Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 12:40 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I haven't, GHNTA. Thanks! Looks great. *settling in to watch*

I've been kinda out of the loop for the last decade. Still catching up. Smile

S'OK RS. Just take ya time.

The main things, for me, are:

1. Jebus supposedly went through Galilee performing miracle after miracle. He preached as a young boy in temples, he preached to crowds of 5,000 and upturned the tables of Usurers. Does he even get a mention in Roman dispatches during his lifetime? Nope. The first mention he gets is by Josephus in 93 AD and even that's dubious.

2. Paul wrote 14 epistles. Only 7 are thought to be genuine. At least one of the two Josephus' references to jebus is thought to be forged. The early christians are thought to be responsible. If jebus really existed, why the forgeries?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 12:59 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 12:40 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I haven't, GHNTA. Thanks! Looks great. *settling in to watch*

I've been kinda out of the loop for the last decade. Still catching up. Smile

S'OK RS. Just take ya time.

The main things, for me, are:

1. Jebus supposedly went through Galilee performing miracle after miracle. He preached as a young boy in temples, he preached to crowds of 5,000 and upturned the tables of Usurers. Does he even get a mention in Roman dispatches during his lifetime? Nope. The first mention he gets is by Josephus in 93 AD and even that's dubious.

2. Paul wrote 14 epistles. Only 7 are thought to be genuine. At least one of the two Josephus' references to jebus is thought to be forged. The early christians are thought to be responsible. If jebus really existed, why the forgeries?

The big one for me has always been why the Romans themselves, who were supposedly so harrassed by the Sadducees that they needed to exact a very Roman execution of this man, never bothered to record anything about it. Neither do we have any letters or other documents from external sources from the very literate Romans in the area about the darkness, the shredding of the Veil, etc. Kind of astounding, given the significance of such events, if they occurred.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 11:47 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Ah, I see. Truth is a function of number. I didn't realise.

I'll watch the vid of Craig v's Carrier and reach my own conclusion.

Cool. It was a much anticipated debate at the time, and the consensus is pretty much out regarding the victor. But yeah, reach your own conclusion and be open-minded while you are at it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. I will tell you the same thing I told GWOG. Matthew 28 stated that the women "went to look at the tomb" (v1). It isn't clear whether or not they arrived to the tomb just as the angel opened the tomb, or whether the tomb was already open before they arrived. We only know when the women reached the tomb by verse 5, when the angel spoke to them.

For all we know, verses 2-4 could be describing what happened BEFORE the women arrived to the tomb, and as long as this is even possible, it makes the entire account non-contradictory.

So who watched the event?, the book never mentions if the angels even told them anything about moving the stone, and the way that the verses after flow suggests they were at the tomb when the angel was opening it. Contradiction remains


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The earthquake thing is a non-issue. Just because one writer felt the earthquake was important to mention and another writer felt it wasn't important to mention doesn't imply a contradiction. Again, how much information is placed within any written work is at the discretion of the writer, not the readers. But far from a contradiction, or discrepancy.

Really?, only one out of four authors thought an earthquake was important, or that Mary Magdalene and Mary only told Matthew? If someone is trying to demonstrate the power that went on during the supposed resurrection event leaving out an earthquake in three other accounts is very odd, I know if I was an author I would always mention earthquakes if I was in one. Contradiction remains, as it contradicts the other writings.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Right, so after you read both accounts you rationally conclude that there was one angel sitting on top of the stone door, and another angel sitting inside the tomb. Matthew didn't state that there was no angel inside the tomb, nor did Mark state that there was no angel outside the tomb.

No, I would still rationally conclude that they are all describing different events, your argument here actually makes things even worse for you.

In Matthew we have these verses
28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word

And in Mark we have this
16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Then in Luke we have this
24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments

And Finally in John we have this

20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

So now we have even more contradictions, In Matthew the angel appeared, rolled away the stone told Mary and Mary what happened and then they ran off to tell people. Then in Mark, Mary and Mary enter the tomb and see a man sitting there and ask who rolled away the stone, when the event was described in Matthew. Then we get to Luke which also mentions it was early in the morning as did Matthew, and they also enter the tomb and then two men were in the tomb this time. Then we get to John where Mary Magdalene is alone this time and see the open tomb and immediately runs back to get Simon

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  This is what you would expect when you have independent accounts. If all Gospel's were exact carbon copies, then we wouldn't need more than one, would we?

No, this is not what we would expect from independent accounts for the same event, we might expect some very minor differences, but not full on contradictions. And yes you would need four accounts it would be even better if you had hundreds of them that were all very similar by all different authors. If that were the case the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection would be hard to dispute.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, Luke 24:1 clearly states "...the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb". Who were the women? Just a hunch, but probably the same women that are mentioned in the other THREE Gospels.

Since its not mentioned at this point, that is an assumption without evidence.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Actually, the two men appeared and talked to them as they were inside the tomb (v3-4).

This is unclear in the books, and does nothing to resolve the contradiction, as the four books are describe differing numbers of people, angels, and men in robes

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, we already knew that the "they" of whom the author was referring to was "the women", from Luke 23:55, followed by Luke 24:1. Then in Luke 24:10, Luke clearly states by name who was there, even though it plainly states that others were with them.

Luke 23:55 says the women, so still unclear on who they are all the way until Luke 24:10, and 24:10 mentions other women than just the two Marys, so this is still an issue and contradicts the other three books

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It looks like John's account of the empty tomb was strictly from Mary Magdalene's perspective, she is the only woman mentioned at the empty tomb. But that is not to say that the other women weren't there, that just means that John chose to FOCUS on Mary Magdalene, for whatever reason. Non-contradictory.


And here you make your argument even worse yet again, this is the whole tomb open or closed, and how many angels/men were there thing all over again.
Why would John completely omit the account of the other Mary? that makes no sense if both women were there. Also the other three accounts never mention that Simon Peter and the other disciple go to the tomb either and then go home afterwards. This contradicts the accounts, the contradiction remains and is now even worse.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So if I went to a baseball game, and my mother called me and somehow, my cousin Gary came up in the conversation, and I tell my mother "Oh, I am with Gary right now, we are at the baseball game"...and eventually, me and my mother end our conversation.

An hour later, my Uncle calls me, and asks me "Have you seen my son Brandon?", and I tell him, "Not only have I seen him, but he is with me; we are at the baseball game", and eventually, me and my uncle end our conversation.

So my mother and my uncle are on the phone talking, and my mother tells my uncle, "Kevin is at the baseball game right now with Gary"...and my uncle says "No he isn't, he is at the baseball game with Brandon".

When my mother and uncle compare notes, it would appear as if there is a contradiction between what I told my mother, and what I told my uncle.

But it just could be the case that I am at the baseball game with BOTH Gary, and Brandon!!! Just because I didn't mention the fact that Gary is with me to my uncle, doesn't mean that Gary isn't there....and vice versa (to my mother).

The majority of all concerns about the Gospels have to do with faulty logic and reasoning, all on the skeptics part.

I don't have to argue this one, you just proved the point on why second hand accounts are bad at providing evidence, you may have provided first hand accounts from yourself to your mom and your uncle, but when they tell each other what happened that is now a second hand account(hearsay), and as you yourself pointed out it causes a major problem Laughat this is why we need many sources that actually agree with each other and that the writer was preferably a direct witness to the event, physical evidence helps to.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  They can, and they are.

I just showed above how they are not reconcilable.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Where is the physical evidence that Caesar was stabbed?

Did you not read the article, that showed we found the place where he was stabbed as described in the accounts of his stabbing. The similar accounts on his assassination? And we also know he existed because of his own writings.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. Again, assuming that the Gospels need external documents to support them. The truth value of whether or not the narratives are true is independent of whether there are outside books to corroborate them. The Gospels (1 Corinthians) are all independent books. So you have at least five independent sources describing these events...that makes it..HISTORICAL.

Oh yes you do, All five sources describe different events they don't agree with each other on what happened so they do not verify each other. Since they don't agree they are not historical. To use your ceaser example, we have primary and secondary sources, and the physical location that it happened and those sources all are similar to each other and agree with each other. Unlike the gospels

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Taxi cab fallacy. The entire genre of history is based on "historians" writing about things "well" after the fact, and based on your logic there wouldn't even be a historic discipline of egyptology, because all egyptologists that are alive today are writing about stuff "well after the alleged events".

I had to look up that fallacy, and it turns out it's not even considered a fallacy, even if it was you are applying it falsely. You are arguing from personal incredulity on how history works, if a historian wrote about something well after the fact there has to be some other source that very closely or exactly matches what the historian was saying. If you would actually read how the historical method works you would see this.

Here is a small sample

Core principles for determining reliability
1. Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
2. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
3. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
5. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
6. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.
7. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
8. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Hmmm...Christus...Jesus Christ, I can see the relation.

Hurray, we know how the name Christian was derived, according to his writings.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, taxi cab fallacy...you say that as if it is a surprise that a historian would write about something years after the event. This is an obvious double standard and we may as well wipe the entire genre of history out if we use your nonsense logic.

Again that fallacy doesn't exist, also see above on How history works, since you seem to like arguing from personal incredulity.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  He also gave no sources when he mentioned Emperor Nero, and Pontius Pilate. But we are only gonna play the role of super duper skeptic when it comes to things concerning Jesus, right...but everything and everyone else gets a free pass, huh? Nonsense.

Again learn how history works.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. So if I asked you to name me the President of the United States that was in office during the U.S. Civil War...and you answer "Abe Lincoln"...how do you know that he was President during that time? After all, your birth "happened after the alleged war", so that would mean that your answer is based on hearsay accounts, because you weren't there. That is the same nonsense logic you are using when it comes to Jesus and the Gospels. The same exact thing.

Taxi cab fallacy, again.

And again that fallacy doesn't exist.

I know he was president at that time because the amount of independent sources of evidence is overwhelming, we have physical evidence that the war happened, we have massive amounts of independent sources that say Lincoln existed and what he did. There a huge numbers of direct witnesses to Lincoln being president and the war itself. We have records of his writings and speeches. And we have an autopsy report from when he was assassinated. That and you know we have a FUCKING picture of him being inaugurated. Source: Library of Congress http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.07636/
[Image: 07636r.jpg]


(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am talking about the Tacitus account in his Annals, and in it he is clearly talking about Christ when he mentioned Christus, which confirms what the Gospels had been saying...and to sum it up, he is saying that there was a guy whose name (or was called) Christus, and he had a bunch of followers who were called "Christians", and he was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and a "mysterious superstition" resulted after his death....what Tacitus wrote in a nut shell just HAPPENS to sum up the Gospel, in a nut shell.

But oh no, we can't have anything outside the Bible corroborating what the Bible has to say...we can't have that, can we? It is time to put on the super duper skeptic mask and fight such evil!!! Dodgy

Now of course, you can downplay those implications all you want to, but you have to dig really hard to do so and if you are honest with yourself, whether you believe in the Resurrection or not you shouldn't sit there and try to convince yourself that Tacitus isn't talking about Jesus Christ and the early Christian movement.

Where I'm from, we call it "keeping it real".

*sigh* Here is what the Tacticus actually says

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

So what can we concluded based off that alone?
1. The Origin of the Christian name was from the word Christus
2. There was someone named Christus
3. The Christians were being tortured and killed by Nero
4. Pontius Pilatus did an extreme penalty on someone called Christus

Furthermore there are some very legitimate criticisms on the authenticity of this section.
Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ but given that its just a giant quote of other books I would consider it valid.

"Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. [F.F. Bruce,Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) p. 23] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator. [Theissen and Merz p.83] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-8006-3122-2.] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[The Jesus legend: a case for the historical reliability of the synoptic gospels by Paul R. Eddy, et al 2007 ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 pages 181-183]

Michael Martin notes that the authenticity of this passage of the Annals has also been disputed on the grounds that Tacitus would not have used the word “messiah” in an authentic Roman document.[The Case Against Christianity, By Michael Martin, pg 50-51]

Weaver notes that Tacitus spoke of the persecution of Christians, but no other Christian author wrote of this persecution for a hundred years.[The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950, By Walter P. Weaver, pg 53, pg 57]

Hotema notes that this passage was not quoted by any Church father up to the 15th century, although the passage would have been very useful to them in their work;[Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100] and that the passage refers to the Christians in Rome being a multitude, while at that time the Christian congregation in Rome would actually have been very small.[Secret of Regeneration, By Hilton Hotema, pg 100]

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[Jesus, University Books, New York, 1956, p.13] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[The Jesus legend: a case for the historical reliability of the synoptic gospels by Paul R. Eddy, et al 2007 ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 pages 181-183] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.[Van Voorst, Robert E. (2011). Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Brill Academic Pub. p. 2159] "

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I could care less about the documentary you want to do on the term or title Christus, because in the context of Tacitus brief mention, it is clear as to who he is talking about....unless you want to tell me who the hell else had a group of followers that were called Christians by the population (which corroborates Acts 11:26, btw), and a "mysterious superstition" came as a result of his death (which sounds an awful lot like what a Resurrection would be called to a pagan, just sayin').

All of the long documentary stuff you want to preach about regarding Christus means absolutely nothing in light of the context of Tactius' passage in his Annals.

See above on the Tactius

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then lets just take that reasoning and apply it to any other ancient document, book, annals, poem, biography, etc...lets apply that logic to anything written in antiquity...but you wouldn't dare do that, would you? Only when it comes to the Bible is it time to put on the super duper costume.

But then again, it is worth mentioning that the author of 1 Corinthians has never really been in dispute anyway. Only the uneducated critics who want to play the role of super duper skeptic by denying any and everything when it comes to Biblical stuff, those are the only ones that would raise an issue of whether or not Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

I may have had a misspeak here on the agreement of the Author, but funnily enough even with my original argument this wouldn't matter all that much we could still build a decent historical record by corroborating independent sources by seeing how well they match in terms of what they are describing and the writing style can show if they were different authors.. Again Learn how history works.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, fine..but the point is that the belief in the Resurrection itself, that was a belief that was developed EARLY, that is the point. Paul was a contemporary of Peter, James, and the rest of the original disciples. The point is, if he is getting a creed from these original followers of Jesus, and within the creed it has "Resurrection" and "post mortem appearances" written all over it, then all of this "decades after the fact" crap is inaccurate, and pointless.

Just old and played out quips by unbelievers that don't know the facts.

Second, it is not based on faith, since the belief in the Resurrection came from the original followers of Jesus...so either they were lying, or they were telling the truth. The whole "faith" thing is geared towards us..but to them, there was no faith...there was simply "we saw the risen Messiah, either you believe us, or you don't".

If it's not based on faith why is written as a creed instead of as a matter of fact?

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Because in 1 Corin 15:6, he clearly states that most of those that saw the risen Jesus was alive, although some have "fallen asleep". If, at the time that the book was written, and all of those who witnessed Jesus' after the Resurrection had since died, then it wouldn't make any sense to pass along a creed that states "most of whom are still living", if they were all dead at the time that Paul passed the creed along.

Or at BEST, when Paul passed the creed along, those that witnessed the Resurrection was alive...at best (I am making a distinction from when Paul said he PASSED the creed on, from when the actually WROTE 1 Corinthians).

By that logic, I could hand you a document from around 550 years ago and say most of the people who witnessed the black death are still living. Again you are ignoring the core issue that Paul was handed a creed, a profession of faith. If the people that witnessed Jesus were still living why would they write a profession of faith(creed) instead of a document that speaks matter of factly?

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There probably were accounts, just not written accounts. Not everyone could read or write during that time, so the word was passed along orally...and as fast as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire in just 30 years from the crucifixion, 500 independent people spreading the word around town would seem to make sense.

So supposedly 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, and not a single one of those witnesses, knew how to write? Even with the extremely low literacy rate you would think that at least one of them could have wrote it down. Or even better yet why didn't jesus appear to only people who could read and write so they could record it?

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Right, but in the creed he also stated in verse 8 "and last of all he appeared to me also." So as I said, personal testimony.

That is not proof, was anyone else with him that could confirm that Jesus appeared? How do we know he didn't hallucinate the event? Or if the event even happened at all? Also you just ran face first into a contradiction in Acts 9:1 - 9:8 Paul was apparently blinded so he couldn't see anything, he just heard a voice claiming to be Jesus

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Understood. But you could simply look at the sources, and cross-reference the sources. Hell, he is only stating how long after the fact were the writings of other famous historians when compared to the Bible...and that is stuff that can be easily verified or debunked, because it is for the public record for all to see.

