you're reading...
current events, Theist Wackiness

Osama’s Missing Body

Did Bin Laden really die?  Did the Pakistani government collude with Al Qaeda operatives to secret him away to yet another U.S. funded resort?  Did he hoof it to a cave bunker with his dialysis machine?

There’s no body.  Just a report from U.S. agents who certainly can’t be relied upon as objective reporters.  It’s not like America’s got a great record of telling the truth.  You know, the whole WMD thing was made up.  So why wouldn’t they lie about Bin Laden’s death to put an end to the whole embarrassing thing?

It’s plausible, right?  I mean, President Obama’s a Muslim, and wasn’t born in the U.S.  There’s so much conspiracy to this whole thing, it’s almost impossible for anyone to have a real idea of what’s going on.

Ok…. soooo…

WHY DO ANY OF YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE IN JESUS?

All of a sudden, you are skeptics.  It happened within a week, but you’re digging for any reason — any reason at all — to doubt the authenticity of Bin Laden’s death.  Even when the highest authority available has sworn it to be true.  Even though the people who were sheltering him have corroborated the account.  Even though DNA experts have corroborated the account.  Even though the cost of lying would be enormous for the U.S.  (Imagine if Bin Laden released a time stamped video next week!)

And yet, you believe Jesus existed even though there is no body, no corroboration, no contemporary evidence whatsoever, and his “biography” is from an anonymous author decades after the alleged event.

I’m sorry, but that is one of the most preposterous double standards I’ve ever seen.  Hypocrite much?

Advertisements

Discussion

17 thoughts on “Osama’s Missing Body

  1. And yet, you believe Jesus existed even though there is no body, no corroboration, no contemporary evidence whatsoever,…

    This is the kind of idiocy that clearly demonstrates abject ignorance re:Christianity. Of course there’s no body — the whole point is that Jesus walked out of His tomb and then sailed off into the wild blue yonder. Producing Jesus’ body would lay waste to Christianity, and the authorities of the day could have easily ended the Christian scourge by producing the dead body.

    If you want corroboration, we have Josephus and Tacitus, a Jewish and a Roman hisorian, respectively.

    But by all means, go ahead and continue believing the Christ-Myth — I’m sure it does wonders for your credibility, putting you right up there with Acharya S, whom you do doubt revere…

    Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 10:40 am
  2. Yep, that totally settles it. Two historians and a couple of pages are enough evidence to base your entire world view on. That totally makes sense…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 6, 2011, 1:55 pm
  3. You guys have the irrational gift of swinging from one absurd extreme to the other. My response wasn’t meant to “totally settle” anything — it was meant to counter Hamby’s “there is no body, no corroboration” claim, which it does, your petulant whining notwithstanding.

    And we again see your display of intellectual dishonesty.

    Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 2:20 pm
  4. Oh, and we also see how you truly react to evidence…

    Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 2:32 pm
  5. But by all means, go ahead and continue believing the Christ-Myth — I’m sure it does wonders for your credibility, putting you right up there with Acharya S, whom you do doubt revere…

    I am not a mythicist. How many times do I have to say it? I am not, have never been, and probably will not be a mythicist. It would take a lot more evidence to convince me of mythicism, and there seems to be none forthcoming. Acharya is a hack.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 6, 2011, 2:58 pm
  6. My apologies, Hamby. It appeared that you were denying that the historical figure of Jesus existed. If that is not your position, I withdraw my implied claim to that effect.

    Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 3:22 pm
  7. CB, I think you’re confused. Jesus Mythicism is the claim that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a Greek-style god, not an actual earthly person. That is, he existed in a spiritual realm, or another plane, or whatever. I do not subscribe to that position. (Neither do I refute it. I am neutral.)

    As for the existence of a historical Jesus, here’s my official position:

    1) I don’t believe the archaeological and literary evidence is sufficient to present a positive case for a particular historical inspiration for either the Gospel or the Epistles or both. Further, I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to present a positive case for a necessary historical inspiration.
    2) I believe that because of the fifty(ish) year literary and archaeological silence after the alleged events, and the complete contemporary silence, it is likely that any person (or people) who contributed to the inspiration for either the Gospel or Epistles was historically insignificant.
    That’s it. I am not saying, nor will I say that there was no historical Jesus. I also won’t say that there was. In good science and good history, we don’t make pronouncements with insufficient information, and I don’t believe the information exists at this time.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 6, 2011, 3:56 pm
  8. My alleged confusion aside, it did appear that you were denying that there was a historical Jesus, and if you are, in fact, making no such denial, my apology is on record. As for my alleged confusion, “Christ Myth” has a number of meanings, but the common theme is that no physical Jesus existed. One example is that the Nazarene was simply a re-tooling of Mithras or Horus or some other pagan figure.

    Posted by CB | May 6, 2011, 9:43 pm
  9. I need some clarity here. Are you saying you don’t base your world view on the fact that Jesus existed or are you saying there is more evidence for that fact?

    In the first case, good.

    In the second, what is it and why didn’t you provide it up front?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 7, 2011, 8:39 am
  10. As for my alleged confusion, “Christ Myth” has a number of meanings, but the common theme is that no physical Jesus existed.

    No need for defensiveness. The scholarly definition of mythicism is what I described. It’s ok if you didn’t know that. It wouldn’t kill you to admit you learned one thing from reading my blog. Learning isn’t a sign of weakness, you know. Nobody expects you to know everything.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 7, 2011, 1:33 pm
  11. Come on Hamby, we’ve already been over this. You are not allowed to learn anything in church that didn’t come from the bible. And since this is just church for Atheist, we’re not allowed to learn anything since we don’t believe in the bible…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 8, 2011, 9:23 am
  12. Nobody expects you to know everything.

    The problem is that you guys seem hell-bent on pretending that I don’t know anything.

    Learning isn’t a sign of weakness…

    Perhaps not, but being “confused” (which you did indeed accuse me of being) during a debate most assuredly is. Hence the “defensiveness”.

    Equivocation on your part (adopting a different definition of “Christ-Myth” than the one I was using, for perceived gain on your part) is not “confusion” on my part.

    Posted by CB | May 9, 2011, 1:43 pm
  13. Perhaps not, but being “confused” (which you did indeed accuse me of being) during a debate most assuredly is. Hence the “defensiveness”.

    Equivocation on your part (adopting a different definition of “Christ-Myth” than the one I was using, for perceived gain on your part) is not “confusion” on my part.

    Told you we were in church.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 9, 2011, 2:49 pm
  14. Sorry, couldn’t resist this one…

    The problem is that you guys seem hell-bent on pretending that I don’t know anything.

    Maybe “God” is trying to tell you something here…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 9, 2011, 2:51 pm
  15. CB, henceforth, please be advised that any time I use the word “Mythicism” in reference to Jesus, I mean it in the scholarly sense, not the colloquial.

    If I use it another way, I’ll make note of it. If I forget, you have my permission to chastise me.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 9, 2011, 2:54 pm
  16. Fair enough, Hamby.

    Apparently, Alex has nothing of value to contribute, but wants to make noise just the same…

    Posted by CB | May 9, 2011, 3:12 pm
  17. Apparently, Alex has nothing of value to contribute, but wants to make noise just the same…

    You are correct kind sir. Sometimes I just like to read my own words on the internet. It makes me feel more important than I actually am. Thank you for noticing.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 9, 2011, 6:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: