Freethought & Rationalism Archive

frikativ54 · 01-09-2006, 11:14 AM

Tully must have ESP. When his One True Priestess woke up this morning, he was acknowledging Her outside Her bedroom window

. This is the first time that anybody has come up around this side - they always greet Priestess Frik :notworthy around the other (residential) side of the apartments.

A sign that the end is near?

All hail Tully! :love: :love:

-Frik :devil3:

frikativ54 · 01-09-2006, 11:18 AM

Oh, and do you not agree that Frik is the One True Priestess of Tully? :boohoo: Arm the troops - let's fight Holy Battle over this!

Who is the rightful heir to the Regalia of Rodents?

Tullians :thumbs: vs. BushyTulls :down:

Will we have Suicide Squirrels over this one?

-Frik :devil3:

Anixmander · 01-09-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

Frik's question starts by rejecting the Bible and then asks for an to indepentent proof the Incarnation. Frik won't take the Bible into account, which is the book that claims the Incarnation. Tell me how it is to be answered with that limitation....

Since the bible is making the claim it doesn't make sense to use it to validate the claim that it is making.

In a court would you use a witness' testimony to prove that witness's testimony? No, you would look for corroborating evidence.

Siamang · 01-10-2006, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

And - we have no evidence that he was the Son of God, except for the Gospels, which could have been written by people with bipolar disorder, who were propelled into manic episodes by their sadness at the death of their One True Son! Not to mention by schizophrenics.

Or by writers of fiction.

Quote:

Hmmm. You've read the Gospels, no? And what He said, (or what some clever scribe 100s of years later wrote) was brilliant and resonates with almost everyone - I mean, you may be an atheists, but you gotta like some of the parables and see the wisdom in them - was enough to convince people who were in His presence that He was the Son of God (the bipolar schizophrenic guys, I mean). Well they'd have to be mentally ill, since most went to their deaths for this conspiracy.

Yes, the characters in this work of fiction do go to their deaths. Deaths which haven't been corroborated anywhere outside this work of fiction. Have you read the latest Harry Potter novel? I don't want to spoil it for you, but someone VERY IMPORTANT dies protecting Harry. Willingly, it seems. He must have been mentally ill, or Harry really is the prophesyed one!

Quote:

Why wasn't this immediately debunked by simply producing the body?

Bummer of a plot twist?

Quote:

There were plenty of people there who could look at it and atest to whether or not it was Him. How hard was that?

Not the plot they had in mind.

Quote:

No, we have a better idea - Jesus died and they stole and hid the body and then agreed on the conspiracy to spread the good news.

Or easier still, don't even have a body, or a Jesus. JUST WRITE A BOOK that says you did!

Quote:

So there you have it, these men launched a brilliant plot to get themselves torutured and killed.

Who, Matthew Mark Luke and John? Fictional characters. Ron, Hermione, Fred and George.

Quote:

You have to have a lot of faith to believe that men would die for such a lie.

The september 11 attackers died for a lie. Happens all the time with religions fanatics. Not too big a stretch even in a work of fiction.

Quote:

Or you have to call them lunatics. Or debunk their book.

Hey, I got an idea. Howbout you BUNK your book first.

Howbout I say "lunatic." There you go. Lunatic fictional characters and their wacky adventures. Not as beliveable as Harry Potter (talk about your Deus ex machina ending!!!) but a bestseller nonetheless.

Quote:

I presume you are familiar with textual criticism (http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html) - which makes a compelling case for the original language, authorship and 1st Century origin of the gospel accounts. Since the accounts were most likely written as tradition has proposed by the very authors who claimed to have written them, they must simply be liars.

Or fiction writers.

Are you familiar with the Odyssey? Also based on real events. Also clearly a work of fiction. So is Homer a liar? Or is it definitive lock-solid proof of the divinity of Poseidon?

Odysseus. Liar Lunatic or Lord?

Quote:

Atheist faith.

Psychotic delusion, hallucinations (corroborated by all of the hallucinating witnesses and their Hale Bop friends), bipolar/schizophrenic social outcasts. a bright manic Jesus... there you go. Atheist faith. Thanks for being succinct.

Wow. Good rant there dude.

Take a look at that last stream of consciousness. You may be on to something.

Here's one, PROVE that there's any evidence at all for Jesus' divinity, other than the accounts in the work of fiction.

Otherwise all you got is Jimmy Olsen swearing upon risk of death from Lex Luthor that Clark Kent is Superman. Not exactly compelling evidence that Superman was a real dude.

rlogan · 01-10-2006, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

You said: So, Mark, Jesus wrote nothing.

Good thing - it would be surrounded by guards in a Vatican City shrine and there would be lines to see it and guards surrounding it and there would be a donut in Nashville that looked like it. People would worship both.

Apologists practice hard dodging simple matters with poppycock answers like this.

Good thing he didn't write anything, yea. Oh - but let's "worship" everything he supposedly said. See, if he had written those things instead of uttering them why, it would have been disaster.

Funny there is no support for this preposterous defense within the fairy tale book itself.

Quote:

Hmmm. You've read the Gospels, no?

Sure have. Come on over to the BC&H page so we can talk in detail.

Quote:

And what He said, (or what some clever scribe 100s of years later wrote) was brilliant and resonates with almost everyone

brilliant? pffft. Put forth your "brilliant" examples please.

You don't seem familiar with the development of the gospels. Nobody of substance proposes they were invented 100s of years later. Straw man.

Quote:

but you gotta like some of the parables and see the wisdom in them - was enough to convince people who were in His presence that He was the Son of God

oh? What - you mean the Church propaganda of the 2d century onward.

Quote:

Well they'd have to be mentally ill, since most went to their deaths for this conspiracy.

Just legend to begin with, but as others have stated - someone dying does not prove much of anything now, does it.

Quote:

Why wasn't this immediately debunked by simply producing the body? There were plenty of people there who could look at it and atest to whether or not it was Him. How hard was that?

Haw! This is rich. One of the "geniuses" of Christianity is turning the tables. Since there was never a Jesus to begin with - they use his very nonexistance as if it were the proof of his existence in the first place!!

right - the Christians don't have to produce any physical evidence of Jesus. It is the non-Christians that must produce him in orer to prove he did not exist'

The stupidity is almost baffling.

Quote:

No, we have a better idea - Jesus died and they stole and hid the body and then agreed on the conspiracy to spread the good news. So there you have it, these men launched a brilliant plot to get themselves torutured and killed.

You don't get to create your own opposition so that you can make up stupid straw men.

There was no Jesus of the gospels. There were plenty of itinerant preachers. Also plenty of rabble-rousers even with the name of Jesus that were, for example, written of by Josephus. But yours is nowhere to be found until he was invented retroactively.

Quote:

You have to have a lot of faith to believe that men would die for such a lie. Or you have to call them lunatics. Or debunk their book.

You have a lot of faith in a book of fairy tales.

Quote:

Since the accounts were most likely written as tradition has proposed by the very authors who claimed to have written them, they must simply be liars.

Nonsequitor.

Please come onto the BC&H page if you want to flex your muscles on textual criticism.

Pendaric · 01-10-2006, 07:23 AM

<This is a better fit in BC&H now.>

MarkB4 · 01-10-2006, 09:33 AM

Now this is interesting - both Siamang and rlogan have something to say about the veracity of the Bible. Okay - I'll bite. Explain to me how you have come to this certainty that the biblical account of Jesus Christ is fictional. I won't be convinced by a priori dismissal of miracles, so help me with something substantial - evidence that these are fictional accounts.

Julian · 01-10-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

Now this is interesting - both Siamang and rlogan have something to say about the veracity of the Bible. Okay - I'll bite. Explain to me how you have come to this certainty that the biblical account of Jesus Christ is fictional. I won't be convinced by a priori dismissal of miracles, so help me with something substantial - evidence that these are fictional accounts.

How about all the contradictions and mistakes. Start here on II with this thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117382

Julian

Siamang · 01-10-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

Now this is interesting - both Siamang and rlogan have something to say about the veracity of the Bible. Okay - I'll bite. Explain to me how you have come to this certainty that the biblical account of Jesus Christ is fictional. I won't be convinced by a priori dismissal of miracles, so help me with something substantial - evidence that these are fictional accounts.

Sorry, that's not how evidentiary rules go.

Those making a claim have the burden of proof.

Otherwise I have an invisible pink unicorn in my house. She created the universe. Prove me wrong.

See how that works? There are an infinite number of supernatural claims we could both make, and if we a priori assume they're right until disproven we've made quite a beastiary of invisible creatures.

I make no claims about the divinity of Jesus or the veracity of the bible. I only ask you to prove yours.

Siamang · 01-10-2006, 02:45 PM

As an addendum, Mark, do you live in backwards world?

Because here in the real world CLAIMENTS have the burden of proof. In our courts the plaintiff has the burden of proof. We don't go into a judge and say, X is a murderer, or prove me wrong.

I don't think you'll get a call back from Toyota if you say "I've invented a car that goes 100 miles per gallon of water, prove me wrong."

Do you go up to hospitals with a magic serum: "This serum cures cancer. Give it to everyone immediately, or prove it DOESN'T work!" A hospital would laugh you out the door.

Mark, i really think you live in backwards world if you think that WE are required to disprove the Bible before you've proven it.

I don't have to show evidence the bible is fiction. You have to show evidence that the bible is infallible fact, or admit your claim is merely an assertion.

And the fact that you seem to have never considered that you live in backwards world frankly doesn't surprise me. It's amazing the mental gymnastics that theists do to convince themselves of the illogical.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2006, 11:14 AM	#11
frikativ54 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,719	Tully must have ESP. When his One True Priestess woke up this morning, he was acknowledging Her outside Her bedroom window . This is the first time that anybody has come up around this side - they always greet Priestess Frik :notworthy around the other (residential) side of the apartments. A sign that the end is near? All hail Tully! :love: :love: -Frik :devil3:

01-09-2006, 11:18 AM	#12
frikativ54 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,719	Oh, and do you not agree that Frik is the One True Priestess of Tully? :boohoo: Arm the troops - let's fight Holy Battle over this! Who is the rightful heir to the Regalia of Rodents? Tullians :thumbs: vs. BushyTulls :down: Will we have Suicide Squirrels over this one? -Frik :devil3:

01-10-2006, 07:23 AM	#16
Pendaric Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle. Posts: 3,715	<This is a better fit in BC&H now.>

01-10-2006, 09:33 AM	#17
MarkB4 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 211	Now this is interesting - both Siamang and rlogan have something to say about the veracity of the Bible. Okay - I'll bite. Explain to me how you have come to this certainty that the biblical account of Jesus Christ is fictional. I won't be convinced by a priori dismissal of miracles, so help me with something substantial - evidence that these are fictional accounts.

01-10-2006, 02:45 PM	#20
Siamang Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 240	As an addendum, Mark, do you live in backwards world? Because here in the real world CLAIMENTS have the burden of proof. In our courts the plaintiff has the burden of proof. We don't go into a judge and say, X is a murderer, or prove me wrong. I don't think you'll get a call back from Toyota if you say "I've invented a car that goes 100 miles per gallon of water, prove me wrong." Do you go up to hospitals with a magic serum: "This serum cures cancer. Give it to everyone immediately, or prove it DOESN'T work!" A hospital would laugh you out the door. Mark, i really think you live in backwards world if you think that WE are required to disprove the Bible before you've proven it. I don't have to show evidence the bible is fiction. You have to show evidence that the bible is infallible fact, or admit your claim is merely an assertion. And the fact that you seem to have never considered that you live in backwards world frankly doesn't surprise me. It's amazing the mental gymnastics that theists do to convince themselves of the illogical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.