Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 07:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Meet your burden of proof, dishonest fucker.

Still waiting on that and your response to my other post 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, 07:32 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Meet your burden of proof, dishonest fucker.

Still waiting on that and your response to my other post Drinking Beverage

I have no desire to prove to your fat lazy ass anything. If you can't read works like Carrier, Ehrmans etc.. and can't hold to either the historicist or mythicist position, that's not my problem to resolve. I have no desire to spoon feed you from your lack of position, on to one.

"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, 07:36 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  He doesn't have to do anything.

Ah. So you've picked "has to" to twist. Now you argue about "obligation" and ignore the basic fallacy of your argument.

A person has to be taught about religion.
A person has to be convinced of the truth of the doctrines.

This is why it's called the Burden of Proof, not the Burden of Belief.

(28-06-2016 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They can just as well ignore my questions, and I can respect that.

We've tried that. Then you claim the silence as victory.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-06-2016, 07:39 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Meet your burden of proof, dishonest fucker.

Still waiting on that and your response to my other post Drinking Beverage

I have no desire to prove to your fat lazy ass anything. If you can't read works like Carrier, Ehrmans etc.. and can't hold to either the historicist or mythicist position, that's not my problem to resolve. I have no desire to spoon feed you from your lack of position, on to one.

Still shifting the burden of proof. You ever get tired of being a lying dishonest fuck?

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, 07:39 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Lol that's obviously not what he meant. Of course, we don't go around and in people's faces out of the blue asking "Where is your evidence?", that's ridiculous. Fatbaldhobbit's point was that, in the context of a discussion about beliefs, the laws of logic would impose a believer (who holds the positive claim), to prove his own claims. Nobody *has to* prove it, but when a discussion happens and they claim that's the truth, then they do.

And by the way, so do you. You've come to an atheist forum to talk about your beliefs or somehow, somewhat "challenge" atheists on those beliefs. I mean this in a neutral way. At the very least, you've come to discuss them. That's why in a discussion you're being asked for evidence, because otherwise we are talking about nothing and this discussion becomes pointless. If you don't want to prove that your beliefs are true or justifiable, then why come here? Just to make friends? I doubt it.

(28-06-2016 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.

No, not believing in God is the default position. Atheism is the default because you are not born with a belief in a god, you're brought into it with education, because of where you grow up, who your parents are, any factors.

And not having a belief is not a lack of position. That doesn't make any sense. The position exists, there is no lacking. And it says that "you withhold belief until evidence to the contrary". That's the position, it exists, it's not inexistent as you seem to claim.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-06-2016, 07:40 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 07:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I have no desire to prove to your fat lazy ass anything. If you can't read works like Carrier, Ehrmans etc.. and can't hold to either the historicist or mythicist position, that's not my problem to resolve. I have no desire to spoon feed you from your lack of position, on to one.

Still shifting the burden of proof. You ever get tired of being a lying dishonest fuck?

Still waiting Drinking Beverage

I didn't shift any burden of proof to you, you lying dishonest fuck.

"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, 07:44 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2016 07:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still shifting the burden of proof. You ever get tired of being a lying dishonest fuck?

Still waiting Drinking Beverage

I didn't shift any burden of proof to you, you lying dishonest fuck.

Another lie 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, 07:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2016 09:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to know, HERE, NOW today, EXACTLY why non-believers would rather (pretend) that a Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.

You tell me, there's been entire cottage industry devoted to lying to claim that Jesus did not exist, making false claims in support of it, such the twelve savior deity comparisons. With such blatant dishonesty than even other mythicist like Carrier have to distance themselves from them.

What do you think motives their desire?

Evasion.
You have not even attempted to explain your implication. YOU said WE would prefer Jesus didn't exist.

I want to know why WE would prefer that.

Tell us NOW.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 08:01 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 08:16 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 07:39 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Lol that's obviously not what he meant. Of course, we don't go around and in people's faces out of the blue asking "Where is your evidence?", that's ridiculous. Fatbaldhobbit's point was that, in the context of a discussion about beliefs, the laws of logic would impose a believer (who holds the positive claim), to prove his own claims. Nobody *has to* prove it, but when a discussion happens and they claim that's the truth, then they do.

The only thing that imposes anyone to waste their time, or devote effort to convincing someone of their position, is their desire to convince the other of their position. If I have no desire to convince you or anyone else that Jesus is God, or that Christianity is true, there is no law that imposes upon me that I do. Perhaps you have some authority on your shoulders telling you otherwise, I don't.

If you think I'm obligated to do anything here, that I don't care to do, you're mistaken.

Quote:No, not believing in God is the default position. Atheism is the default because you are not born with a belief in a god, you're brought into it with education, because of where you grow up, who your parents are, any factors.

The default in your own words, would be lack of beliefs. I come into the world lacking a belief in my existence, in my father, and mother, in reality itself, in evidence.

Quote:And it says that "you withhold belief until evidence to the contrary". That's the position, it exists, it's not inexistent as you seem to claim.

You come into the world lacking a belief in evidence. And like most of us go through life here the terms applied differently in a variety of different context, in history, anthropology, politics, law, and every day language. We go through life inferring a variety of things are true, based on variety of sensory stimuli.

Someone has to teach, or indoctrinate you, into believing that you're suppose to only subscribe to things as true, based on this predefined term and criteria called "evidence", anot based on the organic way in which our minds naturally operate, drawing inferences from a variety of different stimuli. In this broad sense, evidence is merely whatever data, of factors, that lead us infer that something is true. But it doesn't seem that folks here tend to accept the broad definition here.

Quote:And by the way, so do you. You've come to an atheist forum to talk about your beliefs or somehow, somewhat "challenge" atheists on those beliefs. I mean this in a neutral way. At the very least, you've come to discuss them. That's why in a discussion you're being asked for evidence, because otherwise we are talking about nothing and this discussion becomes pointless.

I participate in here, with a very narrow set of claims I'm arguing about. Such as Philo not being in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's death, and the inability of those who made that claim, to take accountability, or acknowledge that they're peddling a falsities. And the tendency here is for atheists trying to drag me to argue for other claims I didn't make, nor care to support or argue for. It's a constant desire that I argue for Christianity being true, or explain to them my religious view, that are not a part of the discussion, or position I desire to argue or defend for in particular thread unrelated to them.

"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, 08:02 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 08:07 AM by Chas.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you a fucking moron? It's always about the evidence.

As I recall from past conversations, you claim there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, yet believe that the inferences drawn by historians like Bart Ehrman are reasonable.

You recall incorrectly. I said the evidence was extremely weak.

You are probably confused by my saying there is no convincing evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: