A discussion of serapistemology.

TimONeill,

<<If you knew me, you'd understand that it's hilarious.>>

Perhaps if I had asserted that my pondering was the only logical explanation there could be, but I didn’t. The “Who knows?” should have given that away. In your fervor, however, you appear to have overlooked that. As I pointed out in my last post, it was a reasonable hypothesis given what I had to go on.

All that aside, my main point there was that something wasn't (and still isn't) adding up. Even if the evidence for an historical Jesus was overwhelming, your tone, emotiveness, and concern for christian history only (specifically that which makes christianity look bad, judging by what I saw on the other forum you linked to) still wouldn’t make sense.

As for the two possibilities you list, (b) doesn’t explain your emotional investment in this topic (which is apparent in your emotive language and overlooking of certain details in your rush to respond), and it doesn’t explain why you only focus on history that makes religion look bad; whereas (a) does. But it doesn’t have to stop at those two possibilities. Perhaps everyone dear to you is a Christian and the thought of them losing a belief that seems to provide them with so much fulfillment breaks your heart? Unlike (b), that explanation wouldn’t leave so many question marks hanging.

Ultimately, all I’m saying that I think there is more to what drives you than you’re letting on and I’m fascinated by what it could be. There’s a reason why so many mistake you for a Christian, and it’s not because the rest of the world is stupid. Presenting yourself as an atheist gives you an air of impartiality (thus faking it online for 20+ years may not be such an absurd notion if you’re passionate enough about defending Christianity and its woeful history), and enables you make make more claims, without immediately backing them up, than you otherwise could.

Continued…

...Continued

Innocent or sinister, something more than a distaste for pseudohistory drives you and it could bear relevance to the discussion if there are some assertions that we’re just going to have to take your word for.

<<I know you have difficulty with the whole concept of Occam's Razor, but even you should be able to figure this one out.>>

You do? I think there would be some on this forum who find that amusing given how often I find myself explaining it to Christians.

Occam’s razor isn’t just about the fewest assumptions. The number of assumptions still needs to be adequate to explain what is that is trying to be explained. Fewer assumptions may be made in (b), but (a) leaves no contradictions. Besides, I was merely hypothesising so your point here is invalid anyway.

<<They showed up very soon after this post appeared on another forum - one where I am well-known and where this weak accusation that I am not really an atheist is a regular source of amusement…>>

You carry on as if I should be embarrassed here, but I’m not. As I have demonstrated above, my assumptions and musings have been quite reasonable. How unfortunate for you, though, that an acquaintance of yours dropped in to defend you under the circumstances that sock puppets usually appear.

<<Anything else I can help you with?>>

As a matter of fact there is. What is the evidence to suggest that there was one particular historical Jesus and not a few people on which the story was based? That’s not supposed to be a gotcha question, I’m genuinely curious.

Cornonacob,
To answer your question, no, there won't be any articles to be found here discussing the flood.

Graeme Young has deemed that such issues found in the Pentateuch are not considered worthy discussion topics on the Onlineopinion website.

"Perhaps if I had asserted that my pondering was the only logical explanation there could be, but I didn’t."

It wasn't a "logical" explanation. If you have to explain my posting history via a 23 year long conspiracy theory, you are far from anything that can be called "logical".

" ... your tone, emotiveness, and concern for christian history only ... "

My "tone" was mild scorn. My only emotion at the moment is amusement. And my posting history shows I am just as harsh on Christians who misuse history as I am on atheists. Because that's ... rational. Try it sometime. I'm also not a fan of Holocaust deniers, but I guess that must be part of my 23 year campaign to hide my "far right nationalism". Or something.

"(b) doesn’t explain your emotional investment in this topic"

Yes, it does. Since you've totally overstated any "emotion" I have about it.

"all I’m saying that I think there is more to what drives you than you’re letting on"

You can convince yourself of whatever garbage you like pal. You certainly seem good at it.

"How unfortunate for you, though, that an acquaintance of yours dropped in to defend you under the circumstances that sock puppets usually appear."

Or the circumstances in which someone who knows me would intervene in the face of patently dumb accusations. Notice that they made the mistake of characterising one of the sites that has run my articles as a atheist one when it isn't? Then had to come back and correct this. Hardly something I would do, is it? Use your brain.

"What is the evidence to suggest that there was one particular historical Jesus and not a few people on which the story was based?"

If you want to make the claim that all the sources are wrong and that the stories are based on more than one person, then do so. You are the one who will need to produce the evidence for that. I can see nothing in the evidence to suggest multiple people, given their proximity to the time they are set and their unanimity that they are talking about just one guy. I know what the tell tale signs of multiple figures look like - we see them in the Arthurian legends - but I can see none of them here. So, what have you got?

And actually discussing the history will make a pleasant change from watching you stumble around your brainless guesses about my personality and background. That was getting very boring.