Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Setanta,

Whatever. Call me when you decided to act reasonbably. I know you can.

0 Replies

I have been reasonable. You're the one who responded to Z's idiotic attack on organized religion with a classic tu quoque fallacy. Since then, you've all but called me a liar. Why don't you check in when you decide to be reasonable?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You're the one who responded to Z's idiotic attack on organized religion with a classic tu quoque fallacy.

Not a falacy. I pointed out his fallacy, which is to attribute all the blame for any crime committed by a Christian on Christianity (and therefore the historical Jesus). That leads to attributing all the crimes committed by atheists in the 20th century to atheism. Incidentally, it also means we can blame anything we do wrong on religion or lack thereof -- very conveniant... Sad

Quote:

Since then, you've all but called me a liar.

I didn't state a generality about you being a liar, if that means a frequent liar. I don't know that yet. But you did technically lie when saying in post # 5,342,696 that:

Quote:

I know of no reliable evidence of long-term, systematic programs to eliminate people because they were christian adherents, and won't believe that allegation on your part without evidence.

...and in post # 712 that:

Quote:

You were trying to suggest that Stalin and Mao were out to eliminste the adherents, not just the religion.

I never said such a thing because I never believed such a thing. That is a verifiable fact. Go up the thread as much as you want to, you'll never find that statement in my posts.

At best it is a misunderstanding from your side, at worse a straw man. Since this is the THIRD time I draw your attention to it, I expect an apology for the misunderstanding, if indeed it is one.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You're the one who responded to Z's idiotic attack on organized religion with a classic tu quoque fallacy.

Not a falacy. I pointed out his fallacy, which is to attribute all the blame for any crime committed by a Christian on Christianity (and therefore the historical Jesus). That leads to attributing all the crimes committed by atheists in the 20th century to atheism. Incidentally, it also means we can blame anything we do wrong on religion or lack thereof -- very conveniant...

Quote:
Since then, you've all but called me a liar.

I didn't state a generality about you being a liar, if that means a frequent liar. I don't know that yet. But you did technically lie when saying in post # 5,342,696 that:

Quote:
I know of no reliable evidence of long-term, systematic programs to eliminate people because they were christian adherents, and won't believe that allegation on your part without evidence.

...and in post # 712 that:

Quote:
You were trying to suggest that Stalin and Mao were out to eliminste the adherents, not just the religion.

I never said such a thing because I never believed such a thing. That is a verifiable fact. Go up the thread as much as you want to, you'll never find that statement in my posts.

At best it is a misunderstanding from your side, at worse a straw man. Since this is the THIRD time I draw your attention to it, I expect an apology for the misunderstanding, if indeed it is one.

For what it's worth, I read your words the same way setanta did.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

For what it's worth, I read your words the same way setanta did.

It must be a point often argued here. You both put me erroneously in that pigeon hole.

0 Replies

@Olivier5

Quote:

You've misunderstood me again. I was just showing how Z’s assumption that anything bad done by a Christian should be blamed on Jesus is baloney. If he’s right, then anything bad done by an atheist must be blame on atheism itself.

First of all Captain Crackle Pop Christianator, I don't follow your inbreed logic. Slow down a second and let your sleepy little "hopped up on the Christian-crack" neurons catch up to the horse race. Take a look at this logic of yours:

1) King Whoever: "These infidels must die for their heresy to our God. Our religion allows for reasonable justification of genocide, rape, murder, plunder, et cetera, based on a few selective versus, and by God, we're going to murder these sons of bitches."

2) You: Christianity/Religion didn't effect the outcome of those murders. If religion is to blame for mass deaths because they were done by religious leaders, anything done by an atheist should be blamed on atheism.

That is a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of a belief. It is nothing. It isn't a thing. How can something that's not a thing be blamed for something else? Rubbish. You cannot enforce that Mousetrap causality of your own tinkered imagination onto these atheist leaders.

Ha! They had a "nothing" and killed some people. You're ******* hilarious. It's like watching a monkey in the process of mimicking the washing of a dish, but just not quite getting the point of it. Show the cause and effect between nothing having an effect on something, and somehow in the interim, initiating mass acts of genocide. Go ahead. Let's see you figure that out there super genius. You're a riot.

Oh, and PS-- your little "I don't believe in determinism" quip-- just stop it man. Since when did cause and effect need your holy permission? Go read a book.

3 Replies

@ZarathustraReborn,

Quote:

1) King Whoever: "These infidels must die for their heresy to our God. Our religion allows for reasonable justification of genocide, rape, murder, plunder, et cetera, based on a few selective versus, and by God, we're going to murder these sons of bitches."

2) You: Christianity/Religion didn't effect the outcome of those murders.

In those particular cases when a religiously-motivated leader or crowd committed a mass murder, one can reasonably attribute the guilt partly to that particular religion. But you said the Christian faith killed 100 million people, a grossly exagerated figure, and then offered as proof a link to a hotch poch collection of all crimes and wars since 100AD or thereabout... :-) including many without a clear religious motive. According to the idiotic principle that if a Christian did it, it must be Jesus' fault...

Quote:

2) You: [...] If religion is to blame for mass deaths because they were done by religious leaders, anything done by an atheist should be blamed on atheism.

That is a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of a belief. It is nothing. It isn't a thing. How can something that's not a thing be blamed for something else? Rubbish. You cannot enforce that Mousetrap causality of your own tinkered imagination onto these atheist leaders.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. It is a belief, therefore. It's not nothing. It's a world view, or rather it supports a number of world views. Including fascism and communism, which both say quite explicitly that human sacrifices must be made on the altar of History. A revolution kills people, often, and both movements were revolutionary.

Communism by the way is also a form of religion, where the roles of God, Jesus Mary Joseph and the wholy ghost are played by the Proletariat, History, Marx, Hengel, Mao, Stalin, etc...

So, the rule is the same: if a guy mass killed people because his god-less ideology allowed him or required him to, that ideology at least is partly responsible.

0 Replies

@ZarathustraReborn,

Quote:

Since when did cause and effect need your holy permission?

So you believe the future is entirely written? By whom?

1 Reply

@ZarathustraReborn,

Quote:

That is a non sequitur. Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of a belief. It is nothing. It isn't a thing. How can something that's not a thing be blamed for something else? Rubbish. You cannot enforce that Mousetrap causality of your own tinkered imagination onto these atheist leaders.

Nonsense...you can not have nothing, and reject nothing from nothing...otherwise there is no reason to have a rejection of something other than nothing...and you are not rejecting anything at all...You must have something (a belief) in order to deduct nothing from it...(or something, a belief that God does not exist, or is morally wrong)

0 Replies

There certainly has been enough rampant slaughter by organized religion over the last few thousand years to beggar the claim that atheists have been worse. However, over the long term, although religion may be a casus belli, wars are only sustained because of politics or economics--power or money. The Cathar (so-called) heresy was a threat to the papacy because it challenged the hierarchical power of the church. But it was not until Innocent III got together with King Louis, and promised that the Cathar lords' estates would be seized by the church, and distributed to those who took the cross that the French were willing to go south and fight them.

Similarly, during the Thirty Years War (peace Walter, i know it was more than one war, but most people don't), Cardinal Richelieu decided, first to subsidize Sweden, and then to dispatch French troops to fight with the Swedes against the Imperialists. Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden against Catholic Austria because the power equation of Austrian domination of what we call Germany was more important than the religious issue.

Modern "atheist" governments have gone to war either in self-defense, or to conquer and therefore increase their political power. They weren't kiling people because those people were theists.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I pointed out his fallacy, which is to attribute all the blame for any crime committed by a Christian on Christianity

Nonsense when whole cultures are killed off in the name of religion as in dealing with the question of is Jesus part human or not, then the only ones to blame are the fools who would put whole cities to the sword in the name of such a disagreement are the Christian leadership and the Christian followers who would do so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I've said as much already. Try and keep up.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

My advice is that you don't waste any time talking to Bill. He's not very bright, he routinely butchers what one assumes is his native language, and he's a perfect example of the dictum that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Added to that, he's a fanatic, and even if you were to agree with him, he would continue to argue.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Instead I should talk to you, who routinely insults me and often distort or misunderstand my posts? Hmmm...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You've got gall to complain about being insulted, Mr. Tartuffe. Hypocrite. I don't give a rat's ass who you talk to, and will be highly amused if you continue to attempt to engage Bill in conversation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You've got gall to complain about being insulted

Oh I'm not complaining, just toying with you. :-)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Gee, a minus 1 rating for that? We need to discuss determinism. Way too many A2K people seem to give credance to what is after all a pure belief, with no proof whatsoever, and abandonned by modern science.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Yep. My hometown Toulouse was subjugated to the kingdom of France as a result.

This might seem silly but hey... I'm silly. It's about a gigantic, ugly sculpture of Cathar knights erected along the highway from Toulouse to Narbonne, and how this was perceived as just another insult to them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSrxo61jaA

C'est quelqu'un du dessus de la Loire
Qui a dû dessiner les plans,
Il a oublié, sur la robe,
Les taches de sang.

(Someone from over the Loire
Must have designed it,
He forgot, on the robe,
The bloodstains)

0 Replies

I'm not interested in Toulouse, although i would visit if someone else paid the bill. However, i would to go down the road to Carcassonne.

The Albigensian Crusade made England rich. The biggest industrial area in Europe before the 13th century was Languedoc, and the Occitan-speaking region of northern Italy, as well as Catalonia. Those idiot crusaders destroyed their own potential wealth--raising sheep for wool being part of that. Flanders took up the slack in the textile trade, and England supplied the wool. One of those accidents of history.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Carcassonne is fine but it's not the real deal, the walls were almost entirely rebuilt in the 19th century by Viollet-le-Duc.

0 Replies

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know