I told him those were fruit flies and no relations of mine. Butt monkeys don’t have antenni, and they smell like bananas. (The good kind of banana, not the one you are imagining.)
1 Like
Hmmm, obviously there’s some deflection/distraction obfuscatory shenanigans
at play here…I found three pairs of stick-on antennae the next morning…
.
.
Edit (Everybody’s clean and it can’t happen here)
Don’t change the subject. No one cares what you found after the fact. You can’t possibly tie two totally unrelated events together. That’s nothing but baseless birdbrain conspiracy thinking.
Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.
Yeah! I know what you mean. “People” can be that way. They sure are strange.
Yeah, thanks so much…now I have an old Doors song stuck in my head…
“streets are uneven, when you’re down”
1 Like
I just showed you that the view that Christ was a myth is regarded as fringe by scholars, clearly that doesn’t matter to you.
Note: “Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.” - that is to say they do not think he didn’t exist, as you do.
That right there is an intolerant and dogmatic statement - you prove my point, thank you.
It is ever present. Claim like Dawkins’ that belief in God must be a delusion or the only rational explanations are scientific explanations or that the New Testament cannot be trusted and so on, these are all dogma and in that sense atheism today has much in common with catholicism in Galileo’s time.
If you would like to hear more on this then this is a very good talk, whether you agree with Berlinski or not his talk is historically very interesting.
No I don’t, because anyone reading my post HONESTLY instead of fucking quote mining it as you’ve done, will see the REASONS I presented why your assertion is yet more dishonest mythology fanboy lies, lies you’ve doubled down on by your mendacious quote mining.
You really do stoop low, don’t you?
2 Likes
Though you do seem keen yourself to avoid addressing the fact that the existence of a Jewish preacher with a common enough name doesn’t remotely evidence he would have been anything but human of course.
Factual and correct might be another way to view it, since you’ve failed to offer a single example of atheist dogma. Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it does? I mean remember you taking exception to the gospels being described as myths, but then moving quietly on without explanation when the definition of myth was offered.
And once again you are conflating a possible man character named Jesus with a divine being named Christ. More of your “interpretation” nonsense will follow.
I see you declined to emphasize the difference between your reference to Christ and the article’s reference to Jesus, indicating once again your unwillingness to embrace an honest approach.
If you continue to insist that the claim of a man named Jesus existed is the same as claiming that a magic being existed (or possessed the body of aforementioned man), named Christ, then I have no choice but to regard you as dishonest.
You stated “Christ”. The article you misquoted stated “Jesus”.
I see you left out this portion from your misquote:
“Only two key events of Jesus’s life are widely accepted as historical, namely his baptism and [crucifixion]”(Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia), while other elements (e.g. his alleged miracles) are subject to debate
Also, stop misrepresenting. I never stated that I think he didn’t exist. I stated:
“for the supernatural nonsense called Christ, I will decline from believing this fairy tale.”
I am beginning to understand why others have accused you of lying or being dishonest.
This shit is unnecessary. If you you choose to interpret things in a manner that fails to comport with reality, well that is your choice. To try to convince others to join you in your journey to the land of self delusion and self-aggrandizement is just pathetic.
1 Like
A belief in something unproven, unevidenced within the reality we all share, isn’t at the very least slightly dillusional?
Interesting take.
I would counter that scientific answers offer the best chance of being testable, evidenced and in accordance with reality.
I don’t think that true and i don’t think all athiests would agree… historically there is some accuracies for instance… pontius pilot we know was real, so there is some factual material to be taken in.
However, claims of miracles are not substantiated, so some points have merit, others are that of fantasy and wishful thinking.
1 Like
Be clear then, if you accept that Jesus did exist say that, do you accept he existed? I understand you want to be selective with the historical record, but just which parts of the record do you accept and which don’t you? why accept any of it?
Yes it would indeed, but we’re not talking about such a thing. There is evidence, you cannot confuse your inability to perceive evidence with there being no evidence. I do not hold beliefs without evidence, justification, a sound basis.
Well clearly it is not emirpircal, demonstrable or testable.
So im assuming you’re referring to the super natural, immaterial etc… ?
Despite your duplicitous and smarmy comments I will answer your question. (Something rather foreign to you apparently) I accept that the historicity of Jesus is widely accepted. Whether or not I accept that he existed is irrelevant to your fatuous claims of a supernatural being.
Thanks for ignoring my points btw.
As to wanting to be “selective with the historical record”, there is no fucking way you could have typed that without laughing, considering your quote mining and such! Your rhetoric is nearly as overbearing as your arrogance and smugness…but, that’s just my “interpretation”…
Where did your deity come from?
Hmmm???
1 Like
Oh the sheer unadulterated irony…
Ahahahahhha 
, uh…oh oh fuck it…irony overload… 
2 Likes