Evolutionists and credentialism

[Electric Skeptic]

Please --- oh, please --- show me one "educated" person on here qualified to take on this old Fundamental Baptist in a discussing on the Creation. I'll eat him for breakfast.

Yes, we all know your high opinion of yourself - how you so easily 'pwn' anyone who disagrees with you. Suffice to say that that opinion is shared by nobody else.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, we all know your high opinion of yourself - how you so easily 'pwn' anyone who disagrees with you. Suffice to say that that opinion is shared by nobody else.

Well, now, I wouldn't go so far as to say nobody else. But certainly not very many that stick around here.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't think even staunch atheists deny the existence of Jesus --- let alone scientists. I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet someone who swears Jesus never existed.

Yes, you would be wrong. There are a number of historians who think there is not enough evidence to conclude that Jesus ever really existed.

 

[Baggins]

Yes your post was misleading. The fact that you won't let it go just proves my point about you trying to guide the argument away from it's really about. I wonder why...

Because I don't like having my views misrepresented by an hopeless little dissembler like you.

No one else was mislead by my post, either you aren't up to intellectual snuff or you are so helplessly defensive about your religious beliefs you see offense where there is none.


What this thread is really about is evolution and credentialism, you have derailed it into discussion about the historicity of Jesus which properly belongs in History or Apologetics so don't get all snotty about thread derailing.

You are a nasty piece of work and a poor advertisement for your faith, your attempt at an apology being one of the most grudging I have ever seen. I will let it go when you apologise properly or stop replying to my posts, either works for me.

 

[Baggins]

If he wasn't trying to say that Christians are stupid, comparing a Christian college to dim teachers is misleading. Why is this being brought back anyway? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

No it isn't private Christian Colleges have a well deserved reputation for teaching the sciences poorly, if at all.

The person who made the original statement, whose religion was never disclosed, made a statement that was erroneous scientifically. I doubt the statement was ever made in seriousness at all as it is a well known philosophical saw used to promote discussion.

But, taking the statement at face value I would have to conclude

1) The teacher was stupid
2) The teacher taught at a Christian College and was making an anti scientific point
3) that the teacher was both

Let's examine this for clarity, could any reasonable person read that and come to the conclusion that I think all Christians are thick?

I think they would either have to be rather stupid themselves, or be so defensive about their religion that they saw slights everywhere.

Considering we don't know the faith of the teacher involved all we can logically conclude is that I think this teacher is either stupid or has an anti-science agenda or both.

In fact conclusion 2 leaves the door open for this teacher to be clever but have nefarious anti-science motives for making the point.

The only point where religion was mentioned at all was in the prefix "Christian" to the word college, because those are the schools that I associate with an anti-science agenda and Christianity is the majority faith where this alleged event occurred.

I can't believe I am having to explain such an innocuous statement to this guy.

 

[Tomk80]

Because I don't like having my views misrepresented by an hopeless little dissembler like you.

No one else was mislead by my post, either you aren't up to intellectual snuff or you are so helplessly defensive about your religious beliefs you see offense where there is none.


What this thread is really about is evolution and credentialism, you have derailed it into discussion about the historicity of Jesus which properly belongs in History or Apologetics so don't get all snotty about thread derailing.

You are a nasty piece of work and a poor advertisement for your faith, your attempt at an apology being one of the most grudging I have ever seen. I will let it go when you apologise properly or stop replying to my posts, either works for me.

I don't know, but aren't you a little too harsh. Without wanting to play the age-card, the guy is 14 and might not be aware of the bad rep that Christian private schools have, so I can image where his confusion stems from. I know I didn't have the faintest ideas about accreditation and such when I was that age (although I have the excuse of living in the Netherlands, where these things don't come into play. You aren't allowed to run an unaccredited school here).

 

[Michael1975]

Wow, I read this entire thread. It's amazing how people would simply throw away logic in order to continue believing in something. It's amazing how all of the extra-biblical evidence were written much after the death of Jesus. How is this evidence of Jesus' existence? If a bunch of people wrote stories about a man who did things before they were even born, and those writings were discovered in the future, it should be admitted as evidence of the existence of this man as well as the magic this man performed? Absolutely ridiculous!

All I have to say was that there was an epic failure in logic. I think it's safe to agree that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Otherwise, using their logic, King Arthur really did pull that sword out of the stone because he was chosen by God to do so.

It's logical to think that he existed when most historians believe he existed and that those who don't are easily refuted anyway. Oh, and just because something is discovered after it was written does not necessarily change its credibility.

 

[Michael1975]

According to Christian beliefs, yes. This person is not providing independent corroboration of Jesus, as he is merely describing their beliefs.

In describing Christians he mentions the man they worship, who was crucified.

Could be a number of others. There were many people around the time of Jesus who claimed to be Messiahs. And there were many Jewish kings who had been assassinated (though the Jews themselves didn't speak highly of them, who is to say that others didn't think highly of them?).
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4mara95.html

Can you tell me the name of any other Jewish kings who were executed by Jews and whose teachings also live on today?

It seems clear to me that you didn't read his essay.

I did, but I haven't read all of the wikipedia one yet.

 

[Tomk80]

It's logical to think that he existed when most historians believe he existed and that those who don't are easily refuted anyway.

You keep saying that those who don't believe Jesus existed are easily refuted. Yet you fail to back that up entirely. I don't think you know what "easily refuted" actually means.

Oh, and just because something is discovered after it was written does not necessarily change its credibility.

It does if it concerns the existence of a person and what that person did. If there are no contemporary accounts of someone, whether he existed becomes at the least doubtful. Especially if the sources are then entirely based on hearsay, which holds for all the non-biblical sources you pointed to.

 

[Baggins]

I don't know, but aren't you a little too harsh. Without wanting to play the age-card, the guy is 14 and might not be aware of the bad rep that Christian private schools have, so I can image where his confusion stems from. I know I didn't have the faintest ideas about accreditation and such when I was that age (although I have the excuse of living in the Netherlands, where these things don't come into play. You aren't allowed to run an unaccredited school here).

I didn't realise he was so young, how do you tell now all the signature line info has gone?

Explains a lot I was a bit of a dick who couldn't admit I ever got anything wrong when I was that age as well.

 

[Michael1975]

No it isn't private Christian Colleges have a well deserved reputation for teaching the sciences poorly, if at all.

Interesting, another of you're posts says otherwise. In it you say nothing about teaching science poorly. You was clearly talking about them being stupid.

I implied that the teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid, and he/she is unless she was just stating that to start a discussion, which is a distinct possibility, because, let's face it, you would have to be pretty dumb to believe that he laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

Not about teaching science poorly. Is about them being dumb.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post when the first sentence is a lie. And you are still not even smart enough to see that you are proving my point about steering the conversation away again and again and again.....

 

[Michael1975]

I don't know, but aren't you a little too harsh. Without wanting to play the age-card, the guy is 14 and might not be aware of the bad rep that Christian private schools have, so I can image where his confusion stems from. I know I didn't have the faintest ideas about accreditation and such when I was that age (although I have the excuse of living in the Netherlands, where these things don't come into play. You aren't allowed to run an unaccredited school here).

I know he's probably your friend, but he certainly has some issues. And no, I had no idea about that private school stuff because I live in the UK, but that is not really relevent.

 

[Michael1975]

You keep saying that those who don't believe Jesus existed are easily refuted. Yet you fail to back that up entirely. I don't think you know what "easily refuted" actually means.

Actually, I did and do.

It does if it concerns the existence of a person and what that person did. If there are no contemporary accounts of someone, whether he existed becomes at the least doubtful. Especially if the sources are then entirely based on hearsay, which holds for all the non-biblical sources you pointed to.

Did you even read it?

 

[Michael1975]

Explains a lot I was a bit of a dick who couldn't admit I ever got anything wrong when I was that age as well.

Not much has changed then? :oOOOooooo

 

[Tomk80]

In describing Christians he mentions the man they worship, who was crucified.

Which is an identification that wholly depends on the gospels and is not independant from them. Hence, historically completely useless.

Can you tell me the name of any other Jewish kings who were executed by Jews and whose teachings also live on today?

His teaching need not live on today, that does not necessarily follow from the quote. The only thing that was needed for this "Jewish king" was that rumours of a messianic figure would have reached Bar-Serapion. A figure proposed by Skeptical Review is the Essene "teacher of righteousness". If you want to claim the person Bar-Serapion refers to is Jesus, you really need more than the few vague lines that he mentions. Especially given that the letter contains quite a few historical errors.

I did, but I haven't read all of the wikipedia one yet.

 

[Baggins]

Interesting, another of you're posts says otherwise. In it you say nothing about teaching science poorly. You was clearly talking about them being stupid.

If I said otherwise in another post, why don't you quote it or link to it, this is just more dissembling.

If you were a frequent poster on here you would know what Christian Colleges means in terms of a science debate.

As you appear to be a 14 year old Briton you are ignorant of that, but instead of finding out what I am on about you immediately accuse me of believing that all Christians are stupid.

You would be as well to know what you are talking about before leaping on someone

Not about teaching science poorly. Is about them being dumb.

No it isn't, you appear to believe that you know what I am talking about better than I do, another trait that brings back memories of being 14.

I suggest you read up on Christian Colleges in the USA, then you might have some idea of what I was alluding to do.

You just make yourself look ridiculous if you attempt to defend your faith against an attack that only you saw.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post when the first sentence is a lie. And you are still not even smart enough to see that you are proving my point about steering the conversation away again and again and again.....

I think we will leave that for others to judge. I am not embarrassed about anything I've written and I stand by it all, I am, however, embarrassed by the slip in standards that appear to happened in British education since I was 14

 

[Baggins]

I know he's probably your friend, but he certainly has some issues. And no, I had no idea about that private school stuff because I live in the UK, but that is not really relevent.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out a bit about it before flinging around accusations?

The majority of people on this site are American, and they know the reputation Christian Colleges have for teaching science and logical thought, there are very few similar organisations in the UK, I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts before sticking your feet in your gob.

 

[Baggins]

Not much has changed then? :oOOOooooo

Not much, but my reading comprehension certainly seems to have improved in comparison.

 

[Michael1975]

Which is an identification that wholly depends on the gospels and is not independant from them. Hence, historically completely useless.

Depending on the gospels does not make it historically completely useless.

His teaching need not live on today, that does not necessarily follow from the quote. The only thing that was needed for this "Jewish king" was that rumours of a messianic figure would have reached Bar-Serapion. A figure proposed by Skeptical Review is the Essene "teacher of righteousness". If you want to claim the person Bar-Serapion refers to is Jesus, you really need more than the few vague lines that he mentions. Especially given that the letter contains quite a few historical errors.

Yes, it does follow from the quote. "Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
And you still haven't named any Jewish kings who were executed by Jews and whose teachings also live on today.

 

[Michael1975]

If I said otherwise in another post, why don't you quote it or link to it, this is just more dissembling.

I did, but just for you I'll do so again. It is post 196.

No it isn't, you appear to believe that you know what I am talking about better than I do, another trait that brings back memories of being 14.

I suggest you read up on Christian Colleges in the USA, then you might have some idea of what I was alluding to do.

You just make yourself look ridiculous if you attempt to defend your faith against an attack that only you saw.

Again, post 196.

I think we will leave that for others to judge. I am not embarrassed about anything I've written and I stand by it all, I am, however, embarrassed by the slip in standards that appear to happened in British education since I was 14

Huh? Oh I get it!!! Yeah, you're right. It's all my school's fault.