Solitary Man

Whether cheese smells funny. Evade much?

Yes, I'm glad you realize you don't contribute. Perhaps if you wish to turn that around you could respond to my whole post instead of ignoring 99% of it.

spamandham

If you don't want to answer I don't care, but I have no idea what burden of proof you're talking about in regard to atheists. I'll just assume you don't know either.

Solitary Man

Srsly? According to your logic, atheism bears the burden of proof, as opposed to theism, in regards to the existence of God. The idea is quite ludicrous, that whatever position which is "abnormal" bears the burden.

spamandham

Atheism is not a claim or argument, it's just a disbelief in gods. Burdens of proof only apply in debates.

Solitary Man

This is poppycock to avoid the obvious fallacy of your earlier statement.

Toto

This thread is getting a little too far off topic and a little too personal. Please stick to the topic or it will be closed for cleanup.

mrunicycler

The claims that the biblical jesus performed miracles makes the case of his existence unreliable.

I'm using the word properly. If you don't understand, I'm not going to waste more of my time linking definitions. Feel free to do so yourself.


I've used words in the proper way. You choose to misunderstand them because you have no real case in arguing for the existence of a biblical jesus.

Note, I'm not saying there weren't people named jesus at the time he (the biblical one) is said to have lived. I'm saying that the biblical one, the one raising the dead and curing lepers, did not exist.


Very well. And I admitted to not reading the books in question in a systematic way, but in a casual one that was meant to answers the questions I had at the time of reading.

That I did not read these books in a way meant to specifically find the points in question does not mean that I did not form an understanding of them.


Perhaps you'd like to be less patronizing.

Do you have anything to support your ideas, or do you plan to spend the rest of your time throwing harmless insults at me, in a futile attempt to derail the thread from the fact that you have no worthwhile evidence that the biblical jesus existed?


It is. Again, you with your childish insults.

So far, you've misunderstood propaganda, we haven't even disagreed on systematic, though you seem to not understand what it means, reliability you may find on your own, and yours, again you are misunderstanding the use of.


Right. If Mark writes that jesus can fly, and the bosephus comes along, reads what mark wrote, and says, "Oh, wow, that's some good prose. Jesus must really have been able to fly," we can't use bosephus to validate mark.


Wrong. It's, "If you insist on misunderstanding, I can't explain it to you."


Stop assuming things about me you cannot know.


I'll say again, the evidence that I exist and the evidence that the biblical jesus existed are not on the same order.

As everyone must. That I don't surrender unto you, or anyone else, my paradigm and my deductions is not a reason for you to get peavy and insulting.

Are they? The issue of a being walking the earth performing miracles in god's name seems to make it about god, as well.

Again, I'll repeat, I'm not arguing that a man named jesus existed ~2000 years ago.

I'm saying that the bible does not represent him.


There is no reason whatsoever to think that the laws of physics were any different two thousands years ago than they are today.

For you to throw the idea into the argument, and then retreat from it as if it wasn't your stance, demonstrates the lengths to which you are willing to go to keep this argument going when you have no evidence and no proof in the point of veiw you are supporting.




If you think that people can't write good poetry in the hopes of having people pay them for it, then you're mistaken.

That there is poetry in it doesn't negate the idea that hte bible is about money.



I'm not conflating the two. You have an inability to understand that there was never a being raising the dead, burning bushes, etc.

There could have been a man named jesus. He could not perform miracles.

The man named jesus may have lived. He was not the jesus the bible describes.


I didn't say you shouldn't review what he says.

If you can't understand that, when someone invokes the name of god as the authority for an idea that idea should be questioned, then you are again willfully misunderstanding.


I know it isn't. You seem think it is, based on the fact that you choose to accept his existence without evidence.


Somehow, I'm going to need as much evidence of that as I am of the historicity of the biblical jesus.

Meaning, I'm not just going to take your word for it.


Are you suggesting that you and Dawkins believe in the same jesus?

If you're arguing that your jesus performed miracles, then I doubt it, but I can't really say, because I've never met him and asked.

And, I'll say again, there may have been a man named jesus.

It's the belief that the bible describes him accurately that would make one christian.

I'll say again, quit being insulting. It only highlights the fact that you have no evidence in your claims, and so you must spend your time throwing churlish little tantrums to distract people from that fact.

If you're saying that the bible is talking about a man named jesus, but isn't describing him accurately, then we have little to argue about.


This is a false assumtion on your part.

And yes, as long as you continue to suggest that the bible accurately describes a man performing miracles, I'll scoff all I want.

Even if I take on your word that you've done post-grad work in history, that does not mean that you did your work well.

And I'll repeat, if you're arguing for the biblical jesus, then you are not in line with anything but christian dogma.

If you're not arguing that the bible describes jesus accurately, then, I'll repeat, you and I don't much to argue about, except that you've continued to misread my posts in the vain hopes of telling everyone of you post-grad work in history.


The goal posts are and have always been for you to offer evidence in the historicity of the biblical jesus.

You can't, and so you have tried and tried to move the topic of discussion away from the thread's topic.


Why would I 'research' anything that I am not interested in and that has no bearing on my life?

Because you think I should? Not nearly good enough.



That I have degrees has nothing to do with the thread. If you really want to know, feel free to click on my callsign and read all my posts for yourself. I've mentioned it on this site sometime in the past.

Unlike you, I don't think that a diploma hanging on my wall makes my opinion stronger than evidence could, and it has nothing to do with this thread.

If you have evidence for the historicity of the biblical jesus, feel free to supply it anytime.


If you still have to ask this, then you need to go back and reread the thread. You have a penchant for willfully misunderstanding things.

And, again, quit throwing insults.

It doesn't strengthen your position.

It only makes clear the fact that you really have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

For the last time this post, if you have evidence of your views that the bible is an accurate protrayal of history (specifically, as it relates to jesus), supply it.

If you don't think the bible is an accurate portrayal of history, then we have nothing to argue about.

mrunicycler

If you don't accept its truth (as it relates to the historicity of the biblical jesus), then you need to be clearer when stating your arguments.

Solitary Man

Perhaps you shouldn't assume so much.

gstafleu

Is it?
Granted, church attendance is not necessarily equivalent to theism, but it may be the best approximation we have. Given that Canada has a tendency to be positioned between the US and Europe, I would expect the numbers in (at least NW) Europe to be even lower. So perhaps you should change your remark to "atheism is unusual in the US." Having said that, have a look at How many North Americans attend religious services (and how many lie about going)? The best you can do is 40% attendance, which is a minority (though not a small one). However, if you read on you'll find that there is good reason to assume this number is too high, it could easily be only 20% or so.

Again, not attending church doesn't make one an atheist, but it doesn't make one a fervent theist either.

Gerard Stafleu