Counter-apologetics 101

reply to post by eight bits


Have you not heard that most of the information about the similarities between Jesus and the other myths was burnt at Ephesus, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.? Most of Plato's original writings were burned along with them as well. You should research a bit more and be aware of the history of deception in christianity. Much of the information is held in England, under lock and key. The Greeks want it back, but that's not happening. All of the pictures, of all of the statues from all of the buildings of ancient Greece, are from replicas of the statues and other items looted. The Vatican has a lot of documents too, but he's not going to let anyone look at them.

The fact that there was another messiah figure by the name of Apollonius is quite funny. Apollonius of Tyana, reported to have performed miracles and was compared to Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by adjensen

 

I don't hold beliefs. You and other theists need to stop asserting that I have "beliefs". I never said I believed the things I mentioned. I stated they were possibilities and alternatives to the "divine" story.

You have no beliefs? I think that you are confusing faith with belief -- belief is simply the act of thinking something to be true, even in the absence of evidence or when the facts don't necessarily support it, as you have done here. The Hindus don't seem to believe that Krishna was born on 25 December or was crucified, so why do you? If I claim that he was born on the moon, or that he was green, are these now viable alternatives?

And I will tell you again -- the festival of Christmas is a symbolic festival, it is not a birthday party for Jesus. No one has any idea when he was born, though most who bother trying to put a date on it believe it was in March.

You obviously haven't done enough research and you seem to be defending christianity with presuppositional apologetics. Spare the ignorance for another time until you can demonstrate that your claims are true.

Well, the odd thing is that I didn't really make any claims, I merely refuted yours. But I've done a fair amount of "research" into these issues, don't worry. I'd suggest listening to Maddness -- sticking to reasonable facts, and leaving angry polemics for those who don't wish to be taken seriously in a civil discussion.

reply to post by adjensen


I know what faith and belief are and I have neither. This thread is for counter-apologetics, not theological discussion or unnecessary belittlement. I know what christmas is and I know it's merely a pagan holiday, but there are those who strongly believe their "savior" was born on that day, for some reason.

By the way, my "facts" were merely a test and it seems that you and the theists have failed my test. I know Krishna's estimated birth (18 or 21 of July 3228 BC) and I know the story of his birth described as taking place after Devaki's supposed miscarriage of her seventh child (which was actually a secret transfer to Rohini). According to the Bhagavata Purana, Krishna was born without being the result of sexual intercourse, but instead being telepathically transferred from Vasudeva to Devaki. Hindus are the ones who believe that. After all, it is their mythological history.

Zeitgeist does contain factual information, such as Krishna's virgin birth. Telepathic transmission from Vasudeva to Devaki suggests a virgin birth, so he got that part right. Here's an excerpt that explains apparent parallels between Dionysus and Jesus:

Parallels with Christianity

The earliest discussions of mythological parallels between Dionysus and the figure of the Christ in Christian theology can be traced to Friedrich Hölderlin, whose identification of Dionysus with Christ is most explicit in Brod und Wein (1800–1801) and Der Einzige (1801–1803).[40] Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels.

They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[41][42] though, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.[43]

Additionally, some scholars of comparative mythology argue that both Dionysus and Jesus represent the "dying-and-returning god" mythological archetype.[27] Other elements, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, also have parallels.[44] Powell, in particular, argues precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion.[44]

Another parallel can be seen in The Bacchae wherein Dionysus appears before King Pentheus on charges of claiming divinity is compared to the New Testament scene of Jesus being interrogated by Pontius Pilate.[43][44][45]

E. Kessler in a symposium Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 17–20 July 2006, argues that Dionysian cult had developed into strict monotheism by the 4th century CE; together with Mithraism and other sects the cult formed an instance of "pagan monotheism" in direct competition with Early Christianity during Late Antiquity.[46]

Jesus in comparative mythology: en.wikipedia.org...

Christianity and Paganism: en.wikipedia.org...

You can find this information elsewhere, so Wikipedia is not the only source. While some of these similarities are merely possibilities, it is apparent to me that some are historically accurate. I was waiting to see what kind of responses I would get to some of the "facts" (possible inaccuracies) obtained from Zeitgeist. The responses from you and others are quite hilarious due to the fact that you actually believed (yes, believed) I was serious. Now you know my position.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Now you know my position.

Sorry, but I have no idea what your position is. Well, apart from spouting nonsense and then backing down when you're called on it, though a lot of people do that on both sides of the fence.

As I said, if this sort of behaviour is what you believe to be a reasonable response to Christian Apologetics, you've a long way to go before you'll be taken seriously. Spend a bit of time reading posts by some of your fellow atheists, like Madness or Astyanax, and you might learn something about making a persuasive and sensible argument that doesn't descend into nothing but ad hominem attacks on those you disagree with.

Bhagavata Purana

... was written during or after the 6th Century ... of the Common Era. You know, 2 centuries or more after the New Testament canon was setlled.

So, we know it wasn't copypasta.

In any case, here it is:

www.srimadbhagavatam.org...

(56)In due course of time thereafter gave Devakî, the mother of all divinity, year after year birth to indeed eight sons and a daughter. ... (60) 'Take this child with you, my fear indeed is not there from him, it is from the eighth pregnancy you have with your wife that my death was predicted.'

Hmm... whaddaya know? Krishna is not his mama's first child. Virginity just ain't what it used to be.

Oh wait, just like Jesus in the Gospels, Krishna was born to a non-virgin, but without sex in his specific case.

Well, not exactly. There was sex, but... Look, let's turn the page

www.srimadbhagavatam.org...

(8) In the womb of Devakî there is the embryo known as S'esha that is a plenary expansion of Me; make a smooth transfer by motivating Him to move out of her into the womb of Rohinî . (9) Then will I with My full potency do My share in becoming Devakî's son, o all-auspicious one, while you as well will appear as the daughter of Yas'odâ, the wife of Nanda.

Oh, I see. Just like Mary with Jesus, Devakî had sex, got pregnant and Krishna displaced the conceptus of that sex. Which, of course, in your telling "suggests" a virgin birth.

A mother with seven previous pregnancies suggests a virgin to you? I guess Krishna isn't the only subject you don't know jack about.

The bulls**t that Krishna had anything to do with Jesus was made up in the United States in the 19th Centuiry by an identifiable person, Kersey Graves.

I think even Wikipedia can sort that out.

The responses from you and others are quite hilarious due to the fact that you actually believed (yes, believed) I was serious. Now you know my position.

So, what else have you been untruthful about?

-

reply to post by adjensen
You're the one spouting nonsense and attacking me in this thread. I've never seen you before in my life, then you come along and start an argument. How is that not hypocritical of you? So, your opinions of my counter-apologetics are facts? I'd like to see a demonstration to prove that your biased opinion is "true", that is if you really think it's true.

I wasn't "backing down" when I was "called on it". I can't possibly prove to you that I was merely testing you and the others, but you seem to imply that I wasn't. You are not me, therefore you cannot possibly know what I was thinking at that time. Your speculation lacks evidence and justification, but is instead accompanied by a preconceived notion and possibly an abundance of those in your thoughts.

Originally posted by eight bits

Oh wait, just like Jesus in the Gospels, Krishna was born to a non-virgin, but without sex in his specific case.

Well, not exactly. There was sex, but... Look, let's turn the page

www.srimadbhagavatam.org...

(8) In the womb of Devakî there is the embryo known as S'esha that is a plenary expansion of Me; make a smooth transfer by motivating Him to move out of her into the womb of Rohinî . (9) Then will I with My full potency do My share in becoming Devakî's son, o all-auspicious one, while you as well will appear as the daughter of Yas'odâ, the wife of Nanda.

Oh, I see. Just like Mary with Jesus, Devakî had sex, got pregnant and Krishna displaced the conceptus of that sex. Which, of course, in your telling "suggests" a virgin birth.

A mother with seven previous pregnancies suggests a virgin to you? I guess Krishna isn't the only subject you don't know jack about.

Again, more spouting of accusations and misunderstandings due to your flawed perception. I never stated that Devaki was a virgin. I simply provided the excerpt that suggests Krishna's birth was a virgin birth (does not imply the mother was a virgin). She had sex, had several children but Krishna was not the result of sex. What does that mean? Oh, I know... virgin birth!

Stop flooding my thread with your bull****. This is my thread, not yours. Go spread your misunderstandings and inaccuracies elsewhere.

I see that you are new to ATS, so perhaps you should rethink your expectations. This is a public forum, and you do not control "your" thread. If you don't want to have people respond negatively to you, you should either start your own forum that you control or only make posts that are irrefutable (good luck with that one.)

Someone asked you a question, and you gave a ridiculous answer, so we replied to it, rather than have your answer seem reasonable because no one remarked on it. No one is picking on you, they are picking on your posts, because the motto here is "Deny Ignorance", and saying what you have said in this thread ("test" or not) represents pure ignorance.

If all you are looking for is some sort of cheering section that dotes on you, ignores your fallacious claims, and is in complete agreement, ATS is not the forum for you. You could start a thread on here decrying child beating, and there would be those who would take issue with it.

Originally posted by adjensen
If you don't want to have people respond negatively to you, you should either start your own forum that you control or only make posts that are irrefutable (good luck with that one.)

I have yet to even see you refute it.

Someone asked you a question, and you gave a ridiculous answer, so we replied to it, rather than have your answer seem reasonable because no one remarked on it. No one is picking on you, they are picking on your posts, because the motto here is "Deny Ignorance", and saying what you have said in this thread ("test" or not) represents pure ignorance.

Can you prove that my posts were "pure ignorance"? Again, more opinionated responses. I can just as easily say that your assertion that my posts "represent pure ignorance" is actually pure ignorance itself.

If all you are looking for is some sort of cheering section that dotes on you, ignores your fallacious claims, and is in complete agreement, ATS is not the forum for you.

Are you implying that I am looking for a cheering section? Your claims are as fallacious as ever, such as your opinionated "represents pure ignorance" statement.

Originally posted by Condemned0625

Originally posted by adjensen
If you don't want to have people respond negatively to you, you should either start your own forum that you control or only make posts that are irrefutable (good luck with that one.)

I have yet to even see you refute it.

Then perhaps you should look again. www.abovetopsecret.com... Neither Krishna nor Christ was born on December 25, Krishna was not crucified and did not ascend to heaven three days later.

And have you already forgotten that you said you were lying and it was all "a test", anyway? What better definition of "pure ignorance" is fabrication?

Are you implying that I am looking for a cheering section? Your claims are as fallacious as ever, such as your opinionated "represents pure ignorance" statement.

There's no need for implying anything -- you said yourself that EightBits and myself should leave "your" thread because we disagree with you and insist on pointing out your errors. Life would a lot easier with no critics, eh?

reply to post by adjensen


No I haven't forgotten, but you seem to have forgot when you pointed out that neither of them were born on December, 25. Seems like you forgot at that moment that it was a test. I already pointed out Krishna's true date(s) of birth (speculation between two different days, 18 and 21).

Indeed, you mentioned errors in the test, which were intentional in the first place. That was the point, otherwise it wouldn't have been a test. I saw it as a perfect opportunity to test your pure ignorance and you absolutely fell for it. Seems to prove how gullible people like you are. I can't prove that you're ignorant and gullible, but the same principle applies otherwise and I have yet to even see you admit it like I have. As you can possibly tell, I strongly discourage dishonesty, especially things that lead to dishonesty.

You have ignored my statement about your "represents pure ignorance" response as being merely an opinion and you have failed to admit it. By failing to admit such an obvious thing, you're displaying dishonesty, unless it was only intended as an opinion. Nevertheless, it seems apparent that you think you're right. Read my signature for an elaboration of that.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Well, then either he was crucified on 19 March 0033 or 24 November 0029, neither of which corresponds with the Biblical crucifixion. Jesus would have had entered Jerusalem around the 27th of March. November is just right out.
Sooooo that's one.
Here's a source for that
Oddly enough, they include:

Crucifixion of Christ?

Next to each date
Condemned0625, facts are your friends. Look them up. Examine the initial basis for the claim prior to making a refutation. If someone claims that there was an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, check the eclipse dates.

Thanks Madness.

I had been looking forward to an interesting thread, and was silly enough to assume the OP could live up to his/her claim. So I was asking a nice easy Dorothy Dixer to get the ball rolling.

Sadly, his/her answer was a complete FAIL.

Eight Bits got it right straight off, with his reply:

But they didn't have methods for making a solar eclipse, which requires a new moon, at the time of Passover, which takes place at the full moon.

The bible clearly states the crucifixion took place at the beginning of Passover, which is always timed to coincide with the full moon, making an eclipse at that time impossible.

Asking any deeper questions of poster who specifically opens a thread to set himself up as an answerman, yet can't answer the simplest question, spouts ridiculous nonsense, and when called on it tries to pass the nonsense off as a "test", is obviously a waste of time.

reply to post by Kailassa


You're spouting ridiculous nonsense when you claim that I spout ridiculous nonsense. This is a thread for counter-apologetics, not theology. The other posters have miserably failed to abide by the intended subject of this thread and instead decided to throw the entire thing off-topic with theological rambling. Just to be clear, this thread was moved and placed in the wrong category by a moderator who does not understand the difference between counter-apologetics and religious subjects. Your "tries to pass the nonsense off as a test" premise is false and cannot be validated, which proves how extremely opinionated you and the others are. If you really believe I was serious when I provided disinformation for the test (by that I mean you believing that I thought my intentional disinformation was correct), you're quite far from being honest.

I've had enough of the excuses and poor judgement. If you can't comprehend the simple distinction between opinion and fact, you have no place in this thread.

Originally posted by adjensen
There's no need for implying anything -- you said yourself that EightBits and myself should leave "your" thread because we disagree with you and insist on pointing out your errors. Life would a lot easier with no critics, eh?

You must understand that it's unpleasant for a poster to be caught out when spouting attrocious ungulate manure, and any poor poster exposed to such discomfort has every right to demand the opposition imediately depart from the thread. You should thank him, in another thread of course, for not demanding you delete your posts and leave ATS.

Always remember, "untruths" can be very important to those who tell them, and telling untruths in a public forum is a right that, if it's not already enshrined in the T&C, certainly should be. - especially when those untruths are covered over as a test, and the replying posters abused for taking them seriously.

Now assume the appropriate diving-duck posture and beg to be kicked again.

Originally posted by Kailassa
You must understand that it's unpleasant for a poster to be caught out when spouting attrocious ungulate manure, and any poor poster exposed to such discomfort has every right to demand the opposition imediately depart from the thread.

I was never caught for anything, but I did enjoy watching the morons fail the experiment, such as yourself. The gullibility of human beings can be quite entertaining to observe. I've noticed quite a few grammatical errors as well that should be fixed, but the original posters never took action. In my opinion, decent arguments are not presented very well when they consist of grammatical errors and mostly misinformation.

Be honest and admit that your belittling insults are not facts, but merely opinions. I've called the others out on that and they have failed to comply, so I guess I shouldn't expect the same from you since it seems that you have the same mental capacity (or lower).

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Kailassa

 

You're spouting ridiculous nonsense when you claim that I spout ridiculous nonsense.

Now you're just being childish. Or, I should say, even more childish.

This is a thread for counter-apologetics, not theology.

I gave you a simple, on-topic question, and your response indicated you know nothing about the subject.

The other posters have miserably failed to abide by the intended subject of this thread and instead decided to throw the entire thing off-topic with theological rambling.

Nonsense, they politely pointed out where your statements were incorrect.
Since when has responding to the OP's comments been off topic?

Just to be clear, this thread was moved and placed in the wrong category by a moderator who does not understand the difference between counter-apologetics and religious subjects.

The thread was touted as being about answering some of the claims of religious people so, naturally, the mod put it in the religion forum.

Your "tries to pass the nonsense off as a test" premise is false and cannot be validated, which proves how extremely opinionated you and the others are. If you really believe I was serious when I provided disinformation for the test (by that I mean you believing that I thought my intentional disinformation was correct), you're quite far from being honest.

Your continued attempts to push this excuse are ludicrous, but funny.

I've had enough of the excuses and poor judgement. If you can't comprehend the simple distinction between opinion and fact, you have no place in this thread.

This statement is typical of posters who get called out on the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. Sorry, but you don't get to decide who belongs and who doesn't.
So far you have FAILED to give a single piece of information relevant to your own thread, and are busily driving it off topic with your repeated attempts to criticise the great posters who honoured you with their presence in your thread, and to push the pretence that you were insulting the people here by telling nonsense that you knew to be nonsense.

Don't you realise that excuse makes you out to be even worse than someone who unintentionally spouts nonsense?

