By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - JESUS WAS A GOVERNMENT PLOT: Confirmed says Joseph Atwill

Max King of the Wild on 11 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:

Take it up with them, slick.

Nothing ambiguous about it - what exactly is a strange/odd atheist? It's an incoherent thing to say if you're making that claim.

I guess you're upset that your friend got banned. Personally, I couldn't care less. If you want to continue to bitch about it, use your diary.


What is a odd athiest? Someone who quotes Zeitgiest obviously. I have never heard such crazy talk (besides loose change) before. Also, I couldn't care less. I'm just pointing out your mistake... Oh wait, sorry forgot youre all knowing thus you cant make mistakes



Around the Network
Mmmfishtacos on 11 October 2013
Slimebeast said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Slimebeast said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
I'm not a religious man, but I do know the Jesus existed. Has anyone here been to Isreal? I have, I walked most of the path that Jesus would have walked charring the cross. There's a part in the old city where it's said he stumbled and reached his hand out and touched the wall to regain his balance. In that very spot on the wall is a near perfect outline of a hand eroded in the wall. I knew nothing about it till I passed and seen a group of people surrounding the area lead by a guide. As I approached the wall to see what the fuss was about I felt a surge of "power" ( really the only way I can describe it) rush over my body, and I felt "awake" like I've never been before in my life. It was probably the single strangest thing to ever happen to me in my life. Then I listened to the guild explain the story to the group of people she was leading. I still don't go to church, is still don't pray or look to sky's for some being to help me throughout my life. But I know Jesus was real. And I don't think you'll find a single Israeli the will deny his existence. They will only deny that he was the son of god. But he was a real person.

So how came you made a trip to Israel and walked the Via Dolorosa?

As a believer I would really like to do a pilgrimage to Israel one day.


Work.  I spent 3 months there last year. We went around isreal on our weekly day off.

Cool. Lucky you. What kind of work and why they send you to Israel?

I build business jets, we collaborate with IAI. We build the wings here and ship them there to mate with the fuselage. It’s a fairly new project, so we couldn’t finish the wings on time. They sent me twice to finish the flight system install. It was in interesting experience. After the second trip I could almost understand Hebrew. Lol. If you thinking of going it pretty expensive, my hotel was 10,000 a month and the food isn’t cheap. I’d go again if I have the opportunity.  



Kane1389 on 12 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
allenmaher said:

why soft pedal?

Ah, yeah I'm usually very direct about calling out bullshit but the individual didn't seem to want to cause any trouble or seriously debate the issue. Just offer an opinion of one line and be on his/her way. 

I thought it would be okay to place the suggestion that the local flood could have been the factual event, which somehow spawned an urban legend about a man in a boat with a bunch of animals. 

I do understand the destructive nature of magical thinking and speak against it nearly every day. We're on the same page in that respect.

Kane1389 said:

It sounds like all you know about christianity comes from r/atheism and youtube.

Anyway, to disprove your points about other deities, i have found several links, which you should check out

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/   It explains the whole ''Jesus was a rip off of other deites'' stuff

There are also a lot of videos that deal with this issue (mostly debunking the Zeitgeist movie, which pretty much started this whole nonsense)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GgWOi4SQM  Historical (non biblical) evidence for Jesus, later parts in suggested videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4  This one is similar to the first link, but its in video. Again it deals with Zeitgeist, but it applies to your ppoints quite well too.

http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/  This one is specifically about Horus connections

http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/debunking-the-myth-that-jesus-never-existed-the-historical-sources-for-jesus-part-one/

http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist/

 

TL;DR You are very very wrong 

The irony of criticizing someone's knowledge based upon youtube and then using that same medium to  present your rebuttal is truly astounding. Wordpress is even more baffling.

Anyways, reported for "queer" surely you know that isn't appropriate.

Except that this isnt your AmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t or FuckG0d or any other of your man child neckbeards basement dwellers. Rather the evidence comes from actual scholars and proffesors who know much more about the subject than you and I. And i only used 2 youtube videos, you're stretching there a bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ



dsgrue3 on 13 October 2013
Kane1389 said:
dsgrue3 said:

The irony of criticizing someone's knowledge based upon youtube and then using that same medium to  present your rebuttal is truly astounding. Wordpress is even more baffling.

Anyways, reported for "queer" surely you know that isn't appropriate.

Except that this isnt your AmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t or FuckG0d or any other of your man child neckbeards basement dwellers. Rather the evidence comes from actual scholars and proffesors who know much more about the subject than you and I. And i only used 2 youtube videos, you're stretching there a bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Now you're defending your hypocrisy? Stop embarrassing yourself. YouTube personalities are exactly that, those people exist to counter the other neckbeards like VenomFangX. I don't get any of my scholarly information from YouTube, unless it's a TEDtalks or video of an actual expert lecturing or debating.

Yeah 1/3 of your sources were Youtube, no stretching necessary lmfao. And I noticed you didn't even bother addressing wordpress BLOGS.

All the while professing to be using scholarly sources...wow, I can't believe you typed that with a straight face. 



Kane1389 on 14 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Kane1389 said:
dsgrue3 said:

The irony of criticizing someone's knowledge based upon youtube and then using that same medium to  present your rebuttal is truly astounding. Wordpress is even more baffling.

Anyways, reported for "queer" surely you know that isn't appropriate.

Except that this isnt your AmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t or FuckG0d or any other of your man child neckbeards basement dwellers. Rather the evidence comes from actual scholars and proffesors who know much more about the subject than you and I. And i only used 2 youtube videos, you're stretching there a bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Now you're defending your hypocrisy? Stop embarrassing yourself. YouTube personalities are exactly that, those people exist to counter the other neckbeards like VenomFangX. I don't get any of my scholarly information from YouTube, unless it's a TEDtalks or video of an actual expert lecturing or debating.

Yeah 1/3 of your sources were Youtube, no stretching necessary lmfao. And I noticed you didn't even bother addressing wordpress BLOGS.

All the while professing to be using scholarly sources...wow, I can't believe you typed that with a straight face. 

I actually am using scholary sources. I even gave you a link to Tactius's hisotry ffs! I wonder why you ignored them. Probably just to have the last reply.

I have no problem with someone using youtube videos as a source for their claims as long as they are academic and/or scholary and not selective quotiong, ad hominem, casuality denying neck beards yelling at the camera.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 14 October 2013
Kane1389 said:

I actually am using scholary sources. I even gave you a link to Tactius's hisotry ffs! I wonder why you ignored them. Probably just to have the last reply.

I have no problem with someone using youtube videos as a source for their claims as long as they are academic and/or scholary and not selective quotiong, ad hominem, casuality denying neck beards yelling at the camera.

You seem thoroughly confused about what a scholarly source is. You should look up the definition here. Hint: None of what you quoted would be considered a scholarly source. (Surprise!) 

Why did you give me a wiki link to Tacitus? You seem very confused here again as I haven't spoken to you about the topic, simply mocked your obvious hypocrisy. 

Do keep up, will you?



Kane1389 on 14 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Kane1389 said:

I actually am using scholary sources. I even gave you a link to Tactius's hisotry ffs! I wonder why you ignored them. Probably just to have the last reply.

I have no problem with someone using youtube videos as a source for their claims as long as they are academic and/or scholary and not selective quotiong, ad hominem, casuality denying neck beards yelling at the camera.

You seem thoroughly confused about what a scholarly source is. You should look up the definition here. Hint: None of what you quoted would be considered a scholarly source. (Surprise!) 

Why did you give me a wiki link to Tacitus? You seem very confused here again as I haven't spoken to you about the topic, simply mocked your obvious hypocrisy. 

Do keep up, will you?


You...you havent actually read any of the links i posted, did you? You just read the URL link and concluded from the name of the websites that they dont contain any scholary sources did you?



allenmaher on 14 October 2013

The Tacitus reference was interesting for several reasons, while it seems like a smoking gun reference on first blush, it has problems.

1. It refers to Pilate as a procurator rather than a prefect, the former being a financial officer for a province, and the latter akin to a governor, While the archeological evidence of a corner stone dated 26-37 CE shows an inscription of Pilate quite clearly as a prefectus judaeae. If he researched and referenced this passage then why the discrepancy?

2. Christus is a title rather than a name, it was given to many especially in rebellious Judea.

3. The reference appears to speak second hand and mockingly about the particular religious faction's beliefs.

While from the passage you can clearly establish that there were Christians in the second century,and that they were not thought well of by the Romans It is not a direct affirmation of the story but rather tangential as well as being not contemporary. Not exactly strong evidence of the historicity of jesus.



dsgrue3 on 14 October 2013
Kane1389 said:
dsgrue3 said:
Kane1389 said:

I actually am using scholary sources. I even gave you a link to Tactius's hisotry ffs! I wonder why you ignored them. Probably just to have the last reply.

I have no problem with someone using youtube videos as a source for their claims as long as they are academic and/or scholary and not selective quotiong, ad hominem, casuality denying neck beards yelling at the camera.

You seem thoroughly confused about what a scholarly source is. You should look up the definition here. Hint: None of what you quoted would be considered a scholarly source. (Surprise!) 

Why did you give me a wiki link to Tacitus? You seem very confused here again as I haven't spoken to you about the topic, simply mocked your obvious hypocrisy. 

Do keep up, will you?


You...you havent actually read any of the links i posted, did you? You just read the URL link and concluded from the name of the websites that they dont contain any scholary sources did you?

I don't need to watch a youtube video or a blog to know it isn't a peer-reviewed journal by academic peers. (Apparently you chose the route of ignorance, despite my providing a link to a defintion for you.)

This is just basic reasoning ability.

Stop for a moment, go back and read who was actually listening to your arguments and offering their own...and then punch yourself in the face because it wasn't me. I've made no argument with you at all. 

Like I said already, you seem thoroughly confused.



Kane1389 on 14 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Kane1389 said:
dsgrue3 said:
Kane1389 said:

I actually am using scholary sources. I even gave you a link to Tactius's hisotry ffs! I wonder why you ignored them. Probably just to have the last reply.

I have no problem with someone using youtube videos as a source for their claims as long as they are academic and/or scholary and not selective quotiong, ad hominem, casuality denying neck beards yelling at the camera.

You seem thoroughly confused about what a scholarly source is. You should look up the definition here. Hint: None of what you quoted would be considered a scholarly source. (Surprise!) 

Why did you give me a wiki link to Tacitus? You seem very confused here again as I haven't spoken to you about the topic, simply mocked your obvious hypocrisy. 

Do keep up, will you?


You...you havent actually read any of the links i posted, did you? You just read the URL link and concluded from the name of the websites that they dont contain any scholary sources did you?

I don't need to watch a youtube video or a blog to know it isn't a peer-reviewed journal by academic peers. (Apparently you chose the route of ignorance, despite my providing a link to a defintion for you.)

This is just basic reasoning ability.

Stop for a moment, go back and read who was actually listening to your arguments and offering their own...and then punch yourself in the face because it wasn't me. I've made no argument with you at all. 

Like I said already, you seem thoroughly confused.

Ok, so you wont bother standing up by  your false statements, thats good.

Why did you even quote me then? Did you do it just for the sake of berating me? I mean I know you have a hisotry of being very bitter and hostile towards anyone with different opinion, but usually you come up with some sort of argument to go with it.