Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 21 of 22
 [ 436 posts ] 
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
Author Message
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Couldn't some just have simply asked Pilate if Jesus existed?


Sparhafoc wrote: Not really a logical way to address the contradiction I raised, but ok... yes, they could have, and maybe they did, and maybe it wasn't recorded - we don't think for a moment that we have a perfect historical knowledge of the 1st century anywhere in the world, let alone there.

Instead, if you read what I wrote, you said that no one could have 'made this up', and I said they could in the same way as they made up other complex story lines.

I didn't actually say that it is all made up as I personally believe the primary events happened and see no reason to doubt them. There was a dude called Yeshua with all the relationships with other humans, he did preach a Jewish heresy, and this resulted in him being killed by the Romans with the support of the Pharisees. Given the tensions between the Romans and the Jews, and given the nature of Judaism, and given the large number of recorded self-declared prophets.... I don't personally see anything incredible or extraordinary to any of these claims.

It's the myths laid on top which I think are clearly made up.


I see . By myths you mean the ressurection and ect.




Sparhafoc wrote: /scratchy head emoticon

. Take Genesis 30:39

Did God not know how genetics works? Looking at a red envelope while copulating is not going to result in a red haired child, is it TNTD? Even a school child today knows more about how traits are passed to offspring than the knowledge of the people of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age, so we wouldn't expect to see any knowledge of genetics from them. We would, however, expect an all-knowing God to ensure that the content of his supposedly singular text sent to instruct the mortals wouldn't make such obvious mistakes.

In fact, if God had dictated this book, we humans should have been mining it for centuries, making discoveries about the nature of 'his' Creation, leading us to a much greater understanding of the world around us. But no. There are no revelations when it comes to empirical reality, and such declarations as there are contradict what we know today.

So, two options:

1) God exists, had this document written, allowed it to be full of errors because 'he' didn't care about such things, or /apologetics on/ didn't want to freak the humans out with knowledge about reality etc. etc, etc,

2) The OT is a collection of late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age oral tales handed down through generations reflecting the knowledge and musings of these people, and as such would be expected to reflect their limited knowledge.

For me, 2 is a much more compelling factor as it explains the errors in the Bible, whereas excuses have to be made for 1.

Incidentally, this isn't a heathen attack on Christianity. I 'discovered' this while I was still a Christian, and I am sure I annoyed the various priests I queried about it no end. None of them seemed able to answer the questions of a 12 year old.


When you continue reading a bit into I think chapter 31, it says the sheep were born mottled because God saw how Jacob was being cheated by Laban. This part of the bible is obviously not meant to convey that standing sticks up around mating sheep will cause them to produce striped offspring.

I would also ask a couple different priests alot of questions when I was young. My great uncle was a priest actually. Very well educated but none of them would hardly ever give a straight answer on anything about the Bible.






thenexttodie wrote:So you are trying to show that the etimology(sp?) of the Aramaic word for "Gods" shows that God used the wrong word to describe Himself in the Bible? That is interesting. What word do you think God should have used?


Sparhafoc wrote: No, that's not what is in the text. Please read it again:

el elohe yisrael

The term for the category of 'gods' there is 'elohe', whereas El is the name of that god. El elohe yisrael = God (name) god (title) of Israel.

It's not etymology - it's the same pantheon as its Canaanite predecessors, with syncretized components from the passage of time.


Yeah, that is interesting.

Sparhafoc wrote:The monomyth exists independently of the Bible, TNTD... what I am saying is that the NT bears the same component quantities as other myths humans have made. The story structure appeals to us psychologically and emotionally. It is what we humans do.
Which ones?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:21 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1541Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:I see . By myths you mean the ressurection and ect.


Well, I can write a list if you want me to, but yes mostly magical stuff like the conjuration school of wizardry Jesus seems to have become a master at and is just assumed to mean 'power bestowed by God' for some totally inexplicable reason, and the age old linking of mortals to divine entities i.e. 'sons' of gods.

Both are characteristics of myth. Other motifs are there too, like self sacrifice, labouring to set the tribe free, defining an after-death/post-life world to inhabit with one's ancestors, the trials and tribulations, the journey from one place to another linked to rites of passage. Basically, the monomyth structure. It's there quite clearly in the Bible if you strip away some of the fluff and look at the core narrative beats.

While a lot of those New-Agey woo laden forays into fictional pasts on networks like the Discovery Channel might be 99% shit, they are often based on a kernel of truth vastly over-worked. For example, it's bollocks to say that the Bible is based on the Egyptian Horus myth where he was sacrificed for his tribe, went into the sky to live with the heavenly all-father, and who offers hope and salvation to us today. It's not based on that, it's the monomythic structure that appears to be in all stories from our most ancient recorded work (The Epic of Gilgamesh) all the way up to movies and games today. You can check out the monomyth in a squillion resources online and see if you disagree.




thenexttodie wrote:When you continue reading a bit into I think chapter 31, it says the sheep were born mottled because God saw how Jacob was being cheated by Laban. This part of the bible is obviously not meant to convey that standing sticks up around mating sheep will cause them to produce striped offspring.


Firstly, there's no 'obviously' to it at all. Christian apologists have twisted themselves into knots trying to validate scientifically what it says literally in the Bible.

https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.o ... earson.pdf

It's only 'obvious' after you've made up a way in which it doesn't contradict reality and you can lend that credence to protect the overall belief system.

When I was a Christian, I'd have said 'oh yeah, probably because the Bible's not meant to be literal, but rather it's allegorical' because that's the Christian tradition I was brought up in. British Anglican Christians, even 40 years ago, had stopped trying to defend counterfactual bullshit in the Bible and just said 'yeah it's factually wrong in many places, but it's got good values in it'. To me, that's more defensible than engaging in exegesis and interpretation or retrofitting explanations onto a text while simultaneously pretending the Bible can be read literally.

To be honest, even after I stopped being a Christian, Christians never bothered me, and I never bothered them until the internet was born. Then the kooky Christians from other parts of the world decided they wanted to come and tell me about their redundant make-believe bullshit. I have never... never... gone looking for a theist to tell them their belief is wrong. You know why? Because religion, to me, is an area of study, not of belief.

I'll happily talk about religion all day because I am fascinated by humans and have spent much of my adult life studying them, or at least their origins. But from my experience with Christian friends in the UK, none of them want to have a conversation about their faith because their faith is a private thing. Isn't this also expressly dictated in the Bible? An instruction to keep one's religious beliefs to oneself?


thenexttodie wrote:I would also ask a couple different priests alot of questions when I was young. My great uncle was a priest actually. Very well educated but none of them would hardly ever give a straight answer on anything about the Bible.


I tried many different denominations as well, I thought I was being really naughty for some reason. Especially when I went to Bible studies with the Jehovah's Witnesses who everyone seemed to hate for some reason. They were perfectly nice to me - utterly shitty to their own family members who didn't believe, of course, (there's the problem with being religious recapitulated) - but couldn't ever do too much to help me.

I also looked into more mystical things when I was older, some of them long stories unto themselves which I won't even bother mentioning in passing. Even later, I visited Ashrams in India, yogic retreats, visited many of the world's 'pagan' holy sites, and read all the 'holy' books of all religions, both alive and long dead.

But I think they're all bullshit, TNTD. I am sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but I honestly think I've got very solid reasons that justify my position, and my reasons are not based on emotions and whims, but on information, data, evidence, and the long history of human behavior since we first graced this planet's expanses. I don't disbelieve it because I want to disbelieve it, but because I simply have no choice - belief is not an option for something you know is wrong. If anything, you can rest easier knowing that it's not just Christianity's narrative I hold in complete disdain with respect to any description of reality, but all of them. You share all, or most of the rest with me.

To me, all these religious narratives are windows into the way people used to think, how they saw the world, and what made them tick. Ancient history has always been my passion, at least since I was 6 or 7 years old; I loved Atlantis myths, and consequently read Plato and then straight into all the Greek classics. So to have a textual window - a written idea recorded and readable now that lets me see the world through their eyes is just utter bliss for me.

But I have no problem separating fact from fiction, and I am no more convinced by any of these stories than I would be reading a sci-fi or fantasy novel. They're all clearly man-made and have not a whiff of the divine in any of them.



thenexttodie wrote:Which ones?


Humans, it's a group which comprises all of us. We narrate our lives, not just to our loved ones, but also in our internal dialogue. We're the protagonist of our own life's story (at least until we make that necessary sacrifice), and to misquoth Shakespeare, in our time we will play many parts. We go through transitions from one role to another, and society acknowledges it, or adds weight to that transition through some kind of codified practice. When we get married, we perform a ceremony regardless of what our cultural or religious backgrounds are - the content differs, but the practice is universal. When we are born or die, there are other rituals, or ceremonies - ways for the tribe to recognize one of its own.

To me, this is where I find a lot of theists' notions about how non-believers cannot have purpose in their lives to be so dramatically out of touch with reality. The meaning of our lives is charted through the wake our passing leaves on other members of our society. I don't know if you're married, or have kids (either would offer a crystal clear example) but you've certainly impacted your parents' lives - caused a transition for them, and you've impacted your colleagues and friends, and every impact you leave is the only purpose you'll ever need.

Honestly real person behind the computer screen. Does it really matter if Christians are right, or Hindus are right, or some other unknown religion is the correct one, so long as we try our best to do good to others, and work consistently to improve the lives of the people around you?

I see the light go on in my students' eyes, and although I have plenty I need no other purpose. That alone makes me feel my life has achieved something, regardless of whether I utterly fail at the remainder. ;)
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:34 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:I see . By myths you mean the ressurection and ect.


Sparhafoc wrote:Well, I can write a list if you want me to, but yes mostly magical stuff like the conjuration school of wizardry Jesus seems to have become a master at and is just assumed to mean 'power bestowed by God' for some totally inexplicable reason, and the age old linking of mortals to divine entities i.e. 'sons' of gods.

Both are characteristics of myth. Other motifs are there too, like self sacrifice, labouring to set the tribe free, defining an after-death/post-life world to inhabit with one's ancestors, the trials and tribulations, the journey from one place to another linked to rites of passage. Basically, the monomyth structure. It's there quite clearly in the Bible if you strip away some of the fluff and look at the core narrative beats.

While a lot of those New-Agey woo laden forays into fictional pasts on networks like the Discovery Channel might be 99% shit, they are often based on a kernel of truth vastly over-worked. For example, it's bollocks to say that the Bible is based on the Egyptian Horus myth where he was sacrificed for his tribe, went into the sky to live with the heavenly all-father, and who offers hope and salvation to us today. It's not based on that, it's the monomythic structure that appears to be in all stories from our most ancient recorded work (The Epic of Gilgamesh) all the way up to movies and games today. You can check out the monomyth in a squillion resources online and see if you disagree.


Well, yeah, I think the same way about much of what you have said here. It's obvious even today people seem to very much enjoy movies like The Matrix, where a hero dies, is reborn and saves the world. You and I rationalize this fact differently.

As for ancient myths following the same story line, there seems to me, have not much to support their existence. But even if they did, according to the bible, the Hebrews were certainly not the first people who would have had knowledge of The Creation, the Fall of man, the flood, Gods plan of redemption and so on.

thenexttodie wrote:When you continue reading a bit into I think chapter 31, it says the sheep were born mottled because God saw how Jacob was being cheated by Laban. This part of the bible is obviously not meant to convey that standing sticks up around mating sheep will cause them to produce striped offspring.


Sparhafoc wrote:Firstly, there's no 'obviously' to it at all. Christian apologists have twisted themselves into knots trying to validate scientifically what it says literally in the Bible.

https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.o ... earson.pdf

Well I think that's dumb.
You and I can both read and I think its pretty obvious. I fact I just read it and figured it out on my own right after you brought it up. I know I read it before but forgot it.



thenexttodie wrote:I would also ask a couple different priests alot of questions when I was young. My great uncle was a priest actually. Very well educated but none of them would hardly ever give a straight answer on anything about the Bible.


Sparhafoc wrote: I tried many different denominations as well, I thought I was being really naughty for some reason. Especially when I went to Bible studies with the Jehovah's Witnesses who everyone seemed to hate for some reason. They were perfectly nice to me - utterly shitty to their own family members who didn't believe, of course, (there's the problem with being religious recapitulated) - but couldn't ever do too much to help me.

I also looked into more mystical things when I was older, some of them long stories unto themselves which I won't even bother mentioning in passing. Even later, I visited Ashrams in India, yogic retreats, visited many of the world's 'pagan' holy sites, and read all the 'holy' books of all religions, both alive and long dead.

But I think they're all bullshit, TNTD. I am sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but I honestly think I've got very solid reasons that justify my position, and my reasons are not based on emotions and whims, but on information, data, evidence, and the long history of human behavior since we first graced this planet's expanses. I don't disbelieve it because I want to disbelieve it, but because I simply have no choice - belief is not an option for something you know is wrong. If anything, you can rest easier knowing that it's not just Christianity's narrative I hold in complete disdain with respect to any description of reality, but all of them. You share all, or most of the rest with me.

To me, all these religious narratives are windows into the way people used to think, how they saw the world, and what made them tick. Ancient history has always been my passion, at least since I was 6 or 7 years old; I loved Atlantis myths, and consequently read Plato and then straight into all the Greek classics. So to have a textual window - a written idea recorded and readable now that lets me see the world through their eyes is just utter bliss for me.

But I have no problem separating fact from fiction, and I am no more convinced by any of these stories than I would be reading a sci-fi or fantasy novel. They're all clearly man-made and have not a whiff of the divine in any of them.


What you said about the Jehovas Witnesses is true. I never went to their church but a friend of mines parents were JW.






thenexttodie wrote:Which ones?


Sparhafoc wrote:Humans, it's a group which comprises all of us. We narrate our lives, not just to our loved ones, but also in our internal dialogue. We're the protagonist of our own life's story (at least until we make that necessary sacrifice), and to misquoth Shakespeare, in our time we will play many parts. We go through transitions from one role to another, and society acknowledges it, or adds weight to that transition through some kind of codified practice. When we get married, we perform a ceremony regardless of what our cultural or religious backgrounds are - the content differs, but the practice is universal. When we are born or die, there are other rituals, or ceremonies - ways for the tribe to recognize one of its own.

To me, this is where I find a lot of theists' notions about how non-believers cannot have purpose in their lives to be so dramatically out of touch with reality. The meaning of our lives is charted through the wake our passing leaves on other members of our society. I don't know if you're married, or have kids (either would offer a crystal clear example) but you've certainly impacted your parents' lives - caused a transition for them, and you've impacted your colleagues and friends, and every impact you leave is the only purpose you'll ever need.

Honestly real person behind the computer screen. Does it really matter if Christians are right, or Hindus are right, or some other unknown religion is the correct one, so long as we try our best to do good to others, and work consistently to improve the lives of the people around you?

I see the light go on in my students' eyes, and although I have plenty I need no other purpose. That alone makes me feel my life has achieved something, regardless of whether I utterly fail at the remainder. ;)


Of course it matters. If the God of the Bible is real than it would be important to accept the fact that if you reject Him, he will eventually put you in a place where you can live without Him forever. And if God is real, then you have not experienced such a place before. Do not go there.

Of course it matters who is right. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1541Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Well, yeah, I think the same way about much of what you have said here. It's obvious even today people seem to very much enjoy movies like The Matrix, where a hero dies, is reborn and saves the world. You and I rationalize this fact differently.


Well go on then - rationalize away. That's what we're here for.


thenexttodie wrote:As for ancient myths following the same story line, there seems to me, have not much to support their existence.


Um? Do you mean that the other myths don't have as much evidence as your one?

If so, I think it's misguided counterfactual thinking. The only difference between you and I on this point would be that I include yours in the same category as theirs, and for good reason. You've just got the same special pleading as every adherent of any other religion.

And there is no evidence of Jesus's parlor tricks. Only accounts written by people decades or centuries after the supposed events.


thenexttodie wrote: But even if they did, according to the bible, the Hebrews were certainly not the first people who would have had knowledge of The Creation, the Fall of man, the flood, Gods plan of redemption and so on.


They had different creation myths, some parts of which the ancient Israelis borrowed through cultural assimilation.




thenexttodie wrote:Well I think that's dumb.
You and I can both read and I think its pretty obvious. I fact I just read it and figured it out on my own right after you brought it up. I know I read it before but forgot it.


Yes, but Christian apologists don't. Whether it be the Flud, the erroneous order of cosmological evolution, or a false value of Pi - the Bible contains sufficient scientific error that fundamentalist apologists have to work overtime to explain it away so they can maintain the illusion that their book is literally true.




thenexttodie wrote:What you said about the Jehovas Witnesses is true. I never went to their church but a friend of mines parents were JW.


Insofar as my capacity allows, all of the above was true - not just the bit about the JW's.




thenexttodie wrote:Of course it matters. If the God of the Bible is real than it would be important to accept the fact that if you reject Him, he will eventually put you in a place where you can live without Him forever. And if God is real, then you have not experienced such a place before. Do not go there.

Of course it matters who is right. Life is not a dress rehearsal.


What I find so sad about this is that all you've got to convince me that your mythology is real is a threat of pain and torture.

How sad that people like yourself are falsely led to believe that this is the case. The carrot and stick - cake or death.

Of course, TNTD, I don't believe your silly mythology in the first instance; I know the Christian God is man-made bullshit. So your writing there represents Stockholm Syndrome as far as I am concerned:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is the name given to the psychological phenomenon wherein, after enough time in captivity, hostages begin to identify more with their captor (or captors) and less with their life before captivity.

...

Cult members and others who have been brainwashed also exhibit many of the traits of Stockholm syndrome. Their ability to parrot dogma and talking points combined with their inability to accept any facts that contradict their worldview are telltale signs that one has been indoctrinated while in captivity.



If your god is real, and if your god set up a system to eternally torture those people who fail to comply, then I spit in its eye. It can go fuck itself, and I will say that to whatever constitutes its face. It would be the greatest tyrant in the history of the universe, and some of us have enough backbone not to bend and break to tyrants even if the tyrant can hurt us.

Lucky it's just make-believe, eh? Shame you have to waste your one and only life in ignorance of that.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:35 am
SparhafocPosts: 1541Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

To save myself the time of writing when it may just be ignored.

This video explains my position on the notion of your God and why I think it's deranged for other humans to tell me what their god will or won't do.

Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:40 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Sparhafoc wrote:To save myself the time of writing when it may just be ignored.

This video explains my position on the notion of your God and why I think it's deranged for other humans to tell me what their god will or won't do.



The Bible does not present the Christian God as being Omnisceint. I have noticed that people on this forum insist that God must be Omniscient. They also insist that God must be Omnibenevolent, even though they themselves don't believe in good or evil or have no standard to judge something as good other than their own opinion. I think this is the result of intellectual laziness.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:36 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Sparhafoc wrote:To save myself the time of writing when it may just be ignored.
If I miss one of your replies, please bring it to my attention.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:38 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:The Bible does not present the Christian God as being Omnisceint. I have noticed that people on this forum insist that God must be Omniscient.

Except for the time it does of course. In case you haven't noticed, the bible isn't a very consistent book.
And perhaps you missed this as well, the idea that god is omniscient is a common wide held christian belief. It's the idea that god isn't omniscient that is outside the norm.

We've had this discussion before so feel free to conviently forget this again.

thenexttodie wrote:They also insist that God must be Omnibenevolent, even though they themselves don't believe in good or evil or have no standard to judge something as good other than their own opinion. I think this is the result of intellectual laziness.

Who says we do not believe in good and evil?

We had this discussion before too. Our ideas about what is good and what is evil differ. We have a standard that is different than yours (for exemple, we don't try to make slavery morally ok like you and Leroy). If you want to try and explain what is good and what is evil, I hope you can come up with something better than "derp" this time.

So "intellectual laziness" may be your hypothesis but I have my own when it comes to you: indoctrinated stupidity and moral degeneracy. Just what I think.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:58 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Well, yeah, I think the same way about much of what you have said here. It's obvious even today people seem to very much enjoy movies like The Matrix, where a hero dies, is reborn and saves the world. You and I rationalize this fact differently.


Sparhafoc wrote:Well go on then - rationalize away. That's what we're here for.
Well people enjoy stories and movies where good triumphs over evil. But people on this forum are not really able to define what good and evil is. Someone like Dragan Glas would say "Something is good if it benefits mankind". Fine. But He has no standard which he can apply to his own metric to. He himself does not know how to benefit mankind. He might me able to name things like medicine or the internet, cars ect. But he is completely unable to quantify the effects of his own acts let alone the effects of any social policy, whichever ones he decides to fight against or support. He does not know if they are really good or bad, it's just his opinion.

Someone like you might say and actually posited that it does not matter who is right or wrong as long as we try or best to do what is right. Again, without a standard, this is a ludicrous idea and would make it impossible for us to have any sort of civiliazation if we were to implement this as social or judicial policy.

And despite all of this, the Matrix trilogy did quite well at the box office. How did so many people know who the good guy was in the story?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Last edited by thenexttodie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:02 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:Except for the time it does of course. In case you haven't noticed, the bible isn't a very consistent book.


Thank you for explaining this to me, Great Master of the Internet. Now I know everything.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:05 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Thank you for explaining this to me, Great Master of the Internet. Now I know everything.

What a great exemple of christianity you make.

Still having hurt feelings that you couldn't give any answer to why we ought follow the christian god? We don't care.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:08 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote: What a great exemple of christianity you make.


Please tell us more about how a Christian should be. This should be good..
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:44 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Please tell us more about how a Christian should be. This should be good..

Oh they can be whatever they want to be:
Trollish
Cowardly
Proudly ignorant
Arrogantly idiotic
Slavery-supporting
Morally depraved

One or all of the above if that's the example they want to set.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:47 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:Oh they can be whatever they want to be:
Trollish
Cowardly
Proudly ignorant
Arrogantly idiotic
Slavery-supporting
Morally depraved

One or all of the above if that's the example they want to set.


Is there anything else you would like to say before I ignore you again?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:50 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:Oh they can be whatever they want to be:
Trollish
Cowardly
Proudly ignorant
Arrogantly idiotic
Slavery-supporting
Morally depraved

One or all of the above if that's the example they want to set.


Is there anything else you would like to say before I ignore you again?

Can't you please ignore all of us and take your trolling elsewhere?

Or are you somehow proud of the image you're giving?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:53 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:Can't you please ignore all of us and take your trolling elsewhere?

Or are you somehow proud of the image you're giving?


You should go to bed.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:57 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:You should go to bed.

So you went with your usual then. When you do go to bed yourself, take the time to reflect and then perhaps come back to answer 1 or 2 of things you've run from. Not even asking you to completely grow a spine, just a bone or two.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:02 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

MarsCydonia wrote:So you went with your usual then. When you do go to bed yourself, take the time to reflect and then perhaps come back to answer 1 or 2 of things you've run from. Not even asking you to completely grow a spine, just a bone or two.


I think I am the only person with a spine on this entire fucking forum.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:33 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 838Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:I think I am the only person with a spine on this entire fucking forum.

:lol: You may be a troll but you're a funny troll.

But it may be inadvertenttly so let me help: the expression "have a spine" is similar to "have some guts", it's an expression that means "show some courage".

So I guess you can thank your indoctrination if you think you have a spine, much less be the only one with one here.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:08 am
SparhafocPosts: 1541Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:The Bible does not present the Christian God as being Omnisceint. I have noticed that people on this forum insist that God must be Omniscient. They also insist that God must be Omnibenevolent, even though they themselves don't believe in good or evil or have no standard to judge something as good other than their own opinion. I think this is the result of intellectual laziness.



Absolute hogwash. The Bible repeatedly presents God as omniscient, except when it doesn't, and these instances are ignored.

As for your ridiculous dismissal (you've been learning from LEROY) - I've already discussed this, so you ignoring it suggests you don't want to acknowledge it - there are thousands of CHRISTIAN traditions dating back hundreds of years which overtly record their belief in omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent ontologies of their Christian god.

If your god does not possess those ontological characteristics, then it's you who is not employing the Christian set of characteristics for a god, and as I told you before, what you'd need to do is start your own thread to expound and expand on them. However, you do not represent Christianity just because you've read the Bible.

And to show you how easy it is to toss out snark...

If you aren't aware of this, your alleged ideological brethren of yesteryear would have ensured you followed the correct set of beliefs according to the stated acceptable set of beliefs on pain of death. So pop your silly little chain-yanking back up your rectum where it belongs.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
กบในกะลาครอบ
Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:21 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 21 of 22
 [ 436 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: IBSpify and 7 guests