Review of Criticism of Jesus Archibald Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History?
Valuable, Condensed, Thorough, and Little-known Measured Criticism of 'Jesus' Considered as a Genuine Personage. Helps Pave the Way for Future Understanding. Review by Rerevisionist, Jan 7th, 2017I have a copy of this book, in the original small-format red hardback of the 'Thinker's Library'. First printed 1946, second edition 1949. Most Thinker's Library volumes were bound in brown, with black printing, and with a one-colour on white dust-jacket in their Watts & Co. house style. There are other editions, some, I think, more or less pirated; or perhaps the copyright situation isn't clear. Whether these are accurate, I don't know; for interested readers I'd recommend an original copy, just in case.
The contents are more or less chronological, with Chapter 1 containing Christian writings, Chapter 2 writings by everyone else—with some overlap—and Chapter 3 leaping forward to post-Reformation times, no doubt because criticism of the Bible in the Middle Ages is difficult to find. I'd guess Robertson—British son of a theologian in Durham, and impeccably public-schooled and degreed—absorbed much of the material in his father's house. I haven't found any supposed texts showing the existence of Jesus, not found in Robertson. (The book has a fairly detailed helpful index).
My view is that, at the time of the various commentators, nobody influential appreciated the fact the Jews, who were, presumably, behind the Jesus promotion, seem to have a genetic tendency to lie—something which may go back to the days when language was still developing, in the remotest depths of time. Much as visual camouflage would not have evolved until sight had developed, modes of use of language could not predate speech. It's now clear that Jews have an exceptional tendency to lie—this may be compared to some creatures which lie [pun not really intended!] rather than fly, when in danger. Before the days of technological aids, such as writing, and, now, photographs and fingerprints and videos etc etc etc, convincing liars must have been hard to detect. It's now plausible that Jews made up the 'New Testament' as a Jewish fantasy, or film script, or advertisement, or promotion of a Jewish 'hero' aimed at gullible goyim. It's what they do. People who describe Christianity as a 'Jewish Trojan horse' are no doubt correct.
The idea that there was a ferment of religious ideas in the Roman Empire may also be untrue. It's now known that Jewish strategies include defaming and subverting and critiquing rival societies; it's entirely likely the supposed unease leading to religious change was a Jewish manufacture.
The remaining problem is how Jews could have done this; they didn't have the Federal Reserve to print them endless money. They may have had the ear of prominent Romans. They may have used unreliable, dysfunctional, disgruntled people to spread the world, much as non-Jewish 'Marxists' now, and in the past, often fit this description, and often co-operate in treachery which is mildly profitable to them.
A modern question which may occur to the reader is why a Jew-based publishing house should risk subverting their racial group with a serious presentation of the idea of the non-existence of 'Yeshua'. There have been alternations in self-images of Christians, and I'd guess their feeling was that Christians in 1945 were a bit too independent. The story of Jewish collaborators through the centuries hasn't begun to be described yet.
Here's a dispute on Christianity including logic, among other topics. I think Laura is saying that 'logic', properly understood, is the 'scientific method'. And not a collection of techniques, such as syllogisms. Amazon banned some parts of this debate. «ban
Laura B.1 day ago
The ancient remedies for understanding and discovering lies are the science of formal logic and the art of rhetoric. Both have been effectively erased from the minds of the masses by the State controlled schools and media. Read "The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto.
"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -Plato
"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson
"Logic, therefore, as the science thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric
"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition
A very helpful tool in understanding effective rhetoric is Aristotle's three primary pillars of persuasion; (1) Ethos (authority), (2) Pathos (emotion), and (3) Logos (logic). To believe an argument that is supported by Ethos alone is to be manipulated by authority. To believe an argument that it is supported by Pathos alone is to be manipulated through emotion. Aristotle advises rather, that we take great pains to avoid being manipulated, and allow ourselves to be only truly persuaded by logos (i.e., logical arguments that are correctly reasoned and well supported by verifiable evidence).
P.S.
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, 'The Commentaries', regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
The masses have already been stripped of formal logic and rhetoric, which leaves them intellectually crippled. Our Zionist controllers would like to strip them of their faith as well. They would like us all to be amoral self-absorbed cowards, as well as mindless fools. Why help them accomplish this by attacking Christianity as they do?
The ancient remedies for understanding and discovering lies are the science of formal logic and the art of rhetoric. Both have been effectively erased from the minds of the masses by the State controlled schools and media. Read "The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto.
"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -Plato
"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson
"Logic, therefore, as the science thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric
"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition
A very helpful tool in understanding effective rhetoric is Aristotle's three primary pillars of persuasion; (1) Ethos (authority), (2) Pathos (emotion), and (3) Logos (logic). To believe an argument that is supported by Ethos alone is to be manipulated by authority. To believe an argument that it is supported by Pathos alone is to be manipulated through emotion. Aristotle advises rather, that we take great pains to avoid being manipulated, and allow ourselves to be only truly persuaded by logos (i.e., logical arguments that are correctly reasoned and well supported by verifiable evidence).
P.S.
"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, 'The Commentaries', regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.
The masses have already been stripped of formal logic and rhetoric, which leaves them intellectually crippled. Our Zionist controllers would like to strip them of their faith as well. They would like us all to be amoral self-absorbed cowards, as well as mindless fools. Why help them accomplish this by attacking Christianity as they do?
Rerevisionist 1 day ago
Hi Laura; thanks for your comment.
[1] Logic. I know you like and recommend formal logic. And informal, no doubt. The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged.
[2] One problem with Christianity is its imprecision: for example, what does it say about war? There is no reliable answer. Christianity has some good points, and imho the good parts ought to be extracted, leaving the mythology apart. 'Good parts' includes for example just simple companionship.
[3] I've come to the view, as I wrote, that Jews either hijacked early Christianity, inserting their rubbish about a sort of hook-nosed wandering hero into whatever beliefs were around at the time; or they may have simply made up early Christianity - possibly there was no new movement.
The persistent modern Jewish lies about holocaustianity made me realise this is entirely possible: Jews like lies and will persist, apparently forever, repeating lies.
So the point is: having injected Jewish rubbish into some existing religion, or made it up, what was the motive? And obviously it was some sort of profit or control. But the control wasn't complete, and in any case, if it spread, it would come up against local customs and beliefs. The early church and popes seems to have been largely Jewish, though of course it's hard to be sure; but locals dotted about Europe would no doubt have their own local versions, and then there were e.g. Russians, the Greek eastern church etc. And all these people resisted conversion for centuries.
So I think there must have been a tug-of-war between Jews and local churches. This is certainly the case now: Roman Catholicism is infested with Jews, so is the Church of England (Welby etc), and Jews must be largely controlling France and Germany and Italy. And of course in the US there's the 'Christian Zionist' bunch of clowns largely based on Scofield. It's naive to suppose there's a simple Christianity vs Jews dichotomy. It will take some effort to cut out the Jewish component, but I think it's necessary: think of all the trash of the 'Old Testament' which must have been utterly irrelevant to all early Christians, shoved into whatever may have been believed. You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems.
[1] Logic. I know you like and recommend formal logic. And informal, no doubt. The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged.
[2] One problem with Christianity is its imprecision: for example, what does it say about war? There is no reliable answer. Christianity has some good points, and imho the good parts ought to be extracted, leaving the mythology apart. 'Good parts' includes for example just simple companionship.
[3] I've come to the view, as I wrote, that Jews either hijacked early Christianity, inserting their rubbish about a sort of hook-nosed wandering hero into whatever beliefs were around at the time; or they may have simply made up early Christianity - possibly there was no new movement.
The persistent modern Jewish lies about holocaustianity made me realise this is entirely possible: Jews like lies and will persist, apparently forever, repeating lies.
So the point is: having injected Jewish rubbish into some existing religion, or made it up, what was the motive? And obviously it was some sort of profit or control. But the control wasn't complete, and in any case, if it spread, it would come up against local customs and beliefs. The early church and popes seems to have been largely Jewish, though of course it's hard to be sure; but locals dotted about Europe would no doubt have their own local versions, and then there were e.g. Russians, the Greek eastern church etc. And all these people resisted conversion for centuries.
So I think there must have been a tug-of-war between Jews and local churches. This is certainly the case now: Roman Catholicism is infested with Jews, so is the Church of England (Welby etc), and Jews must be largely controlling France and Germany and Italy. And of course in the US there's the 'Christian Zionist' bunch of clowns largely based on Scofield. It's naive to suppose there's a simple Christianity vs Jews dichotomy. It will take some effort to cut out the Jewish component, but I think it's necessary: think of all the trash of the 'Old Testament' which must have been utterly irrelevant to all early Christians, shoved into whatever may have been believed. You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems.
Laura B.20 hours ago
You write: "The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged."
This is a common misconception about formal logic. It is a misconception that has been deliberately cultivated by our controllers for more than a century, and I'd urge you to recognize and get rid of this misconception. Insuring the truth of your premises with verifiable evidence is the first and most important rule of formal logic. Any argument which has been inferred from premises which have not been verified "by you" to be true with adequate supporting evidence should be considered unsound or uncogent "to you". Aristotle makes this abundantly clear in his six treatises on logic, "The Organon". Since you are attempting to persuade your readers with logical arguments, rather than fallacious rhetoric, it would definitely be to your advantage if your audience had some basic understanding of both formal logic and rhetoric. Right now, the vast majority do not.
You also write:
"You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems."
I am not an atheist or an agnostic. But I am also not an orthodox Christian of any sort either. Right now Western civilization seems to be choosing between Christianity, with all of its mythology, and atheism. Atheism is the end of us. It is the end of any hope of throwing off our yoke. That's why the Zionists have been pushing for Darwinian evolution and atheism through State controlled schools and media for more than 100 years. Atheism brings the combined infections of cowardice, hopelessness, and amorality to the masses.
Our Zionist controllers have not achieved this unprecedented wealth and power by being stupid. And they are fighting Christianity with all of their strength. This should give you pause.
Upon seizing power in Russia, the Bolsheviks murdered many thousands of Christian priests.
Ask the Israelis if they would rather be stealing land from atheists or devout Muslims. The answer is obvious.
And "middle east fanatics" are the least of our problems. Our true enemies have seized control of our government and every meaningful lever of power in it. They literally control the forum that we currently communicate through. The thousands murdered on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands murdered in subsequent illegal wars to steal resources are not the fault of Muslims. (I assume that's what you mean when you write "middle east fanatics".)
P.S. The godless, soulless, faithless, and self-absorbed masses of the future will be a much more reliable source of labor and cannon fodder.
You write: "The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged."
This is a common misconception about formal logic. It is a misconception that has been deliberately cultivated by our controllers for more than a century, and I'd urge you to recognize and get rid of this misconception. Insuring the truth of your premises with verifiable evidence is the first and most important rule of formal logic. Any argument which has been inferred from premises which have not been verified "by you" to be true with adequate supporting evidence should be considered unsound or uncogent "to you". Aristotle makes this abundantly clear in his six treatises on logic, "The Organon". Since you are attempting to persuade your readers with logical arguments, rather than fallacious rhetoric, it would definitely be to your advantage if your audience had some basic understanding of both formal logic and rhetoric. Right now, the vast majority do not.
You also write:
"You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems."
I am not an atheist or an agnostic. But I am also not an orthodox Christian of any sort either. Right now Western civilization seems to be choosing between Christianity, with all of its mythology, and atheism. Atheism is the end of us. It is the end of any hope of throwing off our yoke. That's why the Zionists have been pushing for Darwinian evolution and atheism through State controlled schools and media for more than 100 years. Atheism brings the combined infections of cowardice, hopelessness, and amorality to the masses.
Our Zionist controllers have not achieved this unprecedented wealth and power by being stupid. And they are fighting Christianity with all of their strength. This should give you pause.
Upon seizing power in Russia, the Bolsheviks murdered many thousands of Christian priests.
Ask the Israelis if they would rather be stealing land from atheists or devout Muslims. The answer is obvious.
And "middle east fanatics" are the least of our problems. Our true enemies have seized control of our government and every meaningful lever of power in it. They literally control the forum that we currently communicate through. The thousands murdered on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands murdered in subsequent illegal wars to steal resources are not the fault of Muslims. (I assume that's what you mean when you write "middle east fanatics".)
P.S. The godless, soulless, faithless, and self-absorbed masses of the future will be a much more reliable source of labor and cannon fodder.
