Re: making fun of atheists
- From: boots <no@xxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:09:47 -0700
Alan Hope <usenet.identity@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 2, 3:29 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:13 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 1, 6:09 pm, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:The gospel of Mark is Simon Peter's account? How do you figure that?
$Zero goes:Gospel of Mark, i think.
i typically read a bunch of posts and go back later to respond.When are you going to respond to my questions about Simon Peter's
account of the life of Jesus? I'm dying to know about it, since it
doesn't exist anywhere I've looked.
in your honor, i just cracked open a book, which is a rare event for
Copyright 1976 - 1979
it's a King James bible i bought at Sam's Club in the mid 1990's to
argue with my girlfriend on her own turf -- to show her how deluded
and silly she was to believe in such contradictory nonsense written on
some silly pieces of paper.
there's short notices before each of the books within, giving basic
info about the source and whatnot.
here's what it says just before the Gospel of Mark:
DATE: AD 60-65
CONTENT: John Mark was a companion to the Apostle Paul. He finally
settled in Rome where he wrote the remembrances of the Apostle Peter.
Thus Mark's gospel reflects the words of an eye-witness to the events
he describes. [...]
So you're using the Bible to validate the Bible?
oh, lookie here.
Alan is using trying to use the Bible to _invalidate_ the Bible by
claiming that anything written in it is automatically totally non-
admissible as evidence.
Obviously. You're calling the defendant to testify on his own behalf.
well, golly gee, that's a neat trick, huh?
It stands to reason. Why should we believe the Bible? That's the very
source whose veracity is being questioned. How can the Bible validate
i guess it would have been much smarter if those dumb people who put
together those books of the Bible didn't include anything written at
You are so dumb I feel bad for your poor mother.
that would have gone a long way to increasing the credibility of, um,
a completely blank book.
pretty cool, huh?
this is the kind of proof people like Alan rely upon to disprove the
historical evidence for Jesus.
I'm not disproving anything, you numbskull. I said there was no
evidence. You have confirmed that, by your inability to produce any.
it's quite the brilliant strategy, no?
not at all transparent, is it?
The above, as far as scholars is concerned, has no credibility at all.
As far as scholars is concerned?
Scholars doesn't use the Bible as a
Should be "scholars don't uses".
source to corroborate the Bible. They look for other sources. Did you
now knows that?
Should be "they looks for" other sources innit.
why, if only the bible was a completely blank book, THEN they'd give
it some credible weight.
You're not only dumb, you're also mad.
Is it not Mark's?
someone named Mark apparently wrote it.
that's what's typed in the book i have, yes.
Oh, well that proves it, then.
along with the explanation given earlier above.
which of course can serve as no evidence at all because, hey, it's
written in the Bible, FFS.
Why is this idea so foreign to you? If the police arrest you for a
crime, and you say you have an alibi, do you suppose they'd be happy
for you to vouch for your own innocence? Well then why do you imagine
it's admissible to use the Bible to vouch for the Bible?
therefore, it's automatically complete fiction.
It may or may not be. What it cannot be is evidence of its own
no need for Alan or any of his selective scholars to disprove any of
its first-hand assertions which have been passed down for 2,000+ years
by the largest known organization in the history of the Western World.
What first-hand assertions? That's the question I've been asking since
the start of this discussion. Show me which parts of the Bible are
first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. You've been strangely
reluctant to show me, choosing instead to prattle on about popes and
empty books. And haggis, FFS.
of course not. simply claim that any evidence they hold is a complete
fabrication. well, hey, that's easy enough! and very credible, too.
What evidence? You haven't presented a first-hand account in the first
place. The best you could do was Mark's alleged transcription of
Peter's memories. Sorry to disappoint you, but even if that were
valid, which it isn't, it's not a first-hand account. It's hearsay.
See how that works?
and hey, just apply the same "logic" to the compilers of "evidence"
regarding Socrates and Plato and we can rap this up right here.
How does that affect the existence or otherwise of Jesus?
now why didn't i think of that, i wonder.
cluetime: the burden of proof is still on you, dude.
i've given more than adequate evidence of the historical existence of
No you haven't.
so name the first non-fictional pope, Alan.
They're all fictional.
Dunno about that, but all the ones since the nicean council seems to
has been elected bureaucrats. Infallible bureaucrats, who'd a thunk
it. Scary as giving a gun to a cop innit.
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
- Prev by Date: Re: making fun of atheists
- Next by Date: Re: Kindle news
- Previous by thread: Re: making fun of atheists
- Next by thread: <PING! MIZ UV!> dammit, Socrates *again*?