Why the fall had to occur

a reply to: joelr

It's not a failure any more than it is a failure to disprove unicorns. It's a non-issue.

if unless it is a issue ...

originally posted by: chr0naut

How can you take a "scientific position", you say you have no evidence? Science is evidential!

How can you speak of science when you believe in superheroes? The evidence put forth by the historicity field shows religions to be mythical. The end.

originally posted by: chr0nautNo there is a scientific cosmology that does not require a temporal beginning, the Hawking-Hartle big bang.

If something is atemporal, it is by definition unchanging. If it changes, then there is a temporal 'distance' between the two states, i.e; it is temporal.

A Big Bang Cosmology cannot occur if time does not exist because it is an extreme change of state. There is a 'before' state and an 'after' state = temporality. Similarly, quantum fluctuation requires space (distance) to exist. The Casimir experiment shows that.

The Hawking-Hartle Big Bang is demonstrably myth, right there at the start.

Then there is the issue of quantum fluctuation birthing matter or energy.

If a virtual particle pair is prevented from annihilating, then it becomes 'real'. However, to prevent vparticles from annihilation requires large forces (like near the event horizon of a Black Hole). It requires a lot of 'stuff' to make a little 'stuff' that way.

Since there's no stuff in a empty universe, there's no stuff from quantum fluctuation.

The next issue is superposition, the Casimir experiment shows us a pressure from vparticles only because physical matter excludes the creation of superpositional vparticles (by Pauli exclusion, actually). A singularity is a superposition of all matter and energy. It cannot arise from quantum fluctuation.

There's three mythic components, one after the other, and I could go on if posts (and comprehension) weren't limited.

You are calling something that has no foundation in science or physics 'scientific' because some theoretician said it and you accepted it without evaluation, not because it is.

A hypothesis, without hard direct evidence and especially with only other hypotheses to support it, is a myth.

So you recognize mythology as it appears in science but not in literature? And you question my comprehension skills, ha ha ha!

originally posted by: chr0nautExcept Brahman is so 'transcendent' that it cannot be induced to follow any sort of rational logic.

And believing in the Jesus zombie apocalypse is logical, heh.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I think you mean 'Ph.D' and scientific method assumes there is no supernatural at all. Too bad that supernatural things are evidenced and that incompleteness (mathematics) tells us that there must always be a supernatural beyond the formal axiomatic system of science.

Doesn't mean Zeus is real. Doesn't mean Jesus was real.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, I can show you a video of a leading bible historicity scholar explaining it this way.


Not a 'leading Bible historicity' scholar and you can't make up some alternate idea and then blame someone else because you find your idea irrational.

Adam and Eve were originally created to be in the firmament. This is how a historicity PHD explained it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Apparently 84% of the world population has faith even today.

I know, people are generally not that smart. Does that make Mormonism true? (Nope)

originally posted by: chr0naut
The Greeks did not create mathematics and philosophy with the help from religion

The Arabs created our number system. Mathematics existed before Greece discovered fishing!

I didn't say the Greeks created our number system? Your really starting to phish here. I type fast and obviously also make spelling errors, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy then knock yourself out, but it's really not needed to point out every textual error. I think you get the concepts just fine.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The Hebrews has a bunch of silly metaphysics going on and then they started having interactions with the Persians who they noticed had an even cooler metaphysics (Zorastrianism). They had a place to go after you die and a special demigod who battles this bad guy called satan. By defeating Satan you can raise from the dead and also gain forgiveness of sins of all the followers. Eventually we get a Jewish version of that messiah cult. If that isn't the most basic common sense obvious example of mythological syncretism ever then there is an absence of critical thinking that I could never get past, no matter what I say.

Ah ha! If you won't think critically, that probably explains your opinions!

I know it probably causes much butt-hurting but this is the origin of Christianity as explained by scholarship.

originally posted by: chr0naut


I see what you did there!

You took an argument that stands in either case, and suggested that it wasn't just as applicable for deism as for theism.

Then, you based your very next argument upon doing he same type of switcheroo you accused me of, only with added derp!

Debating with you is unfair, isn't it?

