Three old rules of journalism that should be changed
Towse
<http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200901/1623/>
[...]
"The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
"The new rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
"I hit this issue last month, and will amplify here. When newspapers had
monopolies, we had a responsibility to our communities not to abuse our
power, and to provide a neutral commons for reporting and debate.
"Now, as just one among dozens, if not hundreds, of popular news voices
within our communities, our responsibilities have changed. Now, we serve
our busy audience and stand apart from the competition with reporting
that cuts the clutter and identifies the truth among many conflicting
narratives.
"This is why the first change, above, becomes even more important. A
news organization needs people with the expertise, and the long and
detailed memory, necessary to make these calls in deciding how to report
and present a story in ways that make the truth clear.
"If your definition of 'fair' meant blasting that which deserves
blasting, then this one isn't much of a change."
[...]
[via a tweet and a click to Romenesko fr Poynter
<http://twitter.com/Poynter>]
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
serenebabe
> Online Journalism Review - Robert Niles
> <http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200901/1623/>
>
> [...]
>
> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>
> "The new rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Rock ON with that. I am so very, very sick of "fair" reporting. Facts
or lies doesn't require "being fair." I hardly listen to NPR anymore
since they've been so conscious about "including all views."
Not that I mind opinion pieces. I love them. I probably read or listen
to those even more than real, hard news. But if we're talking about
news reporting, facts facts facts.
I suppose the concern is reporting the facts from one point of view.
But, if you cover the *facts* from every angle, that's different than
being willing to give idiots a place to spew their nonsense (NPRs
reporting on "clean coal" comes to mind).
> "I hit this issue last month, and will amplify here. When newspapers
> had monopolies, we had a responsibility to our communities not to abuse
> our power, and to provide a neutral commons for reporting and debate.
>
> "Now, as just one among dozens, if not hundreds, of popular news voices
> within our communities, our responsibilities have changed. Now, we
> serve our busy audience and stand apart from the competition with
> reporting that cuts the clutter and identifies the truth among many
> conflicting narratives.
>
> "This is why the first change, above, becomes even more important. A
> news organization needs people with the expertise, and the long and
> detailed memory, necessary to make these calls in deciding how to
> report and present a story in ways that make the truth clear.
>
> "If your definition of 'fair' meant blasting that which deserves
> blasting, then this one isn't much of a change."
>
> [...]
>
> [via a tweet and a click to Romenesko fr Poynter <http://twitter.com/Poynter>]
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
Zomby Woof
> reporting that cuts the clutter and identifies the truth among many
> conflicting narratives.
Trouble with that is...
Who's deciding what the truth is, and to whose benefit?
ZW
B--
news:gkrbm5$8s2$2...@news.motzarella.org...
> Online Journalism Review - Robert Niles
> <http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200901/1623/>
>
> [...]
>
> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to
> each.
>
> "The new rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
I've sat on the fact-providing side of news stories for years
(Communications branch in government). I also hang out with
journalists and hear their stories of the management of the outlets
they work for. The problem with reporting "the truth" is the filter
between facts and the public. Factor in:
- how the source of facts try to spin those facts (not always a
factor, but often),
- that every reporter hears through a filers of their own personal
experience and leanings,
- and include that most reporters works go through editors who add
their spin and the spin of the media outlet they work for;
then even with the best intensions facts, even simple facts, can
become distorted. (Simple as in say pure numbers, i.e. there were 200
applications for a program in a particular year - yes even that can be
misreported, I've seen it.)
Since knowing what information is provided and what comes out in the
news media, I believe no more than 50% of what I read. I know that
every story, from "the government reported that 200 people tried to
access this program" to opinion pieces are based on not only what the
reporter hears, but who the reporter is and who they work for.
The "truth" is definately relative.
--
B--
"If earth is an urban planet, i'm moving to the suburbs." - Zero
serenebabe
I totally agree with what you are saying. But, there's a difference
between having a personal history filter, a personal beliefs filter,
etc. and spouting weak information in an effort to be "balanced."
I did some reporting, decided I was *really* bad at it, and stopped.
Because of this experience I know how they'll let just about anyone be
a "reporter." In one case, the editor was perfectly content with my
*bad reporting* method of reading press releases, talking to the people
who released the releases, and talking to just a couple in the same
business who were "competition." Here's an example of some shitty
reporting like that:
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2002/11/18/smallb1.html
In another case, I had a good editor (at MaineBiz) who realized I was
perfectly happy telling the story the companies wanted me to tell.
She'd catch me quickly and expect me to dig deeper, ask harder
questions, find groups outside of the industry who opposed xyz
company's new gizmo or whatever, etc. She kicked ass and the
publication was way better for it. She also was the reason why I
realized it was the wrong job for me. :-)
Some people are very good at sticking to the most objective facts
possible. And, "balance" can mean finding out all the sides to the
story -- and that can be a good thing. But when people report stories
and just throw in "the other side" without really checking it out
(which I think happens a lot), we get farther and farther away from the
real truth (if there was such a thing).
Alan Hope
>"The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
"Being fair to each" may well involve trashing the nonsense and
leaving the truth to shine forth for itself.
There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
presented as such.
No, we were never dropped down into volcanos to be blown up by jets,
as Skippy believes. That simply didn't happen. Let's not give it
credence.
No, there was never a moment 4400 years ago when God said, Let there
be light. That's supposed to be a metaphor. It didn't happen.
No, nobody descended from a monkey. That's not what Darwin said. It's
a very short book, by the standards of the time. Just fucking read,
then get back to me.
No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
There aren't two sides to that point of view.
Sylvia
> Towse goes:
>
> >"The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>
> "Being fair to each" may well involve trashing the nonsense and
> leaving the truth to shine forth for itself.
>
> There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
> the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
> presented as such.
>
> No, we were never dropped down into volcanos to be blown up by jets,
> as Skippy believes. That simply didn't happen. Let's not give it
> credence.
>
> No, there was never a moment 4400 years ago when God said, Let there
> be light. That's supposed to be a metaphor. It didn't happen.
'Course not, Silly, the light was from the rosy fingers of the Goddess Dawn,
and, much, much earlier in time.
> No, nobody descended from a monkey.
<significant glance at Lloyd "Skip" Press>
> That's not what Darwin said. It's a very short book, by the standards of
> the time. Just fucking read, then get back to me.
>
> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
> capable of everything.
OK, so neither the persnickety Roman Empire record keepers nor *any*
historians during that time ever made any mention, not even a whisper, about
some guy claimin' to be a son of a god, a guy who supposedly made loads of
trouble for the government for years, a guy who was supposedly killed,
entombed, then brought back to life by his dad, a god. Not even one.
The explanation is prolly just like Ray Haddad's concerning how he could
possibly been in the US Navy, assigned to the USS Ranger and bombed Hanoi
DAILY for TWO MONTHS towards the end of 1974 (almost two years after the US
signed the peace treaty), and NOBODY NOTICED --not even the (Real) crew of the
the USS Ranger or her air wing or even the peeps living in Hanoi:
Mr. Reese: "Ray, if there was a 1974 bombing of Hanoi, you would
not need an FOIA request to verify it, as such a
mission would have been on the front page in newspapers
around the world!"
Ray Haddad: "There was another pressing matter that dominated the news."
So, ya see, Mr. Hope, if everyone in the entire world can be *so* distracted
by... by a PRESSING MATTER that NO ONE at all noted what would have been a two
month long Act of War committed by the US, then everyone can miss some guy's
years of sedition, his sensational trial, forced march through Judea,
execution and resurrection. And the whole Virgin Birth thingy. And, all the
other miracles.
> I don't care. There's no evidence.
Only because of a PRESSING MATTER. Wot lasted for over three decades.
> Nobody in his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
I'm gonna channel Tiberius Caesar and make a FOIA request.
> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
I'll get back to ya as soon as that FOIA documentation comes in.
--
Sylvia (My mythical deities can beat up your mythical deities.)
"I know it happened. I was there. I also have, to my surprise,
found no reference to it on the Internet. I have registered
and paid for a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request
to the US Navy historical archives for information on that.
The dancing in the street over Nixon resigning may have
overshadowed the event but somewhere there will be a
record of it. I'll find it."
-- Ray Haddad, Fake Vietnam Vet who
doesn't even know when the US fought in
Vietnam or that Hanoi is *not* in South Vietnam
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
serenebabe
> Towse goes:
>
>> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>
> "Being fair to each" may well involve trashing the nonsense and
> leaving the truth to shine forth for itself.
>
> There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
> the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
> presented as such.
<...>
True. But reporters these days (as evidenced by my brief stint as one,
or as evidenced by the major networks) often don't know their job.
First, they fall prey to the notion that they should always show "each
side." Then, they don't know it's their job to dig deep to find out
what is actually just bullshit and what is a story that needs telling.
I think it's the not digging deeper that's the bigger problem.
serenebabe
> Towse goes:
>
>> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>
> "Being fair to each" may well involve trashing the nonsense and
> leaving the truth to shine forth for itself.
>
> There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
> the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
> presented as such.
<...>
> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
> capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
> his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
>
> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
Isn't it a stretch to say "in any way?" Sure, it's not like it is
literally in the Bible, but you actually believe the historical man
named Jesus of those times had *nothing* in common with the stories
from the Bible?
(Yummy bait.)
Sylvia
Heather Denkmire/ serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Hope said:
<...>
> > There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
> > the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
> > presented as such.
> <...>
> > No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
> > way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
> > You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
> > capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
> > his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
> >
> > There aren't two sides to that point of view.
.
> Isn't it a stretch to say "in any way?" Sure, it's not like it is
> literally in the Bible, but you actually believe the historical man
> named Jesus of those times had *nothing* in common with the stories
> from the Bible?
>
> (Yummy bait.)
Chapter 43: Heather/serenebabe openly tests the limits of Mr. Hope's
forbearance. Again.
--
Sylvia
Gene Royer: "Anti-Christians know that they can criticize Christians
as much as they want to without fear of retribution.
Alan Hope, for example loves to make malicious fun of
Jesus the Christ, and he does it regularly without
hesitation."
Mr. Hope: "Yes indeed."
[Heather cuts the rest of his reply without noting that she did]
Heather/
serenebabe: "Thought of you all (especially you, Mr. Hope) the
other day when I added a book to my goodreads list.
[...] The description for 'Meeting Jesus Again for the
First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of
Contemporary Faith' by Marc Borg starts this way:
'All Christianity is, to some extent, idolatrous.'
"[...] Even the progressive, open-minded, open-hearted
kinds (like my family) make Jesus into some kind of
idol to worship."
[NOTE: Some may find Heather's father's worship understandable as he is a
Christian minister.]
B--
news:tp45n4117p02v5fu7...@4ax.com...
True. And if every reporter was a good reporter, I'd believe up to 60%
of what I read.
--
B--
"As for representing MW, how can anyone represent anarchy and
chaos?" - Robert Marcom
Alan Hope
>On 2009-01-17 21:33:44 -0500, Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> said:
>> Towse goes:
>>> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>> "Being fair to each" may well involve trashing the nonsense and
>> leaving the truth to shine forth for itself.
>> There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
>> the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should be
>> presented as such.
<...>
>> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
>> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
>> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
>> capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
>> his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
>> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
>Isn't it a stretch to say "in any way?"
No.
>Sure, it's not like it is
>literally in the Bible, but you actually believe the historical man
>named Jesus of those times had *nothing* in common with the stories
>from the Bible?
>(Yummy bait.)
There is no historical man named Jesus.
serenebabe
Says who? (Besides you.)
Alan Hope
Well the question really rather rebounds on you. If you would like to
claim he existed, you need to be able to prove it.
I'm saying there's no evidence he did. If you want to prove me wrong,
knock yourself out.
serenebabe
Sure, I'm saying there's evidence he did. You started it, it's in your court.
PJ
< ... >
> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
> capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
> his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
>
> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
My *side* is that it happened, Alan. Foolish, ignorant, blind, naive
goofball though you may think I am, that's what I believe. In fact,
Christ is the very center of my existence, and I'm convinced, beyond any
doubt whatsoever, is the reason I'm happier than I've ever been in my
entire life.
I fully realize that many people, perhaps even most, do not share my
views, which is why I usually keep them to myself. I've repeatedly said
on this group and elsewhere that I respect the fact that people don't
share my beliefs, and I respect their right *not* to believe. And that
is the truth. What I would like, in return though, is for those
non-believers to respect *my* beliefs without exhibiting scorn and
ridicule. Unfortunately, that isn't usually the case.
You and I are friends, Alan, dear friends IMO. Whenever you write things
like this, you denigrate not only people you don't know ... but people
like me.
For whatever that's worth, I just wanted to say it.
~ ~ ~
PJ
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Sylvia
Heather Denkmire/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Hope said:
> > serenebabe goes:
> >> Alan Hope said:
> >>> serenebabe goes:
> >>>> Alan Hope said:
<...>
> >>>>> There are not two sides to every story. That's a legend propagated by
> >>>>> the hucksters. Sometimes the second side is bullshit, and it should
> >>>>> be presented as such.
> >>> <...>
> >>>>> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
> >>>>> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
> >>>>> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
> >>>>> capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
> >>>>> his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
> >>>
> >>>>> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
> >>>
> >>>> Isn't it a stretch to say "in any way?"
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>>> Sure, it's not like it is literally in the Bible, but you actually
> >>>> believe the historical man named Jesus of those times had *nothing* in
> >>>> common with the stories from the Bible?
> >>>
> >>>> (Yummy bait.)
> >>>
> >>> There is no historical man named Jesus.
> >>
> >> Says who? (Besides you.)
> >
> > Well the question really rather rebounds on you. If you would like to
> > claim he existed, you need to be able to prove it.
> >
> > I'm saying there's no evidence he did. If you want to prove me wrong,
> > knock yourself out.
>
> Sure, I'm saying there's evidence he did. You started it, it's in your
> court.
February 2006, in MW:
Haddad: "I don't have to prove it. You have to prove you didn't. [...]"
gekko: "It's nigh unto impossible to prove a negative. [...]"
Heather resorts to yet another Haddadian Weasel Tactic. Wot a shocker.
"To tell him to find the cite himself is akin to asking him to
prove a negative. And, you shouldn't be miffed if your refusal
to provide the cite results in that person suggesting your
claim is spurious."
-- Mr. Stan to Ray Haddad Dec 2002
--
Sylvia
February 2004, in MW:
gekko: "No he hasn't. Cite."
Ray Haddad: "Cite."
gekko: "Can't cite a negative, Ray. You cite."
Ray Haddad: "You made the claim. You cite.
"If you can't prove it, don't declare it. Simple."
gekko: "http://groups.google.com/
"There's my cite. And, as you can see, in all
of that [...] not one single instance of him
representing himself as a ghetto kid."
"Now yours, Ray. Show me where Josh
represented himself as a ghetto kid."
Ray Haddad: "Why? You merely stated it wasn't true.
It was up to you to show anyone anything
you wish.
"I still don't do cites on demand unless
I'm in the mood."
boots
>There is no historical man named Jesus.
That's bullshit, he was doing my yardwork 10 years ago.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
serenebabe
The honesty is great, especially among friends. But how does his
opinion/mistake denigrate you?
Motivated by this very thread I finally picked up "Meeting the
Historical Jesus for the First Time" (Borg). I ended up reading the
first couple chapters, then skimming. It wasn't what I thought (I
thought it shared more of The Jesus Seminar
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar) data, like, why people in
the Seminar chose or didn't chose to accept elements of the Bible.
One concept I liked he first describes as the "historical Jesus" and
the "Christ of faith." So, basically, John's Gospel would be pretty
much only the Christ of faith. Some of the other Gospels have
historical fact in them, but are so contradictory it takes serious
historical study to decide what really happened.
Soon after introducing those phrases, though, he talks about the pre-
and post-Easter Jesus. This is what you've got me thinking about.
First, you've got the Jewish man who for somewhere between 1-4 years
went around healing and teaching and talking about having God at the
center of his life. Then, you've got the community of faith that
follows his death. They take his life and turn it into Christianity.
The Bible is mostly all this development of the message through the 1st
century Christians.
Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent a bit here. I was just thinking, PJ,
that you're more of a Christian in the traditional sense than I think
I'll ever be. But Alan or UV or anyone else dismissing God doesn't make
God (or even Jesus) any less real to me. I'm personally not insulted. I
realize it can seem like there's a massive arrogance in why I'm not,
though some might call it faith or belief. It's because I know that for
me, God exists all the time everywhere. So, basically, in my experience
I'm right and they're wrong no matter what they say. :-)
PJ
"Nobody in his right mind" was my first clue.
<...>
>
> Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent a bit here.
S'okay, that's what the froup is for!
> I was just thinking, PJ,
> that you're more of a Christian in the traditional sense than I think
> I'll ever be. But Alan or UV or anyone else dismissing God doesn't make
> God (or even Jesus) any less real to me. I'm personally not insulted. I
> realize it can seem like there's a massive arrogance in why I'm not,
> though some might call it faith or belief. It's because I know that for
> me, God exists all the time everywhere. So, basically, in my experience
> I'm right and they're wrong no matter what they say. :-)
I'm not insulted when people dismiss God, as it's their right to do so.
What insults me is when people diss me for *not* dismissing God. Then
it's personal.
~ ~ ~
PJ
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> "A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
Which "GOD" are we talking about here?
$Zero
you've never used that phrase about anything before?
> <...>
>
>
>
> > Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent a bit here.
>
> S'okay, that's what the froup is for!
>
> > I was just thinking, PJ,
> > that you're more of a Christian in the traditional sense than I think
> > I'll ever be. But Alan or UV or anyone else dismissing God doesn't make
> > God (or even Jesus) any less real to me. I'm personally not insulted. I
> > realize it can seem like there's a massive arrogance in why I'm not,
> > though some might call it faith or belief. It's because I know that for
> > me, God exists all the time everywhere. So, basically, in my experience
> > I'm right and they're wrong no matter what they say. :-)
>
> I'm not insulted when people dismiss God, as it's their right to do so.
why does rights have anything to do about it?
> What insults me is when people diss me for *not* dismissing God.
oh ye of little faith.
> Then it's personal.
this is the dangerous mindsest of the politically correct.
yikes.
all the more so dangerous in a religious context.
anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
Plato, FFS.
why anyone would be insulted by anything he thinks is beyond silly.
-$Zero...
can you possibly map out for me a future circumstance
that would make it a reasonable time to consider
making the word "Liberal" unacceptable to use?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d61c60f98f51fb13
serenebabe
>> I was just thinking, PJ, that you're more of a Christian in the
>> traditional sense than I think I'll ever be. But Alan or UV or anyone
>> else dismissing God doesn't make God (or even Jesus) any less real to
>> me. I'm personally not insulted. I realize it can seem like there's a
>> massive arrogance in why I'm not, though some might call it faith or
>> belief. It's because I know that for me, God exists all the time
>> everywhere. So, basically, in my experience I'm right and they're wrong
>> no matter what they say. :-)
>
> I'm not insulted when people dismiss God, as it's their right to do so.
> What insults me is when people diss me for *not* dismissing God. Then
> it's personal.
Okay if/when he says something like that to me, it's water off a duck's
back. He can say I'm a loony tune goofball crazy head because I know
god exists and it doesn't hurt my feelings. I just know he doesn't know
my personal experience.
I mean, I see what you are saying. You two are friends, and a friend
saying "You're out of your mind" could be insulting to some people. I
guess I'm just not one of those people. :-)
serenebabe
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> said:
I can only talk about the god as I understand it.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
serenebabe
<...>
> anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
> thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
> Plato, FFS.
>
> why anyone would be insulted by anything he thinks is beyond silly.
Not sure about the "completely inconsistent idiot" part, but that's so
funny you brought up Socrates and Plato, too. I was going to use them
as examples of historical figures who most assume really existed, etc.,
who historians have studied, "proved" even their existence, but,
really, you go far enough back in history most things can be challenged.
I wonder if it was photographs that started making possible historical
records that are harder to dispute?
As for why she's insulted, that likely has more to do with their being
friends than it does anything else. Just guessing. PJ, if someone you
didn't care for or respect said "no one in their right mind" about your
faith would you be insulted, still? Or is it the relationship you have
that makes the difference?
Alan Hope
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>< ... >
>> No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life corresponds in any
>> way to the life portrayed in The Bible. There's simply no evidence.
>> You may think that a glaring omission on the part of a God who's
>> capable of everything. I don't care. There's no evidence. Nobody in
>> his right mind believes in things for which there's NO evidence.
>> There aren't two sides to that point of view.
>My *side* is that it happened, Alan. Foolish, ignorant, blind, naive
>goofball though you may think I am, that's what I believe. In fact,
>Christ is the very center of my existence, and I'm convinced, beyond any
>doubt whatsoever, is the reason I'm happier than I've ever been in my
>entire life.
>I fully realize that many people, perhaps even most, do not share my
>views, which is why I usually keep them to myself. I've repeatedly said
>on this group and elsewhere that I respect the fact that people don't
>share my beliefs, and I respect their right *not* to believe. And that
>is the truth. What I would like, in return though, is for those
>non-believers to respect *my* beliefs without exhibiting scorn and
>ridicule. Unfortunately, that isn't usually the case.
Nor should it be. No matter how much I think of you, I can't possibly
be held to a requirement to not scorn and ridicule the ridiculous,
especially in a discussion of which you weren't, until right now, a
part.
>You and I are friends, Alan, dear friends IMO. Whenever you write things
>like this, you denigrate not only people you don't know ... but people
>like me.
I denigrate your views. But not to the extent that I would require you
to be silent. You seem not to wish to extend to me the same courtesy.
>For whatever that's worth, I just wanted to say it.
Alan Hope
>anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
>thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
>Plato, FFS.
There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
Oh, right ...
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
> >thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
> >Plato, FFS.
>
> There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
some books?
> Oh, right ...
watch now and enjoy as Alan (the scholarly journalist) refuses to
provide any reliable evidence whatsover for the existence of Socrates
and Plato.
this should be a treat.
unless, predictably, he just folds his totally shitty cards
completely, whimpering his silly bluff off the table.
(see also: post subject line)
...
BTW: major kudos on your recent 481 line nincompoop response about my
flawed assumption regarding the latin word niger and the origin of the
word nigger.
you are so owned.
anyway, your 481 line response was absolutely hilarious, you old
bickerfester, you!
i can't wait to compose my self-proclaimed creative genius reply.
-$Zero...
Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com
it's my dumb dago nature.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e0d8dfa0bb94a402
PJ
Got it.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
Discussions where "trying to prove someone wrong" is the point don't
interest me at all.
I know there are very serious scholars, scientists, and the like who
have come to the conclusion that there was a man named Jesus who was
probably born in Nazareth, who liked the wilderness guy John the
Baptizer and got shaken up when that John died. This man Jesus of
Nazareth was a healer and a teacher. He was only out in the world
talking in public for a couple/few years before he was killed. In that
time, people were so moved by him (probably a very good speaker) that
they started a religion, a social justice movement where equality and
love and connection with God (the God of Judaism) were the ultimate
goal.
Again, you get all "prove it" and that's not my thing. If you really
wanted to know where I'm getting my information, you could Google it.
My information is simply a combination of a life surrounded by
theologians (who are really into the Christ of faith) and a lot of
skeptics on the fringes of religion. I have no doubt at all that my
information is probably only loosely based on what the real scholars
have determined. That's fine with me, though.
And anyway, you started it. If anyone is in the position where they
need to back up their statements with all kinds of facts and data,
that'd be you.
Towse
> BTW: major kudos on your recent 481 line nincompoop response about my
> flawed assumption regarding the latin word niger and the origin of the
> word nigger.
His response was to your assumption regarding the etymology of the word
nigger as it relates to the country Niger and how =that= relates to the
latin word niger.
He never even brought up the fact that you didn't realize that Nigeria
is distinct from Niger, which was pretty entertaining too.
We have been paying attention.
Nice try though.
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
>
> > BTW: major kudos on your recent 481 line nincompoop response about my
> > flawed assumption regarding the latin word niger and the origin of the
> > word nigger.
>
> His response was to your assumption regarding the etymology of the word
> nigger as it relates to the country Niger and how =that= relates to the
> latin word niger.
and?
what did he forget?
now, class, if you were really paying attention you'd know.
> He never even brought up the fact that you didn't realize that Nigeria
> is distinct from Niger, which was pretty entertaining too.
i mentioned both countries earlier in the snippage.
duh.
> We have been paying attention.
not very well, apparently.
> Nice try though.
ditto.
anyway, i'm not done with him yet.
not by a longshot.
i only covered the first part of his arrogant stupidity in that 481
line nincompoop response of his.
-$Zero...
one assumes that most people realize that when one uses
the words "one assumes" as a premise to a statement that
one is not always necessarily being pompous and sarcastic.
of course, one assumes that kind of definitional leeway
only when one is not always posing as a pompous self-
righteous blowhard themselves.
which, one assumes, does not apply to your royal self.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f155b18e41876ec7
Sylvia
> Alan Hope wrote:
> > $Zero goes:
> >
> > >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot
Mr. Hope is not any kind of an idiot. And, he is quite correct that there is
no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed. You may not like that,
but it is a fact.
> > >who actually thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of
> > >Socrates and Plato, FFS.
That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us with
no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
> > There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
>
> what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
>
> some books?
*Lots* of books which were written about them by other people, including
historians, during their lifetimes. Plato, a student of Socrates was an author
himself. Legal records. Government records. Paintings and sculptures of them
rendered during their lifetimes. Entire college courses are taught about their
lives and work. The are icons in the field of philosophy.
> > Oh, right ...
>
> watch now and enjoy as Alan (the scholarly journalist) refuses to
> provide any reliable evidence whatsover for the existence of Socrates
> and Plato.
It doesn't take a scholar or a journalist to prove that people as famous as
they are existed. There isn't an encyclopedia of general knowledge that
wouldn't support the fact that they existed. From Wicki:
"Plato (428/427 BC[a] 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher,
mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy
in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.
Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to
lay the foundations of Western philosophy. Plato was originally a student of
Socrates, and was as much influenced by his thinking as by what he saw as his
teacher's unjust death."
> this should be a treat.
<...>
Knock yerself out:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=plat
o&x=0&y=0
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=socr
ates&x=24&y=24
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
in passive agression to ream someone purely with tone,
while purporting to want a civil debate. I suspect
sometimes I do."
-- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe in MW, proud
of her "intensive skills in passive agression"
In article <gl2h8p$6gq$1...@news.albasani.net>,
serenebabe/Heather Denkmire<seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> said:
<...>
> > anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
> > thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
> > Plato, FFS.
> >
> > why anyone would be insulted by anything he thinks is beyond silly.
>
> Not sure about the "completely inconsistent idiot" part,
"Not sure"? Here, allow me to help you be "sure": Mr. Hope is not an idiot
of any sort.
You are such a little shit, Heather, you really are.
Heather/
serenebabe: "I wonder if anyone else didn't pick up on my tone there?"
Miz Sylvia: "Oh, I'm sure lots of peeps didn't miss yer tone, Heather."
Heather/
serenebabe: "Did anyone else in here think for a minute I would
actually try to insult Sal?"
