The End of god; man poised to announce creation of artificial life...

[Deicide]

Waived my hands in dismissal? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Not only did I address your arguments (which, from the looks of them, really belong to one Russell Humphreys, courtesy of his "jesusneverexisted.com" site), but I countered with facts, gleaned from traditional Bible scholars and references to historical documents.

And, all of this serve the purpose of proving your initial (and supremely screwy) claims undisputably FALSE:

First, you claimed that there was no extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ; that was FALSE!

Once that got shot down, then you limped into the take that Josephus was the only one; but, it was a forgery. I showed that this claim was FALSE!!

Then, when your take on Josephus sunk, you tried wailing on the Tacitus account, first claiming the whole thing was a fraud, only to back-track and post something alleging that the whole account was genunie, except for the brief reference to Jesus Christ. Again, I showed that to be FALSE!!


And, every time another non-biblical reference to Jesus occurs, you start cranking out the conspiracy theories.

So, whatever narcotic you happen to be ingesting, I suggest you cease. Your claim of my not addressing one single argument of yours and simply waving my hands in dismissal, much like your other claims (or those of Humphreys' or whoever) is flat-out FALSE!

Jumping up and down screaming false doesn't make anything false. You have yet to explain why the Josephus passage bypassed so many prominent Christians familiar with his writing and magically appears as such with Eusebius...did you read the Richard Carrier Article?:

From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it.

Frauds, cons, interpolators left and right. And you call it all a conspiracy theory, anything to reaffirm your belief in imaginary godmen...

[Deicide]

Yeah,  and you always, while demonstrating a high education and giving great information, dumb down the debate by always polarizing it to Bible fundies and extreme athiests.

Have you ever heard of the color gray?  (or grey?)

At what point will you get it into your head that i don't believe the Bible the way the fundamentalists and literalists do?

Does your only strength in a debate show when you argue with someone who thinks the world stood still for 24 hours and was made in 6 days?

and do you always revert cheesy weak statements like:

When someone with a similar education level in the sciences devalues your assertion on Neuroscience as narrow?

hmmm?

Does your only strength in a debate show when you argue with someone who thinks the world stood still for 24 hours and was made in 6 days?

Well in a way, yes. At least fundies have some sort of (very bad) argument. Liberal Christians tend to be so wishy washy and their beliefs so malleable and indefinable that I simply don't have anything to argue with them about; present a concrete point of view and we can talk.

[OzmO]

Well in a way, yes. At least fundies have some sort of (very bad) argument. Liberal Christians tend to be so wishy washy and their beliefs so malleable and indefinable that I simply don't have anything to argue with them about; present a concrete point of view and we can talk.

I'm not a liberal Christian either.  I believe we have a soul and there is a God (not in the typical biblical sense of a old angry insecure egomaniac with bi-polar disease.) I believe we'll soon discover more about our souls scientifically.

But you are very correct in that the easiest ones to debate with are fundies.

[Deicide]

I'm not a liberal Christian either.  I believe we have a soul and there is a God (not in the typical biblical sense of a old angry insecure egomaniac with bi-polar disease.) I believe we'll soon discover more about our souls scientifically.

But you are very correct in that the easiest ones to debate with are fundies.

I believe we have a soul too; it's just mechanical though and dies when our brain dies....

[MCWAY]

Jumping up and down screaming false doesn't make anything false.

But, posting the facts, references from Biblical scholars and to historical documents, (with a pinch of common sense) does indeed show your claims (or those of whoever it is you used) to be, once again, FALSE.

You have yet to explain why the Josephus passage bypassed so many prominent Christians familiar with his writing and magically appears as such with Eusebius

Incorrect, O ye of long wind and short memory. For starters, you have no evidence that such actually bypassed those early Christians. And, as I said before, those early Christians were NOT questioning the existence of Jesus Christ. And the only questions regarding the Josephus passage were with regards to whether or not JOSEPHUS HIMSELF acknowledged Jesus' divinity. They're not looking for confirmation from Josephus about Jesus being a real person.

...did you read the Richard Carrier Article?:

I've seen Carrrier's articles before and they're filled with much the same, easily refutable silliness as the rest.

Frauds, cons, interpolators left and right. And you call it all a conspiracy theory, anything to reaffirm your belief in imaginary godmen...

That's right I call it a conspiracy theory, only it comes from cracked atheists like you, anything to reaffirm your belief that Jesus never existed and there is no God.

[Deicide]

But, posting the facts, references from Biblical scholars and to historical documents, (with a pinch of common sense) does indeed show your claims (or those of whoever it is you used) to be, once again, FALSE.


Incorrect, O ye of long wind and short memory. For starters, you have no evidence that such actually bypassed those early Christians. And, as I said before, those early Christians were NOT questioning the existence of Jesus Christ. And the only questions regarding the Josephus passage were with regards to whether or not JOSEPHUS HIMSELF acknowledged Jesus' divinity. They're not looking for confirmation from Josephus about Jesus being a real person.

I've seen Carrrier's articles before and they're filled with much the same, easily refutable silliness as the rest.



That's right I call it a conspiracy theory, only it comes from cracked atheists like you, anything to reaffirm your belief that Jesus never existed and there is no God.

  I'd like to see you go toe to toe with the likes of a Carrier; I would enjoy watching you get annihilated...believe at any price, your life motto...

[Deicide]

BTW, it's past midnight here so I have to get to bed....I will handle this tommorow.