XPost: alt.atheism   
      
   On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:   
   .   
   >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.   
      
       What did you think you could gain by asking such stupidly demented   
   questions?   
      
   >>>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.   
      
       More likely you are horribly gullible in your own personal beliefs about   
   those same people, believing they had as much religious freedom and tolerance   
   as   
   people enjoy today.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)