Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Except for many Buddhist regimes. My confusion is how you can say "I stand corrected that ALL atheistic regimes killed people" one minute and the next say "all atheist controlled governments and institutions which had atheism as a core value to my knowledge killed people"Because all atheist controlled governments and institutions which had atheism as a coe vaue to my knowledge killed people.
Also, LOL at "atheist controlled institutions". I must avoid those Atheist Ireland meetings so
In fairness you're getting (further) into ludicrous territory if you're trying to include any atheist controlled institution.Few Church controlled or church influences institutions killed people compared to ALL atheistic ones! But that does not mean all Christians or all atheists killed people.
It means exactly what I stated.
Yes you've said this probably a hundred times now. Murderous atheistic regimes were more murderous than murderous religious regimes. Woop dee fcuking doo. Unless you oppose atheists taking power in a state what is your point? What do you want us to do with this information other than asking us over and over if we find it curious? What conclusion do you draw from this piece of information?0 -
-
Except for the many Buddhist regimes. My confusion is how you can say "I stand corrected that ALL atheistic regimes killed people" one minute and the next say "all atheist controlled governments and institutions which had atheism as a core value to my knowledge killed people"
Because the point was made that Bhuddism is atheism. If so and the regime was Buddhist then it was an atheistic murdering regime. But the point was also made that the regime in (one case anyway) was Confucian which isnt atheistic. But I dont know if it was both conscian and Buddhist and therefore atheist. I am prepared to stand corrected in this one instance. But it has not been demonstrated.Also, LOL at "atheist controlled institutions". I must avoid those Atheist Ireland meetings so
Yes many militant atheist groups who promote blasphemy campaigns etc. have very few members. But I don't doubt if they got into power they would do what such groups always did.In fairness you're getting (further) into ludicrous territory if you're trying to include any atheist controlled institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_agenda.htmYes you've said this probably a hundred times now. Murderous atheistic regimes were more murderous than murderous religious regimes. Woop dee fcuking doo.
You misquoted it!
Religious administrations were not always murdering.
Atheistic ones were and were a thousand times worse in killing!Unless you oppose atheists taking power in a state what is your point? What do you want us to do with this information other than asking us over and over if we find it curious? What conclusion do you draw from this piece of information?
Answering a question with a question. Religious administrations were not always murdering.
Atheistic ones were and were a thousand times worse in killing!
And all you can say is "so what"?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Only insofar as the regular flu is preferable to swine flu
more likr the common cold preferable to the Spanish flu.or methadone is preferable to heroin.
More like asprin is preferabble to heroine. But methadone is probably more preferable then heroine anyway.Neither is particularly desirable, just that (if you focus on one particular statistic) one doesn't look quite as bad as the other. What's infinitely preferable to both is a liberal secular democracy.
But yu can have a liberal democracy and a church the UK has one.
People in charge of the state can promote religious valies.
You yourself stated you can't have a liberal democracy and atheism
When did nay state promote atheist values and not become despotic?The Church of England has no decision making power in the UK and nor should it.
Lords temporal? constitutionally part of the legislature. and the church did have more power in the past. the monarch also has constitutional power and must be religious. I am not a monarchist but I don't see them as despotic. Maybe if there was an atheist monarch?
Just because Democracy might be preferable to monarchy does not mean all monarchies are bad. all atheistic states however were.Church state separation is a fundamental aspect of a secular democracy;
so the UK is wrong?no one religious point of view should ever be given power in a state, be that viewpoint Christianity, atheism, Buddhism, Islam or FSMism.
Christioanity is constitutionally favoured in the UK but other religion isn't discriminated against.The slogan of "Put us in power! Historically we're not quite as murderous as this other group" is hardly convincing.
How about "The Pope - how many divisions has he?" - Stalin (atheist).0 -
Im interested in definition and facts as established by peer reviewed research.
No your interested in your own interpretation.When I say "atheist" I mean "does not believe God exists" or "there is no God" as defined and not "there might be a God" which is defined as agnostic.
Your using extremes that no one except the religious use. No Atheist 'believes' there is no god, no atheists 'knows' there is no god.
Richard Dawkins is perhaps the worlds best known atheist and he does not believe there is no god.figure 1.13 Atheist = There is no such thing as God!
There is no such thing as god. But I don't 'believe' it, I come to that conclusion based on reasoning and evidence.You are blaming the victims.You made a ludicrous comparison. Being Jewish or christian isn NOT a reason to be killed. But being nazi and atheistic anti theists is reason enough for nazis and atheists to kill people.
I'm not blaming anyone. I said the 'reason' for it was religious.
The reason the Romans killed the Christians was religion. The reason the Nazi's killed Jews was religion.Care to show how the quotes by Hitler calling Christianity a disease and calling for its destruction show how Hitler was carrying out a Christian plan?
From your apologetics website ? :rolleyes:
Why should I respond to your quotes when you have not responded to mine ?He wasnt. H was brought up catholic and rejected it like the atheists posting here. they have the same Catholic credentials as Hitler. Are they Catholic NO! Was Hitler? NO!
Hitler was very much a Catholic and the Catholic Church were friendly enough with the Nazis when it suited them.Christianity is not compatable with Naziism. popes showed how it was not compatable and preached against naziism.
This Pope ? Attending Hitlers Birthday Party ?
The quotes you supplied shows Hitler pandered to Christians and claimed he supported christianity but the quotes I supplied show this was a lie and he didn't support Christianity!
The quotes you supplied are from a nonsense mongering apologetics website. I wouldn't be surprised to find a section on the same website on creationism.So you claim . can you prove that? Or do you just believe it?
Well if you sound like a christian and don't deny you are in fact a christian then I hardly see the problem with considering you a Christian.
Which I will continue to do until you either deny or confirm either way.
LOL When you lose the argument do you always resort to attacking the person?I never claimed to be anything.
It is Irrelevant. You are trying to personalise the discussion.
Ok then shall I just consider you a Scientologist then ? Will I work my way through different religions until I get the right one ? Or just assume your a random religion every post ?how would it be totalitarian? And don't base it on "God exists".
If your religion is true then;
Theres someone/something that is always watching you, wherever you go, whatever you do hes watching. He has a big book of rules for you to follow and he claims to have supernatural powers and can be the way to your salvation if you follow him or your damnation if you don't. Oh and he cares about which people you have sex with.
And no its not the 'Dear Leader' I'm talking about.But it isnt the fact you claimed! You CHANGED it!
Utter dishonest lies and this is not the first time you've done this and I'm not the first person you've done it to. Go back and read.0 -
Because the point was made that Bhuddism is atheism. If so and the regime was Buddhist then it was an atheistic murdering regime.
Buddhist regime = atheist regime = atheistic murdering regime ? :rolleyes:
Your logic astounds us all.But the point was also made that the regime in (one case anyway) was Confucian which isnt atheistic.
Confucianism isn't atheistic but Buddhism is ?
Are you seriously saying that ? Do you even know what Confucianism is ?Atheistic ones were and were a thousand times worse in killing!
And all you can say is "so what"?
Your just after saying that Buddhist regimes are atheistic regimes and I just gave you examples of countries which were Buddhist and did not persecute people based on religion.0 -
No your interested in your own interpretation.
Care to show me how my definition of "Atheist" or "nones" differs from ARIN's definition?
That's a "no" then is it?Your using extremes that no one except the religious use. No Atheist 'believes' there is no god, no atheists 'knows' there is no god.
1.5 per cent of the people surveyed expressed the belief "there is certainly no God"
these people are defined as atheist. The survey has a reliability which is also checkable.
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/methods.html
However, this summary is just the tip of the iceberg of statistical data on a much larger number of religious groups than can be handled here and many more social variables than are highlighted here. The 1990 and 2001 studies were fully analyzed and reported in One Nation under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (1993) and Religion in a Free Market: Religious and Non-Religious Americans (2006)
http://prog.trincoll.edu/ISSSC/DataArchive/index.asp
Table 2 Estimates of Survey Standard Errors
we have two samples here: one of approximately 50,000 and one about 17,000.
That means at 1.5 per cent atheist the error is plus or minus 0.1 and 0.05 per cent respectively.
ARIS 2001 interviewed 50,281 respondents and the 1990 NSRI interviewed 113,713 respondents. The huge number of cases in these surveys provides unparalleled, in-depth profiles of the social make-up of religious groups and detailed geographical coverage with a high degree of statistical precision and a standard error of under 0.5 percent for the full sample in 2008.Richard Dawkins is perhaps the worlds best known atheist and he does not believe there is no god.
Please look up "peer review research" and dont base your opinion on a sample of ONE person and what you think he believes.There is no such thing as god. But I don't 'believe' it, I come to that conclusion based on reasoning and evidence.
Logic and reason shows that the idea of God can not be proved or disproved by logic and reason alone.I'm not blaming anyone. I said the 'reason' for it was religious.
the reason for nazis killing Jews was not religious.The reason the Romans killed the Christians was religion. The reason the Nazi's killed Jews was religion.
So if atheists kill believers the reason for it is religion according to you?From your apologetics website ? :rolleyes:
the source checks out. If you deny it then show how it is wrong.Why should I respond to your quotes when you have not responded to mine ?
RE read the but I posted about verification and falisification by counter example would you?Hitler was very much a Catholic and the Catholic Church were friendly enough with the Nazis when it suited them.
when it suited the Nazis.
The church was never friendly with nazis.This Pope ? Attending Hitlers Birthday Party ?
Thisis a picture of an Ambassador from the Vatican Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo,at the Head of States - Hitler Birthday party in April 1939. THe Holy See did not break off diplomatic relations with Germany and other states also attended. In fact the British PM met with Hitler soon after and declared "Peace in our time"
Showing a photoi of a nuncio with Hitler in no way demonstrates Chrush support for Hitler.The quotes you supplied are from a nonsense mongering apologetics website. I wouldn't be surprised to find a section on the same website on creationism.
Yo udeny the Book exists then? Hitlers Table Talk?
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-Adolf-Hitler/dp/1929631057
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_TalkWell if you sound like a christian and don't deny you are in fact a christian then I hardly see the problem with considering you a Christian.
The problem is you try to introduce it as a source of bias. You consider me a christian and then you try to use that to claim what I post is wrong. You cant show if I am or am not a Christian and it makes no difference what I personally believe or not form the point of view of the argument.Which I will continue to do until you either deny or confirm either way.
Only because it suits you to claim bias.Ok then shall I just consider you a Scientologist then ? Will I work my way through different religions until I get the right one ? Or just assume your a random religion every post ?
Just leave what I believe or not out of the argument! simple.
[/quote]Utter dishonest lies and this is not the first time you've done this and I'm not the first person you've done it to. Go back and read.
Calling me a liar now eh?
clearly you CHANGED what you claimed.
I stated "priests are not closer to God" and that the Church does not hold that doctrine and you replied
"Yes they were and still are to certain extents. Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this."
Dont you remember stating that?:
It is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66154316&postcount=780
Who is lying now?0 -
-
-
Henry McConville wrote: »If it is ''trolling'' why do you feel the need to respond every time?
Er.. that's the whole point of trolling. To evoke that desire in the target audience.
(not that I'm suggesting you're trolling)0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Why don't you think fairies are likely to exist ?
So you are saying the reason you can prove God does not exist is the same as that for proving fairies do not exist?
But clearly there are incorporeal concepts and non material things which could exist and not be treated the same as other ones. You are suggesting we lump Santa in with God or robin Hood in with Jesus or Alexander the Great.
Furthermore,Scientists (when they are doing science) understand the world as composed of material things: atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, etc. Science involves observations and experiments in the material world, and it develops theories about how that world works.
In contrast, religions reject the concept of the material world as the fundamental reality in favor of nonmaterial existence—usually called spirit, God, or Nirvana. In the religious context, material reality is understood as a more or less illusory and transient form of existence.
http://www.markpine.us/?p=1743
But the conflict does cease (or is greatly reduced) if both science and religion can be shown to allow for both material and nonmaterial existence.Your ability to not listen to the actual argument is quite impressive.
Ignoring the implications of your statement can't be blamed on me.I said the reason that jewish people were killed by Nazi's was because of religion, their religion.
You stated that yes. And i told you it isn't a reason. If someone is a victim because they are a homosexual you cant blame their homosexuality as a reason for getting beaten up.
That is like saying to a woman who has been sexually assaulted that she was wearing a mini skirt and that is reason enough to assault her!
Do you not see my point? You can not say being homosexual, Jewish, or a good looking woman is a reason for abusing someone. That is blaming the victim for the predjudice of the offender.I'm well aware that the Nazi's killed more people then the Jews, just as I hope anyone with a basic secondary school education knows. That was not my point.
In fact i was not aware of it until about a year or two ago. I always thought most of the Holocaust victims were Jews. Maybe because Zionists promote this version of history.My point was that the reason that they killed Jews was because they were Jewish, because of their religion. Thats why and how they were targeted.
And the reason for raping a woman is her clothes and the reason for beating up someone is their homosexuality? that is how and why they were targeted. so if there was no religion and no Jews and no homosexuals and no sexy women exposing their legs they would be no killing of them? Is this not a bit like the Nazi or Stalinist "let us remove these reasons from our society" thinking?
The problem to me clearly is the people who make religion into a target - fundamentalist atheists - and NOT the religion.Your evidence is from one source that is disputed and its second hand evidence.
I have given you five or six sources in different publications. what do you mean "from one source" and what do you mean "second hand" ?
Did you ever see the "first hand" speech in Berlin of JFK saying "Ich been ein Berliner"?
i.e. I am a sausage Well? Was JFK a Berliner ? - I mean the nationality not the sausage.
so was he just saying something to make a point? AS I explained Hitler damned Christian philosophy with feint praise? Clearly not alone did he lie about being Catholic but the explaination of how he twisted Christianity to promote naziism is given in the reference I supplied.My evidence comes from many sources that are not disputed, several first hand.
No your evidence comes from ONE source. The speeches of Hitler himself. And you have selected out parts of such speeches where he claimed to be christian. But I hgave shown you how and why he did this and how what he claimed elsewhere was against Christian beliefs. It isnt reaLLY necessary for me to show you how the Pope circulated a publication against Naziism and how Catholic Priests and other catholics were killed by the Nazis
for backing such teachings?http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O129-PiusXII.html
Three elements are discernible in the wartime pontificate: the traditional Catholic ideological objection to all forms of totalitarian secular power, especially atheistic communism with which no accommodation was seen as possible; the prime endeavour to stop the war and its attendant horrors by persuading the belligerents to seek a negotiated peace; and, in the face of atrocities, balancing the good that might come from condemnation of evil against the danger of thereby provoking further horrors—as in fact occurred in May 1943 when the Dutch Catholic bishops, in issuing a pastoral letter condemning the deportation of Jews, provoked the immediate arrest and deportation of Dutch Jews who had been baptized as Catholics, while Protestant Jews were spared.
Pacelli was an experienced diplomat who, as secretary of state, had felt forced to accede to the 1933 concordat offered by the Nazi government. His motive was to secure a legal basis for opposing the subsequent anti-Church measures which he foresaw as clearly as he anticipated Hitler's repeated violations of its terms. He had played a major role in drafting the three encyclicals of his predecessor against fascism, Nazism, and communism. His efforts to arrange a peace conference before the outbreak of war failed; and repeated calls for peace subsequently were ignored by both sides. Not surprisingly, he later deplored the Allied policy of unconditional surrender which, no less than Axis ambitions, made a negotiated settlement an unrealistic aim. His very first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus (October. 1939), though couched in the traditionally generalized language of the Roman Curia, condemned the political and religious policies of the German and Soviet governments in Poland and the Baltic States.Of course I don't accept your 1 disputed source of 2nd hand evidence when it contradicts almost all the other evidence. :rolleyes:
I have given you several sources above and i keep adding to them!
"Hitler's Table talk" is one book with loads of quotes from different people and not just Hitler's own speeches. In fact didn't Hitler enter a "Pact of Steel" with Stalin. I suppose you think the invasion of Russia was not his idea based on what Hitler said and agreed to before the invasion?
So you can't base what you think about Hitler on selected excerpts from what he publicly stated.
Message 830 has four additional sources and this message has more.
Where you got the Idea that I only supplied One is mad! also i have supplied first hand sources written letters by popes for example.0 -
-
-
So you are saying the reason you can prove God does not exist is the same as that for proving fairies do not exist?
I said nothing about disproving fairies or gods existence.
Your making it a habit of taking things up wrong. One might start to think you were doing it on purpose.But clearly there are incorporeal concepts and non material things which could exist and not be treated the same as other ones. You are suggesting we lump Santa in with God or robin Hood in with Jesus or Alexander the Great.
Of course I'm not. Theres far more evidence for Alexander the Greats existence then there is for Jesus.You stated that yes. And i told you it isn't a reason. If someone is a victim because they are a homosexual you cant blame their homosexuality as a reason for getting beaten up.
There you go again using the word blame. I never blamed anything or anyone, I said the reason for it was religion.
The reason I go to talk to a pretty girl and not her fat mate is because of her looks.That is like saying to a woman who has been sexually assaulted that she was wearing a mini skirt and that is reason enough to assault her!
No, but it was likely a factor in her being targeted.Do you not see my point? You can not say being homosexual, Jewish, or a good looking woman is a reason for abusing someone. That is blaming the victim for the predjudice of the offender.
