• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Costco labels bibles "Fiction"

apdst said:
However, it's a known fact that a man, who was considered a profit, named Jesus of Nazareth lived.
Click to expand...
So Jesus was a capitalist after all!
 
Hatuey said:
Do you understand how fallacies work? Here is how your fallacy currently works: Group X believes Y. Group Z also believes Y. Because both groups believe Y, the belief must be true and based on evidence. However, neither group provides evidence for Y other than a circular reasoning (i.e. it's true because we believe in it, we believe in it because it's true) and you're relying on an argumentum ad populum (that being: it's true because many people believe in it). All without ever providing a shred of tangible evidence. It has been a pleasure destroying your argument.
Click to expand...

Reza Aslan apparently believes he existed. People seem to take him seriously.:peace


  1. [h=3]News for jesus zealot[/h]
    ​
    ​

    1. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
      ABC Online ‎- 3 days ago
      Sundays at 9pm on triple j. Religion, Politics and all things ethnic - with John Safran and Father Bob.
  2. [h=3]Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free ...[/h]en.wikipedia.org/.../Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth‎
    Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a book by Iranian-American writer and scholar Reza Aslan. It is a historical account of the life of Jesus and ...


  3. [h=3]Debunking the debunker: Reza Aslan's 'Zealot ' vs. the Real Jesus ...[/h]www.catholicnewsagency.com › Columns › Guest Columnist‎
    Nov 7, 2013 - When I saw that Reza Aslan's portrait of “Jesus, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” had risen to number one on the New York ...


  4. [h=3]Reza Aslan's, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth ...[/h]www.huffingtonpost.com/.../reza-aslans-zealot-the-li_b_3839005.html‎
    Sep 3, 2013 - The author's source material is familiar to scholars; however, for this reviewer, at times it was interpreted too broadly.


  5. [h=3]Reza Aslan on Jesus the Zealot The Santa Barbara Independent[/h]www.independent.com › Arts & Entertainment › Books & Poetry‎
    Oct 31, 2013 - The best-selling author with UCSB ties discusses the political messiah and why academia hates popularity.


  6. [h=3]'Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth' - NYTimes.com[/h]www.nytimes.com/.../reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazar...
    Review by DALE B. MARTIN
    Aug 5, 2013 - "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth," Reza Aslan's new book, is based on both fact and speculation.

 
phattonez said:
Because the oral tradition renders anything garbage. I guess that they were right about the Iliad being complete fiction, oh wait!
Click to expand...

The Iliad was fiction until they found specific objective evidence to support it. Let us know when you find that evidence for Jesus.
 
Cephus said:
The Iliad was fiction until they found specific objective evidence to support it. Let us know when you find that evidence for Jesus.
Click to expand...

Logically that is incoherent.
 
Jack Hays said:
Reza Aslan apparently believes he existed. People seem to take him seriously.:peace
Click to expand...

That's nice, but all you're doing is relying on a combination of an ad populum/ad auctoritate. :shrug: My thoughts on Jesus have always been the same:

Guy going around claiming to be X.
Was he X? No.
Is there proof he was X? No.
Has any group provided tangible evidence he was X? No.
 
phattonez said:
Logically that is incoherent.
Click to expand...

It was considered fiction, is that better? It doesn't improve your performance with regard to the validity of the Bible one bit.
 
phattonez said:
Logically that is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's pretty coherent. Something can be considered fiction until scientific evidence for it is found. One good example of this are cryptids:

List of cryptids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cryptids are animals alleged to exist without proof. Mermaids? They remain cryptids (myth).The Okapi? Animal proven to exist in Africa. Formerly a myth.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you understand how fallacies work? Here is how your fallacy currently works: Group X believes Y. Group Z also believes Y. Because both groups believe Y, the belief must be true and based on evidence. However, neither group provides evidence for Y other than a circular reasoning (i.e. it's true because we believe in it, we believe in it because it's true) and you're relying on an argumentum ad populum (that being: it's true because many people believe in it). All without ever providing a shred of tangible evidence. It has been a pleasure destroying your argument.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the concesus among historians is that Jesus existed?

Or, are they all wrong and some dude on the internet is right?

Get back to us when you come up with a real argument.
 
apdst said:
Do you understand that the concesus among historians is that Jesus existed?
Click to expand...

This is the 4th time you rely on argumentum ad populum. Why do you do this to yourself?
 
apdst said:
Do you understand that the concesus among historians is that Jesus existed?

Or, are they all wrong and some dude on the internet is right?

Get back to us when you come up with a real argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not really the case. There may be a consensus among Christians who happen to be historians, but not among mainstream historians. Besides, it still doesn't matter because you're citing opinion instead of evidence. You must really get tired of stumbling into every logical fallacy in the book.
 
