Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 6566

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Humanist article emphatically states that all critiques of Christianity made by non-Christian scholars were burned"

No, the Humanist article claims destruction of "all the critiques of Christianity written by prominent non-Christian scholars, such as Porphyry and Celsus"

You don't get to bold certain clauses and leave some out and then claim that's the proper reading.

Honestly, are you for real? Do you think we are not reading the exact same passage as you are and so are able to discern your heavy-handed and amateurish straw-man?
Mykeru: Here's the Humanist magazine quote you quoted and that I have had to requote repeatedly ever since:

"...the church itself had burned all the critiques of Christianity written by prominent non-Christian scholars, such as Porphyry and Celsus"

Thus, as I accurately stated... your article claimed they were "burned" by "the Church," just as I have said all along. What did I leave out?

Yet, another of your "strawmen" bites the dust.

You are truly the most intellectually obtuse person it has been my misfortune to encounter.
@Khemin,

Are you still arguing that the quote from the Humanist claims "all" critiques were burned, rather than "all the critiques of Christianity written by prominent non-Christian scholars, such as Porphyry and Celsus".



In a word, Mykeru ... obviously. Glad you've finally captured the glaringly obvious.

Your Humanist magazine quote states that "all the critiques"... written by "non-Christian scholars"... were burned, which statement is ridiculously without evidence. Thus, rather than unnecessarily repeating the entire quote, I shortened it to "all non-Christian critiques," which I had thought more than sufficient.

Apparently, I overestimated your mental agility, yet again. My bad.
You don't even know what you are arguing anymore, do you?

""the church itself had burned all the critiques of Christianity written by prominent non-Christian scholars, such as Porphyry and Celsus"

Why do you insist on leaving out "such as Porphyry and Celsus"? And declaring the article is referring to "all critiques"

Do you think you can win an argument with style points accrued through being obtuse?
I'm not leaving ANYONE out! They are already included as being among the "non-Christian scholars" indicated in the article's quote!!!

You are making my OWN point, Mykeru... that your article falsely claims that "all critiques" of Christianity made by "non-Christian scholars" (that would logically INCLUDE Porphyry and Celsus!) were supposedly "burned" by "the church"... when there is NO evidence that so indicates that ALL such were!!!

Where's the evidence supporting this one magazine article's statement?!?! As all ACTUAL Biblical scholars state specifically that CELSUS' "True Doctrine" is "lost" ... not "burned"... your article is without evidence and is not supported by the conclusions reached by all other scholars.

Again... WHERE is the evidence that, specifically (here we go again!) Celsus' "True Doctrine" was burned?!?!

Again... you are OBTUSE!!!
@Khemin,

Don't get all bent out of shape. McDowell makes it look so easy to have people you are witnessing to jump through the hoops. Unfortunately, sometimes when you are doing those little apologist card tricks, people don't always pick the cards they are expected to like good little stooges.

I mean, you are getting this whole argument regarding Tacitus from McDowell, aren't you? If not it's the most amazing synchronicity.

You aren't an atheist, are you? From your own profile:

I am a non-theist in that I do not believe in any sort of "God" as defined by any religion or philosophy. In this, I might also be described as agnostic, meaning that I do not claim to have knowledge of any such being.

Likewise, however, neither can I claim to know that there is no form of Creative Force or Entity/Entities out there somewhere, either. In my view, to claim any such knowledge of that which cannot be known... whether theistically or atheistically... is to be, frankly, religiously dogmatic.

For me, at least, I seek truth wherever it is found. To do otherwise is to be just as bigoted and close-minded as the very religious fanatics I despise.


Not an atheist, but a "non-theist", whatever that is. Once you take away the hedging and bullshit, you really are a form of theistic agnostic, aren't you? You certainly don't lack belief in "Creative Force or Entity/Entities". What do those "Creative Force or Entity/Entities" create? Universes? Life? Historical Jesus maybe?
(As no reply is possible to Mykeru's last entry, I'm relegated to posting mine here)

Mykeru -

After you have wasted everyone's time here page after page engaging in either constant logical fallacies (in your case, constant strawman, ad hominem and "begging the question") or deliberately bobbing and weaving away from any of the key issues raised while being entirely unable to provide the required evidences in support of your arguments, and thus, having finally painted yourself into a corner of your own illogical creation and by your own idiocy, the best you can come up with is to desperately try to paint me as some closet Christian trying to "witness"?!?!

That's shockingly similar to how religious zealots in Galileo's time treated him when he presented scientific evidences contrary to their predetermined beliefs; they accused him of being aligned with Satan... just as you accuse me of being aligned with religion.

Is your position so insecure, as also was that of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time, that you must lash out at anyone who dares to point out valid evidences and logically contests challenges thereto? Just because I find Tacitus a valid evidence and argument in favor of same and you are unable to logically contest that position... well then, I must be a theist trying to "witness." Wow! Galileo, as I've mentioned, was treated exactly the same way; they couldn't logically counter his arguments... so they accused him of believing that which they viewed as heretical. And so you are doing likewise with me.

For an atheist, you sure sound like any other religiously orthodox little bigot.
"After you have wasted everyone's time here page after page engaging in either constant logical fallacies (in your case, constant strawman, ad hominem and "begging the question") or deliberately bobbing and weaving away from any of the key issues raised while being entirely unable to provide the required evidences in support of your arguments, and thus, having finally painted yourself into a corner of your own illogical creation and by your own idiocy, the best you can come up with is to desperately try to paint me as some closet Christian trying to "witness"?!?!"

Yeah, you still haven't answered if you are getting your arguments from McDowell.

"For an atheist, you sure sound like any other religiously orthodox little bigot."

Wow, the "atheist fundamentalist" card. I'm devastated.
For one who hasn't been able to be bothered enough to answer on-topic questions throughout your disjointed harangues here, you've got a lot of gall to whine when others fail to answer your completely off-topic questions. However, no matter... to answer you, I have absolutely NO idea who "McDowell" is. Though if his points are similar to mine, small wonder as such points are the natural and logical result of considering all the evidences carefully prior to arriving at a conclusion and thus formulating an opinion based on the facts and evidences available. For those such as yourself, however, who "religiously" form opinions (beliefs) first and then have to live their lives attempting to force evidence to conform to same, I can see how such would be rather problematic.

And finally... just because the evidence would seem to argue for the actual historical existence of Buddha, Mohammed or even Joseph Smith does not mean that to so conclude, one must be either or collectively Buddhist, Moslem and/or Mormon. So also, to weigh all the evidences and conclude that the historical "Yeshua," who is claimed to be the founder of that called Christianity, also existed does not mean that to do so requires that one be either Christian or attempting to "witness" as such.

Your inability to comprehend such simple logic is staggering and I am through attempting to discuss it with you for the same reason as it would be pointless to attempt discussing color with one who is blind. Of course the key difference in that scenario is that, in your case, the blindness is deliberately self-imposed. In fact, the only other similar discussions I have had that have likewise been reciprocated as irrationally and as vitriolically as these with you have been those unfortunately engaged in with ... religious fanatics. Isn't that fascinatingly ironic? I'll have to think on that for awhile.

In any event, as I likewise responded to them, so also do I now bid farewell to you: Enjoy your beliefs!
"I have absolutely NO idea who "McDowell" is"

What an amazing co-incidence then. It's like a chimp accidentally typing Hamlet.

"Your inability to comprehend such simple logic is staggering and I am through attempting to discuss it with you for the same reason as it would be pointless to attempt discussing color with one who is blind."

I like to call this the "Fundie Shuffle". When the true believer doesn't get his way he suddenly has better things to do or decrees, by fiat, that arguing with people who weigh and then reject his sorry excuse for evidence is pointless due to their "close-mindedness".

It never gets old, basically. Works for Apologists, conspiracists and people who think Grey aliens traveled a bazillion light years to probe their anus.

"Of course the key difference in that scenario is that, in your case, the blindness is deliberately self-imposed."

Yes, keep telling yourself that people who are not persuaded by your "evidence" are "blind". Hell, tell yourself that "the fool says in his heart you ain't got shit"

Whatever ad hoc defense mechanism works best for you, sweet pea.
@Khemin.

Josh McDowell is a Christian apologist of the Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalist variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell

His most famous book is "Evidence with demands a verdict". It includes just about every argument known to man which is in favor of the fundamentalist style "god hypothesis", several of which are mutually exclusive.
Thank you, Rosemary. Your description of McDowell only furthers my point that recognizing Tacitus' statements re: "Christus" as valid evidence for the likely historicity of "Jesus" is not at all the same as mirroring McDowell's apologetics in arguing for the existence of a fundamentalist "God."

Just because an apparently Christian apologist has sufficient mental skills to recognize Tacitus as the most legitimate third-party source evidencing for the likelihood of "Jesus" existence as a person does not at all evidence any attempt on my part to argue for "Jesus" as either a "god" or the son of one, as apparently does McDowell.

It is unfortunate that Mykeru is incapable of likewise recognizing the difference.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service