So that's it for the election.

[Ravager]

"its", I'm bad at grammar sometimes.

[Hasbinlulz]

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

By definition, that is incorrect.

The state of not knowing is belied by a state of belief.

You are incorrect. Knowledge and belief are distinct. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

Thanks yoda.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you should probably go look it up

I have, I am correct. =)

[Hasbinlulz]

doublepatrickstewartfacepalm.jpg

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My goal posts are the origins of the discussion. Alarti claimed belief in god to be irrational. Those are the goal posts. If you want to qualify that claim to better confront your bias against Judeo-Christian conceptions, then you are welcome to -- but don't try to adapt the discussion without at least acknowledging the shift. I am not discussing a Judeo-Christian god.

You doubt the historicity of Jesus. Your opinion is not well reasoned nor is it the product of considerable thought. On the contrary, it is clearly biased and borderline ignorant. There was nothing sloppy about my copy-pasta, and CERTAINLY nothing that could be described as "contradictory". I claimed that the vast majority of scholars agree re: the historicity of Jesus. One of the sources was Price. Because of that, you claim that the statement is unreliable. On the contrary, the source quotes Price as noting that he is an extreme outlier in the discussion due to his skepticism regarding Jesus' existence. As such, he is a source re: the general consensus of Jesus' historicity. I will re-post the expressed opinions from scholars that you describe as "qualified".

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

These are not vague references. They are not hearsay. They are the accumulated statements of nearly a variety of scholars on the subject. Your opinion, apparently based upon your own research, contradicts the vast majority of historians and scholars that have investigated the matter. Your credentials are non-existent, and thus, your opposition is largely irrelevant. I don't know why you refuse to accept the scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus, and I don't particularly care. His existence has been established well beyond the typical degrees of historical skepticism.

It would be possible to continue forward and address the rest of your post, but it seems useless. Isaac Newton, in private writings, committed heresy and yet expressed an enduring and powerful theism. Galileo was identified by the Church as a heretic for his scientific beliefs, and yet maintained his belief in a god. Your hostility to the notion of a god is unshakable. On matters of Jesus' existence, you argue against the very authority and evidence that you demand even to accept the rationality of a belief in god. I cannot produce Jesus's skeleton and I cannot produce any god's mailing address. Thus, you may continue to believe both notions are preposterous.

As an aside, your repeatedly incorrect usage of fallacies is amusing. I question your education. You seem to cite them as an attempt at establishing authority yourself, but you fail to mobilize them correctly. There is no argumentum ad ignorantiam, because again, there is no attempt to prove the validity of god. In fact, if argumentum ad ignorantiam has been committed, it was by you. The core of the fallacy is a false dichotomy: something must be either true or not true. If not true, then true. I don't claim that a god's existence is truth -- far from it. It is merely a rational possibility.

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

[Hasbinlulz]

It's rare that I need to look up a word. Historicity is a new one for me.

But it's boring. Much more interesting to discuss Jesus in terms of his story.

[fishingme]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

wow man, brutal. +5 coolpoints

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a- as a prefix means "without or against."
Atheist = "without or against the existence of god"

Now if you put that definition in perspective with the root theist, which descibes one who believes in god, the a- solidifies on the "against" or opposite (a-moral), rather than the "without" version of the definition (a-sexual).

Incidentally, this is the genetic fallacy. The origin of the word is irrelevant. What matters is contemporary usage. Living languages change constantly.