Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

Still waiting for specific points...

So am I Steve.  I haven't had the time (or the inclination!) to read through numerous
pages of toing and froing, but I was wondering if you'd addressed my earlier question?

"Can you please list some of those 'pieces of information' that
constitute  evidence, and which would prove your claim of miracles?"

If you have, please point me there.

technically he did, he quoted his syllogism, and some bible verses and claimed all of that is the evidence. Which you would not accept for understandable reasons but we're at in impasse because then he'll start whining that you're demanding too much evidence.....

This is basically at least 5 pages of my exchange with him so I'm pretty confident yours will go the same way if he bothers to answer you at all (assuming he hasn't blocked you yet lol)


Edit: I mean you can jump down that rabbit hole if you want, but pretty sure it'll go mostly the same way it already has. So heads up!

[EvieTheAvocado]

You've been taking sides against me and very uncharitable to me (see what I did there?) in your snap judgment to take stevs side

Lol no I haven't. I haven't been taking anyone's side ... not have I been uncharitable to any point of view. You're mistaking neutrality for being against you.

I can defend either side partially without taking either side in full. I want the discussion to move away from personalities and towards argumentation.

[EvieTheAvocado]

[...]technically he did, he quoted his syllogism, and some bible verses and claimed all of that is the evidence. Which you would not accept for understandable reasons but we're at in impasse because then he'll start whining that you're demanding too much evidence.....

The problem is ... evidence for God is impossible ... which I came to realize some years ago ... which is why I stopped asking theists for evidence some years ago, as well.

[JesseB]

@EvieTheAvocado

In case you need some help, I look at someone who demands things from you but doesn't make any movement to meet you half was as someone who is being dishonest. This is a huge red flag for a scam artist, or a psychopath. And I've dated a psychopath before, so yea fuck no will I ever make a single fucking concessions to someone who has over 16 pages of discussion failed to make any concessions while making demands of others.

This is a hard boundary. And while some might not say it like me, or be as pushy about it as me, most people have this boundary because most people learned the hard why by being scammed by people. @SteveII know's this too. He know's why I think he's dishonest, why I don't trust him. He doesn't care. Otherwise at some point he would have tried to meet me half way. Instead he interpreted my willingness to talk to him because of what you said as free license to target me in his debate. He expressed clear interest earlier, I can only be left to assume it is because he finds me as easy a mark as he finds you. No offense my friend but you really have no defenses against highly manipulative people. On the flip side I have a fucking brick wall 100 miles think to protect against highly manipulative people. Because like you I suffer from many of the struggles in identifying such people and I've been burned so many times I will not risk being burned again. I've been clear with both you and him about this and my expectations and instructions on how to meet my expectations. As of yet my boundaries haven't even been acknowledged by him. That is a warning right there.

I can list dozens of reasons why I have no intention of dealing honestly of @SteveII because he's raised red flags and not dealt honest with me. And I was clear from the beginning he would need to demonstrate his intentions before I would play the game he wants to play. In short I am well aware I've been an ass to him, and by his ignoring my clearly stated boundaries for 16 pages of talking he's demonstrated he's being an ass to me. Simple as that. I hate repeating myself and look count the times I've repeated myself. I'm getting sick of being misrepresented and having my boundaries ignored.

This is reasonable, and I think you should be able to realize this.

[JesseB]

You've been taking sides against me and very uncharitable to me (see what I did there?) in your snap judgment to take stevs side

Lol no I haven't. I haven't been taking anyone's side ... not have I been uncharitable to any point of view. You're mistaking neutrality for being against you.

I can defend either side partially without taking either side in full. I want the discussion to move away from personalities and towards argumentation.

and yet you have not done so, which indicates you are taking a side. You realize this yes? I've made very clear claims and good points you even validated one of those points yet have made no attempt to mediate with him about my entire contention with him which is in fact only one point his misrepresentation of me. Which he's done numerous times even after I corrected him.

To be clear I expect you to not pretend that I have no valid claims. Ignoring my point is by implication making this claim, especially when you keep trying to pretend that somehow I'm at fault. I get that @SteveII feels bullied. His feelings are not representative of reality, I have given him clear instructions on how to get along with me. Would a bully do that? So why has he ignored this.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I thought I'd run through this myself:

[...]
P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.

I'm more than happy to accept this premise for sake of argument ... with the proviso that supernatural causation wasn't actually successfully inferred ... it was merely claimed to be infered. I'm more than happy to accept that things were attributed to God or declared to be God, though.

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

I won't accept that 500 people actually saw such a thing.  But I'm more than happy to accept that 500 people believed that they saw such a thing ... for sake of argument ... or even that 500 people actually saw what seemed like such a thing ... for sake of argument.

[...]
[quote]
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person

I'm more than happy to accept this premise for sake of argument.

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects

I'm more than happy to accept, for sake of argument, that an untold number of people have reported what seemed to be such effects.

P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.

I'm more than happy to accept, for sake of argument, that people have reported things that seem like miracles.

P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).

I reject the presupposition that such a question can even have an explanation ... whether naturalistic or supernaturalistic.

P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.

I reject this premise. The big bang is more than sufficient (note: this is a separate question as to why "anything at all" exists ... "why does anything exist?" is a deeper question than "why did this specific universe begin?")

P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.

I reject this premise. 'God versus Chance' is a false dichotomy and a Black and White Fallacy.

P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

I would agree that the standard naturalistic view that consciousness goes no deeper than the brain is mistaken and reducing mental events to wholly non-conscious physical events runs into far more problems than many would accept or realize. However, I think that a supernaturalistic or dualistic conception of consciousness runs into equally bad, yet different, problems.

I'm G.S.'s "real naturalist".

P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.

I reject this premise. Moral Platonism isn't required for an objective morality. Moral ontology and moral epistemology are different. There's no reason why the moral ontology can't be subjective while the moral epistemology is objective.

P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)

I reject this premise. Physical evidence for the supernatural is impossible ... because, as noted, at most I can only accept the illusion of such evidence. There can't actually be evidence for the supernatural because a naturalistic explanation of the events that seem supernatural (to some people) will always be a more plausible, parsimonious and rational explanation than a supernaturalistic one.

Naturalistic events can always be better explained via naturalistic explanations.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)

I accept this premise ... for sake of argument ... if and only if we change "reports of the supernatural" to, at most, "reports of what seems to be the supernatural".

P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

I reject this premise because even the craziest naturalistic theories make fewer assumptions without evidence than supernaturalism does.

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural.

The conclusion would only follow if many of the premises hadn't been rejected or modified.

[EvieTheAvocado]

and yet you have not done so, which indicates you are taking a side. You realize this yes? I've made very clear claims and good points you even validated one of those points yet have made no attempt to mediate with him about my entire contention with him which is in fact only one point his misrepresentation of me. Which he's done numerous times even after I corrected him.

I disagree ... I have specifically been trying to move away from personalities and towards argumentation and I very much have not been taking any sides.

To be clear I expect you to not pretend that I have no valid claims.

I never pretended any such thing. I already accepted one of your valid claims, yes? You made a good point about the fact that if you believed that the other position was rational you'd already change positions.

[JesseB]

I thought I'd run through this myself:

[quote="SteveII" pid='47756' dateline='1544289459']

[...]
P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.

I'm more than happy to accept this premise for sake of argument ... with the proviso that supernatural causation wasn't actually successfully inferred ... it was merely claimed to be infered. I'm more than happy to accept that things were attributed to God or declared to be God, though.

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

I won't accept that 500 people actually saw such a thing.  But I'm more than happy to accept that 500 people believed that they saw such a thing ... for sake of argument ... or even that 500 people actually saw what seemed like such a thing ... for sake of argument.

[...]
[quote]
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person

I'm more than happy to accept this premise for sake of argument.

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects

I'm more than happy to accept, for sake of argument, that an untold number of people have reported what seemed to be such effects.

P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.

I'm more than happy to accept, for sake of argument, that people have reported things that seem like miracles.

P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).

I reject the presupposition that such a question can even have an explanation ... whether naturalistic or supernaturalistic.

P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.

I reject this premise. The big bang is more than sufficient (note: this is a separate question as to why "anything at all" exists ... "why does anything exist?" is a deeper question than "why did this specific universe begin?")

P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.

I reject this premise. 'God versus Chance' is a false dichotomy and a Black and White Fallacy.

P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

I would agree that the standard naturalistic view that consciousness goes no deeper than the brain is mistaken and reducing mental events to wholly non-conscious physical events runs into far more problems than many would accept or realize. However, I think that a supernaturalistic or dualistic conception of consciousness runs into equally bad, yet different, problems.

I'm G.S.'s "real naturalist".

P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.

I reject this premise. Moral Platonism isn't required for an objective morality. Moral ontology and moral epistemology are different. There's no reason why the moral ontology can't be subjective while the moral epistemology is objective.

P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)

I reject this premise. Physical evidence for the supernatural is impossible ... because, as noted, at most I can only accept the illusion of such evidence. There can't actually be evidence for the supernatural because a naturalistic explanation of the events that seem supernatural (to some people) will always be a more plausible, parsimonious and rational explanation than a supernaturalistic one.

Naturalistic events can always be better explained via naturalistic explanations.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)

I accept this premise ... for sake of argument ... if and only if we change "reports of the supernatural" to, at most, "reports of what seems to be the supernatural".

P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

I reject this premise because even the craziest naturalistic theories make fewer assumptions without evidence than supernaturalism does.

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural.

The conclusion would only follow if many of the premises hadn't been rejected or modified.
[/quote]

You do realize that many/most of the points you've made here we've all already said, he's rejected them all and asserted this argument is undefeatable. More accurately he claims we can't prove this argument wrong, even when we've put forward the same contentions you have (and many more).

[unfogged]

I want the discussion to move away from personalities and towards argumentation.

Tone trolling is still a form of trolling though.

[Grandizer]

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

I won't accept that 500 people actually saw such a thing.  But I'm more than happy to accept that 500 people believed that they saw such a thing ... for sake of argument ... or even that 500 people actually saw what seemed like such a thing ... for sake of argument.

That's if it's even true that 500 people reported seeing the risen Jesus. Paul wasn't exactly known for being completely truthful with his claims.

[Dancefortwo]

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

I won't accept that 500 people actually saw such a thing.  But I'm more than happy to accept that 500 people believed that they saw such a thing ... for sake of argument ... or even that 500 people actually saw what seemed like such a thing ... for sake of argument.

That's if it's even true that 500 people reported seeing the risen Jesus. Paul wasn't exactly known for being completely truthful with his claims.

The whole "500" people saw Jesus" after the crucifixion was a claim that Paul wrote 20 years later,  based on anecdotal, second hand information.  He never interviewed any of the people, he simply wrote the rumors down that were floating around.  And by the way, isn't 500 a nice round number?  It wasn't 468 or 503 people, nope....it was a nice, even  500.  What a  ridiculous story.

[Phaedrus]

Are they one in the same, the same thing.
I believe they are the same thing.
any dissenters?
please explain

This is an atheist forum.  How do you not expect dissension?

[SteveII]

How exactly do you distinguish between a message from something supernatural and a delusion?
If there is a distinction then it is making a physical difference in reality and that can be tested for.
If there is no way to tell then you are not justified in believing it.  

I was talking about Jesus. However, on the personal evidence side, I think that one is justified in believing in ones experience if 1) you expect the experience as part of a larger worldview and 2) you trust that those around you are not lying to you about their similar, but individualized experiences.

If your "larger worldview" already includes belief in the supernatural then you may very well believe that you are getting a message from there but that's the problem.  You are starting with the belief and then using it to confirm it.  I am willing to believe that people had the experiences they describe, I'm just not accepting their interpretation when it involves something that they can't justify.  

The bottom line is that you avoided the question of how you can distinguish between a message from something supernatural and a delusion.  Even if the supernatural exists you could still be wrong about the source of the message you got.

Your objection works well in the abstract. However, we actually know the context for Christianity. I think it would be something like: Oh, I have had this experience that I have asked for (repentance-->salvation-->regeneration(spiritual change that affects actions/outlook)). Is it real or in my head because I want it? I obviously didn't ask for the experience because I had the experience--there was something else that brought me to that point--probably a mixture of reasons (like I have listed) and faith--different mix for everyone. So, now you have to decide the between the two most likely alternatives to your experience:

1. I created the experience in my mind because that is what I was expecting. I had within me the wherewithall all along for genuine change of character and heart. My daily experience of God's presence/changing me is an illusion.
2. I experience the predicted results of the promises of Christianity. Specifically the message that God wants more for us than a daily grind and he promises an actual relationship that will make our lives more meaningful and fulfilling. Oh and by the way a billion other people have reported and wrote about similar experiences for 2000 years.

Arguing that a billion people have continued, long-term delusions is quite an uphill battle. Either way, claiming the experience is confirmation of the underlying worldview is not circular (as you are suggesting). It is an expected result not the reason for inviting the experience to happen.

That brings up the question of what constitutes a properly basic belief. Alvin Plantinga has written extensively on the topic as it relates to religion (philosophy of religions). And intro to that topic is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

I don't use faith to think that Jesus supernaturally made the man walk. I infer it from the evidence and the context. "Reason" is the application of all the known facts--not just the physical evidence. Say the story was accurately related. Jesus at first only forgave the man his sins. The religions leaders were highly agitated at this because only God can forgive sins. Jesus said, "what is easier, to tell a man his sins are forgiven or to tell him to take up his bed and walk? So that you all will know that I have the power to forgive sins, take up you bed an walk." (paraphrased). It is actually unreasonable not to make the conclusion that Jesus was or had supernatural help. Notice in a story like that, faith would be the result, not the necessary precursor to belief.

It is NOT reasonable to infer supernatural help until you can demonstrate that there is such a thing.  You continue to jump from "I can't explain this" to "it must be supernatural" with zero rationale besides your pre-existing belief.  You accept the story because it conforms to your beliefs and not because it supports or justifies them.  It's a story in a book written decades after the supposed events by people with a biased interest in making it sound supernatural.  That anybody can think it is reasonable to believe it actually happened is stupefying; that they could think that the details are accurate enough to conclude that the best explanation is something that we can't show is even a possible explanation is beyond words.

Sticking to the story--which has a tremendous amount of context, it is question-begging to insist that the supernatural has to be proved before accepting that the events themselves are proof of the supernatural.

We can disagree as to what the NT is and when it was written. I accept that you don't believe it. Your position is reasonable based on the information you have. My point is that so is mine based on the information I have. Both of us can be reasonable and one or both of us can be wrong--because certainty in most things is not possible.

I don't believe there are the gaps that you do. I read the NT like it was written and like it was received by the early church.

Please define the "early church".  From my understanding the period from 30-70AD was littered with dozens of different versions of xianity that had very different beliefs about Jesus and that it isn't really until much later than one sect dominated and suppressed much of the controversy.  On second thought, even if what you believe now is the same as the consensus of the "early church", it doesn't say anything about the truth of the claims.  You still have to first demonstrate that there IS a supernatural and that it can affect the natural world before we even begin to discuss whether any sort of intelligence can exist there.  If that has to be taken on faith then we are probably done because I don;t waste my time on something that is completely unreliable.

I believe there was not the controversies that some claim. I have heard the arguments before--it usually revolves around pulling verses out of context, early dating whatever document has some other idea while simultaneously late-dating the NT doc. People who repeat don't usually have the background in systematic theology to even understand the argument--so they don't even know what the controversy means or how important it might be. If you have something specific, I'll take a look.

You are right. Consensus does not mean truth. However truth seems to require consensus.

Again, you are question begging if you insist the supernatural has to be proved to entertain evidence in the NT of the supernatural. Answer this: do you disbelieve the NT because some number of scholars told you it was wrong or because of the contents?

[Phaedrus]

Word salad translated to wall of text.

[Phaedrus]

Arguing that a billion people have continued, long-term delusions is quite an uphill battle.

Quite the opposite, actually, when reason is properly applied.

[Bucky Ball]

Truth in no way requires consensus. What a stupid thing to propose.
Was there consensus about Relativity when Einstein proposed it ?
Was there consensus about Uncertainty when Heisenberg proposed it ?
LMAO.

There are all kinds of reasons we KNOW the NT sucks the big one, not just because some scholar or other says something.
There are many CONTRADICTIONS and impossible tales, and impossible events.

If what is recounted in the NT in some was supports this idiot's version of "supernatural", than so does this support mine, that Apollonius really IS
the Son of God.

(I thought this Steve guy said he (himself) was "good at this" (LOL).

birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in the heaven(a)
As an adult he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry (b) . . .
He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no
ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God (d).
And he did miracles (e)
to confirm them in their beliefs (f):
he could heal the sick, cast out demons (g),
and raise the dead (h).
At the end of his life (i)
he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul (j).
He ascended to heaven (k)
and continues to lives there till this day. To prove that he lived on after leaving this earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers (l), who became convinced that in fact he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today ..... Apollonius of Tyana

[Bucky Ball]

Arguing that a billion people have continued, long-term delusions is quite an uphill battle.

Quite the opposite, actually, when reason is properly applied.

It's also the very definition of the ad populum fallacy.
More than a billion Catholics have substantially different beliefs about the very things he's talking about ... woops.
There are substantial differences in Protestant denominations over these very beliefs ... he has no evidence to support that BS claim.

[unfogged]

1. I created the experience in my mind because that is what I was expecting. I had within me the wherewithall all along for genuine change of character and heart. My daily experience of God's presence/changing me is an illusion.

Something that requires no assumptions other than what can be demonstrated to be real.

2. I experience the predicted results of the promises of Christianity. Specifically the message that God wants more for us than a daily grind and he promises an actual relationship that will make our lives more meaningful and fulfilling. Oh and by the way a billion other people have reported and wrote about similar experiences for 2000 years.

Something that requires assuming an entirely separate and undetectable realm that can still somehow affect ours in which resides an intelligent entity that is interested in us but does not wish to provide undeniable evidence.

Ockham's razor applies.

Arguing that a billion people have continued, long-term delusions is quite an uphill battle.

Argument ad populum doesn't get stronger the more you add to it. People like easy answers and are uncomfortable not knowing so it is understandable that many, if not most, would prefer to latch onto a comforting delusion.

Either way, claiming the experience is confirmation of the underlying worldview is not circular (as you are suggesting). It is an expected result not the reason for inviting the experience to happen.

When you start with the belief that the supernatural exists and then use that to explain events and use the "explained" events to support the supernatural then your claims are easily dismissed. God-of-the-gaps is not a reasonable explanation for something that we do not have an explanation for.

Sticking to the story--which has a tremendous amount of context, it is question-begging to insist that the supernatural has to be proved before accepting that the events themselves are proof of the supernatural.

I can't say that leprechauns are digging holes in my garden until I demonstrate that they exist. I can't say that fairies are making all the pictures on my wall go crooked until I show that fairies exist. I can't say that the supernatural is a valid explanation until I show that the supernatural exists. I'm sorry that you don't like the comparisons but they are the same.

I believe there was not the controversies that some claim. I have heard the arguments before--it usually revolves around pulling verses out of context, early dating whatever document has some other idea while simultaneously late-dating the NT doc.

Of course not. You don't seem to be willing to be willing to accept anything that conflicts with your beliefs. The evidence for the Marcionites and the Ebionites and various gnostic groups is there. If it was right at the start then they split off soon after so either way there were wildly different interpretations of the christ in the early church.

You are right. Consensus does not mean truth. However truth seems to require consensus.

Actually, it doesn't. That would be edging into ad populum again. Consensus is a good starting point but if there is contrary evidence or missing evidence then the consensus should be questioned. As long as you accept an objective reality exists then the truth is independent of opinion.

Again, you are question begging if you insist the supernatural has to be proved to entertain evidence in the NT of the supernatural.

It is pretty basic that something that does not exist can't be the cause of something else. You can hypothesize all you want about possible undetected causes but it isn't rational to believe that they actually exist.

Answer this: do you disbelieve the NT because some number of scholars told you it was wrong or because of the contents?

In reading it and listening to the claims of believers I came to the conclusion that it outlined a totally incoherent story and I did my best ignore it for decades. It is only in the last several years that I've started reading various books on the history of how and when it was written and listened to the arguments against it and have seen how rational they are compared to the claims of religion.

God creates an immense universe and puts people in one tiny corner of one tiny planet, then gets pissed off because they don't act the way he wanted them to, blames them, tries killing them along with everything else and fails, waits around, shows himself to a small group and has them kill him to allow him to forgive the rest of us if we accept it. The whole thing is immoral and incoherent from start to finish. The greek myths were much better, as were the norse, egyptian, and hindu, not to mention the chiness, japanes, native american, etc. Most cultures managed to come up with better stories.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I want the discussion to move away from personalities and towards argumentation.

Tone trolling is still a form of trolling though.

Any form of trolling is a form of trolling.

Stating your opinion on what you think is more productive to focus on ... isn't any sort of trolling, though. In fact, trying to guide things away from thread disruption is the direct opposite of trolling, if anything.

[EvieTheAvocado]

You do realize that many/most of the points you've made here we've all already said, he's rejected them all and asserted this argument is undefeatable. More accurately he claims we can't prove this argument wrong, even when we've put forward the same contentions you have (and many more).

Okay.

[EvieTheAvocado]

P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.

I won't accept that 500 people actually saw such a thing.  But I'm more than happy to accept that 500 people believed that they saw such a thing ... for sake of argument ... or even that 500 people actually saw what seemed like such a thing ... for sake of argument.

That's if it's even true that 500 people reported seeing the risen Jesus. Paul wasn't exactly known for being completely truthful with his claims.

That was actually me saying that, by the way, even though it says that JesseB said it. JesseB accidentally broke the quote function when he quoted me so most of the things said in that long post are actually from me.

[EvieTheAvocado]

That's if it's even true that 500 people reported seeing the risen Jesus. Paul wasn't exactly known for being completely truthful with his claims.

To respond to this myself [as what you quoted was actually written by me]:

Yeah, and it's a very big if.

My approach was to bend over backwards and accept such an absurdity for sake of argument ... purely to show that even then it's not evidence of God.

[SteveII]

@SteveII

Look dude, I've tried to point out that we're talking 2 different languages here. I've invited you to meet half way to start at the beginning so we can come to at least some understanding. So we can agree to what it is exactly we're talking about. You refuse

We are talking 2 different language. I fully understand that you have "scholars" who think I am wrong. That gives you some level of confidence to deride my beliefs. The problem is that you don't understand my language. The barrier you put up is the constant barrage of telling me I am wrong without listening to what I am saying. It took an incredible amount of time to get through definitions. Now we starting forms of an argument.  

oi lying jackass cunt. That isn't what happened and if you don't stop fucking lying I'm gonna get real nasty with you. Stop it.


My arguments are my own, that all of secular scholars and most theistic scholars disagree with you is just a point. It isn't my point. TO BE CLEAR most of them also disagree with me. You didn't argue my point you just knowingly lied about it several times now. Fuck you lying cunt. 


I will not tolerate any more open blatant lies about my position. Fuck you.


And fuck you for good measure.

Don't do that again. Cunt.


Also: "The barrier you put up is the constant barrage of telling me I am wrong without listening to what I am saying." <------ this right here applies to you too. The only difference is I've openly told you that until you try to listen I have no intention of giving you any ground. That's the difference between us. Again as I've said before, I understand your position better than you realize. I'm not going to play your game however unless you meet me in the middle.

DO I MAKE MYSELF FUCKING CLEAR DUDE?


"Still waiting for specific points. " - No you are not you're ignoring specific points. Or turning them into straw men. Knock it off.



"Not what I said. You lost when you said my belief was irrational. This is a positive claim that then requires you to fully refute every reason I have or show my conclusion is logically impossible. We all know you can't do that--that's why you lost--you set yourself up with an impossible hurdle. I realize you think it is some kind of trick, it's not--just a common misstep by over eager atheists."

LOST WHAT YOU IGNORANT FUCK? I'M NOT PLAYING A GAME WITH YOU! GET THE DAMN WAX OUT OF YOUR FUCKING EARS! "I think you're belief is irrational" <----- that is an opinion jackass. NOT a claim. it is an opinion I shared because you asked a specific question. It' is irrelevant to your stupid imaginary debate. I did not say your position WAS irrational I said I Personally THINK it is. I may be justified or unjustified in that however it is irrelevant. It was you and me chatting on the side cunt. As I recall it came right about the time I shared with you my background to help facilitate and foster an understanding between us. Holy fuck you're a dishonest lying sack of shit predatory cunt. If I told you I had to pee would you hold that against me too? Drag it up 100 posts later? Fuck you.

"
So, what do you really have? You have dueling scholars regarding the NT. You have nothing to defeat the personal experiences of billions of people, AND P6-P9 are written in the form of facts that naturalism can't explain--a deficiency in the only viable competing worldview. P6-P9 are much weaker claims than actually trying to prove God, so...can't be fallacious. "

This lie repeated AGAIN. That is not "all I have" or even "what I have" it was one of many points which you didn't even bother to get right.


"Listen, I am pretty good at this if I don't have to wade through 10 people throwing bullshit at me. In fact, I could probably beat every Christian I know IRL in a debate if I took the ATHEIST position. It is likely that you will not make an argument that I have not heard and responded to 10 times. Take advantage of the opportunity to practice. That's what I am doing."

That's only because no one is debating you jackass. You are shadowboxing strawmen of us. We're just picking at your argument. You think this is a debate and that you can declare the winner. Go to the fucking debate thread if you want to debate someone. This is a discussion. Fuck you, learn how to use a damn forum.


You are seriously like a pigeon who knocks all the pieces off a chess board, shits on it and then struts around like you won something.

I'm not "chatting" with anyone. I am defending my beliefs from belligerent boneheads with less than average skills.

First, you think you made points that I understood as something to respond to. I have repeated that I am not going to do the "dueling scholars" dance. Other than that, I obviously either thought I addressed them or did not recognize them as something that required a response--possibly buried in your definitionally-challenged replies. Speaking of definitions, are you saying that we are not past those? Really? Are you going with the NT docs or the existing churches are not evidence? Are you really going to go with personal experience is not evidence?

Second, the moment you say I am wrong (which you have done in no uncertain terms) and demand my defense of my [insert whatever derisive term of the moment here] belief, you are DEBATING. I don't care that you don't call it that. You are. You seem to think that if you declare it is not a debate, then you don't need to justify your assertions and you can move the goal post around at will. That's nonsense.

Third, what the hell is "meeting you in the middle"? There is no middle between I hold irrational beliefs and I don't. It's binary. My argument has a list of evidence and reasons why I believe God exists. You seem to be missing this point: if I have evidence and reasons that you cannot completely invalidate, or you can't prove the conclusion is logically impossible, BY DEFINITION of inductive reasoning, I have an epistemically-derived rational belief. Every word here was carefully chosen. My conclusion does NOT have to be true for my belief to the rational. You want to avoid the burden of proof by couching your charge of irrational as "your opinion". A distinction without a difference: your claim OR your opinion is wrong.

Fourth, I noticed later on in like part 8 of your juvenile rant that you seem to still think that I have to believe in a literal six day creation and the flood, etc. if I believe the NT. Why? Because it's in the Bible and if I believe one part, I have to believe the other parts. Setting aside that is a composition fallacy, the Bible is not a thing. The word is a referent to 66 things. You would sound more knowledgeable (as you have reminded me you are on numerous occasions) if you remembered that. On that basis, your point is a red herring to the question if my belief in God is warranted or in fact irrational.

Now, if you want to lay out your points in a few bullets that you want me to address so you can be sure that my "shit doesn't remain unchallenged", go right ahead.

[Bucky Ball]

I'm not "chatting" with anyone. I am defending my beliefs from belligerent boneheads with less than average skills.

Ah yes, again the "belligerent" ("angry") atheist meme. He just can't get his head out of his ass on that one.
So ... please everyone, bow down and thank the master for deigning to stoop to such a low level.

The question is, why is he SO insecure about his shit, that he *needs* to waste time here,
trying to convince people there is some legitimate basis to his crap.

[JesseB]

I'm not "chatting" with anyone. I am defending my beliefs from belligerent boneheads with less than average skills.

Ah yes, again the "belligerent" ("angry") atheist meme. He just can't get his head out of his ass on that one.
So ... please everyone, bow down and thank the master for deigning to stoop to such a low level.

The question is, why is he SO insecure about his shit, that he *needs* to waste time here,
trying to convince people there is some legitimate basis to his crap.

Thank you, not even his friend bought his bullshit. And I really think @SteveII is acting butthurt that I think his belief is irrational. As if that is in any way relevant to the topic at hand. Even @EvieTheAvocado understood my point.


I mean, while I think his belief is irrational (and frankly we all think that), I haven't even attacked his belief. I've just poked at this one argument. It's a bad argument, however he's dishonestly ignoring any counter point to the argument and screaming nuh uh you hasn't "proven" anything (that obnoxious little word he's so fond of).

Not even interested in proving his argument wrong, only interested in getting him to see why his argument is bad. There are far better arguments he could be using. None of them are particularly good, but still far better than this one. He seems to think that this one argument is roughly the embodiment of his belief, which if I had to guess is why he acts so fucking butthurt that we poke at it.