Atheism V's Theism.

No, I can't prove it, but Socrates has more evidence for his existence than Jesus does considering both Xenophon and Aristophanes were contemporaries.

 

You admit that you cannot prove the real existence of Socrates, yet you still want to throw in some other names of people who claim to have known him. Gee.. that sounds just like situations concerning the Bible and Jesus... Jesus had disciples; Socrates had disciples... the word of the disciples of Jesus is not of any value, subsequently the word of the disciples of Socrates is not of any value... NO PROOF EXISTS. Therefore, Socrates belongs to that same group of Mythical creatures as does Jesus according to the non-theists. For all intents and purposes, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon and Aristophanes are liars, and myth builders just like the non-theists claim regarding the disciples of Jesus.

 

The difference is that the disciples of Jesus didn't actually write the Gospels, they were written anonymously decades after his death.

 

You did. And you did so publically. Now, when called on it, you deny it because the action is dishonorable. But you did it, and now, you call people a hypocrite for reporting your droning constance of 'troll' as hypocrisy. Even though you know well what you, and others, did.

Funny that you routinely call me liar.

Do we see what a lack of standards does? What a tendancy to rationalize things does? Do we see in infallability of atheism at play? And do you really think that after you treat people like that, they will be so quick to accept your rationalization?

Just remember G, deny it all you want, but both you and I know the truth of it.

 

No one to my knowledge has claimed that Socrates was born of a virgin or was killed and resurrected, then 'ascended into heaven.' That tends to lend some credibility to the existing claims.

 

And we've been through this one before. Many of the notes on Socrates were not written by Socrates either. There are many extra-Biblical sources as well. And we've been throughall of it while you deny, deny, deny. Can you explain to me why you need to bring in your propogandistic Jesus Denia to yet another thread?

You want to see atheism vs. theism.

Well, we have solid academia, vs atheisms vaccusous, dishonest Jesus denial.

And people wonder why atheism is so little respected? Maybe an honest comparison to adament refusals to accept reality while crapping on other faiths with other faiths should be explored?

 

First off, Socrates didn't write anything. At all. So... you don't know what you're talking about. Next, if you want to claim that there is an extra-biblical eyewitness of Jesus, then name him/her. It is that simple.

 

No, but one of his students was apparently born of tryst between his mother and a God. Alexander is still quite real.

You are looking for excuses, not truth. You are not making a case, simply looking for lazy reasons to reject and maintain your faith in nihilism.

Actual period scholars who have actually looked at the relevant evidence conclude unanimously that Jesus was real. But your opinion, born of what? Study? Atheist propoganda? Derision? Should be afforded respect and due consideration?

Well, prove you are real on this forum, because I think you are just a computer program.

 

So you're saying that I called for people to report you to the mods and attempt to get you banned? If so, then you are a liar. I did no such thing. Beyond saying that you should be banned off-handidly in a few posts, I could give less of a (*)(*)(*)(*) about you, Neutral. You've already proven yourself to be a liar and a conspiracy theorist.

 

Maybe I am, and I'm not going to worry about trying to prove otherwise to you. It's up to you to weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Hint, hint.

 

Did any of the atheists catch teh criticism that all they do is go to google to find rebuttals and never actually study anything?

Socrates (Σωκράτη&#962
Socrates
Born c. 469 / 470 BC[1]
Deme Alopece, Athens
Died 399 BC (age approx. 71)
Athens
Nationality Greek
Era Ancient philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Classical Greek
Main interests Epistemology, ethics
Notable ideas Socratic method, Socratic irony
Influenced[show]Most subsequent Western philosophy; more specifically, Plato, Aristotle, Aristippus, Antisthenes

Part of a series on
Socrates
"I know that I know nothing"
Social gadfly · Trial of Socrates
Eponymous concepts
Socratic dialogue · Socratic method
Socratic questioning · Socratic paradox
Socratic problem
Disciples
Plato · Xenophon
Antisthenes · Aristippus
Related topics
Cynicism (philosophy) · Cyrenaics · Platonism
Stoicism · The Clouds
v ·t ·e

Socrates ( /ˈsɒkrətiːz/; Greek: Σωκράτης, Ancient Greek pronunciation: [sɔːkrátɛːs], Sōkrátēs; c. 469 BC – 399 BC)[1] was a classical Greek Athenian philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, he is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers, especially the writings of his students Plato and Xenophon, and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. Many would claim that Plato's dialogues are the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

And what is it that random athtards are saying about Jesus Denial? He wrote nothing, only his peers did (which are al biased obviously)... which applies to Socrates, many of which were written later ... which applies to Socrates ... and none of them are extra Philosophical (and we have extra Biblical accounts of Jesus).

And what doe actual period scholars say about this inexpert, non-standard scorched earth denial from the deiberately uneducated who pretend they are smarter than period scholars?

""In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Oh look! EXACTLY AS PERIOD SCHOLARS WARN, the random standards of inexpert athtards make Socrates disappear - only, exactly as period scholars of the Jesus Myth inidcate, the only way to deny Jesus it to apply deliberate double standards - one for Socrates, another for Jesus - in scorached earth denial.

" In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did."

http://bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

Now, this is one thing when it comes up honestly. It is quite another when a poster constantly dredges it up in one thread after another for nothing but a malicious intent. Th denial of Jesus from such persons goes right to the heart of what is wrong with modern atheism, it is blind adherence to hypocrisy and dogma, whose intent is solely to injure.

And to those who blindly follow such a path, perhaps your own actions have a part if the disrespect you find ... everywhere. No body suffers fools easily. Remember that when you deny Jesus based on blind adherence to propoganda and hypocrisy.

 

to lazy to investigate on your own, eh? Yet, just like atheisms denial of God, the denial of Jesus is not based on evidence or investigation either. What a shock.

So, other than being lazy, what intellectual underpinnings does any of the common propoganda of atheism have? So far we have fallacy, and the requirement for everyone but atheists to have evidence, to which the ostrichs with heads in sand will simply never find good enough. Which is why period scholars reject atheists and their inexpert criticisms as tin foil hat wearng conspiracy.

So, based on what I see, I suggest that modern atheism and it organized houses of anti-logic and intellectualism adopt some modern symbology to allow people to fully grasp what they are:





Oh yes, Jesus is a Myth not until the unanimous opinion of period scholars is assessed, but until a couple of inexpert atheists , using subjectivity and incredible bias declare it so. And when you reject such anti-intellectuaism and the charlatanism that it is - rather than even pretend its valid ...

Well, I suggest atheism consider a few more symbols.





Feel free to actually explain how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus was a myth, given that, no doubt, you are another period scholar lik GFP, who has a complete mastery of the period sources? Right.

Tin foil hats, desseminated through organized atheism, to enable being cruel and stupid. Why would people reject such things? Probably just because they hate atheists and cannot handle the truth ... even though scholarship in not atheisms side ... at all.

 

I agree with you, most of what we know about Socrates, if he did exist, is myth perpetuated by the writers and he is obviously used by Plato as a figure to drive his dialogues. Also, I'm not sure what "extra-philosophical" means. Is there a book that exists called "Philosophy" where all the words of Socrates are combined? Xenophon was a historian and Aristophanes was a playwright...

I agree, these figures do fade away into myth and legend. I'm not sure Socrates did exist, the only thing I ever said was that at least his contemporaries wrote about him.

You don't seem to want to hear this, but, I agree with you, there is a huge possibility that Socrates didn't exist. Not sure how that is a double standard.

I never said Jesus didn't definitely not exist, I said I doubt that he was a historical figure, and I doubt that Socrates was one as well because all we have are contradictory stories about both men. Also, I'm still waiting for you to name that eyewitness who wrote about Jesus. You keep criticizing me for saying there aren't any, but then never provide a name for who this supposed eyewitness is.

 

Not sure what all this (*)(*)(*)(*) has to do with the OP not understanding even basic science.

 

Well, lie all you want, you and I both know the truth.

And here I thought my respect for you could not dim any further, but when you not only deny what we both know is truth, but actually twist your own dishonor into a insult of others? Yep, that is atheism.

Guys, let's stop feeding the trolls Started by GraspingforPeace, 08-15-2012 01:08 PM Thread deleted by cenydd
Reason: Personal Attack.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/6.html

Yep, one of us in lying. One of us has a standard that says it is wrong to do so. The other does not. Which one is telling the truth I wonder?

 

Oh! So you possess absolute PROOF that the disciples did not write the Gospels,, or do you simply have the opinion of someone who did not come onto the scene until centuries later? I am not speaking about the many thousands of translations that have been made since the discovery of the Gospels, but rather, the Gospels in and of themselves. Please do provide such PROOF.

 

OK, so you have no honest intent to apply standard that you would to Jesus to Socrates. THanks for proving my point. I also like the part where you only read the later part of the source you no doubt googled, only after someone else does.

Again, why treat your opinions as anything other than rabid contrarianism?

Then once again, you are the outs of logic and professional historians. What a shock. First you deny, we apply your standards to the EXACT thing you demand, and now we have ANOTHER set of excuses.

I think Socrates existed. I think your standards for denying yet another historical figure are emotional, vaccusous, and utterly without merit. They are he result of ego, not logic or study.

Thank you for teh semantics.

 

id like to know what the odds are for a god that woud make the unverse as it is as well

 

The Gospels were written anonymously, that's a fact. Anybody claiming that the disciples wrote them has to provide evidence that they did. Once again, a classic attempt at reversing the burden of proof.

 

...I literally just told you that I doubt Socrates existence. How is that not the exact same position I have on Jesus?

How is agreeing with you that my standards put those people in doubt an excuse? I am agreeing with you.

Dude, you didn't even know that Socrates didn't write anything himself. Obviously you haven't done much studying on this at all. I'm not sure how applying a stringent set of historicity criteria across the entire historical spectrum is the result of ego. Also, what standards do you have for historicity?

...Nothing in that paragraph even came close to entering the field of semantics. Where did I talk about the meaning of words, Neutral, which is what semantics is?

 

No, you are not agreeing with me. I speled out that I think Socrates existed. I just applied you stupid standards to Socrates, and now you doubt him as well.

Its called scorched earth denial, but perfect atheism cannot admit fault - so it doesn't. Even when it is at fault.

 

Which is where I agree with you, that my standards cast doubt on Socrates as well. Tell me, what are your non-stupid standards for historicity?

That isn't a word, you just can't think rationally and it is showing in spades. You can't even back up any of your claims anymore. Seriously, this is what just happened:

Me - Okay Neutral you say there is an eyewitness account of Jesus, who is it?
You- SEMANTICS!

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

Paul never met a real-life Jesus, missed out on a lot of the events claimed by other biblical authors and is from some time after the events purported by others, yet he claimed to have all sorts of knowledge about Jesus and his message. The gospel writers are an anonymous mystery group whose writings often contradict, though all follow a familiar zodiac-based sequence of events describing how the sun hero Jesus was born of a virgin, rose to power, was betrayed by darkness, was put to death, was dead three days, was resurrected and then ascended into heaven - just like many other solar heroes and other mythological figures of the period, whom the Roman Catholic church was quick to expunge from history in a jealous fit in order to establish the Roman Catholic church as the One True Church.

 

No, it is not. The Epistles of Paul were written by ... Paul. From them we can confirm that the authorship of the Synoptic Gospels is most likely the ther apostles or their scribes. As opposed to some random dude who just penned them within the lifestimes of the Apostles and then .. what exactly? What is the alternative? That the Holy Spirit wrote them anonymously?

Seriusly, leave aside the scorched earth denial, and actually attempt to reason through your arbitrary explanations before you dump them please.

 

He did meet the Apostles who wrote the other gospels. A relevant point.

Again, this is standard atheist propoganda. The same point made by a thousand atheists before you. The SAME logica error as all the others.

Do you understand how one can arrive at the point of blind adherence to dogma and propoganda? Why else would all sound exactly aike?