Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering (Read 10708 times)
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #30 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 3:34pm:
So no refutation, and still no evidence of eyewitnesses to Jesus.  Is that all you have?


Evidence yes, but the Stratos Method filters all inconvenient evidence away. Are you sure you aren't Michael Mann slumming it online? The methodology seems familiar.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #31 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:38am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
Evidence yes


No evidence.  You have provided zero examples of an eyewitness to Jesus life Maria. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
all inconvenient evidence away.


Which "evidence" is it exactly I'm filtering away Maria?  It was after all, your claim that there were many eyewitness accounts to Jesus, despite the fact you have produced zero.  Do you still stand by your original claim or have you changed your mind in light of the untruth of that claim?
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #32 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:38am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
Evidence yes


No evidence.  You have provided zero examples of an eyewitness to Jesus life Maria. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
all inconvenient evidence away.


Which "evidence" is it exactly I'm filtering away Maria?  It was after all, your claim that there were many eyewitness accounts to Jesus, despite the fact you have produced zero.  Do you still stand by your original claim or have you changed your mind in light of the untruth of that claim?


Apostle John was an eye-witness. Peter was an eye-witness who wrote his own epistles and Mark wrote his book based on Peter's words.

But the problem is that the Stratos Method unilaterally dismisses this because you have a spiritual problem with God and so take it out on anyone and anything else that challenges you. I am not going to debate you because this is not my first turn a bat on this topic. It is a worthless exercise to debate a person who will always change the rules to suit his argument or set the evidence bar so high that his own existence could be disputed.

I would enjoy a spirited debate or discussion on spiritual matters, but if it is proof you are seeking, you will never find it. However, if it is God you are seeking, then you cannot but fail to find Him.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #33 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:05am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
Apostle John was an eye-witness.


No he wasn't, I've explained to you that it isn't known who wrote the book and why.  "John" wasn't even an attributed author until the second century.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
Mark wrote his book based on Peter's words.


On what evidence are you basing it?  The book itself is anonymous.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
you have a spiritual problem with God and so take it out on anyone and anything else that challenges you


No, I just have a problem with liars like you, who assert things as true which are actually false, and fail to substantiate their claims on any level, yet still believe things against all evidence.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
It is a worthless exercise to debate a person who will always change the rules to suit his argument or set the evidence bar so high that his own existence could be disputed.


Please point out where I have "changed the rules".
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #34 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:56am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:38am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
Evidence yes


No evidence.  You have provided zero examples of an eyewitness to Jesus life Maria. 

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
all inconvenient evidence away.


Which "evidence" is it exactly I'm filtering away Maria?  It was after all, your claim that there were many eyewitness accounts to Jesus, despite the fact you have produced zero.  Do you still stand by your original claim or have you changed your mind in light of the untruth of that claim?


Apostle John was an eye-witness. Peter was an eye-witness who wrote his own epistles and Mark wrote his book based on Peter's words.

But the problem is that the Stratos Method unilaterally dismisses this because you have a spiritual problem with God and so take it out on anyone and anything else that challenges you. I am not going to debate you because this is not my first turn a bat on this topic. It is a worthless exercise to debate a person who will always change the rules to suit his argument or set the evidence bar so high that his own existence could be disputed.

I would enjoy a spirited debate or discussion on spiritual matters, but if it is proof you are seeking, you will never find it. However, if it is God you are seeking, then you cannot but fail to find Him.




My understanding is that the majority of scholars don't actually believe John wrote it, instead a community with links to John wrote it and that it seems to be in three layers, with the last addition in 90 AD
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #35 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:02am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 8:05am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
Apostle John was an eye-witness.


No he wasn't, I've explained to you that it isn't known who wrote the book and why.  "John" wasn't even an attributed author until the second century.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
Mark wrote his book based on Peter's words.


On what evidence are you basing it?  The book itself is anonymous.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
you have a spiritual problem with God and so take it out on anyone and anything else that challenges you


No, I just have a problem with liars like you, who assert things as true which are actually false, and fail to substantiate their claims on any level, yet still believe things against all evidence.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:58am:
It is a worthless exercise to debate a person who will always change the rules to suit his argument or set the evidence bar so high that his own existence could be disputed.


Please point out where I have "changed the rules". 


Ask all the historians why they dont have the problems you have?  Different set of rules perhaps?

And I maintain that your issue is fundamentally spiritual.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #36 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:21am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:02am:
Ask all the historians why they dont have the problems you have?


Maria, you will find most scholars agree that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.  The earliest sources we have are anonymous, and written decades after the events they depict. 

That is not an eyewitness account.  Maria I will ask you again, because you tried to dodge it the last few times:

Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:38am:
Do you still stand by your original claim or have you changed your mind in light of the untruth of that claim?


Your original claim being that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus life.


Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #37 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:35am
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:21am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 9:02am:
Ask all the historians why they dont have the problems you have?


Maria, you will find most scholars agree that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.  The earliest sources we have are anonymous, and written decades after the events they depict. 

That is not an eyewitness account.  Maria I will ask you again, because you tried to dodge it the last few times:

Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:38am:
Do you still stand by your original claim or have you changed your mind in light of the untruth of that claim?


Your original claim being that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus life.




I claim Peter and John as eye-witnesses. Because there is no proof to your standard does not make it not true.  I am not dodging it. I am sick of repeating it.  You mistake lie for unproven as you mistake so many other things.

I note you do not respond to my claim that this is a spiritual issue for you rather than historical. You are desperately seeking to avoid the One that is on your case.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #38 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:44am
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:35am:
I claim Peter and John as eye-witnesses.


OK, first, Peter.  What evidence do you have to suggest Peter wrote an eyewitness account of Jesus life.

Secondly, remembering that John was given that name in the second century, and is an anonymous document that hundreds of years of research have been unable to provide an author to, what evidence do you have that the apostle John wrote an eyewitness account to Jesus life.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:35am:
I note you do not respond to my claim that this is a spiritual issue for you rather than historical.


My response is purely historical, as should yours be when making historical claims about figures from antiquity.  This sounds like a cop out because you don't have any evidence to present.

Edit:  Just for substantiation purposes, I suggest you look up Against Heresies by Irenaeus.  This is the oldest known work that suggests authorship to the gospels, and was written close to the end of the 2nd Century.

It's also a rather interesting read, looking back at it from modern times.  A lot of fascinating similarities to modern religious squabbles.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2015 at 12:01pm by Stratos »  

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2178
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #39 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 2:24pm
 
athos wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 6:23pm:
Considering that Richard Dawkins is a closet Gay (Homosexual) he tries to justify inappropriate behavior of his headmaster. When he was 12 Richard Dawkins was raped (penetrated) by his biology teacher who initiated him in Gay community.


How typical of atheists. Russian society was largely atheistic too, wasn't it?  Grin It probably explains how they are today.
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #40 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:41pm
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:44am:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:35am:
I claim Peter and John as eye-witnesses.


OK, first, Peter.  What evidence do you have to suggest Peter wrote an eyewitness account of Jesus life.

Secondly, remembering that John was given that name in the second century, and is an anonymous document that hundreds of years of research have been unable to provide an author to, what evidence do you have that the apostle John wrote an eyewitness account to Jesus life.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 11:35am:
I note you do not respond to my claim that this is a spiritual issue for you rather than historical.


My response is purely historical, as should yours be when making historical claims about figures from antiquity.  This sounds like a cop out because you don't have any evidence to present.

Edit:  Just for substantiation purposes, I suggest you look up Against Heresies by Irenaeus.  This is the oldest known work that suggests authorship to the gospels, and was written close to the end of the 2nd Century.

It's also a rather interesting read, looking back at it from modern times.  A lot of fascinating similarities to modern religious squabbles.



And you are avoiding commenting on my observation about your motives.  Curious.  By once again, absence of hard proof is not proof of error. Particularly when the author of John claims to be an eyewitness.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #41 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:51pm
 
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:41pm:
And you are avoiding commenting on my observation about your motives.


My motives are irrelevant to a historical debate.  I'm motivated by a search for evidence and a historical Jesus.  So far my search has been lacking of anything substantial.  As for what a spiritual motivation might entail from an atheist like myself, well, I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:41pm:
By once again, absence of hard proof is not proof of error.


So you admit there is an absence of poof when it comes to whether there are eyewitnesses of Jesus?  Regardless, you offer no evidence in support of your claim yet again.
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2178
Gender: male
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #42 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:52pm
 
Stratos,  I assume that you are basing your views on this book (and website)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

The question is - why would anyone bother putting together such a website?

What exactly is the point of being Anti-Christian? (apart from the fact that New Atheists seem to revel in the idea)
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
Stratos
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4725
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #43 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 4:50pm
 
John_Taverner wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:52pm:
Stratos,  I assume that you are basing your views on this book (and website)


I could spend hours posting on all the false claims on that website.  It's very poorly argued.  I am not part of the group who say that Jesus could never have existed.  All I'm saying is that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus that I've ever seen.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:52pm:
What exactly is the point of being Anti-Christian?


I could argue that truth is a character that Christians should value.  In promoting truth and countering falsehood, I'm showing true Christian values.

That aside though, I have no problem with moderates of any faith really, although I disagree with them.   It's when faith harms or promotes something other than reality that it starts to bother me.
Back to top
 

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:24pm:
Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act
 
IP Logged
 
mariacostel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female
Re: Richard Dawkins Condones Child Molestering
Reply #44 - Dec 3rd, 2015 at 7:16pm
 
Stratos wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:51pm:
mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:41pm:
And you are avoiding commenting on my observation about your motives.


My motives are irrelevant to a historical debate.  I'm motivated by a search for evidence and a historical Jesus.  So far my search has been lacking of anything substantial.  As for what a spiritual motivation might entail from an atheist like myself, well, I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 3rd, 2015 at 3:41pm:
By once again, absence of hard proof is not proof of error.


So you admit there is an absence of poof when it comes to whether there are eyewitnesses of Jesus?  Regardless, you offer no evidence in support of your claim yet again.



It really is a pointless exercise debating this with you because it all boils down to the exact same thing. NO EVIDENCE is ever enough for you and never will be. And because we cant point to a youtube video (which you'd debunk anyhow) you throw everything away. Both John and Peter were eyewitnesses and wrote accordingly.  Do you believe it? No - and frankly, I don't care because NOTHING would ever convince you. Historians - actual professionals - dont have your problem. POssibly because they dont expect to find forensic levels of proof for everything. And the Stratos Method is so named because only you use it.

The only one being fooled is you.


PS Pilate is a historical myth. So is Herod.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print