:
|
Thing is that I'm not out to convince anyone. I just question things people bring up and leave it up to them to figure out an answer. Many a religious debate I've participated in, regardless of method or behavior, has ended in 'well you can't prove he doesn't exist' or 'it's a belief, it works for me and that's all that matters' or even 'you are right about everything, god did all that'. Which is the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and yelling because they ran out of counter arguments. Which brings me back to the 2 year old.
|
*shrug*
Perhaps your approach in debating religious people is different in real life than online, but every time I've seen you attempt it here you end up being super-agressive and don't/can't understand where they're coming from. And then the other person just shuts off and stops listening. It's not a winning strategy.
:
|
I just read (sceptically) the historicity of Jesus article on Wikipedia and the section, 'Accepted Historic Facts' are not fucking accepted by me. A lot of the information is referenced from James Dunn, a religious theologian with a bias to his beliefs. Supposedly it is accepted that Jesus existed, was baptised by John and was crucified but there are not first hand accounts to back these claims up in the references.
|
The way I read that article was 'If anything is true, it's these things.' I think even the scholars who expressed that view would agree that it's an imperfect system.
:
|
There's no mention of Herod's massacre of the first born for instance.
|
There's a reason for that, you know...