Re: Science vs. Religion
Smiler
> Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:14:13 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
>> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> Steve O wrote:
>>> [ SNIP ]
>>>
>>>> We are not trying to change history, we are simply trying to point
>>>> out that Jesus is not a historical character, but is a mythical
>>>> one, in much the same vein as Merlin, for example -or any other
>>>> character associated with fantastic fables from long ago.
>>> Except that Merlin is not quite as mythical as you would like - he's
>>> most likely a fictional amalgam of several historical figures.
>>>
>>> The main problem here is that you are entirely 100% convinced that
>>> Jesus is not historical. This is logically as unsound as being 100%
>>> convinced that he existed.
>>>
>>>> We can do this because we do not look at Jesus in the same way
>>>> that a Christian does.
>>> Seems to me that you hardcore strong atheists can convince
>>> yourselves of quite a few things. Just bear in mind that you're
>>> using faith, not facts. [ SNIP ]
>>> AHS
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if the mythic Jesus of the New Testament was
>> drawn in part from stories that had circulated about real people of
>> that time. The question is whether there really was a Jesus who was
>> sufficiently like the stories to justify calling Him historical.
>
> You're quite correct - that is the question. And it's certainly also a
> possibility that the references to Jesus are an amalgam of stories
> about several historical people.
>
You, therefore, admit the the possibility that there was no 'one person' who
was Jesus and that the character of Jesus was made up from an amalgam of
several other people, in other words, a fiction. That's what we've been
saying all along.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Arved Sandstrom
miracles and what have you, which I consider to be quite improbable, and
focusing on the historicity of Jesus, I think there is a non-negligible
chance that a man existed who became the Jesus of the NT. But I cannot
discount the possibility that the deeds of several people became conflated.
AHS
billconner
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:14:13 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
I can't think of why anyone would even suggest this. While it's just
harmless conjecture some may find entertaining, surely no one takes it
seriously. On the other hand, since is the a.a. newsgroup, where
bizarre conjecture is commonplace, there are probably a few who won't
get the joke.
Bill
Steve O
"billconner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message
news:41536992-7947-441e...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:54 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:14:13 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
> >> <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> drawn in part from stories that had circulated about real people of
> >> that time. The question is whether there really was a Jesus who was
> >> sufficiently like the stories to justify calling Him historical.
>
> > You're quite correct - that is the question. And it's certainly also a
> > possibility that the references to Jesus are an amalgam of stories
> > about several historical people.
>
> You, therefore, admit the the possibility that there was no 'one person'
> who
> was Jesus and that the character of Jesus was made up from an amalgam of
> several other people, in other words, a fiction. That's what we've been
> saying all along.
>
>I can't think of why anyone would even suggest this.
Perhaps it's because the Jesus "story" predates Jesus himself, or perhaps
it's because there were plenty of itinerant preachers claiming to be the
next Messiah at the time?
--
Steve O
a.a.2240
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
billconner
In addition to the lack of any factual basis for your "argument", the
logic is fallacious. There have been stories about exceptional people
throughout history, do we discard them all because they aren't
original? There may be lots of people claiming to be Napoleon, does
that mean Napoleon never lived?
Bill
Smiler
No. We have contemporary evidence for Napoleon, but none for the supposed
Jesus.
Contemporary evidence is things like his own writing, a record of the exact
dates of his birth, marriage and death, writings of people who knew and had
met him and the writings of his enemies.
billconner
I pointed out in another thread somewhere that this kind of reasoning
leads to abject absurdity. It goes like this: Your requirement that
contemporary -documentary- evidence must exist to prove the actual
historical existence of a person, means that all the people for whom
such evidence is lacking, did not exist. By your quirky formula, there
have been only a few thousand -real- people having actual, mostly
verifiable existence in all of human history.
The verifiable part is also tricky, We have to ask, "Verifiable by
whom?" and that leads us to what constitutes acceptable evidence of
verification. We can infer the existence of people, say soldiers in
the armies led by Alexander the Great or stone cutters in Athens, but
without specific documentation, we can't know for sure.
To preserve your strange concept of history, we can't accept the
historical existence of any of these people. One wonders how today's
human population could possibly be six billion when there were only a
few hundred people living just a few hundred years ago.
Bill
Free Lunch
<b...@billconner.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
You are reading too much into the objections. Few if any will say that
the stories about the teachings in the gospels were not derived in part
from one or more teachers who lived around that time. The problem comes
with the alleged miracles.
>The verifiable part is also tricky, We have to ask, "Verifiable by
>whom?" and that leads us to what constitutes acceptable evidence of
>verification. We can infer the existence of people, say soldiers in
>the armies led by Alexander the Great or stone cutters in Athens, but
>without specific documentation, we can't know for sure.
We don't know details about the vast majority of humans, but that does
not mean that the details written in the Bible are accurate.
>To preserve your strange concept of history, we can't accept the
>historical existence of any of these people. One wonders how today's
>human population could possibly be six billion when there were only a
>few hundred people living just a few hundred years ago.
We cannot accept the claims of the gospels at face value.
Steve O
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k8jmb5pm489vmp720...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:56 -0700 (PDT), billconner
> <b...@billconner.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sep 22, 7:02 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>>> billconner wrote:
>>> > On Sep 22, 10:34 am, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>>> >> "billconner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:41536992-7947-441e...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> On Sep 21, 5:54 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> >>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:14:13 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
>>> >>>>> <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>> >>> person' who
>>> >>> was Jesus and that the character of Jesus was made up from an
>>> >>> amalgam of several other people, in other words, a fiction. That's
>>> >>> what we've been saying all along.
>>>
>>> >>> I can't think of why anyone would even suggest this.
>>>
>>> >> Perhaps it's because the Jesus "story" predates Jesus himself, or
>>> >> perhaps it's because there were plenty of itinerant preachers
>>> >> claiming to be the next Messiah at the time?
>>>
>>> > In addition to the lack of any factual basis for your "argument", the
>>> > logic is fallacious.
You are wrong.
There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
Your saviour also has some remarkable sinilarities to Mithras, the sun god,
which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in most
christian art.
You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
haven't you?
If you care to take the time to look, you will find those similar themes-
God incarnates as human, and is sacrificed to save human kind.
Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
As for messiah claimants contemporary to Jesus, look upo Simom of Magus and
Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
>>>>There have been stories about exceptional people
>>> > throughout history, do we discard them all because they aren't
>>> > original? There may be lots of people claiming to be Napoleon, does
>>> > that mean Napoleon never lived?
Try looking it this way.
If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
existed at all?
Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
Jesus.
Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
attributes?
The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
myth instead of another.
Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
--
Steve O
a.a.2240
BAAWA
Kilmir
The difference is in the claims made about individuals separating them
from the norm, in the detail of the claims and on the consequences of
the claim.
If you would claim that based on a skull found in egypt that a roman
soldier died in a battle there we stack up the things we know already:
- roman soldiers were send out all over europe and northern Africa
- soldiers die in battles
- the skull is from approximately that era
So it's very likely that that happened. If that person died then or in
a later battle doesn't matter much for our historic knowledge of the
era.
If you would claim a certain person conquered half of europe the
stacks are raised. Deriving from the claim you can predict to find a
lot of things like reports from his enemies, reports about his life
from scholars, perhaps coins or statues in his name etc etc.
If you don't have at least several sources to verify the story it gets
trashed.
If you would claim a large group of people crossed a desert in 40
years time there are lots of things we can predict should be around.
If not even the most obvious of those evidences are found where
predicted you can discard the story (sound familiar?).
If you claim the son of a god came down, performed miracles, gave
speeches to scores of people there should be several records of it.
Instead we find nothing. Deafening silence on all sorts of expected
evidence until a century later some storybooks pop up and claim such a
person lived.
Even if you leave out the miracles, everything we know about a
historical jesus comes from the gospels. Nothing we have from that era
acknowledges there was any remarkable person walking around then.
in fact, some claims are even simply refuted by historical evidence,
like one of the described towns not existing or a census where
everyone needed to go to their birthplace never taking place.
If it wasn't a religion, the gospels would be dismissed as fantasy
like the poetic Edda.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:k8jmb5pm489vmp720...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:56 -0700 (PDT), billconner
>> <b...@billconner.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sep 22, 7:02 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>> billconner wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 22, 10:34 am, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>>>> >> "billconner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >>news:41536992-7947-441e...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >> On Sep 21, 5:54 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>> >>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:14:13 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
>>>> >>>>> <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>> >>> You, therefore, admit the the possibility that there was no 'one
>>>> >>> person' who
>>>> >>> was Jesus and that the character of Jesus was made up from an
>>>> >>> amalgam of several other people, in other words, a fiction. That's
>>>> >>> what we've been saying all along.
>>>>
>>>> >>> I can't think of why anyone would even suggest this.
>>>> >> Perhaps it's because the Jesus "story" predates Jesus himself, or
>>>> >> perhaps it's because there were plenty of itinerant preachers
>>>> >> claiming to be the next Messiah at the time?
Even in the early days of Christianity they knew the stories pre-dated
him. And it wasn't just opponents of Christianity like Celsus or
Porphyry.
It is telling that Justin Martyr's "explanation" was that the devil
knew Jesus was coming and planted the pagan stories in advance to
discredit him.
And this is supposed to be the best in christian thinking. Compare it
with Plato, Euclid, Socrates, Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Epimenides,
etc.
Nearly two millennia later things haven't improved.
>>>> > In addition to the lack of any factual basis for your "argument", the
>>>> > logic is fallacious.
Conner dismisses facts and never explains the fallacies.
If he imagines what he has been given aren't facts he should explain
why - including the fact that there is no evidence which he should
refute by providing some.
The logic is impeccable, it just leads to conclusions which as far as
he is concerned are wrong, because in his mind he "knows" there was a
real Jesus.
>You are wrong.
>There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
>which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
>The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
>other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
Most of whom ere born of a mortal woman by a god as a father. Who
died, came back to life and when they finally died they were raised to
the heavens. It's where the constellations got their names.
>Your saviour also has some remarkable sinilarities to Mithras, the sun god,
>which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in most
>christian art.
>You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
>haven't you?
Would a christian do that?
>If you care to take the time to look, you will find those similar themes-
>God incarnates as human, and is sacrificed to save human kind.
>Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
>As for messiah claimants contemporary to Jesus, look upo Simom of Magus and
>Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
Yep.
>>>>>There have been stories about exceptional people
>>>> > throughout history, do we discard them all because they aren't
>>>> > original? There may be lots of people claiming to be Napoleon, does
>>>> > that mean Napoleon never lived?
Why does Conner need to keep lying like this? Nobody gives that as a
reason for concluding there was no historical Jesus.
What they do say is that there is no evidence for him and that what
little evidence there is, is against. So there is no reason to think
there was one.
Loonies like Conner don't understand that all the people they make
analogies with, are conclusions not pre-existing beliefs.
Napoleon fought wars. He was an Emperor. Apart from that he was an
ordinary person. If it hadn't been him it would have been somebody
else.
What we know about him is from contemorary records, his battles, etc.
But there is diddley squat about Jesus outside religious propaganda.
Watch this loony twist it into "so he didn't exist because it is
religious propaganda".
He's a stupid, simplistic binary thinker who twists what is said into
something else.
Let him provide actual evidence instead of ad hominems, straw men, red
herrings etc.
Like most Christians he doesn't seem to understand that every time
they do this, is another data point against. Or that so far it is
gajillions against and none for. All it does is confirm the conclusion
that they have nothing
>Try looking it this way.
>If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
>wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
>magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
>were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
>supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
>existed at all?
>Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
>Jesus.
>Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
>figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
>automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
>attributes?
>The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
>myth instead of another.
>Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
>discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
Bad example. Karachi is the capital of Pakistan so he would taking
Muhammad for granted.
Although there actually is direct historical evidence for him, the
battles he fought etc.
If there were the kind of evidecne for Jesus that there is for
Muhammad they might have a point. But there isn't and they haven't.
dino
>
>On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:56 -0700 (PDT), billconner
><b...@billconner.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>leads to abject absurdity. It goes like this: Your requirement that
>>contemporary -documentary- evidence must exist to prove the actual
>>historical existence of a person, means that all the people for whom
>>such evidence is lacking, did not exist. By your quirky formula, there
>>have been only a few thousand -real- people having actual, mostly
>>verifiable existence in all of human history.
>
>You are reading too much into the objections. Few if any will say that
>the stories about the teachings in the gospels were not derived in part
>from one or more teachers who lived around that time. The problem comes
>with the alleged miracles.
BULLSHIT! That was EXACTLY the point that several of us were trying to make!
>>The verifiable part is also tricky, We have to ask, "Verifiable by
>>whom?" and that leads us to what constitutes acceptable evidence of
>>verification. We can infer the existence of people, say soldiers in
>>the armies led by Alexander the Great or stone cutters in Athens, but
>>without specific documentation, we can't know for sure.
>
>We don't know details about the vast majority of humans, but that does
>not mean that the details written in the Bible are accurate.
*WHO* in this thread said the Bible was accurate?
>>To preserve your strange concept of history, we can't accept the
>>historical existence of any of these people. One wonders how today's
>>human population could possibly be six billion when there were only a
>>few hundred people living just a few hundred years ago.
>
>We cannot accept the claims of the gospels at face value.
*WHO* in this thread said that they accepted ANY of the gospel's claims other
than there may have been an historical Jesus?
It's nice to see that you're back peddling though.
dino
>
>
>There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
>which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
>The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
>other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
>Your saviour also has some remarkable sinilarities to Mithras, the sun god,
>which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in most
>christian art.
>You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
>haven't you?
>If you care to take the time to look, you will find those similar themes-
>God incarnates as human, and is sacrificed to save human kind.
>Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
>As for messiah claimants contemporary to Jesus, look upo Simom of Magus and
>Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
None of this proves that there was not an historical Jesus, but it does support
an opinion of how the historical Jesus came to be viewed as a god with special
powers.
>Try looking it this way.
>If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
>wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
>magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
>were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
>supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
>existed at all?
Not at all. Rulers were often believed to be gods and ruled as gods. Some
rulers even believed it themselves. It wouldn't be surprising at all if a ruler
was venerated as a god having special powers. All it takes is the understanding
of human tendency to embellish.
>Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
>Jesus.
>Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
>figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
>automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
>attributes?
Because there are many written accounts that describe him as a person who
actually existed. The majority of CRITICAL scholars agree that there was an
historical Jesus. And you should know that critical scholars are not made up of
religious fanatics.
>The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
>myth instead of another.
That is true but some of us have overcome those myths and look at the facts
without prejudice.
>Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
>discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
Why do you insist that there could not have been an historical Jesus?
Andre Lieven
> In article <7i133jF2v6qb...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
> >There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
> >which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
> >The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
> >other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
> >Your saviour also has some remarkable sinilarities to Mithras, the sun god,
> >which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in most
> >christian art.
> >You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
> >haven't you?
> >If you care to take the time to look, you will find those similar themes-
> >God incarnates as human, and is sacrificed to save human kind.
> >Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
> >As for messiah claimants contemporary to Jesus, look upo Simom of Magus and
> >Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
>
> None of this proves that there was not an historical Jesus,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
> but it does support
> an opinion of how the historical Jesus came to be viewed as a god with special
> powers.
Which in no way is actual evidence that he actually existed *as
described*...
> >Try looking it this way.
> >If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
> >wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
> >magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
> >were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
> >supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
> >existed at all?
>
> Not at all. Rulers were often believed to be gods and ruled as gods. Some
> rulers even believed it themselves. It wouldn't be surprising at all if a ruler
> was venerated as a god having special powers. All it takes is the understanding
> of human tendency to embellish.
And, who is easier to embelish about than a made up fictional
character ?
> >Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
> >Jesus.
> >Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
> >figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
> >automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
> >attributes?
>
> Because there are many written accounts that describe him as a person who
> actually existed.
There are many accounts that describe Jack Ryan as a person who
actually
existed, too...
> The majority of CRITICAL scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus.
No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
> And you should know that critical scholars are not made up of religious fanatics.
No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
> >The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
> >myth instead of another.
>
> That is true but some of us have overcome those myths and look at the facts
> without prejudice.
No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
> >Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
> >discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
>
> Why do you insist that there could not have been an historical Jesus?
Because YOUR side refuses to provide actual evidence that there was
one.
No one gets a Free Pass, chuckles. Meet YOUR Burden Of Proof BEFORE
you demand belief from anyone else...
Andre
billconner
Ask 100 people to write a 500 word history of their lives and the
similarities will be obvious. Most of us share common experiences but
we don't usually claim that they aren't true because they aren't
original. Most of us conform to a "type", a kind of cultural template
but, by your measure, that makes us less real. Granted, there's a kind
of existential flavor to your understanding of history but that only
tells us about you, not history.
>
> >>>>There have been stories about exceptional people
> >>> > throughout history, do we discard them all because they aren't
> >>> > original? There may be lots of people claiming to be Napoleon, does
> >>> > that mean Napoleon never lived?
>
> Try looking it this way.
> If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
> wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
> magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
> were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
> supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
> existed at all?
> Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
> Jesus.
Your ignorance of both first century history and logic is monumental.
You continue to cling to your feeble defence of an inane hypothesis.
There is no warrant for doubting the historical existence of Jesus
other than you disdain for the religion based on his existence. You
seem to believe that your atheism will be enhanced if Jesus never
existed so you (and others) concoct this silly revision of history.
> Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
> figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
> automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
> attributes?
> The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
> myth instead of another.
> Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
> discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
>
I have made no reference to my personal beliefs so you don't know what
they are. I realize that a common tactic here is to dismiss any who
disagree with the atheist orthodoxy here as theists, but that really
doesn't fool anyone. What's ironic is that you claim others are
blinded by their indoctrination yet you, while faithfully
regurgitating the party line, are not.
What I see in your remarks is that you reject the historical Jesus
because miracles and "magical" acts are attributed to him. His
historicity is really not the issue, it's the miraculous acts that
offend you. Not being able to separate one from the other, you reject
both. The more you do it the less credibility you have.
Bill
billconner
Which is, of course, obvious to everyone. The objections are based
entirely on the exceptional acts attributed to Jesus and not his
actual existence. No one seems interested in the actual existence of
any of his contemporaries because they were mostly boring and
ordinary. Either the standards for determining the actual historical
existence of people applies to everyone or no one. By the arguments
made here against the actual person of Jesus, no one existed in the
first century.
Bill
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>On Sep 24, 11:30=A0am, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <7i133jF2v6qb...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>>
>> >There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
>> >which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
>> >The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
>> >other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
>od,
>> >which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in =
>most
>> >christian art.
>> >You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
>> >haven't you?
>-
>> >God incarnates as human, and =A0is sacrificed to save human kind.
>> >Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
>us and
>> >Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus =
>did.
>>
>> None of this proves that there was not an historical Jesus,
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
All that was presented was similarities between the Jesus stories and other
stories. An interesting possibility but that's all.
>> but it does support
>> an opinion of how the historical Jesus came to be viewed as a god with sp=
>ecial
>> powers.
>
>Which in no way is actual evidence that he actually existed *as
>described*...
I was not discussing any evidence at this point. Steve O. was suggesting that
the Jesus story developed from other similar stories. I think that most
historians would agree that that is a possibility but it is not the consensus of
opinion. It is the view of some radical, extremist atheists though...
>> >Try looking it this way.
>> >If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than=
> the
>> >wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
>> >magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleo=
>n
>> >were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
>> >supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
>> >existed at all?
>>
>> Not at all. =A0Rulers were often believed to be gods and ruled as gods. =
>=A0Some
>> rulers even believed it themselves. =A0It wouldn't be surprising at all i=
>f a ruler
>> was venerated as a god having special powers. =A0All it takes is the unde=
>rstanding
>> of human tendency to embellish.
>
>And, who is easier to embelish about than a made up fictional
>character ?
A person who actually lived.
>> >Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the stor=
>y of
>> >Jesus.
>> >Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
>> >figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
>> >automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
>> >attributes?
>>
>> Because there are many written accounts that describe him as a person who
>> actually existed.
>
>There are many accounts that describe Jack Ryan as a person who
>actually existed, too...
>
>>The majority of CRITICAL scholars agree that there was an historical Je=
>sus.
>
>No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
Since you like Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of
biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee
who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of
sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius
Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
"Proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity allow that some gospel material
may have been drawn from a historical preacher or preachers, but they hold that
these preachers were not in any sense "the founder of Christianity"; rather they
contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."
>>=A0And you should know that critical scholars are not made up of religious=
> fanatics.
>
>No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
I'm not an apologist.
>> >The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with o=
>ne
>> >myth instead of another.
>>
>> That is true but some of us have overcome those myths and look at the fac=
>ts
>> without prejudice.
>
>No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
I just told you that I'm not prejudiced. What other evidence would you like?
Would you like a scientific study conducted to prove that I'm not prejudiced
toward religion?
>> >Had =A0you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
>> >discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
>>
>> Why do you insist that there could not have been an historical Jesus?
>
>Because YOUR side refuses to provide actual evidence that there was
>one.
What side would that be? I'm an atheist.
>No one gets a Free Pass, chuckles. Meet YOUR Burden Of Proof BEFORE
>you demand belief from anyone else...
I'm not a scholar nor an historian but I can read what they say. The majority
say that Jesus was an historical person. If you wish to take an opposing,
radical, extremist viewpoint, then you have the burden to convince others that
you are more correct...
Andre Lieven
> In article <2c69bfa8-b7fe-4796-9e33-bf59eece4...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >On Sep 24, 11:30=A0am, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <7i133jF2v6qb...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
> >> >There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
> >> >which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
> >> >The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
> >> >other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
> >> >which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in
> >> >You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
> >> >haven't you?
> >> >God incarnates as human, and =A0is sacrificed to save human kind.
> >> >Its an old, old story, and it has been around a lot longer than Jesus.
> >> >Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
>
> >> None of this proves that there was not an historical Jesus,
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
>
> All that was presented was similarities between the Jesus stories and other
> stories. An interesting possibility but that's all.
That adds to the credibility that the jeezus story is a ripped off
work of fiction.
All that your side of lunatics needs to do is *pony up some actual
evidence
for your claimed jeezus, and for the things that he is supposed to
have done
and said*. But, be clear that the word evidence DOESN'T include
decades
later hearsay.
> >> but it does support
> >> an opinion of how the historical Jesus came to be viewed as a god with special
> >> powers.
>
> >Which in no way is actual evidence that he actually existed *as
> >described*...
>
> I was not discussing any evidence at this point. Steve O. was suggesting that
> the Jesus story developed from other similar stories. I think that most
> historians would agree that that is a possibility but it is not the consensus of
> opinion. It is the view of some radical, extremist atheists though...
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
You lot of loons still fail to grasp that it is YOU who bear The
Burden Of Proof
FOR your claimed jeezus.
All we're doing is pointing out the accurate fact that you have
offered NO such
evidence. Thus, your claims are 100% unsupported Bullshit.
> >> >Try looking it this way.
> >> >If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
> >> >wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
> >> >magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
> >> >were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
> >> >supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
> >> >existed at all?
>
> >> Not at all. Rulers were often believed to be gods and ruled as gods. Some
> >> rulers even believed it themselves. It wouldn't be surprising at all if a ruler
> >> was venerated as a god having special powers. All it takes is the understanding
> >> of human tendency to embellish.
>
> >And, who is easier to embelish about than a made up fictional
> >character ?
>
> A person who actually lived.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
> >> >Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
> >> >Jesus.
> >> >Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
> >> >figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
> >> >automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
> >> >attributes?
>
> >> Because there are many written accounts that describe him as a person who
> >> actually existed.
>
> >There are many accounts that describe Jack Ryan as a person who
> >actually existed, too...
>
> >>The majority of CRITICAL scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus.
>
> >No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
>
> Since you like Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
>
> "With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of
> biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee
> who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of
> sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius
> Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
>
> "Proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity allow that some gospel material
> may have been drawn from a historical preacher or preachers, but they hold that
> these preachers were not in any sense "the founder of Christianity"; rather they
> contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy,
where it is
argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a
person
or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
> >>And you should know that critical scholars are not made up of religious
> > fanatics.
>
> >No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
>
> I'm not an apologist.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
> >> >The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
> >> >myth instead of another.
>
> >> That is true but some of us have overcome those myths and look at the facts
> >> without prejudice.
>
> >No evidence offered ? Factless apologist claim always fails.
>
> I just told you that I'm not prejudiced.
Based on the evidence of your posts: I. Don't. Believe. You.
> What other evidence would you like?
See, once again, you PROVE that you have NO idea what evidence is,
and that it is NOT an empty ASSertion...
> Would you like a scientific study conducted to prove that I'm not prejudiced
> toward religion?
Yep.
> >> >Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
> >> >discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
>
> >> Why do you insist that there could not have been an historical Jesus?
>
> >Because YOUR side refuses to provide actual evidence that there was
> >one.
>
> What side would that be? I'm an atheist.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
> >No one gets a Free Pass, chuckles. Meet YOUR Burden Of Proof BEFORE
> >you demand belief from anyone else...
>
> I'm not a scholar nor an historian but I can read what they say. The majority
> say that Jesus was an historical person.
Facts are NOT subject to popularity polling...
> If you wish to take an opposing,
> radical, extremist viewpoint, then you have the burden to convince others that
> you are more correct...
Bullshit. The side claiming that a person DID exist ALWAYS bears The
Burden
Of Proof for that claim.
I don't care in the slightest WHY so many theistic morons believe that
their
sky pixie jeezus existed; I ONLY care about what the evidence is.
So, unless you morons can pony some up.... YOUR claims that this
jeezus
guy existed is rejected on the grounds of Empty Of Any Evidence
Assertion.
Andre
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>On Sep 24, 1:39=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> stupided:
>> In article <2c69bfa8-b7fe-4796-9e33-bf59eece4...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
>> then you have the burden to convince others that you are more correct...
>
>Bullshit.
No bullshit, Buttercup. I go with the experts in the field - not an ignorant,
extremist who has nothing to offer.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
If you need to claim I'm backpedaling to finally decide that I didn't
say what you thought I said, that's fine.
Free Lunch
<b...@billconner.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sep 24, 6:24�am, Kilmir <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no idea how many Joshua ben Josephs there were. Given that the
names were common, that's not a big deal.
The question isn't the name. It's whether any of the stories in the
gospels are remotely related to such a person.
billconner
I wasn't referring to names; who names non-existent people anyway? My
point is that we can't withhold the attribute of actual existence from
people based on what others say about them. Atheists here have been
denying the historical Jesus because it is claimed he performed
miracles. Since these people claim that miracles are impossible it
follows, they say, that anyone said to perform them doesn't exist. I'm
sure in some murky, twisty-turny universe this logic is logical but
it's several dimensions away from this one.
Bill
Mike Painter
> I wasn't referring to names; who names non-existent people anyway? My
> point is that we can't withhold the attribute of actual existence from
> people based on what others say about them. Atheists here have been
> denying the historical Jesus because it is claimed he performed
> miracles. Since these people claim that miracles are impossible it
> follows, they say, that anyone said to perform them doesn't exist. I'm
> sure in some murky, twisty-turny universe this logic is logical but
> it's several dimensions away from this one.
>
existance of a historical Jesus.
Most, if not all, biblical archeology has been, is now and most likely will
continue to be done by people of Christian and Jewish faith.
The first book I read on the bible wass written by A. Powell Davies, the
pastor of a church in Washington DC. A devout Christian who did not let the
truth get in the way of his faith.
That was my first introduction into The Document Hypothesis.
Andre Lieven
> In article <0943e2b2-80a5-48da-a6dc-e68287e57...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >On Sep 24, 1:39=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> stupided:
> >> In article <2c69bfa8-b7fe-4796-9e33-bf59eece4...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
>
> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
> >> then you have the burden to convince others that you are more correct...
>
> >Bullshit.
>
> No bullshit, Buttercup.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> I go with the experts in the field -
If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> not an ignorant, extremist who has nothing to offer.
Good, so you and I agree: You are NOT to be listened to...
Andre
billconner
You lost me here. How do your remarks relate to my post?
Bill
Roger Pearse
> There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
> which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
This is partly true, but the usual form of this one that appears
online is mainly false and this is the one you've got hold of.
The idea of a "corn king" deity, as described by Frazer, a deity who
dies and rises again, whose body and blood is corn and wine, is indeed
attested very widely. But the differences in these stories are at
least as significant as the similarities.
The insinuation is that if there are any parallels between two things
or events, this proves connection and derivation. But this is only
true in a very narrow situation, where the parallels are numerous, and
specific. After all, if we were to strip down life narratives to one
or two elements, almost every human being "is" every other human
being; which demonstrates the fallacy.
> The early Christians simply recycled the old story of Horus and about 15
> other similar suffering saviours who were sacrificed.
No evidence of this exists, tho; and the attitude of Jews and
Christians to paganism makes such an idea highly improbable.
Claiming that Horus was a "suffering saviour who was sacrificed" shows
the basis of these claims; they are made up by people who are entirely
ignorant of the mythology of Horus, for instance.
> Your saviour also has some remarkable sinilarities to Mithras, the sun god,
Which ones are these?
And... the Roman sun god is **Sol**, surely?
> which is probably why he is pictured with a sun halo around his head in most
> christian art.
Um, halos are hardly something that needs an origin in Mithras!
They're an obvious thing to do, without or without deity.
And... when is Mithras so depicted, out of curiosity?
> You have simply dismissed this idea without bothering with any research
> haven't you?
Um, well YOU didn't do any real research into it either; you asserted
this because it was convenient. Naughty naughty to make this sort of
remark, then.
> As for messiah claimants contemporary to Jesus, look upo Simom of Magus and
> Athronges, both of whom laid claim to the title of messiah before Jesus did.
Tell us about these people, and the ancient sources that record them.
Never heard of this "Athronges", and as for Simon Magus; surely the NT
is our only source, and doesn't say such a thing?
> If there was absolutely no historical references to Napoleon, other than the
> wild writings of a few followers who believed Napoleon was God and had
> magical powers, and you then learn that all of the stories about Napoleon
> were also attributed to other mystical figures long before Napoleon was
> supposed to exist, wouldn't that cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually
> existed at all?
There are multiple errors of logic in this.
1. How does the fact that people consider their founder a god bear on
whether he existed? In the hellenistic world, calling the boss
"theos" was pretty common. Do they all not exist? This claim is
sheerly irrelevant.
2. So we have "If there was absolutely no historical references to
Napoleon, other than the writings of a few followers ... wouldn't that
cast doubt on whether Napoleon actually existed at all?" Why?
Rhetoric doth not an argument make. If you had examined this argument
critically, wouldn't you have seen this?
> Of course it would, and exactly the same circumstances apply to the story of
> Jesus.
Um, not really. You need to use an ancient figure for comparative
purposes.
> Why is it that you simply accept the idea of this magical, all powerful
> figure who was able to bypass all known laws of physics when you
> automatically dismiss other mystical figures in history with the same
> attributes?
You mean you don't believe Augustus existed? How curious.
> The simple answer is that you were fully indoctrinated from birth with one
> myth instead of another.
Isn't this is standard fallacious atheist argument? It goes like
this.
1. There are loads of religious positions.
2. They contradict each other.
3. Therefore all are true.
Of course atheism is *also* a religious position, so there is no
special reason to exclude it from the argument.
And the syllogism is a fallacy anyway; #3 does not follow from #1 and
#2. When we have several different explanations or descriptions of
something, or some event, there is no reason to suppose that one of
them is not correct. We decide which is correct based on the
evidence.
Of course none may be; but that would hardly justify then adopting an
unevidenced belief system like atheism, which amounts to conforming to
societal values of the period of history in which we happen to live.
> Had you been born in Karachi, we would probably be having the same
> discussion about Shiva instead of Jesus.
Surely you mean, "Had you been born in Karachi, I imagine you would be
a *Moslem*"?
Looking back: do you see that this post consists of repeating,
uncritically, stock atheist claims and excuses? I mean no offence,
but it's not very good logic, and not much of an advertisment for
atheism. The supposed statements are fact are mostly erroneous, and
the logic consists of fallacies.
This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Steve O
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
Thanks.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Please try to get the attribute marks ">" right.
If I didn't know you I might have thought you wrote the following...
>"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
:>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
:>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
:>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
:>intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
:>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
What makes Pearse such a thoroughly nasty liar when it comes to
atheists?
Why doesn't he ever address points raised in response?
He has no facts himself and instead of pointing out where we are wrong
tells us to check our facts.
He rejects logic himself when it refutes his bullshit and tells us to
check ours instead of pointing out where he is wrong.
Twenty years ago I had a cow-orker who was an alt.atheism and
talk.origins loonie, who used this line when he was refuted but he
couldn't see why.
>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
>Thanks.
But in what passes for his mind he's right. It's his religion so it is
an abosolute real world truth. He's a perfect example of a mind on
religion.
He has never once attempted to answer people's objections. For example
the problems with Josephus he keeps running away from...
The Pearse questions:
Why would a Jew who never converted call Christianity "the truth?
"Scholars think it's genuine".
Why would a Jew have called the coming of the Messiah a misfortune for
the Jews?
"Scholars think it's genuine"
Why would a Jew who believes the OT prophesies referred to earlier
more mundane events, think Jesus was 'as the Divine Prophets
foretold'?"
"Scholars think it's genuine"
Why would a Jew have called Jesus the Messiah and not converted if he
believed it?
"Scholars think it's genuine"
Why does he say "about the same time" when describing events circa 19
CE, for something 14 years later? This would be like saying that Gary
Powers' U2 spy plane was shot down about the same time as the Pearl
Harbour attack.
"Scholars think it's genuine"
billconner
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
> it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
> intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
> to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
> Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
> like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
> Thanks.
>
The problem is simply arrogance: you are absolutely certain that you
know enough about reality to make your claims. Once you make these
claims and post them here, others can examine them. What becomes
obvious after a while is that you (and numerous of your flaky friends)
know very little of either the facts being discussed or the logic
required to discuss them. So you just declare all disagreement
bullsh*t and tell yourselves how clever you are. Little wonder the
a.a. variety of atheism looks foolish to real people.
Bill
John Ritson
<8d5b32c6-18c1-4875...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
billconner <b...@billconner.com> writes
of "The Maitreya" who has allegedly been miraculously appearing to
thousands of people around the world.
http://www.share-international.org/
Do we accept Benjamin Creme's "evidence" for the existence of "The
Maitreya"? He even has photographs of "The Maitreya"
--
John Ritson
billconner
> In message
> <8d5b32c6-18c1-4875-8e4a-2ab1cd049...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Do we accept Benjamin Creme's "evidence" for the existence of "The
> Maitreya"? He even has photographs of "The Maitreya"
>
> --
> John Ritson
Well photographs would constitute evidence of existence so I suppose
we have to count it. But the issue is: is the person in the photograph
actually performing miracles that justify him being called Maitreya?
If this person does perform miracles and we believe miracles are
impossible does that mean that he doesn't exist? Can we photograph non-
existence beings?
Wow, this is complicated. Maybe it would be simpler to say people can
exist regardless of what we say about them. Maybe there have even been
people for whom there is no photographic evidence.
Bill
dino
Of course you're backpedaling. This is what you said:
"There is no evidence about Jesus. None. At. All."
Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence about Jesus - just none that
prejudiced men will accept...
Mike Painter
>>
>
> The problem is simply arrogance: you are absolutely certain that you
> know enough about reality to make your claims. Once you make these
> claims and post them here, others can examine them. What becomes
> obvious after a while is that you (and numerous of your flaky friends)
> know very little of either the facts being discussed or the logic
> required to discuss them. So you just declare all disagreement
> bullsh*t and tell yourselves how clever you are. Little wonder the
> a.a. variety of atheism looks foolish to real people.
What becomes obvious is that all you do is make these claims while offering
nothing of your own.
dino
>
>billconner wrote:
> > I wasn't referring to names; who names non-existent people anyway? My
>> point is that we can't withhold the attribute of actual existence from
>> people based on what others say about them. Atheists here have been
>> denying the historical Jesus because it is claimed he performed
>> miracles. Since these people claim that miracles are impossible it
>> follows, they say, that anyone said to perform them doesn't exist. I'm
>> sure in some murky, twisty-turny universe this logic is logical but
>> it's several dimensions away from this one.
>>
>Can you name one atheist who has contributed any scholarship that denies the
>existance of a historical Jesus.
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>On Sep 24, 2:41=A0pm, dino <dunce...@stoopid-guy.nut> shat:
>> In article <0943e2b2-80a5-48da-a6dc-e68287e57...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >> In article <2c69bfa8-b7fe-4796-9e33-bf59eece4...@g1g2000vbr.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>>
>> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
>..
>>
>> >Bullshit.
>>
>> No bullshit, Buttercup.
>
><Massive Loon Projection>
>
>
>If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
There's no proof - only evidence. The evidence supports that there was an
historical Jesus. The overwhelming majority of scholars/historians agree that
there was an historical Jesus based upon evidence.
What do you have other than extreme prejudice? And ignorance?
dino
>
>
>"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
>intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
>Thanks.
What evidence do you have of that?
Smiler
Then you should be able to name some of these 'so-called' experts and
explain the reasons for their conclusions.
If you do not do that, we can only assume that you've got nothing to offer
but empty assertions.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
I haven't backpedaled on that. There is no evidence. It has nothing to
do with prejudice, but a lot to do with your intention to offer things
that are not evidence and claim they are. I suppose that makes me
'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
dino
Yes there is. There's enough evidence for the majority of scholars/historians
to agree that there was an historical Jesus. Sorry if the accepted evidence
doesn't fit YOUR definition.
>It has nothing to
>do with prejudice, but a lot to do with your intention to offer things
>that are not evidence and claim they are.
It has everything to do with prejudice. Why do you feel that you cannot accept
the evidence that so many others can? The Jesus Seminar, which has had a total
of 200 scholars with at least a PhD degree in religious studies, has concluded
that there was an historical Jesus. Provide me with evidence that you have
exceptional experience in this field with at least a doctorate degree.
Otherwise fuck off as the wannabe that you are.
>I suppose that makes me
>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
AZ Nomad
>>I suppose that makes me
>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
redvet
redvet: Before you credit this study Dino you might wish to google the
the sponcer; Westar Institute
Steve O
dino
says...
By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods. There are a small minority
of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie. Shall we throw out all
the evidence that points otherwise because of a few extremists?
You can't have it both ways, Buttercup...
dino
If you Google The Jesus Seminar you'll find conservative Biblical scholars and
religionists attacking their methods. Why? Because they've thrown out all the
miracles attributed to Jesus. Generally, critical scholars do not recognize
Jesus as being anything more than a man.
What we have here are a few scholars who believe that Jesus is God and we have a
few scholars who believe Jesus never existed, while the majority of scholars
agree that there was a man, Jesus, but was not a god.
Would it surprise you to learn that all of the scholars who believe that Jesus
is God are extreme religionists and are prejudiced in their findings? Would it
surprise you to learn that all of the scholars who believe that Jesus never
existed, even as an ordinary man and nothing more, are extreme atheists and
prejudiced in their findings?
If you agree with one of these questions but not the other, they you may want to
examine your own prejudices.
In the middle of these two prejudiced, extremist viewpoints are scholars who are
composed of believers and non-believers, which agree that there was an
historical Jesus.
John Ritson
<14ad2a5f-6292-45d3...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
of Benjamin Creme?
--
John Ritson
dino
>
>
>"dino" <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:h9k1q...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <7i3niqF...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>>>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
>>>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
>>>intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
>>>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>>>
>>>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it
>>>looks
>>>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
>>>Thanks.
>>
>> What evidence do you have of that?
>
>The story itself.
The 'story' is not without evidence.
Christopher A. Lee
<jo...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message
><14ad2a5f-6292-45d3...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>billconner <b...@billconner.com> writes
>>On Sep 25, 2:27�pm, John Ritson <j...@jritson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <8d5b32c6-18c1-4875-8e4a-2ab1cd049...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>> billconner <b...@billconner.com> writes
>>>
>>> >On Sep 24, 5:57�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> The difference is in the claims made about individuals separating them
>>> >> >> from the norm, in the detail of the claims and on the consequences of
>>> >> >> the claim.
>>>
>>> >> >Which is, of course, obvious to everyone. The objections are based
>>> >> >entirely on the exceptional acts attributed to Jesus and not his
>>> >> >actual existence.
This is the liar's "response" to demands for evidence of his "Actual
existence".
>>> >> No one seems interested in the actual existence of
>>> >> >any of his contemporaries because they were mostly boring and
>>> >> >ordinary.
The liar pretends that it isn't because of the fact of evidence for
uncontroversial figures who are a conclusion from the historical
process.
Let him provide as much evidence for his hypothetical Jesus that there
is for the other people mentioned. Then he might have a point.
Does he seriously imagine personal lies like this are a satisfactory
answer to a question which wouldn't even have been asked if he had the
common sense and courtesy to keep his beliefs within his religion?
>>> >> Either the standards for determining the actual historical
>>> >> >existence of people applies to everyone or no one. By the arguments
>>> >> >made here against the actual person of Jesus, no one existed in the
>>> >> >first century.
More of the same lies.
Why not address the reasons given for the falsifiable conclusion that
Jesus was an invention?
And why not falsify the conclusion instead of lying about those who
reach it?
>>> >> >Bill
>>>
>>> >> I have no idea how many Joshua ben Josephs there were. Given that the
>>> >> names were common, that's not a big deal.
But which of these was the one in the gospels, even if they were just
exaggerations rather that repeats of earlier hero legends?
>>> >> The question isn't the name. It's whether any of the stories in the
>>> >> gospels are remotely related to such a person.
Yep.
>>> >I wasn't referring to names; who names non-existent people anyway? My
Fiction writers do, imbecile.
>>> >point is that we can't withhold the attribute of actual existence from
>>> >people based on what others say about them.
Another straw man.
Why do you never address what people actually say instead of lying
about them?
>>> > Atheists here have been
>>> >denying the historical Jesus because it is claimed he performed
>>> >miracles.
Liar.
And what "historical Jesus"?
You have never once given a shred of evidence that there actually was
one.
>>> > Since these people �claim that miracles are impossible it
>>> >follows, they say, that anyone said to perform them doesn't exist. I'm
>>> >sure in some murky, twisty-turny universe this logic is logical but
>>> >it's several dimensions away from this one.
Another straw man from the liar.
Hume's maxim which summarises the way people who haven't even heard of
the Scottish philosopher, think:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more
miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish"
>>> >Bill
>>>
>>> We have a current character, Benjamin Creme, who claims to be a follower
>>> of "The Maitreya" who has allegedly been miraculously appearing to
>>> thousands of people around the world.http://www.share-international.org/
>>> Do we accept Benjamin Creme's "evidence" for the existence of "The
>>> Maitreya"? He even has photographs of "The Maitreya"
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Ritson
>>
>>Well photographs would constitute evidence of existence so I suppose
>>we have to count it. But the issue is: is the person in the photograph
>>actually performing miracles that justify him being called Maitreya?
>>If this person does perform miracles and we believe miracles are
>>impossible does that mean that he doesn't exist? Can we photograph non-
>>existence beings?
Another standard Conner combination of red herring and straw man.
Why does he never address points?
Actually the conclusion is obvious.
He can't but needs to say something to put off the moment of
reckoning, hoping that people will get bored so he doesn't need to
keep making things up.
>>Wow, this is complicated. Maybe it would be simpler to say people can
>>exist regardless of what we say about them. Maybe there have even been
>>people for whom there is no photographic evidence.
So he "responds" to his own straw man with the same snide sarcasm as
when he "responds" to actual points.
And wonders why he gets treated as the dishonest retard he tells us he
is in every post he makes.
>>Bill
>So you believe that the Maitreya exists, rather than being an invention
>of Benjamin Creme?
Don't expect any honesty from Bill. Especially when he backs himself
into a corner.
The root of his problem is that he is utterly certain there was an
historical Jesus even though there is no evidence, and that he thinks
there can be no honest reason for doubting this.
Obviously people existed for whom there was no evidence. But it is
impossible to know anything about them let alone their names.
The fact that you or I exist, shows that there were people who were
our ancestors but that's all. What did your great great....
grandfather do 500 years ago? What was his name?
I suppose we do know that he produced at least one son or daughter who
survived to become a parent themselves. But that's all.
But this imbecile insists that somebody who had no descendants and for
whom there is no evidence apart from religious stories that are
obvious fiction, who was supposed to have been born 2000 years ago
was real and compares him with this.
If he could even think, he would realise how his hand waving, his
straw men and his nastiness tell us a different message than the one
he wants to give.
jemcd
And your problem apparently goes beyond arrogance but let's just stick
with that for a moment.
You say a.a. atheists are arrogant, and then in so many words you say
they are not real people.
How is that not exactly what your are accusing these atheists of?
AZ Nomad
>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>says...
>>
>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>I suppose that makes me
>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>>
>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>>
>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
Lie #1
> There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
billconner
You don't read for comprehension it seems. You believe that other
people's remarks exist only to showcase your own. relevance not
required.
Bill
AZ Nomad
Andre Lieven
> In article <e87eebf7-cb72-417d-adf5-cfa400bad...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >On Sep 24, 2:41=A0pm, dino <dunce_mo...@stoopid-guy.nut> shat:
> >> In article <0943e2b2-80a5-48da-a6dc-e68287e57...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >> >> In article <2c69bfa8-b7fe-4796-9e33-bf59eece4...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.
> >> >com>,
>
> >> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
> >> >> then you have the burden to convince others that you are more correct.=
> >..
>
> >> >Bullshit.
>
> >> No bullshit, Buttercup.
>
> ><Massive Loon Projection>
>
>
> >If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
>
> There's no proof - only evidence. The evidence supports that there was an
> historical Jesus.
"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
IOW, Put Up or Shut Up.
> The overwhelming majority of scholars/historians agree that
> there was an historical Jesus based upon evidence.
Fallacy of argument from authority.
> What do you have other than extreme prejudice? And ignorance?
<Massive Lying Fundy Loon Projection>
Andre
dino
says...
>
>On 26 Sep 2009 06:03:40 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>says...
>>>
>>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>I suppose that makes me
>>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>>>
>>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>>>
>>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>
>>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
>
>Lie #1
Sorry, Buttercup. You use exactly the same reasoning to dispute Jesus'
historicity as creationists use to dispute evolution.
>>There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
>
>Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
>they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
Name a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who disputes the historicity of Jesus.
dino
I don't need to refute idiotic conspiracy theories.
billconner
> In article <slrnhbsbkb.658.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 26 Sep 2009 06:03:40 -0700, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a4q.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
> >>says...
>
> >>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>>I suppose that makes me
> >>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>
> >>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>
> >>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>
> >>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
>
> >Lie #1
>
> Sorry, Buttercup. You use exactly the same reasoning to dispute Jesus'
> historicity as creationists use to dispute evolution.
>
> >>There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
>
> >Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
> >they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
>
> Name a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who disputes the historicity of Jesus.
>
> You can't have it both ways, Buttercup.
>
> >> Shall we throw out all >the evidence that points otherwise because
> >> of a few extremists?
>
> >>You can't have it both ways, Buttercup...
There are posters whose entire rhetorical arsenal consists of "Liar!",
"imbecile!", "moron!". I try to avoid acknowledging these people since
withholding attention seems the only rational response. I'm pretty
sure that there's no argument you can devise that will make the
slightest difference to these people but good luck anyway.
Bill
AZ Nomad
>In article <slrnhbsbkb.6...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>says...
>>
>>On 26 Sep 2009 06:03:40 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>I suppose that makes me
>>>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>>>>
>>>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>>
>>>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
>>
>>Lie #1
>Sorry, Buttercup. You use exactly the same reasoning to dispute Jesus'
>historicity as creationists use to dispute evolution.
Another empty asertion.
There is tons of evidence for evolution. There is none whatsoever for
Jesus. Disputing the Jesus theory which has evidence isn't like
disputing evolution at all.
You're a proven liar.
>>>There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
>>
>>Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
>>they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
>Name a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who disputes the historicity of Jesus.
Irrelevent. I asked you for names of the "extremist scientists who
claim evolution is a lie". Your dodge indicates you're lying again.
>You can't have it both ways, Buttercup.
Quit lying and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you're getting
very boring very fast. You're one post away from my killfile.
AZ Nomad
Dodge noted. You have no evidence and are lying again.
Plonk.
Christopher A. Lee
His last remark showed he knows there is no evidence.
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>On Sep 25, 11:10=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@news-free.nut> bullshat:
>> In article <e87eebf7-cb72-417d-adf5-cfa400bad...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >> In article <0943e2b2-80a5-48da-a6dc-e68287e57...@p15g2000vbl.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >> >On Sep 24, 1:39pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> stupided:
>roups.
>> >> >com>,
>>
>> >> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
>ct.=3D
>> >..
>>
>> >> >Bullshit.
>>
>> >> No bullshit, Buttercup.
>>
>> ><Massive Loon Projection>
>>
>> >>I go with the experts in the field -
>>
>> >If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
>>
> an
>> historical Jesus.
>
>"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
>evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Exactly. Where's your evidence?
>IOW, Put Up or Shut Up.
That's not the way it works, Buttercup. The accepted evidence suggests that
Jesus was an historical person. Extremist viewpoints have to overcome the
accepted evidence, which, so far, no one has come close to accomplishing. So
keep trying.
>>=A0The overwhelming majority of scholars/historians agree that
>> there was an historical Jesus based upon evidence.
>
>Fallacy of argument from authority.
No Buttercup. The scholar majority base their opinions on accepted evidence.
If you have an extremist opposing viewpoint, present it.
>> What do you have other than extreme prejudice? And ignorance?
>
><Massive Lying Fundy Loon Projection>
Your prejudice is showing...
tirebiter
> On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>
> > which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
>
> This is partly true, but the usual form of this one that appears
> online is mainly false and this is the one you've got hold of.
>
Funny how fine the distinction is in regards to the claims that
christians recycled earlier myths in the generation of their own
fairytale, but then they grasp at the straw that EVERY flood story in
other cultures PROVES the bible flood fable, even when the timings are
off by centuries.
Yeah, funny that.
---
a.a. #2273
Andre Lieven
> In article <b7fbaeee-932a-41d6-99ea-fd05c6f33...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >On Sep 25, 11:10=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@news-free.nut> bullshat:
> >> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >> >On Sep 24, 2:41=3DA0pm, dino <dunce_mo...@stoopid-guy.nut> shat:
> >> >> >com>,
>
> >> >> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
>
> >> >> >Bullshit.
>
> >> >> No bullshit, Buttercup.
>
> >> ><Massive Loon Projection>
>
> >> >>I go with the experts in the field -
>
> >> >If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
>
> >> There's no proof - only evidence. =A0The evidence supports that there was
>
> >"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
> >evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
> Exactly. Where's your evidence?
YOUR claim that your jeezus existed, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
Idiot.
> >IOW, Put Up or Shut Up.
>
> That's not the way it works, Buttercup.
Idiot.
> The accepted evidence suggests that Jesus was an historical person.
"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
PROVE YOUR claim.
No proof EVER offered ? Bullshit fact-free claim always fails.
> Extremist viewpoints have to overcome the
> accepted evidence, which, so far, no one has come close to accomplishing.
<Laughs> Pony up this "accepted evidence".
None offered ? None exists. Prove that wrong !
> So keep trying.
>
> >>The overwhelming majority of scholars/historians agree that
> >> there was an historical Jesus based upon evidence.
>
> >Fallacy of argument from authority.
>
> No Buttercup. The scholar majority base their opinions on accepted evidence.
"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> If you have an extremist opposing viewpoint, present it.
Fallacy of proving a negative.
> >> What do you have other than extreme prejudice? And ignorance?
>
> ><Massive Lying Fundy Loon Projection>
>
> Your prejudice is showing...
"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
The fact remains: NO evidence has EVER been offered for the actual
existance of this jeezus person *as described*...
Thus, atheism has NOTHING to refute... Butternut.
Andre
dino
says...
>
>On 26 Sep 2009 08:43:03 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrnhbsbkb.6...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>says...
>>>
>>>On 26 Sep 2009 06:03:40 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>I suppose that makes me
>>>>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>>>
>>>>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
>>>
>>>Lie #1
>
>>Sorry, Buttercup. You use exactly the same reasoning to dispute Jesus'
>>historicity as creationists use to dispute evolution.
>Another empty asertion.
Can't deal with the truth, eh?
>There is tons of evidence for evolution.
The theory of evolution had to overcome the Biblical account of creation. The
theory has been scrutinized by additional evidence and peer review.
What is your additional evidence and peer review regarding the myth of Jesus?
>There is none whatsoever for Jesus.
Yes there is. Denying the evidence is not going to make it disappear.
>Disputing the Jesus theory which has evidence isn't like
>disputing evolution at all.
Huh? You're now saying the 'Jesus theory' has evidence? Make up your mind.
>You're a proven liar.
Which holds as much weight as, 'Your mama wears combat boots.'
>>>>There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
>>>
>>>Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
>>>they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
>
>>Name a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who disputes the historicity of
>>Jesus.
>Irrelevent.
Only to prejudiced extremists.
>I asked you for names of the "extremist scientists who
>claim evolution is a lie". Your dodge indicates you're lying again.
I asked you for a name of a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who advocates the
Jesus myth. Your dodge indicates that you are a prejudiced extremist.
>>You can't have it both ways, Buttercup.
>Quit lying and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you're getting
>very boring very fast.
You don't have the common sense that your non-existent gods didn't give you.
tirebiter
> In article <b7fbaeee-932a-41d6-99ea-fd05c6f33...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
---
a.a. #2273
dino
The whacko, prejudiced, conspiracy theorists need to come up with something more
than, 'It didn't happen.'
Jack Linthicum
Which, I believe, is the first instance of the multiple "Science vs.
Religion" threads to come even close to justifying the inclusion of
sci.military.naval in your addresses.
dino
says...
Yes, there's no evidence that there was no historical Jesus.
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>
>
>YOUR claim that your jeezus existed, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
I hate to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but that's not my claim; it's an
accepted historical conclusion. I don't have to prove accepted historical
conclusions to agree with them.
><Laughs> Pony up this "accepted evidence".
So, you're admitting that you've never read any of the hundreds of books written
by religious scholars and historians?
Try educating yourself instead of acting like a silly ass.
>Thus, atheism has NOTHING to refute...
Are you so imbecilic to believe that the few militant atheists on a.a. are
representative of atheism?
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
You'll have to tell me exactly what you mean by "historical Jesus"
before I am able to determine whether your claim is correct.
dino
tirebiter says...
>
>On Sep 26, 1:10=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b7fbaeee-932a-41d6-99ea-fd05c6f33...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In article <e87eebf7-cb72-417d-adf5-cfa400bad...@v2g2000vbb.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >> >> In article <0943e2b2-80a5-48da-a6dc-e68287e57...@p15g2000vbl.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Sep 24, 1:39pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> stupided:
>leg=3D
>> >roups.
>> >> >> >com>,
>>
>> >> >> >> If you wish to take an opposing, radical, extremist viewpoint,
>rre=3D
>> >ct.=3D3D
>> >> >..
>>
>> >> >> >Bullshit.
>>
>> >> >> No bullshit, Buttercup.
>>
>> >> ><Massive Loon Projection>
>>
>> >> >>I go with the experts in the field -
>>
>> >> >If they were "experts", you could PROVE that claim of YOURS:
>>
>e was=3D
>> > an
>> >> historical Jesus.
>>
>> >"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed without
>> >evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>>
>>
>> >IOW, Put Up or Shut Up.
>>
> that
>> Jesus was an historical person. =A0Extremist viewpoints have to overcome =
>the
>> accepted evidence, which, so far, no one has come close to accomplishing.=
> =A0So
>> keep trying.
>>
>> >>=3DA0The overwhelming majority of scholars/historians agree that
>> >> there was an historical Jesus based upon evidence.
>>
>> >Fallacy of argument from authority.
>>
>dence.
>> If you have an extremist opposing viewpoint, present it.
>>
>You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? No burden
>of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same method
used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figures.
Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that there
actually was an historical Jesus.
Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
obviously have other agendas. Think about it. Why are some selecting just
Jesus? Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures? The answer
is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>In article <slrnhbsh9m.o...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>says...
>>
>>On 26 Sep 2009 08:43:03 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrnhbsbkb.6...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>On 26 Sep 2009 06:03:40 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <slrnhbr8mo.a...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ Nomad
>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 25 Sep 2009 22:09:31 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>I suppose that makes me
>>>>>>>>'prejudiced' against falsehoods and lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are no falsehoods and lies regarding the historicity of Jesus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lies and falsehoods are all you have.
>>>>
>>>>>By your reasoning evolution is lies and falsehoods.
>>>>
>>>>Lie #1
>>
>>>Sorry, Buttercup. You use exactly the same reasoning to dispute Jesus'
>>>historicity as creationists use to dispute evolution.
>>Another empty asertion.
>
>Can't deal with the truth, eh?
You don't have a clue what that means.
>>There is tons of evidence for evolution.
>
>The theory of evolution had to overcome the Biblical account of creation. The
>theory has been scrutinized by additional evidence and peer review.
The physical evidence has already shown us that the Biblical accounts of
creation are not scientifically or historically accurate. Your challenge
has been met and the Bible lost. No knowledgeable Christian accepts the
'literalist' claims about the creation myths.
>What is your additional evidence and peer review regarding the myth of Jesus?
There is no evidence about Jesus. There are some stories that were
written long after his supposed death.
>>There is none whatsoever for Jesus.
>
>Yes there is. Denying the evidence is not going to make it disappear.
So, show us the evidence.
>>Disputing the Jesus theory which has evidence isn't like
>>disputing evolution at all.
>
>Huh? You're now saying the 'Jesus theory' has evidence? Make up your mind.
>
>>You're a proven liar.
>
>Which holds as much weight as, 'Your mama wears combat boots.'
>
>>>>>There are a small minority of extremist scientists who claim evolution is a lie.
>>>>
>>>>Oversimplification bordering on a lie. Name them. Demonstrate that
>>>>they are actual scientists performing scientific work.
>>
>>>Name a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who disputes the historicity of
>>>Jesus.
>
>>Irrelevent.
>
>Only to prejudiced extremists.
>
>>I asked you for names of the "extremist scientists who
>>claim evolution is a lie". Your dodge indicates you're lying again.
>
>I asked you for a name of a peer reviewed Biblical scholar who advocates the
>Jesus myth. Your dodge indicates that you are a prejudiced extremist.
What do you mean by "Jesus myth"?
Andre Lieven
> In article <db5fdf85-d97c-48b1-bb83-647553058...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >YOUR claim that your jeezus existed, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but that's not my claim; it's an
> accepted historical conclusion.
Is it YOUR claim that it is a "accepted historical conclusion".
PROVE that claim of YOURS.
> I don't have to prove accepted historical conclusions to agree with them.
<Laughs> You DO have to prove that it is an "accepted historical
conclusion"...
> ><Laughs> Pony up this "accepted evidence".
>
> So, you're admitting that you've never read any of the hundreds of books written
> by religious scholars and historians?
Evasion noted. Thank you for proving that YOU cannot back up YOUR
claims...
> Try educating yourself instead of acting like a silly ass.
<Massive Hypocrite Projection>
> >Thus, atheism has NOTHING to refute...
>
> Are you so imbecilic to believe that the few militant atheists on a.a. are
> representative of atheism?
Non sequitur.
Andre
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>tirebiter says...
...
>>You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? No burden
>>of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>
>As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
>logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same method
>used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figures.
That depends on what you mean by the 'historicity of Jesus'.
>Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that there
>actually was an historical Jesus.
>
>Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
>obviously have other agendas. Think about it. Why are some selecting just
>Jesus? Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures? The answer
>is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
Do you claim that Heracles was a historical figure?
dino
Just that there could have been some man. That's all. The mystic aspect of it
probably took off with Paul the Apostle. He had some experience (possibly
mental illness) that made him believe that the man, Jesus, was a god. Note that
Paul, who never knew Jesus, never doubted that he existed. There is no record
anywhere by anyone, within a few hundred years of Jesus' death, doubting the
actual existance of the man, Jesus. There are some records denouncing the sect
but they never question the existence of Jesus as a person.
The Jews, apparantly, kept birth records and yearly records of households. It
would have been a whole lot easier to quash the sect back then with verifiable
evidence that there never existed such a man. But there is no record that
anyone ever did.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
How do I tell this Joshua from every other Joshua or every other
itinerant teacher of the time? It appears that we cannot rely on where
he grew up. The stories that would have been remarked upon: the
Slaughter of the Innocents, the Star, the Darkness at Noon and
earthquake on the supposed day of crucifixion were the kinds of things
that got mentioned at the time by others, yet none of them were.
>The mystic aspect of it
>probably took off with Paul the Apostle. He had some experience (possibly
>mental illness) that made him believe that the man, Jesus, was a god. Note that
>Paul, who never knew Jesus, never doubted that he existed.
And there are people who never doubt that they are Napoleon or fought
for him.
>There is no record
>anywhere by anyone, within a few hundred years of Jesus' death, doubting the
>actual existance of the man, Jesus.
Does that mean anything?
>There are some records denouncing the sect
>but they never question the existence of Jesus as a person.
Why would they?
>The Jews, apparantly, kept birth records and yearly records of households. It
>would have been a whole lot easier to quash the sect back then with verifiable
>evidence that there never existed such a man. But there is no record that
>anyone ever did.
Based on the fake genealogies in the gospels and the Old Testament,
there's no reason to bother worrying about those things.
dino
>>creation. The theory has been scrutinized by additional evidence
>>and peer review.
>
>The physical evidence has already shown us that the Biblical accounts of
>creation are not scientifically or historically accurate. Your challenge
>has been met and the Bible lost. No knowledgeable Christian accepts the
>'literalist' claims about the creation myths.
Tell it to a Christian. I'm an atheist, Lunchables.
>>What is your additional evidence and peer review regarding the myth of Jesus?
>
>There is no evidence about Jesus. There are some stories that were
>written long after his supposed death.
The Q document is generally considered to have existed. It could have been
written much closer to his death that the gospel accounts. Evidence can be
derived from various methods. You don't need to have a golden tooth to believe
that King Midas actually existed.
>>>There is none whatsoever for Jesus.
>>
>>Yes there is. Denying the evidence is not going to make it disappear.
>
>So, show us the evidence.
What? Some relic? The evidence is in the surviving documents. The scholars
who say the evidence is there can read the original language and compare the
different manuscripts. I can't do that so I'm stuck with what they have
concluded from reading and studying them.
>What do you mean by "Jesus myth"?
The belief that Jesus was a myth. All of it. That there never was an actual
person the Christian sect based it's belief upon.
The Christ Myth Theory
Wikipedia
"Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, and George Albert Wells have
recently re-popularised the theory among lay audiences. The theory is
essentially without supporters in academic circles, biblical historians and
scholars being highly dismissive of it."
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>On Sep 26, 2:21=A0pm, dino <dino_...@numbnuts.insane> stoopided:
>> In article <db5fdf85-d97c-48b1-bb83-647553058...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Andre Lieven says...
>>
>> >YOUR claim that your jeezus existed, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
>>
>> I hate to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but that's not my claim; it's an
>> accepted historical conclusion.
>
>Is it YOUR claim that it is a "accepted historical conclusion".
No it isn't. Look it up, Wikiman.
tirebiter
> In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98-a74d-be325d04a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> tirebiter says...
>
> >You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? No burden
> >of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>
> As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
> logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same method
> used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figures.
> Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that there
> actually was an historical Jesus.
>
alleged MAN and unproven god until 20-40 years after he supposedly
died?
> Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
> obviously have other agendas. Think about it. Why are some selecting just
> Jesus? Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures? The answer
> is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
Just going after the truth. Most historical figures who really did
live were "historical" because they were mentioned in several
different sources DURING their lives. There is not one mention of
this purported "historical figure" throughout his whole hypothetical
life.
---
a.a. #2273
dino
I don't claim that Jesus was an historical figure. Historians and scholars make
that claim. Do you know of any historians or scholars who claim Heracles was an
historical figure?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 26 Sep 2009 11:34:26 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>>tirebiter says...
>
>>>You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? No burden
>>>of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>>
>>As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
>>logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same method
>>used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figures.
>
>That depends on what you mean by the 'historicity of Jesus'.
>
>>Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that there
>>actually was an historical Jesus.
Just because you say so?
Do you seriously imagine that being the umpteen thousandth person to
claim this without ever saying why, should convince anybody?
Do you honestly not understand how this reinforces the conclusion that
you have nothing?
>>Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
Why keep repeating personal lies rather than refuting the conclusion?
>>obviously have other agendas.
Why the personal lie?
>> Think about it.
Beam, mote, eye, whining, hypocrite.
>> Why are some selecting just
>>Jesus?
Why the lie, liar?
Never heard of "put or shut up"? Begging the question that wouldn't
even have been asked if you had any common sense and courtesy?
>> Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures?
Where did you demonstrate that he was a historical figure, liar?
>> The answer
>>is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
That there was no historical Jesus. If there were you and your fellow
believers would have provided evidence long ago instead of lying about
thoas who concluded you have none.
>Do you claim that Heracles was a historical figure?
Good comparison. According to the Greek myths he was borm of a human
mother by a divine father, dies to get to the underworld, cvame back
and when he dies again he was raised to the heavens.
Sound familiar?
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
> intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
> to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
> Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
> like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
> Thanks.
I am sorry to see that you have ignored every bit of what I wrote, in
favour of pouncing on a statement which might be considered derogatory
to atheism -- as if it wasn't instead a summary of what I had just
seen -- and offering... what? An irrelevant piece of religious
invective?
Why do this?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
dino
>>but they never question the existence of Jesus as a person.
>
>Why would they?
Why don't you just think about it a little bit. If you try hard enough, I'm
sure you can come up with a reason...
Roger Pearse
How does this knee-jerk response relate to my post?
You seem to say that the fairytales that I responded to shouldn't be
critically examined. Why shouldn't we examine it?
And ... how does invective against Christians, Democrats, Iraqis,
sheep, or copper futures, or any other different subject, help to show
that these stories are true?
Roger Pearse
> On Sep 25, 6:24 am, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> > it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
> > intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
> > to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
> > Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it looks
> > like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
> > Thanks.
>
> know enough about reality to make your claims. Once you make these
> claims and post them here, others can examine them. What becomes
> obvious after a while is that you (and numerous of your flaky friends)
> know very little of either the facts being discussed or the logic
> required to discuss them. So you just declare all disagreement
> bullsh*t and tell yourselves how clever you are. Little wonder the
> a.a. variety of atheism looks foolish to real people.
It is an extraordinary tactic, isn't it? It amounts to an admission
of intellectual bankrupcy on the part of those doing it.
I suppose the connection is convenience. The fairytales are asserted,
because they are convenient, and believed because they are
convenient. Abuse is thrown at those questioning them, because
research takes work and it's simply more convenient to run people off
by violence. Just guessing, of course.
(And pretty certain that what I have just wrote will not be discussed
sensibly by any atheist, but met with verbal violence).
Roger Pearse
> In article <7i6b53F2vs8u...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"dino" <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:h9k1q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <7i3niqF2vjr6...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
> >>>"Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> >>>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
> >>>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
> >>>intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
> >>>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
> >>>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it
> >>>looks
> >>>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
> >>>Thanks.
>
>
> >The story itself.
>
> The 'story' is not without evidence.
Unlike the objection, which is also without a rational statement.
Steve O is engaged in trying to change the subject away from a bunch
of silly and indefensible claims to "why Christianity is s**t". Don't
let him.
billconner
There are several in this thread who believe that they have to defend
anything their fellow a.a. posters say. One of then makes some
dimwitted claim and rather than accepting the possibility of error
(they are the intellectual elite after all), they rush in with a great
noise and clamour, screaming, "LIAR!", "Imbecile!" hoping to smother
all opposition.
Granted, most people just give up after a while, shaking their heads
at the futility of correcting an a.a. zealot. These zealots then tell
themselves they've won a great victory. About all they accomplish is
making -all- atheists look like idiots.
Bill
dino
tirebiter says...
>
>On Sep 26, 2:34=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98-a74d-be325d04a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> tirebiter says...
>>
>> >You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? =A0No burden
>> >of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>>
>> As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
>hod
>> used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figur=
>es.
>> Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that th=
>ere
>> actually was an historical Jesus.
>>
>Except the fact that not a single word was written down about this
>alleged MAN and unproven god until 20-40 years after he supposedly
>died?
He was a carpenter for christ's sake. Who writes about carpenters?
>> Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
>> obviously have other agendas. =A0Think about it. =A0Why are some selectin=
>g just
>> Jesus? =A0Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures? =A0=
>The answer
>> is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
>
>Just going after the truth.
Would you be going after the truth if a world-wide religion was not based upon
him? Would you really care if historians said there was a carpenter turned
philosopher who lived two millenia ago? I've seen historical records of
divorces from that time period with names on them. Do you doubt that those
people actually existed? After all, that's only one record and it could have
been forged. There's no proof that they were even written at the time of their
divorce. You really don't know if that person really existed or not, do you?
But are you going to go 'after the truth' and assume that either the divorces
were not real or that they never existed?
Prejudice is a strange phenomena. It blinds people of their true motives.
>Most historical figures who really did
>live were "historical" because they were mentioned in several
>different sources DURING their lives.
Historical figures who 'really did live?' You do understand that ancient
history can be pretty sketchy, don't you? A fragment here or there might
mention a name of a historical figure with no other corroborative evidence.
History and archeology are not exact sciences. Assumptions have to be made or
else we have very little history to discuss.
>There is not one mention of
>this purported "historical figure" throughout his whole hypothetical
>life.
Neither are there records of thousands of others who lived then. Can we
logically assume that none of them existed? If you're honest with yourself,
you'll see that there is no logical reason to believe that he didn't exist.
dino
says...
>
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:44:24 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On 26 Sep 2009 11:34:26 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>>>tirebiter says...
>>
>>>>You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? No burden
>>>>of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>>>
>>>As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
>>>logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same method
>>>used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figures.
>>
>>That depends on what you mean by the 'historicity of Jesus'.
>>
>>>Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that there
>>>actually was an historical Jesus.
>
>Just because you say so?
Get an education, boy. It might prevent you from appearing so silly.
>Do you seriously imagine that being the umpteen thousandth person to
>claim this without ever saying why, should convince anybody?
The vast amount of literature written on the subject declares the historicity of
Jesus. Get an education, boy.
>Do you honestly not understand how this reinforces the conclusion that
>you have nothing?
Get an education, boy.
>>>Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
>
>Why keep repeating personal lies rather than refuting the conclusion?
I'm not refuting the conclusion of most historians and scholars. The majority
agree that there was an historical Jesus. Get an education, boy.
>>>obviously have other agendas.
>
>Why the personal lie?
Last resort of the loser.
>>> Think about it.
>
>Beam, mote, eye, whining, hypocrite.
Last resort of the loser.
>>> Why are some selecting just
>>>Jesus?
>
>Why the lie, liar?
Last resort of the loser.
>Never heard of "put or shut up"? Begging the question that wouldn't
>even have been asked if you had any common sense and courtesy?
I suppose calling someone a liar is your way of being courteous?
>>> Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures?
>
>Where did you demonstrate that he was a historical figure, liar?
Get an education, boy.
>>> The answer
>>>is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
>
>That there was no historical Jesus. If there were you and your fellow
>believers would have provided evidence long ago instead of lying about
>thoas who concluded you have none.
Get an education, boy.
tirebiter
> On Sep 26, 6:21 pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:00 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>
> > > > There are plenty of examples of the same basic story attrubuted to Jesus
> > > > which appear in history well before Jesus' time.
>
> > > This is partly true, but the usual form of this one that appears
> > > online is mainly false and this is the one you've got hold of.
>
> > Funny how fine the distinction is in regards to the claims that
> > christians recycled earlier myths in the generation of their own
> > fairytale, but then they grasp at the straw that EVERY flood story in
> > other cultures PROVES the bible flood fable, even when the timings are
> > off by centuries.
>
> > Yeah, funny that.
>
> How does this knee-jerk response relate to my post?
>
Just an observation that by and large, christians will draw on a
generalized collection of data to support their myths, but when their
myths are shown to be based on nearly identical but much older
versions, they are dismissed because they are not completely
identical.
> You seem to say that the fairytales that I responded to shouldn't be
> critically examined. Why shouldn't we examine it?
>
Not at all. But denying that that your myths very closely resemble
much older ones is an interesting point to note.
> And ... how does invective against Christians, Democrats, Iraqis,
> sheep, or copper futures, or any other different subject, help to show
> that these stories are true?
>
Again, I made an observation that goes back to many discussions where
christians defended the biblical flood fable with claims that most
ancient cultures had flood myths, and wouldn't defend the fact that
this is where the similarity ended.
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
---
a.a. #2273
dino
Roger Pearse says...
>
>On Sep 26, 3:01=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <7i6b53F2vs8u...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"dino" <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >news:h9k1q...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >> In article <7i3niqF2vjr6...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>>
>> >>>"Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>...
>> >>>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
>> >>>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
>> >>>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
>eed
>> >>>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>>
>> >>>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it
>> >>>looks
>> >>>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
>> >>>Thanks.
>>
>> >> What evidence do you have of that?
>>
>> >The story itself.
>>
>> The 'story' is not without evidence.
>
>Unlike the objection, which is also without a rational statement.
>
>Steve O is engaged in trying to change the subject away from a bunch
>of silly and indefensible claims to "why Christianity is s**t". Don't
>let him.
Pinning these guys down to a logical discussion is like trying to pick up a
bubble of mercury dropped on the floor.
jemcd
>In article <44osb51lc798vvi00...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>>
>>On 26 Sep 2009 11:34:26 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>Do you claim that Heracles was a historical figure?
>
>I don't claim that Jesus was an historical figure. Historians and scholars make
>that claim.
And they are likely christian historians and scholars. Perhaps muslim?
Do you have a list of these people you refer to?
> Do you know of any historians or scholars who claim Heracles was an
>historical figure?
It's a significant diference that worshipping Hercules has been
extinct for a very long time. I'd suppose the historians and scholars
in the times and places Hercules was worshipped would have respectable
citations from their collective writings.
Ask Morman historians and scholars about their religion's claims of
their historical characters.
Ask any historians and scholars dedicated to, from and within their
religion what they think and cite regarding their religion's claims
about their historical characters.
Now compare those to historians and scholars in accredited secular/
nonreligious universities practising empirical/rational research.
For me, sticking with the historical sciences with peer reviewed and
unbiased science is the way to go. How many of these people, based on
their professional work, are certain Jesus or Heracles existed?
tirebiter
> In article <ef61a4da-1af6-4835-9a95-6e10c7e25...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> tirebiter says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 26, 2:34=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98-a74d-be325d04a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> tirebiter says...
>
> >> >You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? =A0No burden
> >> >of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>
> >> As has already been pointed out several times in this thread, there is no
> >> logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same met=
> >hod
> >> used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical figur=
> >es.
> >> Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that th=
> >ere
> >> actually was an historical Jesus.
>
> >Except the fact that not a single word was written down about this
> >alleged MAN and unproven god until 20-40 years after he supposedly
> >died?
>
> He was a carpenter for christ's sake. Who writes about carpenters?
>
Oh, I thought most christians believe he was a man-god, and was put on
trial in front of the current head of the Roman government. The
Romans were pretty good about keeping records about these sorts of
things.
> >> Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesus
> >> obviously have other agendas. =A0Think about it. =A0Why are some selectin=
> >g just
> >> Jesus? =A0Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures? =A0=
> >The answer
> >> is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
>
> >Just going after the truth.
>
> Would you be going after the truth if a world-wide religion was not based upon
> him? Would you really care if historians said there was a carpenter turned
> philosopher who lived two millenia ago? I've seen historical records of
> divorces from that time period with names on them. Do you doubt that those
> people actually existed? After all, that's only one record and it could have
> been forged. There's no proof that they were even written at the time of their
> divorce. You really don't know if that person really existed or not, do you?
> But are you going to go 'after the truth' and assume that either the divorces
> were not real or that they never existed?
>
Hmm. carpenter turned philosopher? I know a lot of carpenters and
many of them toggle between these two roles a lot. None of them have
ever been considered a god. Why would you think this particular one
is?
You like to switch between this man-god being a lowly nobody, below
anybody's notice, to being the most important historical figure in the
world. And I still contend, that the FACT that NOTHING was ever
written about this person for over 20 years AFTER his supposed death
is a significant point. First of all, it's doubted that any of the
potential eye witnesses were still alive or involved in these
writings, so that means EVERYTHING about him is at best second hand
stories that had been repeated verbally for decades.
> Prejudice is a strange phenomena. It blinds people of their true motives.
>
> >Most historical figures who really did
> >live were "historical" because they were mentioned in several
> >different sources DURING their lives.
>
> Historical figures who 'really did live?' You do understand that ancient
> history can be pretty sketchy, don't you? A fragment here or there might
> mention a name of a historical figure with no other corroborative evidence.
> History and archeology are not exact sciences. Assumptions have to be made or
> else we have very little history to discuss.
>
> >There is not one mention of
> >this purported "historical figure" throughout his whole hypothetical
> >life.
>
> Neither are there records of thousands of others who lived then. Can we
> logically assume that none of them existed? If you're honest with yourself,
> you'll see that there is no logical reason to believe that he didn't exist.
How many of them have been elevated to being an alleged god? Getting
back to the subject of this thread, how many of them have a legacy
that has retarded and eroded human advancement for 20 centuries?
---
a.a. #2273
Christopher A. Lee
>On 26 Sep 2009 12:21:38 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <44osb51lc798vvi00...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>>>
>>>On 26 Sep 2009 11:34:26 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you claim that Heracles was a historical figure?
>>
>>I don't claim that Jesus was an historical figure. Historians and scholars make
>>that claim.
>
>And they are likely christian historians and scholars. Perhaps muslim?
>Do you have a list of these people you refer to?
More importantly, how do they reach the conclusion that he was an
historical figure?
>> Do you know of any historians or scholars who claim Heracles was an
>>historical figure?
>
>It's a significant diference that worshipping Hercules has been
>extinct for a very long time. I'd suppose the historians and scholars
>in the times and places Hercules was worshipped would have respectable
>citations from their collective writings.
Not that different unless you believe in one but not the other.
>Ask Morman historians and scholars about their religion's claims of
>their historical characters.
Make it non-fundamentalist mormons. You might be surprsed.
>Ask any historians and scholars dedicated to, from and within their
>religion what they think and cite regarding their religion's claims
>about their historical characters.
Again, make it honest, non fundamentalist scholars.
A prime example being the Israeli archaeologists who concluded there
was no Exodus.
dino
>
>On 26 Sep 2009 12:21:38 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <44osb51lc798vvi00...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch says...
>>>
>>>On 26 Sep 2009 11:34:26 -0700, dino <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you claim that Heracles was a historical figure?
>>
>>I don't claim that Jesus was an historical figure. Historians and scholars make
>>that claim.
>
>And they are likely christian historians and scholars. Perhaps muslim?
>Do you have a list of these people you refer to?
Andries G. van Aarde
Valerie A. Abrahamsen
Martin L. Appelt
Karen Armstrong
William E. Arnal
Richard L. Arthur
Harold W. Attridge
Robert Bater
Joseph Bessler
Edward F. Beutner
Anthony Blasi
Marcus Borg
Willi Braun
James R. Butts
Marvin F. Cain
Ron Cameron
Bruce D. Chilton
Kathleen E. Corley
Wendy J. Cotter
John Dominic Crossan
Don Cupitt
Jon Daniels
Jean Jacques D'Aoust
Jon F. Dechow
Arthur J. Dewey
Joanna Dewey
John Dillenberger
William Doty
Darrell J. Doughty
Dennis C. Duling
Ruben Rene Dupertuis
Susan M. Elliott
Robert T. Fortna
Robert M. Fowler
Robert W. Funk
David Galston
Lloyd Geering
Jennifer Glancy
James Goss
Heinz Guenther
Sakari Hakkinen
Maurice Hamington
Walter Harrelson
Stephen L. Harris
Charles W. Hedrick
James D. Hester
C. M. Kempton Hewitt
Jack A. Hill
Julian V. Hills
Richard Holloway
Roy W. Hoover
Benjamin J. Hubbard
Michael L. Humphries
Margaret D. Hutaff
Glenna S. Jackson
Arland Jacobson
Clayton N. Jefford
Gregory C. Jenks
Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre
Bob Jones
F. Stanley Jones
Larry Kalajainen
Perry V. Kea
John C. Kelly
William Doane Kelly
Chan-Hie Kim
Karen L. King
John S. Kloppenborg
Ron Large
Paul Alan Laughlin
Nigel Leaves
Margaret E. Lee
Nina E. Livesey
Davidson Loehr
Sanford Lowe
John Lown
Gerd Luedemann
Shelly Matthews
Dennis R. MacDonald
Brian Rice McCarthy
Lane C. McGaughy
Edward J. McMahon II
Francis Macnab
Loren Mack-Fisher
Daniel Marguerat
Marvin W. Meyer
Darren J. N. Middleton
J. Ramsey Michaels
William R. Millar
L. Bruce Miller
Robert J. Miller
Robert L'H. Miller
Milton C. Moreland
Winsome Munro
Culver H. Nelson
Rod Parrott
Stephen J. Patterson
Todd Penner
Richard I. Pervo
Thomas E. Phillips
Robert M. Price
Anne Primavesi
Jonathan L. Reed
Howard Rice
Vernon K. Robbins
James M. Robinson
Stan Rummel
Marianne Sawicki
Daryl D. Schmidt
Oswald Schrag
Bernard Brandon Scott
Andrew D. Scrimgeour
Philip Sellew
Chris Shea
Thomas Sheehan
Lou H. Silberman
Daniel A. Smith
Dennis E. Smith
Mahlon H. Smith
Graydon Snyder
John Shelby Spong
John Staten
Michael G. Steinhauser
Roy SteinhoffSmith
Robert F. Stoops, Jr.
Johann Strijdom
Jon Sveinbjornsson
Jarmo Tarkki
W. Barnes Tatum
Hal Taussig
Barbara Thiering
Joseph B. Tyson
Leif E. Vaage
James Veitch
Paul Verhoeven
Wesley Hiram Wachob
William O. Walker
Donna Wallace
Robert L. Webb
Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
James E. West
John L. White
L. Michael White
Patricia Williams
Walter Wink
>> Do you know of any historians or scholars who claim Heracles was an
>>historical figure?
>
>It's a significant diference that worshipping Hercules has been
>extinct for a very long time. I'd suppose the historians and scholars
>in the times and places Hercules was worshipped would have respectable
>citations from their collective writings.
>
>Ask Morman historians and scholars about their religion's claims of
>their historical characters.
>
>Ask any historians and scholars dedicated to, from and within their
>religion what they think and cite regarding their religion's claims
>about their historical characters.
>
>Now compare those to historians and scholars in accredited secular/
>nonreligious universities practising empirical/rational research.
>For me, sticking with the historical sciences with peer reviewed and
>unbiased science is the way to go.
Yes, I agree with you.
>How many of these people, based on
>their professional work, are certain Jesus or Heracles existed?
No one can be certain. If they say they are certain, then they're not honest.
Likewise, if someone says with certainty that Jesus did not exist, they are not
honest either.
billconner
So, A religion you don't like was founded on the person of Jesus.
Since this religion was to have a major impact on history it should've
been the talk of the town during Jesus generation. Since Christianity
had no impact of the general trends of history in the 1st century, why
would it have been mentioned?
Are we to suppose that early 1st century writers -should- have known
that Christianity was destined to be important? You seem to require an
almost supernatural prescience of Jesus contemporaries, a miraculous
vision of the future. In any other context you deny the possibility of
miracles except when their absence suits your purposes.
But wait! It gets better. Since the people who founded a religion on
the person of Jesus, behaved badly it follows that Jesus didn't
actually exist. Since some of these people also claimed that Jesus was
God and, being an atheist you know for a fact there is no God, Jesus
didn't exist. You've chosen a very apt screen name for yourself it
seems.
Bill
dino
tirebiter says...
>
>On Sep 26, 3:56=A0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <ef61a4da-1af6-4835-9a95-6e10c7e25...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> tirebiter says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 26, 2:34=3DA0pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1f6ee9b3-5aae-4f98-a74d-be325d04a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> tirebiter says...
>>
>> >> >You mean theological and philosophical scholar "majority"? =3DA0No bu=
>rden
>> >> >of proof on "what if" and "supposing" levels of navel gazing.
>>
> no
>> >> logical reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus if one uses the same =
>met=3D
>> >hod
>> >> used by historians that they use regarding other ancient historical fi=
>gur=3D
>> >es.
>> >> Various methods have been used to come to a reasonable conclusion that=
> th=3D
>> >ere
>> >> actually was an historical Jesus.
>>
>> >Except the fact that not a single word was written down about this
>> >alleged MAN and unproven god until 20-40 years after he supposedly
>> >died?
>>
>>
>
>Oh, I thought most christians believe he was a man-god, and was put on
>trial in front of the current head of the Roman government. The
>Romans were pretty good about keeping records about these sorts of
>things.
I'm talking about the historical Jesus.
>> >> Those who adamantly deny that there could have been an historical Jesu=
>s
>> >> obviously have other agendas. =3DA0Think about it. =3DA0Why are some s=
>electin=3D
>> >g just
>> >> Jesus? =3DA0Why aren't they selecting other ancient historical figures=
>? =3DA0=3D
>> >The answer
>> >> is obvious to those who are not prejudiced.
>>
>> >Just going after the truth. =A0
>>
>> Would you be going after the truth if a world-wide religion was not based=
> upon
>> him? =A0Would you really care if historians said there was a carpenter tu=
>rned
>> philosopher who lived two millenia ago? =A0I've seen historical records o=
>f
>> divorces from that time period with names on them. =A0Do you doubt that t=
>hose
>> people actually existed? =A0After all, that's only one record and it coul=
>d have
>> been forged. =A0There's no proof that they were even written at the time =
>of their
>> divorce. =A0You really don't know if that person really existed or not, d=
>o you?
>> But are you going to go 'after the truth' and assume that either the divo=
>rces
>> were not real or that they never existed?
>>
>Hmm. carpenter turned philosopher? I know a lot of carpenters and
>many of them toggle between these two roles a lot. None of them have
>ever been considered a god. Why would you think this particular one
>is?
Why would you think that I think that he is?
>You like to switch between this man-god being a lowly nobody, below
>anybody's notice, to being the most important historical figure in the
>world. And I still contend, that the FACT that NOTHING was ever
>written about this person for over 20 years AFTER his supposed death
>is a significant point. First of all, it's doubted that any of the
>potential eye witnesses were still alive or involved in these
>writings, so that means EVERYTHING about him is at best second hand
>stories that had been repeated verbally for decades.
You may be right. Are you a Biblical scholar? Can you read the original
manuscripts?
>> Prejudice is a strange phenomena. =A0It blinds people of their true motiv=
>es.
>>
>> >Most historical figures who really did
>> >live were "historical" because they were mentioned in several
>> >different sources DURING their lives. =A0
>>
>> Historical figures who 'really did live?' =A0You do understand that ancie=
>nt
>> history can be pretty sketchy, don't you? =A0A fragment here or there mig=
>ht
>> mention a name of a historical figure with no other corroborative evidenc=
>e.
>> History and archeology are not exact sciences. =A0Assumptions have to be =
>made or
>> else we have very little history to discuss.
>>
>> >There is not one mention of
>> >this purported "historical figure" throughout his whole hypothetical
>> >life.
>>
>> Neither are there records of thousands of others who lived then. =A0Can w=
>e
>> logically assume that none of them existed? =A0If you're honest with your=
>self,
>> you'll see that there is no logical reason to believe that he didn't exis=
>t.
>
>How many of them have been elevated to being an alleged god? Getting
>back to the subject of this thread, how many of them have a legacy
>that has retarded and eroded human advancement for 20 centuries?
I was discussing the historical Jesus.
Andre Lieven
his other foot:
> In article <fb7b9338-6745-49c4-89e4-f8004b023...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >On Sep 26, 2:21=A0pm, dino <dino_mo...@numbnuts.insane> stoopided:
> >> In article <db5fdf85-d97c-48b1-bb83-647553058...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Andre Lieven says...
>
> >> >YOUR claim that your jeezus existed, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
>
> >> I hate to burst your bubble, Buttercup, but that's not my claim; it's an
> >> accepted historical conclusion.
>
> >Is it YOUR claim that it is a "accepted historical conclusion".
>
> No it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
> Look it up, Wikiman.
I have no burden to do so; It is YOUR claim, thus YOUR BUrden To
Prove.
Thank you for your Admission that you CANNOT back up your idiotic
factless
bullshit.
Andre
dino
Andre Lieven says...
>
>
>>Look it up, Wikiman.
>
>I have no burden to do so;
You have no intelligence to do so...
Steve O
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7caec553-fe89-4620...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 26, 3:01 pm, dino <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7i6b53F2vs8u...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"dino" <dino_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:h9k1q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <7i3niqF2vjr6...@mid.individual.net>, Steve O says...
>
> >>>"Roger Pearse" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:aee39b06-9d66-4198...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>On 24 Sep, 12:22, "Steve O" <nos...@here.thanks> wrote:
> >>>This is the problem with atheism; it tends to make those who practice
> >>>it proud of their intellect while actually rendering them less
> >>>intelligent. Please ... check your facts, check your logic. We need
> >>>to be most sceptical about things we find convenient.
>
> >>>Pearse, here's the problem with the Jesus Story...bottom line...if it
> >>>looks
> >>>like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t...it probably IS bullsh*t.
> >>>Thanks.
>
> >> What evidence do you have of that?
>
> >The story itself.
>
> The 'story' is not without evidence.
Unlike the objection, which is also without a rational statement.
We keep asking for this evidence, but we never hear it.
Why is that?
--
Steve O
a.a.2240
BAAWA
Convicted by Earthquack
Exempt from Purgatory by Papal Indulgence
Peter Skelton
Because you are stione deaf?
Peter Skelton
Steve O
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7caec553-fe89-4620...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
It isn't an indefensible claim.
Just stop, and engage your brain properly for a moment.
Read the New Testament and the wild claims contained within it.
Try to read it with an open mind and ask yourself the question, "Could this
person (Jesus) have existed in the way he is described in this book?"
If you have any intellectual honesty at all, the answer is a resounding "NO"
I mean, for goodness' sake, have you actually READ it?
It's a ridiculous little fantasy book which hardly bears any resemblance to
reality at all.
If you weren't so familiar with it it and weren't so heavily invested in it
emotionally, you would dismiss it as easily as you dismiss any other
mythical fable, such as the Greek Myths or the Last Testament of Vissarion,
the Siberian Jesus.
It is YOU who is trying to divert attention from a bunch of indefesible and
silly claims, not me, no matter how much you try to turn it around.