wade-w

I'm beginning to think that Van considers himself some sort of modern day christian Socrates. This isn't the only thread where Van is using this tactic. The problem is that as the thread progresses, it is seen that all he has is the same tired old dogma that we've all seen before.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

Vanderzyden

You know very little about me, and yet presume such things. In fact, this kind of presumption seems to be an attribute of your replies, and is a significant impediment to pracitical dialogue. Why do you do it? Are you here to have a discussion or play games? I can tell, yet.


I appreciate the straightforward and relevant example. The one uncheckable fact is the following:

Mayor Willie Brown rode by in the back of his limo.

But of course, it extraneous to the remainder of your story, and is of negligible significance in the determining the reliability of the account.

This statement is readily falsified:

I strolled out to the end of Pier 39, lowered myself over the side and walked across San Francisco Bay to Alcatraz.

It obvious that you're using this as an analogy to your view of the Bible.

So, why then, do you not give serious consideration to scholars who have examined the Bible very closely and attest to it authenticity and reliability?

(Please take a different line that the Mithras comparison, since there you produce no basis for it)

Vanderzyden

Vibr8gKiwi

Yep. The whole tactic is similar to the riddle previously metioned in this thread. There's a lot of misleading handwaving to hide the real accounting for the money.

Van-double-standard also seems to practice the bad habit of ignoring those who actually make good points against his arguments. But at least he's better than most.

Dr S

(V) You know very little about me, and yet presume such things.
(S) Because I've read your writings and those of others like you. You are a "type" a "Christian cliché" and far from unique. You attempt to manipulate and muddle and are never straight forward.

(V) The one uncheckable fact is the following:

Mayor Willie Brown rode by in the back of his limo.
(S) You are making a joke, of course.

(V) This statement is readily falsified:
I strolled out to the end of Pier 39, lowered myself over the side and walked across San Francisco Bay to Alcatraz.
(S) Yes it would be easily falsified if you demanded proof. But if I gave you proof that would take away your free will. Only in ignorance of the facts can a person possess the free will to believe in me or not. You have repeatedly said as much yourself.
So I won't supply you with any proof one way or the other. By your logic that would mean that you have to believe me.

(V) So, why then, do you not give serious consideration to scholars who have examined the Bible very closely and attest to it authenticity and reliability?

(Please take a different line that the Mithras comparison, since there you produce no basis for it)
(S) You've got to be kidding about there being no Mithra comparison. Emperor Julian made it, Justin Martyr made it, the Mithrains made it. It was even one of the main gripes of the Protestant Reformation. This mindless denial is a recent tactic and it contradicts the Early church fathers who said that Satan gave Mithra the Christ story first in order to discredit the true Christ.

Why should I give any consideration at all to "scholars" who claim the NT authentic and reliable and yet are unable to produce any records of Jesus, his Apostles, or anyone even noticing any of the miracles?
-----
Dear Aunt Flavia: I am well, and I hope this note finds you the same. The strangest thing happened last Friday afternoon; the sun went out for hours. At fist I though it was me. You know how many people are being struck blind these days. I was at the market downtown when the earthquake hit. It was a biggie. The Temple Veil was rent in two. Hopefully Normus Abrams can restore it .
When I was by the orange vendor who should I meet but that really nice old Mr Hysterium. He said to tell you that he's sorry to miss Passover supper with you but he had died of the pox last winter and had been buried until about breakfast Sunday. He'll visit you as soon as he can.
Your loving Nephew, Pseudolus

Seems like a stupid letter doesn't it? There are no real letters like this at all. BUT if Mathew is stating fact, how come nobody noticed this
27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

That's some lack of attention to detail that no one noticed that the streets were filled with zombies and the sun went out

Vanderzyden

But this is part of the problem, S. You insist that you have me "pegged". Until you drop the stereotyping, our discussions will be less than productive.


Ah, you can be serious!

So you do admit that Emperor Julian existed. No doubt you will admit the existence of Pericles, as well. But you have a problem with Jesus of Nazareth. A bit puzzling...

Now, upon what reliable authority do you accept their existence?

Hint: I am looking for convincing evidence that is superior in volume and quality to that of the New Testament manuscripts.

Incidentally, why do you quote from the King James?

Vanderzyden

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Dr S

(V) Until you drop the stereotyping, our discussions will be less than productive.
(S) I'll be happy to, if you'll stop behaving as though you were one.

(V) So you do admit that Emperor Julian existed.
(S) Yes, like normal humans-not to mention Emperors-he left behind a great deal of evidence that he was here
(V) No doubt you will admit the existence of Pericles, as well.
(S) I have no idea if Pericles is entirely legendary or not

(V) But you have a problem with Jesus of Nazareth. A bit puzzling...
(S) Why are you puzzled? Jesus left behind no evidence that he was here. Only fictional people do that. You admit that Tarzan is fictional do you not? That Adonis, Heracles and Krishna never existed, don't you? So what is your problem with Jesus? He's a fictional character who does super hero stuff. Always a give away to pulp fiction.
You do know (?) that today's Nazareth isn't Jesus home
town. No one has ever found Nazareth. Not only can't Historic Jesus be proved, Nazareth is up for grabs too.

(V) Now, upon what reliable authority do you accept their existence?
(S) Evidence…physical evidence.

(V) Hint: I am looking for convincing evidence that is superior in volume and quality to that of the New Testament manuscripts.
(S) Hint: The NT isn't evidence at all. It is a claim, not a proof. Just as my silly story about walking across San Francisco Bay is not evidence. And just as the impossible content of my story shows it to be fiction so does the impossible content of the NT. Just as it is not possible for me to walk across water in front of a crowd of thousands without anyone noticing, so it is impossible for the events in the NT to have taken place without the Romans and the Jews taking note.

Please note that most of the bible was canned by the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea to suit the whims of Constantine the Great, devout Mithrain. The Acts of John--the only gospel written in the first person, the only one that states it was written by an actual Apostle says that everyone saw a different person when they looked at Jesus. Some saw a boy, some an old bald man. It also says that Jesus feet never touched the ground but that he walked around a few inches in the air. This book should have more "authority" by your way of thinking. Why don't you subscribe to a gospel whose only reason for being banned was that it didn't appeal to a Pagan Emperor?

(V) Incidentally, why do you quote from the King James?
(S) It is handy, I have it's web site book marked. I do not keep bibles around my home or office. Small children might be about and I wouldn't want them exposed to such hate mongering trash.

Thomas Metcalf

Negative atheists (those who lack belief) have a good reason not to believe, because of a lack of evidence. Positive atheists (those who believe in lack) do not have a good reason to disbelieve if they're going only on pure lack of evidence, unless it can be supported that more likely than not, if God exists it will be reasonable to believe in God. This is a complex question.

As for the possibility that God exists, that depends. Most versions of the god of the apologists are impossible because they have contradictory attributes. If deductive evidential arguments for positive atheism are sound, it is not possible that God exists, because the conclusion of the arguments is indeed deductive.

In sum: There is no good reason to believe in the God of the apologists, and several good reasons to disbelieve in the God of the apologists -- some of them show Him to be impossible.

Vanderzyden

So, you think that executing him like a common criminal isn't taking note. Have you read even one single gospel in its entirety? If so, I find it amazing that you would fail to realize that the Jewish leaders took note of Jesus the minute he became known among the people.

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place.

-- Matthew 12:14-15

First, I would like you to demonstrate your claims about the direct comparisons between Christ and Mithras. Please provide convincing references. Second, the Acts of John would appear to be of the same caliber of the Gospel of Thomas, which contains "secret sayings" that consist primarily in theological embellishments. Such fabrications have all the marks of legendary development which are not to be found in the NT canon.

I do realize the offensiveness of the content of the New Testament, so I don't take this personally--not all. But what strikes me is your realization that you are intentionally being disrespectful and--if you are wrong--blasphemous. Also, In notice that you appear to be concerned with some remnant of "morality" which compels you to protect children. To what moral standard do you subscribe, and what is its basis?

Oh, here is a good link for bible reference:

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible" target="_blank">http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible</a>

Vanderzyden

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Thanks for your reply, Thomas. Comments and questions follow...

Surely you'll agree that people often take a position without examining all the potential types of evidence. Is it not a matter of what is to be considered as convincing evidence?

Sound on what basis? A sound argument is valid and based on premises that are positively know to be true. What positive atheistic argument possesses these qualities.

Also, let me ask you: What attributes of God do you find to greatest opposition? Upon what do evidence do you support your conclusion?

For you, what is the single strongest demonstration that it is impossible that God exists?

Thanks again,

Vanderzyden

wade-w

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Using the Bible to establish the historical existence of Jesus is circular reasoning at its worst! You must present independent documentation if you expect to convince anyone.