Oh! Now you won’t even talk to me? I’m that stupid? Really? You’re telling me that I’m so stooooopid you won’t even waste your breath on me?
Pfff. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
I’m hurt 
sad 
and forlorn.
Well as i said I am inclined to be dubious that @WhoAreYou is seeking debate, since he keeps making the same claims over and over, while ignoring many of the responses, if he has time to peddle superstition then he has time to answer valid objections to it.
This was a hypothetical I wrote, and @WhoAreYou responded with a string of irrelevant and unevidenced claims about Jesus. So I am asking @WhoAreYou if he has read and understood this hypothetical argument, and if so does he disagree with the rationale, and if so, why?
Also several posters have pointed out that the biblical stories about Jesus are unevidenced hearsay, and that no one has any objective evidence of anything he is alleged to have said or done, yet @WhoAreYou keeps making those claims as if they are accepted facts, and not unevidenced subjective beliefs. Matthew Mark Luke and John are fictional names assigned arbitrarily over three centuries later, the gospels are all anonymous unauthored narratives, and date decades after Jesus is supposed to have died. Not one word was written about Jesus during his lifetime, so the claims for eyewitnesses accounts are just unevidenced hearsay. Worse still this weakest of all possible evidence is for the most extraordinary of all claims. So even a real eyewitness from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition, claiming to have seen someone perform inexplicable magic would be meaningless anyway. Since if one accepted this, they’d have lowered the bar for credulity where there is no rational justification for not believing all such claims, as to do so would be biased and therefore closed minded, to believe them all would inevitably be contradictory and therefore irrational. A third choice is to withhold belief from all such claims, which is neither biased nor irrational, and that is therefor my position.
So @WhoAreYou, what is your criteria for disbelieving all unevidenced hearsay claims, especially since you are accepting them in the gospel stories?
3 Likes
What is good evidence?
As it stands, in court you can use direct or indirect evidence to make your case for even a murder. Direct evidence would be eyewitnesses and indirect evidence is circumstantial evidence so essentially anything else other than eyewitnesses. And neither direct nor indirect is more credible or reliable than the other. They are of equal weight in a case. Another thing about circumstantial evidence is that it needs to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is all true when successfully prosecuting in court so nothing far fetched.
Another thing about evidence is that we all come with biases so we have to be cognizant that evidnece may lead us places that go against our biases but we can only follow where it leads us if we have an open mind.
Truth is always feasible, normally straightforward, exhaustively explains evidence and logical.
Abductive reasoning needs to be used when putting a case together.
And as a whole all pieces of evidence make a reasonable case not a possible case, because anything is possible.
So with that said let’s list the evidence we have:
The universe has a beginning
The universe seems to be designed examples: anthropic principle and information in genome,
Everyone has morals
Flood stories all over the world with overlapping details: rainbow, raven, few only saved, animals saved, on raft, men became corrupt, deity or higher power upset at mankind
Major religions have overlapping believes only Christ has them all, which is reasonable to say people were over time expecting Christ.
Major religions include Christ in their belief system, see Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, New Ageism, Bahá’ís.
Christ doesn’t include any other belief system into his teachings
Christ was born before the Temple was destroyed as prophecied
Christ was born during Pax Romana so all religions were accepted
Christ was born after roads were built by Romans so disciples could walk and spread gospel
Christ was born after Etruscan was common language and thus Koine Greek so as to spread the gospel versus Hebrew which wasn’t common
Christ was born after postal service was invented
This puts the window of perfect timing at 29BC-70AD
Most Scholars agree that the crucifixion of Christ occurred
Looking at writings soon after Christ we can reasonably say the gospel we call Mark is 45 AD
This is due to the fact that the book of Acts doesn’t mention the destruction of the temple (70AD), the death of Paul (64-67AD), the death of James (61AD) or Peter. Side note if the book of Acts was false why wouldn’t it include the destruction of the temple since Christ had predicted its destruction wouldn’t it make Christ look good see Matthew 23. Actually for that matter its not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.
In 1 Timothy 5:17-18, (63-64AD) the author is quoting Deuteronomy and Jesus found in Luke 10:6-7, claiming its scripture. So it has to exist for some time before people are quoting it as scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (53-57AD) the author, who is Paul, tells the church of Corinth to eat of the bread and drink of the cup and quotes Jesus to “do this in remembrance of me.” This phrase “in remembrance of me” is only found in Luke.
In Luke 1:1-4 Luke says he is writing an orderly account account (sequentially) so that means there’s an account out there that is not sequential that’s used by Luke. And Luke quotes Mark more than anything else.
So that puts Mark 10-15 years after the events.
The gospels were handed down a chain of custody to the council of Laodicea 363 AD
Christ followers were catalysts of many aspects our top 15 universities in the world, science, arts etc.
the question still stands with all the world’s population why were Christ followers catalysts?
Why are so many still interested (whether in a friendly or unfriendly manner) in this poor humble guy who had now government power, from a little nowhere town, owned no home, didn’t travel far had a modest vocation?
Is it reasonable to say Christ was who he said he was?
Why did people who were unfriendly with Christ write about his crucifxion and death? (Thallus, Tacitus, Mara bar Serapion, Phlegonand)
All these things and much more point to Christ. It is reasonable to say these things add up as good evidence for Christ.
I have asked you repeatedly and for many weeks, if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, you have ignored this question, think how that looks.
When you present some evidence for your claims I will assess it, it is preposterous to ask me what you should present for a belief you hold that I do not.
Firstly eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and secondly and more importantly courts of law are not making claims for magic and the supernatural, which we have no evidence is even possible.
No, the universe in the form we perceive it has a point of origin, since time is a characteristic of the physical universe and time is necessary for something to begin, the word is something of a misnomer here. I also don’t see how this remotely evidences any deity?
Seems to be? This is unevidenced and subjective assertion, we infer design from objective evidence, and there is no objective evidence of design in nature. Even were this not the case, a designer does not necessarily infer a deity, let alone a specific deity from a specific religion, you have presented precisely nothing that evidences any deity here? What about the human genome, we know humans like all living things evolved slowly over time, there is overwhelming objective evidence to support this fact, but even if we had no explanation, how does the human genome remotely evidence any deity, you’re being very cryptic here, is it deliberate?
So what? The existence of morality is amply explained by the scientific theory of evolution, all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups would necessarily need to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours and actions, but even if we had no explanation I fail to see how subjective morality evidences any deity? Again your claim is very cryptic, be precise about what it is you’re asserting, and how you think it represents evidence of any deity.
Flood myths abound, so what. The objective evidence of the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood like the one described in the Noah flood myth, has ever occurred, and again even if this were not so, how would this myth objectively evidence any deity?
I skipped a long list of unevidenced claims here, as claims are not evidence, so I will only restate again here, that the gospels are anonymous hearsay, your unevidenced assertions about them won’t change the fact they are not contemporary accounts nor were any of them authored. They contain unevidenced claims, not objective evidence. Why you fail to understand the difference between an unevidenced calima and objective evidence is baffling? Are the Legends of Hercules evidence for the claims they make? How about Harry Potter books, do the claims in them represent evidence for magic?
That is not evidence, it is an obvious appeal to mystery, how can you invoke logic and then go on to use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy like this? Especially since this logical fallacy has been explained to you more than once?
Not without any objective evidence, and so far you haven’t any?
Why would I care, since this is not objective evidence for anything he is claimed to have said and done, clearly. Even if we accept the scant evidence that the crucifixion took place, it again gets a resounding so what?
All those things are unevidenced assertions, irrational appeals to mystery, or unevidenced hearsay, and not one shred of objective evidence to support them, beyond perhaps a man with a fairly common name, being executed in a pretty common fashion for the period.
If there is much more then present it, but I suspect you know it is simply more of the same unevidenced assertions, and dubious subjective conclusions that you’re offering here.
There is not one shred of objective evidence in your post for any deity, or that if he existed Jesus was anything but human, so no I don’t believe your claim is reasonable, especially as your appeals to mystery are by definition illogical, and your use of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies explained. Here is an example of the fallacy, which tries to assert something is true because it has not been disproved or that implies something is true because there is no alternative. (Note this also involves a type of false dichotomy fallacy)
“Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument From Ignorance): concluding that something is true since you can’t prove it is false. For example “God must exist, since no one can demonstrate that she does not exist.””
So your answer clearly is no then, you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity. Else you’d have demonstrated some by now.
That does not mean (from nothing). It does not mean a magical cause as opposed to a natural cause.
Seeming designed does not mean designed. We contrast designed with naturally occurring, A building is designed, and a snowflake is naturally occurring. What would a non-designed thing resemble? How would you know anything was designed or not without somethig to compare it with?
Not true at all. We have a loong history of killing those among us without morals. We banished them from the tribes, locked them away. And basically treated them the way Christians treated non-believers. We culled those without morality from our ranks.and we did it for our survival. Morality is an evolutionary trait that we encouraged in our species.
Um DUH! People built cities near water. How obvious is this. We need water to survive. Of course there are flood stories. This is a fucking no brainer.,
Christ does not have them all. Turtles all the way down is not a Biblical story. There are hundreds of creation myths not included in the bible.
You obviously have not read your Bible. Start with the First Commandment. “Thou Shalt Not Have Any Other Gods Before Me.” The inclusion of other gods is in the first commandment. How many other gods are mentioned in your bible? 1 Corinthians 8. There are many gods and many lords —(To us there is one god.). Acknowledgment of other gods is in the bible! LIST OF DEITIES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible - Wikipedia
This shit is just really boring---- Can you give ONE FACT ONE SPECIFIC PIECE OF EVIDENCE, JUST ONE Your very best piece of evidence. The gem in your collection. That actually demonstrates Jesus was real. Anything at all contemporary to his life? Anything? That is not just an unevidenced claim? Do you have anything?
Please explain why this should not be regarded as word confetti.
“anything is possible”?? Really? Do you have a method for demonstrating such a claim? Possibility is not automatic, it too must be shown to follow rules of logic, rationality, reasonableness, etc… any “explanation” has to be demonstrated to even be a candidate explanation. Do you understand this? Are you capable of understanding this?
Despite the honest efforts of several here to persuade you to at least attempt to answer direct relevant questions, you have persisted in a Gish gallop of nonsensical, speculative, irrelevant, unsupported assertions with no evidentiary basis whatsoever. So I will ask you once again, what is the single most convincing example of what any reasonable person could be expected to regard as persuasive evidence of the existence of any (your choice) deity?
I am not holding any hope that you will change your tactics and somehow abandon your fatuous onslaught of verbal excrement. It is clear that your approach is not motivated by a fealty to facts or truth.
Keep it up. You are doing an exemplary job of dismantling your own argument(s).
Edit to talk to the wind
Wow! There sure were a lot of assumptions, @WhoAreYou, in your list of evidence!
And, you repeated that most historians say your Jesus existed but you still haven’t provided a source for how you determined that most actually do.
Folks have had evidence that:
Dragons exist
Fairies are live in gardens
The earth is flat
Witches are real (and evil)
Boys can be born from peaches
There are monsters in Loch Ness and Lake Champlain
Bigfoot lives in forests and Yeti lives on glaciers
We have been visited from outer space
Need I go on?
Do you have evidence? Sure. The question is whether it’s reliable.
Ever watch Judge Judy? She uses the lowest form of evidence (civil) for court claims. I tend to use the same standards for all claims. Here you are using a higher standard. Criminal prosecution. Direct evidence, as in the case of eyewitnesses requires cross-examination. The defense has the right to question the witnesses. Establishing identity, DNA, fingerprints, forensic scientific evidences. The “circumstantial” evidence or indirect is motive, mental state, etc (for the degrees eg. manslaughter vs 1st degree)
https://mydefence.ca/lawnewbie/evidence/direct-evidence/ extremely simple explanation
As do the other forms of reasoning.
Inductive vs. Deductive vs. Abductive Reasoning | Merriam-Webster.
The Prosecutor is making the claim and has the burden of evidencing the claim against the defendant (and the defendant can make appeals should new evidence arise that may establish his claim of innocence after being found guilty eg. DNA)
With all the above said… which claim are you first arriving with?
This is based on the “Big Bang” which cosmological science has established through evidence. (Big Bang - Wikipedia)
The known, observable universe had a beginning. 
YOUR next claim
See the word “seem”? You just through that in to connect to this next word “designed”. That isn’t evidenced.
The word designed is an adjective (planned or conceived in detail or for a specific purpose. Eg"the aircraft performed its designed functions well"
Also: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive.)
I do not accept the premise because this is an unevidenced claim.
1 Like
I’m guessing that statement is false.
1 Like
Subjective.
Expand this 
as this hardly passes as even an assertion.
Flooding has happened throughout earth’s history (pre homo-sapien as well). If dinosaurs could record their events sigh
Hunting also happened and was recorded.
The oldest flood myth is Gilgamesh (Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia ) middle-east
Human explanation for weather events. Unless of course Thor actually exists as written because thunder, lightening and storms occur?
Non evidenced claim; weak premise.
2 Likes
I’m betting you don’t understand even as rhetoric, how hilariously wrong that claim is? The possibility of something is determined by objective evidence, and the objective evidence demonstrates it is impossible for the world to be flat, or at the centre of the universe, you obviously disagree if you think anything is possible? Or perhaps you think things can be simultaneously possible and impossible? In which case you need to Google the Law of Non-Contradiction.
if you insist any of the claims for supernatural magic in the gospels are possible, then you must demonstrate some objective evidence to support this claim, if you cannot do this, then you cannot rationally assert they are possible. The trivial claims have no real significance that I can see until the larger ones are properly evidenced as possible, that adeity exists or can exist, and that the supernatural exists or can exist. The rest seems to be just coloured bubbles.
NB FYI, note one need not claim these are impossible, in order to disbelieve your claim that they are possible.
2 Likes
I see the in tray is full again …
I seem to recall providing you with an example from a mathematics textbook. Along with an exposition on how much work you need to complete, if you want whatever nebulous alternative to observational data or formal deduction to be accepted as a reliable means of segregating postulates. Did you READ any of that exposition?
Do you know the difference between the two? Only a substantive answer to this will be progress of a sort we’ve never seen from you before.
Except that modern developed jurisdictions recognise that eyewitnesses are frequently unreliable. Which is why courts in said jurisdictions place far heavier reliance upon such items as CCTV/dashcam footage, or the findings of forensic science, such as a DNA test.
Poppycock. See my previous sentences above.
Again, poppycock. See above.
Again, poppycock. If individual A is accused of raping a 12 year old girl, but the DNA test reveals that the sperm did NOT belong to individual A, it’s game over for the prosecution.
You mean, like the example I’ve just provided?
Except that your exposition on the matter is already riddled with elementary errors.
Oh look, it’s the warm-up for the “waaah, you’re biased” whinge we see so often from mythology fanboys.
In case you never learned this, a “bias” in favour of reality over made up shit is not merely legitimate, but a requirement for proper critical thinking. No surprise to see a mytholgoy fanboy try to squirm out of this.
The irony of seeing you post this is not lost on me, or anyone else here.
I can tell you never spent any time in a pure mathematics class.
Oh wait, heard of Fermat’s Last Theorem, have you? Which was first postulated way back in 1637 by Pierre de Fermat?
Except that, oops, we had to wait until 1995 for that theorem to be proven. It took 358 years to alight upon that particular “truth”, and that’s in a discipline within which we have a recognised gold standard for segregating propositions. Indeed, Andrew Wiles, the mathematician who finally proved Fermat’s Last Theorem, had to invoke entire new branches of pure mathematics that did not exist in Fermat’s day, in order to prove the result. He had to integrate the theory of elliptic curves and the theory of modular forms, both of which are essentially 20th century developments, and solve a conjecture known as the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture along the way, this now being known as the Modularity Theorem after Wiles’ successful proof thereof.
Indeed, there are outstanding problems in pure mathematics that have proven so intractable, that they now attract a million dollar prize for solutions. Such as the Riemann Hypothesis, about the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function, or whether or not there exists a closed-form analytical solution to the Navier-Stokes Equations, which is of interest to both Boeing and Airbus Industries, as those equations are an integral part of aerofoil design. A closed form solution for those equations will save those two companies about $100 million per year each, in terms of the cost of running numerical simulations on exaflop supercomputers.
Now the fun part is, that each of these problems I’ve covered above has a simple definition, at least symbolically. Yet one took over 350 years to solve, and the other two are still defeating the best efforts of world class mathematicians.
The astute here will also be aware that I mentioned pure mathematics, for one very good reason. Namely, propositions in pure mathematics are now recognised to be “true” in relation to the foundational axioms leading to those propositions. So, for example, a theorem about the behaviour of groups only makes sense with respect to objects that obey the axioms of group theory, likewise for rings, fields, vector spaces, manifolds etc. Though if you want a really high level of abstraction, you move to Category Theory, which attempts to define relations between all the other entities and their axioms.
So even in the realm of pure mathematics, the idea of “absolute truth” died a death some time ago.
Moving on …
Er, not always. If we have data pointing to a definitive conclusion, and that conclusion is other than the simplest conclusion, then abductive reasoning does not apply. So already, your apologetics is falling apart like that cheap submersible in the Atlantic.
Poppycock.
We know of entities that cannot exist, because their existence violates the known laws of physics. A planet with a radius of a million kilometres is impossible, because gravity will collapse it to the point where it turns into a star, as the pressure and temperature at the core reaches the values required to ignite nuclear fusion.
Once again, you need to learn some FACTS.
Since you failed to present a plausible apologetic case for your infantile version of “evidence”, what follows will almost certainly be superfluous to requirements, but let’s indulge you anyway and see what absurdity materialises …
Correction, the universe in its current form had a “beginning”. What occurred prior to this is the subject of active research in cosmological physics, and I’ve already provided an extended exposition of one example of that research, along with some of its implications for the “god question”. An exposition that [1] you either haven’t read, or [2] will summarily dismiss and hand-wave away with mendacious apologetic fabrications if you ever do read it.
No, this is an illusion. Oh wait, scientists have provided supertanker loads of evidence, to the effect that the only “designer” that exists is testable natural processes. How many peer reviewed scientific papers from the relevant bodies of literature have I brought here to this effect?
The anthropic principle has it backwards. We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions took place. But we’re used to seeing Douglas Adams’ Puddle thinking from mythology fanboys here.
Oh, and if you’re going to raise the usual tiresome creationist canards about “information”, I’ve already dealt with those at length.
Except mythology fanboys gatecrashing atheist websites it seems …
Oh wait, once again, I’ve provided an extensive exposition, covering the evolutionary and biological basis of ethics, along with yet more peer reviewed scientific papers documenting the evidence for this, including direct experimental tests of relevant postulates.
Which surprises no one familiar with the tendency of early humans, to build settlements alongside fertile river banks or sea coasts offering bountiful fishing. None of this validates the farcical garbage about a “global flood” contained in your sad little goat herder mythology. But since you’ve brought this drivel up, here’s several cogent reasons why your fantasy “global flood” never happened:
[1] If the fantasy “global flood” had ever happened, then geologists would have found this out, courtesy of the existence of a single, deep, globally present sedimentary stratum dating unequivocally to a young age. This was never found. Instead, geologists found that the global map of strata was varied, with in some cases ancient strata found close to the surface, including igneous strata that should never have appeared in the fantasy “global flood” scenario.
One of those ancient strata, the Canadian Shield, being a Precambrian stratum, unequivocally dates to 1.8 billion years before present, and covers no less than 8 million square kilometres of land. Likewise, the Siberian Traps is another massive igneous rock stratum, covering 7 million square kilometres of land, which dates unequivocally to the end-Permian, 250 million years before present, and the Deccan Traps in India, covering 500,000 square kilometres of land, and dating unequivocally to the late Cretaceous, around 70 million years before present.
None of these strata would even exist, if the “global flood” bullshit was something other than the product of the televisions in the heads of mythology fanboys.
[2] Archaeologists have found ZERO evidence that several major civilisations extant at the time, ceased activity upon being purportedly drowned under 9,000 metres of water. The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Chinese, provide a vast body of archaeological evidence to the effect that they continued their activities unbroken, right about the time that creotard masturbation fantasists assert that they were under 9,000 metres of water.
[3] If the fantasy “global flood” had ever happened, whole swathes of aquatic life would have been exterminated. This includes tropical fish species I kept and bred successfully in the aquarium during a 35+ year career as an aquarist. The species in question would have been wiped out through osmoregulatory shock within about 72 hours, if this fairy tale had ever been real. I don’t even need to have studied fish physiology in order to know that this would have happened, but of course, the requisite scientific training helps here. ALL of the Ostariophysan fishes alone would have been exterminated, because they are ALL intolerant of salt, and something like twenty entire Orders of marine fishes, including all the reef-dwelling fishes, would have met a parallel fate. The species I’ve successfully bred in captivity have stringent water chemistry requirements, that would have been violated wholesale by the fantasy “global flood”.
Oh, and don’t try and peddle the creationist garbage that a few “kinds” somehow survived, then underwent massive speciation to produce the 33,000 species known to science, because this too is garbage. First of all, creationist liars for doctrine can’t even agree among themselves what a “kind” purportedly is, and second, among the species I’ve bred successfully is Corydoras panda, a South American catfish with tightly defined water chemistry requirements, which has a distant relative that was alive in the Eocene - the fossil of that ancestor, Corydoras revelatus, was found in 1922. That fossil wouldn’t even exist if creationist assertions about the “global flood” were something other than the products of their rectal passages.
Also part of the death toll, would have been all the higher aquatic plants, which would have been exterminated wholesale not only from osmoregulatory shock, but from being buried under millions of tons of silt, and shut off from sunlight by 9,000 metres of water. Entire phyla of freshwater and marine invertebrates would also have been exterminated for the same reasons, a particularly apposite example being the reef building corals, which not only need stringent water chemistry parameters in order to live, but also need access to light, courtesy of a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae (a clade of algae), which require access to light for photosynthesis if they are to remain alive.
[4] The physical and biological unreality of made up shit creationist attempts to treat science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics, to try and prop up this fairy tale, on its own tosses this vicious little exercise in psychotic fiction into the bin. Starting with Kent Hovind’s wank-break “vapour canopy” bullshit, which would have resulted in ludicrous thermodynamic exchanges, first cooling the entire planet to the ambient temperature of Pluto (around 30 Kelvins), at which point the breathable gases of the atmosphere would be liquefied or in some cases even turn into solid ices, This would then be followed by a second set of thermodynamic exchanges resulting in the ambient temperature of planet Earth rising to that of molten Copper. I’ve run the numbers on this.
Then there’s Baumgartner’s idiotic “runaway subduction” nonsense, which would have released enough heat to boil all the oceans off into space. Followed by Walt Brown’s “hydroplate” nonsense, which apart from being in direct violation of the Gas Laws, hilariously invokes a level of meteorite bombardment that would have sterilised the planet, and turned your 600 year old barge captain and his floating petting zoo into plasma. Finally, there’s the ludicrous “accelerated nuclear decay” drivel from Russell Humphreys, which would have generated enough heat to ignite helium fusion in the Earth’s core in the best case scenario, and in the worst case scenario, heated the planet to Grand Unification physics temperatures (yes, a whopping 1031 Kelvins).
[5] The exquisite sorting, in time and taxonomic order, of the fossil record, which involves sorting particles ranging from fossil pollen grains 50 microns across, to the carcasses of 100-ton Sauropod dinosaurs. The idea that this exquisite time and taxonomic sorting would have been produced by the fantasy “global flood” is manifest bullshit, especially to anyone familiar with the mathematics of fluid dynamics, and the behaviour of the Navier-Stokes equations, which describe the requisite behaviour of fluids, and which are used by Boeing and Airbus to design airliners successfully (the recent 737 Max débacle notwithstanding - though that was a software issue, not an aerodynamics issue).
The bullshit about “hydrologic sorting” peddled by professional liars for creationist doctrine, was flushed down the toilet by television footage of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Sendai tsunami, in which the resulting turbulent water flows produced no “sorting” of any variety. Plus, the manner in which any reasonable supercomputer model using the Navier-Stokes equations would have to be tampered with to a galactically dishonest extent, in order to produce so-called “hydrologic sorting”, again flushes this fantasy down the toilet.
[6] The idea that a wooden ship twice the size of a Ticonderoga Class guided missile cruiser would be seaworthy, is a deluded fantasy, as any marine architect will tell you. The largest wooden ship ever built in recent times, was considerably smaller, and needed constant pumping to stop seawater ingress as it suffered from hogging and sagging as it traversed the waves. It’s the reason we build aircraft carriers out of high tensile strength steel alloys, not wood. That wooden ship eventually succumbed to the stresses of flexing as it traversed the waves, as documented here:
That ship fell apart in heavy seas with the loss of all hands in 1924.
They also contradict each other with respect to core assertions. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, in your eagerness to post your Christian Nationalist historical revisionism?
Poppycock. See above with respect to contradictions.
No they weren’t. The Mayans certainly weren’t, if you look at their mythology. Neither were vast swathes of other Mesoamericans. Neither were the Ancient Chinese or the Ancient Egyptians. I suspect the various experts at the British Museum who spent decades deciphering Egyptian mythology will point and laugh at you for asserting this.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Did you treat yourself seriously when you made this shit up?
Hinduism has a vast panoply of weird multi-armed and multi-headed parts bin chimaeras that bear no relation whatsoever to your “christ” character.
Buddhism doesn’t even bother with gods in the usual sense of the term.
Your flatulent assertions are a pathetic joke.
Well quelle surprise, for an individual that (if it existed) never ventured outside the Middle East.
Oh no, it’s the “fulfilled prophesies” bullshit. Destruction of Tyre, anyone?
Actually, the only reason the Romans “accepted” Judaism, was because they had first hand experience of the fanaticism it inspired. They preferred not to have to expend large quantities of men and material in avoidable wars.
You really are clutching at straws here, aren’t you?
Oh wait, the Mediterranean was a focus for extensive maritime trading several hundred years before your religion existed. Indeed, the Greeks had already fought naval battles some 400 years or so before your religion existed - the First Peloponnesian War being a prime example.
Ships would have been a far better means for long distance dispersal of a message, and a means that was already well developed by various nations by the time of the supposed NT events. indeed, if evidence arises that the Trojan War was based upon a real historical event, instead of being mythological, this would mean that the Greeks had working sailing vessels fully 1,200 years before your religion existed.
Etruscan and Koiné Greek bear NO relation to each other. Now I know you’re making shit up. Classical Greek contains grammatical constructs not seen in other languages, such as aspect taking precedence over tense in verbs (with the exception of the future tense), the optative mood and middle voice for verbs, and a complex series of declensions. In addition, Etruscan is known to be agglutinative, while Greek is fusional.
Oh, and Etruscan wasn’t a “common language”, it was restricted to a small part of northern Italy, and was superseded by Latin.
And of course, the use of langauge for mercantile purposes is a fact you’ll doubtless dismiss as “irrelevant” …
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
First century Judea didn’t have a postal service. Though Persian civilisation did.
Apologetic fabtrication. See the many above reasons why your assertions are horseshit.
No they don’t. Another Christian Nationalist lie.
Wrong. It’s dated to no earlier than 70 CE. It mentions within its pages events occurring after the destruction of the Second Temple. Unless you want to assert that the anonymous author thereof was a time traveller?
Irrelevant. See above. Oh, and actual scholars place Acts around 90 CE.
Irrelevant. (Snipped pointless gibbering about the contents of mythology)
Poppycock. Murderous mythology fanboys tried to kill science in Europe. Giordano Bruno ring a bell?
Oh, and the only reason that the arts received funding, was because the providers of those funds wanted propaganda pieces.
Meanwhile, Classical Greek civilisation had been providing scientific discoveries, and a large part of the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilisation, 300 years before your religion existed.
They weren’t. See above with respect to the Greeks.
Because of the mischief of mythology fanboys? Without which this individual would be an irrelevance?
No. Once again, do learn the difference between assertions and facts.
Would they have bothered if the raving followers thereof hadn’t been engaging in active propagandising for the requisite religion?
No they don’t, this is ex recto apologetic fabrication on your part.
No they don’t. Much of the above you pulled out of your arse.
Your blatant exercise in Christian Nationalist historical revisionism is a farce. You’ve blatantly made shit up to prop up this duplicitous fantasy, though since you set a precedent for doing so here some time ago, no one here is surprised to see this tactic of yours rear its ugly head yet again. It’s obvious you don’t recognise how proper discourse is conducted, despite having had a free education on the subject from several here.
2 Likes
I like that the analogy of a court case that the theist posited…
The difference between us is, lets take a murder case for example.
Now if someone said, i feel like person x commited the crime and you said you strongly believed this to be fact and because you read somewhere that person x could kill someone… that wouldn’t be good enough for me.
I’d want finger prints, cctv, eye witnesses that could give testimony for us to deliberate on… and so much more, because its imperative you make the right decision.
Just saying what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy just ain’t gonna cut it I’m afraid.
1 Like
AGAIN, repeating the same shit over and over doesn’t make any of it true.
And it’s worthy of note that we know murder is possible, and we know people are capable of murder. Whereas as I keep pointing out to @WhoAreYou, there is no objective evidence that any deity, or anything supernatural is even possible. Now @WhoAreYou has been posting here for quite some time, and he has failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or that a deity is possible, the obvious inference is that he has no such evidence.
1 Like
@WhoAreYou, you’ve made a number of statements (assertions) about how the judicial system works. Upon what experience are you basing these assertions? Are you an attorney? Prosecutor? Judge? Do you have any sort of role in the criminal justice system?
They always do unfortunately, I’m 40 years old as of right now.
I never had any indoctrination and my parents were very much ‘find out for yourself’ people… despite the fact both would be classed as spiritual but not religious.
Furthermore, my father is dead and if I had the chance to meet him or talk to him once more, trust me I’d take it!
But I’ve seen absolutely zero proof of a god(s), no good arguments for the notion (be that logical form or just in general conversation) and have never seen a decent case made for the claim.
It’s remarkable that to this day, the best they have come up with, is… presupposition apologetics (which is bollocks), kalam cosmological argument (which has been debunked a ridiculous amount of times), the ‘well I just have faith/belief’ horse shit, or the tried and trusty, “BuT mEh’ HoLy BoOk!!!”…
Come on guys (theists), do better.
2 Likes
Most Scholors offer no better facts than you have offered. THE BIBLE IS THE CLAIM NOT THE EVIDENCE. Mark is no place near 45. BCE. You are listening to crackpots and not the consensus of scholarly work. Even as such, Mark is still just a claim.
Do you have any Evidence?
2 Likes
Sheldon,
Mutations within our cells are mostly deleterious. They are like typos in an instruction manual. Cancer is a sad result of mutations. “Growing evidence indicates that aging itself is an accumulation of mutations within the cells of our body…Nearly all health policies are aimed at reducing or minimizing mutation. Most personal health regimes are aimed at reducing mutations, to reduce risk of cancer and other degenerative diseases. How can anyone see mutation as good?”
There is no single “crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information.” With random mutations “Information decreases.” Dr J. C. Sanford
CyberLN,
I am not nor do i have experience. The person i am using as a resource, J Warner Wallace, however was an atheist and a cold case detective. He was on Dateline and solved cold case murders with this approach (later the murderers confessed). He uses the same skill set to make a case for Christ. However he went into his research an atheist not trying to defend anything but just looked for truth. He reluctantly had to accept what he found.