Sly_Wizard

*Is done with his slayer task* Ummm... I think you missed the point. Your entire argument is that you only saw two responses when you began replying. I said, even if that were true, then why did you ignore my second response which elaborated on my first response, which you proceeded to take out of context. ...You're the one who started arguing it 'cuz you felt you were owed an apology? Conceptually, that's no different. I asked you for something specific. At least Ginger was kind enough to comply. You're just content to be obtuse and not give me anything specific. That and the lack of PK'ing (BH was, and still is, lame). Jagex sorta' kinda' fixed both, so now I'm playing again. You're gonna' be hard pressed to find where I've ever "run away", especially since I'm usually the last person to respond (Except for those times when I'm just repeating myself over and over again and I don't feel like going on ad nauseum). Anywho, I'm still-- Yes, STILL-- Waiting to see what kind of proof you want for Jesus being the Son of God. Really, this question isn't all that hard to answer. It involves saying, "I would like to see X, Y and Z". But, apparently, you're content to skirt around giving any specifics, instead trying to play a game of "Gimme' what you got and I'll tell you what I think of it", which is pointless for the reason stated, I think, on the last page. Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

Let's see... Considering my post was done before you posted, the logical conclusion would be that you skipped the things I wrote out. Hell, you didn't even attempt to quote my second response (Which would have been there if you had indeed started to quote me before I made the other three responses). And lol @ name callings. *brays* Uh-huh. "Give me whatever you want" is not an adequate response to the question "What do you want?" *Sigh* You know, I think you're purposely being obtuse. But, only 'cuz I'm getting slightly tired of arguing, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying". Anywho, I'm going to play Runescape. You can deem this running away if you wish lol (As you will, anyway).

Point being, I don't owe you an apology because I made all my edits before you posted. For all we know you could have seen my edits and ignored them. No, I've read most of them here and the majority of them not only make little sense but are also based in largely incorrect assumptions. Proofs, by themselves, aren't easy. For example, even though this is a little off-topic, the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is fairly complex and involves calculus ---> http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia. Add in more axioms, and the harder and longer the proof becomes. Now, let's take religious axioms which could have hundreds of axioms. Proving them false would be mind-numbingly long and boring. It would take you, literally, months (Probably even years) just to disprove one religion, provided you made no mistakes. I'm not avoiding anything, since I asked you a question first and you still haven't answered it. ...Because, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :wall:

Or, you could answer the question. Why would we prove your side of the argument? That's one [developmentally delayed] impression of arguing you have there. I didn't ask him to prove anything. I asked "What kind of proof would you accept".

That's what was meant? My edits were in before you posted, so why should I owe you an apology? I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. You ignored what I typed out and then proceeded to respond with the same message I responded to the first time? Okay. Let's try this again. It's easy to refute the idea that Jesus didn't exist because there are many, many references to him throughout Classical era literature. For example, iirc, there was even a scroll found mentioning the dialogue between Jesus and some Roman governor. I want to say Pontius Pilate, but I don't think that's him. Anywho, if Jesus didn't exist, then these manuscripts would have to have been forged, but the very nature of them makes this highly improbable. Therefore, to say Jesus didn't exist makes little sense as it would leave many, unanswered holes in too many things. Conversely, refuting a religion involves presupposing certain religious axioms and proving them to be false, which is far harder and more time consuming for anyone on this thread to engage in. Or, you could answer the question.

It's kinda' funny how you guys like to switch up your arguments mid-way through, but don't let me stop you. Not terribly. I'd just point you to the Gospels, but you'd say they're not objective or contemporary (Or something along those lines). And since those are the best references to Jesus we have, as secular references are few and far between, we come to a standstill as you won't accept the only proof which can be given as true. But I'm sure you already knew that, otherwise you wouldn't have asked in the first place. And, funnily enough, I totally called the argument you'd make, like, three posts ago :lol:.

Except for the fact that my responses WERE posted before you responded. *Points to the time stamps* Refuting the idea that Jesus didn't exist is not the same as refuting Christianity. The first is rather easy to do, and has been done a hundred of times over (Only the incredibly disingenuous try to argue otherwise); the second, well... Good luck refuting any religion. No, I'm just smart enough to avoid a pointless debate in which you'll promptly reject any theological argument and rely on something like "There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus performing miracles". 'Cuz that's exactly what'll happen. But, *shrugs*, like I told Ginger, I'll play along for a bit. What sort of "proof" would you accept? No, because "faith" has nothing to do with Jesus actually existing. Just read the Wikipedia link :) Edit: Taken from the Wikipedia link. Hooray for Jesus existing! :

Don't need to. Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God. You are correct. Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to. This is an entirely separate argument but, *shrugs*, as you will. What kind of "proof" will you accept?

Dunno' what you were waiting for an apology for. Oh no. Zierro isn't going to "side" with me. That would hurt, except for the little fact that I don't care. Hold on a second. Lemme' show you the exact quote which started this whole "Jesus didn't exist thing". Found it! :

No, you didn't refute anything. All you've done is scream "They're not contemporary and they don't hold water" which is itself a fairly odd claim, to say the least. Not only is the definition you're using of contemporary incorrect, but you then apply standards to the Bible (In this case, the Gospels) that are not applied to other historical documents. *Continued below* Apparently you are unfamiliar with historicity as it relates to the Gospels and Jesus. Twenty years is a relatively SHORT period of time for writings concerning Jesus to exist after his death to begin surfacing. Most writings of a central figure do not begin to appear until, at the very least, one to two centuries after his or her death. Look at these two links: http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html As you can clearly see, the Bible (In this case the New Testament) far surpasses any other literature of the Classical era in every respect. To try to cast doubt on the New Testament because there is a span of approximately 70 years between Jesus' death and the completion of the New Testament is incredibly dubious, considering you would have to simultaneously discredit ALL other major works of not only the Classical period, but also the Early and maybe even the High Middle Ages, as well. No. Mainly because it's been proven to not be a fake. This is not a refutation. This is, pure and simple, a conspiracy theory and a fringe belief among historians. Not only that, but it sounds like something picked straight out of Zeitgeist. This doesn't even warrant a serious response. And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you could at the very least take time to read. But, alas, I doubt you will. You'd rather keep spouting this "Jesus didn't exist!" nonsense. Don't need to. Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God. But I'm sure you knew that and all.

Ooo... Name-calling. The fool's way of letting you know he's wrong and he knows he's wrong. By the way, since you want to play the "There were only two responses" card, notice what my first two responses happen to be. There's what you quoted, and then there's a link which refutes the "Jesus didn't exist claim" (Although, I'd already refuted it earlier). Oops on your part, huh? :mrgreen:

The thing is, I can just as easily say that I KNOW Christianity is a bunch of bologna, end of story. Really, you gotta look on both ends of the spectrum. So, you basically looked at only the first response of the five I gave, proceeded to ignore the rest, and then took it out of context? Nice.

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with. I don't have time to deal with intellectual dishonesty, so A.) Re-read my post above and B.) Read this ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus What do you mean by "not contemporary"? Surely you realize that the Gospels were all written in the the 1st century AD, right? One passage in Josephus' writings are considered to be a fake by most historians. The other passage, in which it mentions James as being Jesus' brother, is not a fake. And? See my blurb about Peter, James and John.

It's an Islamic sin to rank Muhammad above any other prophet--as they are all seen as equal. I'm not a Muslim, but I'm fairly sure that's untrue seeing as how Muhammad is considered "the last and greatest" of the prophets.

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't. Is flinging the burden of proof onto people the only debating tactic you know of? Funny thing, is that the people who deny Jesus existed is going to not only refute almost every reputed historian, since the consensus amongst them is that Jesus existed, but also play a game of "fill in the blanks" which is inevitably going to lead to big, giant, gaping holes. I don't fling the burden of proof anywhere, since there's nothing left to prove as it's already been proven. Why reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented? The assertion that Jesus did not exist is a fringe belief. Jesus' existence is accepted by almost all historians, and the reason is that there is PLENTY of evidence. A religion that claimed him as its founder was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his death, and, while there is no contemporary evidence of him, there is much contemporary evidence of those who knew him, including his brother. In fact, those who knew him not only talked about him, they were killed for talking about him. The reason "Jesus did not exist" is not a proposition that is taken seriously by historians is because the only alternative to his existence is the biggest and stupidest conspiracy theory you ever heard. "There is no contemporary writing" is the TOTAL argument of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd. There is nothing else, as all other evidence says he existed. Again, there was the church that claimed him as its founder only 20 years later and there is contemporary evidence of his friends and family. For example, Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother. So, what's YOUR theory? Was Paul lying about going to see James, or was James lying about having a brother? Because if there was no Jesus, those are your only two alternatives. All in all, either you accept that: 1.) Peter, James and John got together and said, "I know! Let's make up a religion about a fake person who's supposed to be the Messiah and gets nailed to a cross! That'll go over big!" And, then, of course, they got NOTHING from this bizarre hoax-- Which they kept up for DECADES-- Except for poverty, beatings, exile and execution. Yet they kept it up for 50 years anyway. Or: 2.) A guy named Jesus lived in Galilee 2000 years ago, and his followers started a religion about him after he died. Gee, that's a tough call.

