Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Everything we like in Western civilisation’ comes from Christianity: Sheridan" video.

@davidstewart9872 Sorry that is just a false statement. There are no contemporaneous Roman accounts of any Jesus character being crucified. Dr Richard Carrier is one of the current proponents of mythicism but there's are others and there have been many in history. There is some mention of a Christ figure by Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus but these are not contemporaneous and there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the Josephus writings.
2
It is a total, complete, and utter myth that Modern Western civilisation was ever based on any Judeo-Christian value system.
2
@samperry9507 First prove a god exists. Next prove a god exists and can influence humanity, next prove the jesus character in the bible even existed. Then I'm on board.
2
@charlesbrightman4237 Just a great exchange of ideas, but I notice despite repeated attempts by yourself to get one not a single person attempted to provide you with a single piece of evidence of a god, let alone a Christian one.
2
@FinalMorningstar Yes that's right, let's bring back slavery and execution for misbehaving children. I'm all in favour of a return of blasphemy laws here in Australia, it would certainly tone down some of the comments here.
1
@PJRayment I do enjoy these discussions and I'm not sure where we can go from here, but to your point about a true argument, my argument is not to the truth of a god, it is to soundness. Soundness and truth in argumentation are different things. Just because an argument can be valid and sound that there is no God, doesn't mean there is no God. God is true or not or there is something else or that there is something else our minds are unable to conceive of. I maintain no sound argument has ever been made for a god, that doesn't mean god doesn't exist just that you can't argue one into existence.
1
@PJRayment No the bible most definitely doesn't teach men and women are equal. Timothy 2:9-15. At no stage in human history has it ever been moral or right to execute anyone for their sexuality. Your God is immoral. Slavery is slavery and owning people as property even indentured servitude has always been immoral, and it most definitely was not indentured servitude. The Lord said if you want slaves, buy them from other nations. Leviticus 25:44. These are no claims but documented fact in both old and new testaments.
1
@PJRayment I honestly feel sorry for you. You have no understanding of how our society has developed and evolved as a social species. Many species of animals monkeys, horses, penguins display moral behaviours without any reference to god. If the only means by which you have gained a sense of morality is through reading an ancient and deeply flawed text it is the reason why we have secular laws and gaols.
1
@PJRayment "Maybe" is absolutely being the key word. Humans have no free will either. This has been proven in clinical experiments. That is exactly my point. Moral behaviours have developed and evolved as we have. Animals have displayed choice behaviours in experiments. Yes writings written approx 2800 years ago are ancient. You quoted Bart Erhman, by his count there are thousands of errors just across the gospels alone. Laws on murder and property exist in tablet and writings today and come from ancient Mesopotamia and pre date any Judeo-Christian writings by 500 years.
1
@PJRayment I'm not your the one dealing in absolutes. That's correct I didn't choose to write this it was determined but not in the sense you mean. Quantum Physics provides the randomness. My comments have merit because I exist. Humans had evolved into complex societies with laws well before any Judeo-Christian writings. Any reading or understanding neolithic history shows this. By 1000O BCE we had farming communities in Mesopotamia I mention ancient texts because we have an ability to learn and evolve and discount the ridiculous and just use the good bits as you have shown. If you deny the fallibility of the bible there is little to say other than you don't practice that belief in reality. Many cultures around the world have no understanding of a theist. There is no evidence of a singular people knowing god, certainly not in the Christian god you mean.
1
@PJRayment No It was clearly frustrated opinion. By existing I mean that comes with experience, thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc.thats what gives merit to what I say and think, and allows me to differentiate imagination from reality.
1
@PJRayment Simple Human experience demonstrates there are little if any absolutes. Yes conciousness is not yet fully understood, but from you exsisting you can then gain knowledge through reliable novel testable predictions. No need for a god either to exist of to gain knowledge.
1
@PJRayment Sorry I have been a bit slow on the take up. Your a presuppositionist. You argument has been laughed out of every logical sensible forum. The presupp argument has been fully debunked by philosophers. There is nothing I can add or say than your argument is deluded. The ontological argument has been completely and totally debunked. You were never honestly discussing you were just following your presup checklist/script. Don't bother replying as this is my last comment.
1
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest a single Judeo-Christian value is relevant in a modern secular liberal social democratic western society. Statistics even prove the more secular a society is the better off it is. The more religious a society is the poorer, crime ridden and uneducated it is. The sooner our society treats religion, the idea of god and the bible as figurative the better off we will be.
1
For instance, the idea that laws on murder is a uniquely Judeo-Christian value is laughable. Laws on murder and property rights came out of Mesopotamia and still exist today in tablet and stone engravings and predate Judaism by 600 years. As a Judeo-Christian value murder being wrong doesn't even come close to being unique to that culture or faith.
1
@dankdubious7702 So who decided the old testament is out and we can ignore the ten commandments?
1
@PJRayment What's even more hysterically funny is that you had to go as far down as five on your list to find a value and then that was proved as absolutely false. Please please offer up another unique Judeo-Christian value that you think is reflected in a modern secular liberal social democratic society.
1
@dankdubious7702 So who is the authority on interpreting the bible or Is it up to each individual? You do understand the bible clearly condones slavery and even has very specific rules on how to manage it. Leviticus 25:44 The Lord said If you want slaves, buy them from other nations or from the foreigners who live in your own country and make them your property. You can own them, and even leave them to your children when you die, but do not make slaves of your own people or be cruel to them..
1
@davidstewart9872 I didn't say there was no evidence (clearly the gospels provide some evidence) only it was thin and your claim of no legitimate alternative mythicist argument as untrue. Is is just not true to claim it is a universal given that the Jesus character in the bible existed in reality.
1
@coinswaptrader2915 Look up, Hellenism, Neo-Druidism, Wicca, all alive and kicking all pagan religions.
1
What the freedom to execute homosexuals, keep slaves, execute misbehaving children, or adulterous women. Maybe you might find the subjugation of women in the bible freeing and moral I certainly don't.
1
 @FinalMorningstar Can you please leave my single origin short macchiato out of this argument. Now let me get back to backdoor brides video.
1
@dankdubious7702 So your OK with a literal interpretation of the bible?
1
@PJRayment You did not in any way demonstrate any evidence for God. Naturalism provides as much evidence for existence as a god. While I agree the majority of biblical scholars believe in the historicity of Jesus there is and has been throughout history a significant element of scholars who don't. Dr Richard Carrier is one currently. Christianity is not the basis of Western culture and without any evidence is dismissed as a false assertion. Sorry I remain sceptical.
1
@axle.australian.patriot I make no claim a god doesn't exist only there is no evidence one does. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof and it is a fallacious argument.
1
@PJRayment I make no claim that naturalism is the means of existence only it is plausible as is pantheism. You need to read wider if you think Richard Carrier is a lone mythicist as well Bart Ehrman has not addressed or refuted any of Richard Carriers arguments, Ehrman just continues with the some talking points. None of the commentary on Christianity and Western culture had any evidence of Christianity having any influence on Modern secular Western liberal democracies. Christianity has Certainly influenced Western history no argument there. Just give me one uniquely Judeo-Christian value you think is reflected in a modern secular Western liberal democracy.
1
@axle.australian.patriot I have no doubt you can put a valid argument forward for the existence of a god. It is that I don't consider an argumentation evidence of a god. I can make a valid argument that all humans a purple. ie 1.Alan has a purple tone to his skin 2. Alan is a human 3. All humans must be purple. See a valid argument that is completely untrue. It's easy to do. Try making a sound argument for a god. That's just not possible.
1
@PJRayment Thanks for fixing that error in a logical valid but incorrect argument. So why then be disingenuous by suggesting shifting the burden of proof to me to prove one doesn't exist. You know that is fallacious. We both agree Modern Western civilisation is not based Judeo-Christian values so that's good. Other Mythicists include, George Wells, Michael Martin and Robert Price.
1
@PJRayment Yes your absolutely right it is impossible for me to make a sound argument that a sound argument can be made for a god. You can be a philosopher and not believe Jesus actually existed or a theologian or German. If youtube can get millions of Americans to believe the world is flat it wasn't difficult either for some clever Christians to invent a Jesus character from oral myth and story telling approximately a hundred years later. It worked for you.
1
@PJRayment Yes I retract the statement that a sound argument can be made for god. Your right it can't be done. Yes you did you certainly implied that because it was not what someone was solely credited for they were not Jesus mythicists. I don't reject the scholarship, I'm highly sceptical of it. Large amounts of it are based on self interest and for a good deal of history blasphemy laws. Josephus writings are about a Christ person not Jesus and there is also doubt about its authenticity. Paul certainly lived at the alleged time of Jesus but admits to never meeting him. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus life or existence. He may have existed, the evidence is just not there for are reasonable person to believe so.
1
@PJRayment Yes a sound argument for an argument that god exists is not possible. Agreed. If you did not suggest or imply that a jesus mythicist can be both a biblical scholar/historian and mythicist then good. No there is not universal agreement that Jesus existed. I understand you desperately need him to have as it is essential for your belief/value system. I don't even remotely care if he existed at all, it make zero difference to my ability to tell right from wrong. The vast amount of Christian biblical scholars already start or presuppose the existence of Jesus, they approach the subject already with a bias. They want to believe a Jesus character so it makes sense for them to self validate. None of the gospels are eye witness accounts they are all written anonymously and in the third person. The earliest fragments date to approximately 80CE and are written in Konic Greek, they cannot reasonably be considered first hand accounts. Finally if you have no understanding of Blasphemy laws and how they shape what someone says or writes publicly under the threat of imprisonment or death, then of course you can easily argue there has been little dissent about the existence of Jesus, because you simply ignore history and live in your world. In the real world the west was still locking people up in the 1920s for Blasphemy and fining people for Blasphemy as late as 1977. The movie "The life of Brian" was briefly banned in several countries in 1979 for Blasphemy. Stephen Fry was even investigated for Blasphemy in Ireland as late as 2017. Many western countries still have Blasphemy laws and restrictions on freedom of speech. This dissent is exactly what the authors of the bible wanted to stop as they know their story was so thin. Lastly provide the same level of physical evidence for Jesus as Alexander the great or Ramesses II. The idea there is more evidence for a Jesus character than any allenged contemporary flies in face of physical evidence. We have in existence contemporary Roman writings and sculptures of Roman emperors. Please reference me a sculpture of Jesus made when he was allegedly alive.
1
@axle.australian.patriot You don't need absolute truth to gain knowledge. Your right 100% certainty is not always possible but you don't need that to gain knowledge.
1
@PJRayment Sorry as I said I was a bit slow on the uptake and didn't realise you are a presuppositionist. Your presuppositionist ideas have been laughed out of all debates and completely debunked by philosophy. It is a completely deluded concept that runs around in your imagination. You never engaged in this dialogue with any integrity. The ontological argument has been fully debunked. You were never honestly discussing you were merely following your script. Don't bother replying this is my last comment.
1
@PJRayment For an argument to be sound all the premises must be true. Not all premises on the existence of a god can be agreed to be true. Therefore no sound argument can be made for the existence of a god.
1
@PJRayment The premise "For an argument to be sound all the premises must be true" is correct as I did not say for an argument to be correct all the premises must be correct, your reply to that is a strawman and fallacious. The second premise mentioned nothing about Atheism (another strawman) and your reply that just because people won't agree doesn't mean they can't agree is nonsensical. So despite your nonsensical fallacious ramblings my argument is therefore both sound and factually correct.
1
@PJRayment It is not what I mean or you mean by soundness but by which universally the Philosophy literature means and that is the premises must be true for a sound argument. You created a further strawman by introducing validity and yes a deductive argument is only sound if it is both valid and its premises are true. My premise "For an argument to by sound the premises must be true" requires no correcting as it is already factually correct. Your so called correction to the second premise which again is a true premise is a statement that is nonsensical and is not a correction, it doesn't even attempt clarification only obfuscation. The second premise is a true statement. Your example is again deliberate obfuscation. And finally you can't help yourself the presuppositionist pops out "Someone you knows something is true" classic presuppositionist. I vilified nothing merely pointing out the absurdity of your argument. You rebutted nothing, all you did was introduce red herrings into a argument.
1
@PJRayment So here we go again. For an argument to be sound all the premises must be true. This premise is true. Wikipedia: Soundness. Stanford University; Sound an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises. Not all premises on the existence of a god can agreed to be true. This premise is true and factually correct as evidenced by around 9 different types of gods based on theological characteristics and the 8000 to 12000 gods recorded throughout history you can then include all the pagan gods. The reality is that this turns into 12 major religions and thousands more minor or distinct religions. This makes the second premise factually correct as this is just observed common public knowledge so there is no need for Atheism or your ridiculous assertion that someone knows the truth and chooses to ignore it. From these premises the conclusion to the argument is both valid and sound. I understand you have divine revelation and know the "truth" so there is little you can actually add.
1
@nicnaimhin2978 Yes Metatron is a bit of fun but provides no evidence of eye witness accounts says maybe more times than not and asserts that being born very soon after someone death is basically contemporary (it isn't). None of the information he provides is new or particularly controversial as it is already well known. If you can produce a coin minted during Jesus life with his likeness on it as I can for Alexander the great 333-327 BCE then in the blink of an eye I'm a believer.
1
@PJRayment Yes I understand you have divine revelation and presuppose a god and won't accept any alternative but to be believable you must provide some evidence and you can't even provide a sound argument. You simply reject any claim despite the claim having significant evidence. You claim this argument for a god exists but provide no evidence of such. You have convinced yourself that if you simply reject any claim then any argument is dismissed and then by default god exists.
1
@PJRayment Just as a side note considering logic and argumentation are observations and language how do you propose that they can create a god. How do you differentiate between what is real and what is your imagination?
1
@PJRayment I reject your claim "if the evidence is there I will". I reject your claim of divine revelation as you provide no evidence. I reject the claim you can provide evidence of a god. You haven't. I reject the claim you evaluate the evidence. You don't you presuppose a god and then fit a narrative around your faith in a god existing. I reject the claim I provided no evidence. You have provided no evidence to any of your claims and I reject in totality your entire reply.
1
@dankdubious7702 Just humour me here. Are you saying you are the sole authority on interpreting what the bible says?
1
@FinalMorningstar Paul's letters yes, however they are by admission not eye witness accounts. The earliest known fragments of the gospels date to approx 2 century CE and are anonymous and in Konic Greek and again none proport to be eye witness accounts. Despite 1000s of exisiting contemporary Roman writings of the 1st century CE none mention any sort the Jesus character. While the vast magority of Christian bible scholars accept the historicity of Jesus there is a growing number of highly reputable scholars that are in the mythicist camp. There are no secular or independent contemporaneous accounts of the Jesus character in the bible.
1
@thebugkiller9036 No there isn't
1
@nicnaimhin2978 I would like to believe you but even Jesus believing world renowned bible scholars acknowledge there is no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus life. Not biblical or secular or Roman. If you have shout it from the rooftops you will be famous.
1
@nicnaimhin2978 Suetonius was not born till 69CE, that's 30 years after the supposed death of Jesus. How could he possibly write a contemporary account of life of someone who died 30 years before he was born?
1
@PJRayment That's funny "What time scale" straight to your hard solipsism argument. Just as a presupper does following their script to the letter. There is no evidence of Judeo-Christian values being reflected in a modern secular liberal social democratic society, I can't therefore provide any. You had one go and even you couldn't come up with one.
1