Hatuey said:
That's nice, but all you're doing is relying on a combination of an ad populum/ad auctoritate. :shrug: My thoughts on Jesus have always been the same:

Guy going around claiming to be X.
Was he X? No.
Is there proof he was X? No.
Has any group provided tangible evidence he was X? No.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic and I really don't care, but serious people take the question seriously, so I respect their convictions.:peace
 
Cephus said:
Actually, that's not really the case. There may be a consensus among Christians who happen to be historians, but not among mainstream historians. Besides, it still doesn't matter because you're citing opinion instead of evidence. You must really get tired of stumbling into every logical fallacy in the book.
Click to expand...

I would say there is little doubt a guy named Jesus existed that caused some issues for the Romans somewhere in the 1st century. However, I'm far more convinced that this guy didn't hold any of the mythical powers described in the bible. What are the odds of a Jewish preacher reaching the status of savior in Rome - the same place where far more popular religious preachers failed? Very slim.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm agnostic and I really don't care, but serious people take the question seriously, so I respect their convictions.:peace
Click to expand...

Revere no true Scottsman? Well played You and apdst should form a team on who can spit out the most fallacies in 1 page.
 
Cephus said:
Actually, that's not really the case. There may be a consensus among Christians who happen to be historians, but not among mainstream historians. Besides, it still doesn't matter because you're citing opinion instead of evidence. You must really get tired of stumbling into every logical fallacy in the book.
Click to expand...

Le!s see your evidence that that's not the case
 
Hatuey said:
Actually, it's pretty coherent. Something can be considered fiction until scientific evidence for it is found. One good example of this are cryptids:

List of cryptids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cryptids are animals alleged to exist without proof. Mermaids? They remain cryptids (myth).The Okapi? Animal proven to exist in Africa. Formerly a myth.
Click to expand...

No, something can't be fiction until it's fact. It's either fact or it isn't. Something unverifiable wasn't prior to proof fiction. It was fact, but people didn't know that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Seems to me that religious texts should not be categorized as fiction or nonfiction, but as personal belief.:peace
Click to expand...

Typically the Bible is classified as Theology or Theology / Philosophy, each of which are are non-fiction categories. Classifying the Bible under "fiction" is wrong on so many levels....
 
upsideguy said:
Typically the Bible is classified as Theology or Theology / Philosophy, each of which are are non-fiction categories. Classifying the Bible under "fiction" is wrong on so many levels....
Click to expand...

Fair enough.:peace
 
phattonez said:
No, something can't be fiction until it's fact.
Click to expand...

It can and it has been before. The Okapi was considered to be a myth. It was proven to be a real animal less than 200 years ago. Land beyond Asia/Europe/Africa was considered to be part of lore and myth until someone decided to cross the Atlantic and find it. Fact can become fiction and fiction can become fact. Black holes were fiction just 50 years ago. Today? They're fact. Flying people? Fiction/witchcraft/heresy 600 years ago. Today? Fact. Witches? Fact 500 years ago. Today? Fiction. The list of examples goes on.
 
Hatuey said:
It can and it has been before. The Okapi was considered to be a myth. It was proven to be a real animal less than 200 years ago. Land beyond Asia/Europe/Africa was considered to be part of lore and myth until someone decided to cross the Atlantic and find it. Fact can become fiction and fiction can become fact. Black holes were fiction just 50 years ago. Today? They're fact. Flying people? Fiction/witchcraft/heresy 600 years ago. Today? Fact. Witches? Fact 500 years ago. Today? Fiction. The list of examples goes on.
Click to expand...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke
 
Jack Hays said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke
Click to expand...

Jesus was just technologically advanced? :D
 
Deuce said:
Jesus was just technologically advanced? :D
Click to expand...

The post to which I replied conflated geographical/natural discovery with scientific advance and the ebbing of superstition. The Clarke quote seemed appropriate.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Marvel's Thor comics? There is a really interesting concept there where the Asgardians because of their advanced technology are considered to be "gods" early on in history. However, by the 21st century a scientific explanation is given to them and they are branded as aliens.
 
Deuce said:
How does paying employees more than minimum wage and offering health insurance drive out smaller businesses?
Click to expand...

I am not sure yet... I haven't thought this through very well.
 
Hatuey said:
Are you familiar with Marvel's Thor comics? There is a really interesting concept there where the Asgardians because of their advanced technology are considered to be "gods" early on in history. However, by the 21st century a scientific explanation is given to them and they are branded as aliens.
Click to expand...

Sorry, never heard of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom