Can a person be NEUTRAL on who Christ is and why lie about the limitations of science?

Question

I find no eductated persons in general that deny the historical Christ.

The 'more to the point' issue would be whether you believe that Jesus was a:

#1 - a liar

#2 - a lunatic

#3 - God the Son

The DELUSION is that evolution CAN BE supported by science when EVOLUTION has nothing to do with REPEATABLE and VERIFIABLE scientific discovery.

Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone. ...

“…a scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of the facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.”

- Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987)

“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”

- Karl Popper (1902-1994), Austrian Philosopher of Science

Answer 1

I suppose you could ignore that fact, just as most people seem to. However, you make a good point.

Answer 2

First, there is no evidence outside of the Bible or the writings of believers much later that indicated any existence of Jesus.

Second, your first quotation about scientific theory is from a judge, trained in law not science, who dies over two decades ago. It is not a credible source and is erroneous and may thus be dismissed. Your second quotation does not say what you think it says. Science does not use the word theory the same as the general populace and that definition was right, but I'm not sure you understood what he said. A theory must be falsifiable (able to be tested and falsified should such evidence surface) that does not mean "shown to be false" that means "not worded in a vague manner so as to be untestable."

Answer 3

"I find no eductated persons in general that deny the historical Christ."



That's because we educated people simply point out that claims there was an "historical christ" are not supportable by any evidence, and so are worthless. That's not "denying anything," it's simply pointing out that your claims are worthless.



And re-pasting Lewis' "liar, lunatic, god" claim is both dishonest (you didn't credit him), and fallacious -- that idea ignores the simplest and most obvious explanation, that the stories about magic jesus are entirely made up.



Evolution is an observed fact. The theory that explains the observed fact *is* falsifiable, and is built on repeatable and verifiable evidence (which has been repeated and verified).



I can't tell if you're being willfully dishonest or are simply ignorant...but in any case, you're completely wrong.



Peace.

Answer 4

Nonsense. Many educated persons deny the historical 'Christ'. 'Christ' is merely a title, meaning 'anointed one', so anybody who does not believe in the theology supporting it could deny the historical Christ even if they believe in the historical Jesus.



According to the Bible Jesus' own family thought he was mad so number 2 would seem to be the obvious choice IF I had only those 3 to choose from; but even if one believes in a historical Jesus one does not have to believe in half of the gospel stories about him, so that is a false trichotomy.



As for evolution it IS falsifiable and testable. All you have to do is produce a crocoduck or some such creature which could not exist according to the theories of cladistics and you have disproven it.

Answer 5

This has been discussed again and again on this website and not one Christian has yet provided any actual evidence that Christ was a real historical person.



Things written long after his death by people that never met or witnessed him are NOT evidence. One document - the bible - on its own is NOT evidence.



I suspect the person we call Christ has some basis in fact, but it could have been a group of people, certainly the stories are exaggerated and we have absolutely no reason to believe he was divine.



Get over it.

Answer 6

The fact that you think evolution has never been revised shows that you have only a basic understanding of it; the basic, fundamental concept that things evolve has never been changed, but the reasons WHY things evolved has changed to fit new discoveries and evidence (ex: genes and DNA).

Answer 7

You not finding anyone is not evidence. I can name several, from Arthur Drews to Earl Doherty.



Evolution has been repeatedly observed, in the lab and in nature. This is further evidence that you not looking for evidence is the real culprit in your "question."



The Theory of Evolution has been revised based on new evidence. It is also easily falsifiable. Again, you need to do more research.

Answer 8

why are you making these choices for jesus when jesus himself never wrote anything. The only wiritng availible to you is what people wrote about what they heard someone say about what they heard someone say about what they heard about someone say. Considering this, a more plausible option than these three becomes very clear.



and by the way, it is complete rubbish for you to pretend that its impossible for an educated person to deny that jesus existed.



also you know absolutely nothing about evolution. seriously. you need to take 3rd grade biology again.

Answer 9

Educated or not, history says Jesus existed.



Who cares about the idiots who want to rebel against reality?

Answer 10

We know its all a vapor to hide their head in

Answer 11

I think he was a magician...