On 3 Jul, 15:55, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
>
> <roger.pea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> =3D=3D>On 2 Jul, 16:38, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =3D=3D>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse
>
> IG:
> =3D=3D>> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In the total absence
of=
any evidence of Jesus
> =3D=3D>> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 historicity, it is not
=
unreasonable to assume that
> =3D=3D>> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legend of Jesus is
=
just myth.
>
> RP:
> =3D=3D>> =3D=3D>There is no absence. =A0Those to try to assert it
(dishon=
estly) have to
> =3D=3D>> =3D=3D>find excuses to ignore the evidence.
>
> IG:
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What evidence? =A0Outside of
the=
New Testament, there
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 isn't a single credible
historic=
al source that offers
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 any evidence that the Jesus of
t=
he New Testament
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 actually lived.
> =3D=3D>>
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You can babble all you like
abou=
t Josephus and Tacitus
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and anonymous people who may
hav=
e "known" the
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 apostles, but none of that is
mo=
re than wild
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 speculation -- part of the
despe=
rate effort to prove
> =3D=3D>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the unprovable.
>
> =3D=3D>I see. =A0So the NT isn't evidence, for some reason;
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For the same reason that nothing that
can=
not
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 be sup****ted by other sources can be
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 considered "evidence." =A0
I'm afraid that such a statement is false. If someone comes to you
and tells you that your house is on fire, you would never dream of
saying "well I need another person to tell me before I consider this
evidence."
In ancient history most of what we know comes from a single source.
The events in Britain after 396 and the final closure of the Vestal
order all are known to us only from Zosimus writing over a century
later. So this statement is not merely false in ordinary life, but
false in ancient history as a general rule.
> =3D=3D> and statements by pagans aren't evidence;
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Alleged "statements" re****ted hundreds
of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 years after the events they supposedly
re=
late
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to and without any independent evidence
t=
o
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sup****t them, are not evidence, but only
=
rumour
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 and hearsay -- and you know it as well
as=
I.
I'm afraid that ancient history is not done like this, and the
statements in question are not "centuries later".
> =3D=3D>and statements by the fathers aren't evidence...
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Whose "fathers?"
Please.
> =3D=3D>The fact is that all of these are evidence of the existence of a
m=
an.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You have not cited a single thing a
reaso=
nable,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 even moderately educated person would
con=
sider
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "evidence." =A0
It's probably best for you not to make statements like this, as they
tell us that you are not educated nor reasonable.
> =3D=3D>The ability to find excuses to ignore data is not evidence.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Nothing in the Bible is "data."
=A0Anonym=
ously written
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 stories are never "evidence."
You are ignorant.
> =3D=3D>Considering the tiny number of atheists, and their lack of
distinc=
tion
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Tiny number?" =A0I think not. =A0There
a=
re a whole
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 lot more atheists than dare to declare
th=
emselves,
In other words, you know and I know that there are only a tiny number,
and you have to resort to claiming that there are 'secret' atheists.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "The immense majority of intellectually
e=
minent men
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 disbelieve in Christian religion, but
con=
ceal the fact
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in public, because they are afraid of
los=
ing their
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 incomes." -Bertrand Russell (etc)
How this is relevant I don't see. And considering what we now know
about Bertrand Russell and the manner in which his public persona
concealed a selfish and sadistic man, I wonder that you quote him.
Whether this was true in his day I rather doubt. It certainly is not
true now that such people conceal their views.
> =3D=3D>Atheists in practice live by some subset
> =3D=3D>of the societal values of the period of history in which they
happ=
ened
> =3D=3D>to be born.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Subset of societal values?" =A0This is
u=
tter gibberish.
Am I using words too big for you? Please think before posting.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Besides, ALL people are at least
affected=
by the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 societal values of the period of history
=
in which they
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 were born. =A0What's your problem with
th=
at?
You think that's OK? What a good little storm trooper you'd have
made!
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Do you seriously believe we should all
li=
ve (change of subject snipped)
> =3D=3D>Such conformity, never discussed or made explicit,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 What "conformity?" =A0Atheism is very
nea=
rly the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 opposite of conformity. =A0
Funny; all atheists always live by the societal values of the period
in which they happen to be born. That sounds like conformity to me.
> =3D=3D> ... is the choice that you are pu****ng here (for your hatreds
are=
neither here
> =3D=3D>nor there, and merely beg this question).
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Hatreds?" =A0What "hatreds"
If you can't recognise the hate in your posts, please seek
professional assistance.
> =3D=3D>I suggest that such a position only has to be stated to be shown
t=
o be false.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You wish it were so. =A0
You say: "We should all live in conformity to values of the age in
which we happen to be born". I say: "That's rubbish". You say: "You
wish it were so."
QED.
> But a host of eminent, intelligent folks have found it
to=
be otherwise.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "All thinking men are atheists." -
Ernest=
Hemingway
All thinking men think for themselves. Quite why we should take our
religion from this Hemingway you don't explain.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "It is an interesting and demonstrable
fa=
ct, that all
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 children are atheists and were religion
n=
ot inculcated
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 into their minds, they would remain
so=94=
-Ernestine
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Rose
Intelligent people laugh at such assertions.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Atheism is nothing more than the noises
=
reasonable
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 people make in the presence of
unjustifie=
d religious
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 beliefs." -Sam Harris
Atheism is no more than the noise unreasonable people make in the
presence of inconvenient religious-backed moral imperatives.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Religion is all bunk." -Thomas Edison
Appeal to conformity noted.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The fact is that the world=92s most
intel=
ligent and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 creative people have always been
atheists=
, leaving
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 religious belief to the dumb, the
deluded=
and the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 pathetically brainwashed.
This tells me that you are repeating stuff by some very uneducated
people. But whatever has all this rubbish to do with my post?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Or perhaps you think Thomas Edison was
no=
more
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 than a man of "little distinction," a
con=
formist
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 living "by some subset of the societal
va=
lues of the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 period of history in which he happened
to=
be born."
=46rom what you say, indeed he was! For his achievements as an inventor
have no relevance, surely; unless you assert that we must take the
moral guidance of such people? If so, why?
You don't seem to have questioned critically any of this rubbish that
you're reading. It's all nonsense, written by ignorant people.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
