Australian Politics Forum - How gullible are some people?

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: How gullible are some people? Reply #510 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:32am .
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #511 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:12pm

Taipan wrote on Apr 11^th, 2014 at 11:50pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 6:37pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 6:37am:

Soren wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 12:00am:

If you want to call ALL that into doubt, go ahead. It's you versus 2000 years of thinking, reading, writing and discussion.

Tell 'em, dickeaddle, where they ALL went wrong.

"Drink more piss... A million drunks can't be wrong" !

If only all religions were like Buddhism! Especially Christianity. And most especially Catholicism.

Me, i wish more Jews would read [their] Torah.

Deuteronomy 1:8
Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

But the Jews refuse to go in and possess the land, even to this day.

Jews read the Talmud not the Torah and when they say they read the Torah they actually mean the Talmud.

And Jews are not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They're descended from Jacobs brother Esau(Edom).

It says in the Jewish Encyclopaedia that "World Jewry is Edom."

why do you make up stuff like this?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #512 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. SOB has of course made a few incomprehensible posts as well.

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an element - how ever infinitesimally small - that brings doubt to any thing. But that is not how we operate. We live by STANDARDS of proof and 'absolute' is not one of them. The courts use 'beyond reasonable doubt' and scientific theory is not absolutely proven but rather proven beyond any REASONABLE standard.

This debate regarding Jesus' existence has to be discussed alongside a consistent standard of historical evidence - the same standard as applied to any other figure of history. By any consistent standard, the evidence of Jesus' existent is irrefutable and while many have tried, all have failed.

There is no reason or rational, consistent method by which you would determine that Jesus did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and consistent. No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #513 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:02pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. SOB has of course made a few incomprehensible posts as well.

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an element - how ever infinitesimally small - that brings doubt to any thing. But that is not how we operate. We live by STANDARDS of proof and 'absolute' is not one of them. The courts use 'beyond reasonable doubt' and scientific theory is not absolutely proven but rather proven beyond any REASONABLE standard.

This debate regarding Jesus' existence has to be discussed alongside a consistent standard of historical evidence - the same standard as applied to any other figure of history. By any consistent standard, the evidence of Jesus' existent is irrefutable and while many have tried, all have failed.

There is no reason or rational, consistent method by which you would determine that Jesus did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and consistent. No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

Do you think King Arthur's historicity is also beyond doubt?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74452
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #514 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:33pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary

pray tell?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an elemen

good, then you won't be defending a comment like 'His existence is beyond doubt'

see, we agree, not sure what you think was a stupid argument .... apart from that of the town idiot who jumped into it on page 35 and made a stupid comment .... but alas, we are used to that from him Grin

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #515 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:33pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. SOB has of course made a few incomprehensible posts as well.

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an element - how ever infinitesimally small - that brings doubt to any thing. But that is not how we operate. We live by STANDARDS of proof and 'absolute' is not one of them. The courts use 'beyond reasonable doubt' and scientific theory is not absolutely proven but rather proven beyond any REASONABLE standard.

This debate regarding Jesus' existence has to be discussed alongside a consistent standard of historical evidence - the same standard as applied to any other figure of history. By any consistent standard, the evidence of Jesus' existent is irrefutable and while many have tried, all have failed.

There is no reason or rational, consistent method by which you would determine that Jesus did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and consistent. No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

Do you think King Arthur's historicity is also beyond doubt?

the evidence is pretty slim. But the point was about CONSISTENT TREATMENT. So I ask you the same. Do you think the existence of Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74452
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #516 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:36pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

so by the fact that the story exists it must be true? Grin

I guess little red riding hood really did get eaten by the wolf only to be cut out later by a woodsman.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

the fact that there exists so much doubt alone shows just how wrong that comment is.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #517 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:46pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

so by the fact that the story exists it must be true? Grin

I guess little red riding hood really did get eaten by the wolf only to be cut out later by a woodsman.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

the fact that there exists so much doubt alone shows just how wrong that comment is.

'INTELLIGENT doubt' is very different to uninformed and ignorant doubt. Yours is the latter. You have an opinion at direct odds with historians and yet declare 'there is lots of doubt'.

There are people that disbelieve the moon landings and people who believe in the Galactic Federation. Ultimately though you have to provide at least SOME evidence for your position and you have provided nothing more than your opinion - an ignorant uninformed one at that.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74452
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #518 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:52pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

so by the fact that the story exists it must be true? Grin

I guess little red riding hood really did get eaten by the wolf only to be cut out later by a woodsman.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

the fact that there exists so much doubt alone shows just how wrong that comment is.

'INTELLIGENT doubt' is very different to uninformed and ignorant doubt. Yours is the latter. You have an opinion at direct odds with historians and yet declare 'there is lots of doubt'.

There are people that disbelieve the moon landings and people who believe in the Galactic Federation. Ultimately though you have to provide at least SOME evidence for your position and you have provided nothing more than your opinion - an ignorant uninformed one at that.

oh, so now you want to distinguish between what you deem intelligent doubt and what you deem ignorant doubt?

If thats the best you've got you've got nothing. You want me to provide evidence that something from 2000 yrs ago doesn't exist ... you provide evidence that a hodddafodda doesn't exist? it should be easy since its much more recent so much more evidence available to you! Cheesy

idiot. The whole concept of religion depends on one thing and one thing only ... faith. It cannot be proven so stop trying to talk yourself up.

Unless of course you would care to take up where the others left of and prove it?

edit: I am of course referring to christian religions

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:59pm by John Smith »

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #519 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:55pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. SOB has of course made a few incomprehensible posts as well.

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an element - how ever infinitesimally small - that brings doubt to any thing. But that is not how we operate. We live by STANDARDS of proof and 'absolute' is not one of them. The courts use 'beyond reasonable doubt' and scientific theory is not absolutely proven but rather proven beyond any REASONABLE standard.

This debate regarding Jesus' existence has to be discussed alongside a consistent standard of historical evidence - the same standard as applied to any other figure of history. By any consistent standard, the evidence of Jesus' existent is irrefutable and while many have tried, all have failed.

There is no reason or rational, consistent method by which you would determine that Jesus did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and consistent. No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

Do you think King Arthur's historicity is also beyond doubt?

the evidence is pretty slim. But the point was about CONSISTENT TREATMENT. So I ask you the same. Do you think the existence of Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt?

Well. if on a scale of 1 to 10, the evidence for, say, Einstein's existence is 10 (or 9.99999 if you like), then I'd say that the evidence of existence for :

Plato = 8
Socrates = 7
Jesus = 5
King Arthur = 0.05
Robin Hood = 0.05

Why do you accept that the evidence for King Arthur is slim?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #520 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:04pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. SOB has of course made a few incomprehensible posts as well.

Virtually EVERYTHING is essentially unprovable and you can easily make a case that introduces an element - how ever infinitesimally small - that brings doubt to any thing. But that is not how we operate. We live by STANDARDS of proof and 'absolute' is not one of them. The courts use 'beyond reasonable doubt' and scientific theory is not absolutely proven but rather proven beyond any REASONABLE standard.

This debate regarding Jesus' existence has to be discussed alongside a consistent standard of historical evidence - the same standard as applied to any other figure of history. By any consistent standard, the evidence of Jesus' existent is irrefutable and while many have tried, all have failed.

There is no reason or rational, consistent method by which you would determine that Jesus did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and consistent. No other conclusion is possible unless you want to be pedantic, anal or Greggary.

There is no reasonable doubt at all.

Do you think King Arthur's historicity is also beyond doubt?

the evidence is pretty slim. But the point was about CONSISTENT TREATMENT. So I ask you the same. Do you think the existence of Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt?

Well. if on a scale of 1 to 10, the evidence for, say, Einstein's existence is 10 (or 9.99999 if you like), then I'd say that the evidence of existence for :

Plato = 8
Socrates = 7
Jesus = 5
King Arthur = 0.05
Robin Hood = 0.05

Why do you accept that the evidence for King Arthur is slim?

your scale is your opinion and yours alone. in terms of original manuscripts there are 1000s of gospels in original form while there are literally only a handful of the others.

Is this debate really going to be so lame and so fact-free that you are going to submit a premiership table of your own opinion as something of worth?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #521 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:15pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

your scale is your opinion and yours alone. in terms of original manuscripts there are 1000s of gospels in original form while there are literally only a handful of the others.

Is this debate really going to be so lame and so fact-free that you are going to submit a premiership table of your own opinion as something of worth?

I think most of it has been covered over the pages few dozen pages.

Just for the record (as I have previously said) I believe that Jesus' historicity is irrelevant as opposed to the tradition of his existence, which is, of course, beyond reasonable doubt.

His actual historicity is plagued with problems, not the least being that his greatest evangeliser, Paul, says almost nothing of his existence... Not his birth and very, very few details about his life. He, in fact, admits he didn't even know him. The gospel stories were written decades after Jesus' supposed death and, given the gross errors and contradictions in their detail, don't help much either. Josephus, most historians agree, is littered with later interpolations, so is unreliable (although he at least may be reporting that according to the nascent tradition, Jesus existed... But, who knows!).

There is, in the end, weak evidence that Jesus existed... But that is not to say there is no evidence, but there's certainly not strong evidence in the way there is for, say, Plato and Socrates.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #522 - Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Do you think King Arthur's historicity is also beyond doubt?

the evidence is pretty slim. But the point was about CONSISTENT TREATMENT. So I ask you the same. Do you think the existence of Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt?

Why do you accept (without any struggle) that the evidence for King Arthur's existence is very weak, but for Jesus you put him in the penultimate category to irrefutable?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: How gullible are some people?
Reply #523 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 8:54am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

your scale is your opinion and yours alone. in terms of original manuscripts there are 1000s of gospels in original form while there are literally only a handful of the others.

Is this debate really going to be so lame and so fact-free that you are going to submit a premiership table of your own opinion as something of worth?

I think most of it has been covered over the pages few dozen pages.

Just for the record (as I have previously said) I believe that Jesus' historicity is irrelevant as opposed to the tradition of his existence, which is, of course, beyond reasonable doubt.

His actual historicity is plagued with problems, not the least being that his greatest evangeliser, Paul, says almost nothing of his existence... Not his birth and very, very few details about his life. He, in fact, admits he didn't even know him. The gospel stories were written decades after Jesus' supposed death and, given the gross errors and contradictions in their detail, don't help much either. Josephus, most historians agree, is littered with later interpolations, so is unreliable (although he at least may be reporting that according to the nascent tradition, Jesus existed... But, who knows!).

There is, in the end, weak evidence that Jesus existed... But that is not to say there is no evidence, but there's certainly not strong evidence in the way there is for, say, Plato and Socrates.

Paul says nothing about Jesus???? Have you ever read the Pauline books of te Bible? He refers to Jesus in every chapter and almost every verse. He didn't go over his life story for the very real reason that people of that time didn't need convincing of His existence.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137136 Gender:	Re: How gullible are some people? Reply #524 - Apr 14^th, 2014 at 9:31am longweekend58 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2014 at 5:21pm: There has been some pretty stupid arguments made here mainly by john smith and greggary. Link, to one of my "pretty stupid arguments"?
Back to top	IP Logged