Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 07:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 06:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your analogy (which you repeated here) stupidly comparing Creationism with Mythicism is false.

And creationist don't like being compared to mythicist. But I don't care. I deal with both often enough, to recognize how their patterns and criticisms have a great deal in common.

It's "creationists" and "mythicists". The analogy is meaningless. If you find it meaningful, good for you. It's useless, and false. There is NOTHING about their positions that are comparable. No one here cares what is useful to you. You exposed yourself as a charlatan in the last thread on this subject where you couldn't even recognize or respond to arguments against an historical Jesus. You think that instead of actually DEALING with the arguments, you can insult people who think there are good reasons to question an historical Jesus by comparing them to Creationists, rather than dealing with the arguments.

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
03-11-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's "creationists" and "mythicists". The analogy is meaningless. If you find it meaningful, good for you. It's useless, and false. There is NOTHING about their positions that are comparable.

Their arguments are comparable all the way down to a significant degree. The only difference is the subject in which those arguments are directed towards. If we were to take a creationist argument, and reframe it to the topic of historicity, it would be nearly indistinguishable from mythicist, a-historicist arguments. I don't put much stuck in a mythicist/ahistoricist or a creationist ability to recognize this, but for me it's quite interesting how similar they are.

I come here and argue for historicity, and then go into a Christian forum arguing for evolution, and I'm always fascinated how mythicist/ahistoricist supporters mimic the same patterns as supporters of creationism.

"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
03-11-2015, 07:43 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 07:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 07:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's "creationists" and "mythicists". The analogy is meaningless. If you find it meaningful, good for you. It's useless, and false. There is NOTHING about their positions that are comparable.

Their arguments are comparable all the way down to a significant degree. The only difference is the subject in which those arguments are directed towards. If we were to take a creationist argument, and reframe it to the topic of historicity, it would be nearly indistinguishable from mythicist, a-historicist arguments. I don't put much stuck in a mythicist/ahistoricist or a creationist ability to recognize this, but for me it's quite interesting how similar they are.

I come here and argue for historicity, and then go into a Christian forum arguing for evolution, and I'm always fascinated how mythicist/ahistoricist supporters mimic the same patterns as supporters of creationism.

Great. Put up a dual/comparable list of them all and lets see you substantiate your (bogus) claim. Right here. Right now.
The fact that you find similarities reflects on no one but you and your ignorance.
There is no evidence for Creationism. There are significant pieces of evidence for a-historicity. The fact you think they are similar just tells us how little you actually know about either.

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
03-11-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that you find similarities reflects on no one but you and your ignorance.
There is no evidence for Creationism. There are significant pieces of evidence for a-historicity. The fact you think they are similar just tells us how little you actually know about either.

And the creationist will say there is no evidence for Theory of Evolution, but there are significant pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus.

Both parties play a word game with terms like "evidence", "facts". In fact they invest a great deal into emphasizing "no evidence", "not a fact" etc......

"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
03-11-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 07:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that you find similarities reflects on no one but you and your ignorance.
There is no evidence for Creationism. There are significant pieces of evidence for a-historicity. The fact you think they are similar just tells us how little you actually know about either.

And the creationist will say there is no evidence for Theory of Evolution, but there are significant pieces of evidence for a historical Jesus.

Both parties play a word game with terms like "evidence", "facts". In fact they invest a great deal into emphasizing "no evidence", "not a fact" etc......

So, no list.
Somehow I knew you were incapable of substantiating your claim. Creationism is neither supported nor discounted by Evolution. It's a religious position. You don't even know what you're arguing for and against. Facepalm

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-11-2015, 08:18 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So, no list.
Somehow I knew you were incapable of substantiating your claim. Creationism is neither supported nor discounted by Evolution. It's a religious position. You don't even know what you're arguing for and against. Facepalm

I don't think you even understand the comparison being made here. That both the ahistoricist and the creationist argue the same way. Much of their arguments generally revolve around the meaning of a word like evidence, or facts. And claiming that whatever the other side offers as evidences, is "not evidence".

"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
03-11-2015, 08:24 PM
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So, no list.
Somehow I knew you were incapable of substantiating your claim. Creationism is neither supported nor discounted by Evolution. It's a religious position. You don't even know what you're arguing for and against. Facepalm

I don't think you even understand the comparison being made here. That both the ahistoricist and the creationist argue the same way. Much of their arguments generally revolve around the meaning of a word like evidence, or facts. And claiming that whatever the other side offers as evidences, is "not evidence".

Yeah, one side uses words like "evidence" and "facts" in a meaningful context and the other claims that the burden of proof rests on the person rejecting a claim Facepalm

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
03-11-2015, 08:26 PM
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
The creationist would "argue" that scientists distort the meaning of words like "evidence" and "facts" in order to promote evolution and reject creationism.

Hmm, who's position does that sound like Consider

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
03-11-2015, 08:29 PM
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
I'm also still waiting on that "abundant and compelling evidence" for Harry Potter not being real. Drinking Beverage

Come on, pony up and deliver on the bullshit you spew.

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
03-11-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm also still waiting on that "abundant and compelling evidence" for Harry Potter not being real.

In favor of the argument, I submit that I saw Hermione Granger in muggle clothes, hugging a kid wearing a wizard costume, indicating that there were early believers in the true Prophesied One, Harry Potter. Well, a photograph of it, anyway. But it proves that they have devotees on Facebook! The faith is real and you can't deny it!!

Long live the lightning-marked one!

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: