jesus...

[FrankyFin]

-

[Guest]

The main arguments going on in the gun thread for example haven't been about BrainSmasher's position per se, everyone was happy to calmly and methodically debate that based on the facts available, it was his blind faith that his point of view was right and was backed up by nothing but interest group buzz words and key phrases. The same regarding religion, he is making sweeping generalisations about the nature of sin and God's view on it, claiming Christianity as the support, yet his statements are in direct contrast to what is claimed to be the written word of God and his disciplines/son.

 

 

You are the biggest liar on this forum.Blind faith i was right? Everyone of you went to that thread with your mind made up on guns by your government and im blind because i want stronger laws? Buzz words and Key phrases? I cant say the same thing about what you supported your stance with. Do you know how many charts you guys posted? Why are your charts right and mine not? Why are your statistics more important than mine? Why is lower gun homicide in post gun ban countries important but lower homicide rates as guns sales increase not important? Are you going to sit there and keep lying trying to claim those stats have nothing to do with the issue but your does? I never denied your stats. I just give reasons for them. Unlike you who are to close minded and stubborn to accept any counter arguement against you. You have to deny any evidence because your faith in your arguement is to weak.

 

"Generalization on the nature of sin and gods view on it"? I was giving my belief as i was asked. "his statements are in direct contrast to what is claimed to be the written word of God" I assume you are refering to Gambling. What do you mean by "Claimed to be written? Claimed by who? Is you are going to accuse me of lying you sack of crap at least provide a credible source for who disagrees with me! How about you actually find what it says about Gambling in the Bible? Or is it to much to ask for you to back up your ignorant comments?

 

Here i will back up my comments and belief with quotes.

 

What does the Bible say about gambling? Well, if you run a search for the word "gambling" you are not going to find it in the Bible. So does that mean that the Bible approves of gambling? It isn't quite that simple. You see, the Bible has a whole lot to say about money. In fact, there are so many Scriptures about money that it would take whole books to go over them all. God is very concerned about how we make our money, how we view our money and what we do with our money. It is in the Scriptures about money where we can get an idea of what God thinks when we gamble our money away. The truth is that gambling is a massive problem in modern society. Recent research has shown that there are approximately 2.5 million "pathological gamblers" in the United States today and another 3 million U.S. adults who should probably be considered "problem gamblers". Well over 500 billion dollars is spent gambling each and every year in the United States. That is a problem. But it is not just in the United States where gambling is a problem. Similar problems are found all over the world where gambling is permitted. So what does the Bible have to say?

Well, in 1 Timothy 6:9-10 we find perhaps the most frequently quoted Scripture about money in the entire Bible. It tells us that the "love of money" is a root "of all kinds of evil".....

 

People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

 

While those who put a dollar into the office football pool may not be doing it for the love of money, the truth is that the vast majority of gambling addicts do it for the money. Money becomes an overwhelming obsession for them. Many become convinced that gambling will solve their money problems or will open up the door to a better life. The truth is that those who become fixated on money fall into a trap. The Scripture above warns us that the trap can cause us to wander from the faith.

 

So just like i said in my Post on the subject. The bible doesnt mention gambling. But some people tie it in with Money and greed. So The act of Gambling is not a sin. But the reason for gambling could be. I consider myself on expert on gambling. at least with matters we are involved with here. I have worked in the industry for 6 years and been around it for 10 years. I meet dozens apon dozen of gamblers every day. My job is to entertain them and service them. I can tell you first hand there is not one type of gambler. You do have a large portion of people who are lonely or depressed and use gambling as an out and a way to be around people. These are often problem gamblers. But at the same time there is another size portion of them who are responsible gamblers. They stick to a budget. There is even a group i would say are for sure not even close to being labeled as a Sin. These are your couples who play as a night out. They do it for fun just to be together while on a budget. They are not there just to win. If they do its fine but not they main focus. So they are not controlled by money or greed. The big issue here is it is very hard to spot who is sinning and who isnt. One of the things i hear most by players is "They just want to play". They dont really care if they hit big. They just want to win enough to keep playing. Almost like its a video game. So like i said it comes down to interpretation. When it doesnt mention gambling and you have to relate back to greed it makes it a very slippery slope. No one knows at what point one is greedy when it comes to money. If i work 40 hours a week. Is that greed? After all i do it for the money. I would love to work less if money wasnt an issue.

