Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Conservatives try Amazon Alexa

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Conservatives try Amazon Alexa
torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Both funny and a little scary ;D

video

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002

I'm going to regret taking part in this but...

Here, Bart Ehrman, an atheist historian on whether Jesus existed, or is fictional.

video

Planned parenthood... non-profit?! LMAO!!!

video

I have to admit, I like these guys. 8-)

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

It doesn't really matter if Jesus is based on someone that actually lived or not. If he didn't have flying reindeer and held elves as slaves, he wasn't Santa Claus, he was just Clark Kent ::)

But that wasn't the scary part of the video in any case, it was just funny :P

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002

torhu said:

It doesn't really matter if Jesus is based on someone that actually lived or not. If he didn't have flying reindeer and held elves as slaves, he wasn't Santa Claus, he was just Clark Kent ::)

I agree, I don't celebrate Xmas, so I 100% agree. But Jesus was not a myth as this retarded device states. He absolutely existed, whether you believe He was the son of God, is up to you, but nobody can call Him a myth or claim He did not exist. The intelligent, historical scholars all know He did. I mean, when you get an atheist historian admit He absolutely existed, who wrote the book on it... than this device is right up there with uneducated retards.

I agree, it was funny, I like these guys. The Liberals should all love this device, probably be giving them out as Xmas gifts to help brainwash all their friends with their lies.

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

I don't think there's any real evidence that Jesus existed, that's probably why there is so much disagreement. But whatever, at least you're not risking your life just by asking the question, unlike when it comes to a certain other religion.

But actually, "liberals" should want to learn facts, even if they contradict their current views. So the fact that so many of them have replaced valuing scientific progress with a hostile attitude towards those who value truth is scary. Crowder and "Not Gay Jared" are religious conservatives, so they are not exactly scientifically minded, though. Biases all around.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002

torhu said:

I don't think there's any real evidence that Jesus existed

Watch the video I posted above. It's not long, only 2 minutes, 25 seconds. The guy is an atheist, so you won't be preached at. But he's also a qualified historian who wrote a book about Jesus from a historian's perspective. He's more qualified than either of us. Just check it out and see what I mean... please.

video

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

I don't care who he is. I have never heard of any concrete evidence that Jesus actually existed, and he doesn't present any in the video either. To say "you must be a fool to think otherwise" is a cheap trick, not an argument.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I !@%$@!$ing love how liberals are living in denial and completely give gigantic corporations the benefit of the doubt. Like how Christian holidays don't get Google doodles, but REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNISTS DO and even a woman who murdered someone.

But if say, YouTube et al, were neo-cons and censoring any mention of global warming, hate crimes, or atheism, they'd be dripping with venom from their fangs as they screamed bloody murder.

Quote:

Jesus

Isn't doesn't matter if he existed or not. If all religions are equal, Jesus should have the same quality/quantity of text as Mohammad, and any other "God." That's pretty obvious.

We live in a time when rules don't matter. Facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. All that matters is "my team" is "the good guys" so anything that happens to them, I give complete "benefit of the doubt" and anyone else is "the other team" and "nazis" and gets no benefit of the doubt.

In the 90's, people called me a liberal. In 2010's, they call me a conservative. I haven't actually changed any views. The difference? Other people's projection. I swear I feel like the only person who thinks "rape is bad" therefor "anyone who rapes is bad." Whereas today it's "person is good" so "even if they rape [insert insane mental gymnastics], so it's not really rape." How ANYONE can defend Bill Clinton's rape record is pure lunacy until you realize it's not about rape being bad, or saving women, it's all about "get [our candidate] elected and nothing else matters because if we don't win, [even worse thing than rape] will happen to the country."

Contrast Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, and the media's treatment of the two, and you'll see a world of difference for the same crimes. People literally decrying a "rape epidemic" while downplaying Clinton's accusers. Like how Clinton met the head of the DoJ on a private plane in an airport whille his wife is under investigation by that same DoJ, and we're supposed "they just talked about their kids." Really? REALLY? REEAAAALLYYY?

And before someone chimes in, I'm just as for putting any Trump staff in jail that commit crimes. Crimes are crimes and justice is supposed to be blind.

Another one in the news? A federal judge just THREW OUT the hate crime charges on the four black teens who tortured a mentally handicapped white boy on a live Facebook stream. Because after all, black people can't be racist because [insert mental gymnastics].

I'm so disappointed in the left. I was all for gay marriage and weed. But this? This is pure lunacy. Both parties have gone off the deep end.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002

If you want solid evidence. Check online for a quote from Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator. He hated Christians, and he wrote about Jesus and his execution by Pilot. He actually loved it when Christians were put to death. He's probably the best evidence I have heard as he is a hostile witness. Hostile witnesses are the best sort as they have no reason to lie to support someone they hate.

Josephus is another Roman historian who wrote about the execution of Jesus. And there is much more.

To state that an atheist, professor of religious history who has done a huge amount of work is using cheap tricks, as if he has some motive to support the idea of Jesus when he doesn't believe in Jesus, but only follows the facts is as foolish as it gets.

You're not interested in the truth, but just filled with hatred and won't accept information from anyone about anything you don't like no matter how accurate it is.

I guess I shouldn't expect anymore in here, but I have hope that someone, somewhere will have at least a minimal amount of logic and reason to accept proven historical facts.

If you won't accept that, than it is utterly pointless to discuss ANYTHING with you. ::)

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

What evidence of Jesus existing? Well, let's ask a liberal magazine so we can be sure we can trust the answer:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

Quote:

How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

Welp, that was easy. :P

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Neil Roy said:

To state that an atheist, professor of religious history who has done a huge amount of work is using cheap tricks, as if he has some motive to support the idea of Jesus when he doesn't believe in Jesus, but only follows the facts is as foolish as it gets.

Obviously, I did not say this ::)

Quote:

You're not interested in the truth, but just filled with hatred and won't accept information from anyone about anything you don't like no matter how accurate it is.

That's a little on the defensive side ::)

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

That was half sarcasm. Basically, when you're making an argument for someone who may not trust your stance, it's better to use sources they already trust / align with their other current beliefs. Jesus existing sounds like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" so I went out of my way to not use a "pro-Jesus"/Christian/etc source that might suggest a bias.

So I'll use Fox News/breitbart/conservopedia, if possible, if someone has a very conservative view. Like if someone thinks global warming doesn't exist. But I can use points that "suggest it does" or "Accidentally says it does" from those sources. I can also go orthogonal and find some commonality to show a lack of proper logic/hypocrisy on the left/right. Like how pollution kills thousands of our children and gives many times more asthma. Everyone agrees that a neighbor dumping oil on your lawn is a crime, so why is it "okay" when a corporation does it? Shouldn't organizations given higher legal immunity, be held to a higher standard? Etc. And why does Fox News/GOP/etc not report that--big corporate influence? Might they also... not report on Global Warming for the same biased reasons? They may see that there is, in fact, a chink in the armor. That's the best you can hope for.

Many liberals don't think Jesus existed, so I used a liberal magazine. The "so we can trust them" part was half a jab (at the MSM being often very untrustable compared to actual experts), and half extending an olive branch to someone (possibly) left-leaning by using a source they likely read/use.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Historians are a good place to start.

I used to think that, until I found that historians don't agree on anything. Seems historians let their views dictate what facts they acknowledge and what they ignore. I discovered this during the Confederate flag debacle as there were some that argued the flag was a symbol of slavery that needed to be banned, while others stated the flag was a symbol of pride for the south and not slavery. You can find instances of historians constantly disagreeing with each other over historical facts.

"Can't a man even talk to himself without being interrupted?" -Krull(1983)
"Through vengence I was born. Through war I was trained. Through love I was found. Through death I was released. Through release I was given a purpose." -- Specter Phoenix
"Programming == AWESOME the rest is just tools to accomplish it."
END OF LINE

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Remember that "historians" that MSM / cable TV uses for their narratives aren't necessarily impartial. You can find someone in ANY FIELD that will say whatever you want for the right price. Likewise, you can find many "historians" that will study only the facts that confirm their pre-existing ideas / political ideology.

But that doesn't mean all historians suck, either. People disagree. Sometimes it comes back to different interpretations of the same texts. Sometimes it's people who don't see all the relevant facts.

"History isn't simple. Anyone who says otherwise, is selling you something."

I mentioned that recently about Nazis. The left loves to call everyone a Nazi as a way to character attack instead of deal with the arguments a person has. Fun things you'd never realize about Nazis are: Nazi literally stands for, in German, "National Socialism." They didn't believe in Marxist socialism of a class war between rich and poor people, but instead, their own "class war between rich and poor nations". National. socialism. A social war between nations.

The Nazi government had many social benefits for the poor, homeless, etc. They were a socialist party. But the left wants everyone to think the insane simplicity of, "socialism = good, capitalism = evil". The nazis were also opposed to the free market. So if we were to go on the typical MSM "anything a Nazi thought, said, or did, was wrong and we should do the opposite", then we should definitely ban socialism! ;D

All of the fluidity, the nuance... the grey areas of history all go away when politicians want to utilize and recruit the public to do their bidding. It's bumper sticker politics.

And I found all of those discrepancies by doing a simple read through the Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia. Wikipedia has more detail and nuance in an "encylopedia" than the entire sum of MSM that I've watched since I was a child. It's rather pathetic really, how shallow history is when you watch it through the lens of MSM's agenda.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002

One note though, I wasn't being religious about Jesus. Whether or not you think He was the son of God is up to you. But one cannot state that He did not exist because all the evidence states otherwise.

My point was that device was saying He was a myth when He was not. He existed, and He was executed, we have different sources that state He existed, and state that He was executed and even who executed him, Tacitus as I already stated was one of the best sources as he hated Christians (which also shows there were followers of Jesus).

You don't have to come out as some sort of believer or Christian or whatever to state that Jesus existed. The video I posted is an atheist historian who is not some sort of Christian. He just states that Jesus existed. He obviously thinks Jesus was just an ordinary man or whatever, and that is your perogative, but the facts are, He absolutely existed and had followers, so He must have done something to cause them to follow Him even to the point of willing to be put to death instead of deny Jesus (as Tacitus stated, he loved seeing Christians tortured).

This device is absolutely worthless if it is going to spew out false data like that. Liberals should love it though.

Go to: