If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:53 PM)Rik Wrote:  Fuck Alexander.

By all accounts quite a lot of people did...

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elder Cunningham's post
05-11-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 12:58 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 12:46 PM)Rik Wrote:  Once again,you have not shown that there are thousands of ancient documents for Christ. Will you? Yes or No.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/bible.htm

Quote:But how many such manuscripts exist between 125 and 1100 A.D.? As we saw before, the more ancient manuscripts you have, the surer you are of detecting any errors made by copyists. Are there eight as with Suetonius or 10 as with Aristophanes or even 20 as with Livy? There are 4,000 Greek manuscripts of the Bible in existence and 8,000 Latin manuscripts dated between 125 and 1100 A.D..


So that's over 12,000 manuscripts in the amount of time it took us to get 3 for Alexander the great Smile

If you have a problem reading that paragraph, you can click here and look at pictures :

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+test...d=0CDMQ7Ak

This guy has to be a fucking troll. No one could be this stupid by accident.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
05-11-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:48 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:46 PM)Rik Wrote:  They're copies. There aren't thousands of documents, just thousands of copies.

So? Copies are all you have for Alexander... only FAR FEWER of them... Jesus is beating Alexander 12,000 to 3 Tongue

Have you gotten to the point of what relevance it would have if we thought Alexander didn't actually exist... nor Socrates nor Lao Tsu, etc. Okay, so what if they didn't exist as a person, some people don't believe they existed, what difference would that indicate?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:52 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:48 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  So? Copies are all you have for Alexander... only FAR FEWER of them... Jesus is beating Alexander 12,000 to 3 Tongue

There are millions of copies of books on bigfoot....why don't you believe in bigfoot?

You can believe in Bigfoot all you like... Maybe you can hook up with the folks at "Hunting Bigfoot" Tongue

So why do you believe in Alexander the great when his documentation is outnumbered by the documentation for Jesus 12,000 to 3 by 1100 AD?

Do you think bigfoot and alexander to be related? It wouldn't surprise me at this point Tongue

Hunting Bigfoot... Grrrrr, YOU go get'em, have a blast Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:47 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:41 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  So why is there no geological evidence for this flood?

Sure we have no sea shells worldwide wherever you look... whatever you want to think... Nobody tell this dude sea shells are found on mount Everest Smile

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148753432/...scientists

Quote: Those limestones at the summit, there are fossils reported from those carbonate rocks, and they're mostly little tiny marine invertebrate animals, little sea shells, essentially. And using high-powered microscopes in thin sections of the rock, we can identify what those animals are.

I love the god of the gaps arguments lol

Truly the lowest form of debate by creationists except for..."rev dipstick says...or the bible says..." as argument from authority.

Just keep moving the goal posts, no one will notice your inability to answer the last refutation. No

Let me explain to you WHY you "believe" in a "god" that does NOT exist. People have a tendency to avoid change whenever possible (the "if it was good enough for my daddy and good enough for his daddy, then it's good enough for me" syndrome). Thus, religions tend to get passed down from generation to generation as a matter of course, without ANYONE bothering to question why (in most cases). In addition, whenever the majority of a society believes a certain thing, whether true or not, It becomes part of the cultural fabric which everyone is expected to embrace. Thus, there are several powerful factors involved in perpetuating cultural icons (whether they are worthy of being perpetuated or not).

In addition, the "sales pitch" from religions hits the right buttons for most people (after all, religions have had a LOT of practice at this for a very long time). Using the old carrot & stick technique, religions promise that in the (non-existent) afterlife, EVERYTHING will be rainbows and puppies (or whatever). The streets will be paved with gold (as if you actually need money after you're dead) and it will be an endless party. Sounds really nice (even if it IS just a snow job). Then comes the stick of "hell" wherein if you don't toe the line, you will suffer excruciating pain forever (as if you can actually feel ANYTHING after you're dead). So, the offer a reward and threaten a punishment is sufficient to keep most people in line, especially those with little education and/or mediocre intelligence levels.

Therefore, most people buy in to the hype and go with the flow, whether they are totally convinced or not. However, even those with little conviction actually compound the problem by increasing the "acceptability" factor. With all of that as a background, you are setting the stage for the "true believer", which is a very special class of person (and NOT in a good way). The "true believer" is looking for a cause that he (or she) can support wholeheartedly, even if it isn't true. To the "true believer", truth is the least of the worries. What is important to the "true believer" is the APPEARANCE of truth. The only thing that matters is the protection of the cause and the "true believer" will do anything necessary to do so. Once the "truth" (as far as the cause is concerned) is determined, the "true believer" will argue for that "truth" even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the "truth" he (or she) believes in is proven false.

In the face of overwhelming odds against what the "true believer" believes is real actually being true, the "true believer" will develop a system that allows them to continue believing the cause is true. This tactic is known as "apologetics", which consists of taking the real truth and twisting it all around in order to "fit" into the "cause", no matter HOW convoluted the twisting might get. The branch of "apologetics" has been around nearly as long as the church (since even way back then, it was obvious that things just didn't add up). The "new" apologetics" goes under the name of "creationism", but the goal remains the same, to protect the "cause" regardless of WHAT may be necessary in order to accomplish that goal.

Take a look in the mirror, because YOU are a "true believer" AND an "apologist" for a cause that is NOT even real. You must be a hard core supporter of your chosen fantasy since you have completely ignored ALL of the evidence presented to you to show you that your "beliefs" are NOT real. And yet, each time, you run and hide your head in the sand whenever any new evidence comes along to further disprove your "cause". After all, the LAST thing the "true believer" wants is for his "story" to come unraveled by the actual truth.

this is why it is called Chrisitan apologetics...believers have to constantly scramble to answer all of the errors, inconsistencies and out right lies of the bible...yet their religion is based on it. I always enjoy how they can wave aside one implausible story (great worldwide flood that never happened for example) as an allegory, and point to another scripture or story as a fact. Don't you find it kind of convenient that you can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, and which to wave aside as a parable? The problem this presents is then it is all subjective to being a parable, which it seems to be at best. I can speak at length on any part of the abrahamic myth, I simply chose this tiny slice of the myth to poke at today. Whether you wish to discuss the mythical fable called the bible, the bigfoot of the biblical era called jesus, or the existence of the creator, I am fluent in all of it. Preconditions of intelligibility? Cosmological argument? Argument from design/complexity? etc etc, this is what I do. You are right though, the educated believers typically quickly wave aside the majority of the bible as an allegory, what choice do they have? It doesnt take much pulling at the plethora of strings hanging off the story to make the whole thing unravel afterall.

With or without religion; evil people will inevitably do evil things, good people will do good things, and people in power will abuse that power...such is humanity. No where in that equation does religion make that reality any better,. Religion was our first attempt to explain the world around us, now we have science. Time to put the fairy tales and chicken bones away, they have outlived their questionable usefullness.

You know jesus is the son of god how? If this belief is based on a book that has been proven to be a forgery and compilation of lies and stories told and retold, with a sprinkling of actual historic events in a sad attempt to give it authenticity, then I submit to you that you dont know that jesus is the son of god.

What you mean to say is you hope there is a jesus son of god. Remove faith, the belief in something without evidence and put hope in its place, because that is all you have; hope based on a fabrication.

Faith is the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE.

I think it is very anthropocentric of you to posit that we are the center of everything, that the bible (based on myth and full of pseudepigrapha) is proof of anything. it is a great show of hubris on your part to think you have any credibility when referencing the bible on any subject, and then you have the audacity to challenge my position. Well feel free to articulate your belief, and the basis for it. Come get some.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-11-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:48 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  So? Copies are all you have for Alexander... only FAR FEWER of them... Jesus is beating Alexander 12,000 to 3 Tongue

Have you gotten to the point of what relevance it would have if we thought Alexander didn't actually exist... nor Socrates nor Lao Tsu, etc. Okay, so what if they didn't exist as a person, some people don't believe they existed, what difference would that indicate?

Hey we either choose to be honest and intelligent and not practice double standard, or we reject 12,000 manuscripts for Jesus to the 3 for Alexander the great by 1100 AD... No sweat off my back what you do Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 12:58 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/bible.htm



So that's over 12,000 manuscripts in the amount of time it took us to get 3 for Alexander the great Smile

If you have a problem reading that paragraph, you can click here and look at pictures :

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+test...d=0CDMQ7Ak

This guy has to be a fucking troll. No one could be this stupid by accident.

Sadly, I have actually met people this stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rik's post
05-11-2014, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2014 02:06 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:59 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Have you gotten to the point of what relevance it would have if we thought Alexander didn't actually exist... nor Socrates nor Lao Tsu, etc. Okay, so what if they didn't exist as a person, some people don't believe they existed, what difference would that indicate?

Hey we either choose to be honest and intelligent and not practice double standard, or we reject 12,000 manuscripts for Jesus to the 3 for Alexander the great by 1100 AD... No sweat off my back what you do Smile

So holding different types of physical events to different levels of trust is double standards?

Is believing Jesus visited Missouri, which has many manuscripts of a text saying so, is as valid as believing Jesus rising from the dead in Jerusalem?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
05-11-2014, 02:02 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:59 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Have you gotten to the point of what relevance it would have if we thought Alexander didn't actually exist... nor Socrates nor Lao Tsu, etc. Okay, so what if they didn't exist as a person, some people don't believe they existed, what difference would that indicate?

Hey we either choose to be honest and intelligent and not practice double standard, or we reject 12,000 manuscripts for Jesus to the 3 for Alexander the great by 1100 AD... No sweat off my back what you do Smile

You can choose to believe a debunked, ridiculous fairy tale that says an invisible genie blew into a handful of dirt and *gasp* created man, we will continue to live in the real world...no sweat off our backs.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-11-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: If you believe Alexander the Great existed, then why not Jesus?
(05-11-2014 01:59 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(05-11-2014 01:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Have you gotten to the point of what relevance it would have if we thought Alexander didn't actually exist... nor Socrates nor Lao Tsu, etc. Okay, so what if they didn't exist as a person, some people don't believe they existed, what difference would that indicate?

Hey we either choose to be honest and intelligent and not practice double standard, or we reject 12,000 manuscripts for Jesus to the 3 for Alexander the great by 1100 AD... No sweat off my back what you do Smile

Do you not understand the difference between different manuscripts and multiple copies of the same texts? There aren't thousands of manuscripts, just thousands of copies of essentially one set of texts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: