Quote:
Originally Posted by Alawen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Your pejorative aside, I'm at least knowledgeable enough to understand what a primary source is. You might want to read them before quoting them as fact. Citation number six is Robert M. Price, who also doubts the existence of a historical Christ.
One of us is definitely talking out his ass and resorting to Wiki and vague references to geniuses who believe in God to back up his point. This is the most disappointing series of posts I've ever seen from you. If I had to guess, I'd say you are so emotionally attached to the existence of God that you don't want these topics discussed.
|
Robert M. Price's standard of evidence is as ridiculous as yours. According to him (yes, via wikipedia), "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know" if he existed. Does this mean that every historical figure for which we lack an autobiography or a skeleton is potentially the stuff of myth? How patently absurd.
And again, you're evading the underlying point. Relative to other historical figures that we have widely accepted as having existed, there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus existed. For instance, there is far more of a case that Jesus existed than Homer. That is just one example of thousands. Why do you continue to ignore the general consensus of actual scholars on the subject? Is it really me that is biased?
And I have no issue with the topics being discussed, and as a matter of fact, the topic we're discussing is wholly unrelated to the existence of any god. We are discussing whether Jesus was a historical or mythical figure. We're not getting into the validity of his supposed supernatural acts, or his divine nature.
You see a bias that isn't there. I'm not a Christian. Whether Jesus existed or not is wholly immaterial to my life. I'm merely perturbed by how closed-minded and condescending atheists can be as it relates to subjects that are
obviously beyond human understanding at the moment. You ask for proof or evidence to justify a belief in a god, then you dismiss mounds of evidence that support the historical existence of Jesus. The two matters are NOT related -- but because of your beliefs re: a god, you can't even budge on whether or not Jesus existed.
There is no way to prove any god exists. There is no way to prove no god exists. The notion of a creator -- of life, of the universe, of essentially anything -- is, on its face, rational. That creator could be a god or an extraterrestrial. It could be personal and benevolent or a force that is not even sentient by our current understanding of the term. Or there could be no creator, no god, and the beginnings of the universe merely too complex to understand at present. All possible, all rational. Greeting any of those possibilities with hostility is irrational.