Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[EvieTheAvocado]

Mirror mirror on the wall. Who's the pot calling the kettle black?

What do you mean, "Who's the pot calling the kettle black?" ... no one?

@no one No, not you. I meant nobody at all.

Yes you are, you just don't realize it. Kinda like you didn't notice my joke earlier. It's not your fault though. No worries.

You're actually an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Yes, you are. You just don't realize it. Kinda like how you make mistakes or miss things sometimes, as does everybody. It's not your fault though. No worries.

[EvieTheAvocado]

But seriously, don't go acting like the tone police or I'll tell you to go fuck yourself too.

Feel free. I see no policing going on. Just pointing out silliness.

Lies and dishonesty are not silliness. Those are serious. I have low tolerance for dishonesty as you well know. But when it crosses over into blatant lies about me. That's when it becomes real serious. 

You wanna make fun of me for it? Piss off.

I haven't seen anyone lying, though.

I can make fun if I want. It's not against the rules. Some things are worth making fun of.

[JesseB]

Feel free. I see no policing going on. Just pointing out silliness.

Lies and dishonesty are not silliness. Those are serious. I have low tolerance for dishonesty as you well know. But when it crosses over into blatant lies about me. That's when it becomes real serious. 

You wanna make fun of me for it? Piss off.

I haven't seen anyone lying, though.

I can make fun if I want. It's not against the rules. Some things are worth making fun of.

Some things are, this is not. And you haven't been paying attention. And even if you had like the joke I made that you missed you probably wouldn't see it and it wouldn't be your fault.

That you don't see it means nothing to me. It's still there. No offense intended in saying that.

[JesseB]

What do you mean, "Who's the pot calling the kettle black?" ... no one?

@no one No, not you. I meant nobody at all.

Yes you are, you just don't realize it. Kinda like you didn't notice my joke earlier. It's not your fault though. No worries.

You're actually an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Yes, you are. You just don't realize it. Kinda like how you make mistakes or miss things sometimes, as does everybody. It's not your fault though. No worries.

@no one isn't islamic that I'm aware of.....

but that was pretty clever and funny. And yes I make mistakes, that does not mean I'm currently making a mistake.

@SteveII is a cunt, a lying cunt. And I'm not letting this go until he fixes it.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Lies and dishonesty are not silliness. Those are serious. I have low tolerance for dishonesty as you well know. But when it crosses over into blatant lies about me. That's when it becomes real serious. 

You wanna make fun of me for it? Piss off.

I haven't seen anyone lying, though.

I can make fun if I want. It's not against the rules. Some things are worth making fun of.

Some things are, this is not. And you haven't been paying attention. And even if you had like the joke I made that you missed you probably wouldn't see it and it wouldn't be your fault.

That you don't see it means nothing to me. It's still there. No offense intended in saying that.

I'm not interested in offense I just don't see the point in accusing other people of lying during a disagreement and I find the otherization of the other side to be highly amusing, in the silliest of ways, sometimes.

You say it's serious ... but the only thing worth taking seriously is the actual disagreement rather than all this crap about calling the other person a liar when they have a different point of view.

[JesseB]

I haven't seen anyone lying, though.

I can make fun if I want. It's not against the rules. Some things are worth making fun of.

Some things are, this is not. And you haven't been paying attention. And even if you had like the joke I made that you missed you probably wouldn't see it and it wouldn't be your fault.

That you don't see it means nothing to me. It's still there. No offense intended in saying that.

I'm not interested in offense I just don't see the point in accusing other people of lying during a disagreement and I find the otherization of the other side to be highly amusing, in the silliest of ways, sometimes.

You say it's serious ... but the only thing worth taking seriously is the actual disagreement rather than all this crap about calling the other person a liar when they have a different point of view.

Funny I don't give much of a shit about the disagreement. I only care about the lie. This isn't a function of differing points of view. This is a malicious lie. He miss characterized what I said. I corrected him. He did it again. I corrected him. He did it again I called him out as a lying cunt. He is intentionally lying. That's different to anything else that has happened here. Until he started lying I was willing to play nice. Now? Fuck him he's a cunt.

And I will not let this go until he fixes his shit.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Yes you are, you just don't realize it. Kinda like you didn't notice my joke earlier. It's not your fault though. No worries.

You're actually an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Yes, you are. You just don't realize it. Kinda like how you make mistakes or miss things sometimes, as does everybody. It's not your fault though. No worries.

@no one isn't islamic that I'm aware of.....

but that was pretty clever and funny. And yes I make mistakes, that does not mean I'm currently making a mistake.

@SteveII is a cunt, a lying cunt. And I'm not letting this go until he fixes it.

I said I WASN'T talking about @no one. That was a joke I was making. I guess it's a 1-1 score on the joke-missing, then.

You can't provide any evidence for your claim that @SteveII is lying ... nor is there any point in attributing motives like that over a disagreement. It's completely irrelevant at best.

And if he doesn't bother responding to you because you called him a liar ... I can't say I blame him. I stop taking people seriously when they insist that I'm a liar so, if he did as well, I could understand that.

You keep telling me that I can defend him all I want ... but you don't seem to like it when I do. I'm not interested in taking sides. I'm not interested in otherization. I'd rather we just focussed on the actual arguments rather than get personal when the other person doesn't agree or see our point.

[JesseB]

You're actually an Islamic Fundamentalist.

Yes, you are. You just don't realize it. Kinda like how you make mistakes or miss things sometimes, as does everybody. It's not your fault though. No worries.

@no one isn't islamic that I'm aware of.....

but that was pretty clever and funny. And yes I make mistakes, that does not mean I'm currently making a mistake.

@SteveII is a cunt, a lying cunt. And I'm not letting this go until he fixes it.

I said I WASN'T talking about @no one. That was a joke I was making. I guess it's a 1-1 score on the joke-missing, then.

You can't provide any evidence for your claim that @SteveII is lying ... nor is there any point in attributing motives like that over a disagreement. It's completely irrelevant at best.

And if he doesn't bother responding to you because you called him a liar ... I can't say I blame him. I stop taking people seriously when they insist that I'm a liar so, if he did as well, I could understand that.

You keep telling me that I can defend him all I want ... but you don't seem to like it when I do. I'm not interested in taking sides. I'm not interested in otherization. I'd rather we just focussed on the actual arguments rather than got personal when the other person didn't agree or see our point.

OH. I can't? Cute.

Hang on........

[EvieTheAvocado]

Yes, you literally can't. It's literally impossible. You'd have to be telepathic.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Some things are, this is not. And you haven't been paying attention. And even if you had like the joke I made that you missed you probably wouldn't see it and it wouldn't be your fault.

That you don't see it means nothing to me. It's still there. No offense intended in saying that.

I'm not interested in offense I just don't see the point in accusing other people of lying during a disagreement and I find the otherization of the other side to be highly amusing, in the silliest of ways, sometimes.

You say it's serious ... but the only thing worth taking seriously is the actual disagreement rather than all this crap about calling the other person a liar when they have a different point of view.

Funny I don't give much of a shit about the disagreement. I only care about the lie. This isn't a function of differing points of view. This is a malicious lie. He miss characterized what I said. I corrected him. He did it again. I corrected him. He did it again I called him out as a lying cunt. He is intentionally lying. That's different to anything else that has happened here. Until he started lying I was willing to play nice. Now? Fuck him he's a cunt.

And I will not let this go until he fixes his shit.

Do you really think that he believes he's lying?

You don't think that he believes his own position? There's no point in talking to someone if you think they're actually dishonest, right? Why argue with someone if they're not even saying what they really believe?

How exactly does he not believe the things he says he does? It's just so pointless to turn a difference of opinion into a telepathy contest.

[Dancefortwo]

Wait, somehow I have to believe everything in Genesis is literal or I can't believe in the NT??? That's the best example of a red herring that I have seen in a while. 

Again with the "same book" error. Genesis was written a 1000 years before the NT. HOW in the world can that be considered the same book?

Nah, all you have to do is provide unbiased evidence from sources outside of the New Testament  that a man named Jesus performed  magical feats.  So far the only place you'll find these stories is in a book written by anonymous people who weren't eyewitness to any of the events.  There were historians living in the same area and  at the same time that Jesus was said to be perfroming these amazing "miracles",   yet none of them mentioned anything about this Jesus guy.  The Bible even  says his fame was known "as far as Syria" but  no contemporary historian  writes about him.   

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish historian alive at the same time as Jesus with  family and friends living in Jerusalem.  His brother was an official who  frequented Jeusalem and even donated the silver for the gates of the Synagogue there,   but Philo never mentions the "famous" Jesus.

Only 48 years after Jesus died  there are contemporary written accounts of Vesuvius erupting, but Jerusalem, a bustling city with many literate people,  has no contemporaries writing about the  dead walking the streets, the sun disappearing for three hours or a huge earthquake.....all happening in one day.    The only place you'll find these Jesus  stories is in a book with talking snakes, donkeys and bushes.

[EvieTheAvocado]

And yes I make mistakes, that does not mean I'm currently making a mistake.

I'm not currently making a mistake either. I didn't say that it meant that you were currently making a mistake. I was just mirroring what you said to me to demonstrate how silly it looked.

[JesseB]

What the fuck is scientific evidence? You mean empirical evidence? As of yet you've provided no evidence at all. Just claims and assertions. You haven't even supplied a rationalization for your position.

What "historical" evidence do you think you've provided? Also History is a scientific field. You do realize this yes? What you're saying is nonsensical

If there was only a way to look up definitions used in a reference article...

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

You can have empirical evidence in any field of study that lends it self to experimentation. This is CLEARLY NOT limited to science.

Regarding the last dozen posts that you start with "You have not presented any evidence". I can't say this any more clearly:YOU HAVE A DEFINITION PROBLEM. I illustrated it above. I have to repost it because it did not sink in:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

My list is NOT assertions (more definition problems).

as·ser·tion
/əˈsərSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

Something stops being an assertion when we have MORE than a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief. As an example:

P1 - P3.  Words read from historical documents. You cannot ASSERT historical words into existence!
P4 - P6. Testimony ranging from personal to people I know, to the billions I have not met. You cannot ASSERT billions of people's reported experiences!
P6 - P10. Are inductive, logically valid arguments that are well known. They are not ASSERTIONS.

Your past opinions on philosophy are starting to manifest itself. You don't understand the format of an inductive argument. These are premises (propositions) that support the conclusion at the end. I do NOT have to prove each premise in an inductive argument. They only have to be POSSIBLE. The moment you played the "irrational" card, you lost--because now you have to show that EVERY premise is WRONG (not probably wrong, wrong) OR my belief (that God Exists) is impossible. You cannot do either.

You are stuck in a cycle of low-brow appeals to authority arguments. OF COURSE you can find some scholar to give you the interpretation of the evidence you want. I can trot out 10,000 with the opposite view. To what end? The real arguments for and against religion are waged in philosophy.

 You seem to be missing the point. Replace scientific with empirical and we'll get along better. 

Also weekday @unfogged said also applies but was not my point.  Thanks dude I didn't even think about that. 


Regardless how you try to frame it I do not require empirical evidence as the only form of evidence.  You quoted a wiki and I correctly pointed out that science users all the types of evidence you listed. And you have supplied no evidence by the standards of that list.

This appears to be a clear attempt to obfuscate the point.

Regarding Bart in pretty sure you're quote mining the rounds you want without representing the position he holds.  I could be wrong I mean I've only listened to a couple hundred hours of his speeches so clearly I kmow nothing about whay he has said or what it means. .. :p   regardless I told you Bart thinks a historical man existed and was through legends turned into a god. But that he does not refute the facts about the bibles dubious credibility. 

^ here's how you're missing the point or ignoring the point possibly quote mining and obfuscating the point .

Wait so you want be to "prove" that annoying word you keep using, that your god is impossible.  That can possibly be done. If you're using any of the classical theistic arguments the Christian god is easily debunked as they say.   If you've modified it in some way it may be impossible for me to do. 

But it's also irrelevant.  You're the one mistaken.  If you're using an inductive argument you "proove" a god could exist.  Well then we're in agreement.  I don't think a god could not exist it depends on how you define such a thing.  However that does not make belief in such a thing reasonable without evidence.  As @unfogged pointed out we're not talking about what might have been.  We're talking about what is. Big difference.  If you want to make inductive arguments about the possibility of the existence of your god them you can abandon your claims of evidence.  That's only required if you're talking about what is.  Which is a scientific claim

You need to pick a ball game and stick to it.  Also your insults are cute.  But hardly relevant or accurate.  Try harder.

Edit: Also if you were making some specious argument about if a god could exist you could have been more clear at the onset.  I have no interest in wasting time in mindless speculation.

Wait so you want be to "prove" that annoying word you keep using, that your god is impossible.  That can possibly be done. If you're using any of the classical theistic arguments the Christian god is easily debunked as they say.   If you've modified it in some way it may be impossible for me to do. 

The natural theology arguments have been around for centuries--even a millennium. Why do you think that is? Because they are easily debunked? Besides, they all deal with metaphysics so I doubt you fully understand them, because, you know, metaphysics is bullshit. (BTW, thank you for that great quote)

But it's also irrelevant.  You're the one mistaken.  If you're using an inductive argument you "proove" a god could exist.  Well then we're in agreement.  I don't think a god could not exist it depends on how you define such a thing.  However that does not make belief in such a thing reasonable without evidence.  As @unfogged pointed out we're not talking about what might have been.  We're talking about what is. Big difference.  If you want to make inductive arguments about the possibility of the existence of your god them you can abandon your claims of evidence.  That's only required if you're talking about what is.  Which is a scientific claim

This whole paragraph seems disjointed and confused, but I think you are saying that inductive arguments don't need evidence or that if I use an inductive argument, somehow magically the premises transform into non-evidence. Either way, you don't know what you are talking about.

"Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Every premise in my argument would be a piece of evidence no matter what format I put it in or no format at all. It would just be a list of evidence.

You need to pick a ball game and stick to it.  Also your insults are cute.  But hardly relevant or accurate.  Try harder.

Edit: Also if you were making some specious argument about if a god could exist you could have been more clear at the onset.  I have no interest in wasting time in mindless speculation.

I don't know what you talking about--at all.

Understanding and caring are two different things. That I have no need for metaphysics is not the point of ridicule you think it is.


You're correct your argument doesn't need evidence. You do realize this yes? Why do you care? It's a concept that exists in your mind. Has nothing to do with the real world. When you decide to come back to the real world, do bring some actual evidence and not hearsay combined with circular arguments for us to consider. Until then you don't need to wave around bad arguments as if they are somehow evidence for what happens in reality.

"Every premise in my argument would be a piece of evidence no matter what format I put it in or no format at all. It would just be a list of evidence. "

Wrong. Really we need @WhiskeyDebates to take this one on.... I could hardly do it proper justice. So get your new keyboard dammit


It seems like you're trying to drag us back to a pre enlightenment period of thought. Just like you can not define a pink unicorn into existence, a syllogistic argument does is not evidence for the existence of a god. At best it could tell you one of a limited number of things.

1. That such a god may be possible (evidence still required for confirmation before belief in such is warranted)
2. That you're missing an important factor (which you wouldn't know because you're not relying on sound methodology for understanding the world, which is why I have no interest in metaphysics, I fully understand how our methodologies and justifications were originally born from or more accurately evolved from syllogism and philosophy which you like to conflate with metaphysics even though the two are distinctly different things, however I have no need for it. I deal with what is. I leave philosophy to the likes of Sam Harris. This is after all why I study Computer Science dude, I have my focus and interest and it's not yours that does not warrant you're insults. Especially when you keep refusing to deal with my fucking points /endrant)
3. Your premise is wrong (hint it's number 3)

In a syllogistic argument as you're constructing then yes if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, however you are abusing this. Try making a syllogistic argument for the existence of a second invisible sun revolving the earth then maybe you'd see what it is you're doing.

We keep poking at your premises saying they are wrong. thus the conclusion is wrong. and you keep saying no they are right because they are in your argument (circular reasoning much?), combined with actual appeals to authority where you don't justify your claims instead asserting that people believe the bible is accurate even the atheists (which is factually not correct and we've pointed this out) thus your premises are true. Factually incorrect. Then you got the balls to accuse me of making an argument from authority when I simply pointed out that you are wrong that the majority of modern scholarship thinks you're wrong, combined with my own reasoning and justifications avoids an argument from authority. BECAUSE my position was not based on their work, simply referenced. Do you honestly find yourself incapable of understanding this or are you just completely dishonest?

Edit: Pick a ball and stick with it, is an accusation that you continually redefine the game aka move the goalposts. AKA you're being dishonest in this discussion. If it is unintentional then you need to be made aware so you can stop doing it. If it is intentional then you need to piss off. Dishonesty is not gonna fly well here.

@EvieTheAvocado  I'm done playing nice with this dishonest little shit. Deal with it.

@SteveII

Look dude, I've tried to point out that we're talking 2 different languages here. I've invited you to meet half way to start at the beginning so we can come to at least some understanding. So we can agree to what it is exactly we're talking about. You refuse

You claim I lost the debate, which is cute, the debate section is down below in the colloquium. Also you can't arbitrary claim your opponent lost a debate, that's stupid and childish. The winner of a debate is determined by the audience, which wouldn't really be all that fair to you here, well it would be more fair to you than you realize but.... still. Third I don't know if you realize this but everyone here has done more to chip at your credibility, the fact that I've not even tried to "Prove you wrong" means nothing. I mean does it matter if you're right or wrong? Do you honestly think you're logically fallacious argument (which it is) somehow proves your god exists? What if your argument as flawless as you claim and still in the end no god existed at all? What then? Where did you go wrong? It would be a good question to ask yourself "mr metaphysics rules and physics drools." As you've currently positioned yourself you have your back up against the wall and your standing on a pile of shit dude. Your P 1-13 are false thus the argument is false. When we point this out you just come back with nuh uh the argument proves p1-13 which is the very definition of circular reasoning.

(Honestly I haven't proving you wrong isn't my goal, nice job not noticing that obvious fact)

You've twisted my words numerous times, and I've not called you out on it, basically because @EvieTheAvocado said nice things about you, now evie doesn't claim he was defending you though that is how it came across and why I extended you more leniency than I normally would have.


My only real problem with you in all of this however is your refusal to fucking listen and consider the points being raised. But if you're going to keep up with the dishonesty, you're going to end up on my shit list real quick.

To your first point, well that explains a lot. I don't trust anyone. If I'm being honest I don't trust anyone ever, however I'm aware of how that makes people feel so sometimes even though I know I shouldn't I lie to protect their feelings. Even at the age of 6 I didn't trust anyone. I expect lies and dishonesty. I am aware that is unusual, and not particularly biologically healthy as it puts a lot of strain on the body knowing that you have no true allies in the world. That no one has ever, nor will ever be on your side. But I would rather be honest with myself than manipulated.

As for personal evidence, I mean I don't think it's a question of whether it should be convincing or not. It is convincing to you otherwise you would not be convinced of it yes? It is meaningless to others, or should be. Maybe it should be meaningless to you too, however you're going to do what you want, and I'm not going to fuss about that. Pointing out that personal experiences are not always what you think they are and may not be valid justifications for one's beliefs while factually accurate has likely never helped anyone to point out. Why? When I tell you that you are wrong, you double down. Specifically you @SteveII have done this here in this thread. You have been wrong about things and refused to even question why anyone would point it out to you. And in justifying your wrong positions at times have made even worse errors. Now we all make errors, I've given you far more wiggle room from me than you've been willing to give from you, but that is after all a hallmark of religious conditioning.

Whoa there. I don't remember you showing me I was wrong in one point--and definitely not one that matters. If you think that telling me about some opinion written by some "scholar' as to what really happened, and that somehow is telling me I am wrong, you are mistaken. I can trot out 20 times as many scholars to tell you why I am write. I don't do that. My beliefs are not fringe--with most of them going back to the beginning.  

You can resort to insults if you want, however you need to demonstrate or deal with the argument as it's presented first, or risk falling into an Ad Homonym attack. I say this because you've made that specific error today. I'm not offended, or hurt, or threatened by it. I frankly don't even care, my point is you missed my points entirely and are shadow boxing with your own imagination at this stage rather than the people you're interacting with. I've tried to bridge the gap because we're clearly talking past one another. It appears you don't care.

Either that or you're just another dishonest theist.

Think I'm wrong? Show me.

It took 10 pages just to get you to stop mischaracterizing my list. Now that you stopped doing that, you are confused on what an inductive argument is (addressed in the most recent post).

As to your second point.... it's irrelevant. You think a person walked on water. Why  you think it, how you got there matters very little. You'd do well to watch the videos I linked. You are demonstrating gullibility and rationalization of the highest order. That you think we should take this seriously is absurd. We do not, and we will not. Pull your head out of your ass and you'll see why. That says nothing about your beliefs, only that you should be capable of telling me exactly why your claim justifiably gets dismissed by people like me. You don't seem so stupid as to be incapable of understanding this.

Your argument amounts to

1. You don't agree with me and the "scholars" where I got my opinions from.
2. Therefore you are gullible and rationalizing (among all the other condescending things you have called me and my beliefs.

That's it!! You would think there was more to it with all these long posts. But that's it. That's all you have. That's all you ever had if you ignore all the definition problems. This is so very weak. I know every single major argument atheists put up against Christianity--easily a thousand hours of study and debate. You picked the weak--ass one to undergird you over-the-top condescending opinions, assertions and remarks. Not impressed.  

Edit: just saw your last line. Yup pretty much. I get that you think based on this cumulative case that you can believe that Jesus walked on water from inference or whatever else. Tell me, do you think animals evolve over time, do you think the earth is round, and do you think the flood happened, and how old do you think the universe/Earth is, and can you describe to me the firmament. Where is it exactly? And why should one take the walking on water more seriously than these other claims made in the same book (more accurately collection of scraps of documents which were copies of copies of stories written in ancient times when people still thought blood letting was a good medical practice....)

Wait, somehow I have to believe everything in Genesis is literal or I can't believe in the NT??? That's the best example of a red herring that I have seen in a while.

Again with the "same book" error. Genesis was written a 1000 years before the NT. HOW in the world can that be considered the same book?

No that has not been my position at all. Frankly I don't give a fuck about your argument. I've only been trying to point out the flaws in it. You've not been addressing those flaws and screaming "You haven't proven me wrong" as if that's even relevant to the conversation we've been having.

My arguments amount to, your "evidence" is dubious at best, not reliable, and not a solid foundation for this argument. And that your belief in walking on water can be fully justified using this argument just as much as all the other claims I listed which I figure you probably don't agree with (at least some if not all of them) as a way to get the message through your thick skull.

Example using racism.

"I don't like black people" < that's racist, nuh uh it's not racist at all, yes it is try replacing black with white. Fine
"I don't like white people" < That's racist! Yea just like the one you said first about black people dude. Wait no they are totally different! (this is how you sound to people when you try to justify the NT claims (and not all of them I might add I'm quite sure we can find some you don't accept), but pass off the OT claims. Like for real dude. How does this fly over your fucking head? If you can dismiss the OT claims, why then would you accept the NT claims? What's the difference? Hundreds of thousands of people supposedly witnessed many of the events in the OT, far more than the 500 people you can't identify because it's just a specious claim that is no different to the claim that 1 million people fled Egypt (not sure on the number but it's a big number). Parting of the red sea? Walking on water? Why accept one based on weak logic but abandon the other which uses the same specious arguments? This is my fucking point, or most of it anyway)


Edit: keep in mind I'm not even concerned with the fact that you're cherry picking. You're a theist of course you cherry pick, It's kinda a requirement unless you're a member of westboro baptist or the talaban lol. My point in bringing it up is to point out the hypocrisy of your argument because the same justification you're using for walking on water and Resurrection applies to everything in the OT. That you discount one and not the other say's a whole fucking lot. Way to once again not even come close to dealing with what I'm saying.

(On second thought even they cherry pick, kinda a problem when you're holy book is filled with contradictions you're forced to cherry pick)

These are the examples just in the last 2 pages where I've had to correct him on a position, on all of these I've had to correct him on MY position time and again (for clarification I've had to correct him on each of these positions of MINE more than 3 times each). Now it's one thing for me to have to correct a person from time to time, or for him to correct me from time to time, but when a person consistently ignores the correction and continues to claim words you did not say, or did not mean in the way they are presenting them. That is a mother fucking lie dude. Period.

I don't know his motives and I don't fucking care. I care about the lie. He has demonstrated himself to be lying based on his actions not his thoughts feelings or intent. I'm not guessing this he's demonstrating this, do you see the difference? Want me to pull up the dozens of each example and count for you how many times I corrected him when he misrepresented me? That's not a disagreement that is a lie. Period. And while you may not be the best at spotting lies and you may think knowing when a person lies is somehow impossible, most people disagree with you and for good reason. And even if you were right his actions speak for themselves.


So he's a fucking liar. Period.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Well ... anyway. @JesseB I tried to help. But I think that we're just going in circles. Happy insulting! Have fun! And have fun calling the other side a liar! Go ahead and jump on the @Bucky Ball-style bandwagon! See if I care! I just don't see the point in all that crap ... but whatever, can't say that I didn't try to help, eh?

@SteveII I tried. I hope that you don't let that kind of crap scare you off as I really enjoy debating with you. We strongly disagree but I think we can do that without resorting to namecalling, attributing motives and other nonsense.

[JesseB]

Keep in mind @SteveII is already blocked half the forum (exaggerating only a little), everyone is still responding to him despite the fact that he's blocked them all. He's a cunt. He's dishonest. He's not interested in a debate or a discussion he's only interested in spreading his asinine bullshit without challenge then strutting around pretending he won some contest. As demonstrated by his actions.

At some point you really do need to understand that a persons actions do indicate intent and motivation. I get that you are hung up on this whole "nobody know's anyone else thoughts so nobody can guess at them even a little thus we must be super nice to everyone even as they punch us in the face and stab us in the heart" bullshit, but I do not come from that school of thought.

@SteveII is not an honest actor as they say. And until he corrects his horse shit lies about my position that is what I will say about him, and even if he blocks me I'll call him out on his shit as will everyone else. Eventually he'll likely end up banned if he continues this shit. Either that or he'll run away saying everyone is mean to him. How people treat him is dependent on how he treats others, if he wants a more stimulating debate then he needs to knock off the bullshit.

[JesseB]

Well ... anyway. @JesseB I tried to help. But I think that we're just going in circles. Happy insulting! Have fun! And have fun calling the other side a liar!  Go ahead and jump on the @Bucky Ball-style bandwagon! See if I care!  I just don't see the point in all that crap ... but whatever, can't say that I didn't try to help, eh?

@SteveII I tried.  I hope that you don't let that kind of crap scare you off as I really enjoy debating with you. We strongly disagree but I think we can do that without resorting to namecalling, attributing motives and other nonsense.

@SteveII let that kinda shit scare you off. I like @EvieTheAvocado but evie is wrong on this. Piss off and dont' come back, or prove me wrong by owning your shit and knocking off the bullshit. I mean the second option would make everyone happy. But I doubt your sincerity unlike evie.

[EvieTheAvocado]

These are the examples just in the last 2 pages where I've had to correct him on a position, on all of these I've had to correct him on MY position time and again (for clarification I've had to correct him on each of these positions of MINE more than 3 times each). Now it's one thing for me to have to correct a person from time to time, or for him to correct me from time to time, but when a person consistently ignores the correction and continues to claim words you did not say, or did not mean in the way they are presenting them. That is a mother fucking lie dude. Period.

I guess this means that Bucky and Shrodinger must be liars then  

(For the record, I don't think that they are. I think genuine misunderstandings do happen in life ... and they do happen persistently ...
and often. And the other person is (often) not able to see your point of view. That's quite commonplace. But yeah, I won't bother wasting my time arguing with a brick wall ... but I don't think it means the other person is lying. The point is that if you think that someone repeatedly missing your point means that they're lying then that means that Bucky and Shrodinger are liars for repeatedly missing my point. I don't have to believe that they're liars. I can just believe that they're liars/dishonest/disingenuous *or* they just can't take my point. They don't have to be liars).

And, like I've said before, even if the  other person is lying ... it's not really relevant to the disagreement in any way ... as you're arguing against their statements; not them. If they make statements that they don't actually believe ... then it shouldn't change anything, really. As you're not going to select which statements of theirs to take them at their word and what not ... that would be silly. Just take them at their word, whether they're lying or not, and actually deal with their actual arguments. I don't see any point in going on and on about motives when they're not even relevant.

[JesseB]

Wait, somehow I have to believe everything in Genesis is literal or I can't believe in the NT??? That's the best example of a red herring that I have seen in a while. 

Again with the "same book" error. Genesis was written a 1000 years before the NT. HOW in the world can that be considered the same book?

Nah, all you have to do is provide unbiased evidence from sources outside of the New Testament  that a man named Jesus performed  magical feats.  So far the only place you'll find these stories is in a book written by anonymous people who weren't eyewitness to any of the events.  There were historians living in the same area and  at the same time that Jesus was said to be perfroming these amazing "miracles",   yet none of them mentioned anything about this Jesus guy.  The Bible even  says his fame was known "as far as Syria" but  no contemporary historian  writes about him.   

Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish historian alive at the same time as Jesus with  family and friends living in Jerusalem.  His brother was an official who  frequented Jeusalem and even donated the silver for the gates of the Synagogue there,   but Philo never mentions the "famous" Jesus.

Only 48 years after Jesus died  there are contemporary written accounts of Vesuvius erupting, but Jerusalem, a bustling city with many literate people,  has no contemporaries writing about the  dead walking the streets, the sun disappearing for three hours or a huge earthquake.....all happening in one day.    The only place you'll find these Jesus  stories is in a book with talking snakes, donkeys and bushes.

Exactly but my point when right over his fucking head. So I doubt you saying it will get through his thick skull.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Well ... anyway. @JesseB I tried to help. But I think that we're just going in circles. Happy insulting! Have fun! And have fun calling the other side a liar!  Go ahead and jump on the @Bucky Ball-style bandwagon! See if I care!  I just don't see the point in all that crap ... but whatever, can't say that I didn't try to help, eh?

@SteveII I tried.  I hope that you don't let that kind of crap scare you off as I really enjoy debating with you. We strongly disagree but I think we can do that without resorting to namecalling, attributing motives and other nonsense.

@SteveII let that kinda shit scare you off. I like @EvieTheAvocado but evie is wrong on this. Piss off and dont' come back, or prove me wrong by owning your shit and knocking off the bullshit. I mean the second option would make everyone happy. But I doubt your sincerity unlike evie.

What would be the point in him coming here to discuss if he wasn't sincere? The guy isn't a troll.

[EvieTheAvocado]

@JesseB If you're gonna react this way to one of the most respectable theist debaters then I'd hate to think how you'd react to a genuinely bad one.

[JesseB]

These are the examples just in the last 2 pages where I've had to correct him on a position, on all of these I've had to correct him on MY position time and again (for clarification I've had to correct him on each of these positions of MINE more than 3 times each). Now it's one thing for me to have to correct a person from time to time, or for him to correct me from time to time, but when a person consistently ignores the correction and continues to claim words you did not say, or did not mean in the way they are presenting them. That is a mother fucking lie dude. Period.

I guess this means that Bucky and Shrodinger must be liars then  

(For the record, I don't think that they are. I think genuine misunderstandings do happen in life ... and they do happen persistently ...
and often. And the other person is (often) not able to see your point of view. That's quite commonplace. But yeah, I won't bother wasting my time arguing with a brick wall ... but I don't think it means the other person is lying. The point is that if you think that someone repeatedly missing your point means that they're lying then that means that Bucky and Shrodinger are liars for repeatedly missing my point. I don't have to believe that they're liars. I can just believe that they're liars/dishonest/disingenuous *or* they just can't take my point. They don't have to be liars).

And, like I've said before, even if the  other person is lying ... it's not really relevant to the disagreement in any way ... as you're arguing against their statements; not them. If they make statements that they don't actually believe ... then it shouldn't change anything, really. As you're not going to select which statements of theirs to take them at their word and what not ... that would be silly. Just take them at their word, whether they're lying or not, and actually deal with their actual arguments. I don't see any point in going on and on about motives when they're not even relevant.

He's welcome to own his shit and show it's just a misunderstanding. It's all based 100% on his actions. I do not let anyone not even @Bucky Ball lie about what I say even if it's an accidental lie.

I don't care about intent I can't know his intent or if he meant to lie. All I know is I gave him a chance, I corrected him and he continued without even once acknowledging the correction. You would get frustrated too if someone kept doing that to you. I mean apparently that's what happened with @Bucky Ball and you ya? Either way you blocked him. I have only ever in years of using this and TTA blocked 2 people. Stevil from TTA and @"Wolfen" that's it. I don't close doors. But I am fucking clear on my expectations and boundaries. @SteveII has crossed a line. He's free to fucking fix it or piss off. I won't block him but I will call him out for this and I will not let it go unless he fixes it.

[JesseB]

@JesseB If you're gonna react this way to one of the most respectable theist debaters then I'd hate to think how you'd react to a genuinely bad one.

I'm an asshole to dishonest cunts. If you think a dishonest cunt is "respectable" theist debater I have misgivings about your judgment :p

Also AGAIN THIS ISN"T A FUCKING DEBATE! how many times must I say this?

[EvieTheAvocado]

I don't know his motives [...]
[...]
So he's I therefore don't know if he's a fucking liar. Period.

Fixed that for you!

Problem solved. That's that done with. You've debunked yourself. Period.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Also AGAIN THIS ISN"T A FUCKING DEBATE! how many times must I say this?

I already dealt with that. Of course it bloody is, lol. Just because it's not a formal debate doesn't mean that you're not debating.

I already said, if you don't like that word then just replace it with the word "disagreement".

It's a disagreement. No point in adding all this pointless shite to the mix.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I don't care about intent I can't know his intent or if he meant to lie.

... but if he didn't mean to lie then he didn't lie ... and if you don't care about intent then you don't care about lying ...