Lol, my dude thinks we’re going to have millions of people in space before California finishes their high speed rail project, the project that was started 10 years ago…

You give a guy billions of dollars because he figured out how to put Barnes and Noble out of business and he suddenly thinks he’s a genius at everything.

Sad that the /s is absolutely required now a days .

I mean, it’s a bit difficult to look for historical examples of something not happening. However the opposite is fairly easy, off the top of my head the most well known examples of fascist governments being brought down are the Nazi, Vichy France, imperial Japan, and Mussolini’s Italy.

Unfortunately there’s not really a good historical example of fascism being stopped once they have the power of the pulpit without the help of foreign intervention.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it.

No, you’re just not being consistent with your own claim. You’ve gone as far as to say that the existence of the sun is a subjective matter. Now you’re predicating your claim with “direct access”.

Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition.

Right, but none of them argue that the biases in perception means we cannot come to a consensus in objectivity.

There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of.

And how do you know that the thing itself exist? Couldn’t it just be a hallucination…?

Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity.

Again, you are falsely defining truth or reality to be a state devoid of any subjectivity. Just because there is subjectivity in perception and observation does not mean we cannot come to a consensus of what an objective truth or reality is.

the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over

Again… Maybe they just believe that “truths” (human construct) like human rights should be self evident and not up for debate.

That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.

That is not consistent with your previous claims, you are moving the goal post.

The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct.

You can, but there’s no inherent reason to if it isn’t consistent with your “version of truth”.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

“Suffering matters” is a self evident claim reliant on metaphysical certainty…

left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception

Who says they don’t? The left is a pretty big spectrum, most of which is largely absent in North America. I think the problem you’re having is confusing leftist with liberals, as liberals only want to preserve the status quo, and are thus less likely to engage in more manipulative tactics.

It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.

Again, I think liberals in this country are walking a tight rope of dispelling the fascist regime without dispelling the suprestructure that allows it to be successful in the first place. It’s hard to call out fascist without also disparaging the capitalistic system that the liberals are trying to preserve.

I’m saying that there are two types of truths. One is what is reality but that we are forced to view it through our sense and mind and consciousness which can never actually grasp the real reality.

This requires some cognitive dissonance to overcome its logical inconsistency.

You cannot claim there to be a “true” reality while also claiming that our perceptive biases are so strong that we cannot accurately experience/describe it.

That filter is what makes it a subjective truth.

This is an unsubstantiated claim that is easily disputed by the concept of empirical content.

This is to my point that the right understand this and succeeded in a lot of areas the left don’t because of this.

Lol, you don’t need to adopt a relative perspective of reality to understand the concept of manipulation and lying.

The left are very rigid and seen to fall on their own truth. I see it in arguments and online. They don’t mold things or play around with events the same way the right does.

I think you have a problem with moral/ethical constructs moreso than a mind/body problem.

think they don’t because of their relationship to what they see as true or not.

I would argue that the perspective of a shared moral or ethical constructual “truth” is what separates the left and the right.

If we deny the idea of a moral or ethical truth what is the point of a leftist government anyways? If we’re all experiencing a personally subjective reality, what is the point of an empathetical society?

I think your individualist perspective is a lot more common on the right than the left.

The way the right have reframed arguments about trans, racism, Jeffery Epstein, immigration, government needs to be better understood by the right. Not just called out but instead adapted.

The method is incompatible with the end goals. The right can lie and create mistrust because chaos and instability is their goal. This is not the same as the left, who are trying to create stability and equity through organization.

how do you know that other observer is not a p zombie or part of the hallucination.

Because p zombies are a poorly constructed philosophical concept, not a tangible reality.

The idea of something physically identical to humans but lacks consciousness is circular reasoning as the engagement of the physical body and the environment is what creates consciousness.

The same applies to hallucinations. Hallucinations require previous knowledge and interaction with emperical content. So even if you hallucinate the sun, that implies the existence of an actual sun you are hallucinating about.

Truths it isn’t something we can deal with. We can only deal with our truths which is subjective, not objective

That’s a self defeating argument. Stating that all truths are subjective implies that the statement itself is subjective.

do not think any elected official would go around telling any member of their constituency that they diddles their kids

How do you think the elected officials found out? Do you think that the kids or the coach told these officials and no one else?

The four officials — the former principal of Ninnekah High School, a former superintendent, a former athletics director and a former secretary — were dismissed from the lawsuit as part of the settlement.

^Word of Akins’ relationship with Jane Doe No. 2 began to spread in the school district. Multiple adults and former students told authorities district staff were aware of the rumors but brushed it off, according to law enforcement reports.

I currently live in OK, Ninnekah is a tiny shithole in the middle of nowhere with like 700 people in it. If more than a couple of adults knew about it, the whole town knew about it.

You were claiming John couldn’t have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

I’m not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

The second quote doesn’t even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn’t mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It’s silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn’t say that (circular reasoning)

That’s not circulatory reasoning… That’s just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it’s been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

In defense of Christianity…yes, but they wouldn’t believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn’t, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That’s a false dichotomy… Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn’t I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that’s supports him as a diety.

There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources… We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don’t really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a “no Christian apologists”

"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

“While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God’s people is called oral tradition.” Ministrymatters.com

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries…

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don’t really care about your personal beliefs. I just don’t think it’s okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people’s make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.

What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…

You know what a scribe is… Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren’t actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves… And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn’t unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition.

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method

Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

Any science you do show them they dismiss as “biased” because they don’t trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they’d rationally be a Christian.

You don’t have to trust science, science is repeatable, it’s self explanatory… If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn’t automatically think they’re the son of God. I would rationally think it’s a different dude posing as him, or that they didn’t actually kill him.

the Gospels were biased, they wouldn’t have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude’s ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…

Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead"

Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?

Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

Because it didn’t fit within church doctrine.

That’s still a political dispute between the left and right?

You can’t address class without engaging in politics.

His whole thing was about discussing politics in a civilised manner.

No, his whole thing was personally hiding behind civility while empowering and promoting people and ideas that are steeped in political violence.

Left vs Right is part of the class war. Class consciousness is a political concept of the Left, a concept that the Right has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort to subvert.

John was, let’s say 16 at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, then he’d be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”

You’ve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that’s pretty damn close.

Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.

No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that’s more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.

Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.

Then there’s Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.

Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.

You’re the one working off of assumptions

You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?

So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened?

No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you’ll just cry “Christian interpolation”, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn’t have written about it because “someone can’t rise from the dead”.

I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

We’d have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.

Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone… Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.

There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?

I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.

I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this…

And it wasn’t authored anonymously.

Yes… It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.

Which the writer of John clearly was.

John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.

From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”

And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?

How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally

It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad

That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.

Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.

A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.

When combined with other contextual sources.

Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?

I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?

What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD

I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.

Jesus was not looking for political power.

First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.

Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.

Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…

You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.

Couldn’t Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was “merked” and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?

You can’t selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I’m not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.

The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that’s fine, but you can’t have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.