I can tell you want to engage in intellectual reasoning, so I'll bite.
When I mentioned theories, I was hitting at the idea that you casually mentioned something controversial like whether or not Josephus wrote about Jesus as if it was not controversial. Both the idea that he wrote it and didn't write it are up for debate.
Now drawing back to your last response, you said something interesting. Considering who Jesus was, why would there be statues and coins? He was not a ruler in the sense that Caesar was. Not having these things is closer to what we would expect.
Second, you dismiss the Gospels as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Which ones? All of them - including the false ones. Consider six people needing to testify about a car wreck. If they contradict each other should the judge then conclude that the car wreck never happened? Is it really the best application of Occam's Razor to say that these people wrote about and died for an imaginary person? Whether or not the Gospels agree, we can conclude that it points to a real person.
The direct first hand evidence is the Gospels and all of the false gospels. It would be weird for several different accounts be written about a guy who never existed were written in such a short time, wouldn't it? Applying Occam's Razor here would lead you to reason that a man named Jesus really did exist. The problem is that people can't accept evidence if they don't believe that evidence is 100% accurate.
Imagine a car wreck if you would. In court, six witnesses give an account of said wreck. Some of the accounts seem to contradict others. Do you as the judge or jury then conclude that the wreck didn't occur? Of course not! That would be silly to assume that since you don't 100% believe any one of the six witnesses that nothing happened.
The direct evidence is the Gospels. It is doubtful the Gospels would be written to discuss a fictional man.
The problem with verifying Jesus is that people who are not historians often times holds Jesus to a different standard than other people in history. One could take a time machine, record the crucifiction of Jesus, put it on youtube, and people will still claim that it's another guy. There is no evidence that I can give that will convince someone who wants to deny the existence of Jesus that there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century. As you have demonstrated with your examples, people who want to deny Jesus existed will come up with theories as to how this historical evidence was altered or that historical evidence was altered.
But with that being said, the canonical example is typically comparing the historicity of Jesus with Julius Caesar. Both historical figures have primary sources. In the case of Jesus, it's the Gospels. But since a religion holds said primary sources to be sacred, it somehow doesn't count. But I digress. The earliest primary sources for Jesus show up just 50 years after his death. With Caesar, our earliest copies of primary sources is hundreds of years after his death. So if we hold the same qualifications for the historicity of Ceasar for Jesus, then we can comfortably conclude that a man named Jesus existed.
Given that the Caesar/Jesus example is the canonical example, a quick Google search will bring up hundreds of blog posts from arm chair historians with all sorts of crazy evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist. And then often times in the comments, you'll see people refute those refutations and so on.
tl;dr - Jesus is held to a different standard than other historical figures. So, no, I cannot give you evidence that will convince you that a historical Jesus existed.
First off good sir, how did you know I'm an atheist? I had always assumed that other religions didn't believe in Jesus either.
Because only someone with an incentive of Jesus not existing would contradict an established fact like that. Just as Christians will assert that Mohammed and Buddha are historical factual people, all of the major religions of the world will assert that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth at the beginning of the first century.
Second, I must admit I misspoke. What I intended to say was that I meant that I didn't think he is the incarnation of God. Out of curiousity, do people have an interest in whether a historical Jesus existed?
Great question, schlachter! Yes, there is a lot of time and money spent researching Jesus. Given the huge impact Jesus, and by extension Christianity, has had on western culture; Jesus is one of the most well studied historical figures of all time!
I will admit that you're correct that it is often times not an intelligent debate. It makes sense. Not because I think the divinity of Jesus is false, but rather those who are quick to debate are those who are quick to draw attention to themselves. Quite the opposite of what Jesus teaches. Now don't get me wrong. The Bible instructs Christians to be able to have a response to questions and criticisms, but I think that's very different from the Harold Campings of the world.
lol... I love it when atheists say that Jesus is fictional. It's low hanging fruit to debunk since the existence of a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century is one of the most verified humans in antiquity. Saying that Jesus is fictional is as bad as believing in geocentrism. In fact, many atheists encourage their fellow unbelievers to stop saying nonsense like "Jesus is fictional" since it is such low hanging fruit for an apologist to debunk.
When they say "belief" for evolution, I don't think they're talking about organisms adapting and changing over time (ie natural selection). Most people would agree that natural selection and adaptation occurs. Rather it is the belief that all life can be traced back to a single population of life forms.
I don't know what you're talking about regarding.0031% of the United States. Google Fiber is available in 100% of the places where I live (a house in KC).
I would argue that it's a niche geared towards 4 to 12 year olds and 18 to 40 year olds. 13-17 year olds are too cool for Nintendo. 40+ year olds did not grow up with Nintendo. But other than teenagers and old people, Nintendo 3DS is a hit.
As anecdotal evidence, I was at a meeting with a variety of people including executives, marketing managers, engineers, etc... when my 3DS XL slipped out of my pocket. At the end of the meeting, the president of the organization approached me and asked me what was the gold thing that fell out of my pocket. So I showed him my 3DS XL Zelda Edition. He then pulls out his 3DS XL Zelda Edition. And he was playing Pokémon. Because, yes, adults will drop $40 to play an RPG with one of the deepest game mechanics of all time.
As for the fantasy iPad Nintendo clone. Not going to happen. Why would they downgrade their offering to cater to the "Too cool for Nintendo" crowd?
I'd love to love Android Studio, but on my PC it's slower than molasses going uphill on crutches. I also can't figure out how to set up an environment in Android Studio that allows me to mix java projects with android projects or use maven to manage my projects. Admittedly that took a while to figure that out with Eclipse as well.
As a software engineer, I would think that in an ID universe that genes would be shared among distinctly created lifeforms. I will often use similar design patterns and libraries for different applications. Identical code doesn't mean that a book library manager program evolved from a shoot-em-up video game, it just means that it has a common designer.
I'm not sure how it proves/disproves Intelligent Design. I do think that it models ID closer than it does evolution. Here's why. When people talk about evolution, they're not just talking about species adapting and changing over time. I think most people believe that. They're also proposing the idea that all species originated from a single origin. That's where ID and evolution are different. So ID proponents would say that an Intelligent Designer (God, the Matrix programmers, etc...) created many different organisms and those adapted and changed over time. Similarly memes are created individually using similar formulas over time. There isn't a proto-meme that is the father of all memes. But each meme was designed by an intelligent (not high IQ or super wise, just something that is self determining) entity. Each meme then evolves. Sometimes the evolution of one meme affects another, but each has its distinct origin.
I called AT&T about this and they blamed Netflix. I don't know what the truth is. I can stream Amazon in HD fine most days, but even with an 18Meg pipe, Netflix looks like garbage. Hopefully when Google comes to town this year, I can finally get rid of AT&T.
Slashdot Mirror
I can tell you want to engage in intellectual reasoning, so I'll bite.
When I mentioned theories, I was hitting at the idea that you casually mentioned something controversial like whether or not Josephus wrote about Jesus as if it was not controversial. Both the idea that he wrote it and didn't write it are up for debate.
Now drawing back to your last response, you said something interesting. Considering who Jesus was, why would there be statues and coins? He was not a ruler in the sense that Caesar was. Not having these things is closer to what we would expect.
Second, you dismiss the Gospels as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Which ones? All of them - including the false ones. Consider six people needing to testify about a car wreck. If they contradict each other should the judge then conclude that the car wreck never happened? Is it really the best application of Occam's Razor to say that these people wrote about and died for an imaginary person? Whether or not the Gospels agree, we can conclude that it points to a real person.
The direct first hand evidence is the Gospels and all of the false gospels. It would be weird for several different accounts be written about a guy who never existed were written in such a short time, wouldn't it? Applying Occam's Razor here would lead you to reason that a man named Jesus really did exist. The problem is that people can't accept evidence if they don't believe that evidence is 100% accurate.
Imagine a car wreck if you would. In court, six witnesses give an account of said wreck. Some of the accounts seem to contradict others. Do you as the judge or jury then conclude that the wreck didn't occur? Of course not! That would be silly to assume that since you don't 100% believe any one of the six witnesses that nothing happened.
The direct evidence is the Gospels. It is doubtful the Gospels would be written to discuss a fictional man.
The problem with verifying Jesus is that people who are not historians often times holds Jesus to a different standard than other people in history. One could take a time machine, record the crucifiction of Jesus, put it on youtube, and people will still claim that it's another guy. There is no evidence that I can give that will convince someone who wants to deny the existence of Jesus that there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century. As you have demonstrated with your examples, people who want to deny Jesus existed will come up with theories as to how this historical evidence was altered or that historical evidence was altered.
But with that being said, the canonical example is typically comparing the historicity of Jesus with Julius Caesar. Both historical figures have primary sources. In the case of Jesus, it's the Gospels. But since a religion holds said primary sources to be sacred, it somehow doesn't count. But I digress. The earliest primary sources for Jesus show up just 50 years after his death. With Caesar, our earliest copies of primary sources is hundreds of years after his death. So if we hold the same qualifications for the historicity of Ceasar for Jesus, then we can comfortably conclude that a man named Jesus existed.
Given that the Caesar/Jesus example is the canonical example, a quick Google search will bring up hundreds of blog posts from arm chair historians with all sorts of crazy evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist. And then often times in the comments, you'll see people refute those refutations and so on.
tl;dr - Jesus is held to a different standard than other historical figures. So, no, I cannot give you evidence that will convince you that a historical Jesus existed.
First off good sir, how did you know I'm an atheist? I had always assumed that other religions didn't believe in Jesus either.
Because only someone with an incentive of Jesus not existing would contradict an established fact like that. Just as Christians will assert that Mohammed and Buddha are historical factual people, all of the major religions of the world will assert that there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth at the beginning of the first century.
Second, I must admit I misspoke. What I intended to say was that I meant that I didn't think he is the incarnation of God. Out of curiousity, do people have an interest in whether a historical Jesus existed?
Great question, schlachter! Yes, there is a lot of time and money spent researching Jesus. Given the huge impact Jesus, and by extension Christianity, has had on western culture; Jesus is one of the most well studied historical figures of all time!
I will admit that you're correct that it is often times not an intelligent debate. It makes sense. Not because I think the divinity of Jesus is false, but rather those who are quick to debate are those who are quick to draw attention to themselves. Quite the opposite of what Jesus teaches. Now don't get me wrong. The Bible instructs Christians to be able to have a response to questions and criticisms, but I think that's very different from the Harold Campings of the world.
lol... I love it when atheists say that Jesus is fictional. It's low hanging fruit to debunk since the existence of a man named Jesus who was crucified in the first century is one of the most verified humans in antiquity. Saying that Jesus is fictional is as bad as believing in geocentrism. In fact, many atheists encourage their fellow unbelievers to stop saying nonsense like "Jesus is fictional" since it is such low hanging fruit for an apologist to debunk.
When they say "belief" for evolution, I don't think they're talking about organisms adapting and changing over time (ie natural selection). Most people would agree that natural selection and adaptation occurs. Rather it is the belief that all life can be traced back to a single population of life forms.
And let's not forget "Dog the Bounty Hunter".
I don't know what you're talking about regarding .0031% of the United States. Google Fiber is available in 100% of the places where I live (a house in KC).
And hey, the Xbox360 won last time
The underpowered Wii won last time.
I would argue that it's a niche geared towards 4 to 12 year olds and 18 to 40 year olds. 13-17 year olds are too cool for Nintendo. 40+ year olds did not grow up with Nintendo. But other than teenagers and old people, Nintendo 3DS is a hit.
As anecdotal evidence, I was at a meeting with a variety of people including executives, marketing managers, engineers, etc... when my 3DS XL slipped out of my pocket. At the end of the meeting, the president of the organization approached me and asked me what was the gold thing that fell out of my pocket. So I showed him my 3DS XL Zelda Edition. He then pulls out his 3DS XL Zelda Edition. And he was playing Pokémon. Because, yes, adults will drop $40 to play an RPG with one of the deepest game mechanics of all time.
As for the fantasy iPad Nintendo clone. Not going to happen. Why would they downgrade their offering to cater to the "Too cool for Nintendo" crowd?
I'd offer you a custom plugin, but it's like over 9000 dollars.
I wish I could be so "lucky"... The only choices we have here in KC is AT&T U-Verse, Time Warner, oh and um.... GOOGLE FIBER!!!
Is the plugin the "same thing" as Android Studio?
I'd love to love Android Studio, but on my PC it's slower than molasses going uphill on crutches. I also can't figure out how to set up an environment in Android Studio that allows me to mix java projects with android projects or use maven to manage my projects. Admittedly that took a while to figure that out with Eclipse as well.
As a software engineer, I would think that in an ID universe that genes would be shared among distinctly created lifeforms. I will often use similar design patterns and libraries for different applications. Identical code doesn't mean that a book library manager program evolved from a shoot-em-up video game, it just means that it has a common designer.
I'm not sure how it proves/disproves Intelligent Design. I do think that it models ID closer than it does evolution. Here's why. When people talk about evolution, they're not just talking about species adapting and changing over time. I think most people believe that. They're also proposing the idea that all species originated from a single origin. That's where ID and evolution are different. So ID proponents would say that an Intelligent Designer (God, the Matrix programmers, etc...) created many different organisms and those adapted and changed over time. Similarly memes are created individually using similar formulas over time. There isn't a proto-meme that is the father of all memes. But each meme was designed by an intelligent (not high IQ or super wise, just something that is self determining) entity. Each meme then evolves. Sometimes the evolution of one meme affects another, but each has its distinct origin.
I called AT&T about this and they blamed Netflix. I don't know what the truth is. I can stream Amazon in HD fine most days, but even with an 18Meg pipe, Netflix looks like garbage. Hopefully when Google comes to town this year, I can finally get rid of AT&T.
I was about to say, "No it isn't..." But then I realized that in qwerty that the R and D are close by.
I think 31 miles is much closer than 70. Given that signal strength weakens exponentially it's really not a fair comparison.
And thanks to /. beta, this comment replied to the wrong place. I was wondering where it went...
Distance. Not everyone lives in the city.
I use to live in a town that was 70 miles away from the nearest NBC station. You can't easily pick up content from that far away.
I don't get it... That's like saying, "That's it, McDonalds has failed once again. I'm going back to brushing my teeth."
How about Richard Nixon? When deep throat blew the whistle on him, he resigned.