<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121896966.744641.237950@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mickey wrote:

<PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121894086.756217.240110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Mickey wrote:

"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sKgDe.6699$N91.1408@trnddc08...

"Peter Davidson" <brachypodium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uZ9De.4426$je1.3462@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121768861.345771.57670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

As I'm sure many of you have noticed, we've been having

something

of a running battle between Christians and atheists of late.

The

Christians claim overwhelming evidence that Jesus

actually

existed. <

If he didn't, it's not too easy to explain the dating system of

much

of

the world, the existence of a large false 'churches', and the

existence

of

Islam, all of which do nothing much except try to deny the

gospel of

Christ.

You don't know all that much about Islam, do you?

Christ's presence is clear enough from the palpable reaction of

many

of

his many enemies.

You mean like all those who deny the existence of Odin?
Or those who deny the validity of Torah?

Validity by numerics.... this is great. If you convince enough

people

that

something is true, it is.

OK folks, I am the handsomest, sexiest man alive, and I will stay

that

way

for 2000 years.

Might as well start somewhere :)

Yes, you might as well start somewhere but it might be better if

you

started with something that even YOU believed!! ;-)

Ah, but if enough OTHER people believe, then it will be true... isn't

that

how it works?

Mickey

Oh yeah, how silly of me. You don't suppose that some of these
Jesus stories are like fractured fairy tales. Like, yes, Jesus did
roll something and he DID get upset about being left out of a good
"stoning session".

Sounds about appropriate to the time and place.

Mickey

In article <dbp5bp$qu5$7@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"?. R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote

. Some people still insist that the Apollo moon landing was firmed o=

sound stage in Hollywood, California.

So, if before knowing that, someone said "Did Man land on the Moon?" I =

have said "of course". Now I say "It is generally accepted that this wa=

There is a minority opinion that the landings were faked, which bears a=

the hallmarks of a kook theory, but I cannot say I have any expert
information myself".

** would the testimony of those who seemiingly walked on the moon be
considered expert?

You might start with the photographs they claim are impossible;
but their claims are worng, and quite silly to anybody who
understands the basics of photographic exposure and dynamic
range.

The exact same thing applies to this discussion. You suggest that
the most remarkable man in all of history lived in the first part
of the first century. We say, ``Oh really? That's interesting. Got
any evidence to back it up?'' You say, ``Sure,'' and--after giving
you one hell of a bitchslapping for refusing to give it to us--you
finally hit us with your famous fifty documents.

But the documents don't even stand up to cursory examination.

So can you hardly blame us for equating ``Jesus existed'' with
``the moon landings were faked''?

Malcolm wrote:

R. L. Measures wrote:

Some people still insist that the Apollo moon landing was firmed
on a sound stage in Hollywood, California.

So, if before knowing that, someone said "Did Man land on the Moon?"
I would have said "of course". Now I say "It is generally
accepted that this was so. There is a minority opinion that the
landings were faked, which bears all the hallmarks of a kook
theory, but I cannot say I have any expert information myself".

Well, there might be some hope for you yet.

The first thing, you'd do, of course, when questioning the claims of
those who posit that the moon landings were faked, is examine the
evidence they put forth. If it seems plausible, then it's reasonable
to then take the next step and try to verify evidence all 'round.

You might start with the photographs they claim are impossible; but
their claims are worng, and quite silly to anybody who understands
the basics of photographic exposure and dynamic range. Or, you
might examine their claims about how dust settles...and then
realize that they're basing their assumptions off of incorrect ideas
about how dust behaves in a low-gravity vacuum. And so on and so on;
I've yet to hear even a plausible argument from those who espouse a
faked moon landing that would lead me to the conclusion that I would
have to examine anybody's evidence for myself. If the claims themselves
don't hold water, there's no point in wasting time on evidence that
wouldn't even prove the case.

The exact same thing applies to this discussion. You suggest that the
most remarkable man in all of history lived in the first part of the
first century. We say, ``Oh really? That's interesting. Got any evidence
to back it up?'' You say, ``Sure,'' and--after giving you one hell of a
bitchslapping for refusing to give it to us--you finally hit us with your
famous fifty documents.

But the documents don't even stand up to cursory examination. Even if we
grant you /everything/ that you claim, in the most favorable manner
possible...well, we're still left with the Gospels being pure hearsay.
Second-generation hearsay, written sixty years after the fact, for
that matter, with none of the eyewitnesses even identified.

Now, if these documents were an ``oh-by-the-way'' sort of thing, we'd be
delighted to have them as corroboration, and especially to see what people
thought of the events as history marched on.

But the fact is that they're /all/ you've got. And, when we point out to
you that there's no way you can even get them to say what you claim
they say, you blow your credibility all to hell and back.

In short, your best case scenario is ludicrous and doesn't even do you a
damned bit of good to prove your assertions. So what if I actually held
a copy of Mark in my hands, and that copy had been dated to 90 CE?
Unless it said something substantially different from what it says today,
it still wouldn't prove anything but that Mark believed that his
grandparents saw something remarkable.

So can you hardly blame us for equating ``Jesus existed'' with ``the
moon landings were faked''?

Cheers,

b&