spEak You're bRanes

Permanently Bewildered12 May 2009 09:08 am

By Alex

Thanks to everybody who sent this one in. Or maybe that should be: thanks to everybody, who sent one this in?

The so called “swine flu” does not exist, as scientists claim it has mutated and “evolved”, which implies evolution, and evolution does not exist. Therefore, this must be the will of God, and nothing can stop that.
RS Diaz, New York

You’re wrong. I’ve seen Pokémon, and you’re wrong.

93 Responses to “That’s You Told Mr. Darwin”

on 12 May 2009 at 9:16 am RJ

Who’d have thought that the full might of His fury upon the Earth would be so susceptible to Tamiflu?
on 12 May 2009 at 9:16 am Mr Cat

Ah

That’s why I come to this site!
on 12 May 2009 at 9:23 am God

He’s right. Evolution doesn’t exist and I gave RS Diaz the brain of a polychaete worm.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:45 am TFH

It’s the will of god that swine flu doesn’t exist? Sounds like a loving and merciful god to me. Pity it snuck in anyway but it’s the thought that counts, I suppose.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:46 am ekcol

Hold on a minute.. scientists claim humans evolved, and since evolution does not exist? AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH
on 12 May 2009 at 9:47 am Bit Special

God’s clearly jumped the shark. See all the batshit-crazy hardcore punishments he doled out willy-nilly in the bible and then compare those to the piggy sniffles. You’re losing your touch, Sky Daddy.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:49 am pigfrottage

How does Pokémon prove evolution, or that something can stop the will of God.

Relax, I’m Richard Dawkins.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:58 am Dr Feelgood

America wasn’t in the bible either – not sure what that proves, but RS Diaz had better check he isn’t just on a great big raft floating between here and Cathay of the Great Khan.
on 12 May 2009 at 10:05 am Walton Twald

And he sent Moses to Pharoah to unleash his wrath upon the people of Egypt. Pharoah cursed “Damn you swine flu, I feel so damn rough!”
on 12 May 2009 at 10:07 am atheist bus

There’s probably no swine flu, so stop worrying and get on with your life.
on 12 May 2009 at 10:33 am Pedant

Hang on a minute …
Taking his statements:
1) Swine flu evolved
2) Evolution does not exist
3) Therefore swine flu does not exist

Leaving aside the circularity here, there’s another problem in statement No.4:

4) ‘This must be the will of God’

What is ‘this’? The swine flu that we’ve already established (through our faultless logic) does not exist?
on 12 May 2009 at 10:59 am tom

@Pedant

I was about to point that out too. I know it’s a bit much to expect watertight arguments from people like this, but really, disproving your own theory in two lines is pretty impressive.
on 12 May 2009 at 11:06 am Tom

FAKE
on 12 May 2009 at 11:30 am Obamooslim

“…and in the titanic three-way struggle between God, Darwin and RS Diaz, all sides are claiming victory…”
on 12 May 2009 at 11:43 am dirigible

How does Pokémon prove evolution, or that something can stop the will of God.

Pokemon clearly cannot have been created by a just and loving God. And if there was a God, His will would be that the endless grinding misery of ****ing Pokemon cartoons would not despoil His creation.

He’d be OK about disease and starvation and war and stuff, obviously. But cartoons would be right out. Just ask the Taliban.
on 12 May 2009 at 11:46 am fucko the clown

I saw a protestor down at parliment square jump in the thames, is that what they mean by tamilflu

i’ll get me coat.
on 12 May 2009 at 12:13 pm Theodore H Biscuit

I have to side with the eloquent RS Diaz.
From the evidence in the Old Testament, I have worked out the world is only 4,678 years old.
Fossils and other such evidence of evolution are obviously first Creation attempts by the big G – he just could never get the noses quite right – and didn’t really bother to tidy up after play.
Swine flu has plainly been around since the dawn of time – 4,678 years ago – but has only just infected the human race because of our failure to keep the Churches rich and because we prosecute priests for their penchant for predatory paedophilia.
on 12 May 2009 at 12:25 pm Bumbaclart

My Charmander evolved into Charmeleon yesterday.
on 12 May 2009 at 12:30 pm Dr Feelgood

Listen sinners, Darwin never existed, GOD wrote On the Origin of Species and published it to test your FAITH.

Those creationists who believe in the existence of Darwin are heretics. Burn them!

Next week, the moon landings…
on 12 May 2009 at 12:44 pm Red Andy

It really does require unprecedented levels of cuntery to think that Creationism is a sensible way to address the swine flu issue, doesn’t it?
on 12 May 2009 at 12:48 pm jamestown

‘as scientists claim it has mutated and “evolved”, which implies evolution’

‘Evolved’ hints at evolution, does it? Well, fuck de doo, Columbo.
on 12 May 2009 at 1:17 pm Funny Peculiar

Hello? Is that NHS Direct? Yes… Yes, SK6 9PT… It’s Bob Sidebotham… no, boTHam… yes, with a ‘t’ ‘h’… 17th of the 6th, 1972… 29 German Street. Yes, I’m phoning about myself… Well, I think I’ve got The Will of God… Yes… er… achy joints, high temperature, runny nose, bit of a headache… No, I’ve not been sick… No, my vision’s fine… since yesterday morning… Stay in bed, drink lots of water and say 25 Hail Marys every 2 hours and after meals. OK, thank you. Bye.
on 12 May 2009 at 1:55 pm NT

Red Andy:

<>

Or indeed any issue anywhere. Creationism – of this stripe at least – is an unprecedented level of… what you said… full stop.

But it annoys me because whenever people rant on about how idiotic and gullible religious people are, it’s usually people like Diaz here that they’ve got in mind. And we’re NOT all like this, we’re really not. I’m not Christian myself, but I know a fair few Christians in the Real World and I’ve never known one of them, not a *single one*, deny the fact of evolution or argue that the world’s only a few thousand years old.
on 12 May 2009 at 2:47 pm GiveItAGo

NT: I’ve known a fair few argue that a man called Jesus really did die and then come back to life days later, though. Which is just as fucking stupid.
on 12 May 2009 at 3:41 pm Alex

Who’d have thought that the full might of His fury upon the Earth would be so susceptible to Tamiflu?

Tamiflu (or oseltamivir) is only 20% more effective than a placebo. I.e. don’t fuck with the G-Meister.
on 12 May 2009 at 4:01 pm pigfrottage

I’ve known a fair few argue that a man called Jesus really did die and then come back to life days later, though. Which is just as fucking stupid.

There is some evidence to support this assumption. There is no evidence to refute it other than “common sense”.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that the earth is ony a few thousand years old. there is a veritable mountain of evidence that it is not.

Hey ho.
on 12 May 2009 at 4:38 pm GiveItAGo

There is some evidence to support this assumption, if you’re willing to stretch credulity to breaking-point. There is no evidence to refute it other than “common sense”, and the well-established fact that properly dead people don’t come back to life.

Don’t want to get into a ‘debate’, so I simply fixed your statement for you.
on 12 May 2009 at 4:45 pm dirigible

There is some evidence to support this assumption.

Well this is a tricky one. On the one hand, they did find his bones the other year. On the other, that raises more questions than it answers. On the third (cf. Bob Dobbs) they were probably mis-attributed. On the fourth (cf. Vishnu) isn’t that what faith is for?
on 12 May 2009 at 5:32 pm Bit Special

Pigfrottage, I’m disappointed. You seem like one of those rare ‘normal’ christians then you say summat about believing in reanimating corpses. That is mental. Also, you do know that the immaculate conception is a crock too, don’t you? Apart from angels not existing to be able to put the spark of life into a womb, which is also impossible, Mary would also have only had xx chromosomes to create the baby with, making Jebus female. Why, it’s almost as if the bible is a book of fairy stories!
on 12 May 2009 at 5:56 pm Red Andy

Imagine that. A religious text actually being allegorical after all. You couldn’t make it up!
on 12 May 2009 at 6:13 pm funny peculiar

There is plenty of solid historical evidence that Pontius Pilate really said, “Hear me, repressed Jews of Jerusalem! Do you want us to kill Jesus of Nazareth or Barabas the Murderer? Because we Romans, who normally utterly brutalise you and dictate every single policy in your abject lives, today, we are feeling whimsical and suddenly ab-sol-ute-ly neutral. So this one decision is all yoooour responsibility, please think very carefully.”

