|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Barrier | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
The context of the Morowitz quote. I have not been able to find a copy online so I can actually read the actual text. Richard Carrier is a bit of mess as a person, but I have no reason to question is research and conclusions.
quote:Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? » Internet Infidels Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Most creationists and fundies are ok with being Liars for Jesus.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
But what about historical reports, like the resurrection of Christ?
There are no historical reports of this.
Or perhaps fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible?
There are no historical reports of this. The only reports on these, not historical reports, are from the your bible. You cannot use the bible as evidence for itself. There is no independent, historical evidence for any of these events.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Actually it is just as difficult to rationalize that fact that the goodness in the world exists for an atheist, as it is for a theist to rationalize evil.
NopeFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Stile has already defeated that crap. I can easily say why goodness exists. I do not have to rationalize. My life is immensely joyful because goodness exists. I and a lot of people like me try to bring goodness and happiness into this world, every day.
See how easy that was. How about you move this to the thread that is not off topic? I think we will have fun with this. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Paul in his letter to the Corinthians tells how he was writing this while there were still eye witnesses alive. He obviously had contact with the eye witnesses.
Please provide the passage. I don't think it says what you think it says. Also, just because someone makes a claim does not make it true. Without corroboration any statement is meaningless.
Also the Christian message is that ultimately this world will be renewed and suffering won't be a part of it, which makes all of this a work in progress.
Sounds insidiously evil to me.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
You cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. Show me some independent sources. There are none. Why do no writers or historians of the day make no mention of this character? The gospels and acts are not historical documents. We have no idea who wrote them. We have no idea what their provenance is.
You mention Paul. Why does he not mention anything about the life of Jesus. He does not refer to any biographical details and does not use any of the gospel teachings to support his own teachings. Palestine was a back water. Jesus was not presented as a historical figure until at least 40 years after the supposed execution. It was a minor cult for the first couple hundred years. You might want to try more than PRATTsFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
As I said before you cannot use the bible to corroborate itself. All of the 1st century Christian writings are anonymous except for 7 of the Pauline epistles. Paul makes no mention of the Jesus as a historical entity.
Despite the accounts becoming pretty common knowledge by the second century and nobody writing to dispute that he was a historical figure.
But then again you have no evidence to support this do you?
Then contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all attest to him being a real person.
They were not contemporaries and they do not attest to him being a real person. Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Care to support your assertions with evidence?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Yes. The passage I assumed you were referring to. This does not say that any of these people were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus or his crucifixion. This states that these people had a vision of the Jesus character. Nothing more. Nothing about where the crucifixion was, who the 500 were or when. Remember Paul is the same guy that said that he has learned of Jesus from no person, just divine revelation. Galatians 1:16, Ephesians 3:4-5. In Romans 1:2 and Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul talks about how scripture is the source of his knowledge of Christ and Salvation. He was not talking about the Christian gospels. They were not written for decades after his death. He was talking about the Hebrew bible.
Setting that aside, why does it conflict so much with the gospels and acts? Why is it if Jesus was a historical figure does Paul not mention any of that history? Nothing about the miraculous birth of Jesus, or his famous career, astounding miracles, bold new teachings, circumstances of his death. Nothing about Bethlehem, Nazareth or even Jerusalem and its ties to Jesus.There are no writings from the Jerusalem church or anyone that claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Cephas/Peter, James and John comes from Paul. Paul says absolutely nothing about any of them or anyone else traveling around with Jesus. Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, formattingFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
If you were following we were talking about Paul and his writings. You should know that since you are the one that quoted Paul. As we have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written, it cannot be used as a historical source. You might want to rethink your post because I made it very clear I was talking about Paul and his writings.
Since the writings af Acts are decades after Paul and they conflict with Pauls we can ignore them. Again. We are talking about the writings of Paul, not Acts. So. Wrong. Read what Paul wrote not what you want him to have written.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
There is enough attribution to the authors by other sources
Who? When?
is BS, It's rather a stretch of a claim. Besides, if supposedly, they don't know who wrote the gospels (your charge of them being anonymous), how could they know when the writers we're born. Most scholars do not agree that they we're born after the Crucifixion (which by the way was a historical event that is not seriously disputed). And there is plenty of textual evidence to suggest the writers we're (or at least claimed) to be eyewitnesses.
Well how about you provide that evidence? No the crucifixion of this character is not an accepted historical event. There is absolutely no historical evidence. The bible cannot be evidence for itself. It is obvious that non of the writers of the bible stories were eyewitnesses. Mark, the first gospel, was written by someone not even familiar wth Palestinian geography. Luke tells us he is not an eyewitness and he makes the same blunders on geography that Mark does. Primarily because Luke uses 50% of Mark's text. Matthew uses 90%, though he does fix some of the geographic blunders.
With the number of ancient copies of the gospels being in the thousands,
If by copies you mean tiny fragments. Josephus - Even if the James reference is legitimate it is not proof of a historical jesus. Just that 60 years after the supposed execution people believed there was. Pliny - No one disagrees he was talking about some sect of Christians. Not proof of a historical jesus. Simply proof that a group called Christians existed. We have no idea what their beliefs were and just because they existed does not mean jesus did. So using this logic you agree that John Frum was a real person. Also, the Heaven's Gate Aliens must be real too.
Umm, no, that is not the sum of "all the available 'independent' evidence' It rather is just the evidence that is restricted to a particular time period. You seem to want to ignore all the evidence in history after a particular point (which is voluminous) just because you think it is too 'old'.
Because after a certain point there can not be any original evidence. If people started writing now claiming they believed Ned Ludd was real, that is evidence for him? You claim there is legitimate historical evidence for jesus. Present it. You seem to accept that there is no contemporary evidence, present what you have.
Frankly, I would love to see you apply the same amount of hyper-skepticism you hold to any other non-Christian historical accounts.
Like who? Maybe people already have. Other ancient mythical figures don't have followers fucking up the world and making my life more difficult like this jesus figure. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Acts was written decades after the death of Paul. It is not history. It does not have anything to corroborate it. You can not use it to claim Paul said he met apostles or that he spoke of a historical Jesus. Paul never speaks of a historical Jesus. It doesn't matter what it says in Acts. We have no idea who wrote Acts or when it was written. I clearly stated that I was talking about Paul's writings.
You obviously have little or no knowledge of what is in the Bible and just want to argue your atheistic position. Not really helpful. You are arguing a strawman. Paul mentions nothing about the historical Jesus. I have extensive knowledge of your bible. I have read it numerous times. I am quite knowledgeable of Christian history. I have worked at archaeological digs in Israel. Do not presume what I have knowledge of. The historicity of the jesus character has nothing to do with atheism. If you cannot have a civil debate without insult and using fallacies and lies maybe you should not try to debate. Edited by Theodoric, : SpellingFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
As I'm sure you know the writer of Acts is the same author as as the Gospel of Luke.
Acts and Luke are irrelevant to this conversation. We are discussing Pauls writings. They date to at least 30 years after Paul and may actually date to 60 years after Paul. That you cannot tell us who wrote them or when just validates their irrelevance.
He can hardly have Christ dying if he wasn't referring to Him as a historical figure.
That's it? No Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no moneychangers, nothing from the Gospels? Read some Philo you will see that this crucifixion was on a spiritual plane. Nothing he writes here puts it into a historical context. Paul never uses anything from the gospels to support his arguments. Never.
What strawman?
We are discussing what Paul wrote and you keep bringing up Acts. Acts is irrelevant and not the conversation.
OK, I apologize, it was just that some of things you said caused me to think otherwise.
I could say the same of you. You might want to try reading the bible completely and in context instead of as a collection of pithy verses.
Well, maybe so, but to argue that Jesus never existed is really without any real merit.
Your faith is the only reason you state this, because there is no historical evidence.
but the NT is not an account by one individual but many,
And the only author we can kind of identify is Paul. The rest are anonymous of unknown provenance. All the other gospels copy Mark. We know Mark and Luke were ignorant of Palestine. We know the gospels were ignorant of Judaism. We have no reason to believe they are based on anything factual. There is no corroboration. You cannot use them to corroborate each other.
However, IMHO there is no explanation for the rise of the early church other than for what it is that the NT writers have compiled and recorded for us.
There was no early rise. It was a minor mystery cult for hundreds of years after Paul founded his sect.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024