Yes, because those men have been discriminated against so much. Damn, we just have it soooooo hard. So all men should suffer inequalities because of the past? Hmmm...

Gender equality only exists when being argued for by women.

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't.

1.) Being composed of at least one cell. 2.) The ability to propagate itself (Cell division) and grow. 3.) Able to undergo both respiration and other metabolic processes. 4.) Responds to external stimuli. 5.) Regulatory internal controls. Those are the basic properties of life-- All of which a fetus exhibits. Sperm, on the other hand, does not satisfy the second condition (And, really, a couple of the others could also be debated in relation to sperm, but I'm too lazy to do that). (PS> I probably forgot a property of life, but I think that'll suffice.) Except those "little" difference aren't really little at all. Following your logic, you're not much different from a gamete, either. But, I'm sure you'll try to argue otherwise by invoking a non-scientific argument, which I totally thought atheists were big on. :-k 1.) Notice where I said "given adequate developmental time". 2.) Viability has nothing to do with whether or not something is alive or not. Viability is simply the point at which a fetus can live outside of a woman's body without aid. Furthermore, to address the whole "sperm = fetus" thing, I said that a sperm is "alive" but not "living" as it lacks the ability to make more of itself or to go through cell division (Which is why virus aren't considered "living", as they don't go through cell division but rather replication).

*Sigh* I really hoped to avoid this argument but, *meh*, whatever. Sperm cells might be "alive" but they are not "living", as they cannot and do not posses the ability to make more of themselves and can only live in a certain environment (I should say, they can only live outside of it for a very short period of time before they die) while an embryo can (Given adequate developmental time). To assert that an embryo is as equally "alive" (In this case meant "living") as sperm cell is to be rather disingenuous. Nothing = Not something Nothing =/= Not anything Hooray semantics! Humans are living organisms. Embryos are living humans. Sperm are "alive" but not living. Something which isn't cannot be "killed". Edit: Something which isn't can be killed. I guess you should clarify what you mean by "isn't" first.

No. I said that it's a human life. Big difference between that and having a soul. What do you mean that I was "nothing" as a sperm? This is what I call double standards. First, I didn't say you were nothing. I said you weren't anything (And, yes, there is a difference between those two statements). Second of all, it means just what I said. "You" aren't "you" until a joining of two haploid cells which forms the basis of, well, "you" lol

Just for the sake of argument, I'll let you have this. I'm still waiting for the whole "Sperm = Human life" thing. What do you mean? Sperm isn't human life, it only has 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46. You said sperm doesn't have a place in the animal kingdom, which isn't true, that's all. Also, an embryo will indeed grow if not spontaneously aborted or aborted by human will, but in reality it is just as "alive" as the sperm was. It doesn't have thoughts or feelings (using the word it because it's genderless, not to furthur convey my point). Isn't the soul supposed to be essentially the personality and individuality of a person? An embryo has neither. Enlighten me as to what a soul actually is so I can further understand your stance on this. Explain to me what a soul has to do with anything? In fact, no one mentioned it except for you and that Noob guy. Furthermore, Zierro asked me what species sperm is. I answered none, because it's not a species.

This goes to Zierro, too. Something which isn't is not the same thing as something which is. That doesn't make any sense. Except a fetus is. If it wasn't, it wouldn't exist. 100% incorrect. What do you mean there's nothing there? Not scientific. Not scientific. Definitely not scientific. Note how most of the pro-choicers can only resort to purely philosophical arguments when defining life. No, it's not.

Except, guess what? The first ISN'T what you said and you know it, as you were going on and on and on as Christianity being the reason for anti-miscegenation laws. And lol @ d-bag.

And, yet, you seem to not understand the difference between "living" and "human life". Good luck finding the quotes to back either of those statements. What question?