That can be said about everything before the Enlightenment so I guess you don't consider anything to have really happened until Voltaire and Descartes.
I'm don't know every piece of history in all of history, so I wouldn't be able to say whether can be said about "everything" before the enlightenment era etc But i'm not talking about everything, i'm specifically talking about a certain person/event.
Anyway, have it your way, you are repeating that "those people claiming that it is proof of his existence happen to be religious as well" as if every and all historians were hardcore Christians and people like Richard Dawkins had not acknowledged it as well and I can't be bothered to repeat myself too.
Yes, but we are overlooking the fact that there are plenty of people who don't agree or believe this is substantial proof of Jesus' existence. And ultimately, it seems a lot of history, in particular of the distance past, compared to modern history, is ultimately written by people who come to a certain conclusion, based on various signs that could "possibly" confirm a certain event or what have you. But a "possibility" is never and never will be fact. Ever. If there was any recorded history, that someone by the name of Jesus was recorded somewhere, exactly around that era, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt... but there isn't, is there? :p
The baby was mentioned by someone decades ago... he never even witnessed Jesus... that doesn't add up. At some point, you are simply assuming things. That is not faaaaaacccccctt.
That's like me writing about my mom becoming a prominent Mayor of a small town out in the middle of nowhere where I grew up in, even though she didn't. If i move elsewhere and tell people the story, people will likely believe it, IF they can't confirm nor deny it. If I act the part enough, it can become possible. I know that concept is hard to grasp nowadays (what with information everywhere, and easier to confirm things), but people seemed a lot more innocent way back when. Even in modern times - talk to my mother and some of the stories she will tell you, they seem so innocent and gullible (she came from Guatemala... very outdated country etc)
Also, "for others to dissect and then come to their own conclusion"? Gravity is not a discussion, it's a fact. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
The world was once flat. That was a supposed "fact", at one point to "people". To "people" in its time. That's what I'm implying about certain supposed "facts".
i'm not saying gravity isn't fact or whether it doesn't exist or whether there is a discussion in regards to its "existence", i was just commenting about specifics of laws etc. Einstein went even more beyond Newton in regards to this etc so on and so forth etc
I believe Gravity is fact.
I just commented that Gravity was a discussion (that's what I was implying specifically). People didn't believe right away, not until it was confirmed by others as well and it has been confirmed by various people and even events. You're overlooking my point. That is pretty logical steps for, as you would put it, "newly discovered 'discoveries'". To confirm them etc
This is something however, you can NOT do with the existence of "Jesus". Why? Because we can't recreate the event and/or person... unlike "gravity" or any other math or science subject etc etc
You can only go by assumption ultimately... and assumption is just as valuable as me selling you a piece of the moon for a few hundred bucks, right here and right now.
Some things we may never know for a long time or may even never know, but apparently to religious people, I've found that that is a hard concept to grasp, apparently.
Me: "He probably lived, most evidence point to that."
You: "bullshit and you're suppose to be what, a history major or something?"
that's not "lol" baby, that's assuming. "probably"? wtf. Most evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE. Some jew and another guy mention "someone" in some writing, decades later? Gentlemen who never actually even witnessed his this someone's existence? But lets assume this is Jesus, cuz it is as close as we will ever get? So lets just make it the law of the land as 100% fact?
That is too silly.
He took it so literally it would be considered heresy. He was not just a follower, he was completely into it and it was hard for him. He didn't believe just because it was convenient or easy, he believe it and studied it so much because he had a passion for understanding everything and he thought God made sense. And his physics are all we need to manoeuvre spaceships around space, if he had F-1 rocket engines he could have gone to the Moon lol, it's not like we know much more than he did (unless you are a theoretical physicist, in that case let me bow before you).
What was wrong with him being completely into it? Lots of people were really into it way back when, last i recall. not necessarily heresy back when, to my knowledge.
And I never implied he believed because it was easy or convenient. The guy "supposedly" died a Virgin (though, there is no way of ever knowing 100%... since ya know... a lot of stuff happens behind closed doors awwwyeaaaaaa....). Doing things the easy way, seems like the last thing on his mind regardless, kitten :p
I am simply stating, if you raise a person to believe a certain way/view, they will likely view it as such, to various extents for the rest of their lives. The Bible and all that jumbo religion stuff is actually very detailed and interesting... why wouldn't that keep his interest enough. There's load of writing/info in that stuff etc Very complex at times etc etc
The telescope yeah, he made it work but there were already plans to improve Galileo's telescope (that one was really stolen btw haha but Gal Gal is the kitten anyway, he wrote Sidereus Nuncius in a ridiculously short timespan after all!). Everything else I mentioned he discovered by himself before he was 26. But baby, it's only gravity and calculus, piece of cake, fuck it!
baby.... what is Calculus built on?Calculus, historically known as infinitesimal calculus, is a mathematical discipline focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. Ideas leading up to the notions of function, derivative, and integral were developed throughout the 17th century, but the decisive step was made by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz.
That's what I'm implying... everything is built on top of other ideas and then expanded on etc etc. Nothing more. I'm not taking anything away from the guy, I just don't like to over-glorify stuff, is all. Though, I'm sure Newton would appreciate your high praise, if he was so supposed so into himself. lawlz. thank you, dear chap.
And isn't it ironic that Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism in regards to Calculus? Last i recall, Newton was accused of plagiarism by... I forget his name. But some colleague or w/e baby, that Newton didn't like at all... apparently he even had certain writings and paintings of the baby "disappeared". Which is extremely suspicious to me, but w/e.
Fucking arrogant fucks.
You can't create gravity. But you can discover it. Well, actually YOU and ME can't, but Newton could and did because no one had discovered it before, they were completely clueless about it. But if it makes you happy winning it with semantics, whatever, I don't mind: he "SIMPLY (lol) identified" it. I just want to see you happy.
Semantics matter A LOT. In that Jesus article in Wikipedia:"Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.""and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars."it is only
and how much is "small" number of scholars? has there been a poll taken? lol
That's almost completely dismissing a minority view regardless. Just because the majority of the planet is religious (and then some), doesn't make it the ultimately authority in regards to what is fact and what isn't, when clearly a fact is only a fact because you simply want to assume and come to an agreement with the majority of people.
Do you know, the chances of me ever becoming President of the US are slim to none. A black asian female MUSLIM has a better chance of me becoming President, than I, as a supposed "atheist". People are that passionate about religion... and it is SCARY AS SHIT TO ME. lol. I wish i was joking.
If someone knows absolutely nothing about physics... sure, in that case someone down there at Silicon Valley can be smarter than Newton. All of them are, probably, even the janitors.
Lots of Computer Science majors take physics... in fact, depending on your school, it is required etc Just sayin'.
I've seen him interview a bunch of people from very different areas always with great insight so I wouldn't say he's stupid... but since he is Christian he probably is.
He's given of cue cards, lol
i don't think I ever said Christians are stupid though. I don't believe by default you would be.... but I question it more and more, as I see people persistently simply following because it makes them feel good in one war or another.... even if it means putting others down etc and what have you.
I wonder how humanity lived all that time without oil. And I also wonder why those damn tree huggers don't shut up about their renewable fuels. But yeah, let me just get out of your way...
Humanity progresses on. Things change. It is harder to keep the peace for larger chunks of population using simpler methods of living, used by the past. Renewable fuels will come sooner or later... once the tech is there, properly.
People want different experiences and discover and invent new things. spark the imagination etc stimulate the mind. Just like Newton or Einstein did, in their own way etc
We wouldn't have the current system we have now, had we decided not to use oil. simple as that. i'm not saying i am for oil or w/e, i'm just saying it is reality currently.
When did that last logical war happened btw? I think I missed it :/ Must have been that one where you kittens used two atomic bombs. That's much more logical and rational than going to Jerusalem.
I'd say probably the last logical war was in WWII. Unless you would have preferred all the Jews and well all them Europeans that didn't meet the strict rules should be murdered? ...basically even your possible ancestors and whatnot... although... was it you that mentioned once that your great something fought with them Nazi Germans? lawlz. I can't recall 100% Might have been someone else here.
WWII was a logical war to do. To fight the "illogical" aka the Nazis. It took America a while to realize it with more confidence (after being attacked), but it was eventually realized ... So unless you think the Nazis should have just raped everyone, I don't see how it wasn't logical to fight them?
Afghanistan could have been a logical war... and started off as such... but Bush was too fucking stupid and proud and ruined it all. Invading Iraq just made it worse. And people ate it up, out of fear and religion bullshit etc