XPost: alt.atheism
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:40:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:23:58 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:47:43 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>> .
>>>On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:05 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:18:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
>>>>>believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle
>>>>>healers and, of course, priests.
>>>>
>>>> Back when it got started people could have found out by asking
>>>> around
>>>> whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they
>>>> got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
>>>> happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it,
>>>> then they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
>>>
>>>How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
>>>Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
>>
>> So you like to believe there was no communication between towns and
>> people never went from one town to another in those days?
>
>Where did I say that
The level of stupidity involved with your questions above certainly
indicated you feel that way.
>, liar?
>They went to town _very_ occasionally, as it was a major undertaking that
>may have taken days, to do important things like selling their produce but
>not to question people about their beliefs.
And how did you find out no one ever questioned people about their beliefs
while they were there? LOL...the very idea is hilarious.
>>>And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents
>>>taught them
>>
>> The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach
>> them.
>
>Then who told them the tales?
Since it wasn't their parents or priests, who most likely were encouraging
them to believe they were being lied to in most cases, it was probably people
on
a mission to spread word of the idea.
>Why would they question the people who did so?
To try to learn if they were lying or not. It seems even an atheist should
be able to figure that one out.
>> They
>> would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies they could
>> be killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the criminals were the
>> only source. Their priests and parents would be telling them the
>> criminals were lying.
>
>What criminals would they be? Lying isn't a crime,
So you have faith that the first people to spread the belief of
Christianity
were not considered to be criminals. So far I have faith that they were.
>otherwise you would be
>in jail.
>
>>>and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
>>
>> It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for
>> them,
>> and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were telling
>> them. But since you can't imagine that there was any communication or
>> travel at all between towns back then, how can you imagine that there
>> were any arguments for or against the idea Jesus existed and did things
>> back then?
>
>People today believe _without_ a scrap of evidence. Why would the early
>believers, who were far less educated, be any different?
Because they could contact people to find out if there was any truth to
what they were being told, or at least if there were stories about it being
true. If there were none, then the whole idea would never have gone anywhere
because there would never be a large enough group of people believing it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
