Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 17:17
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,667
Hey, even some babel fish may only be able to translate certain languages![]()
Are you saying that you don't understand my post?
Brian
Hey, even some babel fish may only be able to translate certain languages![]()
Yes some ...
Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed.
Are you saying that you don't understand my post?
Brian
Yes some ...
Example of Evidence of Absence:
I am not a murderer. I can only prove this by the lack of any evidence of my ever having killed anyone.
Example of Evidence of Absence:
I am not a murderer.
Has any reasonable trained investigator looked into this? Otherwise this is really absence of evidence?!
“The book is true, and if evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out not the book.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Has any reasonable trained investigator looked into this? Otherwise this is really absence of evidence?!
To Galaxiom: Did you read "Killing Jesus", the book?
You do know that it has nothing to do with religion but is an historical account of Jesus as a man and what happened to him.
So what if it has been brought down for thousands of years? Scribes copying BS is still BS. It doesn't prove it is true. In fact it is the refusal to reconsider any point in the light of new evidence that makes religions such a ridiculous anachronism.The bible has been brought down for thousands of years yet you say it is inaccurate.
Sure, lets start at the beginning. Genesis has plants, including fruiting trees created on the third day, the Sun on the fourth while birds and fish were created on the fifth day. I should not need to explain why plants could not have lived without the Sun.are we talking Genesis and its inconstancies or other. Please name a few and lets debate these and see if
1. If Jesus had existed, then there is evidence
somewhere.
2. There is no evidence of Jesus Anywhere.
3. Therefore, Jesus never existed.
"Modus Tollens"
All in all,
In my opinion as long as creationists use this moral :
(Relevant due to Alisa's first post)
Then we can never put our argument across without all of our plausible evidence being thrown away.
No it is only history. There is no religion in the book. All accounts of the man named Jesus have been verified through historic records. I hope you are not saying these historical records are false or mislead someone who reads them.
No I have not read it but I am aware of the complete lack of credible historical evidence. It will have everything to do with religion and I am certainly no going to waste money buying it.
I have asked you to provide an example of its "evidence" for the existence of Jesus. Choose the one you think is best.
So what if it has been brought down for thousands of years? Scribes copying BS is still BS. It doesn't prove it is true. In fact it is the refusal to reconsider any point in the light of new evidence that makes religions such a ridiculous anachronism.
Sure, lets start at the beginning. Genesis has plants, including fruiting trees created on the third day, the Sun on the fourth while birds and fish were created on the fifth day. I should not need to explain why plants could not have lived without the Sun.
Moreover, flowering plants are a relatively recent evolutionary divergence. The first fish predate them by hundreds of millions of years.
So there was a man named "Jesus"? One of them might even have been crucified.
But is there anything at all about a man named Jesus who could perform miracles (something surely worthy of mention)? Or anyone who could perform miracles?
No. Jesus Christ has no mention anywhere until about 80 AD. The claims of miracles arrive even later.
got any of those perceived contradictions???????
Blade
I received a Top Secret (TS/SCI, technically) clearance from the US government a few years back for my job.
So yes, you could say a competent investigator has gone through my background with a fine-toothed comb.
Which is moot. If you want to find evidence of me killing someone, it's up to you to find it.
Interestingly, in this exchange, I am the atheist (there's not a single piece of evidence), while you have taken the role of the theist (just because there's no evidence whatsoever, it doesn't mean you're not a spree-killer! Maybe you just need a better investigator!). I find that rather amusing.