Glassgowkiss...

[olyclimber]

and while you're at it prove that he is or isn't making you post on cascadeclimbers.com to punish the rest of us.

[akhalteke]

Well then what do you base your beliefs on then? I am curious? Because it ties nicely into your political ideologies? Because you think it will piss off your political adversaries? You have no evidence and there is evidence to support the contrary. What does that mean in a debate? I can't remember. Oh wai, yes I can "You lose."

 

Now, the question we have to ask is why you feel the need to state such a thing in the first place especially after being confronted with the fact that there is not proof of your beliefs and proof to the contrary. Now taht is quite a conondrum.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Or are you going to mire yourself in your ignorant beliefs?

 

 

 

Man….shouldn’t I be telling you that……

 

 

 

Glad you said that. Please. Give me the mound of evidence that you sorted through to come to your brilliant and in no way politically charged opinion about the non-existence of a Jew 2000 years ago.

How do you prove someone did not exist? I mean, isn't that the default state anyway? How would you prove that Schlomo Garzius didn't exist in 60 BC? Come on pal, you gotta do better than this.

 

prove to me that Kevbone exists. I think he's a figment of our imagination. nobody can be that stupid.

 

[archenemy]

That their writings described Jesus despite the fact that they weren't Chrstians. This seems to be unbiased proof of his existence whereas proof of his non-existence is... well, non-existent.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

 

Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian.

Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That their writings described Jesus despite the fact that they weren't Chrstians. This seems to be unbiased proof of his existence whereas proof of his non-existence is... well, non-existent.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

 

Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian.

Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

 

this thread disappoints me

[akhalteke]

Well, Jesus wouldn't tell me to tell you to Take a Hot Karl on Kevbone's face now would he?

 

 

Go take a hot carl on Kevbone's face.

[olyclimber]

[archenemy]

Well then what do you base your beliefs on then? I am curious? Because it ties nicely into your political ideologies? Because you think it will piss off your political adversaries? You have no evidence and there is evidence to support the contrary. What does that mean in a debate? I can't remember. Oh wai, yes I can "You lose."

 

Now, the question we have to ask is why you feel the need to state such a thing in the first place especially after being confronted with the fact that there is not proof of your beliefs and proof to the contrary. Now taht is quite a conondrum.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water.

[akhalteke]

That their writings described Jesus despite the fact that they weren't Chrstians. This seems to be unbiased proof of his existence whereas proof of his non-existence is... well, non-existent.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

 

Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian.

Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

 

Hence the Historian part ace.

history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD.

[olyclimber]

Well, Jesus wouldn't tell me to tell you to Take a Hot Karl on Kevbone's face now would he?

 

 

Go take a hot carl on Kevbone's face.

 

 

he moves in mysterious ways!

[archenemy]

That their writings described Jesus despite the fact that they weren't Chrstians. This seems to be unbiased proof of his existence whereas proof of his non-existence is... well, non-existent.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

 

Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian.

Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

 

Hence the Historian part ace.

history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD.

 

And your assumption is that everything a historian writes is true.

[akhalteke]

Well then what do you base your beliefs on then? I am curious? Because it ties nicely into your political ideologies? Because you think it will piss off your political adversaries? You have no evidence and there is evidence to support the contrary. What does that mean in a debate? I can't remember. Oh wai, yes I can "You lose."

 

Now, the question we have to ask is why you feel the need to state such a thing in the first place especially after being confronted with the fact that there is not proof of your beliefs and proof to the contrary. Now taht is quite a conondrum.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water.

 

So you call all history revisionist history? Wow, you liberals really are paranoid. When someone who makes fun of Christians and was charged with the veracticy of the historical documents of the time says he existed, he probably did. Now, lets look at the proponderance of evidence you have thrusted forth:

[akhalteke]

That their writings described Jesus despite the fact that they weren't Chrstians. This seems to be unbiased proof of his existence whereas proof of his non-existence is... well, non-existent.

What? Steven King described people that came back from the dead even though he wasn't Lazarus. That doesn't make it true.

 

Stephen King wasn't a 1st century historian.

Stunning bit of logic. Tacitus wasn't alive when Christ was.

 

Hence the Historian part ace.

history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD.

 

And your assumption is that everything a historian writes is true.

 

hyperbole. amazingly clever and original of you. Did Kev get your password?

[Bug]

Just curious here Arch.

Can we prove that anyone existed say, 1000 years ago or more?

If so, what makes it work for you?

 

[kevbone]

akhalteke. Are you saying some fools a couple of thousand years ago wrote about him and you say that is proof?

[akhalteke]

The revolutionary war was really all a farce. Some patriotic dribble to motivate youngsters to volunteer for the 1st WW.

[akhalteke]

Napoleon? Fake attempt for the French to have military pride.

[archenemy]

Well then what do you base your beliefs on then? I am curious? Because it ties nicely into your political ideologies? Because you think it will piss off your political adversaries? You have no evidence and there is evidence to support the contrary. What does that mean in a debate? I can't remember. Oh wai, yes I can "You lose."

 

Now, the question we have to ask is why you feel the need to state such a thing in the first place especially after being confronted with the fact that there is not proof of your beliefs and proof to the contrary. Now taht is quite a conondrum.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water.

 

So you call all history revisionist history? Wow, you liberals really are paranoid. When someone who makes fun of Christians and was charged with the veracticy of the historical documents of the time says he existed, he probably did. Now, lets look at the proponderance of evidence you have thrusted forth:

 

I see that it is difficult for you to follow the path of a debate. Let me slow it down for you.

Not only do I not call all history revisionist history, I did not call any history revisionist history.

What I am trying to draw your attention to is that if your arguments are not strong, then you will not be able to sway anyone to take any action at all. You were trying to get Kevbone to read works that mentioned Christ. You were also trying to get him to believe that because a non-Christian wrote about Jesus, He surely existed. This is not a strong debate point. Pick a better one. There are plenty to chose from (as you obviously must know from your extensive reading).

[olyclimber]

no kev. i think he would like to meet face to face and challenge you to 4 out 6 game of Parcheesi.

[akhalteke]

Ghengis Khan? Just a story to get little kids in Siberia to stay close to home.

[canyondweller]

 

You really believe that Jesus never existed? You are a fucking idiot.

 

 

You really believe that Jesus existed! You are a fucking idiot!

 

Hey Kev, do your self a favor and look up Cornelius Tacitus. You are really uneducated aren't you? For someone knowing so little, you sure do run your mouth.

Those two things seem to go together--the mouth running and the ignorance.

 

Seems to be working for you, quite well.

[olyclimber]

all of history is a parable

[kevbone]

Scott....what is your "proof"?

[olyclimber]

its in the pudding

[akhalteke]

Well then what do you base your beliefs on then? I am curious? Because it ties nicely into your political ideologies? Because you think it will piss off your political adversaries? You have no evidence and there is evidence to support the contrary. What does that mean in a debate? I can't remember. Oh wai, yes I can "You lose."

 

Now, the question we have to ask is why you feel the need to state such a thing in the first place especially after being confronted with the fact that there is not proof of your beliefs and proof to the contrary. Now taht is quite a conondrum.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. But I'll give you an answer to the question you should have asked. "Why would you bring up Stephen King in this discussion?" Well, my friend, let me tell you. It is an analogy. I used an analogy to show you the weakness in your feeble argument. Please note that I did not state my own personal beliefs in any way. Nor did I refute your beliefs. I only pointed out that your premise does not hold water.

 

So you call all history revisionist history? Wow, you liberals really are paranoid. When someone who makes fun of Christians and was charged with the veracticy of the historical documents of the time says he existed, he probably did. Now, lets look at the proponderance of evidence you have thrusted forth:

 

I see that it is difficult for you to follow the path of a debate. Let me slow it down for you.

Not only do I not call all history revisionist history, I did not call any history revisionist history.

What I am trying to draw your attention to is that if your arguments are not strong, then you will not be able to sway anyone to take any action at all. You were trying to get Kevbone to read works that mentioned Christ. You were also trying to get him to believe that because a non-Christian wrote about Jesus, He surely existed. This is not a strong debate point. Pick a better one. There are plenty to chose from (as you obviously must know from your extensive reading).

 

So, I am still waiting for you to show me your evidence. If I have more evidence than you, how does that make your theory any more plauable than mine or even less so? Inquiring minds really can't wait to hear.