Asking for Advice about a Friend in Need

[4non]

This response is gonna be pretty rushed so don't expect extremely formal responses.
And how do you explain those alien abduction stories and the errie accuracy?!?!?1

oh wait

using your logic you can't

SO ALIENS MUST BE REAL!!

Once again using your logic you have to believe every single supernatural event occurred, bs or not. Both have 0 empirical evidence and have no known mechanism by which they could occur. Actually... the aliens one makes a bit more sense because there is more reason to believe that it's possible.


Do you know even know what evidence is? Do you even know what a coincidence is?
If it's not reproducible you should conclude that it is a coincidence.


Yup all of the Roman officials that recorded Jesus' miracles.
Oh wait
THERE ARE NONE LOL

There are only a few who even recorded his existence, and they weren't eyewitnesses and are writing years after the fact.

Before you even try this let me debunk the points you are about to make

Tactitus
""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

First off, your fellow Christians tampered with this document, they changed "Chrestus to Christus".
Source: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:288507/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Secondly, Tactitus was not an eyewitness, but is merely compiling things in 68 AD, 30 years after the crucifixion. The story would already be in circulation because it's only 2 years before the first gospel was written. It's simply impossible if Tactitus is referring to Jesus or one of the many "messiahs" around that time/geographical area. Remember that Christ is a title, not a name.

Not even going to start on the other people, go ahead try to defend yourself with other "secular" sources because they're basically already debunked.

Here's a list of people who claimed to be the messiah/Christ in the first century.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
Source: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

There are many people who should have recorded Jesus' miracles/existence but didn't. I'm not even going to give you a list right now because I don't want to go through the trouble, ask and I will supply.


You literally know NOTHING about how science works.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk...d-arguments/science-has-been-wrong-before.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before


orly?

Yes I know it's also a historical document, but magical elements that are incorporated into it do not have evidence.


> Uses objective method
> Claims bias
Please explain to me how the Historical Method is flawed.

Skip to 6:00 and watch to the end

The main argument is... why is god necessary if natural processes can be explained without God's existence.

You said that "God could create a new planet by causing (through natural means like long-awaited meteor collisions) massive landmasses to split off of dozens of other planets at just the right angles". Natural processes can explain that, god is not needed.



Resorting to faith is fallacious because it can be used to justify almost anything.


Give me a source


I was considering not showing that second video because I do too agree it's pretty erroneous in a few of it's points. However you can't argue that many of the gospels are completely contradictory in key aspects.

Mooclan, seeing as it's christmas, why not try defending the existence of Santa Claus? Because it's just as absurd and a little more festive.

SAVAGES

 

[SolarBears]

This response is gonna be pretty rushed so don't expect extremely formal responses.
And how do you explain those alien abduction stories and the errie accuracy?!?!?1

oh wait

using your logic you can't

SO ALIENS MUST BE REAL!!

Once again using your logic you have to believe every single supernatural event occurred, bs or not. Both have 0 empirical evidence and have no known mechanism by which they could occur. Actually... the aliens one makes a bit more sense because there is more reason to believe that it's possible.


Do you know even know what evidence is? Do you even know what a coincidence is?
If it's not reproducible you should conclude that it is a coincidence.


Yup all of the Roman officials that recorded Jesus' miracles.
Oh wait
THERE ARE NONE LOL

There are only a few who even recorded his existence, and they weren't eyewitnesses and are writing years after the fact.

Before you even try this let me debunk the points you are about to make

Tactitus
""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

First off, your fellow Christians tampered with this document, they changed "Chrestus to Christus".
Source: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:288507/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Secondly, Tactitus was not an eyewitness, but is merely compiling things in 68 AD, 30 years after the crucifixion. The story would already be in circulation because it's only 2 years before the first gospel was written. It's simply impossible if Tactitus is referring to Jesus or one of the many "messiahs" around that time/geographical area. Remember that Christ is a title, not a name.

Not even going to start on the other people, go ahead try to defend yourself with other "secular" sources because they're basically already debunked.

Here's a list of people who claimed to be the messiah/Christ in the first century.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
Source: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

There are many people who should have recorded Jesus' miracles/existence but didn't. I'm not even going to give you a list right now because I don't want to go through the trouble, ask and I will supply.


You literally know NOTHING about how science works.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk...d-arguments/science-has-been-wrong-before.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before


orly?

Yes I know it's also a historical document, but magical elements that are incorporated into it do not have evidence.


> Uses objective method
> Claims bias
Please explain to me how the Historical Method is flawed.

Skip to 6:00 and watch to the end

The main argument is... why is god necessary if natural processes can be explained without God's existence.

You said that "God could create a new planet by causing (through natural means like long-awaited meteor collisions) massive landmasses to split off of dozens of other planets at just the right angles". Natural processes can explain that, god is not needed.



Resorting to faith is fallacious because it can be used to justify almost anything.


Give me a source


I was considering not showing that second video because I do too agree it's pretty erroneous in a few of it's points. However you can't argue that many of the gospels are completely contradictory in key aspects.

TL;DR (nobody cares lmao)

 

[4non]

TL;DR (nobody cares lmao)

savage v2

 

[ALL1DO1SW1N]

This response is gonna be pretty rushed so don't expect extremely formal responses.
And how do you explain those alien abduction stories and the errie accuracy?!?!?1

oh wait

using your logic you can't

SO ALIENS MUST BE REAL!!

Once again using your logic you have to believe every single supernatural event occurred, bs or not. Both have 0 empirical evidence and have no known mechanism by which they could occur. Actually... the aliens one makes a bit more sense because there is more reason to believe that it's possible.


Do you know even know what evidence is? Do you even know what a coincidence is?
If it's not reproducible you should conclude that it is a coincidence.


Yup all of the Roman officials that recorded Jesus' miracles.
Oh wait
THERE ARE NONE LOL

There are only a few who even recorded his existence, and they weren't eyewitnesses and are writing years after the fact.

Before you even try this let me debunk the points you are about to make

Tactitus
""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

First off, your fellow Christians tampered with this document, they changed "Chrestus to Christus".
Source: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:288507/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Secondly, Tactitus was not an eyewitness, but is merely compiling things in 68 AD, 30 years after the crucifixion. The story would already be in circulation because it's only 2 years before the first gospel was written. It's simply impossible if Tactitus is referring to Jesus or one of the many "messiahs" around that time/geographical area. Remember that Christ is a title, not a name.

Not even going to start on the other people, go ahead try to defend yourself with other "secular" sources because they're basically already debunked.

Here's a list of people who claimed to be the messiah/Christ in the first century.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
Source: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

There are many people who should have recorded Jesus' miracles/existence but didn't. I'm not even going to give you a list right now because I don't want to go through the trouble, ask and I will supply.


You literally know NOTHING about how science works.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk...d-arguments/science-has-been-wrong-before.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before


orly?

Yes I know it's also a historical document, but magical elements that are incorporated into it do not have evidence.


> Uses objective method
> Claims bias
Please explain to me how the Historical Method is flawed.

Skip to 6:00 and watch to the end

The main argument is... why is god necessary if natural processes can be explained without God's existence.

You said that "God could create a new planet by causing (through natural means like long-awaited meteor collisions) massive landmasses to split off of dozens of other planets at just the right angles". Natural processes can explain that, god is not needed.



Resorting to faith is fallacious because it can be used to justify almost anything.


Give me a source


I was considering not showing that second video because I do too agree it's pretty erroneous in a few of it's points. However you can't argue that many of the gospels are completely contradictory in key aspects.

"Not gong to rant at Mooclan because I don't want this to turn to flame."

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[4non]

"Not gong to rant at mooclan because I don't want this to turn to flame."

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

savage v3

 

[Mooclan]

Mooclan, seeing as it's christmas, why not try defending the existence of Santa Claus? Because it's just as absurd and a little more festive.

This isn't even remotely on the thread topic. Mud-slinging and scathing remarks won't get you anywhere. If you're going to try and offend me, at least do it properly.

This response is gonna be pretty rushed so don't expect extremely formal responses.

No worries, I know how that feels. It's all cool.

And how do you explain those alien abduction stories and the errie accuracy?!?!?1

oh wait

using your logic you can't

SO ALIENS MUST BE REAL!!

Once again using your logic you have to believe every single supernatural event occurred, bs or not. Both have 0 empirical evidence and have no known mechanism by which they could occur. Actually... the aliens one makes a bit more sense because there is more o

No, my logic does not imply that I would have to believe every single supernatural event that has ever been rumored to occur.

The key element here is that what happened was a prediction where the odds were so insanely slim, and it happened down to the T.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.
By that logic, how are you trying to invalidate the observations of over a dozen people? I'm not trying to spread the news of my mom's prediction to gain attention, like many who tell of alien stories. I'm using it as a perspective-basis that, the way I see it, is impossible to deny if you take all the factors and events into consideration.

And if it's repeat occurrences that you're looking for, then how about the other aforementioned predictions and prayers that have all come true?

Yup all of the Roman officials that recorded Jesus' miracles.
Oh wait
THERE ARE NONE LOL

I highly doubt you've searched all of the related historical documents, even if it does seem like you're pulling up some of the most obscure pages and articles to be found on the entirety of the World Wide Web.

Tactitus
""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

First off, your fellow Christians tampered with this document, they changed "Chrestus to Christus".
Source: http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:288507/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Secondly, Tactitus was not an eyewitness, but is merely compiling things in 68 AD, 30 years after the crucifixion. The story would already be in circulation because it's only 2 years before the first gospel was written. It's simply impossible if Tactitus is referring to Jesus or one of the many "messiahs" around that time/geographical area. Remember that Christ is a title, not a name.

Not even going to start on the other people, go ahead try to defend yourself with other "secular" sources because they're basically already debunked.

Actually, the exact excerpt that you quoted can be used to determine that this "Tactitus" fellow was referring to Jesus in particular.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Ta-da!
Pontius Pilatus, more commonly known as Pontius Pilate, sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion, "the extreme penalty," and he was a procurator/prefect for only ten years.

Here's a list of people who claimed to be the messiah/Christ in the first century.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
Source: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

Within your list of people who claimed to be the Messiah, you have only three people who are listed within Pilate's time period.
John the Baptist, as you have incorrectly stated, did not claim to be the Messiah - rather, some of his followers wondered if he was, but John the Baptist was actually the nephew of Mary, Jesus' mother. John preached that he was making the path for the coming Messiah, and when John baptized Jesus, John stated that he was not worthy even to wash Jesus' feet, as Jesus was the true savior.
The Samaritan prophet, on the other hand, is disproved by your own source.
"The Samaritan prophet may be called a Messiah, because he announced the restoration of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a Messiah in its original sense, because that is a Jewish concept. The Samaritan equivalent is the 'like Moses' announced in Deuteronomy 18.15-18. "
Plus, there's a whole bucket-load of other reasons why he can't possibly have been the right guy.

There are many people who should have recorded Jesus' miracles/existence but didn't. I'm not even going to give you a list right now because I don't want to go through the trouble, ask and I will supply.

I won't bother asking - you use a lot of sources, but they're often poorly used and hardly explained at all. It might not be intentional, but it seems like what you're doing is using what I would describe as an informational overload - you're dumping a massive amount of sources and websites, knowing that I'll either be confused or too overwhelmed by the sheer number to properly analyze them all.

You literally know NOTHING about how science works.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk...d-arguments/science-has-been-wrong-before.php
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

Calling me stupid in a roundabout manner isn't going to achieve anything in your favor. The way that you did it only serves to indicate your arrogance and sense of undue superiority.
When you can consistently school me as well as Col_StaR was able to, and even he didn't seem to have an easy job, then and only then will I allow rude remarks to pass off as a joke, which this clearly wasn't.

It would appear that you've misinterpreted my point - it was a reminder that I made to bring to mind the possibility of errors and mistakes in "science" as well as human memory.
I may have done a poor job of explaining that, though - pardon my oversight.

orly?

-video-

You really don't know enough about Christianity and the Bible to thoroughly argue against it.
Six days? Do you know how many times even middle school children are told that it's not literal?
In the first 50 seconds of the video, the fellow in the low-res video was making incorrect statements left and right.

• The creation story says "six days", but does not mean 1/365th of the Earth's orbit around the sun/six 24-hour periods, where each hour is 60 minutes and each minute is 60 seconds. Some denominations of Christianity will say otherwise, but those are often denominations who are more easily crushed. "Six days" refers more to the different cycles of activity that God went through - remember, if we're taking this story to be interpreted as true (within the situation), then the sun and moon didn't yet exist to be orbited around.
• The flood does not claim to explain all of the geology of the world - where'd he get that from?
• The other guy after the low-res video is treating evolution as a law, not a theory - or in the last few months since I was in biology, did they change it into a law?

Do I even need to keep going?

THIS is what I'm talking about when I said:

I'm 1:20 into the first video, and I'm already cringing at the bias that the video has. It's making incredibly narrow-minded and flat-out incorrect statements, and continuing to make other assumptions and claims based off of their previous.. pardon my usage of the word.. ignorant statements.
This is an issue that a lot of videos of this type have - if they make it sound professional and use big words, they make it sound convincing and truthful, even if that's not the case.

They're also giving answers as if there were no room for translation and multiple interpretations, which there are.

> Uses objective method
> Claims bias
Please explain to me how the Historical Method is flawed.

refer to the above.
I'm not saying the Historical Method is flawed, I'm saying that in the sources that I reviewed and analyzed, their alleged usage of the Historical Method (or other Methods) are flawed.

Skip to 6:00 and watch to the end

The main argument is... why is god necessary if natural processes can be explained without God's existence.

That's actually a pretty well-narrated video. It's much more clear than the other sources that you used.

However, just because something can be explained through a simpler process, doesn't make it the correct method 100% of the time.
Occam's Razor, the way I understand it, is an explanation of the way that our minds tend to work, and very little else.

Resorting to faith is fallacious because it can be used to justify almost anything.

That is, if the faith is without reasonable basis. The difference here is that Christianity and faith in the divine being that we refer to as "God" does have a reasonable basis, which has previously been explained so many times that I feel it's becoming arbitrary to go much further.

Give me a source

I'm not trying to persuade you to become a Christian - that's not my objective here. If it was, I'd spend the time and put forth the effort to track down the guy and ask him for the source, sure.

What I am trying to accomplish, although I keep being side-tracked by small details, is to give a decent perspective of the Christian faith for Bito and his friend. It really seems like you're taking it a tad too personally, judging by the harsh undertones in some of your writing.
But then again, that's happened to me as well at times - I can't really criticize you too much for that, since I know what it's like to have that happen as well.

"Not gong to rant at Mooclan because I don't want this to turn to flame."

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

he brought this upon himself


and really, it's a discussion, not flame until people make comments like this

Mooclan, seeing as it's christmas, why not try defending the existence of Santa Claus? Because it's just as absurd and a little more festive.

 

[Tenebrous]

This isn't even remotely on the thread topic. Mud-slinging and scathing remarks won't get you anywhere. If you're going to try and offend me, at least do it properly.


No worries, I know how that feels. It's all cool.



No, my logic does not imply that I would have to believe every single supernatural event that has ever been rumored to occur.

The key element here is that what happened was a prediction where the odds were so insanely slim, and it happened down to the T.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.
By that logic, how are you trying to invalidate the observations of over a dozen people? I'm not trying to spread the news of my mom's prediction to gain attention, like many who tell of alien stories. I'm using it as a perspective-basis that, the way I see it, is impossible to deny if you take all the factors and events into consideration.

And if it's repeat occurrences that you're looking for, then how about the other aforementioned predictions and prayers that have all come true?


I highly doubt you've searched all of the related historical documents, even if it does seem like you're pulling up some of the most obscure pages and articles to be found on the entirety of the World Wide Web.


Actually, the exact excerpt that you quoted can be used to determine that this "Tactitus" fellow was referring to Jesus in particular.

Ta-da!
Pontius Pilatus, more commonly known as Pontius Pilate, sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion, "the extreme penalty," and he was a procurator/prefect for only ten years.

Within your list of people who claimed to be the Messiah, you have only three people who are listed within Pilate's time period.
John the Baptist, as you have incorrectly stated, did not claim to be the Messiah - rather, some of his followers wondered if he was, but John the Baptist was actually the nephew of Mary, Jesus' mother. John preached that he was making the path for the coming Messiah, and when John baptized Jesus, John stated that he was not worthy even to wash Jesus' feet, as Jesus was the true savior.
The Samaritan prophet, on the other hand, is disproved by your own source.
"The Samaritan prophet may be called a Messiah, because he announced the restoration of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a Messiah in its original sense, because that is a Jewish concept. The Samaritan equivalent is the 'like Moses' announced in Deuteronomy 18.15-18. "
Plus, there's a whole bucket-load of other reasons why he can't possibly have been the right guy.


I won't bother asking - you use a lot of sources, but they're often poorly used and hardly explained at all. It might not be intentional, but it seems like what you're doing is using what I would describe as an informational overload - you're dumping a massive amount of sources and websites, knowing that I'll either be confused or too overwhelmed by the sheer number to properly analyze them all.


Calling me stupid in a roundabout manner isn't going to achieve anything in your favor. The way that you did it only serves to indicate your arrogance and sense of undue superiority.
When you can consistently school me as well as Col_StaR was able to, and even he didn't seem to have an easy job, then and only then will I allow rude remarks to pass off as a joke, which this clearly wasn't.

It would appear that you've misinterpreted my point - it was a reminder that I made to bring to mind the possibility of errors and mistakes in "science" as well as human memory.
I may have done a poor job of explaining that, though - pardon my oversight.


You really don't know enough about Christianity and the Bible to thoroughly argue against it.
Six days? Do you know how many times even middle school children are told that it's not literal?
In the first 50 seconds of the video, the fellow in the low-res video was making incorrect statements left and right.

• The creation story says "six days", but does not mean 1/365th of the Earth's orbit around the sun/six 24-hour periods, where each hour is 60 minutes and each minute is 60 seconds. Some denominations of Christianity will say otherwise, but those are often denominations who are more easily crushed. "Six days" refers more to the different cycles of activity that God went through - remember, if we're taking this story to be interpreted as true (within the situation), then the sun and moon didn't yet exist to be orbited around.
• The flood does not claim to explain all of the geology of the world - where'd he get that from?
• The other guy after the low-res video is treating evolution as a law, not a theory - or in the last few months since I was in biology, did they change it into a law?

Do I even need to keep going?

THIS is what I'm talking about when I said:




refer to the above.
I'm not saying the Historical Method is flawed, I'm saying that in the sources that I reviewed and analyzed, their alleged usage of the Historical Method (or other Methods) are flawed.


That's actually a pretty well-narrated video. It's much more clear than the other sources that you used.

However, just because something can be explained through a simpler process, doesn't make it the correct method 100% of the time.
Occam's Razor, the way I understand it, is an explanation of the way that our minds tend to work, and very little else.


That is, if the faith is without reasonable basis. The difference here is that Christianity and faith in the divine being that we refer to as "God" does have a reasonable basis, which has previously been explained so many times that I feel it's becoming arbitrary to go much further.


I'm not trying to persuade you to become a Christian - that's not my objective here. If it was, I'd spend the time and put forth the effort to track down the guy and ask him for the source, sure.

What I am trying to accomplish, although I keep being side-tracked by small details, is to give a decent perspective of the Christian faith for Bito and his friend. It really seems like you're taking it a tad too personally, judging by the harsh undertones in some of your writing.
But then again, that's happened to me as well at times - I can't really criticize you too much for that, since I know what it's like to have that happen as well.

he brought this upon himself


and really, it's a discussion, not flame until people make comments like this

Thank you for helping me understand these concepts better as I would like to expand my knowledge of this topic.

All I have to say is.
1. You haven't debunked this video yet.

Yes I understand about Tactitus but all that says is that there's some guy named Jesus who may or may not be real and tells us literally nothing about his life.

2. 0 evidence is 0 evidence.
Aliens have 0 evidence; Your claim has 0 evidence. Therefore they should be treated equally and if you accept one, you should accept the other. There is no reasonable basis on which to accept the god hypothesis.

3. Even if it's not literal, it's still completely wrong and out of order. (Genesis)

 

[Mooclan]

Thank you for helping me understand these concepts better as I would like to expand my knowledge of this topic.

All I have to say is.
1. You haven't debunked this video yet.

Yes I understand about Tactitus but all that says is that there's some guy named Jesus who may or may not be real and tells us literally nothing about his life.

2. 0 evidence is 0 evidence.
Aliens have 0 evidence; Your claim has 0 evidence. Therefore they should be treated equally and if you accept one, you should accept the other. There is no reasonable basis on which to accept the god hypothesis.

3. Even if it's not literal, it's still completely wrong and out of order. (Genesis)

i don't know if i have the enthusiasm to write a full post on that stuff

 

[Tenebrous]

i don't know if i have the enthusiasm to write a full post on that stuff

same lol, I'm getting quite bored as I feel like it's like playing a game of baseball against someone who thinks it's basketball

 

[Mooclan]

same lol, I'm getting quite bored as I feel like it's like playing a game of baseball against someone who thinks it's basketball

gee, thanks, you're so polite

well, hopefully we were at least able to offer Bito some of what he was looking for

 

[Tenebrous]

gee, thanks, you're so polite

well, hopefully we were at least able to offer Bito some of what he was looking for

Wait what... I didn't mean for that to be an insult..

 

[PlazaG]

I would say the age depends a lot here.. To change religion so early in your life, is a big deal, and you don't wanna make your life more difficult than it already is with School and etc.