Among the more amusing statements, Rook declares that the Jesus Myth theory has been a continuing part of scholarship for the past 200 years!

Rook, after realizing that he can't back up his parallels, obfuscates! I give in, and link him to a few Tekton pages. I then try to end the obfuscating, and Rook gives a very short reply. I then crush the reply, and Rook is strangely silent. (At least at the time when I post this topic)

http://www.rationalresponders.com/fo...campaign/10326

Good going! I left a link on my "rational response squad" blog here: http://rationalresponders.blogspot.com

Frank!

Originally posted by Kabane52

Rook, after realizing that he can't back up his parallels, obfuscates! I give in, and link him to a few Tekton pages. I then try to end the obfuscating, and Rook gives a very short reply. I then crush the reply, and Rook is strangely silent. (At least at the time when I post this topic)

Yeah... don't see the 'crushing', sorry; posting a few JPH rantings isn't winning an argument.

Originally posted by Wyzaard

Yeah... don't see the 'crushing', sorry; posting a few JPH rantings isn't winning an argument.

I have to agree. That discussion is inconclusive at best.

Michel

Posting the Tekton pages was not what I was referring to. That is a mistake on my part, I gave in to the obfuscation. Afterwards, good ol' Rook misunderstands me and refers to Zoroastrian tradition. I ask a simple question, and that was three days ago. If Rook could answer it, he should have by now.

Originally posted by Kabane52

Posting the Tekton pages was not what I was referring to. That is a mistake on my part, I gave in to the obfuscation. Afterwards, good ol' Rook misunderstands me and refers to Zoroastrian tradition. I ask a simple question, and that was three days ago. If Rook could answer it, he should have by now.

Or he's on vacation...

Or he's lost interest...

Or he figures anything he says you're going to reject...

Or he has a hot date...

Or he is dead...

Or he is finishing a term paper...

Or he doesn't know...

Or he doesn't like you...

Or he's decided you're right...

Or he <insert infinite number of reasons for no response here>...


Declaring a "win" on the basis of the silence of your opponent is a pretty lame argument. Are you truly so desperate to win?

Personally, I would never have bothered to respond to the question whatsoever. It's a useless discussion. No matter what parallels someone brings forward, the theist will have a list of reasons as long as there arm as to why it is NOT a parallel. For them, apparently, a parallel has to be an "exact match" or it isn't a parallel. But that's not what a parallel is. A parallel is a concept that has themes that are similar to another concept. Resurrection was not a new concept at the time Jesus was alive. Resurrecting gods was not a new concept. Virgin births was not a new concept. Sacrificial offerings was not a new concept. By definition, a new religion is not going to exactly duplicate the old concepts, or it would just be the old religion. It is going to bring them together in different ways, perhaps with new elements. So there will be differences.

And even if these were ALL brand spanking new ideas at the time, it says nothing about their truth. Nor does showing links to prior belief systems show them to be untrue. Truth is about the alignment of a claim to what is real. It has nothing to do with how new or original the claim is, nor about how many similar claims came before it, nor about how many people believe it. These may be indicators, but they do not prove anything.

Michel

Or, the Ancient Texts Expert is attending his first day of college.

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Or he's on vacation...

HIGHLY unlikely. Rook is part of an atheist group that is radically obsessed with such topics. They make their everyday lives an attempt to rid the world of religion.

Or he figures anything he says you're going to reject...

I don't have to read everything he posts on the internet to know that he's a complete idiot.

Or he has a hot date...

I doubt it, as Rook isn't attractive in the least.

Or he is finishing a term paper...

Yeah....after seeing Frank Walton's blog about his whole discussion on Atheist Network, in addition to the observations I've made from the RRS website "Give me more money so I can disprove Jesus' existence!" I'd have to say that Rook puts absolutely no integrity into his work and is too damn lazy to actually do some research. Besides, what person has the tackiness to label themselves an expert and then mooch off others for book fees? The man is a flipping joke, it matters not that he may know some history. If he wants to dismantle or disprove anything, and or if he actually has the critical analytical skills of a so-called "expert", there should be no reason for him to ask for pocket change. Complete retard if you ask me.

Declaring a "win" on the basis of the silence of your opponent is a pretty lame argument. Are you truly so desperate to win?

I'm confused, since when did this NOT constitute the loss or win of an argument? Most arguments I've been in have usually involved that if you don't have any words to further the discussion, you're at a loss for a case. Even though I don't believe it necessarily means that a person has lost an argument immediately, that's logically what most people would expect.

Personally, I would never have bothered to respond to the question whatsoever. It's a useless discussion. No matter what parallels someone brings forward, the theist will have a list of reasons as long as there arm as to why it is NOT a parallel. For them, apparently, a parallel has to be an "exact match" or it isn't a parallel. But that's not what a parallel is. A parallel is a concept that has themes that are similar to another concept.

Isn't it funny how parrallels never intersect?

Although JP Holding isn't an historian, his analogy of the comparison of pagan savior gods compared to Christ is spot on. That is to say, the pagans had saviors, but they differentiated from the Christian savior. By the way Carp......

Can you give me a definition of the word "virgin" and then logically explain to me of how pornographic sex addicted supernatural entities having intercourse with mortal humans would constitute virginity. Also, tell me how sprouting from a rock constitutes being begotten from a mortal woman. Seeing as these parallels are so incredibly close and imitative, you should have no problem demonstrating how any of the popular examples do in fact constitute a divine-virgin impregnation. You see, when you compare the mighty powers of Zeus' electrifying wang to a non-materialistic miracle, these parallels are far removed by their own contexts.

And even if these were ALL brand spanking new ideas at the time, it says nothing about their truth. Nor does showing links to prior belief systems show them to be untrue. Truth is about the alignment of a claim to what is real. It has nothing to do with how new or original the claim is, nor about how many similar claims came before it, nor about how many people believe it. These may be indicators, but they do not prove anything.

That I can agree with. But you must also consider some of the possibilities which may be alternative to your view. Isn't it strange that a group of people formulated over a mere dead person who NEVER rose from the dead? It's quite a mystery put into those terms.

You also forget that atheists can also have a hard time dealing with contrary evidences and usually speculate or just throw out your assertions to begin with. To demonstrate that this is true, I can show you archaeological evidence for the crossing of the Red Sea, but you would immediately attack it and speculate that our reasoning is backwards on the issue. Reluctant reasoning is not entirely on the hands of the theist, you know.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

HIGHLY unlikely. Rook is part of an atheist group that is radically obsessed with such topics. They make their everyday lives an attempt to rid the world of religion.

I don't have to read everything he posts on the Internet to know that he's a complete idiot.

I doubt it, as Rook isn't attractive in the least.

Yeah....after seeing Frank Walton's blog about his whole discussion on Atheist Network, in addition to the observations I've made from the RRS website "Give me more money so I can disprove Jesus' existence!" I'd have to say that Rook puts absolutely no integrity into his work and is too damn lazy to actually do some research. Besides, what person has the tackiness to label themselves an expert and then mooch off others for book fees? The man is a flipping joke, it matters not that he may know some history. If he wants to dismantle or disprove anything, and or if he actually has the critical analytical skills of a so-called "expert", there should be no reason for him to ask for pocket change. Complete retard if you ask me.

The point was not that any of those WAS the right response, only that the number of reasons someone might stop posting on a website was fairly long. That they had no argument is only one possibility in a sea of possibilities.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

I'm confused, since when did this NOT constitute the loss or win of an argument? Most arguments I've been in have usually involved that if you don't have any words to further the discussion, you're at a loss for a case. Even though I don't believe it necessarily means that a person has lost an argument immediately, that's logically what most people would expect.

Then I have won a LOT of arguments.

In a face-to-face debate, the silence of the opposition is a "win." On a website I think it's pretty lame. There are simply too many reasons a voice might go silent.

But even if you DO declare it a win, it's a win of what? A debate? Since when does a debate do anything to establish what is true? A debate merely establishes who is more persuasive.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Isn't it funny how parallels never intersect?

Yeah - I thought that when I posted. Poor use of a metaphor

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Although JP Holding isn't an historian, his analogy of the comparison of pagan savior gods compared to Christ is spot on. That is to say, the pagans had saviors, but they differentiated from the Christian savior. By the way Carp......

Can you give me a definition of the word "virgin" and then logically explain to me of how pornographic sex addicted supernatural entities having intercourse with mortal humans would constitute virginity. Also, tell me how sprouting from a rock constitutes being begotten from a mortal woman. Seeing as these parallels are so incredibly close and imitative, you should have no problem demonstrating how any of the popular examples do in fact constitute a divine-virgin impregnation. You see, when you compare the mighty powers of Zeus' electrifying wang to a non-materialistic miracle, these parallels are far removed by their own contexts.

No, Truth - I'm not going to give you examples or engage in a proof of pre-existing concepts that could have served as prototypes or templates for elements of the Christian myths (note the better metaphor ). I've already said there are some discussions I consider useless. This is one of them. Arguing the meaning of bible verses is another. Debating evolution is a third. This one I won't because there will always be a difference that can be pointed to so as to deny it served as a prototype or template. The second because it gets down to two people arguing about their subjective interpretations. The third because it requires ignoring so much existing science to deny evolution that it constitutes an irrational position. A position irrationally arrived at cannot be rationally discussed.

And yes, I'm going to get the inevitable "close minded" and "can't defend your position" accusations for taking that stance, but such is life. Unless someone has NEW information, or a reason why I should change this stance, I think I'll chat about other things.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

That I can agree with. But you must also consider some of the possibilities which may be alternative to your view. Isn't it strange that a group of people formulated over a mere dead person who NEVER rose from the dead? It's quite a mystery put into those terms.

And as best I can tell, Mormonism formed around a common shyster. And if Christianity is the "true" religion, then Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam all formed around false concepts as well. Religions forming around a flase premise or premises? What an amazing phenomenon!

Originally posted by Truth be Told

You also forget that atheists can also have a hard time dealing with contrary evidences and usually speculate or just throw out your assertions to begin with. To demonstrate that this is true, I can show you archaeological evidence for the crossing of the Red Sea, but you would immediately attack it and speculate that our reasoning is backwards on the issue. Reluctant reasoning is not entirely on the hands of the theist, you know.

That would be interesting evidence. I'd be happy to look at it.

Michel

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

The point was not that any of those WAS the right response, only that the number of reasons someone might stop posting on a website was fairly long. That they had no argument is only one possibility in a sea of possibilities.

Or better yet to sum it up, we'll just say Rook was preoccupied with his "wish list" in his expertised dismantling of the Bible.

Then I have won a LOT of arguments.

In a face-to-face debate, the silence of the opposition is a "win." On a website I think it's pretty lame. There are simply too many reasons a voice might go silent.

But even if you DO declare it a win, it's a win of what? A debate? Since when does a debate do anything to establish what is true? A debate merely establishes who is more persuasive.

Fair enough.

Yeah - I thought that when I posted. Poor use of a metaphor

No, Truth - I'm not going to give you examples or engage in a proof of pre-existing concepts that could have served as prototypes or templates for elements of the Christian myths (note the better metaphor ). I've already said there are some discussions I consider useless. This is one of them. Arguing the meaning of bible verses is another.

Trust me I probably know what many of them are already. I haven't searched far but from reading neutral sources on mythology I have found that so far the evidence concurs with the defense-position. What do I expect could possibly say otherwise if I was to look further?

Debating evolution is a third.This one I won't because there will always be a difference that can be pointed to so as to deny it served as a prototype or template. The second because it gets down to two people arguing about their subjective interpretations. The third because it requires ignoring so much existing science to deny evolution that it constitutes an irrational position. A position irrationally arrived at cannot be rationally discussed.

I'd be inclined to agree with you. At the end of the day, evolution must be accepted as logically true.

When you think about it, the whole "Intelligent Design" concept of being 'science' can make a person scratch his head.

And yes, I'm going to get the inevitable "close minded" and "can't defend your position" accusations for taking that stance, but such is life. Unless someone has NEW information, or a reason why I should change this stance, I think I'll chat about other things.

And as best I can tell, Mormonism formed around a common shyster. And if Christianity is the "true" religion, then Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam all formed around false concepts as well. Religions forming around a flase premise or premises? What an amazing phenomenon!

Islam is a build off of the New Testament. I'm not sure Christians would argue that their beliefs are built off of false concepts, but moreso false interpretations.

That would be interesting evidence. I'd be happy to look at it.

I'll get to it later, I'm busy at the moment.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Or better yet to sum it up, we'll just say Rook was preoccupied with his "wish list" in his expertised dismantling of the Bible.

I frankly haven't read any of his work except what was in that post. I concur with his assessment of JPH. Other than that, I know nothing about him. There are many atheists who's arguments about/against religion/god seem pretty vacuous to me.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Trust me I probably know what many of them are already. I haven't searched far but from reading neutral sources on mythology I have found that so far the evidence concurs with the defense-position. What do I expect could possibly say otherwise if I was to look further?

This almost sounds like you agree with me... I think...?

Originally posted by Truth be Told

I'd be inclined to agree with you. At the end of the day, evolution must be accepted as logically true.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

When you think about it, the whole "Intelligent Design" concept of being 'science' can make a person scratch his head.

And the infamous "wedge" document certainly exposes it for what it is.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

And yes, I'm going to get the inevitable "close minded" and "can't defend your position" accusations for taking that stance, but such is life. Unless someone has NEW information, or a reason why I should change this stance, I think I'll chat about other things.

Weren't these MY words?

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Islam is a build off of the New Testament. I'm not sure Christians would argue that their beliefs are built off of false concepts, but moreso false interpretations.

Christianity is built on false interpretations?

TBT - you're starting to sound like a skeptic!

Originally posted by Truth be Told

I'll get to it later, I'm busy at the moment.

At your leisure, TBT. I should be getting back to my writing as well.

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Christianity is built on false interpretations?

TBT - you're starting to sound like a skeptic!

I think he meant Muslims...

Originally posted by lilflashofsun

I think he meant Muslims...

Ahhh... of course...


Oh well - false concepts - false interpretations... is there really THAT much difference?

Michel

At your leisure, TBT. I should be getting back to my writing as well.

Here we go:

http://dalesdesigns.net/evidence.htm

Something interesting about these findings:

1) Both human and horse bones have been found at the bottom of the Gulf.

2) According to the Bible, there is one last place the Midianites and Moses' grouped camped before rerouting and crossing the Red Sea. From what I know, there is ONE cave on the Sinai Peninsula with Midianite inscriptions, further from that you would have to be searching in Midian, with a quick route across the sea.

Despite this was all discovered by "pseudo-archeaologist" Ron Wyatt, I can't really think of any other logical explanation that could explain all of these evidences away naturalistically or alternatively.

Originally posted by Truth be Told

Here we go:

http://dalesdesigns.net/evidence.htm

Something interesting about these findings:

1) Both human and horse bones have been found at the bottom of the Gulf.

2) According to the Bible, there is one last place the Midianites and Moses' grouped camped before rerouting and crossing the Red Sea. From what I know, there is ONE cave on the Sinai Peninsula with Midianite inscriptions, further from that you would have to be searching in Midian, with a quick route across the sea.

Despite this was all discovered by "pseudo-archeaologist" Ron Wyatt, I can't really think of any other logical explanation that could explain all of these evidences away naturalistically or alternatively.

Ummm... TBT.... no insult but - this is a website. Anyone can put anything up on a website at any time. This article has no references (that I saw), no links to published and peer reviewed articles, nothing.

And the "logical explanation" that came to mind in about 2 seconds was a troop transport ship sinking.

Do you have anything else?

Michel