Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 04:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'd call them metaphysically childish. Be a god!

Dude. What part of Bob is God do you not understand?

What's to understand? Consider The humor? Th absurdity? The non-definition of 'God'?

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
28-06-2016, 08:17 AM
uo
(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 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.

Then why are you here? If you're not defending your position, why are you in the Atheism and Theism section of an atheist forum?

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

"lacking a belief in my existence"? What does that even mean? What do those even have to do with belief in a supernatural omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, invisible being? Your existence, your father's and your mother's existence are all provable, testable, falsifiable. They are documented, we can prove the existence of those. Reality is not an object, it's what we call everything we live in, matter and time. If you have a lack of belief in your existence (which doesn't make any sense), I'd suggest reading Descartes.

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Nice try. Wink Scientific evidence, which is relevant to this case, is not equivalent to baseless assertions or feelings. Evidence is concrete, testable, verifiable, falsifiable data. There is nothing of the sort in support of a supernatural realm, let alone beings living in it.

Nobody has to indoctrinate me into believing evidence, it's totally independent from anyone's opinions or interpretations, and it proves itself without the aid of others. That's what makes science so successful and fascinating. The reason why basically everything you have in your life is provided by science and its discoveries. The "harsh" reality proves that evidence and the scientific method are reliable tools to employ when investigating reality and no playing with words can change that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-06-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Congratulations. You've neatly restated what I said. You are the one that claimed obligation. You twisted "has to" into "obligation" and "authority".

I would say that you just trapped yourself in your own hypocrisy.

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

More pointless equivocations.

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You come into the world lacking a belief in evidence.

Once someone experiences religion, faith and other deceptions, then hopefully they learn the value of evidence.

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Wow. All that pompous rambling just to say that "physical evidence is not the only evidence".

Your senses can be fooled. Ever see a magic trick?

You've just described gullibility.

And no, we don't accept that broad definition of evidence. That definition has allowed a parasitic group of people to convince their followers that "prey on" is the same as "pray for".

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
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-06-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:17 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Then why are you here? If you're not defending your position, why are you in the Atheism and Theism section of an atheist forum?

I'm here to argue for what view, position, or claim, I enter into a particular thread with, or make in any particular conversation, such as Philo not being in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's death, and to observe that even after repeatedly calling out individuals like GoodwithoutGod, and Rocketsurgeon, how long they'll continue to go without taking accountability, or acknowledging that they were passing along false information.

I'm interested in observing how some atheists, wiggle they're way out of believing Jesus doesn't exist, in light of first hand accounts, Josephus, Tacitus, etc... In hearing them appeal to interpolation, the supposed distrust and unreliability of the sources at every turn, and watching their inconsistencies. I already have suspicions formed when it comes to those who believe Jesus didn't existed, that there's something more psychological about it, than rational, and I'm just exploring that conclusion, to see if my suspicions are confirmed when plodding such individuals, and they are for the most part. At least this would be a considerable reason why I participate in threads devoted to historicity.

I don't participate in such threads to defend or argue for my religious beliefs.

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "lacking a belief in my existence"? What does that even mean? What do those even have to do with belief in a supernatural omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, invisible being?

You mentioned infants not believing in God at birth, and I was just extending that to any and all beliefs, including the belief that they exist, being that an infant has no formulation of what it means to exist.

Quote:If you have a lack of belief in your existence (which doesn't make any sense), I'd suggest reading Descartes.

Yet, infants do, correct? Or are the born believing that they exist?

(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nice try. Wink Scientific evidence, which is relevant to this case, is not equivalent to baseless assertions or feelings. Evidence is concrete, testable, verifiable, falsifiable data. There is nothing of the sort in support of a supernatural realm, let alone beings living in it.

Actually, no it's historical evidence that's relevant to the case here. The writings of Josephus, Tacitus, the first hand account of Paul meeting Jesus's disciples, and his brother, are all historical evidence in support of the existence of Jesus.

Quote:Nobody has to indoctrinate me into believing evidence, it's totally independent from anyone's opinions or interpretations, and it proves itself without the aid of others. That's what makes science so successful and fascinating.

Someone has to teach you what the term means, what the supposed criteria for items to fit to be classified as evidence, and get you to pledge your fidelity to believing things are true, based on this supposed criteria.

You'd have to train a brain that is inclined to draw a variety of inferences based on a variety of different sensory stimuli, to only draw inferences from items which you brain labels as evidence. And disregard anything that doesn't elicit that label.

"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, 08:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm here to argue

And there it is folks...neat and tidy.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
28-06-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  You recall incorrectly. I said the evidence was extremely weak.

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

Yet as I recall you suggested that it's reasonable for Ehrman and others like him to draw the inferences that they do, based on their sources. That you're not particularly inclined to label his inferences as unreasonable.

"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, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 09:14 AM by The Polyglot Atheist.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm here to argue for what view, position, or claim, I enter into a particular thread with, or make in any particular conversation, such as Philo not being in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus's death, and to observe that even after repeatedly calling out individuals like GoodwithoutGod, and Rocketsurgeon, how long they'll continue to go without taking accountability, or acknowledging that they were passing along false information.

I'm interested in observing how some atheists, wiggle they're way out of believing Jesus doesn't exist, in light of first hand accounts, Josephus, Tacitus, etc... In hearing them appeal to interpolation, the supposed distrust and unreliability of the sources at every turn, and watching their inconsistencies. I already have suspicions formed when it comes to those who believe Jesus didn't existed, that there's something more psychological about it, than rational, and I'm just exploring that conclusion, to see if my suspicions are confirmed when plodding such individuals, and they are for the most part. At least this would be a considerable reason why I participate in threads devoted to historicity.

I don't participate in such threads to defend or argue for my religious beliefs.

Ok. Although then you could see how you're still defending a claim by providing evidence, even though the claim in this case is not "God exists".

(28-06-2016 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mentioned infants not believing in God at birth, and I was just extending that to any and all beliefs, including the belief that they exist, being child has no formulation of what it means to exist.

No, I didn't mention "infants" in particular. I said that you're not born with a belief in god, so even if you were 20 or 30 or 60, but nobody ever told you about God, or a specific god, you wouldn't have that belief naturally. It would require someone to teach you about it.

(28-06-2016 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet, infants do correct? Or are the born believing that they exist?

Again, I never mentioned infants.

(28-06-2016 08:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Someone has to teach you what the term means, what the supposed criteria for items to fit to be classified as evidence, and get you to pledge your fidelity to believing things are true, based on this supposed criteria.

You'd have to train a brain that is inclined to draw a variety of inferences based on a variety of different sensory stimuli, to only draw inferences from items which you brain labels as evidence. And disregard anything that doesn't elicit that label.

No, nobody has to. Evidence is exactly what I defined it to be. Anything else is untrustworthy and the facts prove it. Your computer, your desk, your clothes, your house, heating system, car, bike, everything you have is the result of the application of science. And science works based on evidence. The evidence is usually the result of experiments, which are verifiable, testable, falsifiable.

If you disagree with this definition of evidence, try providing a concise one like I did.

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-06-2016, 09:01 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote: in light of first hand accounts, Josephus, Tacitus
So, these two who were born 4 years and 23 years after death are first hand accounts, or I am I reading this wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like skyking's post
28-06-2016, 09:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 08:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Then you have magically changed your position.
You told us before you have always believed in the gods.

I suspect you have no clue what you hold as true. You can't even define what your beliefs are.

You're here to hear yourself talk. Attention seeking. You need to think you can play with the big kids. You're out of your depth. You cannot even address ONE of Carrier's or Price's arguments, and discuss in detail why they are wrong.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-06-2016 09:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then you have magically changed your position.
You told us before you have always believed in the gods.

It's interesting to observe how some theists wiggle.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: