Godless Apostate

[Knalus]

Here Nage Waza, let me help you see why people think you sound like a creationist.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I don't refuse that 'evidence' of dinosaurs exists, I just do not consider it evidence of anything. Any by repeating that I unfamiliar/don't understand does not make it true, it makes you look bad by insulting someone you are engaging in a debate.



So if someone spends years searching for ghosts or dinosaurs or the Lockness Monster, how dare I debate their findings? How absurd.



You realize what is being debated here? Not the fact that dinosaurs is based on a man made story, not if a small portion of the story is real, but if there is evidence of "it all happening millions of years ago".

Just a quick look at the definition of evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

There is no real body of facts indicating that dinosaurs existed, although there is some weird bones, which would barely count even as circumstantial evidence. Although the information is interesting, it certainly does not settle this debate.



Skeptic as in Athiest sceptic? You realize how dumb this is? Someone should post stats of those that believe Dinosaurs was real (with or without super powers) and if this all was created at random.

I have said nothing wrong and instead have multiple insults directed at me for saying what we should all know is true. I am also not trying to be insulting. All of us should have a higher standard for proof and evidence and to be able to question things.

Shameful.

Does this help you understand how your tone sounds like a creationist?

[TorqueDog]

I don't really care if Jesus existed. [shrug] Whether or not he did doesn't lend any credibility to the vast number of claims made about him by the gospels or by other people (typically to justify things they couldn't otherwise without invoking a religious entity). I mean let's face it, the simple existence of the man isn't the interesting or contentious part of Christian mythology. And the gospels themselves are not evidence for those claims.

Hence, meh.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Here Nage Waza, let me help you see why people think you sound like a creationist.
Does this help you understand how your tone sounds like a creationist?

You misquoting me on purpose is exactly the problem here. You could not find something I said that was wrong, and instead modified quotes of me. Hope the mods see this.

[photon]

I think Knalus is being clear he's intentionally altering your post to make a point, not altering it to make it look like you're saying something you're not.

Nothing wrong with that, perfectly valid way to make a point, you might want to look at it again it seems you're missing what they're trying to say.

[Vulcan]

I don't look at the denial of Jesus as a historical person as a basis for discussion. It's to attack the core of Christianity and works as far as shock value goes. To me it says I'm as close minded as the most fervent Christians as in if Jesus didn't exist, there is no basis for the religion.

I have no skin in this game although I have some sympathy for Christianity so the existence of Jesus isn't that important but his teachings are still relevant. Instead of looking at religion as the source of evil, as it seems a couple of posters do, I look at it as a tool that can do good or evil.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by photon

I think Knalus is being clear he's intentionally altering your post to make a point, not altering it to make it look like you're saying something you're not.

Nothing wrong with that, perfectly valid way to make a point, you might want to look at it again it seems you're missing what they're trying to say.

Nothing was said to make it clear he is intentionally altering a post. Defamatory posts like what Knalus made are for the purpose of harming someone's reputation, which as we both know are pretty shameful.

It appears they need to read what I posted and at least quote what I said and challenge that.

Christianity is real (we all agree), the powers attributed to Jesus are fabrications (I think we all agree), supporting evidence of Jesus existing do not exist (debatable), and I believe the entire story was man made (not an unusual opinion).

And how does that make someone a creationist??? And how could any reasonable person decide that defamatory posts are a good thing on this website?

And shame on those thanking this nonsense.

[jammies]

Saying you argue LIKE a creationist isn't saying you are a creationist, any more than saying you look LIKE your mother means you are your own mother.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Nothing was said to make it clear he is intentionally altering a post.

They started out by saying they were posting something in order to help you understand something, so right from the start it's clear they're not trying to harm your reputation by misquoting you. Then they bolded all the parts of the quoted post to make it clear what parts were being changed on purpose.

Restating what someone said while shifting one aspect of it to illustrate a point or to gain better understanding is a very common discussion mechanism, no one should have a problem with it.

If they misquoted you while trying to make the edits seem like it was original text and then argued against the post as if it was what you'd actually posted, then that'd be different.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Defamatory posts like what Knalus made are for the purpose of harming someone's reputation, which as we both know are pretty shameful.

Except that wasn't what the purpose of the post is. The purpose of the post is to try and improve communication; it's stated right at the top of the post. It's not defamatory, because it's clear the words aren't your own.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

And how does that make someone a creationist??? And how could any reasonable person decide that defamatory posts are a good thing on this website?

No one's claiming you're a creationist, they're claiming your reasoning is flawed in the same way a creationist's reasoning is typically flawed. Drawing a parallel to something that's (presumably) commonly understood to illustrate a point is also common discussion mechanism, and again is used to try and improve communication.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by jammies

Saying you argue LIKE a creationist isn't saying you are a creationist, any more than saying you look LIKE your mother means you are your own mother.

The difference in this thread is that I pointed out how the evidence proving the existence of Jesus barely qualified as evidence (if at all).

Belief in creationism is typical of a religious belief (which I am refuting), and the consistent religious belief aligned with creationism is the belief of Jesus. So far not a match with anything I ever typed.

Empirical evidence used in science is basically the opposite type of evidence those in this thread have attempted to push, which were based on reason and rationalism. To claim that I (who pushed empirical evidence) would be a creationist vs those that pushed their rationalistic agenda is not only dishonest, it is completely opposite to what is actually taking place.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by photon

They started out by saying they were posting something in order to help you understand something, so right from the start it's clear they're not trying to harm your reputation by misquoting you. Then they bolded all the parts of the quoted post to make it clear what parts were being changed on purpose.

LOL you know this is not true at all. They changed words and made it seem like I said them - nothing else matters.

Originally Posted by photon

Restating what someone said while shifting one aspect of it to illustrate a point or to gain better understanding is a very common discussion mechanism, no one should have a problem with it.

Except the point has no merit at all, and is an attempt to harm someones character - often used so that their actual points are ignored.

Originally Posted by photon

If they misquoted you while trying to make the edits seem like it was original text and then argued against the post as if it was what you'd actually posted, then that'd be different.

Why are you trying to justify this?

Originally Posted by photon

Except that wasn't what the purpose of the post is. The purpose of the post is to try and improve communication; it's stated right at the top of the post. It's not defamatory, because it's clear the words aren't your own.

It is not clear at all the words are not my own, considering it says right above it that they are mine, exactly how the quote function works on this site. It is defamatory, absolutely and clearly.

Originally Posted by photon

No one's claiming you're a creationist, they're claiming your reasoning is flawed in the same way a creationist's reasoning is typically flawed. Drawing a parallel to something that's (presumably) commonly understood to illustrate a point is also common discussion mechanism, and again is used to try and improve communication.

Wrong. Please prove my reasoning was flawed by using examples of what I wrote, rather than insulting and defaming someone, or at least supporting that tactic.

[PepsiFree]

Wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[photon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

LOL you know this is not true at all. They changed words and made it seem like I said them - nothing else matters.

Don't tell me what I "know".

I think you're alone in your conclusion that they posted in order to make it look like you said something you didn't. The moderators understood that the quote was clearly edited to make a point, not to make it seem like you were talking about dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Except the point has no merit at all, and is an attempt to harm someones character - often used so that their actual points are ignored.

The merit of the point isn't relevant to what I'm talking about. I'm responding to you saying the quote was edited to pretend you were saying something other than what you did. It wasn't, and the intent was to illustrate a reasoning process which they thought was flawed (whether they are correct or not is irrelevant to what I'm talking about).

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Why are you trying to justify this?

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm explaining why it isn't defamation and why it's not an unreasonable thing to post so you can understand why the post isn't being removed and move on. I'm trying to help.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It is not clear at all the words are not my own, considering it says right above it that they are mine, exactly how the quote function works on this site. It is defamatory, absolutely and clearly.

The top links to the quoted post, it doesn't state absolutely that the content of the post hasn't been altered, especially when someone goes to the effort of highlighting all the places where the post has been altered.

Whether you like it or not, editing of quoted posts to make a point has been around for longer than this forum. The way it was done is not against the rules since the poster made it clear the post was altered by going through and bolding every single place they made an edit. You can disagree, but ultimately it's the moderators that make that judgment.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Wrong.

It's not wrong, no one is claiming you are a creationist.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Please prove my reasoning was flawed by using examples of what I wrote, rather than insulting and defaming someone, or at least supporting that tactic.

I'm not trying to claim anything about your reasoning, I'm saying the way they did isn't defamatory or insulting and isn't against the rules. You don't have to agree, but if you aren't going to respond to the point being made then move on.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by photon

The top links to the quoted post, it doesn't state absolutely that the content of the post hasn't been altered, especially when someone goes to the effort of highlighting all the places where the post has been altered.

The effort of highlighting was also used in the quotation, indicating that I made the highlights (and as we know I did no such thing). Like I said, this is a pathetic thing to do or defend.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The effort of highlighting was also used in the quotation, indicating that I made the highlights (and as we know I did no such thing). Like I said, this is a pathetic thing to do or defend.

Look, just no. Seriously, that's clearly not how it was meant. Try taking other people's word on it, maybe?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The effort of highlighting was also used in the quotation, indicating that I made the highlights (and as we know I did no such thing). Like I said, this is a pathetic thing to do or defend.

Adding highlights where you didn't have any would only draw further attention to the fact the post was edited, which someone wouldn't do if they were trying to hide what you'd actually posted.

Regardless, I've tried to communicate the moderation team's position, but ultimately it's not necessary that you agree and/or understand, just follow direction. You've given your view, and the wording of things to try and shame the moderation team to get your way will probably result in the opposite of the desired effect, so I'd suggest moving on.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Nage waza, seriously, for your own good,

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nage waza, seriously, for your own good,

Now he going to report you to the moderators for insulting him

[Knalus]

I never said you actually were a creationist, mr Waza. I never meant to imply it, nor to suggest you might be. I now know better than to try to help you out. And I honestly was trying to help you.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

...Please prove my reasoning was flawed by using examples of what I wrote, rather than insulting and defaming someone, or at least supporting that tactic.

This ought to do it:

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Don't try to confuse people that I used Occam incorrectly - I used it well enough. If we know 99.9% of a story was made up, do we bother trying to resolve the last .1%? No, we don't. Yet other people are - in fact they have said in this very thread that we know most of the story is fake, but we believe some of it, so some is real. I deny that.

You continue to assert this position regarding the quantity of the Jesus stories about which we supposedly KNOW to be "made up" or "fake," but you have yet to point to any specifics about the story itself to which this applies. Should we believe that Jesus performed miracles? Of course not, but how much of the Jesus story is really dominated by events and actions we deem to be impossible? We certainly fixate on the miracles because they are extraordinary, but really when it comes to evaluating the historicity of Jesus, I would argue that these play a minor role. Historians are virtually unanimous in their opinion about Jesus' ability to control the weather, heal sick people, produce food from thin air or wine from water, and to raise the dead. However, their denial of these events does not affect their acceptance of his preaching and teaching activities in Capernaum and Galilee, which included claims about his miraculous abilities. In other words, there WERE people at the time when Jesus lived who were convinced that he actually possessed supernatural powers much in the same way that supernatural powers were claimed for other Jewish apocalyptic prophets like Honi the circle drawer, for Roman emperors like Vespasian, for Alexander the Great, and for modern day con-artist, televangelists like Benny Hinn. Do you apply the same level of scepticism regarding the historicity of these individuals on the basis of miracle stories?

Jesus is claimed to have had super powers and healed many people, included a few instances of more than one person. Pretend we total this to 1,000 total miracles, not even including afterlife provided to millions. So 1 (jesus exists) divided by 1,000 (miracles) equals 1/1000. Was I close? Is that not a reasonable argument? is 99.9% of the story not made up like I suggest?

This is not even remotely reasonable. I will go a step further here and state that your equation for validating historicity (1 [jesus exists] divided by 1,000 [miracles] equals 1/1000) might be the most ridiculous historical argument I have ever encountered.

In the first place, why pretend anything? Why not just evaluate the components of the Jesus story on a case-by-case basis in an effort to determine their plausibility? For example, in John 5 Jesus is reported to have healed a paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda. As an historian, I immediately dismiss the idea that an actual healing took place on the basis of my naturalistic worldview which does not allow for supernatural explanations for anything. However, is that sufficient grounds to dismiss the plausibility of the existence of Jesus outright? What about the existence of Bethesda? Since Bethesda was probably an asciepeion of some sort, I do believe it is reasonable to accept that people actually believed that miraculous healings took place with some regularity at this site. I also think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that within this culture in which charismatics and holy men were both highly respected and regarded to have possessed supernatural abilities, Jesus was likely believed by some—perhaps many—to have healed a man at the Bethesda pool. I remind you that I reject the occurrence of an ACTUAL HEALING, but that is entirely different from accepting an incident in which Jesus was believed by his audience and followers to have performed a healing.

In the second place, why focus exclusively on those parts of the story which we deem to be impossible? Are the more mundane and historically plausible details about Jesus' life somehow not important? Why not? Let us consider another episode from the Jesus story. In Mark 11 (Matt 21, Luke 19, John 2) we are told that Jesus ascended the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and created a public disturbance that was likely a contributing factor to his arrest only a few days later. What about this story is so remarkable that we cannot accept it? In actual fact, while we recognise it as a piece of religious propaganda that provides an overly sympathetic portrayal of Jesus' actions, this story actually makes a great deal of sense within its historical context, and provides a very reasonable explanation for his execution by the Roman authorities. The problem for you here is that if you accept this story as a flawed report of an actual historical event, then you must also accept the existence of an apocalyptic prophet who attempted a bold and careless religious "coupe," and who was summarily penalized for his treasonous behaviour by the incensed Jerusalem temple leadership and the heavy-handed Roman occupiers of Palestine.

I don't know enough because I have ruled out 1,000 examples that we know are not true, and are part of the myth. I don't argue the myth, so why try to bring that back in? Why insult me? Do you feel it makes your argument stronger? Does skeptic arguments have to result in the insults?

You don't know enough because you have yet to provide any serious discussion of any of the actual parts of the Jesus story. You don't know enough because you seem to think that there is nothing non-miraculous contained within the Jesus story. You don't know enough because you have demonstrated an appalling inability to evaluate ancient history from our primarily flawed sources. Honestly, if we conducted history similar to how you read the Gospels, we should then be forced to reject almost everything from before the Protestant Reformation.

[PsYcNeT]

Hardline Zionist hates Christ, film at 11.