are no adoption papers and who has phenotypic markers indicating both yor mother and father are biologically related to you.




Also...I'm still waiting for a reply to post I trounced you on. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That's just about the stupidest fucking analogy yet. There is evidence FOR positions, one doesn't find evidence AGAINST positions. That's proving a negative.

Yes, you do.

If the prosecution is arguing that you were at a particular place at a certain time. And the defense is arguing that you were at a different place at the time. They would be arguing against the position of the prosecution. In claiming that an early religious sect invented a non-historical messiah, who was later believed by his subsequent followers to be historical, you would be arguing against a historicist position. Those who argue such a position often appeal to variety of factors in support of that conclusion, such as a claim that Paul didn't believe in a Historical Jesus, that he believes in a Jesus that existed in some celestial sphere.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I hold my worldview as true, and as result believe any competing worldview currently known or not known by me as false. I can't say I've contemplated any other religion as much as I have my own, so it's possible that I may run across a very well informed muslim, or buddhist who teaches me about his religion, perhaps getting me to second guess my worldview, rejecting what I formally held as true, for his religious perspective. But that hasn't happened yet.

Yet you deny atheists the rights to that same position.

I hold my worldview as true. I believe religious faith is akin to gullibility and a worldview not based on apistevism is false. I am open to ideas and concepts that are founded in science and/or naturalism.

This is not a lack of belief. It is the default belief.

Your example shows your double standard. A well informed Muslim or Buddhist has to teach you about his religion. He has to convince you to believe.

In other words, the burden of proof is on him.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-06-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 06:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That's just about the stupidest fucking analogy yet. There is evidence FOR positions, one doesn't find evidence AGAINST positions. That's proving a negative.

Yes, you do.

If the prosecution is arguing that you were at a particular place at a certain time. And the defense is arguing that you were at a different place at the time. They would be arguing against the position of the prosecution. In claiming that an early religious sect invented a non-historical messiah, who was later believed by his subsequent followers to be historical, you would be arguing against a historicist position. Those who argue such a position often appeal to variety of factors in support of that conclusion, such as a claim that Paul didn't believe in a Historical Jesus, that he believes in a Jesus that existed in some celestial sphere.

You wouldn't know logic of it bit you in the ass.

Arguing AGAINST someone else's evidence with your own evidence (of a completely different claim) is not negative evidence of their claim. You can't admit the obvious because of your shifting of the burden of proof. Ergo, disproving your position on your Jesus doesn't require evidence-positive of another alternative position on Jesus. YOU have to meet your burden of proof. Trying to hold someone else to YOUR burden of proof is dishonest bullshit (which you excel at and multiple people continue to point out)

Still waiting on a reply to the post where I trounced you Drinking Beverage

(Edit to add: I guess I trounced you on most of my posts, but it's back a few pages and quite long)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
28-06-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Your example shows your double standard. A well informed Muslim or Buddhist has to teach you about his religion. He has to convince you to believe.

In other words, the burden of proof is on him.

He doesn't have to do anything. That's a difference between me and you. I don't believe he has to demonstrate to me that his religion is true. He's under no obligation to do so, and if he does it would be out the kindness of his own heart, of his own volition. A well informed buddhist, or muslim, in my view would be a best source to inform me of Buddhism/Islam and answer any particular followup question I might have about it. But I don't see them as having any obligation to do so. They can just as well ignore my questions, and I can respect that.


(28-06-2016 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet you deny atheists the rights to that same position.

I hold my worldview as true. I believe religious faith is akin to gullibility and a worldview not based on apistevism is false. I am open to ideas and concepts that are founded in science and/or naturalism.

Atheism does not require a worldview, it doesn't require you to subscribe to naturalism, physicalism etc.. It only requires a lack of belief. A physicalist atheist has a position, that negates any competing worldview, it wouldn't lead to a lack of belief in a God, but a belief in a reality that makes their existence impossible .This is not a lack of belief. This is a position.


Quote:This is not a lack of belief. It is the default belief.

I lack a belief that you're married. This is not a belief, this is a lack of a belief, a lack of a position. Even if you want to call it the default.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 07:08 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You wouldn't know logic of it bit you in the ass.

Arguing AGAINST someone else's evidence with your own evidence (of a completely different claim) is not negative evidence of their claim. You can't admit the obvious because of your shifting of the burden of proof.

There you go again with the lying. I never said anything about "negative evidence", that term never came out of my mouth, though your post attempts to make it appear as if it did.

I spoke of arguing against someone else's claim, by appealing to an alternative claim of one's own. Like the mythicist position argued for by folks like Carrier, and Price. Two competing positive claims, in need of their own positive evidence, if you want to put it that way.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 06:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You wouldn't know logic of it bit you in the ass.

Arguing AGAINST someone else's evidence with your own evidence (of a completely different claim) is not negative evidence of their claim. You can't admit the obvious because of your shifting of the burden of proof.

There you go again with the lying. I never said anything about "negative evidence", that term never came out of my mouth, though your post attempts to make it appear as if it did.

I spoke of arguing against someone else's claim, by appealing to an alternative claim of one's own. Like the mythicist position argued for by folks like Carrier, and Price. Two competing positive claims, in need of their own positive evidence, if you want to put it that way.

Holy shit you're dishonest. Your example (adoption) and your position on your Jesus argument are literally about asking for evidence against your position. Accusing me of lying is ironic.

Still waiting Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 07:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There you go again with the lying. I never said anything about "negative evidence", that term never came out of my mouth, though your post attempts to make it appear as if it did.

I spoke of arguing against someone else's claim, by appealing to an alternative claim of one's own. Like the mythicist position argued for by folks like Carrier, and Price. Two competing positive claims, in need of their own positive evidence, if you want to put it that way.

Holy shit you're dishonest. Your example (adoption) and your position on your Jesus argument are literally about asking for evidence against your position. Accusing me of lying is ironic.

Still waiting Drinking Beverage

Yes, which is evidence in support of a competing position.

You're the liar who claim I referred to this evidence, as "negative evidence".

Of course for someone like yourself, you don't have a competing position, you're not some who holds to the mythicist position like Carrier, Price, Archaya X, etc... you just lack a belief. And want everyone else to convince you to hold a position.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: