Friday, February 5, 2016

Atheist Farm: More Orwellian


Remarkable admission on Secular Café. This guy completely reverses the atheist game of linkimg Jesus deity to his historicity and blames us for the same maneuver.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Originally Posted by Samnell View Post
Of course I'm dealing with nineteenth century America, a culture that boasted a very large literate population and steam-driven printing presses. Documents are usually complete (sometimes way too complete) and relatively abundant. I have luxuries that Classicists would probably kill for.
Not to mention the mid 20th cy., as with George Adamski. I mentioned him to illustrate a common Xian-apologist two-step.

Here are the two main hypotheses about Jesus Christ:
  1. The Human Jesus (HJ): JC was 100% human and had 100% parentage. He worked no miracles and when he died, he stayed dead.
  2. The Divine Jesus (DJ): JC was a God-human hybrid, God, and/or 1/3 of God. He worked miracles, and he rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven.

HJ is not an extraordinary claim. DJ is.

Now for the two-step.

The first part is to demonstrate that there was a historical JC. This can be either HJ or DJ.

The second part is to jump from there to JC being DJ.

But if one is to grant the first part while avoiding giving credence to extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, then one would conclude that it demonstrates HJ and not DJ.

Let's now do this with regard to George Adamski, someone who is MUCH better documented than Jesus Christ. The hypotheses:
  1. GA was a fantasizer and a faker: FA -- not extraordinary
  2. GA was contacted by ET's: CA -- extraordinary
It's very evident that the quality of documentation of GA is MUCH higher than for Jesus Christ. But to use the Xian apologist's two-step, one concludes that CA is true about him, while if one avoids extraordinary claims unsupported by extraordinary evidence, then one concludes that FA is true about him.
That's you guys with the two step:

(1) Jesus could not be the son of God because he want let me be God

(2) therefore, since there is no God  there can't be Jesus.

The reason you think we are pulling the same trick in reverse is because you demand that all truth and reality be reduced to your ideology, that's what ideology is, reduction of all reality to come view.

Allowing Jesus existence means the possibility that he was more than just a man has to be left on the tale and your ideology can['t allow anything but itself on the table.

No comments: