I Don't Believe You Know - A (Very Tired) Response To TheBarkingAtheist

[HomoCyborgZombie]

He pretends to know.

He's no better than a theist here.

And not a very smart one.

[Krensharpaw]

@HomoCyborgZombie you know, I really didn't want to say it, but it's true.  He's acting like a fundie...which is weird to say since I haven't really seen any atheist act like this.

When the fuck did being open minded to the idea that you can be wrong become a bad thing?

[ILYIAB]

Do you belive in Allah?

[LiamJR24]

@ILYIAB I do not believe in Allah, or in fact any deity, but I do not know for certain that he exists. If evidence were presented that could prove this, then I would re-consider my position.

[ILYIAB]

@LiamJR24 First you talk in plural, and then in singular. "He"?. What evidence are you looking for?

[Dudeamis]

Believers state that their belief is fact all the time. Jesus claims to be the truth, and Christians repeat that.

Its clear that you didn't understand the concept. If there is no evidence for something there is no reason to deny its existence. You can continue to search for the evidence, and accept any evidence presented. But until it does there is nothing close minded about denying something's existence. Being close minded means that you ignore the evidence and continue with your beliefs.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Jeus was ahistorical person that is a fact nwell as close as we get one in ancient to history and people still deny it

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 fail. Jesus is far from a historical figure. Much of his life is borrowed from earlier myths most notably Mithra. There were a few apocalyptic messianic figures around his time and he also appears to be an amalgam of these figures. The truth is the first mention of him as a living person including his believers wasn't until some 30 years after his supposed death. Third parties didn't mention him until 80 years later, and they're sketchy at best.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis I really dont want to tqalk aboutt hat because its nonsense. No he wasnt and they made it up. No he isnt most biblical schoalrs laugh at that even the secualr ones. Look up bar ehrmans debate with the infidel guy for proof no one in the field takes it seriously. Well the historians say he di and I take their word fror it as you know they do it for a living

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 you don't want to talk about it because your complete world view is based on it being true. And actually man historians are beginning to come around to the idea. See until recently the bible has been used as a history text by both historians and archaeologists, but that is no longer the case as we're discovering many of its events simple didn't happen. Such as exodus and Jericho.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Headesk, mReally give me a contemporary mithra scholar scholar who says he has any comparision to jesus. Most historians are not coming round to the idea most of them think its foolish an ven to the worst its not supported by any peer revieweed articles. You see i have read the article and bookjs on the issue you have not. I dont want to talk about because its nonsense its baseless and factual inaccurate thats why ni dont want to talk about it. Jesus was nmot borrwed end of

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 you can barely type, your argument is "nuh uh", why would I think for a second that you had a leg to stand on. The Mithra and Jesus similarities are rather well known. Same with Horus, Dionysus, Zoroaster, and Attis just to name a few. The historical Jesus myth simply lacks any evidence. Sorry.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis I am nuh uhring becasue this is noinsense. OIts like arguiong the moon is made of blue cheese it is not true. Ok mitrha or mithras has no connectionm jesus they made up end of. The other gods no they made tthat up . Its nonsense. Really name them, ok jesus is not bnased upon pagan gods its astrothelogical crapp and I really dont want to get into this as it will take too long;.

[bossman103]

@bossman103 OK If you want I can put out the actual pagan stories of these gods but it qwill multiple in depth comment sections on it plus the place this stuff comes from. OK herte I go Right the orgiins of the stuff you are talking about is 19th cewntury. Mystics, mediums and associated people decided to go to the middle east and not be scholarly. So they decided that astrology or the zodiac was the origin of all religion worldwide. This is nonsense.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 your argument is still "nuh uh" you haven't make one single argument other than simply saying I'm wrong. and its clear that your knowledge on mythical figures is pretty limited. But hey if you want to be ignorant that's your choice. Just don't expect many people who have read a book or two to take you seriously.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Really what books poiint m,e to any egyptologist who agrees with you currewnt I mean. Give me any mithraic scholar who agree swith you GIve me one excpert on greco roman religion who agrees with you.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis OK i challenge you to a debate on stickam where get to prove your case or you admit you do not know what you are talking about

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis OK so the zodiac does not exist until the 5 century bc and does not come into egyppt until greece invades egypt. Then lets talk about these mithras was a roman mystery religion. The Persian god mithra wasa different god as he was a god of oaths. Mithras was a joinging of perseus and mithras. He was not born of a virgin, his holy day was not christmas, he was not crucified nor did was he ressurected. He kills the bull and keeps on living.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 actually Mithra was born on Dec 25, he was crucified you can't find pictures of his crucifixion on coins. Mithra was also resurrected in the spring. Mithra also had 12 followers, the zodiac.

Horus was born of a virgin, Isis was a perpetual virgin because Osiris's junk was lost.

Dionysus was born of a virgin, was born on Dec 25, was crucified and was resurrected in the spring.

You can deny this all you want, or you can read a book.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis No he was not frank cumont made it up. Ok he made it up. h was not crucified nor was bron ona virign which books name me your scholarly source.

Hrous wasnt born of a virgin, osiris in some of the stories had a mjagic phalis sown on and horus was conceived that way stuill not a virgin

Dioneyses wasa son of zzeus and zeus and virgin brith makes bno sense he got laid and she gave brith later it was told that zeus put dionysis into his thigh. You are wrong sorry.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 do you haven't anything other to say than "nope"? I mean seriously between your inability to actually type, your main argument being "wrong" with no back up and your general ignorance on the subject you've done nothing but prove that you're a complete tool.

"In some stories" namely the ones you care about because the fit your world view.

Dionysus was an immaculate conception, so yes virgin. Remember Jesus had a daddy too.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Yes but as I said to explain the religious concepts of the gosdds yoiu name is going to take a long period of time as some change over time so the idea tof constantacy does nt mreally apply. Dionyses was not virgin born. He as the son of zeus yes he may take on weird forms however it always ends with him having sex. So no virgin birth he put dionysis in his thigh. He was not crurcified nor was he ressurerect he iunderwent apothosis, why do u think he was crucified

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis No this is not an atheist vs theist debate nor is it a pagan vs christian debate. its facts vs made up bullshit from the 19th century.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 you mean its facts vs made up bullshit from the 1st century.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis no you are believing poeoplple whgo bewlieve the zodiac exist long before it did. THefact that pagan religions that had no influecne on each other. Also people who experts int her field say its crap. I believe experts not crackpots.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis OK I challenge you to a debate omn thie issue. It will be wasw jesus taken from pagan stories. I will be ready. Make a video or show me up. I wil have my sources ready.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 lol I don't do videos. I'll just let the text speak.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Ok so you know you arwe wrong and can not stand up to scrunity. Look youa rew rong look at michael licona's dissection of dm murdock. H easks experts in their feild about this stuff and they to a person said shes wrong. Know what are your sources, d m murdock, zeitgewist what?

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 How about George Albert Wells or Earl Doherty?

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis THey arent expertts on egyptology or comparative religion. So still wrong

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 *facepalm* no they're just experts who've written books about the mythical Jesus.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis No theya re not experts they are idiots. Dont believe me ask experts int he feilds they talk about.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 Seems as though you've built yourself up a pretty nice defense. If someone disagrees with you, no matter how respected they are, they're an idiot.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis No its because Ihave read both sides. I have not jsut rreead tjesus myuthicist but people who confront them not all of them christians or even beleiuvers in a deity. When an expert in ancient atrology says and I am quoting its nonsense the zoidac wasnt founded until the 5th century it could have been founded before then but we dont have the evidence. I beleive him, hes an expert in his field the people you are appealing to arent.

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 wtf is arology? Seriously if you want to have a conversation, learn to express yourself in a manner that does not require a cipher. Its funny how you just claim person X is an expert and person Y isn't and your basis of that is simply your opinion.

As for Dionysus, yes, he was put up in a tree, just like Jesus.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis No I am claiming an egyptolist is an expert on ancient egypt, that is a fact. Doherty is not neither is the other guy. The person I cited is. THat is not my opinon its a fact. If doherty is an egyptologist theen where are his peer reviewed papers in that field? Oh right he does not have any becuase he is not. I am sorry your argument fails because you cite people who are not experts in the fields they discuss and I cite peopple whoare.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Ok this is how Ideccided who is an expert and lets see if you agree lets make it simple. I take person x lets name him eric hornung for fun shall we. Eric Hornung is an egyptologist and has written peer reviewed articles and research on the amtter of the religion of ancient egypopt. I tak person b) Dhoerty who has not and actual appleas tosoruce that either cite or are 19th century that Hornung who is an axpert refutes.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Dionysuiis was not crucified end of story. it just did not happen. You are delusional sorry

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis astrotheology and atrology

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis I use both as they are sperate things

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Plus doherty and wells appeal to 19th century sources not to any current edxpert in these fileds why.because everyone of them would say he is wrong. Eric Hornung is one of the best sources on egypt and he rips apart this stuff, frank cumont has been outed by the mithraic circle as a fraud, Dionysis from what greek schoalrs says wasnt ressurect nor was he crucified. So you are telling that I should not believe actual acaemics but two guys who are not experts in these fields.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Ok let me put the argument in a way you can understand right what do you think of ray comfort, kent ham and kenthovind. THeya re idiots and worst they are dishonest idiots they go agaisnt what is agreed upon ion science and use flawed evidence and quotemined material. Are nthey idiots yues or no? If you answer no then what are thye. THween apply this to people who are going against every academic in his or her fielkd are saying and have proved that what you said is wrong

[Dudeamis]

@bossman103 I hate to tell you this, but a lot of scientists go against what was the commonly held position for many, many years. Archaeology and history are no longer using the bible as a history text, and because of that, our knowledge of historical events, such as Egypt's use of slaves, exodus, the Hebrews emerging out of Canaan and yes the truth about Jesus's existence is becoming more accurate.

And seriously, learn how to type.

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis Jesus waa historical figure very few people in the field disagree with this and as someone who is using the pagan parrarel bullshit. No one takes it seriosuly ok it was refuted in the 19th century it has been refuted know saying it hasnt is fact denial. Its like creeationism for atheists. It is not true and it will never, ever be true whny ebcause it is not true. It s a fantasy made up by people who were crackpots. I am srroy youa re believing in nonsense

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis WTF has this got to do with science. I am talking about history and comaoprative religiona dn that is somethign we know about. You obviously do not know how history works yes history can change but only when new evidence arguments come to light and I am sorry you you have been refuted twice ionce in the 19th cewntury and now by people who know more than you. Sorry

[bossman103]

@Dudeamis OK next horus, which horus horus is just a name of the a flacon god in egypot and their religion does not work that way ressurectionm crucified born of a virigin no in any of the horus stories. Dionysis no he was not born iof a virgin he was not crurcified no was he ressurected. Zoroaster no same. Attis no.

[johncrwarner]

@CountHektor - does that mean I should burn my Wittgenstein and Hume as those two philosophers did not cite many texts or authors - so they must have been ignorant.

[fruitikay]

I told Daniel I thought his points were intriguing and interesting. I do admit that it made me stop and think a little bit. I'm STILL thinking about it...but I did also say that I still have to disagree, whilst considering his points, because, like you said, I do not want to claim I "know" when I really don't "know." But then the convo gets back into definitions of words and epistemology, which is a huge headache and sometimes I think we are thinking about it way too much. XD

[Dudeamis]

@fruitikay The word know is a bit problematic. Hypothetically we know nothing, even the things we know we don't really know. However I think that's were the probability of falsehood comes into play. If the probability of what we know being disproven is highly unlikely then we can say that we know it enough to say we know it. However that means we must be open to the possibility that we are wrong and accept it when we are.

[CountHektor]

I don't know how I sat through 10 minutes of that shit; making a 10 minute video about epistemology without citing any text or authors usually points to ignorance.

[TheBarkingAtheist]

"Piss-ant thing to say." Have you forgotten who I am? I know we haven't talked in a while, but in case you have forgotten, my name is Daniel, I'm an asshole from the internet.