@blomkalsgratin
@aussie.zoneIt goes without saying that fascists in general are the scum of the earth but... Hitler revered the English in particular. He was devastated that they entered the war opposing him for this reason. The British empire was, in his view, a thing to be admired.
but I find it infuriating how little press the dangers of sugar gets.
I think this there is part of the problem though. Even when we accept that the last thing that was bad for you, isn't actually as bad for you as we thought, we fail to learn the lesson in favour of pouncing on the next food that's bad for you.
Moderation is the name of the game. And I don't even really mean in terms of how much you eat, though obviously that matters. But more so in terms of what and how much, as a combination.
Like.. the amount of sugar in commercial bread is nuts and really isn't required, but it's being added in the process because lollies sell better, so to speak. But you could comfortably remove most, if not all of it, and still have perfectly delicious bread.
So, don't cut stuff out, but do think about how and how much you use.
the evidence they have says people overall are more productive in office.
It really doesn't, quite the opposite. But a bunch of people seem to think it does for some reason.
Mark is 100% right otherwise
Again your assuming that Jesus existence means that anything in the bible is correct. My point is that the two can be entirely disconnected. I am making no coatings about Mark, Luke or Paul in this line of argumentation. I am starting that the extraordinary part of the claim is his godliness, not his existence.
Wouldn't it make so much more sense that two conman just cobbled together these stories about their imaginary friend and preyed on the local superstitious?
So we're back to realm of speculation. If you're going to frame it there, would it not make even more sense then if these two conmen, in order to lend their support credibility, went through the local scrolls and found a local dude that died a little while back and coopted his name for their narrative?
For all of your arguments against his existence you keep coming back to the bible as your source. You tie yourself in an oddly circular loop here, again arguing that Jesus either isn't real and so the bible is wrong, or he is and the bible becomes the word of God. There's a lot of room to move in between the two - including a dude from the area, name Jesus once existed.
You're trying to argue against the veracity of the bible by using the bible as your source of truth. Your argument hinges on Jesus mere existence equating to him being the son of God. That is not a given... at all! Vlad Tepes was a real person - that doesn't mean that vampires are real though.
As for "the scholars you seem to love so much" you may want to reread the thread - I think you're getting your discussions mixed up - I haven't referenced any scholars at this point. My argument is that your logic framework is referenced flawed. I have taken no stance on the existence of Jesus - purely on whether him being a real person is particularly extraordinary.
We got a mind reader over here.
You've got a comment-reader, no magic required.
First off you do have evidence of his non-existentence. Which I gave you. No one can keep their story straight about him. Secondly even if you didn't have that you can say the same thing about unicorns.
You've given no such thing. You have made a statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you fail to grasp that the existence of Jeaus would not be extraordinary. Billions of people have existed and will exist. The extraordinary part is the sin of God thing, which we don't disagree on. Unicorns , much like "The Messiah", are certainly extraordinary claims that would require proof. We have seen nothing to support the existence of anything even resembling unicorns. We have forever seen plenty to prove that humans exist. A specific human some thousands of years ago, is not unlikely.
And? And so, the claim that he exists is hardly extraordinary.
Jesus existence has nothing to do with the religion in and of itself. He can be reall without Christianity being true. You're getting so caught up in wanting to argue against the theists that you're focusing on something completely irrelevant just to chalk up a victory.
I have no evidence one way or another for our against his existence, the point is that it doesn't matter. Jesus' potential existence has nothing to do with the truthiness of religion unless you believe that his existence can only be a validation of the new testament - which would be akin to your Obama comparison and would be patently ridiculous.
I have no proof that billions of specific people existed, doesn't change that they did.
People know and understand that - that's why countries with high tax rates aren't seeing people throw tea in the water on a regular basis. They understand that they have representation and a share in the value that comes having those relatively high tax rates.