… (deeeeeep breath)… … (heavy panting)… …
3 Likes
There is magic recorded in the Harry Potter books, so your point escapes me? The gospels are unevidenced anonymous hearsay, and that is a fact, no need to check it for yourself, here is a citation:
“The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.”
There would have to be a single corroborating independent source first, before historians could give it due diligence, there are none, you seem determined to avoid addressing that fact. Beyond the scant mention of a crucifixion there is not one contemporary or independent source for the anonymous hearsay claims of the gospels. No archaeological evidence to corroborate anything they claim, and no corroborating contemporary writings.
NB This seems to be falling on deaf ears here so I will reiterate: Since you are the one making a claim by sharing a belief you hold, you, and you alone, are culpable to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for it, you don’t get to dictate that others lower their bar to validate your subjective faith based religious beliefs. Especially since you have refused to even try and explain any objective difference between your superstition and all the others. ON what grounds do you disbelieve in the Legends of Hercules for example? If that’s too easy try the Islamic Jewish or Hindu religions, how about scientology?
Take your pick…but your dishonest reticence on that point, demands an obvious inference.
People can’t rise from the dead after rigor mortis has set in, other than in archaic superstitions of course. Even the most biased apologist would have to note how sharply such resurrections tapered off as scientific rigour took hold. Just like the ever decreasing claims for miracles.
No there aren’t, the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. Not one word was written about Jesus until decades after he is alleged to have died.
No it really doesn’t, but do present it then for authentication, my advice would be to take it direct to the Vatican, I imagine they’ll be pretty chuffed to say the least.
No just apropos, as I’ve explained if I were to believe one piece of unevidenced hearsay from an archaic superstition, then I would have no rational justification for denying all the other such accounts.
Wow, so science doesn’t know anything to be true? I really shouldn’t laugh this hard at my age. IS this going to be another one of those “there are no objective facts” diatribes? What was the guy’s name, oh yes Apollo, he posted here for a while and that was one of his risible claims.
It is a fact, and beliefs can also be facts, they’re not mutually exclusive see. The gospels are anonymous hearsay dated well after the fact, if you have evidence that this is not the case then I’d stop wasting your time here and publish, you’ll be famous.
Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, it is an objective fact that the world is not flat, it is an entirely subjective belief that a deity exists. See two ends of the scale.
Not sure why you are obsessing over Spartacus, as I have made zero claims about him? So you can abandon this poisoning of the well straw man argument you’re brewing.
Woooooooooooosh! You seem determined to miss the point here, is it deliberate?
I think I don’t care, it has zero relevance to your inability to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, or the fact that the gospels are anonymous hearsay, the names assigned, Mathew Mark, Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over three centuries after the earliest known texts, and the earliest of these dates to between AD66-70
Did you want to rubbish radio carbon dating now?
Ok time for a recap as we are getting bogged down in your denials of facts, and losing the larger context, so I will bullet point a synopsis here:
- The earliest copies of the gospels that exist are dated to between AD66-70. So any potential eyewitnesses would be unlikely to have survived long enough, even given a life expectancy in excess of 70 years.
- All of the gospels are unauthored, and therefore anonymous, the names being assigned (subjectively) over three centuries later, by early Christians eager to lend credence and gravitas to their beliefs in the claims contained in the gospel narratives. .
- The gospels by definition are therefor anonymous hearsay.
- No contemporary records exist about Jesus, ipso facto there are no eyewitness accounts, only unsubstantiated hearsay from anonymous authors that make claims for the same.
CONCLUSION
I don’t care if you had an independently corroborated signed affidavit by Pontius Pilate, notarised by Mary and all 12 apostles making claims for a resurrection, with a vial containing Jesus’s DNA. I would still disbelieve the subjective unevidenced claims for a resurrection or supernatural miracles, as they would be unsupported by any objective evidence, and NB such evidence would need to match the extraordinary nature of the claim, as it contradicts scientific facts, in that humans do not and cannot rise from the dead after rigor mortis has set in. This fact is not based on pure assumption, but on compelling objective scientific evidence.
4 Likes
I know, it’s the old poisoning of the well fallacy, if you believe in X you must believe in Y. If anyone made any supernatural claims for Spartacus I’d disbelieve them as well, he is just in denial.
I don’t disbelieve the claims because I am an atheist, as he keeps implying, I am an atheist because I disbelieve the claims, and treat the claims as I treat all other claims. Apart from his ludicrous denials of science and misrepresentations of historians, the main difference is that I am trying to avoid bias in favour of any claims, while he is bending all facts to his a priori religious beliefs, even to the ludicrous point where he is arbitrarily denouncing all scientific knowledge and even the methodology as if it is little more than a guess or subjective assumption.
If we indulge his risible fantasy for the sake of argument, if the entirety of scientific endeavour, and all of the historical method were exposed as useless hokum right now (one wonders what we’d use to do this of course), it would lend not one shred of credence to any religious claims or the existence of any deity, or that anything supernatural is even possible, as they would still remain naught but entirely subjective beliefs, unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence, and he can throw all the semantics around that he wants, any objective reader can see the claim “the earth is not flat” is an objective fact, were as the claim I have fairies at the bottom of my garden is entirely subjective. To pretend all claims somehow exist on a level plane is absurd, asinine even.
2 Likes
Some basics for our scientifically challenged friend:
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
- Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow if the evidence demands.
- Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
- Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
- Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
CITATION
" the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected."
CITATION University of Berkley
3 Likes
This is such an important distinction to which not many pay attention. Thank you for it. With your permission, I’ll likely paraphrase it many times in the future.
5 Likes
By all means, as you say it sometimes gets left unsaid, and is so often misrepresented by apologists struggling to comprehend atheism and atheists.
3 Likes
Why do you say that? do you have evidence to support this claim?
Distraction? I was asked on what basis I regard the NT as a historic record, I then showed that it is as sound as the claim about Spartacus in terms of scant references, lack of eye witnesses and copying and paraphrasing and lack of contemporary sources.
It is you who wants to distract, I wonder why…
No one cares if Spartacus exists or not because a religion that threatens eternal damnation does not revolve around him.
What does “independent source” mean to you? The writers for the Gospels are known to not all be the same person, this is undoubted by scholars. In the case of Spartacus there are less sources.
So now you want “archaeological evidence”? In which case we must reject the claims about Spartacus
The claim “X can never happen” is a belief it is unprovable. Perhaps this stems from you other (mistaken) belief that science is all about “facts”, one need look no further than Newton to see how unwise that line of thinking is. So you make the claim based on assumptions, you are (rightly) skeptical but to the point of being dogmatic, illogical.
Very well in which case there are no contemporary accounts of Spartacus given the oldest surviving source fragments date from the 2nd century at the earlies.
Regarding anonymity, what would it mean if the manuscript was signed? would you announce your identify if doing so might mean you and your family become persecuted? This obsession with “anonymity” is silly, it is meaningless, unless you have DNA or fingerprint evidence you can never know who wrote what from material that originates in antiquity.
The fact is that you will refuse to accept the Gospels as an account of actual events no matter what evidence exists. There is no evidence even in principle that could ever convince you because that standard of evidence is intentionally defined to always exclude the possibility of the accounts being historic.
Contrast that with the untold multitude of things you do believe and will defend that also cannot meet this same standard.
.
FFS, the citation you provided indicates that those names were not used then, and instead grew out of other names. Do you now not trust that citation? Or, are you just fucking with me? Ahhhh….that’s it! You are playing gotcha! Now I understand.
6 Likes
Ahh the composure now starts to fade, expletives begin to rear their ugly head. Are you saying you can prove that the sound “John” as we say that in English did not exist back then? Are you saying the English spelling did not exist?
What exactly are you trying to say here!
The Gospels (IMHO) do not threaten eternal damnation, you’re discussing religion, which is some interpretation of them, there are many interpretations of the Gospels.
Judging the Gospels by those who claim to follow its teachings is a huge mistake, forget religion, focus on the text and the historic context. Jesus challenged prevailing religious orthodoxy at every turn.
Do you accept Injil of the Qur’an and the accounts in it as historical? 
Quit with the bullshit. We both know you’re discussing religion. You can’t lie to me.
If you want to label this as “religion” because that makes it easier for you to attack me and label me a liar in public then do so, it matters not to me.
I’m going to copy a tact someone else has used in these threads and not answer your questions. I copy this method (of yours) mostly because I think you’re deflecting and I consider that cheap.
I will, however, say with as much emphasis as can be mustered given the nature of written language: expletives, particularly the word fuck, is not ugly! I find it colorful, useful, descriptive…a thing of beauty.
2 Likes
Want? No, it’s a fact.
No one makes you a liar. You do that to yourself.
Sounds like another lie. You’re pretty quick to defend yourself on here so it must actually matter to you.
No you didn’t, but more alarmingly is that you think this justifies labelling anonymous hearsay as historical fact. Bear in mind it was you who brought Spartacus into this, no one else made any claims, it seems you’re presenting a straw man as some sort of false dichotomy. To my knowledge, which admittedly is scant, do any credible historians make any claims for magic or supernatural events based on the historical data for Spartacus? You may want to pretend these are comparable claims but they quite clearly are not.
I doubt anyone here cares if Spartacus existed or not, except you of course for some bizarre reason?
Which word is tripping you up?
No it isn’t, again they are anonymous, and there is evidence that some (at least in part) plagiarised others. None of it is independent obviously, all the gospels were written by people trying to peddle the same beliefs.
Nope, couldn’t care one way or the other. It was offered as another criteria for the historical methods of validation that the gospel stories fail to satisfy, it seems you are resorting to dishonest deflection now more and more, rather than admit your claim for historic validity is woefully wrong. I am more and more curious about your dubious claim to be “scientifically trained”. If you are then you certainly don’t appear to be applying any sort of scientific rigour here.
Dear oh dear beliefs are not mutually exclusive with facts and evidence, how many times?
Science doesn’t involve facts? So science doesn’t know anything to be true? Like Cyber I’m curious where you were trained as a scientist, and in what field. Science has many irrefutable facts, however I have never claimed these are immutable, I leave the silly absolutes to you. One of the methods of science’s greatest strengths is that all ideas remain tentative in light of new evidence, this includes things that are currently irrefutable facts. That doesn’t mean you can just wave such facts away as if they are of no consequence. A trained scientist would surely know this as well.
I still don’t care whether Spartacus was real or not, why is this not sinking in? Your straw man is meaningless. Do you have the integrity to accept the gospels are anonymous and ipso facto that they are hearsay accounts, and that the earliest examples we have date to many decades after the events they purport to describe, and since there are no known contemporary texts there are no eyewitness accounts?
Why they weren’t signed is not relevant to your claim they are historically accurate, or your denial they are anonymous hearsay. The anonymity is a major barrier to the historical methods that would validate such a claim, these criteria were posted at the very start of this discourse. So no, it’s neither silly nor an obsession, and I didn’t create the historical method.
FYI I already said I don’t care if you had a signed affidavit from Pontius Pilate, notarised by Mary and all the disciples for an unexplained empty tomb, with two befuddled Roman guards outside. As it would still be risible to suggest an inexplicable event “evidences” supernatural magic. You are setting the bar for belief so low, that one could literally believe anything anyone claimed.
Nope, that is not a fact, just your biased subjective belief. However I won’t lower my bar for credulity to accept unsubstantiated unevidenced hearsay as sufficient to believe in supernatural events that no one has demonstrated are even possible, and which are contradicted by scientific facts, just because my incredulity offends anyone’s religious sensibilities.
I tire of repeating myself, but why do you think my bar for credulity must match the woefully low and biased one you are happy to accept? Try and remember you are the one applying a different standard for belief here, not me. Or are you now ready to demonstrate some objective difference between your religion and all the others? Something more than anecdotal hearsay or subjective personal experience that can’t be validated in any objective way?
Oh dear, quote a belief I have claimed to hold without sufficient objective evidence? This lie won’t gain traction from repetition, but even were this not a risible lie, it still wouldn’t give your theistic belief any credence would it, obviously?
Your rationale in a nutshell is “other people believe what they want, so mine belief is valid.” Not a very compelling argument.
You’re kidding right, that’s what I’ve been doing for page after page of your histrionics and sulking?
Allegedly, since all you have to support that claim is anonymous hearsay see. If we focus on the text and the historic context as you suggest. They are also derived from what is by any objective standard an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, again focusing on the historical context.
To be clear, are you saying the gospels are not part of any religion? Do behave…Theism is a religious belief, the gospels are the basis for a religious belief, he’s right, and you are being very dishonest.
Bravo, I applaud you, and I fucking love that, I wish more people would see the virtue in the occasional use of vituperation.
1 Like
Whaaaa??? All fucking forms of language expression is used on this forum. The mod doesn’t fucking take offence to word choice BUT you can bet your ass “the BITCH” (thanks @mr.macabre13 (lest I ever forget 
) does find using FFS 
less “grown up” than For Fuck’s Sake.