Right, so some idiot grabs a gun and goes into a gay club to kill gays. He says that he hates gays and all gays should die.
So the reason he went there to kill homosexual people in a homosexual bar as opposed to going to the straight singles bar across the street is what ?In fact i was not aware of it until about a year or two ago. I always thought most of the Holocaust victims were Jews. Maybe because Zionists promote this version of history.
Please don't start the numbers game again. Its nothing to do with my point.And the reason for raping a woman is her clothes and the reason for beating up someone is their homosexuality?
The reason they were targeted, yes.The problem to me clearly is the people who make religion into a target - fundamentalist atheists - and NOT the religion.
Of course thats the problem, I am not saying those people were the problem. I'm saying the (one of) reason the Nazi's (the people in the wrong) targeted the victims (Jews) was religion.I have given you five or six sources in different publications. what do you mean "from one source" and what do you mean "second hand" ?
First hand -> From Hitlers own speeches/writings.
Second Hand -> Some guy said Hitler said XDid you ever see the "first hand" speech in Berlin of JFK saying "Ich been ein Berliner"?
i.e. I am a sausage Well? Was JFK a Berliner ? - I mean the nationality not the sausage.
Thats an urban legend, it was a jelly donut not a sausage, and I don't see your point regardless.No your evidence comes from ONE source. The speeches of Hitler himself.
And his writings, public and private and his close companions writings.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Now - Jesus - other then prophesies etc.
Yeah because its indisputable that the Jesus of christianity is the 'messiah' promised in the OT. :rolleyes:- loads of writings referring to him from people who lived when he apparently did.
Name one.Non christian sources from outside the Bible.
You've been corrected on this before. I'm not going to bother repeating myself but please go back and read this.More writings and accounts about him than of ancient ancient times.
Name them.Assuming he died about 40 AD Lots of writings still around today which date from within a lifetime (say 70- 80 years and there is evidence fo people living to 100 in ancient Greece- so people born before he died could actually live up to 120 AD)
Oh wow, its maybe possible that perhaps somebody lived long enough to write about someone in an anonymous document. Fantastic.It is as reasonable to assum, based on hostorical scholarship that a man Jesus existed in that time as much as it is Socrates or Alexander did 300 years earlier.
I didn't say a Jesus didn't exist, I'm saying theres very little evidence for 'your' Jesus to have existed. There was very likely a Jesus who was a religious teacher around that time. But I doubt he had much in common with Christianitys vision of him.The man says "the reason I raped them is because they were pretty."
DO the police think this is a reason for rape? No! They think he is misguided and thinks it is a reason. Just like some people think religion is a reason to kill others.
Its his reason for rape.A Nazi gasses 1000 people. They all have hydrogen Cyanide in their lungs. That is the reason they died. They were all Jews . That is NOT the reason for their deaths.
The reason the Nazi's killed them was because they were Jewish.Look at your words "they were targeted". Use of the passive voice suggests the targets themselves are the ones making the decision to do the unreasonable act.
the truts is rapists target women. That isn't the woman's fault just because she is a woman. and it isn't religion's fault either!
I'm not saying its anyones fault. I'm saying the reason for X was Y. This is very simple basic stuff here.
rea·son (rzn)
n.
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.So they I suppose that you will accept then if the Nazis gave religion as a reason it was not a justified reason?
Is this a problem about the meaning of the word ? Do you really not understand the meaning of the word reason ?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonIn his eyes he might have thought something as a reason but to me it wasn't reasonable.
Reason does not have to mean reasonable. Is English your first language ?See "Passive" and "active" voice above. Their religion isn't a reason to kill anyone.
If I hate dogs and I go out and kill 10 dogs with a shotgun, the reason I killed the dogs was my hatred of dogs.
Is it really that hard to understand ?Care to show me a history syllabus from 1960s-1970s which says "most people killed in camps by Nazis were not Jews"?
Sure, when you show me what dictionary your using for the word 'reason'.Cause of death = inhaling gas. Reason for death = genocide. the reason is not the cause.
The reason the Nazi's killed them was because of their ethnicity or religion.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah because its indisputable that the Jesus of christianity is the 'messiah' promised in the OT. :rolleyes:
Changing the topic again! The point was about the historicity of jesus i.e.e did such a man exist in history. whether or not he was God or a Messiah is a different topic called Christology or messianic historicity.Name one.
One person or one writing?
Say people? Peole who lived in the time jesus did or who wrotedown first hand accouns told by people who were there.
Well St Luke and Matthew apparently wrote their own books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
The word is primarily used to refer to the four canonical gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110.
and there is a belief in a prior doccument the "q doccument"
Then there is the Acts - written by an apostle presumably.
Then Pauline epistles refer to people who witnessed the ascension etc.
then there are non biblical texts:
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) - a Jewish hostorian
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112),
Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117),
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140)
Mara bar Sarapion a Syrian Stoic, Thallus, Lucian.
Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen's refutation of it.
Speaking of which the Early church fathers from 100 to 120 AD
then other early fathers up to 150 would be alive in the time of old men in 100 AD so they could be writing first hand witness accounts but probably they were second hand. Tellurian Justin Martyr etc.
then there are Jewish records and Apocryphcal and gnostic works as well.
This is all within a century of the death of jesus. What have you got for alexander or Socrates???You've been corrected on this before. I'm not going to bother repeating myself but please go back and read this.
No link given and no i haven't been corrected. The historicity of Jesus is a recognised academic field. Just saying "no it isnt I showed yo then before " isn't proving anything.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]
The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creedsName them.
http://www.consider.org/library/text.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.Oh wow, its maybe possible that perhaps somebody lived long enough to write about someone in an anonymous document. Fantastic.
Nope names are given.
* Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to the Gospel of Matthew as early as AD 110.
* Polycarp, a famous early church leader, quotes Acts (as well as several other New Testament books) in a letter dated to about A.D. 110. If Luke and Acts are a two-volume set written by the same author (and most conservative scholars and many moderate scholars believe this), then this puts the Gospel of Luke earlier than A.D. 110.
* A papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (containing portions of John 18) has been dated to between A.D. 110 and 160, thus confirming (beyond all doubt) that John was written no later than A.D. 160.
Read more at Suite101: Who Wrote the Gospels: Identifying the Authors of the First Four Books of the New Testament http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/who_wrote_the_new_testament#ixzz0qAW1ArzXI didn't say a Jesus didn't exist,
so you accept that ther is as much or more evidence for Jesus as there is for alexander or Socrates and you didn't prove that wrong before? Good. We are not going to argue about that then.I'm saying theres very little evidence for 'your' Jesus to have existed. There was very likely a Jesus who was a religious teacher around that time. But I doubt he had much in common with Christianitys vision of him.
And the version of alexander as Heracles Zeus and Athena is the "true" one? LOL!Its his reason for rape.
I thought i mentioned moral relativity before.The reason the Nazi's killed them was because they were Jewish.
The people doing the killing were not Jewish they were Nazis.
Relative morality isn't a valid reason. How can you show it is according to any objective a standard?
If you say "this stick is a meter long" and i measure it with an instrument that says it is two meters plus or minus half a centimeter you would still claim it is one meter because you say so?I'm not saying its anyones fault. I'm saying the reason for X was Y. This is very simple basic stuff here.
Yep basic logic. Cause precedes effect.
But x= "murder" and y= " people were catagorised as Jews"
If y is true then do x
The people doing the catogorisation were Nazis.
Even if logical the premise isn't valid. a\s you were shown others were also categorised as Jewish.
But the MAIN issue is the being Jewish is a reason to be killed. Only for the Nazis not for anyone else! If you say the Nazis had a reason then you to some extent seem to justify it.rea·son (rzn)
n.
1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
Note 2 - justification?
Note 3 - the premise is not sound
note 4- intelligence isnt sufficient for society - many atheistic regimes were led by intelligent people.
note 5 - not good judgement or sound to kill jews just because they are jewsIs this a problem about the meaning of the word ? Do you really not understand the meaning of the word reason ?
the semantic problem arised when you introduced the element of reason as "Fact"
and conflated it with reason as a "reasonable thing to do"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonReason does not have to mean reasonable. Is English your first language ?
No it doesn't.
So you are saying it is logical that people should kill Jews?If I hate dogs and I go out and kill 10 dogs with a shotgun, the reason I killed the dogs was my hatred of dogs.
Yes YOUR hatred and NOT the fact that dogs exist!Is it really that hard to understand ?
No. so why don't you? don't blame the dogs for being victims of your hatred.The reason the Nazi's killed them was because of their ethnicity or religion.
the reason was they hated Jews. Or maybe they could care less about Jews but they could control their own people and get rich off those they killed.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement