tonyjeffers wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

Yeah, Mouse pretty well beat the hell out of him in those other two 'Atheist belief' threads.  He also pointed out that he was most likely two different guys-as one seemed to not be able to figure out the quote function???

I'm usually on the lookout for such vermin, but he slid one past me. I don't even think Extreme caught it after a lengthy debate.  Way to go Mouse!

If the Mouse were humble the Mouse would say something humble.

But when responding to a statement that was equivocal they understood and pointed out the problem. When responding to a statement with unassailable logic they did not understand and wanted clarification in favor of theism. Seeing the difference between the two types of posts and exploiting them was the line of theist attack, a point of pride if you will. Attack the attack worked.

I did not connect the two approaches with quoting/not quoting.

Also I raised the point that if their arguments were correct then they were still not beyond multiple gods and they should stop talking about just one upper case god. There was no response to that. It was something they could not address with this approach.

jeffreyalex wrote:

We're talking past each other, that's the only explanation I can see for all this confusion. 

I made the comparison to 10 years ago to make the point that it's ridiculous to hold the same evidentiary standard for a modern historical figure as to an ancient nobody. As far as evidence for nobodies from 2000 years ago goes, we have good evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus did live. It seems he preached a novel message, had followers, and made trouble for the authorities of his time. That's all I'm saying. 

I am adding on that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is the more probable hypothesis that he never existed at all. 

That's all I'm saying. 

Now let us get passed your lies and look at an exact comparison. You do not get away with ignoring the miracles. That is the essence of the Jesus myth as the "wisdom" is barely grade school level.

The standard is that for a miracle working god on earth, period. Without those stipulations there is nothing worth discussing.

LETS GET BACK to the real point, your lie about Jesus being a historical fact.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:

But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. 

 

   Read arguments from both sides ?  Many atheists on this forum ( myself included ) not only read arguments from theists, we were at one point in time the actual theists who were making those very arguments.  

 

 

Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word.