See, when you are telling the truth, you don't need to hide anything.

Yeah I tried that, guess what I ended up in a loop of apologetics using apologetic sources.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Debate me on the authorship & time frame at which the Gospels were written (including 1 Corinthians and Acts)


I thought we already got into this a bit?

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If the case for the Resurrection wasn't so strong, there would be no Easter Sunday to celebrate.

False cause argument fallacy here, the reason Easter exists as a holiday is because of the involvement of Christians in politics to get the holiday recognized. And without that you are solely basing that case on faith not evidence.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When Paul talked to Peter, he was talking to an original disciple of Jesus that had not been "altered or distorted in any way".

Prove that it was not altered or distorted.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. From a naturalistic "God does not exist" standpoint, there is no way you can claim that evolution is true, if you don't now how life originated. If the proposition "life arose naturally from nonliving materials" is false, then you don't have a theory of evolution.

Evolution assumes abiogenesis..but abiogenesis has yet to be proven...therefore, evolution has yet to be proven.

Nice syllogism right there Laugh out load

Again yet another argument from incredulity. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate theories. You can easily have evolution without abiogensis, and from a naturalistic view we would say we don't know how life started until we found evidence on how it started if the theory of abiogensis didn't exist. Evolution only describes again how we went from super simple life to the complex life we see now and through history. And will continue to see evolve.

Abiogensis is only meant to describe how life originated, nothing more. Evolution is separate in that it describes how we went from very very simple life to complex life.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Independent sources like those that don't believe in Christianity, who are also "biased" Laugh out load

Frankly I don't care what their personal beliefs are, as long as they don't let those beliefs insert a massive bias into what they are arguing. However, since apologetic sources are extremely biased and quite often wrong, I still look at them just in case they happen to have said something that actually has real evidence behind it, but I have yet to see an apologetic argument meet that criterion.

(26-06-2015 12:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Accept the debate.


Aren't we already debating?

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Worom's post
26-06-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 12:59 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  S'OK RS. Just take ya time.

The main things, for me, are:

1. Jebus supposedly went through Galilee performing miracle after miracle. He preached as a young boy in temples, he preached to crowds of 5,000 and upturned the tables of Usurers. Does he even get a mention in Roman dispatches during his lifetime? Nope. The first mention he gets is by Josephus in 93 AD and even that's dubious.

Actually, Jesus is first mentioned by Paul in 53 C.E, 40 years before Josephus.

(26-06-2015 12:59 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  2. Paul wrote 14 epistles. Only 7 are thought to be genuine. At least one of the two Josephus' references to jebus is thought to be forged. The early christians are thought to be responsible. If jebus really existed, why the forgeries?

1 Corinthians is geniune...and the good thing about Josephus' references is, we know what parts were interpolated, and which parts are genuine. If you omit the interpolation, you still have a historical Jesus.

Why the forgeries? Regarding Josephus, it was probably forged because a later Christian didn't feel as if Josephus gave Jesus his due diligence when he mentioned him...so the forger added a little sprinkle to it. While the interpolation may actually be an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, Christians are honest enough to admit that the forged part, of course, wasn't in Josephus' original work.

But no harm, no foul...we know whats up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 03:03 PM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 02:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 12:59 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  S'OK RS. Just take ya time.

The main things, for me, are:

1. Jebus supposedly went through Galilee performing miracle after miracle. He preached as a young boy in temples, he preached to crowds of 5,000 and upturned the tables of Usurers. Does he even get a mention in Roman dispatches during his lifetime? Nope. The first mention he gets is by Josephus in 93 AD and even that's dubious.

Actually, Jesus is first mentioned by Paul in 53 C.E, 40 years before Josephus.

(26-06-2015 12:59 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  2. Paul wrote 14 epistles. Only 7 are thought to be genuine. At least one of the two Josephus' references to jebus is thought to be forged. The early christians are thought to be responsible. If jebus really existed, why the forgeries?

