Politics Unfiltered

[Decagon]

You still haven't addressed the fact that your response was a complete non sequitur. I called it "stupid," instead of a non sequitur because I knew you don't have my skillful knowledge of Latin (which you falsely attribute to watching The Big Bang Theory).

[Warlord]

Addressed it multiple times, dickwad. But as usual, you've chosen to ignore it simply because it undermines your own retarded opinion.

And in that vein, you haven't addressed ANY of the salient points of the debate since it started. For you to sit here and whine about me not indulging you in yet another quibble over semantics would be pathetic if it were anyone else, but with you, at this point, it's hilarious because it is so predictable.

Why don't you address the points I've made, shit eater? Or address the points that atheist and professional historians with published works (I mean actual books, not dickhead bloggers with agendas like the one you provided) have made?

That's right, because you're exactly what I (and they, by the way) said you are: a shithead with an agenda who doesn't even have a high-school level of understanding of history. A shithead that has never stepped one foot into the realm of hard historical research, but opines on the subject simply because your underlying agenda is forcing you to attempt to undermine a fact that both believers and non-believers have come to know and accept for two thousand years.

But you'll not read their words, you'll not listen to them, you'll not admit defeat in the face of logic and superior firepower, because you don't want there to be a historical Jesus. Which makes you twice as ignorant as the religious people you despise, and your faith twice as foolish as theirs. For at least they've put their faith in what the man said. You, on the other hand, refuse to believe, despite all evidence, which makes you the equivalent of Baghdad Bob, watching his country get annihilated all the while shouting victory at the top of your lungs and informing anyone who will listen that the tanks are NOT bearing down on you, but instead fleeing at top speed.

Well, keep on living in your fantasy world, Baghdad Bob. The real one will be the better for it.


P.S. Quoting Latin phrases you found on the internet doesn't make you an "expert." I'll post a .PDF file later and let you translate it if you're really desperate to prove it.

[Decagon]

(10-08-2014 08:00 AM)Warlord Wrote:  Or address the points that atheist and professional historians with published works (I mean actual books, not dickhead bloggers with agendas like the one you provided) have made?

Actually, The Raw Story cited David Fitzgerald's published work, but you obviously didn't read the article.

[Warlord]

(10-08-2014 10:42 AM)Decagon Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:00 AM)Warlord Wrote:  Or address the points that atheist and professional historians with published works (I mean actual books, not dickhead bloggers with agendas like the one you provided) have made?

Actually, The Raw Story cited David Fitzgerald's published work, but you obviously didn't read the article.

You're so weak. The only thing ever released by David Fitzgerald was a self-published book that was deconstructed by actual historians, specifically the two that I listed in a previous post. These historians also happen to be atheists, so don't waste your breath claiming they have some sort of an agenda.

If you had read either of the links I provided, or watched the video, then you would have known that I listed them specifically because they debunk the blog link you provided, as well as the book that the article was based on (your self-published messiah David Fitzgerald.)

And unlike the self-published author you cited, Bart Ehrman (one of the authors I cited) has had over 25 books published (including three college textbooks), five of which were New York Times bestsellers. To continue the dick measuring contest, David Fitzgerald has failed even to win support from his fellow atheists, whereas Bart Ehrman's books have received international critical acclaim, having been translated into 27 languages and counting.

To finish this part of my reply up, it's beyond ignorant for you to claim that I didn't read the article you provided, when I broke it down, point by fucking point. Here's the link in case you missed it, retard. It's post #316: http://boxingunfiltered.com/forum/showth...15&page=32

This embarrassing display of ignorance by you leads me to the same question I've had from the beginning, which is do you even fucking read when people respond to you? Or do you just continue to shit out your same old bullshit over and over, regardless of how stupid it is?

Either take some fucking Ritalin and hunker down and read your opponent's response, or shut the fuck up and don't pretend like you have the intelligence to enter into civil discourse with adults.


Cliff-notes version for the one retard who will have failed to read the above post:

Decagon posts link from rawstory.com, featuring article written by Valerie Tarico, based on the self-published book by delusional atheist David Fitzgerald. Tarico of course is completely unbiased in her writing, having written such masterpiece blogs as: 9 truly evil things right-wing Christians do, Why So Much Religion Is Oppressive, Merry Atheist Christmas! How the 'Atheist Church' Will Celebrate the Holidays, Does the Bible Sanction Child Abuse?, and more! (Find them all here: http://www.alternet.org/authors/valerie-tarico)


Warlord posts point-by-point rebuttal of said article (found here: http://boxingunfiltered.com/forum/showth...5&page=32) and also provides links from legitimate historians (who also happen to be atheists) that rebut the self-published drivel provided by resident retard Decagon. These links include:





http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/...-show.html


Decagon, as always, fails to read any of the responses given him, and continues to ask, "Why don't you respond to my post, idiot?"


Warlord, also as always, would like to kindly remind our resident moron to find a way to get the child-proof lid off his bottle of Ritalin, pop a few of those bad boys, and get to work actually reading the responses he is seemingly so desperate for.

[Decagon]

I'm weak? You're the one who didn't even read the link and/or lied about it.

[Warlord]

Umm... Shithead? I not only read your link, I RESPONDED to it!!! Are you seriously this stupid? In my last post I gave you the link to my response in the Religion Unfiltered thread! Are you REALLY this fucking stupid?

The only one around here incapable of reading, apparently, is you.

---

(10-08-2014 09:04 PM)Decagon Wrote:  I'm weak? You're the one who didn't even read the link and/or lied about it.

Here it is again, shithead. Why don't YOU try reading something for once in your pathetic life.

(08-30-2014 04:25 PM)Warlord Wrote:  

(08-30-2014 12:12 PM)Decagon Wrote:  Here's an article about the growing number of scholars who don't think a historical Jesus existed:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/di...-think-so/

For the record, my position is that there is not enough evidence to conclusively say that there was a historical Jesus, but that it's possible that there was one.

Rawstory.com is about as fair and balanced as Fox News, but for the sake of the argument I'll rebut your article point by point, though I don't really enjoy debating someone else's work and words when they aren't around to defend it.

Quote:1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

Yes it does. I've listed it in this very thread.

Quote:2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

That is wrong on it's face, as the evidence I've already provided in this very thread have shown.

Quote:3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

Again, this is wrong on it's face. I can provide multiple examples, but only one is needed to prove my point. This, from the Gospel of John, Chapter 21:

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” ...This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

Quote:4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

Yes they do, which supports their authenticity, not debunks it. Investigators look for these contradictions when investigating multiple eye-witnesses to a single event. Identical testimony indicates collusion and deception. If the early church fathers were inventing a religion, they would not have allowed competing claims to exist. These competing claims were allowed to exist because they came from first-hand eye witnesses who were trusted.

Quote:5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

First of all, without any examples to support this claim, it is only wind. Or, to coin one of your favorites, a straw-man argument.

Secondly, none of the early sources regarding Jesus ever disagree on his words or actions, not even Roman or Jewish historians. They simply disagree on whether Jesus was who he said he was.

It is only modern historians or so-called "scholars" (whatever that means) that have seen fit to deconstruct Jesus and twist him to fit whatever preconceived notion they had/have of him.


Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so.

The title, like the article itself, is nothing more than ridiculous sensationalism with nothing substantial to back up its claims.

What "scholars" are they referring to exactly? What classes does one take to earn the title "scholar"? Which company or organization provided the statistics that were used to determine that the number of scholars who felt this way were "growing"?

If the research done by these "scholars" was as shoddy as what was presented in this article, then I have no doubt the claim of a non-historical Jesus will continue to be an extreme minority, sharing space with other pseudo-historians and "experts" that can be found on Ancient Aliens and similar programs.

There is more contemporary evidence for the historical Jesus than for Homer, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Confucius, and the great majority of ancient historical figures.

The problem with the myth that there was no historical Jesus is that it is always posited by atheists with an agenda, who seek to twist the facts to suit their theory, when they should be adjusting their theories to suit the facts.


All that said, I hope in the future that this debate, if continued, can be my words and work versus your words and work. I don't mind reading articles such as that one, but I do mind breaking them down and rebutting them, especially when the evidence I've provided previously already did an adequate job debunking every point that said article was trying to make.

[Decagon]

Aaaah, then you lied about it.

Forgive me, I'm a busy man, and I rarely even skim your posts. I doubt even your skank of a wife would read that poorly-written tripe. You asked for an actual book (not a "dickhead blogger"), and the article presented you with one. You complain that it was self published? So what? There are dozens of other books that aren't self published by people with PhD's such as this one. Here is one I read ages ago, although it is of questionable relevance, as it was published 100 or 150 years ago. My point in including it is that the idea that a historical Jesus didn't exist isn't a new one.

[Warlord]

(10-08-2014 09:52 PM)Decagon Wrote:  Aaaah, then you lied about it.

How did I lie, dickhead? I responded to it, and told you repeatedly I responded to it. How the fuck did I lie?

Quote:Forgive me, I'm a busy man, and I rarely even skim your posts. I doubt even your skank of a wife would read that poorly-written tripe.

You're a low-down fucking rat bastard. I never once insulted your family. I never once prodded you on your failed marriage, or called your special-needs son names, or chided you for being an alcoholic. That is a fucking absolute scum-bag move.

You should have been embarrassed for your constant blunders. For this? I've got no words. If you have even a shred of dignity, you'll admit you crossed the line with that one and apologize like a man. But I seriously doubt you've got the decency to do it.

I can honesty say that this is the lowest I have ever personally seen someone sink.

[Decagon]

You've constantly thrown insults, but you become bitchmade when someone throws one back. What are you going to do about it? Make another gay profile? That worked ONCE.

[Warlord]

You started the insults, not me. And I never insulted your family, nor did I ever touch on parts of your past that might be painful to you.

You got desperate, embarrassed, and felt backed into a corner because you got out-debated at every turn. And when you had nothing left, you went after my family, as only the truly cowardly do.

You've got some serious soul searching to do if your pride is truly so fragile that you feel the need to lash out at the innocent. My wife is the sweetest girl on God's green earth, and if you knew her personally even you would hang your head in shame at your truly despicable behavior.

A man, a true man, never slights women, and certainly never slights another man's family. It takes a truly special sort of low-class, base-born scumbag to do that.