Starlord??

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant. If the opposite were true then every single, fictional character, ever invented, would become instant reality.

2) Your blustering carries no more weight then a claimed belief in the Mad Hatter.

3) If the teachings of a prophet are believed then why is no later prophet allowed to contribute to any particular religious belief? Do they never quite measure up to a bronze age myth? I wonder why?

4) How can whole books be ripped from the Bible without destroying the entire concept of belief that it is the immutable truth and the written word of god? Isn't it blasphemous to rip big chunks out of a sacred text? Or does it rather depend whether it suits that church's ulterior motives at the time?

5) Who decided that [religious] time must stand absolutely still in the bronze age? Had textual perfection already been achieved? Leaving no further room for a more learned interpretation [or better translation] at a later date? All the better to share "the word of god."

6) Making up the characters, rules and the script, as you go along, is called fiction. Just in case you have completely lost the plot, fiction is NOT true. It is a story for entertainment of the reader or listener.

7) Organized religion is a transparent ploy to ensure a comfortable life for the deluded, the socially inadequate, the abusive, the greedy, the lazy, the pedant, the sociopath and/or corrupt parasites on society. It was ever thus.

8) Education is the enemy of all religion. No religion can stand up to the slightest intelligent scrutiny as more than a mere superstition. Which is why education, particularly for women, is banned or strongly discouraged. Can't have women's intuition or common sense undermining the male orientated bull****, can we? Besides, there would be no time for rubbing your nose on the filthy ground if the women didn't collect the firewood and fetch the water and make the meals and care for the kids and clean house and and and.. ad infinitum.

9) Belief in any religion demands belief in all religions. Since all are mere superstitions they can all be safely dumped into the same waste container. A belief in the Roman Pedophile Church is thus equally as valid as a belief in IS's nut-job excuse for deranged sociopathy. See item 8 above for further details.

10) Any religion with a blasphemy clause is relying on fear to ensure continued discipline to the totally corrupt afterlife salesmen. If it were so damned wonderful and the obvious truth then voluntary belief in the fairies would be [more than] enough. Blasphemy clauses suggest the whole crock of **** is a means to support blatantly insupportable ideas. Just like communism and all other forms of jackboot and rifle butt dictatorship. Religion is vicious dictatorship of the worst and most intolerant kind purely for the profit of a few. The oldest pyramid sales scam crossed with the oldest trade [theft from the weak or naive] sums it all up quite nicely.

11) All really great ideas for the greater good are transparently beneficial and benign to the majority. Or they are quite obviously not. Religion falls squarely under the latter heading.

12) Selling the idea of a monstrous, terrifying ogre in the sky to gullible children should be automatic grounds for prosecution for extreme, psychological, child abuse. Selling the idea of a terrifying ogre, on fire under the ground, as a potential punishment for children's naughtiness, should be immediate grounds for life imprisonment in a mental institution.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:05:40 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

peterson claimed that Jesus was a mythical character, so where is his proof?

remainder of chrisbcritter's projectile vomiting deleted

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 2:05:23 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

He is mythical. Good luck finding a scholar who disagrees.

What would be their proof? (Their -opinions- are irrelevant.)

He's mythical by the definition of "mythical".

Ooh! A tautology!

That's not something
you "prove". But you've demonstrated many times that you are clueless
about how scholarly research operates.

Word salad.


To the extent somebody wants to claim he was a real person, the burden
is on them to provide evidence.

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

You don't understand anything about logic, either.

Incorrect.

If you assert
something is real, you need to offer evidence.

Incorrect.

Not if you assert
something doesn't exist.

Incorrect.

There is nothing implausible about a preacher gaining followers, irritating the powers that be, being martyred and thereby inspiring a new religion.

Have you proof that it didn't happen, bird-brain?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

He's mythical by the definition of "mythical".

Ooh! A tautology!

A word you don't understand, apparently.

There is nothing implausible about a preacher gaining followers, irritating the powers that be, being martyred and thereby inspiring a new religion.

I didn't suggest that it was implausible. What I said is that there is
very little historical evidence (and no contemporary evidence) that
this person actually existed.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:05:40 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

peterson claimed that Jesus was a mythical character, so where is his proof?

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:26:25 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

He's mythical by the definition of "mythical".

Ooh! A tautology!

A word you don't understand, apparently.

Incorrect.


There is nothing implausible about a preacher gaining followers, irritating the powers that be, being martyred and thereby inspiring a new religion.

I didn't suggest that it was implausible.

No one said you did.

What I said is that there is
very little historical evidence (and no contemporary evidence) that
this person actually existed.

Irrelevant.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:30:39 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:05:40 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

peterson claimed that Jesus was a mythical character, so where is his proof?

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 04:36:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:30:39 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:05:40 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

peterson claimed that Jesus was a mythical character, so where is his proof?

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

Once processed by the big salad spinner between your ears, I have no
doubt that's true.

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:08:50 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 04:36:56 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 7:30:39 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:05:40 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 18:59:31 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

You said that he wasn't a real person but a mythical character, so where is YOUR proof.

1) The onus of proof is always on the claimant.

peterson claimed that Jesus was a mythical character, so where is his proof?

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

Once processed by the big salad spinner between your ears, I have no
doubt that's true.

Your words are ambiguous at best, nonsense at worst.

You use circular reasoning, made-up terminology, weasel words, strawman arguments and refuse to back up anything you say.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Again, although I expect the concept is forever beyond you, the claim
that Jesus is mythical is not one disputed by any historians, because
that simply follows from the definition of "mythical". The
controversial assertion is that he's substantially fictional as well.
That is, that the Jesus of the bible is substantially unrelated to any
historical person. I don't personally assert that to be true, I only
say I believe it likely given the complete lack of contemporary
evidence of his existence, when in fact such evidence should exist
given the biblical claims about him.

Word salad.

Once processed by the big salad spinner between your ears, I have no
doubt that's true.

Your words are ambiguous at best, nonsense at worst.

The argument was clear and unambiguous. An intelligent person who
disagreed would offer his own arguments. You seem incapable of doing
so.