|
Who was Jesus Christ ? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| biznology |
that was surprisingly good. i was worried it was a loose change rehash - and in some ways it was...but overall it made me feel important.
but am i really?| |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
cmon we all knew that already |
oh, you creative genius you.
| quote: | Originally posted by justin
I wub this movie. I'm watching it again! |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...might seem nice to your highschool student who doesn't actually know anything or bother to research further... |
|
|
|
| lex400sc |
| great film. too bad the people who need to watch it the most never will... |
|
|
| Lira |
| I was wondering whether or not I'd watch it now but, after reading its sources, I guess I'll wait till I'm on vacation or something... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
plz elaborate. |
he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling.
he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of and he hasnt even seen the partisan production! |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Ha! I guessed after seeing the first section that Acharya S. was heavily involved. And now there is proof. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling.
he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of and he hasnt even seen the partisan production! |
I was going to say that in a more polite way but, yeah, the bibliography looks kinda dodgy.
You find among the authors of the first part Geral Massey, John Allegro and John Remsburg. I admit I picked these names at random, because I had never heard about any of those guys: all of them seem to be rather "controversial" figures. Also, they all seem to focus on the same hypothesis by taking just one perspective, which is another bad sign.
So, if I watch it, I want to pay as much attention as possible. That way, I'm not going to be unfair or naive. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling.
he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of and he hasnt even seen the partisan production! |
I'm going to find out who the people in the references are and decide whether you are justified in your criticism. I don't think you are justified in criticizing the first part because I doubt if you know any of the references. You are basing your entire opinion about the first part from the other two parts. The idea that Jesus Christ never existed as a physical person is certainly plausible.
As for the other two parts, you seem to form your opinions entirely in the black or the white and don't even want to recognize that gray areas exist. If the CTs are at one extreme you are at the other. And neither may be correct. But I guess you refuse to even accept such a possibility and are harshly critical of anything that has even a hint of CT. I don't think holding such rigid beliefs is correct. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I was going to say that in a more polite way but, yeah, the bibliography looks kinda dodgy. |
you're a much better human being than i am though lira, thats why :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
I'm going to find out who the people in the references are and decide whether you are justified in your criticism. I don't think you are justified in criticizing the first part because I doubt if you know any of the references. You are basing your entire opinion about the first part from the other two parts. The idea that Jesus Christ never existed as a physical person is certainly plausible. |
i dismiss most of the first part because of its lack of presentation. as i have said before, it comes across as one person's soapbox, not as a real intellectual examination. it feels partisan when compared with real documentaries. I don't need to know any of the references when i have actually seen the doco though ;)
i am not saying the first part doesn't have some merit, but most of the ideas are NOT original and they are not presented in a way that garners credibility. i dont believe jesus existed anyway, so i dont really care.
| quote: |
As for the other two parts, you seem to form your opinions entirely in the black or the white and don't even want to recognize that gray areas exist. If the CTs are at one extreme you are at the other. And neither may be correct. But I guess you refuse to even accept such a possibility and are harshly critical of anything that has even a hint of CT. I don't think holding such rigid beliefs is correct. |
this is your fundamental flaw. you have made the fallacious assumption that there is even a debate on the subject (specifically part 2) when there isnt.
| quote: |
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic. |
cant describe it any better myself. just because a few crackpots and internet detectives see what isnt there does not mean there is ANY veracity to their crazy delusions. your first error is assuming the CTs have something to provide in the first place, which they do not.
there is nothing wrong with being "harshly critical" of something that deserves it. i have seen 100 different bull 911 theories smashed by real evidence and/or science. i think its far far worse to be led round by the nose by a bunch of denialists that think poking holes in accepted fact is somehow equal to providing real evidence.
the difference between you and i is that i have read enough to consider the "debate" closed. don't view having a supposed "open mind" as a virtue if having that open mind equates with accepting all nonsense no matter how unbelievable or unsubstantiated.
ie, dont leave your mind so open your brain falls out ;) |
|
|
|
|
