Me too, Richard.
Usually.
But not always.
Sometimes I want answers that don’t need questioning.
When I ask, “Is the house on fire?”
Don’t respond, “Specifically, what do you mean by ‘fire’?”
Just say, “YES!”
I’ll believe you.
This is how faith saves lives.
I believe you despite a lack of evidence.
Skepticism can kill you.
“The house hasn’t been on fire before, why start now?”
“Unless you tell me how the fire started, I don’t believe it exists!”
“What evidence can you provide for this alleged fire?”
“What qualifications do you have for recognizing fire?”
“Gosh it’s getting hot…aaaaaaAAAAAAGH!”
You can ask unanswerable questions about ANYTHING.
Pancakes, for example.
A warm, buttery stack of pancakes offers many confounding mysteries.
“Which dairy provided the milk?”
“Which chicken provided the eggs?”
“Why pancakes instead of waffles?”
Oh! The euphoria of eternal enigmas!
However, if you choose, you can answer a lot of questions with reason.
Like the two critical breakfast related questions:
- Are these pancakes real?
- How did they get here?
Your five senses (except for, maybe, ‘hearing’)…
…are evidence for the answer to question 1.
Reason alone tells you the answer to question 2.
“Somebody made these pancakes.”
You don’t know the chef’s eye color.
You don’t know the chef’s gender.
You don’t know the chef’s nationality.
But everybody, including Aunt Jemima, knows…
Pancakes don’t make themselves.
Go ahead and ponder the possibilities of self-producing pancakes.
Propose a gravitational pancake particle coupled with natural selection.
Put up a theory of quantum mechanics and wormholes.
But keep in mind this other quote from Dr. Feynman:
223 Responses
Hey, look what I found!
http://www.johndickson.org/blog/jesus-and-the-oxford-classical-dictionary
You know what I still haven’t found?
Somebody saying
“I am the way and the truth and the life” before Jesus.
I’m still looking though!
“…the Oxford Classical Dictionary fails to give entries on a multitude of important figures from ancient Israel, Syria, Nabatea, and so on… I am thinking of Caiaphas, the high priest of Israel at the time of Jesus. Or Izates, the king of Adiabene who along with his mother Helena were the most famous converts to Judaism in the period and whose tombs in Jerusalem can be visited to this day. Then there’s the 1st-century BC tyrant king and high priest Alexander Jannaeus, whose coins are littered throughout archaeological digs in the region. Then there are the leading rabbis of the period, Hillel, Shammai, and Gamaliel, or the great rebel leaders such as Judas of Gamla the founder of a mass rebellion in Judea in AD 6 and Eleazar who led the revolt against Rome right through to his death at Masada in AD 73. All of these figures were as well known in the period as Jesus of Nazareth (some more so). None of them earns an entry in the OCD. Why? Because they are not formally part of Classical history in the Oxford tradition. They are, however, found in the standard works of Jewish and Near Eastern history. And no one doubts their existence.”
Gold.
As our dear friend Carmen likes to say, “The Internet is where religion goes to die.”
Or, more accurately, “The Internet is where blind Fundamentalism goes to die.”
RIP, John Zande.
LOL!
The fact remains, Paul, the founder of Christianity, warrants an entry as a historical character, but the central figure of Christianity, the Jesus character, doesn’t.
How odd.
The printed dictionary covers mainly Rome and Greece. Roman and Greecian culture. Christianity reached Rome–but Jesus himself never stepped foot there.
Paul was a Roman Pharisee.
He gets an entry.
Now PLEASE have a look at the GIF my dad just posted. It’s fantastic. LOL!
Hey! JZ is commenting!
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah110/John_Branyan/gie59npuwgsgM_zpswewayw4i.gif
Oops! Wait! Apparently Saul of Tarsus isn’t listed in the printed 4th Edition of the OCD, either!
May want to check your facts there, buddy!
Remember–YOU brought up Oxford Classical Dictionary… Not the hundreds of other entries in the online Oxford Reference (which covers dozens and dozens of other books published by Oxford Press).
So–if you believe Saul/Paul was a real historic character, you have some explaining to do.
WHY DIDN’T HE GET AN ENTRY IN THE 4th EDITION OF THE OCD???
Odd.
Paul, St.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul_zps6qhistmg.png
Here ya go, buddy. I know the internet is hard sometimes.
This is the page you can use to search ONLY the 4th Edition of the Oxford Classic Dictionary. It filters out all the other reference books published by Oxford Press. So, if you look up things HERE, you will see what does and doesn’t get its own entry. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199545568.001.0001/acref-9780199545568
No Jesus. No Gospels. No Hillel and Gamaliel (though they do make appearances under “Pharisees”). No Alexander Jannaeus, which was a king at that time! (Though he does get a mention under “Hasmoneans.”)
It looks like they couldn’t give EVERY historic figure their own heading–so they included the big ones in the categories that make the most sense.
Weird! Except not weird at all.
Maybe you should write to editors and tell them they organized their facts wrong. They might appreciate the breeze.
One more thing–since I’m just learning a bunch of new facts (thanks to your wise direction), and it’s nice to share:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?source=%2F10.1093%2Facref%2F9780192802903.001.0001%2Facref-9780192802903&q=Jesus
I really, really hope you weren’t suggesting that NONE of the Oxford Dictionaries mention Jesus. He gets quite a few entries in that one. ^ I guess, if you want to study a topic, you have to pick up the right book.
And, no, the ramblings on “Debunking Christianity” don’t count as an actual “book.”
Did I say it did?
I like this plug of the OCD
Interesting that this book “ABOUT THE ROOTS OF OUR WESTERN CULTURE” fails to see Jesus fit for a mention.
And, to further quash you’re failed excuse for why Jesus isn’t given an entry, perhaps you should read the spiel, focusing especially on these few lines: “and topics in NEAR EASTERN studies and late antiquity” … “The approach is interdisciplinary: ALL AREAS, REGIONS, AND CULTURES ARE REPRESENTED BEYOND THE CORE AREAS OF GREECE AND ROME”
It’s about Roman culture, which spurred Western Civilization.
So, yeah…
It makes sense that Christianity is in there.
Whoosh!!!
No, it’s about the “Classical World,” which includes Palestine… You know, that place administered by the Egyptains, conquered by the Philistines in 1100 BCE, sacked by the Assyrians in the 700’s, taken by Alexander, ceded to the Maccabees, then absorbed by the Romans before falling under Ottoman rule.
So where are the entries for Hillel and Gamaliel? And Alexander Jannaeus? And Saul of Tarsus?
Why don’t they get their own entries?
Like i said… Awkward
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul%20Entry_zpswr0btwe5.png
Hahahahaha!
Are you done blowing now, then?
Did you, or did you not, ask for Saul of Tarsus?
There he is… Making it all the more odd that Jesus didn’t get a mention.
Paul, but no Jesus… Why do you think that is?
That’s the 3rd edition.
Here, I thought we were talking about the 4th.
Awkward.
For you, yes, yes it is is.
Want to see the screenshot for the 4th Ed. entry for St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus), or are you done being embarassed for the day?
Yes–I’d like to see that. (Even though, as I already told you Paul, it would make sense for him to get his very own entry, since he was a Roman citizen, and Jesus had never been to Rome.) I’d still like to see St. Paul from the 4th Edition.
Also, I want to see the screenshot for Cicero. Or King Izates. Or Judas of Gamla or Eleazar (who both started rebellions/revolts in Palestine).
Is the Oxford Dictionary trying to suggest they didn’t exist?
(Also, I love that the very first thing it says is that he was a Roman Citizen. lol. I learned that from all my years being “indoctrinated” in Sunday school.)
No?
No Saul in the 4th Edition?
Odd.
How about King Izates?
Cicero?
…Guess the editors of the OCD don’t think any of them were real people, huh?
Awkward.
Evidently, you’re not done embrassing yourself today.
So be it…
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul%202_zpsyadie58s.png
Again… Awkward, isn’t it?
Thank you!!!
FINALLY, you learned how to just search the 4th Edition!
Now we’re getting somewhere.
How about the others? Where are they?
Paul, the founder of Christianity get’s an entry, but no Jesus.
You’ve bored me enough. Don’t you have a Donald Trump rally or something to attend?
Jesus wasn’t a Roman citizen.
You may remember I’ve said that.
He is referenced as a historical figure under Christianity.
Wally and I have both said this.
Want me to repeat it again?
Neither was Alexander the Great
LOL!
Hey, JZ.
Was Cicero a real person?
Here’s the great Roman citizen, Alexander… LOL!
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Alexander_zpstmxzwo6d.png
Fade away. You are a bore.
HE’S GREEK!
Remember when I said Grecian and Roman culture?
WOW.
Was Cicero a real person?
Try Macedonian.
Bore.
*snort* seriously?
Was Cicero a real person?
He has an entry. Want to see the screenshot?
Bore.
No thank you. I can look it up for myself and see that there are several “Ciceros” but not the one I was looking for.
And none of the others I listed either.
I guess they’re not real people!
Why don’t you come over to the new thread and imply that Jesus wasn’t a real person?
Now THAT would make this conversation interesting again.
B.O.R.E
You’re not going to correct me?
I’ve looked up so many stupid facts nobody cares about in the last 12 hours, that I really confused my facts. Do you want to guess what it was? 🙂
Alright then.
I’ll let it go…
But I really hope you and Ark have learned that it’s a losing battle to even hint at the idea that Jesus wasn’t a real, historic person.
“Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of the biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus’ existence is a myth (Well 1999). Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers.” –Michael Martin, “Skeptical Perspectives on Jesus’ Resurrection”, in Delbert Burkett’s The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, Oxford: Blackwell, 2011), 285
“Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”- Atheist, Gerd Ludemann
“It is also true…that no Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus. It would be very convenient for us if they did, but alas, they do not. At the same time, the fact is again a bit irrelevant since these same sources do not mention many millions of people who actually did live. Jesus stands here with the vast majority of living, breathing, human beings of earlier ages.”
“The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.”
Maybe next time I can explain that we really did land on the moon, too. 🙂
(*edited: the last two quotes were Bart Ehrman.)
Oh, here’s another Bart Ehrman quote!
“One could argue as well that Jesus is the most important person in the history of the West, looked at from a historical, social, or cultural perspective, quite apart from his religious significance.”
Again, you might want to write to Bart Ehrman and tell him, “You’re wrong about that, because Jesus didn’t get his own heading in the Oxford Dictionary I’d never heard of before I read about it on Debunking Christianity. If Jesus was important, he would get a bold heading in every edition of the OCD. Fact.”
Whoooooooosh!
Really, guys, all of you should stop commenting and save some dignity. lol.
The jig is up! The cat is out!
At this point, the only reason to keep talking is to try padding the thread in hopes others won’t read all of these comments. It’s pretty clear you’re all just anti-Christian. You’re not pro-truth.
Hilarious! Love it.
They truly do not have a clue, RS. Not a flaming clue!
Is it any wonder the Church is able to fleece them not only of their money but also their basic common sense?
Well, that is how JB makes his living…
I want him to quote Salmon saying, “Jesus wasn’t a real person.” Or even “Jesus probably wasn’t real.” Or even, “This book will talk about every, single person who existed in the Roman Empire during this period; if I don’t mention them, they didn’t exist.”
We’re supposed to be talking about people who believe Jesus didn’t exist.
That was your assignment, which RS is trying to help you with…and failing.
Subbing …
If I keep commenting, will you forget to take your sleeping pills and stay up all night?
@MrsMcM
I spent three years studying ancient and medieval history and archaeology. Jesus came up rarely, mainly in terms of the chi-ro symbol. My period of study covered his alleged lifetime.
A lot of historians don’t give his supposed existence the time of day.
Like who, Rough seas?
Quote someone.
Edward T Salmon.
Never heard of him.
I HAVE heard of Richard Carrier (from Ark’s video).
And I have heard of Robert Price.
I figured you would pick one of those.
Thanks for the new name to check out some time!
I still stand by my statement that MOST historians–both Christian and secular–believe Jesus was a real person. Anyone skeptical enough to call him a narrative construct would need to deny the real existence of just about everybody else from ancient history, too.
No. My history degree preceded the internet. So you won’t find me quoting popular names. You aren’t listening. I am telling you that Jesus per se does not come up in a history degree. Christianity? Yes. But the person? Who? What? Huh?
So–yes–you’re making the Argument from Silence.
I recommend a Philosophy degree next.
I’ve already got two degrees thanks, what about you?
I’m an expert in upsetting people on the internet with huge egos.
How many degrees did you say you had?
One Bachelor’s degree. But don’t count that. It was a tiny little satellite college which has since closed it’s doors.
I’m just a housewife with three small kids.
And that’s why it’s really funny that you can’t answer my questions.
Its. Not it’s. Religious was it?
Uh-oh. Bad news, Rough Seas.
I just googled “Edward T. Salmon quotes” and I can’t find any.
Not one. 🙁
Do you have an excerpt from his book saying he believes Jesus was a fictional character, or….?
That’s because he wrote a book before you were born. A History of the Roman World 30 BC to AD138. I think that sort of covers the relevant period?
Of course I don’t have a quote. Why would a serious historian write about something, well dubious, fictitious etc.
Next, Robin Seager.
So, you’re claiming that Salmon didn’t mention Jesus.
And then you’re further claiming that this is proof he didn’t believe Jesus existed at all?
I’m trying to clarify here.
Let me guess. You don’t have a quote from Robin Seager either. LOL! You guys crack me up.
You want me to quote 300+ pages that don’t mention Jesus yet discuss the historicity of the Roman Empire? The point is, your Jesus character is not relevant. That’s why he isn’t mentioned. If he existed, he was, well, nobody. On the other hand, christianity, as a social force, did make an impact. For whatever reason. Not the same thing, if you can take in the difference although I doubt that.
Thanks for your opinion, Dude.
The question was whether or not Jesus was a real, historical person.
And you just said, “If he existed, he was a nobody.”
I didn’t ask whether he was important to the author of one of your textbooks 30 years ago. I asked whether he really existed.
The vast majority of historians TODAY believed he really existed–and that he was crucified under orders of Pontias Pilate. It’s one of the most well-documented facts from ancient history, even if your professors didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
So…thanks anyway?
Jeez. Can you not let go of the appalling sexist language, chica?
You can’t say the vast majority of historians believed he existed at all. What a sweeping statement. It’s not well documented at all. That’s why it doesn’t figure in secondary source books. Go back to school.
Quote one historian who says Jesus didn’t exist.
That was the challenge to Arkenaten.
JB quoted three historians who said the consensus is that Jesus DID exist.
They may not believe that Jesus was GOD, but they believe he existed and that he was crucified by Pontias Pilate.
Do you have a rebuttal? I shouldn’t need to go to school when I have such an intelligent, experienced source in you right here. Name a historian who believes Jesus didn’t really exist.
Sweets. I’m saying he was so irrelevant that he wasn’t mentioned. What part of that do you not get? And before you bleat back at me, I am off to bed as I have an early start. Que pases un buen finde.
Ark! You rascal!
I knew it was you!
LOL!
Oops, sorry, I thought you were just another one of Ark’s pseudonyms, because you both sound the same. Maybe the two of you went to the same religious college.
Jesus was born a nobody. I’ll give you that.
But there are lots of Atheists who believe he didn’t exist AT ALL. And that was the topic.
Jesus–the smelly little nobody carpenter–is still being discussed by people 2000 years later. There are lots of books that don’t mention him. But there are enough which do to convince most historians that he was a real person, crucified under Pontias Pilate’s orders. (Why did they do that, to such a nobody?!?!?)
For the Fourth Time Jesus Fails to Qualify as a Historical Entry In The Oxford Classical Dictionary
That’s awkward.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.br/2015/06/for-fourth-time-jesus-fails-to-qualify.html
Amanda doesn’t care about any answers to any of her questions. She just move on to the next question… not to find out anything new or learn but to repudiate by fiat. Responding to her is a complete waste of time because it doesn’t matter what you say. She’s merely looking to find some way to malign any and all who dare criticize some lie her daddy spouts. She thinks that makes her adorable in his eyes and it’s all about pleasing the Daddy.
Why don’t you answer the question first, and then decide whether I ignore it.
Do the majority of historians agree that Jesus was an actual, living person–as opposed to completely made up?
If not, why don’t you quote even one who says, “Jesus didn’t exist”?
Also, I know you’ve been ignoring me, hoping I’ll get the message that I’m just too hopelessly brainwashed to deserve any more of the nutritious morsels of wisdom that flow from your mouth. (I get the message loud and clear, Dear Leader. You are displeased with me!) But maybe you want to engage Matthew down below.
Read the link first.
Learn something.
And be satisfied, knowing you’ve brought much joy and laughter to fellow humans tonight. HAHAHAHAHA!
I bet you can come up with A THOUSAND books where Jesus isn’t mentioned.
What’s awkward is quoting an obscure blog regarding another book that doesn’t mention Jesus instead of asking why there are so many historians–both secular and Christian–who agree that he existed.
Yes, I’m sure The Oxford Classical Dictionary must seem obscure to you.
Yeah, I admit, I’d never heard of it before tonight…
So, what is it?
A book that lists everyone in history? LOL!
Hey John
Now, I am just a fundie pinhead and surely don’t have the intellectual chops that you do, but seems you may have misrepresented your facts here a bit. Even anunder educated American southerner such as myself can read pretty clearly in the Oxford Classical Dictionary in the entry on Christianity, that it it even considers Jesus a real historical character.
Oops. Gosh. Poor John
It’s not his fault, Wally. JZ doesn’t know what to believe, unless another Atheist tells him.
John Loftus says the OXD doesn’t mention Jesus–so–that’s all JZ needs to hear!
Yeah..if all of these guys are just believing what somebody else told them..then where did it all start? Must have been a particle implosion or something I guess
Exactly. Ultimately it’s not John Loftus’ fault either.
Everyone is just doing what the particles in their brain make them do.
….like rocks rolling down hill and rustling the grass…
That’s the domino effect that leads to JZ’s Atheism. As Tildeb likes to say, “It’s inevitable.”
I’m sold for sure.
Not
Really Wally? Can you show me a screenshot of the entry under “Jesus”?
Does “Jesus” have an entry, Wally?
Yes, or No
Seems you’re confusing “Christianity” with “Jesus”. No one is doubting Christianity was/is real. That is why it, the religion, is mentioned.
And do remember, Jesus didn’t start Christianity. Jesus was born a Jew, lived a Jew, and died a Jew. Christianity was started by Paul.
Here is the end of the entry on Christianity
Oh…I see now. You actually don’t understand what this conversation was about
Quit backpedaling John, it’s pathetic and sad and makes you look like a liar.
Yes, technically you are correct, but you know what you meant by that statement.
Clearly your precious reference considers Jesus a real figure in history
Case closed
Here, just to help you out… Can you see “Jesus” as an entry here, Wally?
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Oxford%201_zpsycbzgszn.png
John, the question being addressed is whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You quoted the Oxford Classical Dictionary as if it did not consider Jesus to be real historically. It, in fact does consider Jesus has having been real
You have been caught. So sad, really
Your turn. Does the Oxford Classical dictionary treat Jesus as a real historical figure? Yes…or no
Yes…or no John
The Oxford Classical Dictionary has an entry for Alexander the Great.
It doesn’t have an entry for Jesus.
Why is that, Wally?
No..sorry. Your turn. Does the Oxford Classical dictionary represent Jesus as a real historical figure?
Yes…or no
Easy…yes..or no.
Answer it John. Yes…or no
If it did, it would have an entry under “Jesus”, wouldn’t it, Wally?
Again, you’re confusing “Christianity,” the religion, with “Jesus,” the character.
Let me give you an example: does the existence of the Superman Fan Club prove the existence of Superman?
John, sorry, I may have been vague.
Does the Oxford Classical Dictionary present Jesus as a real historical figure?
Yes…or …no
Again, if it did, Wally, it would have an entry under “Jesus,” wouldn’t it?
Does The Oxford Classical Dictionary have an entry under “Jesus,” Wally, like it does for, say, Alexander the Great?
Here, let’s look at the index page again, shall we…
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Oxford%201_zpsycbzgszn.png
Yes…..or no.
“If it did.” not one of the options
yes…no
yes…no
yes…no
Do it John. I dare you to answer yes or no. In fact, I am beside myself with glee over a yes or no, just as you are beside yourself with fear over either one.
yes…or no
Obviously, No.
Here is the index page for Alexander the Great, someone the editors deemed a “real” historical character.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Alexander_zpstmxzwo6d.png
So, Wally, why is there an entry for Alexander (many Alexanders, in fact), but none for Jesus?
It didn’t?
Yes John, it does
In fact it does so in the very section you yourself quoted. The part you conveniently left out
Peace John
As usual I find beating my toes with a hammer more useful than conversation with you
Really?
Show me, Wally….
I’ll be waiting
You just saw it John and you know where it came from. Lol in fact you just used it!
Lol wow
Mmmm, I don’t see a “Jesus” entry here, Wally. Do you?
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Oxford%201_zpsycbzgszn.png
My cheeks and side literally are hurting from laughing.
Sooooo funny!
And it’s even funnier when you think all of this could have been avoided. It was a stupid rabbit trail that you brought on yourself. All I wanted was a quote from a historian which says “Most of us believe Jesus wasn’t a real person.”
Instead, you gave us a resource that does the opposite.
I really appreciate it, my friend.
See you next time!
Pick me! Pick me!
I know the answer to that question.
“Why is there an entry for Alexander, but none for Jesus?”
Because….there’s a difference between “classical” and “near-Eastern” studies at Oxford.
Care to explain all the Jewish references, then?
LOL!
Jesus was a Jew, you idiot!!!!!
Oh my gosh, this is my favorite conversation in the world.
You now want to deny that the page came from the OCD???
That’s how stubborn you’re going to be about this?!?!
HYSTERICAL!
Just quit, lol!
And you tried to imply Jesus wouldn’t be mentioned because of, what, a “difference between “classical” and “near-Eastern”
Now, tell me, where on earth did you get that nugget from?
Before you answer, do see the screen shot… the one that doesn’t mention Jesus.
It’s over, JZ.
Oxford has a different department for Classical and Near-Eastern faculties.
Look it up.
But the OCD DOES reference Jesus as if he’s historical.
The more you talk, the stupider you look.
Just stop.
Oh sweet Neptune you’re dumb!
You’re seriously arguing “faculties”?
LOL, classic.
Amanda, we’re talking about the Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Yes–the Oxford Classical Dictionary….published by Oxford University… makes a distinction between “Classical” study and “Near-East” study.
So, the Classical Dictionary mainly covers Greece and Rome, while the Near-East (or Oriental) Department covers Israel.
The Classical Dictionary also doesn’t list Caiaphas, the high priest of Israel. Or Hillel, Shammai, and Gamaliel–who were Jewish Talmudists. Those people are covered by Oriental History–not Classical.
But it doesn’t matter.
You’re just trying to divert from the fact that the OCD references Jesus as an historical person, in the Christianity section.
He doesn’t need his own section.
THE OXFORD CLASSICAL DICTIONARY SAYS, quote, “Jesus lived in a divided Palestine.”
LOL! Give it up. You’re confusing the institution’s departments with its publications.
Honestly, go to the online directory and you’ll find all the references you want concerning Palestine… excluding Jesus, of course 😉
Here you go… Paul, the founder of Christianity, with his very own entry
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul_zps6qhistmg.png
So, Amanda, if Paul (in Palestine) got an entry, why didn’t Jesus?
And before you dig yourself any further in, Amanda, how about you, tell me, why there is no entry under “Jesus”
I’m so glad you came back. I was afraid I was done laughing for the evening.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Do you really think, if you keep saying things like “You’re digging yourself in” that everyone else reading will think I’M the moron here?
No.
Anyone reading this conversation is very clear on the facts.
Care to answer the question, Amanda?
It appears not…
You want to see a screenshot of Saint Paul?
Here you go, Amanda… Paul, the founder of CHRISTIANITY in the Oxford Classical Dictionary.
Oh dear…
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul_zps6qhistmg.png
Hey…
Hey, JZ.
I found a video of you and the other Atheists, waiting for the “Debunking Christianity” bloggers to tell you what the OCD says…
Let me help you out, JZ.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54af71bee4b0c436b2f85dd9/t/55974800e4b02c1d747cd5e5/1435977789741/?format=750w
Let’s see if there are any sentences in there that may pose a problem for you.
Maybe “It is likely that Jesus reflected several tendencies in the Judaism of his day. Attempts to decide how he saw himself prove difficult…”
“…the number of his followers…was enough to set him at odds with the Jewish high priestly establishment…”
But my favorite is this one: “Jesus LIVED, therefore, in a divided Palestine.”
So, to answer your question–no. He doesn’t need his very own “entry” to be treated like a historical person.
That’s a picture of a page…a page from what?
I forgot to add:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
If I were you, I might write a letter to John Loftus, and scold him for making you look so stupid.
Awkward
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul_zps6qhistmg.png
I can’t decide if I want to respond.
I’m starting to feel like I’m making fun of a retarded kid. :/
“Attempts to decide how [Jesus] saw himself prove difficult.” –Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th Edition
“…the number of Jesus’ followers…was enough to set him at odds with the Jewish high priestly establishment…” –Oxford Classical Dictionary
“Jesus LIVED, therefore, in a divided Palestine.” –Oxford Classical Dictionary
I had never heard of this book before tonight. But you can bet I’ll be using it from now on.
Good night!
LOL!
You haven’t shown me, Amanda, what that page you posted is.
What is it, Amanda?
What’s it from?
Here’s that index reference to Paul, the founder of Christianity, again. Odd how Jesus doesn’t get a mention.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Paul_zps6qhistmg.png
But do please answer the question… What is that picture from?
It’s the actual printed copy of the Fourth Edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary.
You’ve never read it, of course.
You just took McCall’s word for it, when you posted his article from John Loftus’ blog.
They weren’t talking about the Oxford online reference, you know? (Or do you not bother to read the links you share?) The bloggers at Debunking Christianity were complaining that Jesus doesn’t get his own entry in the Fourth Edition of the OCD, even though LOTS of people didn’t get entries in the printed version.
The OCD, however, DOES treat Jesus like an historical figure.
Since you want to post photos over and over, here it is again:
https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus+oxford+classical+dictionary&espv=2&biw=1745&bih=855&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZrY3_mbvPAhUC74MKHTg2DkYQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=cj29SIDWhInKKM%3A
You recognize that last paragraph, right? The one McCall quoted? If I were you, I’d write to him and ask why he didn’t include the first dozen paragraphs… it would have helped make you look less stupid.
The OCD doesn’t give Jesus his own entry. Who cares? They talk about him as a real, historic figure.
And THAT is why you have been the butt of our jokes, literally all night.
Sure, under the heading Christianity, the editors mention Jesus, but, and it’s a big but, didn’t see fit to include this person under his own name. They did, however, include Paul, the founder of Christianity… contradicting your hilariously misinformed claim.
Odd, though, huh?
Why mention Jesus under “Christianity,” but not give him a slot as a real historical character?
Could it be because they’re referencing the literary “character”?
Mmmm 😉
I can’t resist:
Paul was a Roman citizen.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re soooooooo funny, I’m never going to be able to settle down!
…in Palestine, yes.
Give it up, Amanda.
Caiaphas lived in Palestine, too.
He’s not in the 4th OCD.
Give it up, JZ.
Just like Jesus…
Feel free to subscribe to the Oxford Reference site, so you can actually read the full articles instead of just taking pictures of their indexes, like a half-wit.
I–for one–need to be early for church. So, though I will still giggle a few times before I actually fall asleep, I really do need to go to bed!
I’ll wait a few minutes for your last comment and click “like” though! Because I’m sure I’ll love it! 🙂
Be sure to tell me why there’s no reference to Jesus as a historical person when you can, OK, Amanda.
I can’t explain it any better, JZ.
This isn’t an intellectual problem you’re having.
It’s pride. Which is spiritual.
Your huge ego is making you parrot things that you’ve heard other Atheists say.
It makes you take these long rabbit trails which deal with tiny details no one even cares about–and you don’t even realize when you’re beat!
And where’s Tildeb?
Where are Ark and Carmen, to assure you that you’re still brilliant, and I’M the dumb one.
Eh, I’m sure they’ll show up. But they can’t give you enough compliments to cover up what has been demonstrated here: you believe what you do in spite of evidence. Not because of it.
And you don’t have even enough humility to admit when you mess up publicly.
“I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.” Bart D. Ehrman
Nice ramble.
Be sure to answer the question when you can, OK.
Ask Bart Ehrman why they didn’t include Jesus in the 4th Edition of the OCD. He’s more qualified to talk about this stuff anyway.
Of course, the trouble is that actual intellectuals don’t want to give you the time of day, so you’re stuck trying to tell yourself you won some kind of victory over an American housewife. lol. The majority of historians treat Jesus like an historical figure–despite the historians with Couch Degrees who quote “Debunking Christianity” as their source. LOLOLOL!
Let me say this as a parting thought. I don’t care, really I don’t, if Jesus was a real person, or a metafictional device invented by 1st century Judean crisis cultists that was simply misinterpreted by the northern diaspora. It makes no difference. As we know, the gospels are not historical. This is made abundantly clear by the Oxford Classical Dictionary not including “Jesus” as a real historical character… or at least one that any actual “history” (life story) can be attributed to with even a faint whisper of possible authority.
Precisely as Ark was arguing, the Jesus of the gospels never existed… and the editors of the Oxford Classical Dictionary agree.
Some common ground, then.
The Oxford Classical Dictionary doesn’t say, “Jesus was the Son of God.” Fabulous.
But that’s NOT what Ark was arguing. He’s a mythicist, and he argues “Jesus of Nowhere” when it suits him. Then–when that is proven to be a position that no serious historian takes, he changes the angle.
Well, maybe he lived–but he wasn’t God!
Fine. I’m not trying to prove to you that Jesus was God. I’m only trying to prove to my fellow Christians that 99% of the Atheists they will encounter on the Internet are fundamentalist sheep with no idea what they believe except, “Whatever the opposite of Christians!” You’re not truth-seekers. You’re conflict-makers.
And I’m tired of watching Christians be intimidated by your posturing.
Well, “Knowhere”is actually correct as Nazareth wasn’t founded as a town until the 2nd Century.
And it’s not my “postering,” rather “history” that is annoying you
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/SCRUTINY_zpsraenzpbk.jpg
No, what’s annoying is that you can’t let me have the last word because you’re hoping someone scans the thread instead of reading. You’re hoping they see the same picture a thousand times and assume that mean “well, no one answered his question!” (as Tildeb already implied earlier.)
Someone who counts pictures instead of understanding words may be impressed by the way you keep bringing up that JESUS DOESN’T HAVE HIS OWN ENTRY IN THE 4TH EDITION OF THE OXFORD DICTIONARY. But, unfortunately for you, I’ve agreed. The things said in the Oxford Classic Dictionary are under the “Christianity” heading. They didn’t list him under “Jesus.”
But that’s how you Atheists have remained Atheists for so long. None of you wants to learn. You just get involved in these internet pissing matches to shout about what you’ve already decided to believe (though you accuse Christians of being the blind followers.)
Face it, JZ. Even if Tildeb and Ark and Carmen are rallying around you in the comment section of another blog to help you lick your wounds, the REAL scholars would put your line of questioning in a category with Ken Hamm:
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” –Bart Ehrman
By the way, the newest post deals with the FACT that Jesus was a nobody.
I really hope you’ll go over there and talk about how he’s only mentioned in passing, most of the time.
I’d love to share more quotes from other Atheists who say that he still existed and was crucified by order of Pontias Pilate.
History, for the win!
And again… I don’t care if Jesus was a real person, or a metafictional character invented by 1st Century CE Judean crisis cultists; a clever literary device that was simply misinterpreted by the northern diaspora (precisely where the religion developed, in Syria and Turkey) desparate for some “good news” from their homelands following the Jewish-Roman War. We know, after all, from 1st Century BCE Greek writings that metafiction was in use, and if we look at the earliest writings on “Jesus,” the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, we see a character who does not move or eat or exhibit any life at all. The character simply speaks in cryptic kōans, a form of single-person dialogue, and more specifically in parables when the character himself is addressing larger (fictional) audiences. Importantly, as a tool or method of storytelling, a metafictional story does not seek to hide the fact that it is fiction. Instead it intentionally reminds the audience that they are participating in a fictional story and quite purposefully draws attention to itself. In fact, it shouts out “Look at me, I’m fiction!” and that’s the method’s genius. The function of this devise which deliberately jogs the audience’s mind to remember they’re experiencing fiction is to encourage the individual to engage the ‘truth’ at a deeper level… and this is precisely what we see in the Jesus character’s use of parables.
Precisely as it should be if metafiction, the notes to the parables are there on purpose. They are identified, which is a hallmark of the tool in use. They’re spotlighted, even announced, and given that the core of thirty parables are repeated across both gnostic and synoptic gospels, it is a pretty clear indication that they were in fact the aboriginal root of the original Judean story; a story centred on teachings, not a man per say.
Whatever the case, it, however, makes no difference. As we know, the gospels are not historical. This is made abundantly clear by The Oxford Classical Dictionary not including “Jesus” as a real historical character… or at least one that any actual “history” (life story) can be attributed to with even a faint whisper of possible authority. Christianity was raised up around a myth.
“And again…I don’t care if Jesus was a real person…”
WOAH!
PAUSE!
STOP!
DESIST.
I didn’t read your other words because they weren’t necessary. The ONLY thing I was trying to accomplish was to demonstrate that consensus among historians is that Jesus really lived. That’s it.
We ought to agree, since you respect science so much.
There really was no reason to jump in–trying to defend Ark–and making the lot of you look dumb.
Just say whooooooosh……
You keep letting him talk and our lawn furniture will blow away.
One thing I’ve learned from the Atheists during these conversations is: when you have some tiny little fact that you Googled recently, repeat it to them over and over and over, like it really matters.
So that’s what I’m doing. 🙂
And, I have to admit, I see why they enjoy teasing the Christians who don’t know what they believe. It’s pretty fun to be the needle that helps deflate a bloated head.
…but my lawn furniture…
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah110/John_Branyan/fD8aSIg2LwXyE_zpsq5f8wz1d.gif
LOL!!!!!
The fact remains, Paul, the founder of Christianity, warrants an entry as a historical character, but the central figure of Christianity, the Jesus character, doesn’t.
The wind is blowing hard!
And incidentally, mrsmcmommy answered your question in her last comment. I know you don’t usually actually read comments, so I figured I would help.
One thing you’re forgetting:
We didn’t start the fire.
It was always burning since the world’s been turning.
We didn’t start the fire
No we didn’t light it
But we tried to fight it
…or so I was told.
Also, I would love to live in a world of self-producing pancakes.
I did forget the theology of Billy Joel. I appreciate the reminder!
If pancakes could produce themselves and it rained maple syrup, we’d have no reason to ever go to work.
Let me begin by saying “long time lurker, first time poster”. John, love your comedy, so thankful for guys like you who can find humour without vulgarity. It has been my observation of this and many other discussions on your blog, and this is only my opinion, that trying to “teach” or “instruct” unbelievers into the Kingdom is futile. As soon as evidence for one side or the other is produced (which it can never be) then faith is no longer required.
I was the same as every negative responder here until by God’s grace 30 years ago I had to come face to face with the fact that the Bible might actually be true…..and what I believed a lie. Logic dictated that if It was indeed true, I was in for a very unpleasant eternity to say the least. By then placing my faith in the words of Christ (whom I had never actually met or even seen) for my eternal destiny,only THEN were my eyes opened to actually be able to see – spiritually. I was, as many of your sparring mates are, the epitome of 1 Cor.14 .
Again brother I love what you’re doing and am thankful for ALL you have to say – whether I agree or not – it does seem to me though that in many instances you are arguing with “blind” people over the colour of the grass……again – just an observation from a long time follower – no condemnation!
Thanks for your 2 cents, Tim.
I don’t foster discussions necessarily to persuade the hardened skeptics. If they learn something, great. The discussions are for people like you! Lurkers who don’t care to jump into the foray but can observe the differences between critical thought and depravity.
Feel free to toss your opinion into the arena from time to time. Or hover. Either activity is appreciated!
“Dear Leader,
Any scientist who holds confidence in some faith-based belief does so only by segregating this belief from the rigorous method of science, and so their scientific credentials do not play any part in supporting their religious beliefs.”
—
What was said most likely in irony is probably the most accurate and salient point of the post. Now THAT is irony in action. Freudian Slip? -kia
You wouldn’t know a salient point if it puked in your soup.
If you disagree with what I wrote in this post, it is because you are predisposed to disagree with everything I write.
Do you have an objection to the content of this post? Or are you just restating your objection to my writing anything at all?
Tell you what, JB; if you wish to demonstrate the level of your intellect and scholarly acumen, instead of providing quotes from people such as Feynman, why not provide quotes from your god, Yahweh in his human form, the character, Jesus of Nazareth?
That would make your blog very interesting indeed.
How many genuine quotes do you think you could mine from the bible, I wonder, John?
That is not anything even CLOSE to an answer to my question, Champ.
Take another shot of whatever ADHD meds you’re on and focus.
Who thinks Jesus isn’t real? And why is that a problem?
Pay attention, Hotshot.
Jesus of Nazareth is a narrative construct.
YOU, as a Christian, believe he was real.
Non-believers do not consider the character, Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible was a genuine historical character.
And this would include every known secular historian.
Capiche?
Excellent…. so moving on.
How about you try to provide us with a few genuine quotes from the bible of your man-god, Jesus of Nazareth.
Let’s see how much integrity you have shall we?
Give me a couple of these ‘known secular historians’, Hotshot.
You want the name of a secular historian that believes that your man-god, the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine historical person? Are you frakking kidding me!
I’m not frakking kidding!
Shouldn’t be hard. You assured me there are lots of them! Give me some names, Hotshot!
Sorry, John had to go for dinner.
Now, you want to ask an intelligent question?
Feel free.
Yeah.
Give me the names of a couple of secular historians who say Jesus didn’t actually exist.
…I’ll wait while you Google…
Lol.. what a Dick you truly are..
Right.
You have been stumped by a Dick.
What does that make you?
Stumped? YOu are hilarious!
Tell you what,Senor Dickhead, you name one secular historian. just one, that accepts that the character, Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible was a genuine historical person.
The question was whether or not Jesus was fictional or historical. Since you were stumped by my question, I will answer yours.
“The new generation of Atheists who learn about Christianity primarily through websites and social media may be surprised to hear the historical facts about Jesus. They think of Jesus as a mythical figure, like Hercules, except that they’re much angrier about Jesus for some reason… On the scholarly level, Jesus Mythers are thought of as holocaust deniers. But, at the internet level, it seems every other Atheist I run into says Jesus never existed. [They’ll say] ‘I watched, like three YouTube videos!'” –Dr. David Wood
It’s hard to find secular historians to quote, because so many of them see the evidence and become Christians. But Bart Ehrman (a secular humanist) wrote: “Jesus certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.” B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God
Robert M. Price–who denies the existence of Jesus–admits that his view is against the majority of other historians. (His book is called “Jesus at the Vanishing Point)
And Richard A. Burridge says, ” “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore.”
No, Dickhead.
I said that the character Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible is a narrative construct and no secular historian considers him a genuine historical person.
Pay attention next time then you won’t waste your time frothing at the mouth
writing stupid responses.
You’ve asked this question a thousand times in a thousand threads, and you’ve tagged “as portrayed in the Bible” maybe twice.
You really think readers are stupid enough to believe that your question has always been, “Can you name a scientist who believes Jesus was God but is secular?”
A secular historian who believes Jesus was God?
No.
You got us there.
LOL!
Christians, you don’t have to be afraid of the Internet Atheists.
Subbing ….
Go ahead and name a Christian who’s an Atheist.
LOL!!!
I dare you!
Subbing …
I bet you are… lol!
And I don’t blame you.
How embarrassing!
Behold, Christians. The Atheist who claims “Jesus was a narrative construct and no secular historian considers him a genuine historical person” for MONTHS. And then claims that’s not really what he was claiming.
Well, at least you learned something, Arkie. Hopefully you’ll stop with the silly “Jesus of Nowhere” statement now. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
Subbing …
I appreciate that! It keeps me from having to read your hate-filled, empty-headed responses.
Instead, I can just keep pointing out to anyone who’s still reading that you lost this round.
Bad.
LOL!!!!
The good news is, if you keep following this thread–and following Silence of Mind’s blog–and following Wally’s blog, then you might not stay an anti-intellectual bumpkin who just repeats what they see on YouTube.
Subbing …
Here y’go, John.
Watch this video from Carrier.
Learn something really worthwhile for a change.
JB just quoted four PhDs, who make you sound pretty ignorant.
You might want to start “subbing” him now.
Subbing …
Oh…and if you’re going to Google right now…I wonder how you came to hold the belief that Jesus is mythical in the first place? Shouldn’t you have this information at the ready?
…really. These kinds of ‘facts’ ought to roll right out of your skull. The longer this takes, the more suspicious I am that you’re just reciting this you saw on YouTube.
Oh, I know!
I know how Ark came to believe that Jesus was a narrative construct!
Pick me! I know!
It’s because he gets all of his information from other Atheists with Couch Degrees. He’s an Armchair Scholar!
Most historians believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who really was crucified under order by Pontias Pilate. (And, just for the record, Pilate was a real person, too. LOL!)
Admit it, Ark.
You heard another Atheist say “Jesus was a narrative construct” once, and you have no idea who it was.
That’s the sentence you wanted to hear, so you probably didn’t read the rest. And, you didn’t bother to QUESTION that claim because (again) Christians are the only ones you question.
So, now you think it’s settled science, even though you can’t name a single credible person to back you up.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Subbing ….
You’re AVOIDING, you mean.
The vast majority of historians believe Jesus was a real person.
I’m not frakking kidding you.
But go ahead and keep Googling…trying to buy time…while you try to come up with someone who says Jesus was absolutely, definitely, positively not a real person.
Subbing ….
You’re taking a long time there, Ark.
Are you trying to find the No-name Atheist Blogger who told you Jesus was a narrative construct?
Feeling a little silly that you’ve been BEGGING to talk about Jesus for months–and, it turns out, everything you believe about him was borrowed from pseudo-intellectuals who don’t know what they’re talking about?
He’s subbing. He doesn’t need to answer you because something or other.
He ought to go over to Beta Male’s blog and tell everyone how we aren’t a bit like Jesus over here.
I don’t want to be like the Jesus that Pastor Mike used to preach about… 🙂
The Jesus who can’t take questions.
The Jesus who probably didn’t exist.
The Jesus who lets people say whatever they want to say, without being called out.
The Jesus who loves everything about everybody–including when they spit in his face while telling everyone else to respect him.
Yeah, I’m not a bit like that Jesus.
Subbing …
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are sooooooo busted, Ark. Do you use that term in SA?
It means you’ve been called out.
You’re exposed.
Everyone now knows that you’re a parrot who is skeptical of everything a Christian says, but who follows other Atheists blindly.
Subbing …
No. Not predisposed to your writing at all. Do have some issues with your post but your far too surly and disagreeable to discuss them on your post. Not very comedic or secure. It’s a shame
Man to man, Pastor Mike. You’re a wimp.
You didn’t abandon Christianity because of enlightenment. You abandoned it because you’re a weakling. You are incapable of expressing a ‘salient point’. You are an expert whiner.
You’re not going to tell me your issues because I’m ‘surly’. Brilliant. This is truly impressive debate.
My guess is the church where you ‘didn’t pastor’ wised up and fired you. We don’t need sissy-boys in church leadership. Your obscure blog is exactly the right place for you.
Are you channeling Wally these days? Lol
Lol
No.
Unlike you, I don’t need other people to speak before I can form opinions.
You object to the term, ‘Pastor’ and I agree. You are right. Pastor is incorrect. Henceforth, you will be ‘Beta Male’. ‘Beta’ for short.
I called you out for not expressing your opinions. Your response proved my point 100% accurate.
Do you remember this from the days before your ‘enlightenment’: “Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who reverts to his folly.”
Now, toddle back to your blog and tell them how mean and un-Christian I am. Stay oblivious that you need to employ the faith that you left in order to condemn my behavior.
John you’re proving my point about abusing those who disagree. Is there an authoritarian bent to your personality that you don’t know about?
Beta,
You are not being abused. You are being treated like an adult. When you say you have a problem with what I wrote, you are expected to articulate that problem. Like a big boy.
Will you articulate your problem with what I wrote?
I did… In my response post. Have a great day
I don’t read your blog.
Have a great day
Lol… Thank you for following, the recovering know it all about a month ago. Lol
Lol…Thank you for believing that I read every blog I follow…Lol
Really Mike?
That’s the way you do it for sure. Bad enough you you pile in my place taking pot shots and then run off when somebody objects….now you have to take them here hoping I won’t see them?
Pretty sure John has you nailed pretty good.
Should I expect a “rebuttal” post soon?
Hey Wally. How are you today? Enjoy the day
I am good, thanks.
I’d really be happy if you would do here what I have offered about a million times at my place…stick around and articulate your objections to something or support your accusations, instead of running off screaming abuse and bullying if somebody confronts your garbage.
You have a nice day too
Sorry wally. You don’t get to tell me when to participate or not, on your blog or any others. Trying to bully me into it has the quite opposite effect. Enjoy the Saturday and try walking a bit. I hear it had wonderful effect on blood pressure and anxiety levels
And we’re off again!
Now you see why I don’t waste my time on you any more?
Run off now and write a post LOL.
And remember this, preacher, I was letting you exist peacefully here and not saying a word.
As I recall, you tried to insult another blogger by comparing him to me.
Thanks for that btw, I was actually quite honored.
Why would that be an insult? For the record, I was not trying to insult him, just draw the comparison. Family resemnlance?
KIA, JB quoted me in this comment from an earlier post without providing either quotation marks or proper attribution. It’s intentional and meant to undermine my contribution of criticism to various comment threads. It’s deceitful. But that’s what JB does best: tries to fool people into believing stuff that isn’t true.
It’s a shame he took down the header I provided a few posts ago that explains that he not trying to write anything that respects what’s true or even cares about that. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t advertise each post this way so as to prepare the audience for his latest attempt to misinform, misguide, misrepresent, and then be caustic and dishonest and rude with any commentators who dare take issue with his distortions.
Quoting you word for word isn’t speaking truth??? HAHAHAHA!
We’re just conducting a little science experiment over here. We have a hypothesis that your friends don’t understand a word of what you’re saying, either.
They follow you because you self-identify as an Atheist.
And you have to run in here and tell them, basically, “Hey, I said that!” before they attack John for it…
There’s a very good way to test our hypothesis. Quote Tildeb without attribution and see if the Atheists think it’s stupid, like they think everything John says is stupid.
LOL!
He at least pretended to play nice awhile back, but now? Too much aggression and hostility
Your sad little philosophy can’t hang with aggression and hostility.
Anyone want to leave the faith? Go join KIA and Tildeb. They have LOTS to offer the inquisitive mind.
Sorry, John. No philosophy here, and christianity isn’t supposed to be aggressive and Hostile. Clearly, it’s you who seem to have an aberrant brand of faith
Feynman’s quote: “…answers that can’t be questioned.”
JB’s comprehension of the quote: “… answers that don’t need questioning.”
‘Can’t’ is not synonymous with ‘don’t need’. Honest.
So the rest of the post is based – as it very often is – on JB’s problematic reading comprehension, one that regularly and reliably produces straw men points, one that substitutes what he believes is the case but doesn;t bother to check is the case. His belief is good enough for him… even though I suspect Feynman’s brain power should be regarded as slightly greater than our distinguished blog host. If I disagree with a big brained person, I automatically presume the problem is with MY understanding on not the idiocy of the big brained person. JB doesn’t suffer from any such reticence; he knows the big brained person is incorrect if there is a difference in opinion.
So, my question is, why don’t more regular readers point this tendency out to JB and show how it regularly pollutes the transmission of an idea and misrepresents it every time it happens (which is so regular that Metamucil is envious)? Why must it almost always be from a non believer… who then will be subject to all kinds of diversionary complaints about length of response, tone, evolution, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, yada, yada, yada.
I suspect it may be because regular readers who believe as JB does don’t tend to think critically, which opens them up to fooling themselves into thinking JB raises a good point. Well, he might be doing just that… if the point raised was first aligned with the meaning the original author clearly intended. But it’s not. And it regularly isn’t. This is a problem in that the tactic JB relies upon for so much of his posting topics that it helps other people to continue to fool themselves.
So the second quote by Feynman used by JB as if it supports his original point does no such thing. It stands as a testament to how easily people like JB fool themselves – regularly and consistently – into believing their own belief first over and above understanding what reality is actually producing.
Of course, I don’t expect many readers here to grasp the depth of irony on display. To do that requires a bit of critical thought, a skill set neither admired not welcome here on the Comedy Sojourn.
Dear Leader,
Any scientist who holds confidence in some faith-based belief does so only by segregating this belief from the rigorous method of science, and so their scientific credentials do not play any part in supporting their religious beliefs.
Trying to use their scientific credentials in this way as you continue to do is not clear thinking. It’s broken thinking. It is religious apologetics in action (ie “Most (scientists) hold proof to the argument that science cannot prove God does not exist”) that then negatively influences not just your thinking ability but cannot help but undermine your ability to teach young minds how to think well when you can’t… no matter how many awards you say you have won in recognition of your supposedly fine teaching. Obviously, and if true, those who awarded you don’t understand why you should not receive any such award but instead should have to return to remedial teacher’s college.
You’ve lost the thread of what it is you’re supposed to be doing as an educator (and it’s not as an indoctrinator). Spewing such bad thinking and believing it to be justifiably correct demonstrates your lack of ability to think clearly. A confused teacher pretending no confusion exists on the basis of believing it doesn’t in the face of compelling contrary evidence is a very poor teacher.
The person fooling himself is the one who thinks he’s open to questioning, but who only questions OTHERS.
I agree with both of Feynman’s points completely. (Sometimes even Atheists say true things, and I don’t mind giving them credit when they do.) Also, sometimes Christians refuse to think critically and end up fooling themselves. (I don’t mind questioning them, when that happens.)
So, there’s no need to insult the readers here, just to continue making jabs at JB. In fact, there should be no reason for ANYONE to disagree with this post, whether Christian or Atheist, unless he is self-conscious that perhaps HE, the reader, is the fool that Feynman warned about.
By the way, I guarantee you that at least a few readers are going to grasp the depth of irony just fine.
LOL!
“John is the fool! John is the fool! Question HIM! ONLY HIM!”
And when your views are questioned, you say it’s a stupid question that doesn’t deserve an answer and fall silent…
HILARIOUS!
Also,
A good rule of thumb is that if the method of science cannot answer a question about reality, then the question is a really poor one. But any good teacher knows this.
Wait…
Should I question this?
You need to know the source in order to decide.
Source? You think I assume things need a source?
No… that’s the old way of thinking…
You are using the wrong ontology here – what I call the old 2D model that includes the idea of cause and effect to logically deduce a Prime or First Cause. That’s understandable. That’s what we see and encounter every day. But that’s not good science.
We as a species armed with understanding and explanations that work have moved well past that archaic ontology to a 3D interactive model (specifically of interacting fields rather than isolated articulated objects). Effect is now understood to be an inevitable product of the present. Inevitable. It makes no sense to call the present a ’cause’ when the chain is so intertwined with different fields… from the micro to the macro. That’s physics today and it indicates the universe can be understood without any need for anything other than a purely ‘natural’, unguided, purposeless, mindless physical processes that produce all kinds of marvelous emergent properties. And that order is important to grasp: not mind then processes but processes that produce mind.
In other words, I think your comment wrote itself. That’s physics.
Hmmm.
I assume that’s an excellent point because I don’t understand a word of it.
And to be perfectly clear, if one extrapolates from this preponderance of evidence regarding questions into how reality operates, by what mechanisms, what it contains, and so on, to which we do not have any good answers (meaning in scientific terms explanatory models that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time), then it is folly to assume that faith-based belief is as likely to produce equivalent insight. It never has. It does not. It is poor thinking to expect this result to change.
What is not folly is to presume that science offers us the best method to inquire into these great swaths of the unknown and produce models of understanding upon which we can continue to produce applications, therapies, and technologies that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time.
@Tildeb.
It is called the Dickhead Phenomenon and fairly easy to spot.
It usually manifests among those who think a person called Jesus of Nazareth was real.
Ark Garfunkle!
Who doesn’t think Jesus of Nazareth was real?
The problem is you do believe he was real.
Why is that a problem?
You don’t consider it be a problem?
No, I don’t consider historical facts problematic. But then, I’m not hell-bent to remain an atheist.
You probably should drop the ‘Jesus is a myth’ thing, Ark. You can’t support it.
I have never said Jesus is a myth.
But the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth most assuredly is..
You forgot the MOST IMPORTANT question of all: is Richard Feynman an Atheist or a Christian?
I only trust when Atheists tell me things.
No. What’s most important is whether or not Feynman knows how to make pancakes.