XPost: alt.atheism
From: smiler@jo.king
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:04:48 -0400, mur wrote:
> 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, liar?
>
> The level of stupidity involved with your questions above certainly
> indicated you feel that way.
Only in your stupidly demented mind.
>>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.
You severely underestimate the gullibility, on a par with yours, of
ancient people.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