No I don't see what you are saying? There are 2 different debates with theism and deism and religious folk love to mix the two up as if there is any additive power.
If some being arranged a bunch of planets to say "God Is Real" we could talk about god being real but we still cant' talk about Thor being real.
Christianity has been shown by the science of historicity to be as mythological as any other religion. I get that that's a huge bummer for religious people but that's just how it is.
Beyond faith you have zero science to back up delusions in fairy tales.

Even if God were real the Matrix is still not going to be a true story.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The same with making determinations about the supernatural using scientific method. It doesn't wash.

No we can study the supernatural with the scientific method, why not?
There have been many studies with Uri Geller, psychics, random number generators, all kinds of studies.

Why wouldn't those count?

originally posted by: chr0naut



Wikipedia: "Some studies on subjective well-being and personal effects of prayer have shown positive effects on the individual who prays".

No, cancer mortality rates do not differ due to religious affiliation. You would see a skew in demographic after taking into account poverty rates, medicare and other factors. Christian nations do not have different disease mortality rates.


[

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes,but I am in a better position to evaluate that, than someone antagonistic to God.

I don't know if I'm antagonistic to god? For theism I'm simply following scholarship (but I do believe the mythicist theory will win out eventually) and I'm agnostic or open to evidence on deism.

You definitely agree with my stance on theism for every other religion. But once one accepts a religion they HAVE to accept deism so you obviously always look to positive evidence or evidence that works with your beliefs.

Where I can look to both sides of deism because I'm not bound to a god having to exist.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: joelr

It's not a failure any more than it is a failure to disprove unicorns. It's a non-issue.

if unless it is a issue ...

Sigh....Well thanks for that waste of time. Had you sourced you OWN reference you would have seen that this video is explaining that the word unicorn in the bible was just talking about a rhinoceros and that the bible was not actually trying to say unicorns existed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

If something is atemporal, it is by definition unchanging. If it changes, then there is a temporal 'distance' between the two states, i.e; it is temporal.

A Big Bang Cosmology cannot occur if time does not exist because it is an extreme change of state. There is a 'before' state and an 'after' state = temporality. Similarly, quantum fluctuation requires space (distance) to exist. The Casimir experiment shows that.

The Hawking-Hartle Big Bang is demonstrably myth, right there at the start.

A photon is also atemporal and yet it has a beginning and it often does end when absorbed by something.
So we can obviously have both states existing.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Then there is the issue of quantum fluctuation birthing matter or energy.

If a virtual particle pair is prevented from annihilating, then it becomes 'real'. However, to prevent vparticles from annihilation requires large forces (like near the event horizon of a Black Hole). It requires a lot of 'stuff' to make a little 'stuff' that way.

Since there's no stuff in a empty universe, there's no stuff from quantum fluctuation.

The next issue is superposition, the Casimir experiment shows us a pressure from vparticles only because physical matter excludes the creation of superpositional vparticles (by Pauli exclusion, actually). A singularity is a superposition of all matter and energy. It cannot arise from quantum fluctuation.

As to virtual particle pairs, we have no idea what type of substance could have birthed the universe, you are attempting to postulate something that is really beyond postulation. You are creating your own mythology, it's simply a non-issue right now, We don't know.

The Casimir experiment prevents certain virtual particle frequencies to be created therefore particles with those frequencies are not created in the small space between metal plates.
Given enough time quantum mechanics does not rule out the creation of a singularity.

Again this is all speculation but you're trying to pass it off as a proof that god must exist. It's no such thing either way.
In fact leading cosmologists don't even agree on what's what. Just watch the science convention channel on youtube where cosmologists and physicists sit down and discuss their favorite theories.
Usually hosted by Alan Alda or Neil Degrass Tyson, each scientists believes an entirely different theory.
Neil Turok, Roger Penrose, Kip Thorne, you name it, no one agrees on any one idea.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

It's not a failure any more than it is a failure to disprove unicorns. It's a non-issue.

Sure it is, you just can't face the fact that science is provably and rationally inept at resolving this.

... and the unicorn bit is a bad analogy because of the 29,000 year old (historical times) skull of one of them that roamed Siberia.

originally posted by: chr0naut

It's only Paul that starts Christianity through his "revelations". The author of the gospel Mark is unknown and not sourced. The remaining gospels are re-writes of Mark according to scholarship.

Actually, it is held academically (from the study of textual criticism) that only two of the other gospels could potentially have been 'copied' from the book of Mark. The gospel of John isn't synoptic.

There are also events in Mark that are unique to that Gospel but are pertinent to the Gospel message. Why didn't the other gospels at least pass comment on those events? The academic assumption has, therefore, been that there was another earlier document, called the 'Q', which the three synoptic Gospels used as source, and this 'Q' document is now lost to history. This is the most widely held current scholarly conclusion regarding Gospel provenance.

... and Paul was only one of at least 9 writers contributing to the New Testament. Paul didn't write a gospel and as far as content, only 35% of the New Testament is attributable to Paul, and it is neither the earliest, nor the latest of the contributions. Paul also didn't start Christianity, the record is in the Acts of the Apostles. He was a convert after the Crucifixion and was sent out (ordained) as "Apostle to the Gentiles" by the Christian church in Jerusalem.

Are you actually suggesting that the 10,000's of supernatural events recorded into history are all actually real?
Of course not and Christian folklore is no different. Again, the historicity field confirms this, Jesus was a MAN.

Christians don't deny Jesus' humanity or historicity.

Let me explain, if you take out all the supernatural stuff from the accounts, there is no supernatural in what is left of the accounts. It is no great discovery.

But Harry Potter without fantastic magical elements or Star Wars without the science fiction fantastic elements are not the full deal.

The Gospel and related accounts clearly all describe supernatural elements, even those that are antagonistic to Christianity. You cannot reasonably remove the supernatural from the accounts. You can try and explain the supernatural elements but merely ignoring them is... ignorant.

Even modern supernatural happenings are sometimes backed by hundreds of people, this means nothing. Are the cargo cults real because they have 100's of witnesses?

You seem to be saying that the cargo cults were based upon misunderstanding (with which I agree) but are you now suggesting that they are supernatural?

Surely cargo cults were an entirely natural misunderstanding of technologies beyond the understanding of cultists and were of entirely natural events that were observed by 100's. Which has nothing to do with miraculous happenings.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

This sounds like you have been searching Christian apologist sites. According to Richard Carrier PHD historian in biblical era religions, Mormonism and Christianity have an exact growth rate over a 30 year period.
I'm sure I can source this fact.

I did the figures myself, with some fairly trust-able sources, so I'm pretty sure they are right. But should anyone want to check:

The Mormons kept good figures: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership history From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As did the Christians: Population of 1st century Christian church - Google Answers

originally posted by: chr0naut

Not one gospel event has even come close to being verified through outside sources. That is a complete fiction:

I just gave you two historically verified outside sources that describe one particular Gospel event. Google them if you doubt them.

"In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

First you say that Jesus historicity shows that He was a man, the next you are saying that He didn't exist.

As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus

Josephus wrote about Jesus. Every copy we have of his works has exactly the same passages about Jesus. The idea that someone later added in the passages about Jesus to every single copy of his writings, especially ones we have recently discovered and were unknown at the time, is obvious nonsense.

, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

There is good reason for these guys to have never heard about Jesus. Most most lived their whole lives in other countries or didn't write histories & etc.

www.truthbeknown.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut

Scholarship considers Jesus to be a man, there is no dispute with this statement.

Christians also don't dispute that either.

Now, the evidence for the mythicist theory IS even more vast

No it isn't.

Historicity of Jesus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christ myth theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one will believe you while you treat "what if's" as fact and support your opinions with obvious untruths.

Richard Carrier has a 700 page book

Wow, that must have been such a hard read!

completely sourced and backed by his PHD

'cause a Ph.D would never make stuff up for the book sales.

that the evidence for the mythicist theory is the most likely theory.
His book just hasn't been accepted by the field yet.

Might there be a reason for that?

I keep saying this but you're pretending not to get it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Right that is my bad, I should have mentioned Acts is considered a forgery by scholars. Even some fundamental Christian scholars admit this in debates with Carrier.
I can source this but you might consider trying to educate yourself rather than just reading apologetics?

No, you just said that Jesus Christ never existed, and all the New Testament were forgeries attributed to the wrong people. So is the Acts of The Apostles a forged forgery, perhaps, or are you implying that some of the other stuff is genuine?

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems the majority see it almost unquestionably genuine.

But of course people doubt the historicity of the disciples!? The field considers it to be MADE UP FAN FICTION.
All of the supernatural events are considered fiction, how many times can I tell this obvious truth?

Also, we don't even know WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS! So of course there is doubt!

There is reasonable doubt that the Queen of England is a shape shifting reptilian and that the Earth is Flat. This does not prove the case of those presumptions.

To me it seems unlikely that a fictional Jesus would have fans willing to go to their deaths over. Especially those from first Century Jerusalem who would have been close to the locations and times of the events.

But sure, look at all those who put their lives on the line for Superman, Harry Potter and Batman.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes the 4 gospels are fan fiction. 3 were copied from Mark. Carrier explains this using writing analysis, copies of historical mistakes, obvious parables and so on. The gospels were not even written by said authors.

Carrier debunks the idea of a "Q" gospel and demonstrates how the gospels were each copied from Mark.

Paul only claims to know Jesus from revelations and scripture and he knows of no earthly Jesus or his ministry.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I'm not talking about his work with Bayes therom AT ALL. I'm only referencing his work on historicity and text from that time period. I don't care about that Bayesian stuff at all.
Carrier is an atheist and opposes orthodox Christian beliefs simply because he read the bible and came to this conclusion. He had zero bias going in to the study.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Sigh, I've been saying to you all along that the field considers Jesus to have been a man. You're using this fact when it helps you but forgetting about the fact that the supernatural aspects are also considered fiction?

Do you have any proof that there is nothing supernatural, because evidence seems to be everywhere?

Carrier explains that because of political reasons it will take time for the mythicist theory to be accepted into the field.

Paranoia.

But the evidence is still better than the evidence for historicity.

All you have to do is listen to a few of the debates and you will see that the historicity arguments do not stand up to the mythicist arguments.
Another tactic fundamentalists are using is to attack Carrier on a personal level. I don't care about his personal life, his work stands as the best study on historicity, period. The previous Jesus study was done in 1926, it's a political hotbed of a subject to mess with hence the reason for the slow progress.

I have tended evidence to refute your claims. The rest is up to you.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

No I don't see what you are saying? There are 2 different debates with theism and deism and religious folk love to mix the two up as if there is any additive power.
If some being arranged a bunch of planets to say "God Is Real" we could talk about god being real but we still cant' talk about Thor being real.
Christianity has been shown by the science of historicity to be as mythological as any other religion. I get that that's a huge bummer for religious people but that's just how it is.
Beyond faith you have zero science to back up delusions in fairy tales.

Even if God were real the Matrix is still not going to be a true story.

The deist case must be true for the theist case to be true. They aren't exclusive from the theist perspective. Theism is a specific sub-type of deism.

'Historicity' is not a science. Branches of science From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nor does 'historicity' disprove prove or disprove anything (if I have no record of a particular something existing, it does not mean that thing did not exist, nor that it does. It merely means that I don't have a record of its existence).

So, not having a record that Dick Carrier existed, does not say that he did, or didn't exist. The only true rational conclusion is that we don't have any record of Dick Carrier, and this could be for a number of reasons. Any presumption beyond that, which states simply that we don't have any records, is clearly baseless.

Science can say nothing about the supernatural. It is an entirely natural tool-set. It has no 'supernatural' operators.

Mathematics tells us that a supernatural must exist (by Godel's 'Incompleteness') and also explains why science will never encompass the supernatural (As soon as a natural explanation is found for something outside science's axiomatic definition, it becomes naturally explicable and therefore isn't supernatural at all. This does not mean that we will exhaust all supernatural phenomena, as by mathematical definition there must be phenomena outside of the axiomatic definition).

Science, by definition, can never prove or disprove the supernatural. The bounding of science within axiomatic descriptions implies that there is always something those axioms cannot describe and that are, therefore, outside of science.

The naturalistic nature of science (one of its axioms) defines that there is necessarily a supernatural beyond it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No we can study the supernatural with the scientific method, why not?
There have been many studies with Uri Geller, psychics, random number generators, all kinds of studies.

Why wouldn't those count?

Because they are looking for a natural explanation for something that may not be. If found, the phenomena studied must be natural. If not, then science cannot rationally draw a conclusion (it has no evidence which gives one case more validity than the other).

The inability to furnish definitive objective evidence in such a case is a failure of science.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, cancer mortality rates do not differ due to religious affiliation. You would see a skew in demographic after taking into account poverty rates, medicare and other factors. Christian nations do not have different disease mortality rates.

This is an example of arbitrary and fallacious stats used to support unconsidered opinions.

It is obvious that people with a religious faith are more likely to abstain from alcohol and tobacco, two of the predominant causes of cancer.

Religious affiliation is a significant factor in disease mortality, and not just for cancer.

Mortality Differentials and Religion in the U.S.: Religious Affiliation and Attendance - US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

originally posted by: chr0naut

I don't know if I'm antagonistic to god? For theism I'm simply following scholarship (but I do believe the mythicist theory will win out eventually) and I'm agnostic or open to evidence on deism.

You definitely agree with my stance on theism for every other religion. But once one accepts a religion they HAVE to accept deism so you obviously always look to positive evidence or evidence that works with your beliefs.

Where I can look to both sides of deism because I'm not bound to a god having to exist.

Now you can see the non-dichotomy of deism/theism?

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0nautIf something is atemporal, it is by definition unchanging. If it changes, then there is a temporal 'distance' between the two states, i.e; it is temporal.

A Big Bang Cosmology cannot occur if time does not exist because it is an extreme change of state. There is a 'before' state and an 'after' state = temporality. Similarly, quantum fluctuation requires space (distance) to exist. The Casimir experiment shows that.

The Hawking-Hartle Big Bang is demonstrably myth, right there at the start.

A photon is also atemporal and yet it has a beginning and it often does end when absorbed by something.
So we can obviously have both states existing.

Photons are a particular packaging of energy.

They are not atemporal.

They are released from matter, usually by photovoltaic effect, and they will continue forever or until they hit something and the energy is absorbed or converted to another form.

Every photon was born in the Big Bang and will die by degrees in the heat death of the universe.

They are temporal and local.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

As to virtual particle pairs, we have no idea what type of substance could have birthed the universe, you are attempting to postulate something that is really beyond postulation. You are creating your own mythology, it's simply a non-issue right now, We don't know.

Ah, now you get it.

We don't know.

That means that all that stuff about a Big Bang and a singularity, which gives some people the idea that a God is not necessary to explain things.... we don't know!

It is 'made up' and doesn't even make sense with the bits we do know.

The Casimir experiment prevents certain virtual particle frequencies to be created therefore particles with those frequencies are not created in the small space between metal plates.

Yes, all quantum particles have a probability wave.

... and it does indicate an exclusion for overlap by quantum fluctuation.

... and even if we are talking about a very rare event, consider that it has occurred only once in 14.3 billion years, in all of the spatial volume of the universe?

Wouldn't that describe an incredible complexity in that initial quantum state of something? A state that exceeded the complexity of size of the universe in all dimensions, including elapsed time, and to the limits of the universe's light cone event horizon?

Given enough time quantum mechanics does not rule out the creation of a singularity.

Sure but the probability is less that one in all the potential particle locations in the universe, just a tad North of 'never, ever'.

Definitely not somewhere that any scientific theoretician should go!

Again this is all speculation but you're trying to pass it off as a proof that god must exist. It's no such thing either way.
In fact leading cosmologists don't even agree on what's what. Just watch the science convention channel on youtube where cosmologists and physicists sit down and discuss their favorite theories.
Usually hosted by Alan Alda or Neil Degrass Tyson, each scientists believes an entirely different theory.
Neil Turok, Roger Penrose, Kip Thorne, you name it, no one agrees on any one idea.

I was not trying to prove or disprove God.

I was showing the weakness of the so called 'scientific' case.