 

With all that said and the debatable nature of whether gambling is a sin or not. One thing is true. There is nothing to suggest providing the service for other people to make that choice is a sin. Which was what the entire point of bring it up was. Someone was trying to claim my business was a sin. It clearly isnt. I am not personally gambling and like the bible says "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth". I work for my money. So again like always you are wrong and a liar.

[Guest]

Blah blah blah.

 

And here we go again, you're like Homer Simpson with the electrified cupcake, both figuratively and literally.

 

"Everyone of you went to that thread with your mind made up on guns by your government and im blind because i want stronger laws?" Where do the other US citizens, especially those with military training, who also weighed in on the debate on the same side as everyone except you fit into this? You have the same Government, so how are their minds made up by the Government yet they have different perspectives and opinions to you? You're blind. Strike 11223.

 

"Buzz words and Key phrases? I cant say the same thing about what you supported your stance with." Correct. What you say about my support is 'evidence', 'facts' and 'quantifiable'. Strike 15865.

 

"Why are your charts right and mine not? Why are your statistics more important than mine? Why is lower gun homicide in post gun ban countries important but lower homicide rates as guns sales increase not important?" Because you cannot read or interpret charts, statistics, their correlations and causes properly due to being a simpleton. As the numbers I keep showing you (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states) say, there HAS been a slight drop in firearm homicides over the last couple of years. In fact, from the peak recent number back in 2006, they are down by 1500 in 2011. Of course, comparing total homicides in those years the overall decrease in murder is down nearly double this yet firearm accidental deaths have increased. This suggests (though doesn't in itself prove!) something else is driving a decrease in homicide and it isn't 'more guns'. Your numbers are important as they help to rule out your theory as being valid. Strike 16013.

 

"I never denied your stats. I just give reasons for them. Unlike you who are to close minded and stubborn to accept any counter arguement against you. You have to deny any evidence because your faith in your arguement is to weak." 30 odd pages of rebuttal and the dozens of people who have been following both this thread and the gun thread would suggest you're full of shit. You give excuses, I give reasons. I also supply the source of my information instead of making broad and sweeping generalisations which exist nowhere but in the mind of a halfwitted, obese twat. Strike 16556.

 

"Generalization on the nature of sin and gods view on it"? I was giving my belief as i was asked. "his statements are in direct contrast to what is claimed to be the written word of God" I assume you are refering to Gambling. What do you mean by "Claimed to be written? Claimed by who?" What is 'claimed to be written as God's word' is the Holy Bible. A book written at a period from a hundred to many of hundreds of years after the supposed Son of God's death. By people who never met him or saw him. And then, has been translated and revised to suit multiple dogmas and ruling figures. I am sure I have mentioned you don't read so good. Strike 16998.

 

"Is you are going to accuse me of lying you sack of crap at least provide a credible source for who disagrees with me!" I have never accused you of lying. I accuse you of being thick as two short planks. Dumb as mud. Stupid. Ignorant. Y'heard? Strike 17364.

 

"How about you actually find what it says about Gambling in the Bible? Or is it to much to ask for you to back up your ignorant comments?" And we are back to your being unable to read... observe:

 

And while we're on the topic of being good, God fearing Christian capitalist money lovers...

 

Ecclesiastes 5:10 Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.

 

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

 

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs

 

Should we really be surprised that Jesus, the cheek turning, pacifistic anti-cash was actually misunderstood? Should we be surprised that what he REALLY meant (and as Bill Hicks said, telling God what he ACTUALLY meant? I've never been that confident) was, get rich or die trying and shoot any sonofabitch tries to snatch your cash. Apparently not.

