Turin ShroudFollow

Homer doesn't. But people still assume he existed and that the Illiad wasn't written by a group of people or that the Odessey wasn't produced via conspiracy.

I know, I know.. no one is worshipping Homer, etc etc. I'm just being a pain in the *** for the sake of it

/cry

You're not being much fun today.

I am wrong.

Whew! Hey! That wasn't so hard to say! I am wrong.

I am wrong!

I must say, my argument sucked red a$$ed baboon balls. Ya, Josephus is pretty much a worthless historical source, I'll admit it.

Smasharoo 1
Totem 0

/sigh

Totem

I still maintain that you need to lay off the bold tags.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Logical!

Totem wrote:


You know I love you, Totem, but erm... isn't that kinda like believing Santa Claus exists because there is a written account of the Easter Bunny having witnessed Ol' Saint Nick delivering presents?

Sure, I realize you already responded to this point, but I'm going to pretend you didn't. It's just more interesting that way.

Of course it's fake. You can't have a real garment from an imaginary person.

What does the word rational mean to you, lightning. I hate to invoke the laws of reading comprehention, but it's quite easy to prove the non-existance of something beyond **rational** doubt. Thanks for your noble effort at correcting my concept of logic though.

Wrongheaded and ignorant as it was.

Edit: Since you're clearly a little slow let me provide an example:

If the Vatican revealed some documents they authenticated written in the hands of all of the authors of every book in the NEw Testament stating "Christ never existed, we created him out of whole cloth to use as a figurehead for our religion" That would pretty much prove his non-existance beyond and **rational** doubt, now wouldn't it?

REad more carefully before you try to be cute and self righetous with me. I don't even know who you are.

Edited, Sun Apr 4 00:52:51 2004 by Smasharoo

Did they what?

is this the same vatican that quickly scuffled away and hid accusations of reported cases of molestation? or the same vatican that used to use nuns for sexual toys? or the same vatican that had lime pits in the cellars where they would throw away children that didnt fill some religious bill of needs for the priests? yeah...there's some real substance there. you've got the power of a 1.3 watt light bulb in that arguement.



you act like your God's gift to the world (once again) when you're barely logics gift to the gifted. what he's simply saying is...your saying he didn't exist. thousands say he did, and plenty of evidence suggests he did. prove he didn't. you seem to be the one hard bent on proving he didn't...so prove it already. we've got the shroud, we've got the gospels, we've got testimony that could be accurate.

so far all you've got is "smash's word"..which holds as much wieght as a generic paper towel in a rain storm.

Nope. I didn't. Learn to read.


While I appreaciate your introduction to logic "existance is a predicate" argument, it doesn't apply here. It's unfortunate that you can't diffrentiate between absolute proof and proving something to a degree of certainty but that's not my problem.


Again, you're applying a rule to something where it doesn't fit. Trying to put a ***** in with a sledgehammer because the it's the only tool you have available. In your mind everything must be a nail because your only avaialable tool for debate is that sledgehammer.



And?


No ****, genius. If you had an IQ over 100 you'd have realized that's completely irrelevant to anything as no one was arguing that there was concrete proof of Christer Bunny's non existance beyond a rational doubt.



No, you unfortunately ASSUMED that you understood what I was saying, which apparently you didn't. There's an expression "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". You're a fine example of what it means. A person learns a small degree of information about a subject and then suddenly, they've become an expert!

A man has a car which stops going because his Transmission fails. Now every car he sees non working is caused by a failed transmission. You're that man. No one mentioned absolute proof of anything. Only proof beyond rational doubt.

Were you capable of reading, I would have thought you would have noticed that little point in my prior post and said "Oh, yes, my mistake." But instead you proceeded to swing your newfound hammer around, ignoring the fact that there wasn't a nail in sight.

Ignoring the fact that I clearly and cleanly pointed out where you're completely and utterly wrong in a forensic, logical, and inuitive sense. Ignoring the fact that you're clearly out of your depth here and havent the ability for considered discourse any more than a Special Oplymics participant would. Were I the person who had explained the "existance is a predicate" argument to you I'd be disgusted with myself at not intstilling even the slightest amount of intelectual rigor and critical thinking skills in you.

You should be dissapointed in yourself, but apparently, that's not possible as you won't realize your mistake while you can still parrot concepts that don't apply.

Don't quit the fryolator job yet, the academic comminty isn't ready for you.

You complete imbicile. At no point did I or anyone, for that matter, claim that there was conclusive proof that Chrsit never existed. The point of my quote, which apparenlt every other person who read it understoood instantly with the exception of you was that were it the case that you could, belivers would simply discount it. That's why they're called "belivers" and not "researchers".

What, exactly, is your point here? It must be that I'm just not as clever as you seeing as I haven't attended whatever community college course it is that you feel as enpowered you to comment randomlly and pointlessly on other people's conversations. What is your point?

As to my spelling, let me point out for probably the thousandth time on this board, that I don't care about spelling and am dyslexic.

Fortunately for me there's spell check if I decide I do care.

Unfortunately for you there's no intelect check so I think your problem is likely the more signifigant one longer term.