|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2002 : 15:42:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I think when people insist that Jesus existed because generations later people spoke about him they should consider things like Roswell.
A couple of points ...
First of all, the only person insisting on anything is darwin alogos, and he clearly has some problem.
Secondly, with respect to Roswell. I believe that you are drawing a false analogy.
Roswell merely demonstrates the possibility of myth creation over a relatively short period of time. But, as you noted, there was a real event, and the question becomes: Is it more likely that the Roswell myth was spawned by a space vehicle or a weather balloon? Similarly, if there was, indeed, an early Judeo-Christian, Jerusalem based movement, is it more likely to have been spawned by some itinerant Jewish cult leader, or by exogenous factors? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 09:42:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by @tomic
I think when people insist that Jesus existed because generations later people spoke about him they should consider things like Roswell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of points ...
First of all, the only person insisting on anything is darwin alogos, and he clearly has some problem.
Imagine that my position has some "problem" because its based on historic FACTS while your empty ramblings of pure speculation are "problem" free??? Give me a break!!! Tell us just who in Scholarly world supports your view again?   |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 10:05:29 [Permalink]
|
darwin alogos,
First, it doesn't matter how many people agree, an argument should stand on facts alone.
Second, I think Slater has provided some sources that agree with his point.
Third, all of the sources you have presented have been shown to be invalid, either because they were written too late, or they were forgeries, or both.
This is for all participants, do you have something new to say? Something that hasn't been said in the previous 51 pages of this topic?
I enjoy this discussion (argument, debate, whatever), but it hasn't been going anywhere for some time now.
[edited for spelling and formatting] |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 12/23/2002 10:07:10 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 10:23:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[/b]
quote:
Zecharia Sitchin - a writer in the `Ancient Astronaut' genre - is by no means the first to see the problem these marks pose for `alternative' accounts of the Great Pyramid. They show that the pyramid was built by Ancient Egyptians, for the Pharaoh Khufu. It was not built by aliens . . .
This is the real logic of Sitchin's position: the quarry marks refute his pet theory; to save that theory, he has to discredit the quarry marks.
Sitchin's second book, The Stairway to Heaven, was published in 1980 by St. Martin's Press. In a chapter entitled Forging the Pharaoh's Name he set out the `perfect' solution to his problem: the quarry marks were forged by J. R. Hill, one of the Colonel's assistants.
(Several other authors - including Graham Hancock and Erich von Däniken - have adopted Sitchin's forgery claim, using it to immunise their own pyramid theories. Hancock now rejects the forgery theory - see his Position Statement . . .)
For negative comments on the quarry marks, Sitchin relies heavily on a contemporary report by Samuel Birch. Birch had a long career at the British Museum; when first appointed, in 1836, he was just 23 years old. Sitchin doesn't tell us where he found Birch's report, but Howard Vyse, and one of his assistants, John Shae Perring, both reproduced it in their respective publications:
Howard Vyse, R. W. H.
Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837.
James Fraser, London, 1840-1842.
Perring, J. S.
The Pyramids of Gizeh, by Actual Survey and Admeasurement.
James Fraser, London, 1839-1842. quote:
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/23/2002 10:25:41 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 10:44:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
I enjoy this discussion (argument, debate, whatever), but it hasn't been going anywhere for some time now.
Actually, I thought that the information posted in the Paleography thread, while not conclusive, adds credance to paleographic estimates. This, in turn, bolsters the historicity of Paul, making the existance of a Jerusalem-based, Judeo-Christian movement a more reasonable conclusion. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 10:49:08 [Permalink]
|
Sorry about the above post it s premature. quote:
darwin alogos,
First, it doesn't matter how many people agree, an argument should stand on facts alone.
I couldn't agree with you anymore strongely Boron but IF YOU WOULD GO BACK AND REREAD THIS THREAD YOU WOULD SEE THAT SLATER AND COMPANY CLAIM THEY HAVE NO FACTS TO BACK UP THEIR SPECULATIONS!!! quote:
Boron states:Second, I think Slater has provided some sources that agree with his point.
Slater has provided ZILCH as to reputiable scholarship that "agree to his point"[insert above post on the "aliens" buliding the pyramids is the same type of "scholarship"Slater and Co. cater to quote:
This is the real logic of[Slater's] Sitchin's position: the quarry marks refute his pet theory; to save that theory, he has to discredit the quarry marks.]
For example Slater uses the same logic as Sitchins, because the NT is historicly reliable and is better attested to than the 'sources' he used to support the existence of persons who he already accepts as 'historical'(ie Zoroaster,Apllonious,and Buddah)to save his pet theory he has to discredit the[facts] but he fails , quote:
Boron states:Third, all of the sources you have presented have been shown to be invalid, either because they were written too late, or they were forgeries, or both.
I promise to NEVER post another thing if you SHOW me where anyone PROVED (not just stated) ANY of my "SOURCES"[or evidence] was "INVALID,EITHER BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN TOO[sic] LATE, OR THEY WERE FORGERIES,OR BOTH"[emph. mine]. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/23/2002 11:11:30 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 11:20:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We wouldn't even have this topic if your favorite cult leader's existence could be proved. Or as they say...right back atcha.
@tomic
Poor Atomic you still don't get it do you? To the REAL WORLD its wackos like you who are the in the cult mindset denying reality and all. I suppose we could say Slater is your Guru to make it legit. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 11:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Third, all of the sources you have presented have been shown to be invalid, either because they were written too late, or they were forgeries, or both.
I know of no consensus on Antiquities 20.9.1.. Regarding Antiquities 18.3.3, while there are those who believe it to be a total forgery, I suspect that most view it as a partial interpolation. In any event, it seems to me that the value of Josephus remains an open question. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 12:11:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
quote:
We wouldn't even have this topic if your favorite cult leader's existence could be proved. Or as they say...right back atcha.
@tomic
Poor Atomic you still don't get it do you? To the REAL WORLD its wackos like you who are the in the cult mindset denying reality and all. I suppose we could say Slater is your Guru to make it legit.
Well DA, I am done talking to you or even reading your gibberish. I figured you wouldn't get it but there are probably some folks out there reading that may. You have a funny way of accepting anything that helps support your cause even if(and this has been the case with you) it doesn't count as evidence because you have no concept of what is and isn't evidence. To you it seems that anything can be called evidence as long as it supports your view.
Searching for the truth shouldn't mean tossing out anything that might upset your world and accepting anything that fits in.
I'm done wasting time(and space) here going back and forth with your unending demand for evidence that you cast a blind eye towards when presented with it and go on asking for it again. And while you do that you keep throwing out things unrelated to anything trying to make points that have nothing to do with anything.
Good luck in your quest for the truth. You'll need it.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 12:26:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Well DA, I am done talking to you or even reading your gibberish.
Sounds like a plan. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 20:37:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well DA, I am done talking to you or even reading your gibberish. I figured you wouldn't get it but there are probably
some folks out there reading that may. You have a funny way of accepting anything that helps support your cause
even if(and this has been the case with you) it doesn't count as evidence because you have no concept of what is
and isn't evidence. To you it seems that anything can be called evidence as long as it supports your view.
Searching for the truth shouldn't mean tossing out anything that might upset your world and accepting anything that
fits in.
I'm done wasting time(and space) here going back and forth with your unending demand for evidence that you cast a
blind eye towards when presented with it and go on asking for it again. And while you do that you keep throwing out
things unrelated to anything trying to make points that have nothing to do with anything.
Good luck in your quest for the truth. You'll need it.
@tomic
Why all the fuss Atomic I alerady said: quote:
I promise to NEVER post another thing if you SHOW me where anyone PROVED (not just stated) ANY of my
"SOURCES"[or evidence] was "INVALID,EITHER BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN TOO[sic] LATE, OR THEY WERE
FORGERIES,OR BOTH"[emph. mine].
Thats all you have to do just prove me wrong and I'll be gone  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 20:51:27 [Permalink]
|
| On the Discovery Channel last night they had a show called Jesus The Complete Story , while I really don't think they gave "The Complete Story" ,at the end they ended by stating "The death of Christ is one of the most documented facts of ancient history".Now if that isn't true there would have been an outcry of historians today.However, nothing but silence.Suppose they had been talking about The Pyramids and they had taken Sitchin's view and ended the program by saying "The fact that the Pyrmaids were constructed byaliens from outer space is an undisputed factof history" Don't you think there would have been an outcry? Then please think about it,why aren't historians around the world complaining about their claim about Jesus' death? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 21:04:06 [Permalink]
|
"... bitches and moans", "You idiot ...", "... gullible fools ...", "... wild eyed, halfassed ...", "... empty ramblings ...", "... wackos like you ..."
All in the last two pages. Looks like this thread is coming to an end.
Thanks, to all, I've enjoyed it.
DA you may now have the last word. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