It's too late for you to quit while you're ahead, but you could at least stop digging yourself into an even deeper hole.

reply to post by Kailassa


Ah, another opinion. Again, you accuse me of something, this time being "childish", then you ignore me when I ask you to prove it. I'll have to ask you once more to demonstrate your opinion as a fact. Your argument is getting nowhere, especially when you're ignorant of the consequences that apply when you assert something without the ability to verify it. Believe it or not, your ranting is off-topic. My time is my time, not yours. You've already wasted much of my time and that automatically makes you a jerk. I'm allowed to have unprovable opinions too, right? Of course I am. I suggest you find someone else who will actually put up with your incoherent babbling.

Originally posted by Condemned0625

Originally posted by Kailassa
You must understand that it's unpleasant for a poster to be caught out when spouting attrocious ungulate manure, and any poor poster exposed to such discomfort has every right to demand the opposition imediately depart from the thread.

I was never caught for anything, but I did enjoy watching the morons fail the experiment, such as yourself. The gullibility of human beings can be quite entertaining to observe. I've noticed quite a few grammatical errors as well that should be fixed, but the original posters never took action. In my opinion, decent arguments are not presented very well when they consist of grammatical errors and mostly misinformation.

Now you're descending to calling people who have replied to you morons?
You really are a piece of work, Condemned0625.

As for the grammar, you are just making things up. The people arguing with you use English grammar well. Several are equally competant in other languages.

By the way, when you come across someone who genuinely has problems expressing themselves in English, it's considered most impolite to comment on that fact, both on ATS and in polite society. One has no way of knowing how much education a person has, whether they have problems with typing, dyslexia or eyesight, whether they are tired or in a hurry, or whether they have had much exposure to the English language.

Be honest and admit that your belittling insults are not facts, but merely opinions.

You stuffed up making unsubstantiated, incorrect claims.
Both your excuse that you knew these claims were lies when you made them, and your insistance on repeating this excuse and abusing those who have countered your statements, make it appear that, as a poster, you lack any integrity whatsoever.

I've called the others out on that and they have failed to comply, so I guess I shouldn't expect the same from you

Comply?
Comply: to act in accordance with rules, wishes, etc.; be obedient (to)
Comply with what exactly?

since it seems that you have the same mental capacity (or lower).

I'm honoured to be "accused" of possibly having equal intelligence to Adjensen, Madnessinmysoul and Eight Bits.
They are amongst my favourite ATS posters because they are so intelligent, they express themselves well, they write interesting, informative posts, and they are unfailingly courteous.

reply to post by Kailassa


Making things up? Can you prove this? I don't think I'm being impolite at all, but you sure as hell are. You still ignore me when I ask you to prove your point and you instead decide to change the subject. I don't miss important details, so you may as well quit trying to get around it.

My thread is entirely off-topic now, thanks to you and the others that I consider inconveniences.

I'm honoured to be "accused" of possibly having equal intelligence to Adjensen, Madnessinmysoul and Eight Bits.
They are amongst my favourite ATS posters because they are so intelligent, they express themselves well, they write interesting, informative posts, and they are unfailingly courteous.

Them? Unfailingly courteous? I think you've got it backwards. What a joke.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Making things up? Can you prove this? I don't think I'm being impolite at all, but you sure as hell are. You still ignore me when I ask you to prove your point and you instead decide to change the subject. I don't miss important details, so you may as well quit trying to get around it.

My thread is entirely off-topic now, thanks to you and the others that I consider inconveniences.

I'm honoured to be "accused" of possibly having equal intelligence to Adjensen, Madnessinmysoul and Eight Bits.
They are amongst my favourite ATS posters because they are so intelligent, they express themselves well, they write interesting, informative posts, and they are unfailingly courteous.

Them? Unfailingly courteous? I think you've got it backwards. What a joke.

I'm happy to repeat it. These people you speak of as inconveniences are intelligent, they express themselves well, they write interesting, informative posts, and they are unfailingly courteous.

Who was it again who chose to disrupt his own thread with claims he was lying on purpose rather than accidentally spouting nonsense?

And now you want me to prove you were accidentally spouting nonsense?

You've got to be kidding. If you really want to keep claiming you were lying deliberately, you're welcome to run with that explanation. Just don't expect any respect from people who read your "explanation".


I'm waiting for you're proof that these posters or myself use poor grammar. Is it taking you a while to find examples?