He's doing all this on purpose clearly. He asks me a question, I ask if he's sincere before answering and he loses it and rambles off on some ad hominem intellecutally dishonest tangent. I asked him if he wanted clear logical proof that science is not anti-religion and he calls that babbling. He's making himself out to be a joke. This is what I found interesting. How could someone so articulate talk about scripture when I "knew" it was this or that and not worthwhile. I had to start looking into it because it didn't make sense and what the articulate person saying could not be logically refuted. The problem is an attitude and personality issue. Free Thinker would have been a nightmare in the classroom and a difficult child to raise, or perhaps is just showing the results of a childhood with difficult parents. Anyhow. It is not enjoyable to live his live with all the stress of having to twist every piece of perceived information to fit his worldview, because he can never be wrong. For all my difficulties at least I don't have to deal with that added burden.
Like I said, he's not really here to have a genuine conversation and continuously probing it. He can change that anytime, but doesn't. He just says whatever, not caring if it makes sense. Just a child in a playground arguing about candy without a clue about the real world, it's hilarious and sad at the same time.
You can list 1 000 000 people and I could list 1. The numbers don't matter, what they say, how accurate it is, whether it makes sense does matter. Further, supernatural is just another way of saying "something we don't understand." Only a moron and the complete opposite of scientist, intellectually honest, objective, etc, would ever say we know everything. It depends on your assumptions, does any reasonable scientist assume they are God and omniscient and knows everything? LOL, you are logical nightmare to deal with.
You are falling for his games. He's not here to actually be genuine and honest. The bottom line is that NEITHER creationism nor evolution is proven beyond question. FreeDumber is just about ASSUMING one position and defending it, without being objective. He wants to debate (win) not dialogue (productive). This is not about proving anything beyond any reasonable doubt, it is about showing there is possibilities on BOTH sides and that by ignoring one of them you are being a the moronicest moroniest moronical moron EVAR! Don't get sucked into his games, just get him to admit it is a possibility. From there a productive conversation can be had. Right now according to his worldview it is IMPOSSIBLE and further, never "should" be possible. First one is normal, second is down right scary when people like that get in charge and wars depend on having reasonable conversations.
Rubbish. There are no grounds to accept that as authentic historical evidence. Most scholars consider that reference corresponds too closely with standard Christian expressions and are additions from Christian copyists. You know, those same copysist who forged other Josepheus writings. So you've what now, accepted that all of Testimonium Flavianum was, or probably was altered, and therefore does not conform to historical evidence. Or are you going to keep refering to it like you have in this thread, knowing it not to be historical evidence of Jesus, but still claiming it is. There is no evidence to establish Jesus's authenticity - anywhere - period. Yeah what does stir you that way? Blind ignorant religious faith, or are you just basically a downright dishonest person?
You mean it's a reasonable conversation to have that Santa, God, Peter Pan and Mother Goose ARE possibilities after all?
You are trying to combat an emotional response with logic. This will never work. People who have a need to believe in a creator need a security blanket to give them some meaning in life. Some kind of fulfillment. Telling someone that life has no meaning beyond what they personally make of it is too much for some fragile minds to take. It also puts them in a position of absolute personal power, so failure is absolutely theirs, and most people just cannot handle that. The thought of randomness and chance scares the shit out of a lot of people. So, to protect their emotional paradigm, they will display some kind of violence. Your pursuit to enlighten is admirable but people cannot learn truth until they are ready to face truth. This last sentence will be turned around I am quite certain
i think you are right: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]
And you might want to add the "expert rule" to this. It will take 10000 hours of directed study to genuinely answer the question. Most people are not willing to stare in the mirror that long, and that hard.
stu... you are a fricken liar... the passage in antiquities is accepted by virtually all scholars in the field. I have presented you with links showing that. If you know some noted scholars who challenge the writing in antiquities present. Otherwise Jesus is a historical figure because he is referenced in an historical account with in a few years of death.