/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4219484]

Having a 'discussion' with a Muslim. I'm a theological nonconjunctivist. He seems to think that Jesus wasn't crucified and refers to Bart Ehrman books to press his point. I countered with 'That's a bad idea since if Ehrman's critique of the Bible were used against the Qu'ran, it would destroy the Qu'ran.' He persisted so I quoted from Ehrman's The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings where he states: "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontious Pilate."

What else can I say?

[sage No.4219486]

>>4219484
>aguring which faiytale characters are better

Not /sci/
Saged and reported

[sage No.4219490]

>>4219484
The bible is not a historical document. It is not a history book, it is a fiction novel. The bible is like Harry Potter, excpet Harry Potter actually has a plot and intersting characters.

[Anonymous No.4219491]

>>4219486

Since when is History NOT a science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events. History can also mean the period of time after writing was invented. Scholars who write about history are called historians. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events, and it sometimes attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events.

[Anonymous No.4219497]

>>4219490

lolwhut?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIhX4BWCPU

[sage No.4219499]

>>4219491
History is not science.
The bible is not History.


Histpry is shit that actually happened,. It is verified by multiple sources. Star Wars is not history. The bible is not history. And Twilight is not history.

\thread

[sage No.4219500]

>>4219497
>thinks anyone will watch his shitty vids

[Anonymous No.4219514]

Hmmm, you don't seem to understand. HISTORIANS state that J was a HISTORICAL figure. I am discussing HISTORY, not fairy tales/fables. I could care less about the Bible or the Qu'ran, but I don't like people screwing with History out of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4219522]

>>4219514
>I could care less
Then please do.

[Anonymous No.4219525]

>>4219499

>>Histpry is shit that actually happened,. It is verified by multiple sources.

The crucifixion IS verified by multiple sources, holmes.

[sage No.4219529]

>>4219514
>HISTORIANS state that J was a HISTORICAL figure

Nope

[Anonymous No.4219531]

>>4219500

Too bad. Really entertaining listening to an imbecile get ALL his arguments refuted by Bart Ehrman.

[sage No.4219534]

>>4219525

[Anonymous No.4219535]

Josephus has been discredited many times, so there are still no historical accounts of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.4219540]

Wikipedia says that Jesus is a historical fact, though.

[Anonymous No.4219545]

What are you trying to accomplish? You don't think you can change the mind of a superstitious, religious child, do you?

[Anonymous No.4219547]

>>4219514
>HISTORIANS state that J was a HISTORICAL figure.

Mabye if your write it all in caps it will become a fact.

[sage No.4219552]

>>4219540
Nope. Read the article again dumbshit. It says that a some scholars think that there is a "historical jesus", but that this is not the same as the "christian jesus". No credible historical scholars seriously believe that a magic man existsed 2000 years ago...LMFAO.

Also, most scholars don't even think that a "historical jesus" existed. You should take a history of christainity class.

[Anonymous No.4219548]

>>4219484
Hey guys im a [faggot] and I like [dicks] and this guy said [using cocks was better]

[Anonymous No.4219550]

If biology is a real science or if god was real, why am I still black?

[Anonymous No.4219557]

>>4219552
>Also, most scholars don't even think that a "historical jesus" existed. You should take a history of christainity class.

>Nope. Read the article again dumbshit.

>"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,[52] most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence."

[Anonymous No.4219558]

>>4219535

Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Seutonious, Phlegon, Thallus.....?

Thanks for your input, btw.

[Anonymous No.4219565]

>>4219545

Yeah, right. Not going to happen. I'd have better luck convincing atheists to become nonconjunctivists like myself. At least they are as logical as myself.

My goal is to keep his rhetoric from reaching anyone else due to their ignorance. The only way to counter ignorance is with knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4219568]

>>4219558
Interesting but still these people all lived after Jesus's death, and besides Tacticus and Thallos, the authors are ambiguously talking about either christ or christians and there is debate in the historical community with either side simply reading what they wish to read.

[Anonymous No.4219575]

This is all a bit moot, I think. Even the scholars who do argue for the historicity of Jesus have trouble coming to a definitive agreement on who he actually was and what he actually did as compared to the biblical claims.

On an unrelated note, I don't know what a nonconjunctivist is.

[Anonymous No.4219603]

>>4219568

So, I guess I should find out where Tacitus got his info from, but that's a dead-end.

>>4219575

Theological Nonconjunctivists believe the term 'God' is meaningless since there is no coherent definition to explain what it is.

[Anonymous No.4219609]

>>4219565
>
Yeah, right. Not going to happen. I'd have better luck convincing atheists to become nonconjunctivists like myself. At least they are as logical as myself.

As an atheist, I'm sorry. There are plenty of definable details of this god hypothesis, such as the efficacy of prayers. Such claims have been tested, and debunked. If it actually was incoherent as you claim, then they couldn't base public policy decisions on it, but yet they do.

[Anonymous No.4219616]

>>4219603
I'm more interested in thallos seeing as he was the first to describe of a realistic event(crucifiction). But there will be no convincing your friend because muslims believe someone else took jesus's place before the crucifixion, (if I remember correctly) scholars believe this happened when jesus tripped while carrying the cross.

[Anonymous No.4219636]

>>4219609

>>There are plenty of definable details of this god hypothesis, such as the efficacy of prayers.

That doesn't tell me or anyone else what 'God' actually is. See what I mean? I can't believe or disbelieve in something when I have no idea what it is you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4219639]

>>4219484
Why don't you read the Koran (or however it's spelled today). It will unravel itself.

I've read a lot of religious tomes and they all suffer the same problems like dated morality, awkward commands, little if any archaeological corroboration.

[Anonymous No.4219657]

>>4219636
Now that is just being silly. You have several very falsifiable propositions, that if false, would deny the existence of their particular god.

[Anonymous No.4219658]

>>4219616

Hmmm, checked Thallus' history on Richard Carrier's site and it is plagued with too many problems. He seems possible, but not probable to be an early, reliable witness.

The old 'switcheroo' is even more fantastic, though.

[Anonymous No.4219666]

>>4219657
To continue, compare and contrast with quantum mechanics. What is a photon, exactly? Hell if anyone knows. But we do have a bunch of cool falsifiable predictions, that if false, would deny the existence of the photon.

[Anonymous No.4219681]

In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong." All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote.

Eusebius (fourth century) mentions a history of Thallus in three books that according to an Armenian translation of Eusebius ranged from the sack of Troy to the 167th Olympiad. (Actually, the manuscript is damaged, and “Thallus” is merely a guess from “_allos Samaritanos.” That word “allos” actually means “other” in Greek, so it may have been simply saying “the other Samaritan.”) There is no historical evidence of an eclipse during the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. The reason Africanus doubted the eclipse is because Easter happens near the full moon and a solar eclipse would have been impossible at that time, as was well-known. Compounding the matter is the Armenian translation of Eusebius has many corrupt numerals and so many apologists claim that 167th Olympiad (or 109 BCE) should really be 217th Olympiad.

[Anonymous No.4219697]

>>4219639
> they all suffer the same problems like dated morality

So does /sci/ence. How many threads have I seen on this board claim that blacks are inferior because of genetics or IQ tests?

Any belief system is tainted by the people making the conclusions.

[Anonymous No.4219698]

>>4219681
Is this from richard carrier's site, if so how do I search that site?

[Anonymous No.4219699]

>>4219657

Sorry, not even worth it in my estimation. You disprove one thing, they'll come up with something else. In the meantime, I still don't know WTF they're talking about so regard it as nonsense and don't even get wrapped up in discussing it.

[Anonymous No.4219708]

>>4219699
Uhhh, no. That's not how discussions with them work. If you manage to disprove the efficacy of prayer, and that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I think that is more or less the end of the conversation.

[Anonymous No.4219715]

>>4219698

Go here:

http://www.infidels.org/search.html

[Anonymous No.4219735]

>>4219697
>So does /sci/ence.
Science doesn't make any moral claims.

[Anonymous No.4219737]

>>4219484
>theological nonconjunctivist
>Implying Jesus or Mohammed ever existed

[Anonymous No.4219739]

>>4219697
science may claim what IS.
science can never claim what OUGHT to be.

and scientists usually don't. if scientists make conclusions from data that IS to phenomena that also ARE, if done rigorously, never lead to "tainted" conclusions.
Only when scientists analyse their data through lenses of OUGHT, say religion or racism, will conclusions become unscientific and tainted.

[Anonymous No.4219742]

>>4219708

>>That's not how discussions with them work.

Were that the case, then William Lane Craig and Zakir Naik would not be theists now, but I understand what you are saying.