They fell, only to just to learn to get back up again?

originally posted by: chr0naut



Sure it is, you just can't face the fact that science is provably and rationally inept at resolving this.

... and the unicorn bit is a bad analogy because of the 29,000 year old (historical times) skull of one of them that roamed Siberia.

That's the thing, I am facing it, I've pointed out where the limitations of science are. Science is always evolving so models may emerge that can answer many of the cosmological questions and have ways to test the predictions.

This is why it's a non-issue, there is no definitive proof of a universal creator and science may yet be able to solve this problem without supernatural deities or even advanced races.
If it turns out the universe has a creator that's cool also, why wouldn't it be? That would be amazing.
The creator will not be in any way related to Sinbad, Superman or Jesus because those are human mythologies. The actual creator will be so much more interesting and so much less archaic middle-eastern folklore.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Actually, it is held academically (from the study of textual criticism) that only two of the other gospels could potentially have been 'copied' from the book of Mark. The gospel of John isn't synoptic.

There are also events in Mark that are unique to that Gospel but are pertinent to the Gospel message. Why didn't the other gospels at least pass comment on those events? The academic assumption has, therefore, been that there was another earlier document, called the 'Q', which the three synoptic Gospels used as source, and this 'Q' document is now lost to history. This is the most widely held current scholarly conclusion regarding Gospel provenance.

... and Paul was only one of at least 9 writers contributing to the New Testament. Paul didn't write a gospel and as far as content, only 35% of the New Testament is attributable to Paul, and it is neither the earliest, nor the latest of the contributions. Paul also didn't start Christianity, the record is in the Acts of the Apostles. He was a convert after the Crucifixion and was sent out (ordained) as "Apostle to the Gentiles" by the Christian church in Jerusalem.

Mark is taking old testament stories about Moses, Isiah and Elisha and placing Jesus as the central character according to scholarship studies. Mark is trying to create a more modern message in t Homeric style, taking ideas from Homer, this has also been confirmed by scholars.
Mark writes in a low dialect but he was obviously an educated man. "The least shall be first", it's all allegory about this idea.
It's been shown that the gospel authors had a mastery of Greek and were likely highly literate and familiar with alll of the current mythology.
The gospels have been shown to be highly mythological and written in the exact opposite style of how history was written.

Each gospel builds on the supernatural aspects.


As to the history you have things all messed up.

The first documents that mention Jesus are from Pauls letters to the Epistles around 60AD. They only refer to visions, no Earthly Jesus at all!
The first we hear about any biography (the gospels) come 1 lifetime later (40 years is a lifetime then).
Then outside sources like Josephus are either shown to be forgery or simply refering to the gospels. They do not provide outside sourcing for the life of Jesus.


So the Epistles only speak of a pre-existent celestial being and revelation.
The Gospels come one lifetime later and ALL later attestations are based only on them.
That's it.

originally posted by: chr0naut
But Harry Potter without fantastic magical elements or Star Wars without the science fiction fantastic elements are not the full deal.

The Gospel and related accounts clearly all describe supernatural elements, even those that are antagonistic to Christianity. You cannot reasonably remove the supernatural from the accounts. You can try and explain the supernatural elements but merely ignoring them is... ignorant.

Yes Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Jesus are basically all on the hero's journey. The mythologies are similar.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: chr0naut

You seem to be saying that the cargo cults were based upon misunderstanding (with which I agree) but are you now suggesting that they are supernatural?

Surely cargo cults were an entirely natural misunderstanding of technologies beyond the understanding of cultists and were of entirely natural events that were observed by 100's. Which has nothing to do with miraculous happenings.

No I'm explaining how the cargo cults and Christianity are exactly the same.

It's common for people to make this mistake (the church started this) that the Cargo cults were a result of US military men engaging with Pacific Islanders.

The cargo cults actually had savior deities already in place before they had interaction with outside cultures. The holy men in the Cargo cults had revelations of savior gods and had a scripture based around these revelations which had nothing to do with actual people visiting their islands.
It's simply a fact that you leave an archaic group of people alone for a while and some holy men start having "revelations". Then a religion is created.

originally posted by: chr0naut


I did the figures myself, with some fairly trust-able sources, so I'm pretty sure they are right. But should anyone want to check:

The Mormons kept good figures:

The growth rate of Christianity and Mormonism are about equal for the first 30 years.
We know Mormonism is false so we know this growth rate speaks nothing to the validity of the source material being true.

originally posted by: chr0naut


First you say that Jesus historicity shows that He was a man, the next you are saying that He didn't exist.


Josephus wrote about Jesus. Every copy we have of his works has exactly the same passages about Jesus. The idea that someone later added in the passages about Jesus to every single copy of his writings, especially ones we have recently discovered and were unknown at the time, is obvious nonsense.

Give it up with the extra-biblical sources, they have all been debunked. I've been over this stuff over and over for years. Christian apologists never think to do their own investigations?

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

originally posted by: chr0naut
Now, the evidence for the mythicist theory IS even more vast


No it isn't.

Not only is it much more vast it's much more probable that the stories are mythical. Scholarship just isn't ready to be assaulted by all the fundamentalist Christians who will be all butt-hurt when scholarship decides to show the truth.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No one will believe you while you treat "what if's" as fact and support your opinions with obvious untruths.

Richard Carrier has a 700 page book

Wow, that must have been such a hard read!

completely sourced and backed by his PHD


'cause a Ph.D would never make stuff up for the book sales.



that the evidence for the mythicist theory is the most likely theory.
His book just hasn't been accepted by the field yet.

Might there be a reason for that?

Of course there is a reason.
www.youtube.com...
go to 57:40 and he answers a similar question from an audience member.

I don't care if people believe "me". I'm taking in his information and listening to it being debated against other scholars to see if it stands. All 12 or 15 of his debates have been positive and combined with his reasons for the field being slow with the mythicist theory I believe he's correct.
You're worried about a PHD making stuff up and you believe an archaic mythology stolen from the Zorastrianism and Jewish mythologies?

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, you just said that Jesus Christ never existed, and all the New Testament were forgeries attributed to the wrong people. So is the Acts of The Apostles a forged forgery, perhaps, or are you implying that some of the other stuff is genuine? Seems the majority see it almost unquestionably genuine.

D.M. Murdock used to laugh about this. Someone shows a Christian updated historical information and they run to Wiki to show how it's untrue? I thought you were into science? Do some research? Acts is considered fiction.
Pauls letters are authentic in that he actually wrote them and possibly had hallucinations about a celestial Jesus.
Or he believed the gospels to be true.

originally posted by: chr0naut

To me it seems unlikely that a fictional Jesus would have fans willing to go to their deaths over. Especially those from first Century Jerusalem who would have been close to the locations and times of the events.

But sure, look at all those who put their lives on the line for Superman, Harry Potter and Batman.

We don't know the gospel authors, this is a fact.
We also don't know if those Christians who died had the opportunity to recant and save themselves or if they were condemned to death either way.
Also people have died for many religions and cults, this does nothing to show the validity of a mythology, not at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Do you have any proof that there is nothing supernatural, because evidence seems to be everywhere?

Where everywhere? Outside of the gospels there isn't any corroborating evidence at all, any of those people could have just read it in the gospel. There is no proof of Christianity outside of the gospels. This is a fact.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Carrier explains that because of political reasons it will take time for the mythicist theory to be accepted into the field.
Paranoia.

Why is it paranoia this time? Science takes time, facts have to be checked. See how bias you are, completely uninterested in any kind of scientific analysis. This is what religion does to people. Cults.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I have tended evidence to refute your claims. The rest is up to you.

All of your facts are already debunked archaic old school fundamentalist ideas that are used to keep Christians feeling happy in their ignorance.
Everything you mention has been shown to be a false belief. I don't have time to write up essays and make time stamps to videos for every point. It's up to you to take the effort to find out everything you believe about Christianity had been shown to be a false belief.
Not one belief you hold stands up to a non-fundamentalist scholar in the historicity field.

Therefore you are ignoring science, it's your choice, your right to be wrong. But acting like you come from a scientific perspective in regards to pretending mythology is real is just an act.

edit on 13-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)