Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[MrMacSon]

What is it about atheists and the obsession with creating fake statistics?

Your generalisation is offensive. & false-witness.

[Mental flatliner]

What is it about atheists and the obsession with creating fake statistics?

Your generalisation is offensive. & false-witness.

It was a question, not a generalization.

If you're an atheist, you should be concerned that, not only is it silly to claim that 90% of PhD philosophers are atheists, it makes you look just as bad.

[MrMacSon]

If you're an atheist, you should be concerned

No I shouldn't

it makes you look just as bad.

Get fucked

[Mental flatliner]

If you're an atheist, you should be concerned

No I shouldn't

it makes you look just as bad.

Get fucked

Yes, you should.

Here's a homework assignment for you:

1--Make a list of all the academic giants that you idiots claim are atheists (Einstein, Carl Sagan, Sigmund Freud, etc.) See if you can fill up several sheets of tablet paper.
2--See if you can figure out why all of these academics combined are so bad at convincing the world of atheism that only 2% of the world is atheist, and one man, Jesus of Nazareth, dominates the free world.

The way I see it, everyone knows atheists are frauds, and that is definitely reason for concern.

[MrMacSon]

Jesus of Nazareth is merely a character in a book: he is more likely to be more a mythical character than a real historical one:

a compilation of cumulative & conflated characters from now-apocryphal Gnostic gospels.

[Mental flatliner]

Jesus of Nazareth is merely a character in a book: he is more likely to be more a mythical character than a real historical one: a compilation of cumulative & conflated characters from now-apocryphal Gnostic gospels.

Denial of facts is an act of intellectual suicide.
There are too many references to Jesus inside and outside the Bible for your statement to be rational.

[MrMacSon]

Fact: there are no texts before the 4th Century that make reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

There are texts that make reference to a non-specific Chrestus/Chrestos, & Chrestianos, in the 2nd & 3rd C.

[MrMacSon]

There are no texts, objects/artifacts or archaeological sites that verify the 4th-C-narrative about a 1st century preacher named Jesus of Nazaareth

[stevencarrwork]

The Q hypothesis doesn't hold water. Why would anyone waste their time?

Casey had what he called a 'chaotic' model of Q.


ie everything he said about Q (or Q-like documents) was so ad hoc that it produced chaos.

[Ulan]

Casey had what he called a 'chaotic' model of Q.

Is that really that much different from the idea that it had been written down at one point? At least I don't see why anyone would get into vicious debates about it. The only question worth arguing about in this case is whether Luke used Matthew or some other text.