Disagree on that point. You can always ask for the women he claims to have slept with. If he balks on the story, why would I pass it on?
But you don't know the women. They're a couple of girls he met in the pub last night - one Tracy, the other Jane. Apparently they go to college in the region somewhere.
The more you start asking your friend for evidence, the more you should hopefully begin to understand the only real issue with a large portion of atheists. You make a claim, you need to support it.
Of course in general day to day life it doesn't happen, (as the example I posted attempted to show). As humans we do tend to embellish, to make up, to exaggerate, and to bold faced lie. As humans others tend to modify and change stories that they have heard until it no longer even remotely resembles the original version, (it's generally known by the name 'Chinese whispers'). You can see clear examples of it in the bible - from the Noah story, (taken from Utnapishtim) all the way to Jesus supposed miracles that actually increase accordingly as understood time frame of writing progresses, (I actually had a diagram somewhere that showed this but I lost it with the explosion of my last computer. I shall try and find it again so the point is better understood).
Irrational response and has no reference to the point.
I am generally of the opinion that short sentences that make bold statements but do not support those statements do not really belong in discussions or debates. They belong in fights with your wife/siblings and when you're under police caution but not here. I would ask that if you're going to respond to a post you actually make the effort to explain yourself.
My response is fully in reference to your 'supposed' point, and is far from irrational.
Let us clear up and look at the statement that
you made - and how it is connected, ok?
You said: "Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed"
Now.. What you're saying is that these people would not have written anything unless Jesus was real.
By that very same reasoning vampires must exist or Anne Rice would never have written about them. To rephrase your own statement:
"Why would Anne Rice write anything if she knows it's a myth? Therefore vampires must exist".
Perhaps you didn't mean to say what you did. Perhaps you meant to say that.. well, I can't even think of what it might be you actually meant to say, but the way it currently is you have no case and no argument.
In what ways have humans progressed? Please be clear.
"Please be clear" says the man that hasn't got the decency to supply anything other than short unsupported statements and think that's good enough.
To answer your question, (because seemingly unlike you I am capable of it): man has progressed in many ways - technologically, morally, medically and so on. The list is a long one. We have more knowledge of the world and the universe - and therefore, (the point of what I was saying), is that modern day man is far more likely to question what is and what isn't. We know for instance that a headache is not caused by a demon sitting in your skull. We have science, we have knowledge. These people had little choice but to explain things the way they saw them - with little to no technology or science. How would a jungle dwelling shaman explain the sun? How would he explain progeria or pfisteria? Can
you explain progeria or pfisteria? It's 2007 and what do you know of these two out of a gazillion examples? What do you honestly think these people knew about pretty much anything?
So, how do you answer something that you cannot answer? How would you explain the things around you without technology, without science to guide you? I suggest for this we go and ask the jungle shaman.
When he points at the sun and claims it a powerful god we will not dispute it. When his enemies write about the tribe and their powerful sun god we will stand up united and shout "Logically that sun god must exist or else nobody would have said anything".
I'm sorry, you're talking utter foolishness.
There is plenty. You are just content not to know.
Another detailed and worthwhile response. *end sarcasm*.
I mean c'mon, you cannot honestly sit there and think a man of science, a man who considers the pursuit of knowledge as one of, (if not
the), most important thing mankind can ever get involved in is "just content not to know" what is and what isn't. Your problem is that you for some insane reason think you can justify the existence of something merely on the basis that somebody wrote about it.
If you actually have something of substance to say then get on with it and say it. Give up the pointless one-line unsupported statements and put some effort in.
You have claimed: "There is plenty". So, point out that plenty.
But in regards to the belief of a person in a major religion, yes it is the issue and it is important.
What exactly to what I said are you disagreeing with? This is the problem with vague one-line statements. One of the reasons I am probably so confused here is because I never, not once in my statement stated what is or isn't important. As for what is or isn't the issue.. Once again I must quote my last statement in the hopes that it sinks in:
"For some reason you keep assuming that if something is fictional nobody would ever write about it. I keep pointing this out as being fallacious, and you seemingly enjoy ignoring it."
With regards to whether people would write about fictional beings or not, "building a belief" is irrelevant.
You are showing that you are not well informed. The belief in Santa Claus is stemmed from a historic person and has evolved from that. Do a Google search on St. Nicholas.
You're right, I'm stupid - we're all stupid, you're the master. *end sarcasm*
Right, I went to google like you told me to. I hate to have to say it but I found
no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of Santa Claus. None at all, not a bean.
I found lots of information pertaining to St Nick, but nothing whatsoever to support the existence of a jolly old fat man with a snowy white beard that gives presents to all good kids while riding in a sleigh dragged by flying reindeer.
Therein is the point. People support and promote fiction. They embellish and exaggerate - and bold faced lie. Never ever ever has Santa Claus existed and he never will.
Now, for the sake of this specific debate I am willing to entertain the idea that there once existed a man with the name used in the bible, (jesus or yeshua or whatever other name you guys can come up with). But how can you possibly entertain the idea that Santa is
real because some dude named Nicholas existed? Did Nicholas ride a sleigh with flying reindeer? It's highly improbable. By that same token - you have absolutely diddly-squat to support that a man was born from a virgin that got impregnated by a god who then walked on water, did miracles, got killed, came back to life, and will come back to rule mankind eventually.. Oh, and for some reason he was also white. Do me a lemon.
And your entire argument to support that "jesus" exists? Because nobody would write about him if he didn't. What utter hogwash.
Yet you have not placed any challenge at all other than denying everything I wrote.
Let's not be silly. You will find that all my posts go into great depth. You on the other hand are hard pressed to offer more than a one-line statement questioning my level of knowledge. Now, obviously it needs to be said, but I have not "denied everything you have written". What I am denying, and you continually fail to even acknowledge is that by no means can you support
your claim that: "Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed"
You are just showing you are not informed but just want to deny all.
It's generally acknowledged that when someone starts questioning anothers level of knowledge and making claims to "complete" (all) denial - which is simply fallacious - that it's because the person making the statements has no debate within him. I can understand by now that you must have noticed that your statement has no value, no weight - and yet it is seemingly always borderline impossible to get someone to acknowledge the mistakes they make. Now, if you have something of value to offer then I am here - willingly waiting. If on the other hand you would like to compare intelligence, or penis size or anything else then just let me know and we can drag this entire forum down the shitter for the sake of your ego.
Plus I was not born in a Christian household, so don’t make speculative charges that are untrue.
I didn't actually say that you were. I never implied the religion that your parents are or are not. However the simple fact remains that religion, (of which depending on location), christianity is a fore-runner, is washed all over the majority of children from birth - not specifically from parents but from everything - be it schools, friends, tv, radio etc. In cartoons we see the dead ones with little wings and halos ascending into the sky, at christmas we hear "..little lord jesus lay down his sweet head" coming from the radio and so on and so forth.
I have always tried to keep my daughter free from such nonsense until she is old enough to understand it and make up her own mind based upon her own study and understanding and I must confess I find it impossible to keep up. It's either lock her in a room with nothing or accept the fact that my daughter will be subject to it - and just hope that my daughter has the intelligence to not fall for such idiocy.
I guess you haven’t heard of the Book of Judas, the Gnostic gospels, and others of that kind. Your questions only show you are not informed.
That's now what.. the third time I have had to sit here and watch your only argument be that my level of knowledge is clearly not as good as yours. Would it help if I said I had a 12" penis? However, your petty little idiocies aside, your "guess" would be wrong. Where is that text now exactly? Everytime someone even dares mention it in front of a christian they dismiss it out of hand because it "goes against the grain".
Judas surfaced in the 1970's which simply illustrates my point - if that text was with the grain as opposed to against it, you would have known about it long before the 70's.
An empty rant. Try to be rational.
An empty statement. Try to give it some effort.
Are you using some pay-per-type keyboard? It's like 30 cents a letter or something?
Obviously it needs to be said, but I wasn't "ranting" anything, I was discussing with a person who has made a ridiculous statement. Discussions, (other than yours), usually contain more than one sentence, and so.. to those that are not used to it might appear like "rants". I can assure you they're not. Perhaps it's time for me to tell you you're "uninformed"?
Now, if we are to be "rational", (a word used far too much by those that have no place to use it), we would have to conclude that your statement is bunk. The simple fact of the matter is that many fictional characters are written about by those that are aware they are fictional. I myself am guilty - having written about Santa Claus when I would consider myself an enemy to christianity and indeed christmas. Personally I hate the waste of trees the most, but then why as an enemy would I delude my own child at christmas time? Well clearly Santa
does exist. Please, don't be silly.
That was already done with “The Satanic Verses.” You are not informed and can’t produce a good counter argument without ranting.
When I mentioned embellish, exaggerate, Chinese whispers and bold faced lie I didn't realise you would provide one such example for me. Earlier I mentioned how Jesus miracles increased as time went by. The earlier writings have very few miracles, the latter have many. In saying that I find your most recent statement the most amusing. What started off as me being uninformed has now progressed into being uninformed
and ranting. In short I have progressed from a knowledgeless idiot to a complaining knowledgeless idiot. I'm unsure whether that's something to be proud of or not.
Now, while we're on the subject of counter arguments.. Anything other than calling me a complaining knowledgeless idiot to offer or is this the best you can muster? I'm sorry, thousands of years of human learning and this is the best offer you can make to a debate? This is what humanity in 2007 comes down to?
As to your very short statement "That was already done with “The Satanic Verses.”", I knew you were going to say this exact thing, (I just wasn't expecting the various insults). The point is actually shown by mentioning the satanic verses. Where is Rushdie now? Hiding in a hole through fear of death.
"On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.""
He lives in quite a lucky time.. A time when people can get from one country to another in a few hours, can hide and change names, can actually get far away from those that would kill him -
and the book will survive even if all "legit" copies were destroyed. Although I am highly uninformed, there was something about a book very recently that had all copies destroyed. That is not quite the end of that book - purely because of the time we live in. If this was 2000 years ago things would have been slightly different.
Baseless assumptions and more ranting.
Well, at least you didn't call me uninformed this time. As for "baseless assumptions", don't... I have serious issue with utter hypocrites.
You have no basis to even come to that conclusion after reading your response. Rantings do not prove your conclusion.
Clearly you intend for this to turn into a slagging match, but let it be said that whining like a sissy girl does not in any way help your original fallacious statement. If you want to support that statement then you need to put some effort into it. I'm sorry, I know that hurts but that's the way it is. You can say "ranting" and "uninformed" all you like, all week long but it is
not an argument to anything.
I am going to ask you once and that's it:
Justify your claim that people would not have written about jesus, (this is a white guy that did miracles, was born from a virgin, died and ressurrected etc), unless he existed.
Show some evidence,
any evidence that this is the case. Provide more than one line and ten insults to support your claims. Show how and why anyone should ever entertain the idea that by the simple fact that someone has written about a guy that can do miracles and is god in human form, (or whatever), means that that person exists/existed. A gazillion dollars says you can't - and
that is where the issue lies. Now, willing to attempt to get that gazillion dollars or you want to concentrate this argument on my level of knowledge or lack thereof?