Miz Sylvia: "Of course. You have that Haddadian Scorpion-esqueness
about you. Even when peeps are trying to give you the
benefit of the doubt, you can't resist throwing
passive-aggressive slaps at them. You did it to Miz
PJ, to Miz UV, and even to gekko when she was the only
peep left defending you in a thread."
> but that's so funny you brought up Socrates and Plato, too. I was going to
> use them as examples of historical figures who most assume really existed,
<very, very, slowly>
Heather, by definition, "historical figures" existed.
> etc., who historians have studied, "proved" even their existence,
The historians and other people who knew Plato and/or Socrates personally and
wrote about them during their lifetimes weren't trying to "prove" their
existence, Heather. They were fuckin' *famous* even when they were alive. Chew
on this, Heather: Plato wrote books and they were reproduced and sold during
his lifetime. He wasn't the only one who documented the teachings and the
trial of his teacher, Socrates, at the time.
A *trial*, Heather. It was a *big* deal. It still is. Legal records.
Government records. People then wrote about it. Books, songs, poetry.
> but, really, you go far enough back in history most things can be challenged.
Heather, they didn't live in 2,000 BCE, they lived during the Golden Age of
Greece.
> I wonder if it was photographs that started making possible historical
> records that are harder to dispute?
<...>
"Still confident I'm actually pretty fucking smart, but,
no need to try and prove it. Being stupid in some ways
(facts, data, science, logic) does not wipe out all my
other intelligences."
-- Heather/serenebabe
Heather, you can't help being stupid, but there is no excuse for your proud,
willful ignorance or for your malicious, manipulative head games.
Not that anyone has noticed what you do.
Not much.
--
Sylvia
"I enjoy writing things that disturb people, offend people,
or just makes them react. "
-- Heather/serenebabe FEB 18 2008
Heather/
serenebabe: "I couldn't imagine pretending to be someone
else, or screwing with someone just for kicks,"
Miz Ultraviolet: "Didn't you describe an experience where
you did exactly this?"
Heather/
serenebabe: "Yup. "
Ultraviolet
<>
> That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us with
> no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created by
Plato (who definitely existed).
--
UV
$Zero
> $Zero <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alan Hope wrote:
> > > $Zero goes:
>
> > > >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot
>
> Mr. Hope is not any kind of an idiot.
yes he is.
why, i recall him once asking for proof while stating at the same that
he would accept no proof.
that's pretty much the definition of an idiot right there.
> And, he is quite correct that there is no historical
> evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed.
oh my.
now where does one begin with such a ridiculous statement such as
that?
no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed?
um, let's see, how about fifty gazillion crosses marking fifty
gazillion graves all across the entire planet?
nah, that's not "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. why, that's merely
evidence of that fifty gazillion people had _faith_ that Jesus
existed, so much so that they decided to mark their fucking graves
with a salute to the dude.
would you perhaps accept seventy trazillion tons of stone and marble
and glass and art and music as any kind of evidence?
nah, just more faith, right?
oh well, so much for that excursion.
> You may not like that, but it is a fact.
the same may indeed apply to you and Alan in regards to Jesus, no?
just saying.
> > > >who actually thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of
> > > >Socrates and Plato, FFS.
>
> That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us with
> no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
oh.
> > > There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
>
> > what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
>
> > some books?
>
> *Lots* of books
oh.
one wonders what would happen if you weighed up all of the books
written about both Socrates and Plato and compared that to the weight
of all of the books written about Jesus.
> which were written about them by other people, including
> historians, during their lifetimes.
you mean like the Gospels?
oh wait, you included historians.
now, let's see. who were these historians and why would they be
motivated to write whatever they chose to write about, when they chose
to wrote it?
> Plato, a student of Socrates was an author himself.
your shitting me.
Jesus got nothing on Socrates in that department, aye?
> Legal records. Government records.
oops.
we seem to have lost some governmental records.
where's Columbo when you need him, huh?
> Paintings and sculptures of them
> rendered during their lifetimes.
by people who had nothing better to do than paint and sculpt, no
doubt.
> Entire college courses are taught about their
> lives and work.
yes, well, Jesus falls mighty short in that department, too, aye?
> The are icons in the field of philosophy.
oh.
philosophy.
like um, the golden rule?
and a few other cuties.
> > > Oh, right ...
>
> > watch now and enjoy as Alan (the scholarly journalist) refuses to
> > provide any reliable evidence whatsover for the existence of Socrates
> > and Plato.
>
> It doesn't take a scholar or a journalist to prove that people as famous as
> they are existed.
"faaaaaame!
what's your name?!
what's your name?!"
-- David Bowie, i think.
> There isn't an encyclopedia of general knowledge that
> wouldn't support the fact that they existed.
that's so totally reliable and validating, man.
and God knows, Jesus didn't make it into no' eeencyclopedias.
go ahead, look 'em up.
see if you can find him in any encyclopedia anywhere, FFS.
> From Wicki:
>
> "Plato (428/427 BC[a] 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher,
> mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy
> in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.
> Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to
> lay the foundations of Western philosophy. Plato was originally a student of
> Socrates, and was as much influenced by his thinking as by what he saw as his
> teacher's unjust death."
>
> > this should be a treat.
>
> <...>
>
> Knock yerself out:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-key...
> o&x=0&y=0
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-key...
> ates&x=24&y=24
>
> --
> Sylvia
well, that was fun for round one, wasn't it?
one only hopes that Hope can do a bit better than you, huh?
because we all know how valuable the Atheist religion is, don't we?
why, it's a belief in absolutely nothing!
it makes no promises.
it solves no problems.
it has no point whatsoever!
etc..
that must be why so many peeps believe in it, huh?
all marking their graves with nothing.
pretty cool.
kinda paradoxical, innit.
makes one wonder whether there's any historical record of Buddha.
-$Zero...
anyway, i'm not done with him yet. not by a longshot.
i only covered the first part of his arrogant stupidity
in that 481 line nincompoop response of his.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/aa6f54ff841a76a6
$Zero
uh oh.
if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then it
logically follows that, um... i'll leave you to fill in the blanks.
-$Zero...
because we all know how valuable the Atheist religion is,
don't we? why, it's a belief in absolutely nothing!
it makes no promises.
it solves no problems.
it has no point whatsoever!
etc..
that must be why so many peeps believe in it, huh?
all marking their graves with nothing.
pretty cool. kinda paradoxical, innit.
makes one wonder whether there's any historical record of Buddha.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/52c94de8ce49e23d
Because there's not much of a market for truth
http://PureBullshitTimes.com
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 19, 10:20 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 6:36 pm, Sylvia <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> > <>
>
> > > That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us
> > > with no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
>
> > Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created
> > by Plato (who definitely existed).
>
> uh oh.
>
> if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then it
> logically follows that, um... i'll leave you to fill in the blanks.
It's been debated, is all I'm saying, $Zero. Some assert that Socrates
must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
--
UV
$Zero
> On Jan 19, 7:54 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 10:20 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 19, 6:36 pm, Sylvia <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> > > <>
>
> > > > That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us
> > > > with no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
>
> > > Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created
> > > by Plato (who definitely existed).
>
> > uh oh.
>
> > if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then it
> > logically follows that, um... i'll leave you to fill in the blanks.
>
> It's been debated, is all I'm saying, $Zero.
i understood.
> Some assert that Socrates
> must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
> their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
> referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
> writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
point mine.
so anyway, what is your definitive proof that Plato existed?
some books?
general consensus amongst some scholars who read some books?
-$Zero...
that's so totally reliable and validating, man.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/52c94de8ce49e23d
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us
> > with no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
>
>
> Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created by Plato
> (who definitely existed).
I understand how you could get that impression, but what Plato has been
accused of was of, in *some* cases (in "The Republic", IIRC), attributing his
own version of what Socrates taught (when Plato was his student) as what
Socrates actually said. That's 'cause there were some philosophical examples
(especially regarding democracy in particular) Plato attributed to Socrates
that scholars doubt Socrates would have said due to what is known about his
views. Not that Plato's examples weren't good (AFAIK, the cave thingy was
considered to really be his), just that sometimes he used a real person,
Socrates, *as* a character. But he certainly didn't make him up.
Exactly what Socrates believed in is debated because it is all second hand,
but he did exist and he was of great importance to the development of
philosophy because of, if nothing else, his influence. He taught philosophy,
he was formally accused of impiety and of corrupting Athenian youth through
thought and he was put on public trial. The proceedings were hotly argued
throughout. His execution was a horrible black eye on the face of the famed
reputation of Athenian democracy and freedom. As far as that was concerned,
it wasn't his exact philosophy that was as important as the fact that it
didn't really make sense (at that time and place) that Socrates got executed
for instigating peeps to think. That alone guaranteed his place in *history*.
--
Sylvia
boots
That's what I thought too. Go figure.
I wonder what kind of thing would be accepted as historic proof that a
Jesus existed. Didn't the Romans keep records of who they executed?
boots
>You are such a little shit, Heather, you really are.
Against all my natural inclinations and my better judgement Sylvia you
freaking harpy I am beginning to like you damn your hide.
serenebabe
Your skewed perception of me is so far off base that I think of it as
mildly insane. I sometimes wonder where it came from.
Is it possible that all of your squeaky venom is because I liked Jack
Mingo? It's really the only thing I can think of (based on posts you've
made re: Mingo) that might have flipped you over into such a pretzel.
boots
For some unknown reason reading this post reminded me of the "mother"
character in the movie Secondhand Lions. She puts on the image of the
concerned mom taking her son to stay with relatives while she goes off
to school but in fact she's going to Vegas to shack up with a jerk,
she tells her son about his uncles but mostly she tells him to find
out where they've hidden their money... in short, she's an ethical
skank.
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 20, 1:00 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
<>
> > Some assert that Socrates
> > must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
> > their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
> > referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
> > writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
>
> point mine.
Yes, I agree. The Socrates/Jesus existence questions are good
comparisons, which is why I mentioned the fact that scholars disagree
over Socrates. I tend to believe that a man named Jesus existed for
the same reason I tend to believe that Socrates did.
> so anyway, what is your definitive proof that Plato existed?
>
> some books?
>
> general consensus amongst some scholars who read some books?
Hello, I'm not the one claiming that Jesus didn't exist. I just don't
buy any of the supernatural stuff.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
<>
> Exactly what Socrates believed in is debated because it is all second hand,
> but he did exist and he was of great importance to the development of
> philosophy because of, if nothing else, his influence. He taught philosophy,
> he was formally accused of impiety and of corrupting Athenian youth through
> thought and he was put on public trial.
We don't know those things for a fact. I tend to believe them though.
> The proceedings were hotly argued
> throughout. His execution was a horrible black eye on the face of the famed
> reputation of Athenian democracy and freedom. As far as that was concerned,
> it wasn't his exact philosophy that was as important as the fact that it
> didn't really make sense (at that time and place) that Socrates got executed
> for instigating peeps to think. That alone guaranteed his place in *history*.
Lots of fictional characters have a place in history too. I'm not sure
why you're buying the "proof" that a guy named Socrates existed but
rejecting the same sort of "proof" for a guy named Jesus. I tend to
believe that they both did.
--
UV
Alan Hope
>On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
>> >thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
>> >Plato, FFS.
>> There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
>what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
>some books?
Reports of contemporaries. As reliable as it gets.
And, coincidentally, the very thing that's missing in the Jesus story.
As Jackson has pointed out, this guy was going around stirring shit in
the powder-keg of the Middle East, and nobody thought it worth a
mention, despite the fact that the Romans chronicled everything.
>> Oh, right ...
>watch now and enjoy as Alan (the scholarly journalist) refuses to
>provide any reliable evidence whatsover for the existence of Socrates
>and Plato.
It's out there for you to see. Not hiding from anyone other than you,
since you would never dream of looking it up. Because you just know
stuff, don't you, without being told.
>this should be a treat.
>unless, predictably, he just folds his totally shitty cards
>completely, whimpering his silly bluff off the table.
>(see also: post subject line)
>...
>
>BTW: major kudos on your recent 481 line nincompoop response about my
>flawed assumption regarding the latin word niger and the origin of the
>word nigger.
>you are so owned.
And you are defeated, and still wrong.
>anyway, your 481 line response was absolutely hilarious, you old
>bickerfester, you!
>
>i can't wait to compose my self-proclaimed creative genius reply.
>
>
>-$Zero...
>
> Whenever two or more people gather in
> the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
> http://bickerfest.com
>
> it's my dumb dago nature.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e0d8dfa0bb94a402
Alan Hope
>anyway, i'm not done with him yet.
>
>not by a longshot.
>
>i only covered the first part of his arrogant stupidity in that 481
>line nincompoop response of his.
Take your time. You'll be just as wrong at the end as you are now.
And you'll be even more of an idiot.
Alan Hope
><>
The character of Socrates recurs in Plato's dialogues, as a tribute to
Plato's old master. There are no remaining works of Socrates, and his
philosophy can only be inferred from Plato's critique of it, but his
existence is also corroborated by others, including Xenophon, another
pupil.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 19, 11:36 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 1:00 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><>
>
>> > Some assert that Socrates
>> > must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
>> > their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
>> > referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
>> > writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
>>
>> point mine.
>
>
>Yes, I agree. The Socrates/Jesus existence questions are good
>comparisons, which is why I mentioned the fact that scholars disagree
>over Socrates. I tend to believe that a man named Jesus existed for
>the same reason I tend to believe that Socrates did.
Three sources, two of whom claim to have known him personally, have
written about him. Not a single primary source exists regarding Jesus.
The supposed eye-witness accounts only appear long after any eye
witness was dead.
>> so anyway, what is your definitive proof that Plato existed?
>>
>> some books?
>>
>> general consensus amongst some scholars who read some books?
>
>
>Hello, I'm not the one claiming that Jesus didn't exist. I just don't
>buy any of the supernatural stuff.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 20, 12:13 am, Sylvia <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
><>
>> Exactly what Socrates believed in is debated because it is all second hand,
>> but he did exist and he was of great importance to the development of
>> philosophy because of, if nothing else, his influence. He taught philosophy,
>> he was formally accused of impiety and of corrupting Athenian youth through
>> thought and he was put on public trial.
>We don't know those things for a fact. I tend to believe them though.
We know them to a measure of certainly consistent with what we know of
anyone in the ancient world.
>> The proceedings were hotly argued
>> throughout. His execution was a horrible black eye on the face of the famed
>> reputation of Athenian democracy and freedom. As far as that was concerned,
>> it wasn't his exact philosophy that was as important as the fact that it
>> didn't really make sense (at that time and place) that Socrates got executed
>> for instigating peeps to think. That alone guaranteed his place in *history*.
>Lots of fictional characters have a place in history too. I'm not sure
>why you're buying the "proof" that a guy named Socrates existed but
>rejecting the same sort of "proof" for a guy named Jesus. I tend to
>believe that they both did.
There's not a single record of anyone who knew Jesus in his lifetime
having left any statement at all. On the side of Socrates, we have two
major eye witnesses. On the side of Jesus, not a one.
Alan Hope
>no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed?
>
>um, let's see, how about fifty gazillion crosses marking fifty
>gazillion graves all across the entire planet?
>
>nah, that's not "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. why, that's merely
>evidence of that fifty gazillion people had _faith_ that Jesus
>existed, so much so that they decided to mark their fucking graves
>with a salute to the dude.
Evidence is not a popularity contest, dude. Just because lots of
people believe it, doesn't make it true. Many more people *don't*
believe in Jesus than do, so if you want to play that American Idol
game, you'd lose.
Sylvia
> Ultraviolet wrote:
> > Sylvia wrote:
> >
> > <>
> >
> > > That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us
> > > with no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
> >
> > Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created
> > by Plato (who definitely existed).
Plato is not our only contemporary source about Socrates.
> uh oh.
>
> if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then
<...>
You're claiming that *Plato* "fooled" me? Plato *who*, Zero?
Oh, wait! *Now* you are admitting that Plato really *did* exist! Lessee... wot
would you say that would make you, Zero? Oh, yes:
"... a completely inconsistent idiot who actually thinks there's
reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and Plato, FFS."
-- Zero, one post earlier
Hoist. Petard. Own. innit.
--
Sylvia
serenebabe
> Ultraviolet goes:
>
>> On Jan 19, 11:36 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 1:00 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <>
>>
>>>> Some assert that Socrates
>>>> must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
>>>> their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
>>>> referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
>>>> writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
>>>
>>> point mine.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree. The Socrates/Jesus existence questions are good
>> comparisons, which is why I mentioned the fact that scholars disagree
>> over Socrates. I tend to believe that a man named Jesus existed for
>> the same reason I tend to believe that Socrates did.
>
> Three sources, two of whom claim to have known him personally, have
> written about him. Not a single primary source exists regarding Jesus.
> The supposed eye-witness accounts only appear long after any eye
> witness was dead.
Is that true?
If it's true (sounds plausible), surely there are other figures in
history who were recorded only second hand?
Decades-after accounts are weaker, of course, than accounts from the
day of. But, being long after the fact doesn't make them false.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
> >> >thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
> >> >Plato, FFS.
> >> There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
> >what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
> >some books?
>
> Reports of contemporaries. As reliable as it gets.
as reliable as it gets.
heh.
one wonders if you realize how true and apropos that statement is.
> And, coincidentally, the very thing that's missing in the Jesus story.
as if.
> As Jackson has pointed out, this guy was going around stirring shit in
> the powder-keg of the Middle East, and nobody thought it worth a
> mention, despite the fact that the Romans chronicled everything.
well, for one thing, they didn't have CNN back then, if you'll recall.
so reports of shit-stirring messiahs on every corner didn't flash
before their eyes between every meal.
especially since the "powder-keg" weapons of the time were rocks and
pebbles.
anyway, basing your whole case against the existence of Jesus on the
"logged reports" of the Romans who crucified scores of obnoxious
anonymous troublemakers on trees daily is pretty desperate of you.
plus, do you actually believe that _everything_ is diligently
reported, even today?
yikes.
not to mention, what would their motivation be for accurately logging
yet another in a long line of lynched troublemakers in a far off land
in the middle east?
and how do you know that they didn't and the records were destroyed in
some big fire of some sort?
you think they had CD back-ups of everything back then, FFS?
like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
Jesus when the amount of evidence that he actually existed is more
abundant than the evidence for the existence of any other person in
the history of mankind.
in bricks and mortar alone.
> >> Oh, right ...
> >watch now and enjoy as Alan (the scholarly journalist) refuses to
> >provide any reliable evidence whatsover for the existence of Socrates
> >and Plato.
>
> It's out there for you to see.
yeah. and its "as reliable as it gets".
> Not hiding from anyone other than you,
LOL
> since you would never dream of looking it up.
if it ever became useful to me to look up the "evidence" of the
existence of Socrates, i would do so.
however, i don't forsee such a situation ever presenting itself.
see how that works?
> Because you just know stuff, don't you, without being told.
yep. i know what i know.
> >this should be a treat.
> >unless, predictably, he just folds his totally shitty cards
> >completely, whimpering his silly bluff off the table.
> >(see also: post subject line)
> >...
>
> >BTW: major kudos on your recent 481 line nincompoop response about
> >my flawed assumption regarding the latin word niger and the origin of
> >the word nigger.
> >
> >you are so owned.
>
> And you are defeated, and still wrong.
BWAH!
you wish.
BTW, how's that haggis essay coming along.
> >anyway, your 481 line response was absolutely hilarious, you old
> >bickerfester, you!
>
> >i can't wait to compose my self-proclaimed creative genius reply.
>
> >-$Zero...
>
> > Whenever two or more people gather in
> > the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
> > http://bickerfest.com
>
> > it's my dumb dago nature.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e0d8dfa0bb94a402
-$Zero...
BTW: that's a rhetorical question, i already know the answer,
so keep your idiotic response to yourself, where it belongs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c5d381233fcd3aad
serenebabe
> like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
> Jesus
No, he hasn't tried to disprove it. Apparently he won't try disprove it
because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough.
> when the amount of evidence that he actually existed is more
> abundant than the evidence for the existence of any other person in
> the history of mankind.
<...>
I actually don't think that the # of people who believe he existed (and
most of those believe he's the "son of God" and all that) is proof he
did exist. I personally still believe the person existed. I don't think
you'll win the argument, though, if you say that "so many believe in
him so he must be real."
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ultraviolet wrote:
> > > Sylvia wrote:
>
> > > <>
>
> > > > That's probably because of all of the historical evidence that leaves us
> > > > with no doubt that Socrates and Plato existed.
>
> > > Careful there. It's possible that Socrates was a character created
> > > by Plato (who definitely existed).
>
> Plato is not our only contemporary source about Socrates.
the same applies to Captain James T. Kirk, so, um...
> > uh oh.
>
> > if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then
>
> <...>
>
> You're claiming that *Plato* "fooled" me? Plato *who*, Zero?
actually, there was a Star Trek episode called Plato something or
another, too.
extrapolate.
> Oh, wait! *Now* you are admitting that Plato really *did* exist!
yikes.
> Lessee... wot would you say that would make you, Zero? Oh, yes:
>
> "... a completely inconsistent idiot who actually thinks there's
> reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and Plato, FFS."
>
> -- Zero, one post earlier
>
> Hoist. Petard. Own. innit.
bwah!
i guess i shouldn't have assumed that everyone could fill in the
blanks thoroughly enough.
recap:
> > if Sylvia could possibly be so easily fooled by Plato, well then
>
> <...>
-$Zero...
uh oh. if Sylvia could possibly be
so easily fooled by Plato, well then
it logically follows that, um... i'll
leave you to fill in the blanks.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5a7ee066bd0db318
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed?
>
> >um, let's see, how about fifty gazillion crosses marking fifty
> >gazillion graves all across the entire planet?
>
> >nah, that's not "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. why, that's
> >existed, so much so that they decided to mark their fucking
> >graves with a salute to the dude.
>
> Evidence is not a popularity contest, dude.
"There's not a single record of anyone who knew Jesus
in his lifetime having left any statement at all. On the
side of Socrates, we have two major eye witnesses.
On the side of Jesus, not a one."
> Just because lots of people believe it, doesn't make it true.
you'll note that the reverse is also true.
anyway, Gawd.
two eyewitnesses, you say.
firstly, how are you carbon dating their "testimony"?
what is the nature of their testimony?
some piece of paper?
a couple chisels in a stone, what?
two eyewitnesses.
two eyewitnesses from a couple thousand years ago.
hmmm...
anyway, how do you explain the rise of Christianity if Jesus never
even existed?
and if even his existence on earth was all just a fairy tale to
control the sheep, then why didn't they fabricate some nice credible
evidence?
and why are the four Gospel accounts pretty consistent with each other
yet differing in ways that tend to make them more credible due to the
absence of details in one account being found in another account where
those details seem irrelevant?
> Many more people *don't* believe in Jesus than do,
> so if you want to play that American Idol
> game, you'd lose.
you're not at all struck by the enormous amount of consistency in the
Gospels (and the OT and each other) compared to the relatively small
amount of inconsistency?
granted, so much of it has been used and abused for far less than Holy
reasons, but still... it's hard to deny the impact that this so-called
totally fictional Jesus dude has had on world history, no?
do you dispute all of the "historical evidence" of the persecution of
Christians in the first century?
the first century, dude. *
i mean, for the Roman Emperor/Empire to convert to Christianity in the
early fourth century is pretty compelling, isn't it?
seriously.
think about it and try to explain it.
not to mention that much of Christianity is practical and sensible and
majorly and wonderfully Love-based and freeing.
if nothing else, the Sermon on the Mount was amazing literature, don't
you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
is it really credible that it could simply be the result of a very
talented writer?
do not the mysteries you feel when reading the accounts in the Gospel
move you in mysterious ways?
i mean, that Jesus dude was quite the ironic comic, wasn't he?
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
like, whoa.
who would do material like that at a prostitute's stoning?
even Shakespeare couldn't write stuff that profoundly amusing and
moving.
who would even dream up a character like Jesus?
the messiah spoken of in the ancient OT supposedly arrives (eventually
declaring himself as such) and then so cleverly and completely indicts
the Pharisees and law-givers?
wow.
and then goes on to preach a message of forgiveness so sublime that
it's never been matched since?
so anyway, no, it's not a popularity contest like American Idol.
but it is a popularity contest of sorts.
i suppose.
...
* you know, like this is the year 2008, which just happens to be tied
to what supposed event and person?
we're even marking time by that "totally fictional character", FFS.
-$Zero...
the same applies to Captain James T. Kirk, so, um...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2d7831ecc91cc7a4
Alan Hope
>On 2009-01-20 12:01:17 -0500, Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> said:
>> Ultraviolet goes:
>>> On Jan 19, 11:36 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 20, 1:00 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <>
>>>>> Some assert that Socrates
>>>>> must have existed because a couple other writers referred to him in
>>>>> their works. Well, that makes sense. But they might have simply been
>>>>> referring to a character that was already known at the time, as
>>>>> writers sometimes do. We just don't know.
>>>> point mine.
>>> Yes, I agree. The Socrates/Jesus existence questions are good
>>> comparisons, which is why I mentioned the fact that scholars disagree
>>> over Socrates. I tend to believe that a man named Jesus existed for
>>> the same reason I tend to believe that Socrates did.
>> Three sources, two of whom claim to have known him personally, have
>> written about him. Not a single primary source exists regarding Jesus.
>> The supposed eye-witness accounts only appear long after any eye
>> witness was dead.
>Is that true?
>If it's true (sounds plausible), surely there are other figures in
>history who were recorded only second hand?
I dare say. We're not talking about them.
>Decades-after accounts are weaker, of course, than accounts from the
>day of.
They're not only weaker, they're worthless.
>But, being long after the fact doesn't make them false.
Then you have to bring something else that makes them true, because
hearsay doesn't count.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 20, 12:06 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>>
>> >no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed?
>>
>> >um, let's see, how about fifty gazillion crosses marking fifty
>> >gazillion graves all across the entire planet?
>>
>> >nah, that's not "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. why, that's
>> >merely evidence that fifty gazillion people had _faith_ that Jesus
>> >existed, so much so that they decided to mark their fucking
>> >graves with a salute to the dude.
>>
>> Evidence is not a popularity contest, dude.
>
> "There's not a single record of anyone who knew Jesus
> in his lifetime having left any statement at all. On the
> side of Socrates, we have two major eye witnesses.
> On the side of Jesus, not a one."
You probably think that's a reply, you poor stupid sap.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 20, 11:44 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>>
>> >On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
>> >> >thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
>> >> >Plato, FFS.
>> >> There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
>> >what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
>> >some books?
>>
>> Reports of contemporaries. As reliable as it gets.
>
>as reliable as it gets.
>
>heh.
>
>one wonders if you realize how true and apropos that statement is.
Yes, I do, you stupid cunt. Do you?
Alan Hope
>On 2009-01-20 14:07:38 -0500, "$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> said of Alan Hope:
>> like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
>> Jesus
>No, he hasn't tried to disprove it. Apparently he won't try disprove it
>because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're claiming he existed. So prove
it.
I'm saying there's no evidence he existed. If you think I'm wrong,
show me the evidence.
In neither case is it a matter of what I say or don't say. If there's
evidence, point to it. If not, well then it looks as if I might be
right.
You won't make Jesus real by belittling me.
But I think you know that. You're doing the only thing you can do. YOu
have no evidence, so you have to divert attention.
>> when the amount of evidence that he actually existed is more
>> abundant than the evidence for the existence of any other person in
>> the history of mankind.
><...>
>I actually don't think that the # of people who believe he existed (and
>most of those believe he's the "son of God" and all that) is proof he
>did exist.
Of course not. Zero is a fucking dunderhead.
>I personally still believe the person existed. I don't think
>you'll win the argument, though, if you say that "so many believe in
>him so he must be real."
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jan 20, 11:44 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jan 19, 2:14 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> >anyway, look, Alan's a completely inconsistent idiot who actually
> >> >> >thinks there's reliable evidence for the existence of Socrates and
> >> >> >Plato, FFS.
> >> >> There you go again. Why not stick to something you know about.
> >> >what is the reliable evidence, Alan?
> >> >some books?
>
> >> Reports of contemporaries. As reliable as it gets.
>
> >as reliable as it gets.
>
> >heh.
>
> >one wonders if you realize how true and apropos that statement is.
>
> Yes, I do, you stupid cunt.
you obviously don't if you seriously think that a couple of
"eyewitness accounts" documented on a piece of fucking paper from over
2,000 years ago means jack shit, verification-wise.
verification-wise, it's barely a step above not worth mentioning at
all.
but that's plenty enough for you isn't it?
what a sap.
> Do you?
i know exactly how true and apropos it is.
BTW: i love your response to all of the stuff below.
> >however, i don't foresee such a situation ever presenting itself.
hello.
-$Zero...
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jan 20, 12:06 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
>
> >> >no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed?
>
> >> >um, let's see, how about fifty gazillion crosses marking fifty
> >> >gazillion graves all across the entire planet?
>
> >> >nah, that's not "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. why, that's
> >> >merely evidence that fifty gazillion people had _faith_ that Jesus
> >> >existed, so much so that they decided to mark their fucking
> >> >graves with a salute to the dude.
>
> >> Evidence is not a popularity contest, dude.
>
> > "There's not a single record of anyone who knew Jesus
> > in his lifetime having left any statement at all. On the
> > side of Socrates, we have two major eye witnesses.
> > On the side of Jesus, not a one."
>
> You probably think that's a reply, you poor stupid sap.
i just think it's funny.
especially your insistence that there's "not a one".
"we have two major eye witnesses"
LOL.
Gawd.
"in his lifetime", FFS.
"contemporaries" of Socrates, FFS.
again, i ask you how you're carbon dating your supposed evidence.
yikes.
the logic you embrace.
next up you'll be citing documents cranked out by the Bush
administration proving how wonderful the Bush administration was.
"it's not a popularity contest!"
-- G W Bush
hello.
-$Zero...
$Zero
> >> like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
> >> Jesus
> >No, he hasn't tried to disprove it. Apparently he won't try disprove it
> >because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough.
>
> That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're claiming he existed. So prove
> it.
this from the dude who for months and months asked for proof that God
existed while saying that he will not accept any such proof.
so the whole of human history of the western world ain't gonna sway
him, that's for fuckin' sure.
> I'm saying there's no evidence he existed. If you think I'm wrong,
> show me the evidence.
you've been shown.
you've rejected it.
so stop asking for more.
> In neither case is it a matter of what I say or don't say. If there's
> evidence, point to it. If not, well then it looks as if I might be
> right.
you don't even hope that.
what a clown you are.
> You won't make Jesus real by belittling me.
you belittle yourself.
> But I think you know that. You're doing the only thing you can do. YOu
> have no evidence, so you have to divert attention.
the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
"i've got two eyewitnesses!
no, really, i do, they saw him!
when did they see him?
um, more than 2,000 years ago.
but they saw him, with their very eyes!
they did! they did! they did!
they wrote it down on a matchbook cover!"
> >> when the amount of evidence that he actually existed is more
> >> abundant than the evidence for the existence of any other person in
> >> the history of mankind.
> ><...>
> >I actually don't think that the # of people who believe he existed (and
> >most of those believe he's the "son of God" and all that) is proof he
> >did exist.
>
> Of course not. Zero is a fucking dunderhead.
sure i am.
> >I personally still believe the person existed. I don't think
> >you'll win the argument, though, if you say that "so many believe in
> >him so he must be real."
"i've got two eyewitnesses!
no, really, i do, they saw him!
when did they see him?
um, more than 2,000 years ago.
but they saw him, with their very eyes!
they did! they did! they did!
they wrote it down on a matchbook cover!"
-$Zero...
John Ashby
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f90b87c-1e55-4f21...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
[Cutting to the chase]
>the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
>is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
>Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
I'll issue the same challenge I made to Mark. What is your evidence for the
historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
john
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
today's date, for starters.
2009.
like, duh.
and just to throw a little more of the tip of the iceberg, the fact
that his followers were persecuted in the first century by the Romans,
which is not disputed by many of the same scholars you otherwise
believe to validate your other accepted "facts".
-$Zero...
serenebabe
Worthless is a stretch.
>> But, being long after the fact doesn't make them false.
>
> Then you have to bring something else that makes them true, because
> hearsay doesn't count.
--
serenebabe
> serenebabe goes:
>
>> On 2009-01-20 14:07:38 -0500, "$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> said of Alan Hope:
>
>>> like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
>>> Jesus
>
>> No, he hasn't tried to disprove it. Apparently he won't try disprove it
>> because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough.
>
> That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're claiming he existed. So prove
> it.
No. You claimed in the original post that he existed. I disagreed. I
never asked you to "prove it" but you expected I should since I
disagreed.
<...>
> You won't make Jesus real by belittling me.
Of course not. I could have just as easily written in this exchange:
"No, because she hasn't tried to prove it. Apparently she won't try to
prove it because she seems to think that Heather/SereneBabe saying it
is so is enough."
I don't find that belittling at all. I'm just stating my opinion of the
conversations happening here.
> But I think you know that. You're doing the only thing you can do. YOu
> have no evidence, so you have to divert attention.
>
>>> when the amount of evidence that he actually existed is more
>>> abundant than the evidence for the existence of any other person in
>>> the history of mankind.
>> <...>
>
>> I actually don't think that the # of people who believe he existed (and
>> most of those believe he's the "son of God" and all that) is proof he
>> did exist.
>
> Of course not. Zero is a fucking dunderhead.
>
>> I personally still believe the person existed. I don't think
>> you'll win the argument, though, if you say that "so many believe in
>> him so he must be real."
--
John Ashby
>On Jan 20, 5:32 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> [Cutting to the chase]
>
>> >the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
>> >is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
>> >Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
>
>> I'll issue the same challenge I made to Mark. What is your evidence for
>> the
>> historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
>today's date, for starters.
>2009.
1) That's not today's date for a great many people in the world.
2) The system of counting years like that was established five centuries
after the supposed events it uses as its origin.
3) I'm sure that if we asked her nicely, Wendy would tell us what year we
are in dated, as the Romans did, from the (fictional) founding of Rome
showing that there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin of a
calendar.
>and just to throw a little more of the tip of the iceberg, the fact
>that his followers were persecuted in the first century by the Romans,
>which is not disputed by many of the same scholars you otherwise
>believe to validate your other accepted "facts".
Scientologists are (according to other scientologists) persecuted in the
twentyfirst century. Does that mean that the ideas on which they base their
beliefs are thus proved to be historically accurate?
Try again.
john
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Jan 20, 5:32 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> >the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
> >> >is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
> >> >Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
>
> >> I'll issue the same challenge I made to Mark. What is your evidence for
> >> the
> >> historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
> >today's date, for starters.
> >2009.
>
> 1) That's not today's date for a great many people in the world.
nor for those on Mars either.
but it is the date for one of the most advanced civilizations on the
planet.
your civilization, in fact.
> 2) The system of counting years like that was established five centuries
> after the supposed events it uses as its origin.
why though?
and how did they get so many to agree to use it?
how did they come to have that much power?
> 3) I'm sure that if we asked her nicely, Wendy would tell us what year we
> are in dated, as the Romans did, from the (fictional) founding of Rome
> showing that there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin of a
> calendar.
of course there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin
of a calender but the fact that our calender is and Rome isn't, is
interesting, isn't it?.
> >and just to throw a little more of the tip of the iceberg, the fact
> >that his followers were persecuted in the first century by the Romans,
> >which is not disputed by many of the same scholars you otherwise
> >believe to validate your other accepted "facts".
>
> Scientologists are (according to other scientologists) persecuted in the
> twentyfirst century. Does that mean that the ideas on which they base their
> beliefs are thus proved to be historically accurate?
no, it does not.
do you believe that all of those people in the first century were
being treated that way by the Romans based on their loyalty to a
totally fictional character? and that they persisted long enough being
fed to the lions that the Romans eventually just said, oh what the
fuck, why not, let's be a Christian state?
> Try again.
what kind of proof would you accept?
a 2,000 year old signed document by Jesus's mom's neighbor?
-$Zero...
Sylvia
> Sylvia wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > Exactly what Socrates believed in is debated because it is all second
> > hand, but he did exist and he was of great importance to the development
> > of philosophy because of, if nothing else, his influence. He taught
> > philosophy, he was formally accused of impiety and of corrupting Athenian
> > youth through thought and he was put on public trial.
>
>
> We don't know those things for a fact.
There is more than enough corroborating evidence from his lifetime to show
that he existed. That is valid proof by effect.
> I tend to believe them though.
Why?
> > The proceedings were hotly argued throughout. His execution was a
> > horrible black eye on the face of the famed reputation of Athenian
> > democracy and freedom. As far as that was concerned, it wasn't his exact
> > philosophy that was as important as the fact that it didn't really make
> > sense (at that time and place) that Socrates got executed for instigating
> > peeps to think. That alone guaranteed his place in *history*.
>
>
> Lots of fictional characters have a place in history too.
As fictional characters, not as historic people. The existence of Socrates is
corroborated by real people who personally knew him, an existence that had a
noted effect on the government and society of Athens while he was alive and
immediately after his execution.
> I'm not sure why you're buying the "proof" that a guy named Socrates
> existed but rejecting the same sort of "proof" for a guy named Jesus.
I am certainly not. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate valid
proof by effect for the existence of Jesus during the time he was supposed to
have lived, nothing even close.
Socrates was written about *during* his adult years by peeps who knew him,
peeps who liked him, by peeps who absolutely didn't like him, peeps who were
afraid of him considered him a trouble-maker, peeps who liked to parody him.
They disagreed about what he said and about their personal impressions of what
he was like in person, but no one disputed his existence. There is
corroboration of his date of birth, death, other personal facts, the trial and
the charges, direct personal influence on certain famous peeps, etc., all from
his contemporaries--*known*, important peeps--including the historian
Xenophanes. No one has ever discovered anything from that time where someone
wrote, "WTF are you all talking about? I live in Athens and I have never heard
of this guy".
Despite all the political and societal ruckus Jesus is supposed to have
caused, despite all the years of his supposed ministry, despite his supposedly
sensational trial, execution and *resurrection* and other miracles, no one can
point to *any* evidence of him, not even a mention, at the time. Not one bit
of anything written by anyone about such a person. This is over four centuries
after Socrates--people *did* have the technology to have recorded such events
had they happened.
Yet there is nothing dating earlier about 25 years or so after Jesus is said
to have died (and then gone home to himself). And, *that's* the first of the
Gospels, which was designed specifically to *promote* a religion based on
someone named Jesus--the rest were written in parts until 100 CE. They may
sound like peeps were following Jesus around and documenting what he said and
did during his lifetime, but that would have been tough as most of the authors
hadn't even been born yet and none were his contemporaries.
Wouldn't you think that the hot time to tout the religion would have been
during a messiah's lifetime and immediately after an execution and
resurrection? How could anyone argue (back then) with a peep appearing to come
back to life? Miracles of bread, fish, wine from water, walking water, etc?
You'd think peeps would have a lot to have said about such events at the time,
but, no, not from fans, foes, or from Roman Empire's legions of historians and
record keepers. Those historians and record-keepers were very interested in
political unrest and they *did* document nasty problems that Pilate caused the
Jews, but NOTHING about a guy named "Jesus", nothing about a messiah, and
certainly nothing about the Jewish leaders in Judea supposedly insisting that
*Pilate* crucify anyone, let alone another Jew.
> I tend to believe that they both did.
As long as you believe that *I* exist.
--
Sylvia (I do.)
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> Online Journalism Review - Robert Niles
> <http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200901/1623/>
>
> [...]
>
> "The old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
>
> "The new rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
>
> "I hit this issue last month, and will amplify here. When newspapers had
> monopolies, we had a responsibility to our communities not to abuse our
> power, and to provide a neutral commons for reporting and debate.
>
> "Now, as just one among dozens, if not hundreds, of popular news voices
> within our communities, our responsibilities have changed. Now, we serve
> our busy audience and stand apart from the competition with reporting
> that cuts the clutter and identifies the truth among many conflicting
> narratives.
>
> "This is why the first change, above, becomes even more important. A
> news organization needs people with the expertise, and the long and
> detailed memory, necessary to make these calls in deciding how to report
> and present a story in ways that make the truth clear.
>
> "If your definition of 'fair' meant blasting that which deserves
> blasting, then this one isn't much of a change."
>
> [...]
>
> [via a tweet and a click to Romenesko fr Poynter
> <http://twitter.com/Poynter>]
>
> --
> Sal
>
> Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
> the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Here's more:
Alan Hope
>Discussions where "trying to prove someone wrong" is the point don't
>interest me at all.
All right.
>I know there are very serious scholars, scientists, and the like who
>have come to the conclusion that there was a man named Jesus who was
>probably born in Nazareth, who liked the wilderness guy John the
>Baptizer and got shaken up when that John died.
No, you don't know that at all. Firstly, give me the names of the
scholars and scientists, and then we'll see if they're serious, shall
we do it like that?
>This man Jesus of
>Nazareth was a healer and a teacher.
Allegedly.
>He was only out in the world
>talking in public for a couple/few years before he was killed. In that
>time, people were so moved by him (probably a very good speaker) that
>they started a religion, a social justice movement where equality and
>love and connection with God (the God of Judaism) were the ultimate
>goal.
Believe it or not, I do actually know which Jesus you're on about.
>Again, you get all "prove it" and that's not my thing. If you really
>wanted to know where I'm getting my information, you could Google it.
I know. And I know how bad it is.
>My information is simply a combination of a life surrounded by
>theologians (who are really into the Christ of faith) and a lot of
>skeptics on the fringes of religion.
I'm not addressing your faith. Your personal relationship with "God"
is your own affair. I have never and would never express an opinion on
that.
But if you want to state that Jesus is a historical figure, you stray
into my territory, and you become fair game.
When someone says, Jesus lives in my heart, so he's real, you'll hear
no argument from me.
But if you want to say "that's proof he's real" or "Jesus was a real
dude cuz I believe" than I reserve the right to point out you're
talkin out you ass.
And this is without even mentioning Zero, who thinks a gazillion
gravestones are proof Jeebus existed.
I have no doubt at all that my
>information is probably only loosely based on what the real scholars
>have determined. That's fine with me, though.
>
>And anyway, you started it. If anyone is in the position where they
>need to back up their statements with all kinds of facts and data,
>that'd be you.
>
$Zero
whereas a few scribblings on some 2,000+ years old matchbook covers
will convince Alan that Socrates actually existed.
it's really too precious for words.
"[because when you start talking about]
historical figures, you stray into my territory,
and you become fair game."
bwah!
> > I have no doubt at all that my
> >information is probably only loosely based on what the real scholars
> >have determined. That's fine with me, though.
>
> >And anyway, you started it. If anyone is in the position where they
> >need to back up their statements with all kinds of facts and data,
> >that'd be you.
yeah. like two eyewitnesses, for instance. who scribbled what they saw
with their very own eyes onto a few matchbook covers over 2,000 years
ago.
that's credible stuff.
-$Zero...
Sylvia
Heather/ serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Hope said:
> > serenebabe goes:
<...>
> >>>> Yes, I agree. The Socrates/Jesus existence questions are good
> >>>> comparisons, which is why I mentioned the fact that scholars disagree
> >>>> over Socrates. I tend to believe that a man named Jesus existed for
> >>>> the same reason I tend to believe that Socrates did.
.
> >>> Three sources, two of whom claim to have known him personally, have
> >>> written about him. Not a single primary source exists regarding Jesus.
> >>> The supposed eye-witness accounts only appear long after any eye
> >>> witness was dead.
.
> >> Is that true?
.
> >> If it's true (sounds plausible), surely there are other figures in
> >> history who were recorded only second hand?
> >
> > I dare say. We're not talking about them.
.
> >> Decades-after accounts are weaker, of course, than accounts from the
> >> day of.
.
> > They're not only weaker, they're worthless.
.
> Worthless is a stretch.
"My upbringing is probably why the lack of logic and common
sense required to believe in the resurrection doesn't throw
me into a tizzy. It's fine with me."
-- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe Apr 2008
Peeps might want to keep in mind that Heather believes that Jesus was simply a
man who was resurrected from the dead by a god she doesn't believe in.
"I don't worship the man. I don't even think he was
more 'god' than anyone else was [...] I don't think
Jesus would want to be worshipped, either."
-- Heather/serenebabe, who does not believe
in the Christian god or that Jesus was the Christ
"Even the very very Nicene creed believing Christians in
my life don't reject my identification as Christian. Perhaps
that's because they know that I find comfort in the story
of Jesus' rising from the dead."
-- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe Apr 2008
> >> But, being long after the fact doesn't make them false.
> >
> > Then you have to bring something else that makes them true, because
> > hearsay doesn't count.
--
Sylvia
"Turns out I was raised Lutheran, which I
didn't know until I was 11 or so."
-- Heather/serenebabe,
minister's daughter
serenebabe
Ah, but you keep avoiding the fact that you're the one who made the
claim he wasn't at the start.
I don't think I ever said "that's proof he's real," did I? I may have
said that's proof enough for me...?
Then again, I don't need you to prove it. So, I guess this goes nowhere.
> And this is without even mentioning Zero, who thinks a gazillion
> gravestones are proof Jeebus existed.
>
>
>
> I have no doubt at all that my
>> information is probably only loosely based on what the real scholars
>> have determined. That's fine with me, though.
>>
>> And anyway, you started it. If anyone is in the position where they
>> need to back up their statements with all kinds of facts and data,
>> that'd be you.
--
Sylvia
Heather/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Hope said:
> > serenebabe goes:
> >> $Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> said of Alan
> >> Hope:
> >
> >>> like i said, you're simply desperate to disprove the existence of
> >>> Jesus
> >
> >> No, he hasn't tried to disprove it. Apparently he won't try disprove it
> >> because he seems to think that Alan Hope saying it isn't so is enough.
> >
> > That's a ridiculous thing to say. You're claiming he existed. So prove
> > it.
>
> No. You claimed in the original post that he existed. I disagreed. I
> never asked you to "prove it"
Liar. You insisted more than once that Mr. Hope prove a negative.
Mr. Hope: "There is no historical man named Jesus."
Heather/
serenebabe: "Says who? (Besides you.)"
Mr. Hope: "Well the question really rather rebounds on you.
If you would like to claim he existed, you need to
be able to prove it."
"I'm saying there's no evidence he did. If you want
to prove me wrong, knock yourself out.
Heather/
serenebabe: "Sure, I'm saying there's evidence he did. You started it,
it's in your court."
Mr. Hope: "Produce it. Produce your evidence."
> but you expected I should since I disagreed.
<...>
Well, duh!
*You* challenged Mr. Hope's statement from the start.
Mr. Hope: "No, there was never a man called Jesus whose life
corresponds in any way to the life portrayed in
The Bible. There's simply no evidence. [...]"
Heather/
serenebabe: "Isn't it a stretch to say 'n any way?' Sure, it's not
like it is literally in the Bible, but you actually
believe the historical man named Jesus of those
times had *nothing* in common with the stories
from the Bible?
"(Yummy bait.)"
You've been saying, aggressively, that he is *wrong*, AND then you *claimed*:
"I'm saying there's evidence he did".
It's when Mr. Hope told you to produce the evidence you claimed you had that
would prove *him* wrong, Heather, that suddenly you lost interest in your
"yummy bait" and proclaimed:
"Discussions where 'trying to prove someone wrong' is the
point don't interest me at all."
Not that anyone noticed.
Not much.
--
Sylvia
"[...] sometimes I do wonder if I use my intensive skills
in passive agression to ream someone purely with tone,
while purporting to want a civil debate. I suspect
sometimes I do."
-- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe in MW, proud
of her "intensive skills in passive agression"
serenebabe
I liked the bait for discussion, true. When it got into "prove it"
instead of a wider discussion, it became less interesting to me.
I still believe there's evidence the man existed. I don't have
possession of that information, though.
Alan Hope
People who think I'm making these posts to discredit Zero's
intelligence are advised to check headers carefully. It's not true,
though you can be excused your suspicions.
$Zero
hey, dude, that was pretty clever and funny.
but never mistake willingness to accept brainwash with actual raw
intelligence.
nor is it wise to judge a person's intelligence by some arbitrary
notion of what constitutes common knowledge.
both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
Sasquatch and Jesus.
you stupidly think that just because there's an historical record
existing in a form that you've become stupidly accustomed to
respecting that it means jack shit in the larger probability of
authenticity.
it doesn't.
and if you DON'T really know that, there's no real hope for you to
obtain the least bit of true objectivity in judging these matters.
and with that i rest my case on your brainwash (and my intelligence).
-$Zero...
Ultraviolet
> Miz Ultraviolet wrote:
> > Sylvia wrote:
>
> > <>
>
> > > Exactly what Socrates believed in is debated because it is all second
> > > hand, but he did exist and he was of great importance to the development
> > > of philosophy because of, if nothing else, his influence. He taught
> > > philosophy, he was formally accused of impiety and of corrupting Athenian
> > > youth through thought and he was put on public trial.
>
> > We don't know those things for a fact.
>
> There is more than enough corroborating evidence from his lifetime to show
> that he existed. That is valid proof by effect.
There are a few pieces of evidence other than Plato's writings.
> > I tend to believe them though.
>
> Why?
There isn't any compelling reason not to. There was also, until today,
no compelling reason to disbelieve the idea that some guy named Jesus
was around a few thousand years ago and said some stuff that inspired
some people to write it down later, heavily embellishing with fiction
and fantasy. I hadn't ever given it much thought. But after Mark went
kerflooey after being asked for evidence, I'm starting to wonder. If a
true believer can't provide ONE link...
> > > The proceedings were hotly argued throughout. His execution was a
> > > horrible black eye on the face of the famed reputation of Athenian
> > > democracy and freedom. As far as that was concerned, it wasn't his exact
> > > philosophy that was as important as the fact that it didn't really make
> > > sense (at that time and place) that Socrates got executed for instigating
> > > peeps to think. That alone guaranteed his place in *history*.
>
> > Lots of fictional characters have a place in history too.
>
> As fictional characters, not as historic people. The existence of Socrates is
> corroborated by real people who personally knew him, an existence that had a
> noted effect on the government and society of Athens while he was alive and
> immediately after his execution.
>
> > I'm not sure why you're buying the "proof" that a guy named Socrates
> > existed but rejecting the same sort of "proof" for a guy named Jesus.
>
> I am certainly not. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate valid
> proof by effect for the existence of Jesus during the time he was supposed to
> have lived, nothing even close.
Yah, sure seems that way now. Maybe some new poster will pop in with a
link.
> Socrates was written about *during* his adult years by peeps who knew him,
> peeps who liked him, by peeps who absolutely didn't like him, peeps who were
> afraid of him considered him a trouble-maker, peeps who liked to parody him.
> They disagreed about what he said and about their personal impressions of what
> he was like in person, but no one disputed his existence. There is
> corroboration of his date of birth, death, other personal facts, the trial and
> the charges, direct personal influence on certain famous peeps, etc., all from
> his contemporaries--*known*, important peeps--including the historian
> Xenophanes. No one has ever discovered anything from that time where someone
> wrote, "WTF are you all talking about? I live in Athens and I have never heard
> of this guy".
Too many peeps.
> Despite all the political and societal ruckus Jesus is supposed to have
> caused, despite all the years of his supposed ministry, despite his supposedly
> sensational trial, execution and *resurrection* and other miracles, no one can
> point to *any* evidence of him, not even a mention, at the time. Not one bit
> of anything written by anyone about such a person. This is over four centuries
> after Socrates--people *did* have the technology to have recorded such events
> had they happened.
Well, I wouldn't expect evidence of any "miracles" or things of that
nature, but I did think there might be proof that there was actually a
man.
> Yet there is nothing dating earlier about 25 years or so after Jesus is said
> to have died (and then gone home to himself). And, *that's* the first of the
> Gospels, which was designed specifically to *promote* a religion based on
> someone named Jesus--the rest were written in parts until 100 CE. They may
> sound like peeps were following Jesus around and documenting what he said and
> did during his lifetime, but that would have been tough as most of the authors
> hadn't even been born yet and none were his contemporaries.
>
> Wouldn't you think that the hot time to tout the religion would have been
> during a messiah's lifetime and immediately after an execution and
> resurrection? How could anyone argue (back then) with a peep appearing to come
> back to life? Miracles of bread, fish, wine from water, walking water, etc?
> You'd think peeps would have a lot to have said about such events at the time,
> but, no, not from fans, foes, or from Roman Empire's legions of historians and
> record keepers. Those historians and record-keepers were very interested in
> political unrest and they *did* document nasty problems that Pilate caused the
> Jews, but NOTHING about a guy named "Jesus", nothing about a messiah, and
> certainly nothing about the Jewish leaders in Judea supposedly insisting that
> *Pilate* crucify anyone, let alone another Jew.
>
> > I tend to believe that they both did.
I'm changing my vote!
> As long as you believe that *I* exist.
>
> --
> Sylvia (I do.)
Of course. Who else would have gnawed on the chocolate Buddha?
~glares~
--
UV
$Zero
> On Jan 20, 3:18 pm, Sylvia <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Yet there is nothing dating earlier about 25 years or so after Jesus is said
> > to have died (and then gone home to himself). And, *that's* the first of the
> > Gospels, which was designed specifically to *promote* a religion based on
> > someone named Jesus--the rest were written in parts until 100 CE. They may
> > sound like peeps were following Jesus around and documenting what he said and
> > did during his lifetime, but that would have been tough as most of the authors
> > hadn't even been born yet and none were his contemporaries.
>
> > Wouldn't you think that the hot time to tout the religion would have been
> > during a messiah's lifetime and immediately after an execution and
> > resurrection? How could anyone argue (back then) with a peep appearing to come
> > back to life? Miracles of bread, fish, wine from water, walking water, etc?
> > You'd think peeps would have a lot to have said about such events at the time,
> > but, no, not from fans, foes, or from Roman Empire's legions of historians and
> > record keepers. Those historians and record-keepers were very interested in
> > political unrest and they *did* document nasty problems that Pilate caused the
> > Jews, but NOTHING about a guy named "Jesus", nothing about a messiah, and
> > certainly nothing about the Jewish leaders in Judea supposedly insisting that
> > *Pilate* crucify anyone, let alone another Jew.
so you do believe that there were Jews living in Israel then, right?
well then, let's take this investigation of authenticity into another
direction for a bit.
let's see how much of the bible you believe is "accurate".
how many peeps in the bible do you believe actually existed?
Pilate?
Moses?
side question: did the Jews ever really escape from slavery in Egypt
and eventually settle in Judea or is that all hogwash?
Jacob?
Israel?
Solomon?
Isaiah?
Ezekiel?
Zechariah?
Malachi?
Mark?
Matthew?
Caesar?
side question: when Jesus made his famous coinage about rendering the
loot to the looters, was he referring to an actual state of Rome or
was that just a fictional device?
Paul
Peter *
James
Luke
John
John the Baptist
Herod
etc., etc.
and how about all those early churches that Paul and Peter (and the
rest) supposedly traveled to and wrote letters to?
are all of them completely and utterly fictional?
...
are all of the characters in the OT and NT totally fictional
characters or is it mostly just Jesus?
* speaking of the first pope, when did the popes begin to be actual
real historic figures instead of merely fictional characters in some
elaborate prose scam?
see what i'm saying?
> > > I tend to believe that they both did.
>
> I'm changing my vote!
LOL
-$Zero...
you've already insisted that you won't accept
any evidence so why do you keep asking for it?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c5d381233fcd3aad
John Ashby
>On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >On Jan 20, 5:32 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> [Cutting to the chase]
>
>> >> >the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
>> >> >is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
>> >> >Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
>
>> >> I'll issue the same challenge I made to Mark. What is your evidence
>> >> for
>> >> the
>> >> historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
>> >today's date, for starters.
>> >2009.
>
>> 1) That's not today's date for a great many people in the world.
>nor for those on Mars either.
>but it is the date for one of the most advanced civilizations on the
>planet.
For some values of advanced. Of course, it's interesting that while many of
those advances have been fuelled by Christianity, many others have been made
in spite of or against the opposition of the Church. Eppur si muove.
>your civilization, in fact.
>> 2) The system of counting years like that was established five centuries
>> after the supposed events it uses as its origin.
>why though?
>and how did they get so many to agree to use it?
We've already decided that this is not a popularity contest. In fact you
decided that when you ridiculed the consensus of opinion on the existence of
Socrates. So that question is immaterial; today's date has no bearing on the
historicity of Jesus.
>how did they come to have that much power?
That's another debate. It does, however, resonate with the reasons I
rejected Christianity those many years ago.
>> 3) I'm sure that if we asked her nicely, Wendy would tell us what year we
>> are in dated, as the Romans did, from the (fictional) founding of Rome
>> showing that there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin
>> of a
>> calendar.
>of course there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin
>of a calender
Point mine, I think you would say.
> but the fact that our calender is and Rome isn't, is
>interesting, isn't it?.
>> >and just to throw a little more of the tip of the iceberg, the fact
>> >that his followers were persecuted in the first century by the Romans,
>> >which is not disputed by many of the same scholars you otherwise
>> >believe to validate your other accepted "facts".
>
>> Scientologists are (according to other scientologists) persecuted in the
>> twentyfirst century. Does that mean that the ideas on which they base
>> their
>> beliefs are thus proved to be historically accurate?
>no, it does not.
So again your asserted proof falls.
>do you believe that all of those people in the first century were
>being treated that way by the Romans based on their loyalty to a
>totally fictional character?
Yes, I do.
> and that they persisted long enough being
>fed to the lions that the Romans eventually just said, oh what the
>fuck, why not, let's be a Christian state?
Pretty much.
>> Try again.
>what kind of proof would you accept?
>a 2,000 year old signed document by Jesus's mom's neighbor?
It'd be a start. But since you won't accept similar proof which *does* exist
for Socrates and Plato, what makes you suggest that?
john
$Zero
(was: Re: Three old rules of journalism that should be changed)
On Jan 21, 1:58 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Jan 20, 6:01 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >On Jan 20, 5:32 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> [Cutting to the chase]
>
> >> >> >the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus in the first century
> >> >> >is far more substantial than the evidence for Socrates and Plato and
> >> >> >Buddha combined, yet you have no such trouble believing they existed.
>
> >> >> I'll issue the same challenge I made to Mark. What is your evidence
> >> >> for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth?
> >
> >> >today's date, for starters. 2009.
>
> >> 1) That's not today's date for a great many people in the world.
> >
> >nor for those on Mars either.
> >
> >but it is the date for one of the most advanced civilizations on the
> >planet.
>
> For some values of advanced.
for most values of scientific advancement, which is largely what your
complaint about the nature of the proof of the existence of an
historical Jesus supposedly lacks.
> Of course, it's interesting that while many of
> those advances have been fuelled by Christianity, many others have been made
> in spite of or against the opposition of the Church. Eppur si muove.
Galileo's utterance applies to the continued proliferation of the
church as well.
see how that works?
perhaps it's the ever-present tension between science and faith that
is at the heart of the incredible advancements that have been made.
> >your civilization, in fact.
>
> >> 2) The system of counting years like that was established five centuries
> >> after the supposed events it uses as its origin.
> >why though?
> >and how did they get so many to agree to use it?
>
> We've already decided that this is not a popularity contest.
true.
just like the orbital relationship between the sun and the earth is
what it is no matter how many people wish it to be otherwise.
yet the same applies to the existence of a man named Jesus.
> In fact you decided that when you ridiculed the consensus of
> opinion on the existence of Socrates.
yes. and i stand by it.
whether Socrates actually existed or not is not subject to opinion.
well, it is, but the opinions are irrelevant to whether or not
Socrates existed.
no matter how many 2,000 year old matchbooks of documentation you read
thru.
> So that question is immaterial; today's date has no bearing on the
> historicity of Jesus.
yikes.
nothing could be more ironic than that statement of yours.
especially considering what dates are, in and of themselves,
historically speaking.
anyway, my question didn't go to the "popularity" straw man that
you're dragging out.
it was a thought challenge.
it sought the answer as to how the alleged "fiction-peddling" people
went about convincing everyone to use the approximate birth of Jesus
as an historical marker for the passage of time.
compare how Galileo's view eventually won out.
see how that works?
...
initially, the Christians were being fed to the lions (in great
numbers) by the rationalists of the time (by a Plato-based society
largely devoted to logic and reason), yet the "loony" Christians
somehow ended up convincing the Plato-based power structure to not
only stop that lion-feeding practice but to also embrace their "loony"
view and even establish it as their own State view.
so anyway, you can't say with certainty that today's date has NO
bearing on the historicity of Jesus.
fuck no.
in fact, you cannot even say it at all, since today's date is clearly
based on the historicity of Jesus.
that's it's very nature.
you can try to claim that it's in error, but you cannot deny that it
was historically established to mark the date of the approximate birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
...
ironically, the documented "proof" you seek in order to "validate" the
actual existence of Jesus can be found by reversing the succession of
popes back to Simon Peter.
mind you, at some point, it appears to run into an oral documentation
of proof rather than a paper one, however, that does not necessarily
disqualify it as a valid chain of proof.
one merely needs to have faith in the integrity of the people along
the chain who handled the information.
or are you actually prepared to claim that information which is not
written down on matchbook covers can never be considered credible as
proof?
if so, yikes.
there goes every fact that you know in your mind (that you've
purposely memorized) which has never been written down.
like what you ate for dinner two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, and
who cooked it.
anyway, what you seem to be demanding is a direct "paper" version of
proof rather than an indirect intuitively correct version of proof.
Galileo might laugh quite a bit at such a demand.
particularly since the actual orbital relationship between the sun and
the earth does not require a paper trail in any way whatsoever.
as if having a piece of paper with some words scribbled on it is
somehow far more credible a proof than scores of people willing to die
rather than simply vocally retracting their claims about a man named
Jesus.
talk about having confidence in your evidence, huh?
> >how did they come to have that much power?
>
> That's another debate.
yep.
> It does, however, resonate with the reasons I
> rejected Christianity those many years ago.
because not all of those professing Christianity were always perfectly
correct 100% of the time about things beyond their knowledge? or
sometimes suppressed info?
that's a pretty high standard that i doubt you'd ever apply to your
average paper-trail scholar.
> >> 3) I'm sure that if we asked her nicely, Wendy would tell us what year we
> >> are in dated, as the Romans did, from the (fictional) founding of Rome
> >> showing that there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin
> >> of a
> >> calendar.
> >
> >of course there doesn't need to be an historical event at the origin
> >of a calender
>
> Point mine, I think you would say.
when the goofy Scientologists succeed in their rigorous efforts to
convince the entire western world to base its calender on the birth of
a goofy science fiction writer or Xenu or whomever, then you'd have a
much higher quality point.
until then, we're pretty much tied in the point-making department in
this regard.
> > but the fact that our calender is and Rome isn't, is
> > interesting, isn't it?.
> >> >and just to throw a little more of the tip of the iceberg, the fact
> >> >that his followers were persecuted in the first century by the Romans,
> >> >which is not disputed by many of the same scholars you otherwise
> >> >believe to validate your other accepted "facts".
>
> >> Scientologists are (according to other scientologists) persecuted in the
> >> twentyfirst century. Does that mean that the ideas on which they base
> >> their
> >> beliefs are thus proved to be historically accurate?
> >no, it does not.
>
> So again your asserted proof falls.
into a volcano, apparently.
dropped in by space ships or some such.
perhaps Tom Cruise will be the first pope.
> >do you believe that all of those people in the first century were
> >being treated that way by the Romans based on their loyalty to a
> >totally fictional character?
>
> Yes, I do.
would _you_ ever be that loyal to a fictional character?
especially when you could easily escape an excruciating death just by
denouncing an imaginary protagonist?
i certainly wouldn't.
i'd sell-out Captain James T. Kirk at fingernail #1, or well before
that, if possible.
> >and that they persisted long enough being fed to the lions
> >that the Romans eventually just said, oh what the fuck,
> >why not, let's be a Christian state?
>
> Pretty much.
what a fantasy land YOU'RE living in.
> >> Try again.
> >what kind of proof would you accept?
> >a 2,000 year old signed document by Jesus's mom's neighbor?
>
> It'd be a start.
would it?
i wonder.
> But since you won't accept similar proof which *does* exist
> for Socrates and Plato, what makes you suggest that?
because i wonder how much more proof you would require after that.
how many signed paper notes from Jesus's mom's neighbors (or even
government officials, FFS) would you need before you accepted that
Jesus of Naz actually lived in the first century?
...
imagine for a moment that the Vatican decided to release a bunch of
stuff from their vaults.
what would need to be included on the delivery pallet in order to
totally convince you?
...
point mine.
game. set. match.
-$Zero...
are all of the characters in the OT and NT totally
fictional characters or is it mostly just Jesus?
and speaking of the first pope, when did the popes
begin to become actual real historic figures instead
of merely fictional characters in some elaborate
prose scam? see what i'm saying? LOL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ed7a86ad13716f0a
Alan Hope
>next up you'll be citing documents cranked out by the Bush
>administration proving how wonderful the Bush administration was.
Dude, you're the one who wants to infer the existence of Jesus from
the conduct of Christians.
You're doing exactly what you accuse me of: you're basing your case
for the existence of Jesus on the Bible.
But the irony will escape you, as always.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >next up you'll be citing documents cranked out by the Bush
> >administration proving how wonderful the Bush administration was.
>
> Dude, you're the one who wants to infer the existence of Jesus from
> the conduct of Christians.
nonsense.
> You're doing exactly what you accuse me of: you're basing your case
> for the existence of Jesus on the Bible.
no.
i'm basing my case for the existence of Jesus on the amazing diversity
and totality of evidence, part of which includes the Bible, which
itself is a collection of books and letters (admittedly chosen by its
fans, but nevertheless significantly complex enough and consistent
enough to be unlikely to have been able to have been premeditatively
chosen that way merely by the compilers' design or coincidence), IMHO.
> But the irony will escape you, as always.
that would be quite rare rather than always, let alone often.
after all, i've had so much experience with it.
-$Zero...
are all of the characters in the OT and NT totally
fictional characters or is it mostly just Jesus?
and speaking of the first pope, when did the popes
begin to become actual real historic figures instead
of merely fictional characters in some elaborate
prose scam? see what i'm saying?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ed7a86ad13716f0a
Alan Hope
>On Jan 21, 12:43 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>>
>> >next up you'll be citing documents cranked out by the Bush
>> >administration proving how wonderful the Bush administration was.
>>
>> Dude, you're the one who wants to infer the existence of Jesus from
>> the conduct of Christians.
>
>nonsense.
The millions of crosses on graves prove Jesus exists. That was your
claim.
>> You're doing exactly what you accuse me of: you're basing your case
>> for the existence of Jesus on the Bible.
>no.
>i'm basing my case for the existence of Jesus on the amazing diversity
>and totality of evidence, part of which includes the Bible, which
>itself is a collection of books and letters (admittedly chosen by its
>fans, but nevertheless significantly complex enough and consistent
>enough to be unlikely to have been able to have been premeditatively
>chosen that way merely by the compilers' design or coincidence), IMHO.
You've obviously never cracked the book, pal, if you think it's
consistent.
And how can it be evidence, when it's whole reason for being is
propaganda for the thing you claim it proves?
>> But the irony will escape you, as always.
>that would be quite rare rather than always, let alone often.
Huh.
>after all, i've had so much experience with it.
Alan Hope
>both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
>the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
>flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
>Sasquatch and Jesus.
No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
no good evidence for the existence of Jesus. You, meanwhile, live in a
state of permanent ignorance of just about everything, believing your
impressions about things to be an acceptable substitute for knowledge
of any kind.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
>
> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
>
> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
hysterical historical challenge!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/96540ea64badc16f
or are you gonna continue to take it on faith that there's no
historical evidence for the existence of an actual man named Jesus who
lived and preached in the first century?
> You, meanwhile, live in a
> state of permanent ignorance of just about everything,
since my knowledge of what is actually verifiably true is limited to
my first hand experience (if that), as i make my way thru life gaining
knowledge as needed, there is very little of consequence of which i'm
ignorant of.
at least not that i know of of any given moment.
at the same time, i fully recognize that my ignorance is nearly
infinite.
see how that works, genius?
you, on the other hand, stupidly believe yourself to be more
knowledgeable than i.
> believing your
> impressions about things to be an acceptable substitute
> for knowledge of any kind.
LOL.
define knowledge, Alan.
glad to be of service, dude.
-$Zero...
http://IsThisARhetoricalQuestion.com
the fact that you don't see these correlations is hilarious,
to say the least. and aptly demonstrates how unobjective and
unscientific of a mind you sport.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c89d85d068902000
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jan 21, 12:43 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
>
> >> >next up you'll be citing documents cranked out by the Bush
> >> >administration proving how wonderful the Bush administration was.
>
> >> Dude, you're the one who wants to infer the existence of Jesus from
> >> the conduct of Christians.
>
> >nonsense.
>
> The millions of crosses on graves prove Jesus exists. That was your
> claim.
cite exactly where i made such a silly claim.
> >> You're doing exactly what you accuse me of: you're basing your case
> >> for the existence of Jesus on the Bible.
> >no.
> >i'm basing my case for the existence of Jesus on the amazing diversity
> >and totality of evidence, part of which includes the Bible, which
> >itself is a collection of books and letters (admittedly chosen by its
> >fans, but nevertheless significantly complex enough and consistent
> >enough to be unlikely to have been able to have been premeditatively
> >chosen that way merely by the compilers' design or coincidence), IMHO.
>
> You've obviously never cracked the book, pal, if you think it's
> consistent.
it's far more consistent than it is not.
anyway, who could possibly take your word for it that it's
inconsistent if you haven't cracked the book yourself?
> And how can it be evidence, when it's whole reason for being is
> propaganda for the thing you claim it proves?
it's only propaganda if its essentially false.
also, the same standard applies to your own evidence.
why do you assume that it is not merely propaganda for the thing it
claims?
> >> But the irony will escape you, as always.
> >that would be quite rare rather than always, let alone often.
>
> Huh.
the irony rarely escapes me at all, let alone often, or always.
will you be requiring another translation?
> >after all, i've had so much experience with it.
ba'dum, chsh!
-$Zero...
see, people like Hope and Ashby are claiming that there's no
credible historical "evidence" that a man known as Jesus of
Nazeareth ever really existed. bwah! yet they somehow also
claim that there _is_ credible historical evidence that the
man known as Socrates actually existed. which is why the
subject of this thread is: hysterical historical challenge!
get it? up to speed? it's a logic thinger. and a reason
thinger. see, the lineage of popes is well-established.
so for Hope's and Ashby's and Sylvia's argument against the
historical evidence for Jesus to have any merit whatsoever,
they must pick a pope along the way and declare that dude as
fictional. or at least pick a pope along the way back to
Simon Peter as one lacking historical evidence, and therefore,
identify same as nothing more than a fictional construct, or
non-authoritatively recognized as actually existing.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d6ff3a2917c801a1
Towse
<http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/there-is-no-historical-jesus/>
"Now some clever readers may be saying “but, but, what about Josephus!”
He was a contemporary Jewish historian, he clearly mentions Jesus! Well,
yes, Josephus’ works do seem to mention Jesus twice, particularly the
Testimonium Flavianum:
'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such
men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate,
at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he
appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
day.'
"That seems pretty cut and dry, what’s the problem? The problem is that
no one can find any evidence that this was written before the third
century. And the fact that there is no mention of the Testimonium
Flavianum in first and second century works regarding the early history
of Christianity is highly suspect. The Testimonium Flavianum also states
that many Jews joined his faith, which simply isn’t true, and one would
expect a contemporary Jewish historian (Josephus was a historian) would
know that. The idea that many Jews flocked to Christianity was a common
early Christian belief, which strongly argues that the paragraph was
written by a third century Christian forger and inserted into the works
of Josephus to bolster the faith. Granted there are still some scholars
claiming that the Testimonium is real, and honest debate on the subject
continues. Most scholars, and me, remained unconvinced."
Interesting read.
Mark
. The Testimonium Flavianum also states
> that many Jews joined his faith, which simply isn’t true,
How do we know this?
> continues. Most scholars, and me, remained unconvinced."
[ Most scholars, and I, remained unconvinced] <g>
---
Mark
>
> Interesting read.
>
> --
> Sal
Alan Hope
>On Jan 24, 8:43 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
>> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
>> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
>> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
>> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
>> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
>the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
That's only what we call it. Most of the world has other ways.
>in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
I don't give a fuck about your stupid questions, and I'm certainly not
going to click on any of your crackpot links to go looking for them.
> hysterical historical challenge!
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/96540ea64badc16f
>or are you gonna continue to take it on faith that there's no
>historical evidence for the existence of an actual man named Jesus who
>lived and preached in the first century?
Show me your evidence.
>> You, meanwhile, live in a
>> state of permanent ignorance of just about everything,
>since my knowledge of what is actually verifiably true is limited to
>my first hand experience (if that), as i make my way thru life gaining
>knowledge as needed, there is very little of consequence of which i'm
>ignorant of.
>at least not that i know of of any given moment.
There's the rub. You don't even know how ignorant you are. The very
definition of stupidity.
>at the same time, i fully recognize that my ignorance is nearly
>infinite.
You can't have it both ways.
>see how that works, genius?
>
>you, on the other hand, stupidly believe yourself to be more
>knowledgeable than i.
That's not even in doubt.
>> believing your
>> impressions about things to be an acceptable substitute
>> for knowledge of any kind.
>LOL.
>define knowledge, Alan.
>glad to be of service, dude.
What a blithering moron you are.
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jan 24, 8:43 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
>
> >> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
> >> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
> >> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
> >> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
> >> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
> >> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
> >so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
> >the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> That's only what we call it. Most of the world has other ways.
Gawd.
we're talking about history, dude.
AD. BC.
it's all the rage.
in other words, i don't see you citing the so-called existence of
Socrates using the Chinese calender, FFS.
why is that i wonder.
> >in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
>
> I don't give a fuck about your stupid questions,
yeah, sure. that'll fly!
uh huh.
that's the ticket!
> and I'm certainly not
> going to click on any of your crackpot links to go looking for them.
as if you've forgotten what the pope challenge was.
yikes.
"I'm not gonna click on any crackpot google group links!"
-- Alan (waving the white flag) Hope
> > hysterical historical challenge!
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/96540ea64badc16f
> >or are you gonna continue to take it on faith that there's no
> >historical evidence for the existence of an actual man named Jesus who
> >lived and preached in the first century?
>
> Show me your evidence.
show me the first "real" pope.
your inability to do so is my evidence.
case fucking closed, dude.
it's called history.
also known as historical evidence.
> >> You, meanwhile, live in a
> >> state of permanent ignorance of just about everything,
> >since my knowledge of what is actually verifiably true is limited to
> >my first hand experience (if that), as i make my way thru life gaining
> >knowledge as needed, there is very little of consequence of which i'm
> >ignorant of.
> >at least not that i know of at any given moment.
>
> There's the rub. You don't even know how ignorant you are.
i know when a guy can't identify the first "real" pope.
that's ignorance of such a quality that i cannot possibly hope to
compete with.
you're placing your total faith in other so-called "scholars".
because if your belief in the so-called "lack of evidence for
historical Jesus of the first century" was anything OTHER than
an absolute act of faith, you would be able to identify the
first real pope in two seconds flat.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/387340481303e3be
> The very definition of stupidity.
= asking for proof while refusing to accept it beforehand.
> >at the same time, i fully recognize that my ignorance is nearly
> >infinite.
>
> You can't have it both ways.
"nearly"
where the fuck did you allegedly learn English?
> >see how that works, genius?
>
> >you, on the other hand, stupidly believe yourself to be more
> >knowledgeable than i.
>
> That's not even in doubt.
agreed.
> >> believing your
> >> impressions about things to be an acceptable substitute
> >> for knowledge of any kind.
> >LOL.
> >define knowledge, Alan.
> >glad to be of service, dude.
>
> What a blithering moron you are.
you forgot "pipsqueak".
anyway, it's certainly no surprise that you refuse to define
knowledge.
like, duh.
you have to try to save face somehow innit.
-$Zero...
well, i see you're finally throwing in the towel
of your silly argument and opting for a full and
unconditional surrender. first wise move you've
made in this discussion so far.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/61791ce85e04ced0
Alan Hope
>On Jan 26, 6:28 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Jan 24, 8:43 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
>> >> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
>> >> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
>> >> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
>> >> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
>> >> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>> >so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
>> >the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
>> That's only what we call it. Most of the world has other ways.
>Gawd.
>we're talking about history, dude.
No, we're talking Western European history.
>AD. BC.
>it's all the rage.
It's not, actually. Muslims don't count that way. Nor do Jews. Nor do
lots of other cultures. You don't seem to realise it's not called BC
any more.
>in other words, i don't see you citing the so-called existence of
>Socrates using the Chinese calender, FFS.
That's because both he and I are Western European, as are you. He
wouldn't have recognised my system, of course.
>why is that i wonder.
>> >in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
>> I don't give a fuck about your stupid questions,
>yeah, sure. that'll fly!
>uh huh.
>that's the ticket!
>> and I'm certainly not
>> going to click on any of your crackpot links to go looking for them.
>as if you've forgotten what the pope challenge was.
>yikes.
>
> "I'm not gonna click on any crackpot google group links!"
> -- Alan (waving the white flag) Hope
Didn't you see where I said I don't give a fuck?
$Zero
> $Zero goes:
> >On Jan 26, 6:28 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >On Jan 24, 8:43 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero goes:
> >> >> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
> >> >> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
> >> >> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
> >> >> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
> >> >> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
> >> >> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
> >> >so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
> >> >the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
> >> That's only what we call it. Most of the world has other ways.
> >Gawd.
> >we're talking about history, dude.
>
> No, we're talking Western European history.
that's not history?
> >AD. BC.
> >it's all the rage.
>
> It's not, actually.
yikes.
> Muslims don't count that way. Nor do Jews. Nor do
> lots of other cultures.
almost all of the cultures on earth that use calenders recognize the
western notation and regularly convert dates back and forth.
this is due to the astounding influence of the western world, on
planet earth, anyway.
> You don't seem to realise it's not called BC any more.
bwah.
what flimsy isolated low ground you're perching yourself upon.
i'd throw you a life jacket but you seem to prefer to face the high
tide all by your lonesome.
> >in other words, i don't see you citing the so-called existence of
> >Socrates using the Chinese calender, FFS.
>
> That's because both he and I are Western European, as are you. He
> wouldn't have recognised my system, of course.
"Socrates himself was permanently pissed."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/cff456a884e9fa55
> >why is that i wonder.
> >> >in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
> >> I don't give a fuck about your stupid questions,
> >yeah, sure. that'll fly!
> >uh huh.
> >that's the ticket!
> >> and I'm certainly not
> >> going to click on any of your crackpot links to go looking for them.
> >as if you've forgotten what the pope challenge was.
> >yikes.
>
> > "I'm not gonna click on any crackpot google group links!"
> > -- Alan (waving the white flag) Hope
>
> Didn't you see where I said I don't give a fuck?
is that what passes for a first-hand account these days?
...
man, i'm funny.
...
-$Zero...
the sighted leading the blind
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/919a2063ef22f276
Alan Hope
>On Jan 27, 8:17 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> $Zero goes:
>> >On Jan 26, 6:28 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >On Jan 24, 8:43 am, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> $Zero goes:
>> >> >> >both you know and i know that the "facts" you're using to authenticate
>> >> >> >the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as
>> >> >> >flimsy as the facts people use to authenticate the actual existence of
>> >> >> >Sasquatch and Jesus.
>> >> >> No, we don't both know that. I know it to be false, because there is
>> >> >> no good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
>> >> >so said Hope, on this 24th day of January, in the 2009th year since
>> >> >the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
>> >> That's only what we call it. Most of the world has other ways.
>> >Gawd.
>> >we're talking about history, dude.
>> No, we're talking Western European history.
>that's not history?
It's not the be-all and end-all.
>> >AD. BC.
>> >it's all the rage.
>> It's not, actually.
>yikes.
>> Muslims don't count that way. Nor do Jews. Nor do
>> lots of other cultures.
>almost all of the cultures on earth that use calenders recognize the
>western notation and regularly convert dates back and forth.
Recognise it, but don't endorse it.
>this is due to the astounding influence of the western world, on
>planet earth, anyway.
That doesn't mean Jesus is real.
>> You don't seem to realise it's not called BC any more.
>bwah.
>what flimsy isolated low ground you're perching yourself upon.
>i'd throw you a life jacket but you seem to prefer to face the high
>tide all by your lonesome.
You didn't know, did you? How could you? You never read anything but
your own posts.
>> >in other words, i don't see you citing the so-called existence of
>> >Socrates using the Chinese calender, FFS.
>> That's because both he and I are Western European, as are you. He
>> wouldn't have recognised my system, of course.
> "Socrates himself was permanently pissed."
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/cff456a884e9fa55
>> >why is that i wonder.
>> >> >in any case, are you ever gonna answer the pope question?
>> >> I don't give a fuck about your stupid questions,
>> >yeah, sure. that'll fly!
>> >uh huh.
>> >that's the ticket!
>> >> and I'm certainly not
>> >> going to click on any of your crackpot links to go looking for them.
>> >as if you've forgotten what the pope challenge was.
>> >yikes.
>>
>> > "I'm not gonna click on any crackpot google group links!"
>> > -- Alan (waving the white flag) Hope
>>
>> Didn't you see where I said I don't give a fuck?
>is that what passes for a first-hand account these days?
>
>...
>
>man, i'm funny.
No you're not. People are laughing at you. It's not the same thing.