To which The Jews definitely replied, in unison, “Please kill Jesus for us using that signature Roman punishment; crucifiction. And even though you’ll be banging the nails in and you found him guilty at trial and you are the absolute ruler in Israel; for just this one case, please can we bear all responsibility for his death and can our children and grandchildren bear responsibility also. And we’d like to make it clear that you Romans had nothing what-so-ever to do with this executive decision. Thank you.”

that definitely happened.
on 12 May 2009 at 6:30 pm Alex

I think we can all agree that he DEFINITELY did die at some point, and that mankind’s relationship to sin was fundamentally altered by this act. There. Debate over. Serious ended. Theology all neatly tied up. FUCK OFF WITH YOUR SERIOUS.
on 12 May 2009 at 7:22 pm Danivon

Oh for fuck’s sake!

If I wanted to read a debate on the existence of God or the veracity of the Bible, I’d head on over to the Guardian’s special Cif zone and watch the rabid hordes of atheists tearing Andrew Brown a new arse for misquoting The Dawkins.

Can’t we all just agree that some of us believe in God, some of us don’t, and that RS Diaz deserves to be struck by lightening (either an act of God, or just weather, but either way, having been tethered to the top of a hull during a thunderstorm to make sure)?
on 12 May 2009 at 7:23 pm Danivon

Or a hill, even.
on 12 May 2009 at 8:16 pm Mim

fp, that last bit about responsibility is perfectly obviously explained by how much easier it is to blame a small subject nation than the giant empire that rules them and has all the swords. Theology doesn’t really have to come into it.

This would all be so much less fraught if the Arians had won, really. (Well, they sort of did if you count Islam but no one does so they didn’t.)
on 12 May 2009 at 8:43 pm Bit Special

Soz, it just gets my goat (incidentally, Alex, I, like many people, don’t actually believe Jesus existed at all as a singular real person, as the bible is all allegory and folktale, so I think he’s a fictional character created out of true-ish tales about the mad stuff that several people who called themselves prophets came out with (Jesus being a dead common name at the time), but heyho).

What we can all agree on is that RS Diaz is the quintessence of twatbasket. Diaz sounds Mexican – let’s hope he takes a restive vacation back to the homeland sometime soon to test out his watertight theory…
on 12 May 2009 at 9:04 pm Bit Special

(Well, they sort of did if you count Islam but no one does so they didn’t.)

Mim, I know you’re bored, but inviting a jihad isn’t the answer. Perhaps a fun new hobby would be the answer; why not try creating a lifesize effigy of Richard Littlejohn from regurgitated biscuits?
on 12 May 2009 at 9:28 pm radishey

Alex: Agreed. If he existed (which is not certain) then he died. Either way, the Bible was written, Christianity was created and millions of people’s relationship to sin was affected by following it. Now, let’s all stop talking.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:36 pm Mim

I only said sort of! I’m sure the foamingly-mad fringe will be reasonable about it!
on 12 May 2009 at 9:41 pm Alex

incidentally, Alex, I, like many people, don’t actually believe Jesus existed at all as a singular real person

ONE of them did. Therefore I’m right. A bloke called Jesus lived in Nazareth and then died.
on 12 May 2009 at 9:42 pm Bit Special

Appease them with biscuity Littlejohn. Who wouldn’t enjoy jihading the living shit of out him, real or not?
on 12 May 2009 at 9:43 pm Bit Special

That was for Mim.

Alex, curse you, you’re technically right. Bumflakes.
on 12 May 2009 at 10:15 pm Alex

I’m ALWAYS technically right.
on 12 May 2009 at 10:30 pm JimmyD

But he doesn’t say which god. If he’s trying to say Eric Clapton is behind this piggy flu he risks much wrath (and a two hour solo).
on 12 May 2009 at 11:19 pm Mim

How nasty would a biscuit have to be to deserve that? (Please do not answer this with reference to games played at public school.) Maybe those lying biscuits that say Nice and aren’t?
on 12 May 2009 at 11:52 pm Bit Special

Yes, Alex – but I can check with our mutual friend about whether your claims are true or not, BWAHAHAHA!

Mim, I’m still traumatised by the humiliation of my mum giving me a short shopping list with ‘nice biscuits’ on it, when I was little and I came home with chocolate chip cookies (badum-tssh!). My parents laughed at me for days. Think it’s why I became such a pedant.
on 12 May 2009 at 11:54 pm Bit Special

I MISSED A COMMA and then banged on about being a pedant. It’s just not my day
on 13 May 2009 at 2:45 am Nicolai

[quote]I MISSED A COMMA and then banged on about being a pedant. It’s just not my day [/quote]

You also misused the term “Immaculate Conception.
on 13 May 2009 at 2:46 am Nicolai

Well bugger me sideways I don’t know how you bock quotes in these parts.
on 13 May 2009 at 3:07 am Ed

ONE of them did. Therefore I’m right. A bloke called Jesus lived in Nazareth and then died.

According to the Wikipedia page on Nazareth, the archaeological evidence shows “unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. However, Bagatti also admitted that there was little evidence for first century habitation,” even though “The Gospels of Matthew and Luke repeatedly describe Nazareth as a city“.

Therefore Alex is wrong.
on 13 May 2009 at 8:15 am Dr Feelgood

A fascinating theological dialectic.

I say we take off, and nuke Jerusalem from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
on 13 May 2009 at 8:56 am Mr Graham Shoesmith of Nazareth

Did Judaism evolve into Christianity?
on 13 May 2009 at 9:08 am pigfrottage

You seem like one of those rare ‘normal’ christians

Hi Bit Special,

Yes, I know people don’t come back to life, and I know virgins can’t have babies. That’s kind of the point. If it happened all the time there would be nothing unique about it all. Not much point calling yourself a Christian if you don’t believe Christ rose from the dead.

That said, for the record I am against the queen being head of state (no problem if she was elected as such). I’m also not in favour of the Church of England being the established church. Believe what you like – I am in favour of thought, not indoctrination. Secular humainsm probably has more to offer ethically than christian institutions.

funny peculiar

That’s absolutely brilliant. Thanks.

Danivon

Can’t we all just agree that some of us believe in God, some of us don’t

Agreed. believe what you like, as long at it doesn’t hurt others or restrict their basic, democratic freedoms.

Sorry Alex.

Dr Feelgood

It’s a theory. I thought Joy Pattinson was going to do that with Somalia.

Appreciate the thoughts for a really bad sandwich. Today’s is marmite, soft cheese and jelly tots.
on 13 May 2009 at 9:56 am millie

My really bad sandwich for today is cooked dough, boiled chicken foetus, mayonaise and cress.
on 13 May 2009 at 10:27 am Passing pedant

My really bad sandwich for today is cooked dough, boiled chicken foetus, mayonaise and cress

Cooked dough, boiled chicken foetus, raw chicken foetus pureed with the raw oily residue extracted from some crushed seeds and/or nuts and some distilled brewing byproduct and cress.
on 13 May 2009 at 10:35 am Simon

ONE of them did. Therefore I’m right. A bloke called Jesus lived in Nazareth and then died.

According to the Wikipedia page on Nazareth, the archaeological evidence shows “unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. However, Bagatti also admitted that there was little evidence for first century habitation,” even though “The Gospels of Matthew and Luke repeatedly describe Nazareth as a city“.

Therefore Alex is wrong.

And, if he did exist at all, he was likely to have been called Yehoshua ben Yosef – or “Josh” to his mates.

Therefore, Alex is defintely wrong. There was no Jeesie Weesie in Nazareth.

I shall now go on to prove that black is white and get myself killed on the next zebra crossing.

No-one called Jesus lived in Nazareth and then died at Golgotha.
on 13 May 2009 at 10:40 am Bit Special

Head… hurting… now. Pigfrottage – how can you know it’s not possible but still believe it happened once? Can you not see how stup… oh, I give in. Today’s really bad sandwich is fish, manna, sacrificial lamb, irrationality and Daddy’s Sauce on unleavened bread.

Millie, you be one funny lady.
on 13 May 2009 at 11:57 am Dr Feelgood

The LORD removed the archaeological evidence for 1st C. Nazareth to test your FAITH. Or maybe he re-wrote the Wikipedia entry.

In any case, burn heretic scum, burn!
on 13 May 2009 at 1:01 pm Mr Flabulous

Quoi? Do none of you know anything?

No-one fucks with the Jesus.
on 13 May 2009 at 2:43 pm Alex

When did I mention any kind of century AD?
on 13 May 2009 at 9:32 pm Mr. X

There is plenty of solid historical evidence that Pontius Pilate really said, “Hear me, repressed Jews of Jerusalem! Do you want us to kill Jesus of Nazareth or Barabas the Murderer? Because we Romans, who normally utterly brutalise you and dictate every single policy in your abject lives, today, we are feeling whimsical and suddenly ab-sol-ute-ly neutral. So this one decision is all yoooour responsibility, please think very carefully.”

It was a tradition at Passover for the Romans to release one prisoner. So that part, at least, doesn’t strain credulity as much as you seem to think it does.

To which The Jews definitely replied, in unison, “Please kill Jesus for us using that signature Roman punishment; crucifiction. And even though you’ll be banging the nails in and you found him guilty at trial and you are the absolute ruler in Israel; for just this one case, please can we bear all responsibility for his death and can our children and grandchildren bear responsibility also. And we’d like to make it clear that you Romans had nothing what-so-ever to do with this executive decision. Thank you.”

I don’t think the Jews actually said that; it was more the Roman Empire which didn’t want to think of itself as a deicidal regime.

Honestly, it’s almost as if you’re just trying to discredit something you don’t really know much about, almost like those HYS-ers who are routinely (and hilariously) attacked on this website. But then, nobody would be hypocritical like that…
on 13 May 2009 at 9:33 pm Mr. X

Whoops! Looks like I need to learn how to quote on this website…
on 14 May 2009 at 11:18 am Black Lesbian In A Wheelchair

Backtracking much, Alex?
on 14 May 2009 at 1:28 pm Funny Peculiar

It was a tradition at Passover for the Romans to release one prisoner. Mr X.

oh yeah? sez who?
on 14 May 2009 at 2:43 pm Caesar Augustus

Sez me, and Quirinius, and the boys.

Biggus Dickus was not in favour, but wanted to wewease Bwian. Incontinentia, back me up…
on 14 May 2009 at 2:51 pm pigfrottage

Bit Special,

Not asking you to agree with me. I think you’re great, btw. I like to think I am not stupid….

I want to believe the people on HYS are not stupid, but I can’t. There so much evidence that points to them being mind-spinningly stupid. SYB people need this place to vent against the stupidity, and find interesting new rude words. “bumbaclart” – what an education…

Christianity is foolishness to those that don’t believe.

1 Cor 1, v22-23 “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”

[Probably for a different forum. Check into http://richarddawkins.net/. You'll find me there under "edulike".]
on 14 May 2009 at 2:55 pm Mr. X

“oh yeah? sez who?” — Funny Peculiar.

Well, according to Wikipedia:

“The Synoptic Gospels and John then state that it had been a tradition of the Jews to release a prisoner at the time of the Passover.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_pilate
on 14 May 2009 at 4:55 pm Ed

If the only historical source is the Bible, there’s no historical source.
on 14 May 2009 at 5:09 pm Mr. X

I’ll accept that, Ed, when you can offer some justification for that statement.
on 14 May 2009 at 5:17 pm Mr. X

Oh, and just found this on Wiki:

“Modern archeological finds have verified the existence of historical characters found in the Bible of whom there had been no physical proof or evidence for many centuries. During the intervening centuries, for example, the lack of physical evidence or proof of the existence of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was used as an argument against overall the accuracy of the New Testament, and indirectly, as an argument against the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Pontius Pilate who was the governor of Judea who sentenced Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion. Until 1961, there was no concrete physical evidence demonstrating to historical his existence.”

Perhaps something worth thinking about.
on 14 May 2009 at 5:17 pm Mr. X

Oh, and just found this on Wiki:

“Modern archeological finds have verified the existence of historical characters found in the Bible of whom there had been no physical proof or evidence for many centuries. During the intervening centuries, for example, the lack of physical evidence or proof of the existence of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was used as an argument against overall the accuracy of the New Testament, and indirectly, as an argument against the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Pontius Pilate who was the governor of Judea who sentenced Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion. Until 1961, there was no concrete physical evidence demonstrating to historical his existence.”

So, there’s at least one incident when the Bible got something right.
on 14 May 2009 at 5:18 pm Mr. X

Whoops, I appear to have double posted. Apologies.
on 14 May 2009 at 5:52 pm The Idle Johnson

If the only historical source is the Bible and Wikipedia, there’s no historical source.
on 14 May 2009 at 6:35 pm Mr. X

Again, if you’d like to justify that statement…
on 14 May 2009 at 6:56 pm funny peculiar

@ Mr. X.

The Romans were brutal dictators. Generally they told everyone exactly what to do and when to do it and if you didn’t do it, you were in deep deep shit. They were not at all nice people to non-romans.

They admit they arrested Jesus, tried Jesus and executed Jesus. But there’s this rather dramatic scene where they have a bit of a Jewish:Roman party where the Jews happily, vocally, agree to take ALL the blame for all time for Jesus’s death.

In AD33 Romans were Pagans. Then Constantine (a proven spin-doctor and consumate pragmatic politician) adopted Christianity as The Roman Religion and coallated the agreed Bible. You think they didn’t splice in that ridiculous choice-offering scene?

Yeah right!

I don’t recall the British asking The Chief Witch Doctors if they could machine gun the uppity fuzzy wuzzys. But apparently the Romans happily offered the Jews a chance to release a very popular, highly-radical troule-maker (Jesus) back into the hostile local community.

I say again… yeah right.

/rant
on 14 May 2009 at 6:58 pm funny peculiar

troule = trouble
on 14 May 2009 at 7:43 pm Mr. X

“[The Romans] were not at all nice people to non-romans.”

Actually, the Romans were probably at least as nice as any Western empire since; they didn’t generally exterminate conquered peoples, like the Americans did, and provincials were allowed to become full Roman citizens, unlike the European colonial empires. In fact, as long as you didn’t try and forment rebellion, you’d probably be fine.

“But apparently the Romans happily offered the Jews a chance to release a very popular, highly-radical troule-maker (Jesus) back into the hostile local community.”

As I said before, that was a tradition at the Passover (I note that you have done nothing to try and question the validity of my source, instead completely ignoring it). Anyway, the Judaeans had unusual freedom for citizens of the Roman Empire, and were generally left to manage their own affairs far more than the inhabitants of, say, Gaul or Syria were.

“In AD33 Romans were Pagans. Then Constantine (a proven spin-doctor and consumate pragmatic politician) adopted Christianity as The Roman Religion and coallated the agreed Bible.”

There’s a logical fallacy called hasty generalisation (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html) whereby one assumes that just because part of something displays certain characteristics, the rest of it does, too. So, for example, anybody who says “This woman is a thief, therefore all women are thieves” would be committing a fallacy. In this case, what you are essentially saying is “Constantine bent the truth at some point in his life, therefore he bent the truth at this point, too.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t work, as mendacious and manipulative people don’t necessarily behave mendaciously and manipulatively all the time.

If I were you, I would try and prove my opinion that the Jesus-Barabbas event was made up by casting sufficient doubt on the likelihood that this would really happen to leave the hypothesis that it was an interpolation by Constantine as the more likely theory. As it is, you haven’t provided any evidence apart from the statement “Yeah, right”, which as it stands is not evidence, just an appeal to personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). You haven’t even tried to prove that all our accounts of the crucifixion are from post-Constantine sources, which would surely be relatively easy (just Wiki the four gospels). Until you can offer some proper evidence, I think I’ll continue to abide by Occam’s razor, and assume that the Jesus-Barabbas scene, or something like it, did in fact happen.
on 14 May 2009 at 11:06 pm Mim

Holy poo what’s happened in here? This is awful! Stop it at once! Where’s the Oral Sex Alsatian when you need him?
on 15 May 2009 at 12:38 pm DrFrank

Hey Mr.X,

Could you please refer me to any actual contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, never mind the specific Barabbas event? As far as I am aware, all literature concerning him was written long after his supposed death, with only a couple of highly suspicious references that show signs of later tampering.

Incidentally, if you think you can do this, I refer you to this thread for a prize.
on 15 May 2009 at 12:59 pm The Idle Johnson

Mr X

If the only historical source is the Bible, Wikipedia, a 14th century principle and your say so, there’s still no historical source.
on 15 May 2009 at 3:13 pm dirigible

Perhaps something worth thinking about.

Iowa exists. Captain Kirk is from Iowa. So I think you’ll find by your logic that we cannot discard the possibility that Star Trek is real.

You may laugh, but you cannot deny that Iowa exists, can you?
on 15 May 2009 at 7:37 pm Mr. X

Hey, DrFrank,

“As far as I am aware, all literature concerning him was written long after his supposed death,”

It depends on what you mean by “long after”. There are the gospels, which are generally considered to have been written between about fifty and seventy years after Jesus’ death; there are the Pauline epistels, which were written in the 50s and 60s AD, and which mention some details of Jesus’ life; the book of Acts contains references to Jesus’ family; and some historians believe that Josephus wrote some things about Jesus. Don’t forget that very few ancient manuscripts have survived from that time, so it’s not surprising if we don’t have a superfluity of contemporary references to Jesus.

The Idle Johnson,

“If the only historical source is the Bible, Wikipedia, a 14th century principle and your say so, there’s still no historical source.”

If the only justification you can find is your own lazy cynicism, there’s no justification. And until you offer some proper justification, I’ll continue to treat your statements as the fallacious arguments to increduluity that they are.

And finally, dirigible,

“Iowa exists. Captain Kirk is from Iowa. So I think you’ll find by your logic that we cannot discard the possibility that Star Trek is real.

You may laugh, but you cannot deny that Iowa exists, can you?”

That’s another fallacy, one called the fallacy of false analogy. In fact, I wasn’t saying “The Bible says Pilate was real. The Bible says Jesus was real. Pilate was real. Therefore, Jesus was real, too”; I was actually saying, “Our knowledge of the archaeological record is incomplete. Sometimes, we find new things, for which there was no archaeological evidence before. One example of this is Pontius Pilate. Before we found the inscription, there was no archaeological evidence for him. And until we have found everything there is to find, we can’t say for certain that there isn’t any archaeological evidence for Jesus. Therefore, Jesus might have existed.” Very different, n’est pas?
on 15 May 2009 at 11:21 pm millie

SYB seems to have turned into Cif (except a little less funny)
on 15 May 2009 at 11:55 pm Ed

Mr X, you should read the “rationalresponders” thread cited above. Here is a reference to it. You have not cited contemporary historical evidence. Wonder why.
on 16 May 2009 at 9:45 am Mr. X

“You have not cited contemporary historical evidence. Wonder why.”

Probably because there isn’t any, given (a) the fact that relatively low levels of literacy in ancient Judaea would have meant that there would have been few books written in the first place, and (b) very few of the books which were written have survived. Mind you, we have some near-contemporary evidence in the form of the gospels and (possibly) Josephus. Historians are quite happy to use works dating hundreds of years after the lives of historical figures when writing about those figured (one of our main sources on the life of Alexander the Great, for example, is written by Plutarch of Chaeronea, who lived from AD 46 to about AD 122), so I’m not sure why something written forty or fifty years after the events it describes should be considered too old.
on 16 May 2009 at 10:46 am Mim

I hate getting bogged down in the Jesus-may-well-have-been-a-real-bloke bit of the argument given that our basic actual point of disagreement – Was He Magic Or Not? – means it is practically impossible for said bit of argument ever to remain calm and given that to the non-believing side it really doesn’t enormously matter.

That said, historians aren’t “quite happy” to use later sources so much as stuck with it. And frankly the fact that they don’t have an agenda involving proving that Alexander was the son of God is a point in their favour.
on 16 May 2009 at 11:29 am millie

I liked Jesus best when he appeared in the form of Willem Dafoe. Now there’s a cult I would have followed.
on 16 May 2009 at 6:18 pm Mr. X

“That said, historians aren’t “quite happy” to use later sources so much as stuck with it.”

Stuck with, quite happy, whatever. The point is that it seems rather inconsistent to claim that sources written between forty and seventy years after the events they describe are too late to be admissable, whereas other sources written four hundred years after the events they describe are used quite a bit.

“And frankly the fact that they don’t have an agenda involving proving that Alexander was the son of God is a point in their favour.”

All sources have agendas, especially ancient ones. I don’t see why an agenda involving proving that Jesus was the son of God is any worse than an agenda proving that Alexander was the greatest Greek general or whatever.
on 16 May 2009 at 7:09 pm Mim

I meant modern historians, not classical sources. As a lapsed classicist I have encountered enough of the latter not to be inclined to believe them overmuch, and they’re not even as fun as mediaeval ones.
on 18 May 2009 at 8:51 am Bakugam Battle Set

Nice site and interesting post, will return soon, have taken the feed as well.
on 18 May 2009 at 2:16 pm That Vicar Bloke off Zulu

Yoy are all going to DIE!!You have made a covenant with death, and with hell you are in agreement! Death awaits you all! You’re all going to DIE!
on 20 May 2009 at 7:13 pm The 57th Franz Kafka

Sorry I’m late. Did I hear someone say ‘some of us believe in God’?
on 21 May 2009 at 12:08 pm Mr. X

I don’t think so. At least, I didn’t.

"If you love Syria so much..
why don't you go live there?"

93 Responses to “That’s You Told Mr. Darwin”

About

Search

Contributors

Tags

Archives

Pages

spEak You're bRanes

"If you love Syria so much.. why don't you go live there?"

93 Responses to “That’s You Told Mr. Darwin”

About

Search

Contributors

Tags

Archives

Pages

"If you love Syria so much..
why don't you go live there?"