re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

quote:

---

That makes no sense - "his existence removes their objectivity"

---

They are Christians, Christians believe in Christ. A scholar who writes about Christ while simultaneously being Christian necessitates his existence.

quote:

---

Or tweeted about him, or made friends with him on facebook. Didn't realize a lot of "contemporary articles" were written back in the day. Good to know.

---

Contemporary as in his own time period, inference exists.

quote:

---

Please explain why they would make coins, statues, paintings, busts, etc., of someone they considered a criminal and then crucified? Was making coins, busts, paintings, etc., what they did for criminals back in the day - after they wrote articles on them?

Me thinks your bias is showing

---

He performed many miracles and traveled with twelve disciples. You don't find it the least bit intriguing that none of them wrote anything about him? None of them painted, inscribed, carried, wrote (if they were literate) ANY article (item)? That the Romans, who were known for keeping detailed records with many scholars, didn't write anything about this miracle criminal?

Come on man, please use your head.

If we all found out that there was no god, it would be essential to hurry up and invent another one. We humans do not like the "end" if you know what I mean.

quote:

---

FWIW this is a 2 way street.

---

Yes and no.

One side is backed by mountains of peer-reviewed evidence and is accepted as a scientific fact.

The other has no empirical support.

I hope you understand why one side saying "just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't right," isn't the same as the other side saying it.

quote:

---

There's nothing pre-conceived, there's just no evidence.

---

This statement is evidence of incredible bias. You have pre-decided there is no evidence, therefore, there is none. Meanwhile, you are ignoring evidence which mainstream scholarly opinion uses to come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have made. Get your head out of the sand, please.

quote:

---

Most modern scholars include most biblical scholars -- who are by and large dependent on his existing.

---

So we can't believe Biblical scholars because they are Biblical scholars. Great. You do realize that this means we can't believe any scholar about anything, right? Your bias has completely blinded you on this one.

quote:

---

I think Bart Ehrman is one of the only Atheistic scholars who said he existed

---

Think again. You need to open your mind a bit, get outside the talking points, and look this stuff up for yourself.

quote:

---

So what's the best evidence for Jesus, then, "absolutely" existing? The gospels? No one thinks of them as credible. Josephus? Didn't live during Jesus' time.

---

I'm not interested in a shouting match. Look it up as there are whole books on the subject written by scholars a lot smarter than both of us that believe there is plenty of evidence proving the historical fact of the existence of Jesus.

But you will never agree with it because your bias prevents you from looking at any of the evidence objectively. You are completely unable to do so at present.

Your insane notion that Jesus' existence must be proved by coins, busts, and paintings done at the time of Jesus' life is proof of that. No objective or intelligent person would have made such a ludicrous argument. Since you are intelligent, it must be your bias speaking - loud and clear.

quote:

---

LINK -- Watch it.

I've made my points, you say: Just look at the consensus.

It even identifies the faulty consensus being made, the one you so heavily rely on with your bias. (See how I can just randomly throw bias into any conversation and make it seem applicable?) Seriously, I've done the research, I actually watch videos regarding the academic point of view and I pay close attention to the trends. I used to believe Jesus existed (just like this SCHOLAR, HISTORIAN) until I looked past the consensus and toward the evidence.

---

I'm not arguing with you that there are intelligent scholars who question whether Jesus actually existed. I know there are. I'm questioning your zealotry in claiming there is "no evidence" that he did exist. There's a lot of evidence. That doesn't mean he actually existed, of course, but it does meant there is some evidence for it. And many scholars - both religious and atheist - concede this. And there are reams of cites I could give you that speak to this - as you probably well know. Many scholars do not believe he existed (a minority) and you've got a youtube video of one of them. Awesome. But to say there is "no evidence" speaks to bias.

So at least be honest - you're biased on this topic. You may not like it, but you clearly are. Otherwise, you would - at the very least - concede there is some evidence for Jesus' existence, but you don't believe it's enough to counter the lack of evidence or the evidence of his non-existence.

But that's not what you're doing. You ignore the evidence that is out there or simply claim "there is no evidence", thus closing off debate so you don't have to listen to the evidence anymore. That is not a scholarly approach as you well know.

Just try to maintain your objectivity - that is all.

Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

There's the good ole Christian spirit and religious approach.

quote:

---

Seriously, give evidence or refute -- don't just go off like a broken record because you've got yourself a shite argument.

---

I really find it hard to believe you're serious. At this point, saying there is "no evidence" puts you on the level of the worst type of religious zealot.

There are reams of evidence. I could give you link after link from scholar after scholar. But it doesn't matter because your mind is as closed as the worst religious nut.

Apparently, you define evidence as "irrefutable proof", which is no definition of evidence recognized anywhere - except by zealots, of course. Which is why you demand coins, busts, and paintings of Jesus, done while he was still on Earth, or there is no evidence.

So at first I just thought you were merely biased. I realize now you are a zealot. If I had to guess - an Atheist zealot.

Which, if true, would be kind of ironic. Based on your earlier argument that you can't believe any writing by a Christian about Christianity, then I must apply the same logic and not believe anything about Atheism written by an Atheist.

You have hoisted yourself upon your own petard sir. Which is as fitting a way to end this as any.

quote:

---

Something wrong with that?

---

Nope

quote:

---

There are reams of evidence. I could give you link after link from scholar after scholar. But it doesn't matter because your mind is as closed as the worst religious nut.

---

I don't think he was asking for "reams of evidence" or "link after link"... how about just a couple? Or one?

Saying there is this mountain of verifiable evidence then not providing any at all doesn't really help your argument.