Another Example of Blatant Dishonesty from a Creationist...

[Desert Snake]

Wait, I thought it was impossible to prove the negative?
Plus, if one could "mount a serious historical case that Jesus never lived."
Why did he not do that then?

All he did in the book was lie about what historians said and took others out of context, is that what he means by mounting a serious case? :sarcastic

And this is why he will not debate the book with anyone.

Seriously though, how could a man with the degrees he has say "I can mount a serious case against the existence of Jesus"
Yet, doing so would deem someone the noble peace prize, that is one of the most discussed and debated topics today.
"I can prove he didnt exist" but why dont he then?"

I cant stop hearing him say "I dont really care actually"
that second vid was funny.
Might make that my ring tone "i dont really care actually"

It's confusing to many, I think, because of the main theories about HJ in a secular sense. They don't make sense now, and they didn't make sense to the Romans etc. either. Clearly Jesus wasn't some 'normal person' and it has been confusing secular historians and society as they try to rationalize the narrative.

 

[kashmir]

How is it dishonest? You could make such a case, and the case for the historicity of Jesus is no edifice.

"i dont really care actually"
does that help you understand any?

 

[Bunyip]

"i dont really care actually"
does that help you understand any?

Thanks, yes it does - it explains everything. You have no interest in honesty or the truth.
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Bunyip]

You've asked three times why it was dishonest and I've answered you three times.

It was not presented in an intellectually honest manner.

It was just there to manipulate.

Yes, you have answered three times, but just by repeating the same accusation and not justifying it.

How is it dishonest to say that you could make a case for mythicism? You can make such a case, the merits of that case are certainly arguable, but it is not at all dishonest.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

All creationists?
Not just some?

Does it count if they're dishonest with themselves?

 

[Thana]

Yes, you have answered three times, but just by repeating the same accusation and not justifying it.

How is it dishonest to say that you could make a case for mythicism? You can make such a case, the merits of that case are certainly arguable, but it is not at all dishonest.

Then why did he cite that totally irrelevant professor if he truly believed he had a serious, historical case?

 

[Bunyip]

Then why did he cite that totally irrelevant professor if he truly believed he had a serious, historical case?

Was there some election where you were given the power to decide which professors are relevant?

I must have missed it.

 

[kashmir]

Thanks, yes it does - it explains everything. You have no interest in honesty or the truth.
Thanks for clearing that up.

No, you're thinking of dawkins, the person you keep defending for being dishonest. :yes:

Ok, though, I will bite, explain the vid I presented on him getting caught in the lie from his book that you asked for but did not reply to?
You claim you wish to debate me, here's your chance,
Explain how he did not lie.

If you are really interested in honesty, find areas in this website that the author is the one lying and not dawkins.
You did ask me for the stuff, correct?
I am holding up my end of this discussion.
Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion Chapter 1: A deeply religious non believer

 

[Bunyip]

No, you're thinking of dawkins, the person you keep defending for being dishonest. :yes:

Ok, though, I will bite, explain the vid I presented on him getting caught in the lie from his book that you asked for but did not reply to?
You claim you wish to debate me, here's your chance,
Explain how he did not lie.

If you are really interested in honesty, find areas in this website that the author is the one lying and not dawkins.
You did ask me for the stuff, correct?
I am holding up my end of this discussion.
Debunking Da wkins: The GodDelusion Chapter 1: A deeply religious non believer

Sure, but youneed to identify a lie first.
Please give an example of Dawkins lying, and we can debate it if you wish.

Explain how you think he lied amd give an example please, we can go from there.

Now your first accusation was that he claimed Jesus had been proven to be a myth, you accept that your accusation was false now correct? As Thana has explained what he really said was that it was possible to make a case for mythicism, not that it had been proven.

So your first example was false, what is the next?

 

[kashmir]

Was there some election where you were given the power to decide which professors are relevant?

I must have missed it.

Where was the election that professors became a valid source to indirectly label them historians on biblical history?
Some how you keep missing that part.

Its like using my car mechanic as a valid source of info on brain surgery, by being dishonest on who he was and just using his name.

 

[Thana]

Was there some election where you were given the power to decide which professors are relevant?

I must have missed it.

Yes I think it's safe to say that a Geologists opinion on neurology is absolutely irrelevant.

Just as a a professor of German (Which is who Dawkins cited), opinions on history is irrelevant.

I guess being an intellegent person gives me the power to decide that.

 

[kashmir]

Sure, but youneed to identify a lie first.
Please give an example of Dawkins lying, and we can debate it if you wish.

Explain how you think he lied amd give an example please, we can go from there.

Now your first accusation was that he claimed Jesus had been proven to be a myth, you accept that your accusation was false now correct? As Thana has explained what he really said was that it was possible to make a case for mythicism, not that it had been proven.

So your first example was false, what is the next?

No, I never said that, watch the video, did you?
If you are talked about before, I said some other guy wrote a book too, to claim jesus did not exist.
I said dawkins lied in the book, gave a video on one lie and a whole website discussion on many more lies.
I did my part.
watch the video, explain how dawkins did not lie in the book and was not called out on it.

See, I still keep giving you chances to have a real discussion, this is the last time, if you can not keep it real, too bad, I guess.
You asked, i gave and now you are dancing around it and twisting what I said and what i gave.
I said he lied, not that he said he proved jesus was a myth, where on earth did you get that from?
wow wow wow

as for the website, you asked for proof I gave it.
If you cant click the link, and read even the first page of it, what more can I offer?
You asked, I gave and now you want me to quote it here?
naaa, just forget the whole thing and never reply again, this is simply pointless now.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes I think it's safe to say that a Geologists opinion on neurology is absolutely irrelevant.

Just as a a professor of German (Which is who Dawkins cited), opinions on history is irrelevant.

I guess being an intellegent person gives me the power to decide that.

Why is a professor of German irrelevant? You are not actually justifying your claims in any way.

 

[Bunyip]

No, I never said that, watch the video, did you?

Yes you did. Re read your own comments.

If you are talked about before, I said some other guy wrote a book too, to claim jesus did not exist.
I said dawkins lied in the book, gave a video on one lie and a whole website discussion on many more lies.
I did my part.
watch the video, explain how dawkins did not lie in the book and was not called out on it.

See, I still keep giving you chances to have a real discussion, this is the last time, if you can not keep it real, too bad, I guess.

Just give an example, how can I respond without one? I'm not going to respond to an entire video - give me one specific example where you feel Dawkins lied. Directong ,e to a video is evasion. If you can't quote an example, you are just playing the fool.

 

[Thana]

Why is a professor of German irrelevant? You are not actually justifying your claims in any way.

Really? I mean, come on. Now you're just grasping at straws.

He's a professor of German. That has absolutely nothing to do with History or even history that is close to Jesus.

Do I really have to spell everything out for you?

I know you know that a professor of German's opinion on the existence of a historical Jesus is absolutely irrelevant to a serious discussion about Jesus and has nothing to do with helping building a serious case against the existence of Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

Really? I mean, come on. Now you're just grasping at straws.

He's a professor of German. That has absolutely nothing to do with History or even history that is close to Jesus.

Do I really have to spell everything out for you?

I know you know that a professor of German's opinion on the existence of a historical Jesus is absolutely irrelevant to a serious discussion about Jesus and has nothing to do with helping building a serious case against the existence of Jesus.

You are not even bpthering to try to make sense. Language professors are by definition historians. Languages are historical edifices. You can not be a professor of German without having years of studying history. What you need to spell out is how on earth this makes Dawkins dishonest?

Germany was the seat of the papacy for a period, Charlamagne was the Holy Roman Emperor. A professor of German would know a great deal about the early church, because at one time the papacy was German.

 

[Thana]

You are not even bpthering to try to make sense. Language professors are by definition historians. Languages are historical edifices. You can not be a professor of German without having years of studying history. What you need to spell out is how on earth this males Dawkins dishonest?

Of German.

Jesus was not German, He never had a single thing to do with Germany, He never spoke the German language.

Stop bs-ing and just admit that his opinion about the existence of Jesus is about as relevant as your opinion about the existence of Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

Of German.

Jesus was not German, He never had a single thing to do with Germany, He never spoke the German language.

Stop bs-ing and just admit that his opinion about the existence of Jesus is about as relevant as your opinion about the existence of Jesus.

LOL You are being pathetic.

Jesus was not german right? So you are saying that only Palestinian professors would be relevant.

Is that really the best excuse you could come up with?

 

[Thana]

LOL You are being pathetic.

Jesus was not german right? So you are saying that only Palestinian professors would be relevant.

Is that really the best excuse you could come up with?

I'm saying only Historians opinions are relevant, Not German professors.
I don't know why that bothers you so much, But you're starting to wear me out.

Either concede or wrap up your argument because I'm getting tired of explaining the exact same thing over again just with different words.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm saying only Historians opinions are relevant, Not German professors.
I don't know why that bothers you so much, But you're starting to wear me out.

Either concede or wrap up your argument because I'm getting tired of explaining the exact same thing over again just with different words.

What is it you are having difficulty grasping about the fact that a language professor IS A HISTORIAN?