1 Corinthians is geniune...and the good thing about Josephus' references is, we know what parts were interpolated, and which parts are genuine. If you omit the interpolation, you still have a historical Jesus.

Why the forgeries? Regarding Josephus, it was probably forged because a later Christian didn't feel as if Josephus gave Jesus his due diligence when he mentioned him...so the forger added a little sprinkle to it. While the interpolation may actually be an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, Christians are honest enough to admit that the forged part, of course, wasn't in Josephus' original work.

But no harm, no foul...we know whats up.

FFS, here we go again. Why I talk to these fuckwits, who knows:

You can't use Paul as a source. He's a christard. He believed that jebus existed. For your source to have street cred, it has to be independent and Paul isn't. Besides, Carrier is of the opinion that when Paul talks about jebus, it's as though jebus is a god without an Earthly existence. I also note that you ignore the fact that there are no reports of jebus during his lifetime. Care to offer an explanation or do you prefer to ignore that one?

Josephus's quotes aren't worth jack shit. They can't be primary because Josephus wasn't even born when jubus supposedly lived. He doesn't tell us what his source was. In all probability, it was based on a word of mouth account from a christard.

You say that Corinthians is genuine. Mmm. If Carrier is right, then the babble is a book designed to give the heavenly jebus an Earthly existence. They were doing such things at the time jebus supposedly existed. In which case, the babble is no more than made up shit.

I also note that you mention christards and honesty in the same sentence. Oxymorons if ever they were.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Worom

I am impressed with your responses to cotw. I have to ask though, is the twat worth that much effort?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 03:05 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Worom

I am impressed with your responses to cotw. I have to ask though, is the twat worth that much effort?

It's more for me as a test of knowledge and reason and for any future theists or those on the fence so to speak that may happen upon this forum. I may succeed in convincing them

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Worom's post
26-06-2015, 03:51 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Even if you never convince any of the True Believers, who generally are open about the fact that they're unwilling to change their mind, no matter how solid the evidence you present or how many times you point out that their suppositions are based on poor/invalid logic, there is something to be said for standing up for Reason regardless of the outcome. And regardless of the cost.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-06-2015, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2015 02:18 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(26-06-2015 02:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why the forgeries? Regarding Josephus, it was probably forged because a later Christian didn't feel as if Josephus gave Jesus his due diligence when he mentioned him...so the forger added a little sprinkle to it. While the interpolation may actually be an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, Christians are honest enough to admit that the forged part, of course, wasn't in Josephus' original work.

1. christians didn't add 'a little sprinkle' to the Josephus passage as you so quaintly put it. Josephus never even mentioned jesus in that particular passage. christians added the whole of the entry related to jesus.

2. The christians responsible weren't honest enough to admit their forgery. They are now dead. It took modern day historians to determine that christians were dishonest forgers.

3. Josephus lived within 30 minutes walk of where jesus was supposed to have lived. Knowing Josephus, as we do, he would have mentioned this in his annals, given how important jesus was supposed to have been. Yet, he does not mention this in any of his writings. Would you care to explain this?

4. When we talk about Josephus and Tacitus writing about jesus, it's easy to gain the impression that they wrote swathes of glowing prose. In fact, in total, the 3 entries amount to no more than a small paragraph. Also, they mention jesus in passing only i.e. he is not the subject of the passage the reference is contained within. Considering how important jesus was supposed to have been and the miracles he was supposed to have performed, don't you think that, had he really existed, he would have been afforded more 'quill' time? Would you care to address this anomaly too along with all of the others?

5 The Romans reported everything and anything. We have records of trials and even household accounts from the time of jesus. Yet, they wrote nothing of jesus during his lifetime. It is as though he never existed. You think that a story like that of jesus can't be concocted? Think again. You may know about Roswell. 'It' happened in mid-1947. Here we are, 60 some years later believing that the US military actually found a UFO and that they took away bodies of aliens to Area 51. What's the FACTS? They found a bunch of sticks and some foil. I kid you not. That's all. Yet, we now have a conspiracy that people believe. Books have been written. TV and Radio programs have been made. Films have been made . Books are still being written and TV and Radio programs are still being made as are films and the mystery gets bigger and better and more sinister for the telling. And yet, ALL they found was a bunch of sticks and some foil.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: