Did Jesus Actually Exist?

My challenge is not with the OP, it's with you and the crap you post.

The evidence you supposedly posted was challenged by many a poster with far greater historical credibility than you.

If your evidence were undoubted, I would be the first to acknowledge it.

Instead you are grasping at straws in a desperate try to make your point.

You failed.

I don't post crap. YOU see it as crap because YOU want to see it as crap, that's all. That's no challenge from you, that's a challenge TO you. You are simply incapable of appreciating what I write to its real value.


LOL... Like who? And why do they have more credibility than I do, and with whom???? With YOU? But that is again YOUR choice to ascribe more credibility to this or that guy. YOUR subjective opinion, which I couldn't care less.


Any evidence can be doubted, always. I can doubt the evidence that you exist, if I want to... Piece of cake.

Verdict: you don't understand what I write. In fact you don't even understand what YOU write. It makes no sense whatsoever to expect what you expect.

Now you are the judge of your own greatness.

Can you cite an assessor, if there is any?

Self-delusion is such a bitch..

See, it's not about me.

Well, if you weren't using words like "crap" all the time, you would perhaps be better placed to understand what you deride as "crap".

Denialism after all is only the capacity to say "crap crap crap" when people show you some evidence... It is that simple, and you are showing all the symptoms.

I agree with you, timur. I just got tired of the thread.

Why do you guys even care so much?

I understand your tiredness, Edgar, but not confronting the crappy proselytizers is the best way for them to perpetuate the yoke of the religion over the poor people.

To think that eighty to a hundred generations of uncountable human beings lived and suffered under the leaden shroud of christianity just makes me abhor guys like Olivier and his crappy notions.

Your mixed up metaphor answers my question: the Jesus doubters have a very strong bias against Christianity, which is what motivates them to rewrite history and erase the figure of Jesus from it. That's why they care so much. That's why they are so angry, including you.

You know very little about human nature.

If you could see me, a thing I'll never allow, you would learn what placidity is.

You don't seem to understand that your inferences are mostly projecting.

I don't rewrite history saying that generations suffered under religion.

You are trying to rewrite it with your unfounded and crappy assertions.

It's not only about christianity, you can check my other posts about other religions.

Olivier...

...I think what Timur is saying that in his non-cyber life, where he doesn't have to worry about someone punching him out for some of the nonsense he spews...he is placid.

But here on the Internet where he has total anonymity...he can be as brave as a Navy Seal.

I take him at his word. You should also.

Are you trying to emulate Coldjoint, Franck?

Any feats of bravery to tell us about?

Fighting grounds records?

The point is not whether people suffer under religion. People always suffer. The point is: do they suffer more under religion than under the absence of religion? And of course, nobody can answer this question objectively, since we can't compare the actual history as it unfolded with a 'counterfactual' or 'alternative' history where Christianity would not have happened.

We can of course compare the state of development of countries that are in majority Christian with the development of countries which are in majority not Christian. This comparison would indicate that Christianity brought a development advantage, in that Christian countries tend to be more developed than non-Christian ones, overall.

Which of course says nothing about whether Jeebus walked this earth or not. We are talking about your ideological anti-christian bias here, and how it may explain your historic revisionism.

I read him differently. He is trying to push back on my argument that his very nasty posts here indicate a strong bias on the subject matter. He's trying to hide his super-charged emotional investment in this topic by pretending placidity.

Nope. Just having a word with Olivier.



Nope. I don't do bravery.



Any chance we could get an English translation of this?



My point to Olivier, by the way, is that you appear to be the kind of person who is only rude, nasty, excitable, quick to take offense, and abrasive on the Internet where nobody knows who you are and where you are safe from physical confrontation...but in your non-cyber life you are, in your own words, placid.

That's all.

I was suggesting to him that he take your word on that.

You are being obtuse on purpose, aren't you?

I just told you my stance about ALL religions but you only pick the one you have an obvious bias about..

Your other assertions about religion and development are just as crappy as your previous ones.

If you knew a little bit of world history you wouldn't post such ridiculous statements.

You are hopeless..

I knew that, Frank, you are only brave on the internet.

Obviously, I'm saying you are a liar.

I don't pretend, unlike you.

At least, I am actually SAYING something.... What do you say apart from 'crap crap crap'? Nothing.

You have a very strong anti-Christian bias. Maybe it is indeed a broader thing about all religions, but I haven't seen you complain about Judaism, Islam or Shamanism that much.

Do you think them poor Jews suffered for millennia under the "leaden shroud" of Judaism? That them poor Egyptians suffered under the "leaden shroud" of paganism? Are Muslims suffering under the "leaden shroud" of Islam? What about the communists, didn't they suffer under the "leaden shroud" of their communist religion? Etc. etc...

If yes to the above, then how do you know that a pagan Europe would not have done far worse - or just as bad - as a Christian one? If all religions are equally bad, they are all equally good...

I'm not especially brave on the Internet. I speak my mind clearly...and I do not give up when opposed.

I am the same on the Internet as I am in my non-cyber life.

You are the one who is hyper, rude, arrogant, quick to anger, anxious to retaliate on the Internet. But you tell us if we met you (something you apparently would avoid at all costs) in your non-cyber life...you would be placid.

You are anything but "placid" here, Timur.

You are the one with the identity problem...not I.

You saying so doesn't make it true..