Nailed it, and I’d bet my house on the evidence of his posts, that were you to have offered an example he’d have ignored it, or resorted to hand waving…This latest display just looks like more obfuscation, and the more his rhetoric is questioned, the more imaginary slights he seems to focus (exclusively) on.
2 Likes
Oh very Humpty Dumpty. Congratulations!! you win this months Amorphous Response prize…but I cant quite describe where you get it or what it is…not at your best here @Sherlock…
4 Likes
jesus fucking christ
Both examples are of USA 
politics (MTG vomit) and cronyism 
I wish this were a Democratic board (it isn’t) it’s a shared matriarch dictatorship.
3 Likes
So this leaped out at me, since we get this a lot from theists who like @Sherlock-Holmes want to claim that atheists disbelieve their claims because they are atheists. When of course the truth, as borne out by the responses to those claims on here, is that generally people are atheists because they don’t find the arguments at all compelling,
Of course this dishonest cart before the horse routine is nothing new, and obviously the dishonesty of it is manifest in that these apologists are not arguing against atheism per se as they pretend, but only against the disbelief in the one deity that they imagine is real, from countless thousands. @Sherlock-Holmes disbelieves in all the same deities any atheist does, but for one, and yet his arguments if anyone cares to click on his profile and go back to his first posts are generic, and could as easily be applied to any of the countless other deities he disbelieves are real, so how can he rationally assert those arguments are both compelling evidence for a deity, then discard all those other countless thousands of deities?
The fact that @Sherlock-Holmes was very reluctant to discuss which deity he actually imagines is real, reinforces how dishonest this tactic is of course, Whenever a theist comes here they expend enormous energy on a tactic they favour or parroting apologetics that are currently in vogue, like the irrational ones used to try and reverse the burden of proof their claim incurs. Paradoxically how often do we see apologists come here and start in their very first post with the most compelling reason they think they have for any deity?
We see a lot of thread titles with hubristic claims of course, but usually they waffle on for weeks or months with dishonest apologetics before they get around to demonstrating what they think is actually their best evidence, and then when it turns out to be no more compelling than the subjective anecdotal hearsay other religions employ it is always those who are not convinced that are blamed. In @Sherlock-Holmes case, of course, he created a poisoning of the well fallacy almost from the very first, using a risible no true Scotsman fallacy, that created a subgroup of people who are unable to properly assess claims or what he calls evidence for any deity, and guess who the sole occupants of that group are? That’s right, it is occupied only by anyone who does not believe in any deity, so laughable and irrational an argument you wonder that anyone would use it unabashed.
So unlike the atheists who examined his arguments and claims presented, and carefully submit them to critical scrutiny, he simply dismisses all objections a priori, then goes through the sham of pretending to debate the responses afterward, with his “trump card” tucked neatly up his sleeve to use when he gets no traction for his claims.
3 Likes
Exploring the authenticity of the New Testament narratives, it’s intriguing to see how historical references are intertwined with the stories of Christ. However, the lack of contemporary corroborative evidence outside the biblical texts raises critical questions about the factual basis of these accounts.
(Promotional text removed by mod.)
I have a lot to say about this.
I believe that Jesus existed, and that he was avery early reformed rabbi . . . or, possibly, a traveling rabbi who visited India and was exposed to Buddhism . . . as Buddhist graves (which predate the New Testament) with the Dharma wheel have been found in Greece.
But–just because Jesus may have existed–doesn’t mean that any of the supernatural stories of the New Testament ever happened.
I can actually offer a real story and real experiences (from modern times) which can show where the supernatural aspects of the N.T. came from.
I am originally from New York, and in the town of Amityville on Long Island’s south shore, a family was supposedly driven out of a home–about 28 days after moving in–by evil spirits and demons. This house was the site of a multiple murder in 1975 when a disturbed, mentally ill young man shot his family members while they were sleeping, and the family that moved in 18 months after this event was driven out by spirits and demons.
The book based on these happenings became an overnight best seller, there were–literally–more than 45 movies based on this story, and the town became (much to the considerable annoyance of the other residents) a mecca for Satanists, mediums, and self-styled exorcists.
I was about 11 years old at the time, and my mother drove me past the house several times so that I could gawk, look with binoculars, and satisfy my youthful curiosity . . . as we lived in Rockville Centre, which was only about 25 minutes away from Amityville.
It has been almost 50 years since the events described in the book, and the story has mutated, changed, been added-to, and so forth.
And here’s the kicker: It was all bullshit!
The whole scheme was dreamed up by the family, an attorney, and a local real estate agent “Over several bottles of wine.”
It was a cynical act motivated by money, and the populace fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
I believe that the Amityville Horror has a lot to say about the New Testament, as we have supernatural events crafted from a horrible tragedy that took off and grew. This happened in modern times in an era of widespread education and modern technology.
Why should the N.T. be any different?
1 Like
Do you mean “Exploring the lack of authenticity of the new testament narratives”? Why even waste the time exploring the historical references? I mean personally I would rather explore the historical references of Godzilla then. It’s much more interesting to me, and as believable as the bible.
4 Likes
The habitually repeated mundane presentation of inane narratives favoring the position of atheists paired with advertising should probably raise an eyebrow or two, a unibrow, or at least a question.mark. (Captian Obvious Strikes Again.)
5 Likes
What authenticity, please be specific?
What historical references, please be specific, and why do you find it intriguing, please be specific.
Indeed, plus the fact it is anonymous secondhand (at best) hearsay, dated at least 60 to 70 years after the events they purport to describe, and of course the claims are for magic and the supernatural, from an epoch of extreme ignorance of the natural world.
Putting it as simply as I know how, I need a reason to believe something, I already lack belief in every single claim until I am presented with it for the first time, and can start to subject it to critical scrutiny, as do we all since we cannot do otherwise.
Indeed, and why should it’s claims and assertions be treated any differently to any others, like the Legends of Hercules for example? The usual excuse from apologists is that things intended to be fictional are not the same, but intent is irrelevant clearly, else they’d have to believe in every single deity ever imagined to be real.
3 Likes