Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

Absolute agnosticism is a product of studying history. Many things which were certain later proved false. Only teenagers need to be cocksure.

I'm ok with highly improbable, I can still build stuff that works (between its MTBFR, that is. : ) )

then nothing can ever be falsified because its impossible to provide proof of a negitive. if all that is required for something to exist is that someone believes it where does that leave us?

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Negative proof
From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

In case of God's existence Gödel's incompleteness theorems is often abused in order to assert that God exists due to the problem that not everything is provable, like the nonexistence of God.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

... if all that is required for something to exist is that someone believes it where does that leave us?

I'm not saying that.

Agnosticism is a stance, like defensive driving, or like leaving some room in your cup (to borrow from a Zen story).

This need for certainty reminds me of some of my engineers. Every month they come to me with the same questions, "Ricter, what are the design limits of object X for this region of the world?" And I tell them, "in a normal operational sense there really aren't any, if you have the money budgeted to build as you propose." And every month they continue to be very uncomfortable with that degree of design uncertainty. I long ago concluded it is an engineering mindset. *shrug*

Edit: to be fair, not all engineers are like this. But it is common with the green engineers.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Non of those are historical evidence of Jesus's existence.

Contents
1 <strike>New Testament writings</strike>
1.1<strike> Pauline Epistles</strike>
1.2 <strike>Gospels</strike>
1.3 <strike>The Acts of the Apostles</strike>
2 <strike>Ancient Christian creeds</strike>
2.1<strike> Biblical</strike>
2.2<strike> Extra-biblical</strike>
3 <strike>New Testament apocrypha</strike>
3.1 <strike>Gnostic texts</strike>

Sherlock Holmes stories are not historical evidence that Dr Watson existed, The Bible is not historical evidence that Jesus existed.

4<strike> Early Church fathers</strike>
5<strike> Greco-Roman sources</strike>

Authors and readers telling themselves and insisting to others that their stories aren't fictional, does not mean their stories aren't fictional.

5.1 <strike>Josephus</strike>
5.2<strike>Pliny the Younger</strike>
5.3 <strike>Tacitus</strike>
5.4<strike>Suetonius</strike>
5.5<strike>Mara bar Sarapion</strike>


At best all are uncorroborated hearsay. No supporting evidence. Nothing intrinsically capable of making Jesus a historical figure.

Non were alive at the supposed time of Jesus. Unlike Jesus, they are themselves able to be verified as historical .

There is no record of any kind , anywhere, supporting an historical Jesus. All mentioned are usually from christian apologists , either immaterial, dubious , disputed or doubted as historical evidence by various christian historians and scholars for various and obvious reasons.

There is no independent separate confirmation or providence whatsoever for a historical Jesus, essential to confirm any historicity for anything or anyone.

5.6 Others
LOL, "Others". What.... you mean Hooters Weekly or something?

6 <strike>Jewish records</strike>

You (or rather a cut&paste from Wiki christian apologist page ...) must be joking. There are no Jewish records or any other records that make Jesus historical.


Jesus is fictional. There is nothing anywhere to establish Jesus actually ever existed .

What a joke you are.... you know more that scholars about the definition of historicity.

What lies you just wrote.

Stu will only accept 2000 year old video.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

What a joke you are.... you know more that scholars about the definition of historicity.

What lies you just wrote.

Stu will only accept 2000 year old video.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""

I still say he's just griefin' ya.

Edit: if he's a member of a "professional" internet griefing club, he's getting points there with this thread. : )

 

[jem]

well this should get him noticed for something.

I am still laughing.

Stu objects to 2000 year old history about Jesus because its hearsay.

It takes one minute to realize how funny that is. In order to overcome a Stu's hearsay objection... Christ has to come back.

2000 year old history is all hearsay.

 

[stu]

You guys, really.

You can't answer the points raised against religious apologist claims, so you just cast childish aspersions around.

There are numerous obvious reasons why people writing tiny references 100, 200 and 300 years after the supposed life of supposed Jesus , of which writing has no corroborative external support , is therefore hearsay and cannot be classified as historical evidence of Jesus.

Do you think you just cannot be wrong or something?

Ricter , what!...still griefin' about griefin because why?...you too really have nothing in response to the fact that Jesus is not a historical figure.?

What upsets you about that so much you can't make reasoned and rational response?

Is that what religious superstition has done to your critical thinking process?

That'll be one of the first signs. Next you could be creating alter-ego screen names like Jem, pretending someone else is writing.

Very dodgy.

 

[jem]

You are not arguing with me.. you are arguing with virtually all the scholars.

Once again STU knows more than the scholars, or the dictionary, or the nobel prize winners or the founders of string theory or in this case scholars of ancient times.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis"" [/QUOTE]

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You are not arguing with me.. you are arguing with virtually all the scholars.

Once again STU knows more than the scholars, or the dictionary, or the nobel prize winners or the founders of string theory or in this case scholars of ancient times.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""

You have no argument. No reasoned response to any of the points raised against the groundless claims you keep trying to make .

Scholars say why there is no historical Jesus.
Amazing maybe but true nevertheless, no scholars of ancient times, NOT ONE of the dozens that would and could have, wrote anything that stands as classical historical evidence of Jesus.

That'll be because there was no historical Jesus to write about.

So all you are left with is trolling a bitch and moan from yet another apologist, again providing nothing in the line of historical evidence to confirm Jesus ever existed.

 

[res judicata]

you are arguing with virtually all the scholars.

Once again STU knows more than the scholars, or the dictionary, or the nobel prize winners or the founders of string theory or in this case scholars of ancient times.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""

 

[stu]

Oh dear... I see you're having another identity crises relapse Jem.

Will you be Jem this time but speaking as res judicata, on behalf of Jem, as before. You know, like schizophrenics do?
If you are genuinely ill that way, you really should seek professional help.



You have no argument. No reasoned response to any of the points raised against the groundless claims you keep trying to make .

Scholars say why there is no historical Jesus.

So all you are left with is trolling a bitch and moan from yet another apologist, providing nothing in the line of historical evidence to confirm Jesus ever existed.