 

Strike 17673.

 

"The bible doesnt mention gambling. But some people tie it in with Money and greed. So The act of Gambling is not a sin. But the reason for gambling could be" I have sex with thousands of women a year. Not because I am sinful but because they want me bad. I am just entertaining them. It is the rationale, not the action that makes the sin. Strike 17999.

 

"When it doesnt mention gambling and you have to relate back to greed it makes it a very slippery slope. No one knows at what point one is greedy when it comes to money." A very slippery slope indeed, so what the fuck allows you to pass judgment on other folk in regards to what is sin and what isn't? What is their intention and what isn't? When a law is justified and when it isn't? Strike 18352.

 

"Someone was trying to claim my business was a sin. It clearly isnt. I am not personally gambling and like the bible says "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth". I work for my money." I am a pimp when I am not busy doing a personal service to the thousands of women annually (and another word which sounds similar) who require entertainment. In this way, I am not personally having sex for money or being involved in adultary. I work for my money. Strike... oh who the fuck can keep up. You're out. Out of your depth, out of your mind, out of realistic or fact based arguments. You name it, you're out of it.

 

It isn't nice to call people liars, so I'd expect you to back up your claims or to admit you're terrible at reading. Or you know, just go on being pig ignorant and wrong. It's all good, as a good person who does good for the sake of good, I forgive you and do not expect any heavenly reward. Just because.

[Guest]

And here we go again, you're like Homer Simpson with the electrified cupcake, both figuratively and literally.

 

"Everyone of you went to that thread with your mind made up on guns by your government and im blind because i want stronger laws?" Where do the other US citizens, especially those with military training, who also weighed in on the debate on the same side as everyone except you fit into this? You have the same Government, so how are their minds made up by the Government yet they have different perspectives and opinions to you? You're blind. Strike 11223.

 

Like who? The only person i know in this thread from the US was against you as is the majority of Americans. So if you want to cherry pick a new names to make you feel better go ahead. I never said some people cant be against guns and have an open mind. Im saying the people against guns on this thread from anti gun countries are not open minded. You under stand so far? Or do i have to hire Sesame Street to teach you slowly?

 

 

 

"Buzz words and Key phrases? I cant say the same thing about what you supported your stance with." Correct. What you say about my support is 'evidence', 'facts' and 'quantifiable'. Strike 15865.

 

Except i proved facts that were just as credible and proved my stance. So all you have left is to cry "No fair" and "You dont argue right".

 

 

"Why are your charts right and mine not? Why are your statistics more important than mine? Why is lower gun homicide in post gun ban countries important but lower homicide rates as guns sales increase not important?" Because you cannot read or interpret charts, statistics, their correlations and causes properly due to being a simpleton. As the numbers I keep showing you (http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states) say, there HAS been a slight drop in firearm homicides over the last couple of years. In fact, from the peak recent number back in 2006, they are down by 1500 in 2011. Of course, comparing total homicides in those years the overall decrease in murder is down nearly double this yet firearm accidental deaths have increased. This suggests (though doesn't in itself prove!) something else is driving a decrease in homicide and it isn't 'more guns'. Your numbers are important as they help to rule out your theory as being valid. Strike 16013.

 

Could it be that the increase in guns prevented those murders? You brain wont let you believe that will it? But that tends to be the case when someone is armed rather than unarmed. They are less like to be a victim of a crime as statisitcs have shown and less likely to be murdered.

 

 

 

 

 

"I never denied your stats. I just give reasons for them. Unlike you who are to close minded and stubborn to accept any counter arguement against you. You have to deny any evidence because your faith in your arguement is to weak." 30 odd pages of rebuttal and the dozens of people who have been following both this thread and the gun thread would suggest you're full of shit. You give excuses, I give reasons. I also supply the source of my information instead of making broad and sweeping generalisations which exist nowhere but in the mind of a halfwitted, obese twat. Strike 16556

 

If you wanted my source you would have asked for it. You knew you wouldnt accept it any way so you didnt bother. Like i showed above my states were meaningful and you reason they were not is inaccurate. Yu see murder is down and discredit everything. Without asking why Murder is down and what could be factors. Thats because you got just enough to support your bias view and quit digging. If you dug deeper you would see Guns were possibley behind that too.

 

.

 

 

"Generalization on the nature of sin and gods view on it"? I was giving my belief as i was asked. "his statements are in direct contrast to what is claimed to be the written word of God" I assume you are refering to Gambling. What do you mean by "Claimed to be written? Claimed by who?" What is 'claimed to be written as God's word' is the Holy Bible. A book written at a period from a hundred to many of hundreds of years after the supposed Son of God's death. By people who never met him or saw him. And then, has been translated and revised to suit multiple dogmas and ruling figures. I am sure I have mentioned you don't read so good. Strike 16998.

 

Wy didnt you say the bible? Where is your proof is says not to gamble that i didt already provide? Gambling isnt mentioned specifically in the bible. Where do my statements "contrast" the what is said in the Bible?

 

 

"Is you are going to accuse me of lying you sack of crap at least provide a credible source for who disagrees with me!" I have never accused you of lying. I accuse you of being thick as two short planks. Dumb as mud. Stupid. Ignorant. Y'heard? Strike 17364.

 

When i say what the Bible says and you claim i say the opposite of what the bible says. Then you are saying im lying.

 

 

 

"The bible doesnt mention gambling. But some people tie it in with Money and greed. So The act of Gambling is not a sin. But the reason for gambling could be" I have sex with thousands of women a year. Not because I am sinful but because they want me bad. I am just entertaining them. It is the rationale, not the action that makes the sin. Strike 17999.

 

No because a sin isnt down to what you want to believe or what you tell people. But it is you actually belief and reasoning. If i give you $100 for your last Tycoon win. That doesnt change the reason you played the game. You didnt do it for greed and you wasnt controled by money. People gamble the same way. They play for fun and their make clear decisions on what they can and cant send and are in complete control. Not controlled by money. Not all are like that but some are. So again your example doesnt apply.

 

 

"When it doesnt mention gambling and you have to relate back to greed it makes it a very slippery slope. No one knows at what point one is greedy when it comes to money." A very slippery slope indeed, so what the fuck allows you to pass judgment on other folk in regards to what is sin and what isn't? What is their intention and what isn't? When a law is justified and when it isn't? Strike 18352.

 

 

 

Bingo you just won the arguement for me. As you will remember i was the one accused of commiting a Sin. I wasnt accusing anyone. I run my business without judng who is sinning and who isnt. That is not up to me to decide. It is you and Humours who is trying to judge when someone has sinned. Not me. Isnt it funny when someone loses track of their arguement and sticks their foot in their mouth?

 

 

 

"Someone was trying to claim my business was a sin. It clearly isnt. I am not personally gambling and like the bible says "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth". I work for my money." I am a pimp when I am not busy doing a personal service to the thousands of women annually (and another word which sounds similar) who require entertainment. In this way, I am not personally having sex for money or being involved in adultary. I work for my money. Strike... oh who the fuck can keep up. You're out. Out of your depth, out of your mind, out of realistic or fact based arguments. You name it, you're out of it.

 

What is your point? Are you asking me if that is a sin? It has nothing to do with what i said. Didnt you just say it isnt for us to judge? As for it being allowed by the bible. It depends on a lot of things. Are you married, are you being paid, are you breaking local laws. The bible doesnt say much about unmarried sex. It mentions "Sexual immorality" as a sin but doesnt get specific as to what that is. But does suggest sex be between a husband and wife.

 

 

 

It isn't nice to call people liars, so I'd expect you to back up your claims or to admit you're terrible at reading. Or you know, just go on being pig ignorant and wrong. It's all good, as a good person who does good for the sake of good, I forgive you and do not expect any heavenly reward. Just because.

 

 

I backed up my claims. You failed at trying to back up yours.

[Guest]

Again you did not prove gambling is greed or a love of money. Its nice to provide those quots but they dont tell us anything about gambling. What is a love of money? I can need money, want money, but i dont love money. Those are not the same thing. At what point does Greed apply? If i have $1 in my pocket. Would that make me greedy? What if i sell something for money? What if i work 10 hours? 30 hours? 50 hours? Point is we dont know because thats no what is mean by the verses. Most biblical scholars and preachers believe it is when you are controled by money. If that is the case then you can gamble as long as you are in control of your actions. I see people spend $100 and leave. They were in control. I have seen others who Lose $100 and go to the ATM and say this is the last chance. Only to go back to the ATM 3 more times. Clearly playing more than they originally wanted. In that case they are not being controlled by money because they are chasing their losses and they are showing signs of being addicted to gambling and all addictions are a sin because they control you. But my belief is Gambling isnt always a sin though often it is. But providing a gambling service which is what the topic was about. Is not a sin.

[Guest]

Continually saying "I backed up my claims" and yet continually never providing a source for any of your claims is not, believe it or not, backing up your claims. I continually ask for your sources, I ask where your numbers come from. I don't know where you're from that saying the same thing over and over is enough to convince people to believe it but it won't work here.

 

Your cognitive dissonance continues to amaze me. Your lack of reading comprehension continues to amaze me. Your inability to comprehend cause and effect continues to amaze me. Your ability to spout unreferenced and unsupported bullshit as 'fact' continues to amaze me. Your inability to tell the difference between satire and serious continues to amaze me.

 

You're an amazing guy.

[Guest]

@ Dirk, I reckon the world's as good now as it's ever been. It's easy to be down on the current state of affairs but that's only because we're familiar with it and are frustrated by the things that are going wrong. If we were in any other era, I'd bet there would be just as much if not more bad stuff going on.

 

I've brought this up to people before. People talk about how life was at its pinnacle in the 1950s. They'll tell you about the strong core family values, lower divorce rates, and higher church attendance. They'll fondly remember the lack of school shootings and how kids had more respect for authority figures.

 

They will neglect to tell you that society had no serious problem with husbands raping their wives, that mentally challenged people were given forced sterilizations, that black people were beaten to death and dragged behind cars for no reason other than being black, or that bosses were allowed to fire female employees who didn't sleep with them.

 

People idealize the past and gripe about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but every generation has done that since the beginning of time. Now is most definitely the best time to have ever been alive and things will only continue to get better.

[Guest]

Especially seeing as how you don't have a choice Carpe diem.

[DeadlyDirk]

I've brought this up to people before. People talk about how life was at its pinnacle in the 1950s. They'll tell you about the strong core family values, lower divorce rates, and higher church attendance. They'll fondly remember the lack of school shootings and how kids had more respect for authority figures.

 

They will neglect to tell you that society had no serious problem with husbands raping their wives, that mentally challenged people were given forced sterilizations, that black people were beaten to death and dragged behind cars for no reason other than being black, or that bosses were allowed to fire female employees who didn't sleep with them.

 

People idealize the past and gripe about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, but every generation has done that since the beginning of time. Now is most definitely the best time to have ever been alive and things will only continue to get better.

 

Just to clarify I wasn't really referring to things in most of the western world like family values and the economy when I suggested the world isn't doing to great. I was thinking more along the lines of the hundreds of thousands of child soldiers in Africa, the human trafficking in Eastern Europe, the problems in North Korea etc.

 

As I said though when Mike brought it up, this probably compares to any other century in history when the world has dealt with disease and war etc, we are just more aware of worldwide issues due to advancements in technology and the media.

 

Personally for me though that's why I have the biggest problem believing in God, at the least the holy Christian version (Aside from the abscense of evidence), too much shit goes on and has gone on in the past to innocent people who have had no choice over their outcome.

[Guest]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/270977_452812731439292_13796322_n.jpg

[Guest]

Apart from Tacitus/Nero's letter there is correspondence from Pliny The Younger and Josephus, all of these are within 60 years of his death.

 

There are other later documents which aren't directly from the bible as such, Dead Sea Scrolls, whatever it was they found in urns in the desert in Egypt, Lucian, Babylonian Talmud.

 

It is highly likely he did exist, he was a real figure who went around preaching and he was executed for being a trouble maker.

 

I came here to post exactly this. I hate you for stealing my thunder.

 

Name 1 historical figure that we do not have contemporary, or at least first-hand reports of existing.... Jesus did not exists. Period. There is Zero evidence.

 

Socrates. Coincidentally he didn't write anything down either and people still jerk off all over his (imaginary) corpse.

[Nehi]

I came here to post exactly this. I hate you for stealing my thunder.

 

 

 

Socrates. Coincidentally he didn't write anything down either and people still jerk off all over his (imaginary) corpse.

 

 

I shouldn't have been posting last night when I was drunk... Neither Pliny the Younger nor Josephus were contemporaries. The Josephus evidence is a flat out fraud, written into his works by Christians at a much later date. This is a fact (Historians even know when it was done, and by whom). Pliny the Younger mentions Christians, but not Jesus. Pliny the Elder, an historian who was alive during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, curiously, makes no mention of either Jesus or of Christians.

 

There is loads of contemporary evidence for Socrates. The same can't be said for Jesus.

[Guest]

I said that

 

I also said it is a deductive argument, though obviously not conclusive, anywhere from 30-70 years after the supposed death of Christ various people in areas in quite a distance (ye olde relatively) are discussing Christians, people who claim to be disciples of a person they refer to as 'Christ' and are willing to die for this belief. The Christians were well known to local Roman governors well before the official Gospels were written and disseminated. Again, it's absolutely not conclusive and you may well be right, but for me there is too much suggesting that there is a good chance he was alive to write it off at 100% bollocks. This would be poor science

 

Practically speaking though, if we all agree he was no divine being, was never resurrected and couldn't perform miracles, then it doesn't make a dick of difference if he was a real person or not!

[Guest]

I just hate preachers. It doesn't matter what they're preaching. I like a good discussion, but I just can't stand the self-righteous know-it-alls who make a job of going around telling everybody what they need to believe. It doesn't matter if it's political or religious. Guys like Richard Dawkins make me sick. The way he speaks, his message, his smug attitude. I listen to that guy and I think that maybe I should become religious to distance myself from that douchebag.

 

I would love to go see the musical The Book of Mormon by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Their religious position for the most part is in line with my own and everybody who has seen the musical finds it hilarious. I thought about buying tickets to NY just to go see it before it's too late.

[Guest]

I shouldn't have been posting last night when I was drunk... Neither Pliny the Younger nor Josephus were contemporaries. The Josephus evidence is a flat out fraud, written into his works by Christians at a much later date. This is a fact (Historians even know when it was done, and by whom). Pliny the Younger mentions Christians, but not Jesus. Pliny the Elder, an historian who was alive during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, curiously, makes no mention of either Jesus or of Christians.

 

There is loads of contemporary evidence for Socrates. The same can't be said for Jesus.

 

Could you point me in the direction of the Josephus fraud? I've honestly never heard of it.

 

Almost all of the contemporary evidence for Socrates' existence is in Plato's work iirc, where he conveniently serves as a discussion partner with different ideas than Plato and as some kind of ethical ideal. Considering how big Plato was on ideas it wouldn't surprise me at all if Socrates was a thought experiment for Plato.

[Guest]

That's true Manny, his dialectic, especially in Republic is a good example of this.

 

As for Josephus, the wiki has references -> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

[Guest]

i've actually been trying to get tickets to book of mormon but theyre really expensive. my friend went and said it was amazing.

 

back on topic....jesus is fake, i'm right, youre wrong, thread over.

 

thanks guys.

[Guest]

You're confusing Jesus with Kid Torres

[Timmy]

I just hate preachers. It doesn't matter what they're preaching. I like a good discussion, but I just can't stand the self-righteous know-it-alls who make a job of going around telling everybody what they need to believe. It doesn't matter if it's political or religious. Guys like Richard Dawkins make me sick. The way he speaks, his message, his smug attitude. I listen to that guy and I think that maybe I should become religious to distance myself from that douchebag.

 

I would love to go see the musical The Book of Mormon by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Their religious position for the most part is in line with my own and everybody who has seen the musical finds it hilarious. I thought about buying tickets to NY just to go see it before it's too late.

 

I think Dawkins has more to offer than Stone/Parker. Maybe you don't like how he talks but he is simply a staunch defender of scientific method. If you think how someone talks is important then you don't understand scientific method. As much as I love South Park (and, no, I don't like the moronic copycats like Family Guy), I don't look to Stone/Parker for philisophical insights.

[Timmy]

Almost all of the contemporary evidence for Socrates' existence is in Plato's work iirc, where he conveniently serves as a discussion partner with different ideas than Plato and as some kind of ethical ideal. Considering how big Plato was on ideas it wouldn't surprise me at all if Socrates was a thought experiment for Plato.

 

I've often thought this. My opinion is similar to the one I hold on Jesus - that he probably did exist but Plato and Xenophon (like the gospels for Jesus) exaggerated and styled him to meet their own agenda.

[Nehi]

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html

 

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Authenticity_of_Josephus_Flavius.html

[Guest]

I think Dawkins has more to offer than Stone/Parker. Maybe you don't like how he talks but he is simply a staunch defender of scientific method. If you think how someone talks is important then you don't understand scientific method. As much as I love South Park (and, no, I don't like the moronic copycats like Family Guy), I don't look to Stone/Parker for philisophical insights.

 

it's true....i'm sure it's frustrating for him. i dont know how he was earlier on in his career, or whatever you wanna call it, but i'm sure it's hard to speak calmly on this kind of subject. he's been giving logical reasoning for years and years...you have to think after a few lines like "well, the bible disagress"...you'd probably become annoyed. imagine arguing with brainsmasher every day for the rest of your life...you'd break and be a dick after awhile too. so i cant blame dawkins for his approach to religion.

[MMATycoon]

The Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum song is great

[Guest]

imagine arguing with brainsmasher every day for the rest of your life...you'd break and be a dick after awhile too. so i cant blame dawkins for his approach to religion.

 

I am at this point now. I am being less rational, logical and factual and more hilariously sarcastic and abusive, he seems to understand more of the words this way.

 

LeoP - The thing with Dawkins isn't HOW we talks, it is WHY he talks. If someone is a crazy Christian type that follows every tenet to the letter, etc, etc, but does not talk to you about it or impose their own personal beliefs on you, do you care? Does it affect you? The same for the militant atheists, if they don't believe that's fine, but why do I give a shit? Why do they need to tell me about it? Why do they need to justify their own beliefs at the expense of someone else's? Why can't they keep their own personal beliefs personal unless asked? This is what irritates people about Dawkins in the same way as evangelical preacher types irriate people. How difficult is it to shut the fuck up, live your life and act in accordance to your beliefs whilst keeping them to yourself because it's no one else's business?

[Guest]

it's true....i'm sure it's frustrating for him. i dont know how he was earlier on in his career, or whatever you wanna call it, but i'm sure it's hard to speak calmly on this kind of subject. he's been giving logical reasoning for years and years...you have to think after a few lines like "well, the bible disagress"...you'd probably become annoyed. imagine arguing with brainsmasher every day for the rest of your life...you'd break and be a dick after awhile too. so i cant blame dawkins for his approach to religion.

 

 

Why is it so impartant for you to force people to accept your views? You will always be a loser and that will never change whether people agree with you or now. You are no different than Humours. An internet degenerate who thinks they are enlightened. Remember MMA playyground? Yeah i havent forgot what kind of scumbag you really are. You are no different here. I my experience that is par for the course with you "Athiest".