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 16 of 21
 [ 402 posts ] 
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
Author Message
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:MarsCydonia it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the mayority of scholars.

Citation needed.

And I am willing to bet that the opinions of this majority (note the spelling) of scholars, if there is such a majority, would agree that it is "unlikely", not that "no author would", do you grasp the difference?

leroy wrote:so more semantics games? are you ever going to present a real argument ?

I already did. You never demonstrated how it was wrong but in fact admitted that you didn't make an absolute statement despite wording it that way repeatedly.

Thank you Leroy.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:45 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2860Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,



Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:07 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:MarsCydonia it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the mayority of scholars.
Citation needed.



I already provided the source, but you decided to play semantic games.

And I am willing to bet that the opinions of this majority (note the spelling) of scholars, if there is such a majority, would agree that it is "unlikely", not that "no author would", do you grasp the difference?


yes that is what I am saying, that it is unlikely. it was not meant to be an absolute claim.........I



I already did. You never demonstrated how it was wrong but in fact admitted that you didn't make an absolute statement despite wording it that way repeatedly.

Thank you Leroy.


This is my argument

1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero

2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)

3 therefore the crucifixion of Jesus is unlikely to be a myth,


given that 3 follows from 1 and 2 and that t I already presented evidence for 1 and 2 and you haven't present any evidence against. we have good reasons to grant 3
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:03 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:
This is my argument

1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero

2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)

3 therefore the crucifixion of Jesus is unlikely to be a myth,


given that 3 follows from 1 and 2 and that t I already presented evidence for 1 and 2 and you haven't present any evidence against. we have good reasons to grant 3


1. Seemingly unlikely is not the same as impossible. Didn't Achilles die from getting shot in the foot?

2. Crucifixion was a common torture method of the times, to show a seemingly unjust and cruel death of a "hero" it would be very likely chosen because it draws out the process to make the whole "suffering on the cross" idea seem like some great sacrifice. Choosing crucifixion made the whole death seem more dramatic, more painful and more meaningful than, say, being stabbed in the heart with a spear, having his balls cut off and a testicle shoved in each nostril. Humiliating, yet no suffering because he's already dead.

3. Does not follow.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Grumpy Santa wrote:
1. Seemingly unlikely is not the same as impossible. Didn't Achilles die from getting shot in the foot?


granted, the argument is that it is unlikely not that it is impossible.



2. Crucifixion was a common torture method of the times, to show a seemingly unjust and cruel death of a "hero" it would be very likely chosen because it draws out the process to make the whole "suffering on the cross" idea seem like some great sacrifice. Choosing crucifixion made the whole death seem more dramatic, more painful and more meaningful than, say, being stabbed in the heart with a spear, having his balls cut off and a testicle shoved in each nostril. Humiliating, yet no suffering because he's already dead.



interesting comment, but has nothing to do with premise 2
2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:36 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:I already provided the source, but you decided to play semantic games.

Are you talking about that Wikipedia article? You need to go read it again if you think that it counts as a citation that a majority of scholars agree with the "criterion of embarassement". So...

Citation still needed.

leroy wrote:yes that is what I am saying, that it is unlikely. it was not meant to be an absolute claim.........I

And I've already thanked you for agreeing with me Leroy:

Because unlikely means an author could have invented some parts of the bible like the crucifixion and thus it would complete bullshit to assert "an author would never invent" it, like you asserted multiple times.

See Leroy, mixing and matching "unlikely" and "never", this counts as a word game. You really should stop accusing others of playing the bullshit you play ;)

leroy wrote:This is my argument

1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero
2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)
3 therefore the crucifixion of Jesus is unlikely to be a myth,

given that 3 follows from 1 and 2 and that t I already presented evidence for 1 and 2 and you haven't present any evidence against. we have good reasons to grant 3

So you're just going to ignore what was presented rather than respond to it?

Typical Leroy :lol:

Still thinking you're dealing with Leroy-minded people.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:14 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:[Citation still needed.



ok granted, the source says that some scholars However it is still a fact that most scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion.


So you're just going to ignore what was presented rather than respond to it?



I am not ignoring anything,
This is my argument

1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero

2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)

3 therefore the crucifixion of Jesus is unlikely to be a myth


1 was already granted by you

2 I provided a sources that proves it

3 follows logically
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:20 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

So since you completely ignored the point that your "an author would never invent" was bullshit, I will take that as an involuntary affirmation of it on your part.

leroy wrote:ok granted, the source says that some scholars However it is still a fact that most scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion.

But it would still be a "fact" for which you've provided no citation but I'm glad you've finally agreed that your "criterion from embarassement" was a failure for "your point".

leroy wrote:I am not ignoring anything

Come on Leroy, this is a written forum, remember? I can point to two things you've ignored so what's the point in lying?

leroy wrote:1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero
2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)
3 therefore the crucifixion of Jesus is unlikely to be a myth

leroy wrote:1 was already granted by you
2 I provided a sources that proves it
3 follows logically

1. Only if you ignore everything else I wrote.
2. Only if you ignore everything else I wrote.
3. Only if you ignore everything else I wrote.

Can you try again Leroy? Keeping in mind that you're not dealing with Leroy-minded people?
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:48 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:So since you completely ignored the point that your "an author would never invent" was bullshit, I will take that as an involuntary affirmation of it on your part.



I didn't ignore it, I openly and unambiguously admitted that It was not meant to be an absolute claim.


But it would still be a "fact" for which you've provided no citation but I'm glad you've finally agreed that your "criterion from embarassement" was a failure for "your point".




why call it a failure, if you already granted the criteria of embarrassment? ..........you already granted that it is unlikely for an author to invent something that goes against his motives and goals.

the crucifixion is a well stablished historical fact. And if I where to bet, I would say that you don't deny the historicity of this event, you are just being a troll.........but I will ask you directly............do you deny that the crucifixion of Jesus is an almos certain historical fact? yes or no
The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judea, most probably between the years 30 and 33 AD. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

Come on Leroy, this is a written forum, remember? I can point to two things you've ignored so what's the point in lying?


I cant find any relevant point that was ignored.


[.
Can you try again Leroy? Keeping in mind that you're not dealing with Leroy-minded people?


What else do you what me to say? you already granted 1 explicitly and I already provided evidence for 2
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:09 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:
2. Crucifixion was a common torture method of the times, to show a seemingly unjust and cruel death of a "hero" it would be very likely chosen because it draws out the process to make the whole "suffering on the cross" idea seem like some great sacrifice. Choosing crucifixion made the whole death seem more dramatic, more painful and more meaningful than, say, being stabbed in the heart with a spear, having his balls cut off and a testicle shoved in each nostril. Humiliating, yet no suffering because he's already dead.



interesting comment, but has nothing to do with premise 2
2 crucifixion was a humiliating way of dying (in the context of a Jew who lived 2000 years ago inside the roman empire)


It has everything to do with p2 in the sense that it debunks (or tries to) the argument that crucifixion was humiliating. It's wasn't humiliation. People weren't walking by giggling at the silly bad guys hanging around on the big sticks. Victims were made to suffer horribly and publicly, to their deaths, to send the message to the populace to not repeat those crimes.

This is the type of thing you would choose for a martyr, real or imagined. A painful, gruesome death as opposed to a humiliating one. It was not a Pythonesque song and dance while hanging around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:52 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:I didn't ignore it, I openly and unambiguously admitted that It was not meant to be an absolute claim.

So, let's remember what you granted here, other than that your original "point" was bullshit as you worded it as an absolute claim, repeatedly.

Still, that you're agreeing that your point was bullshit, you're making progress Leroy.

And since we're recognizing your progress, it was also progress that you realized that your "most scholars" was in fact "some scholars". Well done.

leroy wrote:why call it a failure, if you already granted the criteria of embarrassment? ..........you already granted that it is unlikely for an author to invent something that goes against his motives and goals.

Work on your reading comprehension Leroy (is something that's been written a hundred times before but still has not sunk into your brain) because:
1. I've never granted the "criterion from embarrasement" when it comes to the crucifixion.
2. I've repeatedly pointed out that "inventing a crucifixion" would not appear to be against the motives and goals of the author but in fact would be especially compatible with them. In other words: the complete opposite of what you asserted.

In fact, the only one that granted anything is you when you granted that an author could have invented a crucifixion for the death of a character of Jesus (by saying it was unlikely rather than it would never happen despite the fact you worded it like that, repeatedly).

leroy wrote:the crucifixion is a well stablished historical fact. And if I where to bet, I would say that you don't deny the historicity of this event, you are just being a troll.........but I will ask you directly............do you deny that the crucifixion of Jesus is an almos certain historical fact? yes or no

You really want to go with "almost certain historical fact"? Because if you do, I will not agree with that.

leroy wrote:I cant find any relevant point that was ignored.

See 2. above

Considering the number of times you were told to work on your reading comprehension and the amazing lack of progress you've made on it, there can be only two explanations as to why...

leroy wrote:What else do you what me to say? you already granted 1 explicitly and I already provided evidence for 2

Another word to add to the Leroy lexicon? Can you explain what is Leroy's definition of "explicitly" because that's another word for which you must be using a different meaning.
Just kidding, I know you think I granted 1 because of your "poor reading comprehension"...

I'm sure you'll try again Leroy so I'll ask once more: can you try again but keep in mind you're not dealing with Leroy-minded people?
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:46 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Grumpy Santa wrote:[]

It has everything to do with p2 in the sense that it debunks (or tries to) the argument that crucifixion was humiliating. It's wasn't humiliation. People weren't walking by giggling at the silly bad guys hanging around on the big sticks. Victims were made to suffer horribly and publicly, to their deaths, to send the message to the populace to not repeat those crimes.

This is the type of thing you would choose for a martyr, real or imagined. A painful, gruesome death as opposed to a humiliating one. It was not a Pythonesque song and dance while hanging around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo



well to put it this way....ether


1 The authors of the gospels claimed that Jesus was crucified by his enemies, and without saving his people from the toman empire, because that it what actually happened....

or

2 They made that claim because they thought that the best possible hero that they could imagine would be a hero who failed in saving his people, and who died as a martyr in a deshonorable way



1 sounds more probable to me. ..........wouldn't you agree_?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:57 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:well to put it this way....ether

1 The authors of the gospels claimed that Jesus was crucified by his enemies, and without saving his people from the toman empire, because that it what actually happened....

or

2 They made that claim because they thought that the best possible hero that they could imagine would be a hero who failed in saving his people, and who died as a martyr in a deshonorable way

1 sounds more probable to me. ..........wouldn't you agree_?

Try this Leroy: http://www.onlinecorrection.com/

And option 3 sounds as equally possible as 1.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:03 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:

Work on your reading comprehension Leroy (is something that's been written a hundred times before but still has not sunk into your brain) because:
1. I've never granted the "criterion from embarrasement" when it comes to the crucifixion.


No but you granted that heroes usually don't die in dishonorable ways, you grated this point
1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero




leroy
mythical heroes usually don't die in deshonorable ways


Mars
I agree with "usually don't" but what you don't get is that a) "usually don't" is not equal to "never" and b) see 1.




2. I've repeatedly pointed out that "inventing a crucifixion" would not appear to be against the motives and goals of the author but in fact would be especially compatible with them. In other words: the complete opposite of what you asserted.


well we know that at least some scholars would disagree with you, can you quote any scholar who claims that death crucifixion would be the best way to fit their goals?


You really want to go with "almost certain historical fact"? Because if you do, I will not agree with that.


I know it is redundant, everybody knows* that a historical fact by definition is an almost certain fact, given that there are few (if any) 100% certain facts in history,

but since you are apparently unable to understand that some statements are not meant to be literally true, I thought it would be important to use the words almost certain


* Ok not literally everybody knows


So do you accept that the crucifixión is an almost certain historical fact, yes or no?............how long will it take you to answer to this question?



I'm sure you'll try again Leroy so I'll ask once more: can you try again but keep in mind you're not dealing with Leroy-minded people?



well I bet* that you where not absolutely sure, you where almost certain that I was going to try again but not 100% sure, but everybody** understands that your comment was not meant to be taken as an absolute claim.


* Well not in the literal cense, I am obviously not beating
** well not literally everybody, most people wont even read that comment

"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:57 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:No but you granted that heroes usually don't die in dishonorable ways, you grated this point
1 it is unlikely for someone to invent a humiliating death for his hero

leroy
mythical heroes usually don't die in deshonorable ways

Mars
I agree with "usually don't" but what you don't get is that a) "usually don't" is not equal to "never" and b) see 1.

I'm going to let you work on your reading comprehension 1 more time Leroy. 1 more try to get it right and address what I actually wrote and not delude yourself into thinking I wrote somthing I didn't.

leroy wrote:well we know that at least some scholars would disagree with you, can you quote any scholar who claims that death crucifixion would be the best way to fit their goals?

I'm going to let you work on your reading comprehension 1 more time Leroy. 1 more try to get it right and address what I actually wrote and not delude yourself into thinking I wrote somthing I didn't.

leroy wrote:I know it is redundant, everybody knows* that a historical fact by definition is an almost certain fact, given that there are few (if any) 100% certain facts in history,

but since you are apparently unable to understand that some statements are not meant to be literally true, I thought it would be important to use the words almost certain

* Ok not literally everybody knows

So do you accept that the crucifixión is an almost certain historical fact, yes or no?............how long will it take you to answer to this question?

I'm going to let you work on your reading comprehension 1 more time Leroy. 1 more try to get it right and address what I actually wrote and not delude yourself into thinking I should answer (because I've already answered this).

This is not that hard Leroy. How do you explain your poor reading comprehension?
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:11 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:[]

It has everything to do with p2 in the sense that it debunks (or tries to) the argument that crucifixion was humiliating. It's wasn't humiliation. People weren't walking by giggling at the silly bad guys hanging around on the big sticks. Victims were made to suffer horribly and publicly, to their deaths, to send the message to the populace to not repeat those crimes.

This is the type of thing you would choose for a martyr, real or imagined. A painful, gruesome death as opposed to a humiliating one. It was not a Pythonesque song and dance while hanging around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo



well to put it this way....ether


1 The authors of the gospels claimed that Jesus was crucified by his enemies, and without saving his people from the toman empire, because that it what actually happened....

or

2 They made that claim because they thought that the best possible hero that they could imagine would be a hero who failed in saving his people, and who died as a martyr in a deshonorable way



1 sounds more probable to me. ..........wouldn't you agree_?


You forgot #3 - They claim their hero was a human sacrifice that actually worked, then he got better and went to heaven and watches everyone today because magic.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:21 am
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Grumpy Santa wrote:

You forgot #3 - They claim their hero was a human sacrifice that actually worked, then he got better and went to heaven and watches everyone today because magic.


well you can still make self sacrifice and have an honorable death at the same time,

what you are trying to do is provide a possible explanation that would make crucifixion not embarrassing, but there is historical evidence that proves that it was an embarrassing detail, we know that the crucifixion was an obstacle for those who where preaching the gospel,

Paul writes in Corinthians 1
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preachi ... ary_id=259


If crusifixtion was a stumbling block for jews and gentiles, why not simply inventing some other story with a honorable death that would fit the expectations of Jews and Gentiles?......If the goal is to convince as many Jews and gentiles as possible that your Hero is the Messiah, why not inventing a story that would fit their expectations?



so our opinions are irrelevant, we have primary sources that confirm that the crusifixtion was a stumbling block and that was an obstacle for those who where preaching the gospel, and you have not a single source that suggest otherwise.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:34 pm
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:So do you accept that the crucifixión is an almost certain historical fact, yes or no?............how long will it take you to answer to this question?

I'm going to let you work on your reading comprehension 1 more time Leroy. 1 more try to get it right and address what I actually wrote and not delude yourself into thinking I should answer (because I've already answered this).


This is not that hard Leroy. How do you explain your poor reading comprehension?[/quote]

Given that I have poor reading comprehension skills, why don't you save us time and answer clearly and unambiguously yes or no

So do you accept that the crucifixión is an almost certain historical fact, yes or no?............


don't decorate your answer with fancy stuff, just answer YES or No, remember I have poor RC and any answer different form a simple yes or a simple no, might be misinterpreted by me and you would loose your precious time in reexplaining the answer.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:50 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 647Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

leroy wrote:Given that I have poor reading comprehension skills, why don't you save us time and answer clearly and unambiguously yes or no

don't decorate your answer with fancy stuff, just answer YES or No, remember I have poor RC and any answer different form a simple yes or a simple no, might be misinterpreted by me and you would loose your precious time in reexplaining the answer.

My response was clear and unambiguous to everyone except perhaps to Leroy-minded people.

But you'll keep on having poor reading comprehension if you don't put any effort into reading something that was clearly and unambiguously answered.

So I'll give you a piece of advice: if you can't understand something clear and unambiguous as my answer to your question, should you be sure you have have read https://www.workingpreacher.org/preachi%20...%20ary_id=259 correctly? You shouldn't and you didn't if you think your quote makes the point you think you are making.

What do you think is causing your poor reading comprehension? I am asking again because it doesn't seem you read this, despite including it in your comment since you have not answered.

And I'll finish by pointing out that you've yet ignored the points that were raised. Well you can take comfort that you do not have the ability to read adequately as an excuse.
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - A public information message from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:03 am
leroyPosts: 1362Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:Given that I have poor reading comprehension skills, why don't you save us time and answer clearly and unambiguously yes or no

don't decorate your answer with fancy stuff, just answer YES or No, remember I have poor RC and any answer different form a simple yes or a simple no, might be misinterpreted by me and you would loose your precious time in reexplaining the answer.

My response was clear and unambiguous to everyone except perhaps to Leroy-minded people.

But you'll keep on having poor reading comprehension if you don't put any effort into reading something that was clearly and unambiguously answered.

So I'll give you a piece of advice: if you can't understand something clear and unambiguous as my answer to your question, should you be sure you have have read https://www.workingpreacher.org/preachi%20...%20ary_id=259 correctly? You shouldn't and you didn't if you think your quote makes the point you think you are making.

What do you think is causing your poor reading comprehension? I am asking again because it doesn't seem you read this, despite including it in your comment since you have not answered.

And I'll finish by pointing out that you've yet ignored the points that were raised. Well you can take comfort that you do not have the ability to read adequately as an excuse.



Well in this case you are not dealing with Leroy minded people, you are dealing with Leroy himself, so I guess a simple Yes or NO answer is necessary.




even though I have poor RC, I have other abilities, for example I am very talented prophet and I predict the future I can predict that I wont get that Yes or No answer from you
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:04 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 16 of 21
 [ 402 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron