Procurator

Hi Sven,

We're talking about Jesus, mate. You're pretty good at avoiding the issue. As far as evidence goes, I'd say that there are many, many other ways of disproving Santa Claus's existence. Sorry to disappoint you, kid, but everyone has to hear it sooner or later...

Procurator

Xrikcus

There are? Could you enligten me please? I'm trying to think of a proof for Santa Claus not existing and I can't think of one offhand.

Skeptic Pete

Seems to me like you've already lost this debate Procurator...............

The existence of extra-biblical documentation of jesus' existence is non-existent. Your supposed authors have all been debunked authoritatively leaving you with nothing but the catholic-edited bible to substantiate your claims. What nonsense you believe.

I personally think the santa analogy works very well to disprove your offensive deity.
There is more evidence for santa than there is for either your god or jesus.

Miracles=magic=nonsense=supernatural=bible stories=ignorance

Cheers

Skeptic Pete

"A child of 5 could understand this! Quick,
someone fetch a child of 5!"

Shven

They'd have given him funny looks and not understood it - and therefore ignored it. They didn't have the knowledge base to understand such things. It would be as if somebody came from 2000 years into the future and tried to explain what she would consider modern scientific theory to us. We just wouldn't be able to comprehend it properly as it would be so alien to us.

And no I'm not a Christian.

Sven

(1) This time, I used a smilie. So you can hardly say I avoided the issue, I just made a small joke - but one with a true core.
(2) You said even if we had no independent corroboration of Jesus miracles, this would not disprove them. Sure. But it's not the job of skeptics to disprove miracles - it's the job of believers to prove them. After all, it's equally unreasonable to disprove Santa Claus (you seem to think this is possible, I'm eagerly awaiting who you'd like to do it) - it's the job of believers in Santa Claus to prove him.

No smilie here. This is something serious to think about deeply.

Procurator

:rolling:

Loquacious nonsense. So when an extra-biblical historical document mentions "Christus" or "Jesus [who stood trial and was crucified]" it's speaking of...Humpty Dumpty? :rolling:

Mate, no matter how outrageous my beliefs are, they aren't a patch on your short-sightedness. Cheers anyway. :thumbs:

Miracles cannot be proven. That goes without saying. Since I have failed to prove them but still believe they happened, shouldn't you at least try to disprove them? Or are you willing to admit that you cannot, as I have?

Procurator

Procurator

Skeptic Pete,

Since you're so sure of yourself, you should have a bash at showing us all how the evidence for Santa outweighs the evidence for Jesus or God.

Procurator

Jack the Bodiless

...WHAT "document"?

There are extra-Biblical documents which mention the existence of Christians, and some of them mention that the Christians believe that the founder of their religion was crucified.

There are no extra-Biblical documents which claim that Jesus actually was crucified. According to Roman records, numerous people WERE crucified, but Jesus wasn't among them.

There are Jewish records of various heretical preachers with similar names who died by various means at various times, but the details don't line up with Jesus.
Evidence such as... ?

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, if you'd like to present a case that there IS more evidence for God than for Santa, I suggest you read the thread Santa and God and continue the discussion there.

Naked Ape

Hi Procurator,

Since you claim there is plenty of extra-biblical literature which supports things documented in the Bible, can you give us some specific examples please?
Not to quibble, but I thought you just said that there was plenty of unbiased extra-biblical literature which supports things documented in the Bible. I guess it (the plentitude of unbiased extra-biblical literature) supports everything but the miracle bits, which seems to leave a rather large part of the bible unsupported.

What, in your opinion, does qualify as historical evidence for the existence of a miracle-worker?

What sort of parlor tricks would you consider to be miracles in the first place?
What parts of Tacitus' writings do you accept (since you brought up Tacitus in your defence the first place), how do you know the shit from the shinola?
So you believe that Tacitus' accounts of Vespasian's miracles are not reliable because they are in the wrong book? Are you saying that you would find Tacitus' writings more believable if they were referenced by a book that features talking snakes and donkeys, magic fruit, four legged insects and birds, and winds up with god sacrificing himself to himself in order to save us from him?

If the bible is your standard, I wonder how you discern the reliable bits of Tacitus' writings from the wacky bits?

Do you believe that anyone who can conjure wine at weddings and do tricks with fish and bread is demonstrating their divinity, or does this only count if it is recorded in scripture? If the bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, what would you believe?

Cheers,

Naked Ape