What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2017, 02:08 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(30-12-2016 02:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Did Tacitus mention the name "Jesus"?

Nope.

Quote:Did Tacitus mention his sources?

Nope.

Quote:Was Tacitus writing a piece about Jesus or was this just an aside thing, a bit of trivia, perhaps even unresearched trivia?

At just a few words on one page? Yep.

Quote:Since this was written many decades after "Jesus" alleged death, How does Tacitus writing become evidence when we have many people today who would come into forums and write all about Jesus. Are their posts evidence as well?

According to Tom? Yep. LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SYZ's post
02-01-2017, 04:47 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(31-12-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  A Roman historian no friend or admirer of Christianity stated that Jesus was crucified under Pontias Pilate.

Obviously you have never read Tacitus. We do not know what Tacitus knew of xianity. We do know that Tacitus' family suffered under Sejanus while working under Tiberius.

Tacitus had a grudge against the Julio Claudians.

Had you read his work, you'd know this.


Yes that's evidence in support of historicity. It may not be proof, but it's evidence nonetheless. But go ahead appeal to your own unique definition of evidence to exclude it.

It is evidence of the family history of Tacitus.

Tacitus never mentions a "Jesus". Not in any of the surviving books. All of which I read multiple times.


Some of the unique TA criteria for historical evidence, is that it has to be contempory, it has to be an eye witness account, a criteria which no one other than their band of atheists subscribe too.

I already told you Tacitus wrote that history around the year 120 AD.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 04:48 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(31-12-2016 07:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-12-2016 02:08 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(30-12-2016 09:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Both the defense, and prosecution offer a variety of evidence in support of their own competing claims, and dispute it.


There is only one claim discussed in court, and the claim is "the defendant is guilty of the crime charged", as presented by the prosecution. The defense only needs to cast doubt, it doesnt have to claim or prove anything. Rolleyes

We found just another thing Tommy is ignorant of. Thumbsup


The defensive can present any variety of evidence counter to the prosecutions narrative. Use evidence in support of the defendant being some where else at the time, etc....

The point being that both the defense and the prosecutions can have evidence in support of their claims and counter claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

#2 you got it wrong again. Please educate yoursef on jurisdiction. The defense does not have to make a claim or counter claim. Although, having a counter claim for which you even have solid evidence is certainly the best to cast doubt about you being guilty. I will be more direct for you, in case you dont get it: The strongest case of doubt of you being guilty is of course the proof of innocence, but that is only the extreme case and not necessary at all.

The minimal requirement for any defense is casting doubts on the defendant being guilty.period.

Sorry if that doesnt fit your false equivocations.

P.S.:
I have my own little verdict from my own little criminal case here in my drawer, and it says "not guilty" and not "innocent", it further says the reason being "in dubio pro reo", and rest assured that the "dubio" (latin for doubt) about the prosecutions claim what happened is what made me keep 7 years of my life, not the counter claim of my lawyer about what else possibly happened.

The claim of what possibly (really) happened would have been part of another court case, of me suing a person for (knowingly) false accusation. A claim however for which (according to my lawyer) there wasnt evidence beyond reasonable doubt too, so i bit my tongue and went home a free man, yet scarred for life.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 05:39 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(02-01-2017 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-12-2016 07:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The defensive can present any variety of evidence counter to the prosecutions narrative. Use evidence in support of the defendant being some where else at the time, etc....

The point being that both the defense and the prosecutions can have evidence in support of their claims and counter claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

#2 you got it wrong again. Please educate yoursef on jurisdiction. The defense does not have to make a claim or counter claim. Although, having a counter claim for which you even have solid evidence is certainly the best to cast doubt about you being guilty. I will be more direct for you, in case you dont get it: The strongest case of doubt of you being guilty is of course the proof of innocence, but that is only the extreme case and not necessary at all.

The minimal requirement for any defense is casting doubts on the defendant being guilty.period.

Sorry if that doesnt fit your false equivocations.

P.S.:
I have my own little verdict from my own little criminal case here in my drawer, and it says "not guilty" and not "innocent", it further says the reason being "in dubio pro reo", and rest assured that the "dubio" (latin for doubt) about the prosecutions claim what happened is what made me keep 7 years of my life, not the counter claim of my lawyer about what else possibly happened.

The claim of what possibly (really) happened would have been part of another court case, of me suing a person for (knowingly) false accusation. A claim however for which (according to my lawyer) there wasnt evidence beyond reasonable doubt too, so i bit my tongue and went home a free man, yet scarred for life.

Criminal cases use the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. However it's not the only standard used in court. Civil trials can be declared or decided upon with much lower standards, such as 'clear and convincing evidence' and a 'preponderance of the evidence'. If you were to roughly try to equate these to numbers for comparison, the preponderance standards goes to whichever side can amass a slight edge, even as little as 51%. 'Clear and convincing' rests around the 75% certainty, while 'beyond a reasonable doubt' usually exceeds 95% certainty. This is how things like O.J. Simpson being found not guilty in criminal court, but later was sued in civil court, where he lost under the lower 'clear and convincing' standard.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6363

Also, don't take legal advice from a podcast. Tongue

http://openargs.com/

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 09:49 PM
What is the best evidence against Christianity
(02-01-2017 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  #1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
This seems to be a habit among you folks, the tendency to erect strawman. I never said the defense has to present evidence. The point of the example is that the defense and the prosecution can (not have to) have evidence for two competing claims.

The rest of your argument can be ignored after pointing out your strawman.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
02-01-2017, 10:06 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
At work.

Still waiting for your example/presenting of other evidence Tomasia.

No hurry.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(02-01-2017 09:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  #1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
This seems to be a habit among you folks, the tendency to erect strawman. I never said the defense has to present evidence. The point of the example is that the defense and the prosecution can (not have to) have evidence for two competing claims.

The rest of your argument can be ignored after pointing out your strawman.

You ever gonna provide anything to back up your claim that atheists don't look at the most likely explanation? Like perhaps, showing that the most likely explanation for the empty tomb is Jesus resurrecting from the dead? You made the claim Tommy, why don't you want to own it?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2017, 01:06 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(02-01-2017 09:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  #1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
This seems to be a habit among you folks, the tendency to erect strawman. I never said the defense has to present evidence. The point of the example is that the defense and the prosecution can (not have to) have evidence for two competing claims.

The rest of your argument can be ignored after pointing out your strawman.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may of never said such things but you perpetually argue against the notions of a skeptical blank argument idea and bemoan it's manner as something you'd not ascribe to if it was you being an atheist[s]

"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
03-01-2017, 01:39 AM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(02-01-2017 09:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 04:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  #1 emphasis mine, and thanks for confirming what i said. The defense can, but doesnt have to. It is sufficient however to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
This seems to be a habit among you folks, the tendency to erect strawman. I never said the defense has to present evidence.

(30-12-2016 09:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Both the defense, and prosecution offer a variety of evidence in support of their own competing claims, and dispute it.

If one of your resolutions for 2017 was to stop lying, then i have bad news for you.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
03-01-2017, 06:51 AM
What is the best evidence against Christianity
(03-01-2017 01:39 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 09:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This seems to be a habit among you folks, the tendency to erect strawman. I never said the defense has to present evidence.

(30-12-2016 09:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Both the defense, and prosecution offer a variety of evidence in support of their own competing claims, and dispute it.

If one of your resolutions for 2017 was to stop lying, then i have bad news for you.


I never said or implied that either have to. That's your strawman. But the other tendency among you folks is when called out on your strawman you lack the the intellectual honesty to admit it, and prefer to accuse the other party of lying rather than taking accountability for your mistakes.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: