Machine code!!! \o/

[Mr Flibble]

extern const unsigned char main[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 4:40:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> extern const unsigned char main[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/
>
> /Flibble

Some rabbis suggest reading 5 psalms a day.
It's easier said than done, but it might
help you stay out trouble.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+41&version=NASB

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Mr Flibble]

On 01/09/2015 23:21, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 4:40:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> extern const unsigned char main[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/
>>
>> /Flibble
>
>
> Some rabbis suggest reading 5 psalms a day.
> It's easier said than done, but it might
> help you stay out trouble.
>
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+41&version=NASB

Two different New Testament gospels describe
the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to
Adam (the first human).
Evolution is a fact (the fossil record exists).
As evolution is a fact we know humans evolved.
As humans evolved there was, genetically, no first human.
As there was no first human Adam could never have existed.
As Adam never existed Adam’s descendants as described in
the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.

EVOLUTION FALSIFIES THE ABRAHAMIC BIBLES
AND ANYTHING PREDICATED ON THOSE BIBLES BEING
TRUE (INCLUDING THE GOD OF ABRAHAM).

/Flibble

[Gareth Owen]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:

> As Adam never existed Adam’s descendants as described in
> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.

Formal logic is not really a strength of yours is it?

[Marcel Mueller]

On 01.09.15 23.40, Mr Flibble wrote:
> extern const unsigned char main[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/

Yippee, an infinite loop.

Won't work on anything but x86 and won't work for many compilers since
there is no guarantee that variable symbols will ever match function
symbols. The entry point is sometimes named _main internally (or
something else) and so it won't link.

So what should be the use of a hack like this?


Marcel

[Mr Flibble]

Nothing wrong with my logic mate.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

The primary use of a hack like this is that it is an excuse to use the
wavy arms emoticon, \o/.

/Flibble

[bartekltg]

As King Arthur never existed*), Arthur's descendants, as described in
the Royal Archives**), also never existed, ergo Queen Elizabeth II
do not exist.

I'm not sure, I have nothing to do with UK, but it looks like
quite a big conspiracy is going on.


*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Debated_historicity
Too many candidates, and none of them talk with magic creatures,
impostors!

**) https://childrenofarthur.wordpress.com/tag/british-royal-family/

bartekltg

[Gareth Owen]

So if I can find a history book that gets the genealogy of Henry VIII
wrong, that proves that Henry VIII didn't exist?

There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ - albeit much less of his
supposed divinity. Errors in the Bible don't invalidate subsequent
parts of the Bible. Any rational atheist should be able to figure that
out.

[Gareth Owen]

bartekltg <bart...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Nothing wrong with my logicmate.
>
> As King Arthur never existed*), Arthur's descendants, as described in
> the Royal Archives**), also never existed, ergo Queen Elizabeth II
> do not exist.

Nice example.

[Mr Flibble]

On 02/09/2015 19:58, bartekltg wrote:
> On 02.09.2015 20:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 02/09/2015 06:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> As Adam never existed Adam’s descendants as described in
>>>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
>>>
>>> Formal logic is not really a strength of yours is it?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with my logicmate.
>
> As King Arthur never existed*), Arthur's descendants, as described in
> the Royal Archives**), also never existed, ergo Queen Elizabeth II
> do not exist.

False analogy; you could extend that to say that if Adam never existed
then the entire human race doesn't exist and this is of course absurd;
the human race AS DEPICTED IN THE BIBLE never existed.

Jesus Christ OF THE BIBLE never existed; some guy that this FICTIONAL
CHARACTER might have been partially based on might have existed but this
guy and Jesus Christ ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.

None of the characters of the Old Testament ever existed because,
according to the Old Testament, they were all related to Adam. I can
simplify it further for you: If Adam never existed then Adam's children
never existed.

Have you read the Watchmen comics? They have an alternate timeline with
a fictional President Nixon who never resigned; this FICTIONAL President
Nixon and the real President Nixon ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.

Get it now? Nothing wrong with my logic if you understand logic.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

On 02/09/2015 20:29, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 02/09/2015 06:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> As Adam never existed Adam’s descendants as described in
>>>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
>>>
>>> Formal logic is not really a strength of yours is it?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with my logic mate.
>
> So if I can find a history book that gets the genealogy of Henry VIII
> wrong, that proves that Henry VIII didn't exist?

False analogy. There are multiple sources which describe the true
genealogy of that person and we have evidence other than written
evidence of same.

>
> There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ - albeit much less of his
> supposed divinity. Errors in the Bible don't invalidate subsequent
> parts of the Bible. Any rational atheist should be able to figure that
> out.

There is absolutely no evidence contemporary to Jesus Christ's supposed
life; all the "evidence" was written much later after he had supposedly
died.

Christianity is predicted on Jesus having existed and the Bible being
true; Christianity is false.

/Flibble

[Gareth Owen]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:

> There is absolutely no evidence contemporary to Jesus Christ's
> supposed life; all the "evidence" was written much later after he had
> supposedly died.

Demonstrably untrue. At least some of the Pauline Epistles are almost
certainly written by his contemporaries, as is the Gospel of Mark.

> Christianity is predicted on Jesus having existed

Which everyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes he
did. Which doesn't make Christianity true - that would be a logical
leap every bit as incompetent as the one you make.

[bartekltg]

On 02.09.2015 21:34, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 02/09/2015 19:58, bartekltg wrote:
>> On 02.09.2015 20:22, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2015 06:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> As Adam never existed Adam’s descendants as described in
>>>>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
>>>>
>>>> Formal logic is not really a strength of yours is it?
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with my logicmate.
>>
>> As King Arthur never existed*), Arthur's descendants, as described in
>> the Royal Archives**), also never existed, ergo Queen Elizabeth II
>> do not exist.
>
> False analogy;

Nothing wrong with my analogy. Checkmate.

> you could extend that to say that if Adam never existed
> then the entire human race doesn't exist and this is of course absurd;

I'm glad you know that;-)

> the human race AS DEPICTED IN THE BIBLE never existed.

> Jesus Christ OF THE BIBLE never existed; some guy that this FICTIONAL
> CHARACTER might have been partially based on might have existed but this
> guy and Jesus Christ ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.

I don't know, and I don't care about discussion about existence
of Jesus, percentage of biblical Jesus in Jesus and his connection
to Brian and his life.

I wanted only to address you statement about Adam and Jesus.
It is not an implication, regardless if Jesus existed or not.
(OK, in formal logic, p=>q is true for p and q false, but
a sentence "quantum mechanic is about dogs, so Earth is a cube"
is not true for most people:)

There is a couple of religion, where Jesus is real,
and Adam is metaphorical. Catholics for example.

> None of the characters of the Old Testament ever existed because,

No one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources#Hebrew_Bible_.28Old_Testament.29

As we speak about holy texts: "Only sith deal in absolutes".

> according to the Old Testament, they were all related to Adam. I can
> simplify it further for you: If Adam never existed then Adam's children
> never existed.

But this is the same mistake.

If connection between Queen and Arthur is too abstract.
The first historic ruler of Poland was Mieszko. He was real, his family
rule until XIV century. But there is a couple of medieval books
mentioning his ancestors, including Piast (this is also the family
name). But Piast propably didn't exist, (no one really know). So his
(grand)^3 son didn't exist too? No, If Piast is fictional, Mieszko's
grand^3 father was just someone else.

Two characters from a old book. Related. One real, one not.

> Have you read the Watchmen comics? They have an alternate timeline with

No. The movie is enough? ;>

> a fictional President Nixon who never resigned; this FICTIONAL President
> Nixon and the real President Nixon ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.

This is subtle difference and your mistake is that,
we know the Watchmen is a work of fiction.
If you know that Bible is a pure fiction, then you do nod
need a futher proof. If you don't know that, or speak
with somebody who thinks different, your 'prof' doesn't
work.
You concluded Jesus's non-existence from an assumption
about Billie, not from Adam's non-existence.


> Get it now?

I understand your way of thinking.

> Nothing wrong with my logic if you understand logic.

This sentence is bellyful.
In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.




I'm sorry about offtopic, I try to stop.

bartekltg

[Mr Flibble]

Oh I understand recursion all right: Christianity is predicated on the
New Testament being true and the New Testament is predicated on the Old
Testament being true. I repeat: there is nothing wrong with my logic.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

On 02/09/2015 21:10, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> There is absolutely no evidence contemporary to Jesus Christ's
>> supposed life; all the "evidence" was written much later after he had
>> supposedly died.
>
> Demonstrably untrue. At least some of the Pauline Epistles are almost
> certainly written by his contemporaries, as is the Gospel of Mark.

Nonsense; the Gospels will written sometime after the supposed death of
Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence, none.

>
>> Christianity is predicted on Jesus having existed

> Which everyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes he
> did. Which doesn't make Christianity true - that would be a logical
> leap every bit as incompetent as the one you make.

Do you often try to put words in other people's mouths mate? My logic
is sound.

/Flibble

[Gareth Owen]

Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>> Which everyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes he
>> did. Which doesn't make Christianity true - that would be a logical
>> leap every bit as incompetent as the one you make.
>
> Do you often try to put words in other people's mouths mate? My logic
> is sound.

You're an idiot. *plonk*

[Mr Flibble]

That would be an attack on the person rather than on the argument, a
logical fallacy, idiot.

/Flibble

[Christopher Pisz]

Flibble is a troll. Ignore him or invite him to alt.atheist

[Juha Nieminen]

Gareth Owen <gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ

I suppose that if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the "truth".

Christian apologists have been keeping repeating that claim (ie. the
"masses of evidence" for Jesus's existence) for some decades now
(especially because of the widespread popularity of skepticism nowadays).
They have been hammering on and on about it, and thus people have
started believing it.

None of the presented evidence stands up to scrutiny, though.

The earliest extra-biblical source that they love to cite is Josephus...
who was born circa 37 AD, well after Jesus's alleged death. Hardly a
contemporary historian. And even he only mentions Christians existing,
and what they believed. That's compelling evidence that Christians
existed in the first century, not that Jesus existed.

All the other extra-biblical sources they love to cite were born
even later than that.

As for the New Testament, not a single one of the books has been
demonstrably written by an actual eyewitness. (And even if they had
been written by an alleged "eyewitness", there is no way to tell whether
that person was just fabricating a story, which others then copied and
elaborated on.)

There is also a hefty amount of circular reasoning often involved.
It goes like: How do we know that the New Testament is trustworthy?
Because of the thousands of eyewitnesses. And how do we know that there
were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the New Testament says there
were (and, as we already established, the New Testament is trustworthy.)

(And this isn't even going into the fact of how unreliable eyewitness
testimony is.)

Did a person exist who the gospel stories are (probably very loosely)
based on? I don't know. But the "masses of evidence" is certainly a
pure lie. No, there are no "masses of evidence". There are only
written allegations from decades and even centuries after the fact.

Christians consider honesty one of their core virtues, but man do they
love to lie in order to defend their religion.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Öö Tiib]

Any attempt to dispute your bald assertions you handwave away with
bald assertion that those are "unreasonable", "false analogy", "nonsense" etc.
Then you form some negations of opponent sentences and state those.
Finally you repeat your original bald assertion with some insult added.
Do not you see that such simple unproductive behavior does not
pass even Turing test?

Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
most.

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Two different New Testament gospels describe
> the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to
> Adam (the first human).

Or rather, The Gospel of Matthew proposes a genealogy back to Abraham; the Gospel of Luke proposes a genealogy back to Adam. The two genealogies are completely different, but that is not important, what was important to the gospel writers was to construct a tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David, consistent with Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. So they started with the prophesies, and the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, and invented the history. This is well understood.

> As Adam never existed Adam's descendants as described in
> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.

Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?

Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

You like to make random (and false) assertions I see.

>
> Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
> most.

My position is logically sound.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>> Two different New Testament gospels describe
>> the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to
>> Adam (the first human).
>
> Or rather, The Gospel of Matthew proposes a genealogy back to Abraham; the Gospel of Luke proposes a genealogy back to Adam. The two genealogies are completely different, but that is not important, what was important to the gospel writers was to construct a tradition that Jesus was a descendant of David, consistent with Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. So they started with the prophesies, and the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah, and invented the history. This is well understood.

Yes it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.

>
>> As Adam never existed Adam's descendants as described in
>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
>
> Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?

That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.

/Flibble

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 19:13:45 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 13:51, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 3 September 2015 01:33:04 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2015 23:26, Gareth Owen wrote:
> >>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
> >>>>> Which everyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes he
> >>>>> did. Which doesn't make Christianity true - that would be a logical
> >>>>> leap every bit as incompetent as the one you make.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you often try to put words in other people's mouths mate? My logic
> >>>> is sound.
> >>>
> >>> You're an idiot. *plonk*
> >>
> >> That would be an attack on the person rather than on the argument, a
> >> logical fallacy, idiot.
> >
> > Any attempt to dispute your bald assertions you handwave away with
> > bald assertion that those are "unreasonable", "false analogy", "nonsense" etc.
> > Then you form some negations of opponent sentences and state those.
> > Finally you repeat your original bald assertion with some insult added.
> > Do not you see that such simple unproductive behavior does not
> > pass even Turing test?
>
> You like to make random (and false) assertions I see.

Rightbackatcha? Sorry, I attempted just to describe how your way of
discussing looks like to me.

>
> >
> > Such behavior damages the positions of those who agree with you the
> > most.
>
> My position is logically sound.

q.e.d.

[Daniel]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:

> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
> is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
>

It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than all legend.

> >
> > Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?
>
> That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
> does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.
>

And yet there would appear to be more archeological evidence for the existence of David than of Mr Flibble! There appears to be no evidence outside of usenet for the existence of Mr Flibble.

Daniel

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Yeah. Sometimes Flibble makes sense but other times he
rants and yells.


Brian

[Mr Flibble]

On 03/09/2015 18:57, Daniel wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
>
>> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
>> is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
>>
> It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than all legend.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that David existed, none.

>>>
>>> Suppose it became important to two participants in this forum that Mr Flibble was a descendant of Donald Duck? And suppose, having too much time on their hands, and too much to drink, they independently constructed genealogies that traced him back to that esteemed creature? Would it be correct then to conclude that since Donald Duck does not exist, neither does Mr Flibble?
>>
>> That would be a FICTIONAL VERSION of the REAL Mr Flibble that indeed
>> does not exist unlike the REAL Mr Flibble.
>>
> And yet there would appear to be more archeological evidence for the existence of David than of Mr Flibble! There appears to be no evidence outside of usenet for the existence of Mr Flibble.

Wrong, see above.

/Flibble

[Daniel]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:33:04 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> That would be an attack on the person rather than on the argument, a
> logical fallacy

Precisely. Love the idiot, hate the idiocy.

Daniel

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 18:57, Daniel wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed or it
> >> is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
> >>
> > It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than all legend.
>
> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that David existed, none.
>

If you want proof of G-d's existence, consider the C++
Middleware Writer. As G-d helped David to defeat Goliath,
He helps us to build the best software in existence.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - "America didn't create religious
liberty. Religious liberty created America." Bobby Jindal

http://webEbenezer.net

[David Brown]

On 04/09/15 04:05, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 18:57, Daniel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:16:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2015 14:47, Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>>> it is well understood that both David and Jesus never existed
>>>> or it is at least to those with an ounce of common sense.
>>>>
>>> It's the evidence that counts, there is some recently discovered
>>> archaeological evidence for the existence of David, not totally
>>> conclusive. The consensus seems to be that it is probable a king
>>> called David existed sometime in 10th century BCE, and that some
>>> of the material in the Books of Samuel is historical rather than
>>> all legend.
>>
>> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that David existed,
>> none.

Proof by repeated assertion does not work when given by Christians - it
does not work when given by Mr Flibble either.

There /is/ archaeological evidence for the existence of both King David
and Jesus. Obviously there is no evidence for anything divine or
supernatural being involved, but people who actually /know/ something
about history and archaeology are mostly agreed that these people were
real, and at least some of the events mentioned in the Bible are likely
to have a basis in fact.

The evidence for King David is not strong - it is certainly not "proof",
and for most of what is written in the OT, there are no other sources.
But there is enough to say it is likely that the character in the OT is
not entirely fictional even though many of the details and the deeds
attributed to him may be fictional, mistaken, or wrongly attributed.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Archaeology>

For most of the "historical" events described in the Bible, OT and NT,
there is very little evidence for or against the Biblical story. But
"very little" is significantly different from "absolutely none".


Regarding the historical Jesus, there is a little more information:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus>

(The Wikipedia articles are, of course, not an authority of some kind -
but they give a good starting point for further research.)

Most Biblical historians agree that Jesus existed, with a few events in
his life having at least some evidence - but there is good reason to
suspect that he was not particularly important, but merely one of the
great many preachers, teachers, "holy people", and "prophets" that were
common in that time and area.

>
> If you want proof of G-d's existence, consider the C++ Middleware
> Writer. As G-d helped David to defeat Goliath, He helps us to build
> the best software in existence.

That is not "proof", it is faith or belief. If you are happy to believe
in God, that's fine - but please do not call it "proof".

>
> Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - "America didn't create religious
> liberty. Religious liberty created America." Bobby Jindal
>

The story of the "pilgrim fathers" on the Mayflower escaping religious
persecution in England, and forming America based on freedom and
religious liberty, is part of the USA's own creation myth written
shortly after American independence. In fact, the pilgrim fathers were
running /from/ religious freedom - back home in England, they had been
doing their best to persecute other Christian groups and force their
particular brand onto everyone else. They set out for America to find a
place where they could control and enforce their own version of
Christianity on everyone else.

(You can either accept that argument, or deny it, or do some research on
the subject - I don't have any references at hand, and don't have the
time to find them myself, so I will not blame anyone for disagreeing
with me here. But perhaps it will make you think a little about what
you think you know.)

[Mr Flibble]

On 04/09/2015 09:09, David Brown wrote:

> There /is/ archaeological evidence for the existence of both King David
> and Jesus. Obviously there is no evidence for anything divine or
> supernatural being involved, but people who actually /know/ something
> about history and archaeology are mostly agreed that these people were
> real, and at least some of the events mentioned in the Bible are likely
> to have a basis in fact.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King David or Jesus
Christ existed, none.

> Regarding the historical Jesus, there is a little more information:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus>
>
> (The Wikipedia articles are, of course, not an authority of some kind -
> but they give a good starting point for further research.)
>
> Most Biblical historians agree that Jesus existed, with a few events in
> his life having at least some evidence - but there is good reason to
> suspect that he was not particularly important, but merely one of the
> great many preachers, teachers, "holy people", and "prophets" that were
> common in that time and area.

Some guy that the fictional Jesus Christ may have been partially based
on and the fictional Jesus Christ ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. Jesus
Christ never existed.

/Flibble

[Gareth Owen]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:

> Yeah. Sometimes Flibble makes sense but other times he
> rants and yells.

He just needs to tweak his meds. He'll be fine.

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:11:29 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 09:09, David Brown wrote:
>
> > There /is/ archaeological evidence for the existence of both King David
> > and Jesus. Obviously there is no evidence for anything divine or
> > supernatural being involved, but people who actually /know/ something
> > about history and archaeology are mostly agreed that these people were
> > real, and at least some of the events mentioned in the Bible are likely
> > to have a basis in fact.
>
> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King David or Jesus
> Christ existed, none.

Just reject everything with bald assertion that purely negates opponent's
point.

>
> > Regarding the historical Jesus, there is a little more information:
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus>
> >
> > (The Wikipedia articles are, of course, not an authority of some kind -
> > but they give a good starting point for further research.)
> >
> > Most Biblical historians agree that Jesus existed, with a few events in
> > his life having at least some evidence - but there is good reason to
> > suspect that he was not particularly important, but merely one of the
> > great many preachers, teachers, "holy people", and "prophets" that were
> > common in that time and area.
>
> Some guy that the fictional Jesus Christ may have been partially based
> on and the fictional Jesus Christ ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. Jesus
> Christ never existed.

Just restate your original bald assertion again. Write nothing else.

Turing test: false. Consciousness level of author detected: 0, because
algorithm matches exactly with what I predicted.

[Daniel]

The problem is that Mr Flibble is outside his field, and isn't familiar with the scholarly work, but still feels it necessary to make utterances. Had he read a bit about the minimalist position on the authenticity of the texts, he would have been able to engage with David in an interesting way, but he obviously hasn't.

In much the same way, and just to bring this back on topic, it's rarely interesting to read something critical about C++ from somebody who doesn't know anything about C++.

Daniel

[David Brown]

Your problem here is that you imagine there are two people here - the
real, historical person, and the religious character crucial to
Christianity.


Let's take this step by step - do you agree or disagree on the following
points?


It looks like you now agree that there is some basis for claiming the
existence of the historical Jesus as a person (and if you don't agree on
that, I recommend you learn a little archaeology before you further
display your ignorance). There are, as I said, a few events in the life
of Jesus that have reasonably reliable corroboration - enough to make it
highly unlikely that there was no teacher/preacher named (approximately)
Jesus working around the 4th decade AD. Most of the "normal" events in
his life, as described in the Bible, have no evidence. And for some
things, such as his death, it is arguably surprising that there is no
other evidence.

You say there is no evidence for the "divine" Jesus, able to perform
miracles, rising from death, and so on. That is perfectly true - no
real, concrete evidence exists for anything supernatural like that.
It's a matter of faith and belief (though of course people who believe
in Jesus may describe things as "evidence" for his existence). That's
all a matter of choice and personal believe.

OK so far?


Where you seem to differ from everyone else is that you want to separate
these two aspects of Jesus, as though there was one historical person,
and one fictional person. That is simply not the case. For people who
believe in the divine Jesus, they are the same person - it is critical
to their faith that he was a real, ordinary person as well as the Son of
God. For people who /don't/ believe in a divine Jesus, the divine
aspects of Jesus were imaginary (either his own imagination, or that of
his followers). So the only Jesus is the historical one. Either way,
there was only one Jesus.

[Mr Flibble]

On 05/09/2015 00:24, Daniel wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 6:46:47 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Friday, 4 September 2015 17:11:29 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> Some guy that the fictional Jesus Christ may have been partially based
>>> on and the fictional Jesus Christ ARE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. Jesus
>>> Christ never existed.
>>
>> Just restate your original bald assertion again. Write nothing else.
>>
>> Turing test: false. Consciousness level of author detected: 0, because
>> algorithm matches exactly with what I predicted.
>
> The problem is that Mr Flibble is outside his field, and isn't familiar with the scholarly work, but still feels it necessary to make utterances. Had he read a bit about the minimalist position on the authenticity of the texts, he would have been able to engage with David in an interesting way, but he obviously hasn't.

Theology is not scientific and is arguably not scholarly either.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King David or Jesus
Christ existed, none.

>

> In much the same way, and just to bring this back on topic, it's rarely interesting to read something critical about C++ from somebody who doesn't know anything about C++.

Random assertion; I suspect I know more about C++ than you mate.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

No I do not imagine there was a historical Jesus Christ; the fictional
Jesus Christ may have been partially based on one or more individuals
which isn't saying the same thing. Jesus Christ never existed.

There is absolutely no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ's
existence, none.

/Flibble

[Chris M. Thomasson]

> "Mr Flibble" wrote in message
> news:EYOdneWs29O7pXbI...@giganews.com...

[...]

> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King David or Jesus Christ
> existed, none.

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Jesus-Christ

;^)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

> "Chris M. Thomasson" wrote in message
> news:msg2q7$dcf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I wonder how many of them claim to be the son of god?

[Daniel]

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Theology is not scientific and is arguably not scholarly either.
>

Theology? But historians of ancient israel are not theologians.

It's been a while since the Christian movement was powerful enough to have the heretics burned, almost 200 years. Critical Biblical scholarship has been thriving since, modern biblical scholarship combines data from archaeological and non-biblical sources, linguistic comparisons of Biblical Hebrew and ancient transcriptions, sociological models, etc. If you want to make interesting statements about it, you need to do some reading first.

Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

On 06/09/2015 16:21, Daniel wrote:
> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 2:45:13 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> It's been a while since the Christian movement was powerful enough to have the heretics burned, almost 200 years. Critical Biblical scholarship has been thriving since, modern biblical scholarship combines data from archaeological and non-biblical sources, linguistic comparisons of Biblical Hebrew and ancient transcriptions, sociological models, etc. If you want to make interesting statements about it, you need to do some reading first.

"Critical Biblical scholarship"? A three word oxymoron, impressive mate.

/Flibble

[Daniel]

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 1:39:10 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> "Critical Biblical scholarship"? A three word oxymoron, impressive mate.
>

I find it curious that the two members of this community who feel the most need to pronounce on the subject, one, our "village atheist", and two, the evangelical literalist, both appear to have no interest in the relevant historical scholarship. More time with the books, mate! and less time at the pub.

Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

The problem you seem to be having is your assumption that the Bible is a
historical document: it isn't.

/Flibble

[Daniel]

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 3:50:39 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> The problem you seem to be having is your assumption that the Bible is a
> historical document: it isn't.
>

"Oh Lord, give us strength ...", well, the problem you seem to be having is your assumption that C++ is a fifth generation AI language (I can make sentences like that too.)

Anyway, I wish you a very good day,
Daniel

[Gareth Owen]

Daniel <daniel...@gmail.com> writes:

> The problem is that Mr Flibble is outside his field, and isn't
> familiar with the scholarly work, but still feels it necessary to make
> utterances. Had he read a bit about the minimalist position on the
> authenticity of the texts, he would have been able to engage with
> David in an interesting way, but he obviously hasn't.

Yup.

[Gareth Owen]

*applause*

[Mr Flibble]

Nope.

[Skybuck Flying]

Ah to bad nigga... it almost worked lol:

// FuckThisShit.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"

extern const unsigned char _tmain[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
printf("dildo\n");
return 0;
}

1>------ Build started: Project: FuckThisShit, Configuration: Debug
Win32 ------
1>Build started 10/9/2015 12:46:38.
1>InitializeBuildStatus:
1> Touching "Debug\FuckThisShit.unsuccessfulbuild".
1>ClCompile:
1> All outputs are up-to-date.
1> FuckThisShit.cpp
1>c:\junk\fuckthisshit\fuckthisshit\fuckthisshit.cpp(10): error C2365:
'wmain' : redefinition; previous definition was 'data variable'
1> c:\junk\fuckthisshit\fuckthisshit\fuckthisshit.cpp(7) : see
declaration of 'wmain'
1>
1>Build FAILED.
1>
1>Time Elapsed 00:00:00.16
========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========

Perhaps lowering settings in visual studio 2010 might do the trick... but
that'd be cheating ! ;)

Close but no cookie... Keep trying nigga ! ;) =D

"Mr Flibble" wrote in message

news:EO-dnThO_tjShnvI...@giganews.com...

extern const unsigned char main[] = { 0xEB, 0xFE }; // Machine code!!! \o/

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:48:30 AM UTC-5, Skybuck Flying wrote:

Please don't use racial slurs or swear here.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Mr Flibble]

Can't you read compiler errors fucktard? You are defining the same
symbol twice: my machine code trick defines main to be an array of
opcodes which may or may not work on a particular implementation.

You keep trying and/or go back to school.

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Leigh, please don't swear here.

[Mr Flibble]

On 10/09/2015 20:14, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Leigh, please don't swear here.

Cunting fucknuckles.

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I'm not happy with the coarse words but

L'Shana Tova - Happy New Year.

[J. Clarke]

In article <87si6wm...@gmail.com>, gwo...@gmail.com says...
>
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On 02/09/2015 06:53, Gareth Owen wrote:
> >> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>> As Adam never existed Adam?s descendants as described in
> >>> the Bible also never existed ergo Jesus Christ never existed.
> >>
> >> Formal logic is not really a strength of yours is it?
> >
> > Nothing wrong with my logic mate.
>
> So if I can find a history book that gets the genealogy of Henry VIII
> wrong, that proves that Henry VIII didn't exist?
>
> There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ

I keep hearing of these "masses of evidence" but have never seen any
actually presented.

[Reinhardt Behm]

J. Clarke wrote:

>> There's masses of evidence of Jesus Christ
>
> I keep hearing of these "masses of evidence" but have never seen any
> actually presented.

If you believe in such things or entities without any evidence then you
easily believe in the existence of masses of evidence without having seen
any.

--
Reinhardt

[Daniel]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:46:45 AM UTC-5, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
>
> If you believe in such things or entities without any evidence then you
> easily believe in the existence of masses of evidence without having seen
> any.
>

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

-- Gospel of John, King James Version

It's an interesting way of framing an argument : that believing without evidence is a virtue.

Daniel

[Scott Lurndal]

AFAIK, the only close-to-contemporaneous evidence is in
the writings of Josephus, who was born after the date that
christians claim for the crucifixion.

Most of the gospels date to 40-100 years after 33CE.

[Reinhardt Behm]

Only topped by believing against evidence.

--
Reinhardt