[1] I re-read your comment and am baffled as to why you don't realise that logic is hopeless without sound factual bases. Let me give an example. Suppose in [the year] 1400 people are trying to work out why iron can rust. It's now known that water, carbon dioxide, and some way they are in contact with not very pure iron allows iron to oxidise. In 1400, nobody knew about oxygen, carbon dioxide, the properties of mild acids etc. However many examples of rusting [they could find], or examples of cases where rusting hadn't occurred, no amount of logic would help them determine why rusting happens. Another example is lightning: they had no idea what it was; a course in logic would not help in any way. So this is why I think your emphasis on logic is misplaced, where factual bases don't exist.
[2] It's true Jews murdered Russian orthodox priests. But they also murdered millions of Russian whites - mostly educated ones. Jews seem to be racially programmed to kill, when possible, anyone they perceive as superior. You look at this as anti-Christianity; I'd say it's anti-white, or anti-anyone Jews think they can screw anything from. I agree about Muslims - mostly they are useful idiots. The same is true of blacks in the USA. But this isn't a Christian issue. White Americans were happy to rape and murder Vietnamese girls. White Britons were happy to bomb German women and children. They were both in theory 'Christians'. The fact is that Christianity has little practical effect. I agree about the menace of Jews, but their control relies on the 'Quisling' types who work for Jews. Jews can only get away with it if they control propaganda. So I think the whole Christian message needs to be rearranged. I think Jews are starting to notice that their low IQ thugs and puppets are not a source of 'labor and cannon fodder'; it's probably why they are getting worried.
[2] It's true Jews murdered Russian orthodox priests. But they also murdered millions of Russian whites - mostly educated ones. Jews seem to be racially programmed to kill, when possible, anyone they perceive as superior. You look at this as anti-Christianity; I'd say it's anti-white, or anti-anyone Jews think they can screw anything from. I agree about Muslims - mostly they are useful idiots. The same is true of blacks in the USA. But this isn't a Christian issue. White Americans were happy to rape and murder Vietnamese girls. White Britons were happy to bomb German women and children. They were both in theory 'Christians'. The fact is that Christianity has little practical effect. I agree about the menace of Jews, but their control relies on the 'Quisling' types who work for Jews. Jews can only get away with it if they control propaganda. So I think the whole Christian message needs to be rearranged. I think Jews are starting to notice that their low IQ thugs and puppets are not a source of 'labor and cannon fodder'; it's probably why they are getting worried.
Laura B.8 hours ago
You write: "I re-read your comment and am baffled as to why you don't realise that logic is hopeless without sound factual bases."
You are right, formal logic is limited to inferences from the verifiable evidence that we possess. This is the essence of sound or cogent reasoning.
"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge." -Aristotle, the first sentence from "Posterior Analytics", 4th Century B.C.
What you fail to understand is that to believe the great lies of our government one must violate this ancient rule of logic. For instance, there is no verifiable evidence from which to logically infer that man ever walked on the Moon. Anyone properly educated in the rules of Aristotelian formal logic would be much more likely to understand this. You see, it turns out that it is very difficult to properly support a lie with solid verifiable evidence. (Unfortunately, our "natural logic", the logic that we are all naturally endowed with to varying degrees, most often is not limited to inferences from verifiable evidence. We tend naturally to fail into all sorts of logical and rhetorical traps. And these traps have been well studied since ancient times.)
That is why formal logic has not been taught in State controlled public schools in the U.S. for more than 100 years. John Gatto claims that this has been the case here since the end of the U.S. Civil War. This seems correct to me since I find almost no one, even among the elderly, that has any practical understanding of formal logic. I suspect that this is also true in Great Britain.
"Fallacious Even If Valid So far, we have considered arguments that are fallacious precisely because they are invalid. But arguments may be fallacious for reasons other invalidity --even valid arguments may be fallacious. Thus we have the fallacy category 'fallacious even if valid. 1. Suppressed Evidence When arguing, it is human nature to present every reason you can think of that is favorable to your own position, while omitting those that are unfavorable. Nevertheless, anyone who argues in this very human way argues fallaciously. Let's call this the fallacy of 'suppressed evidence... Questionable Premise The fallacy of the 'questionable premise' is simply the fallacy of accepting premises in an argument that are both questionable and inadequately supported." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Formal logic is an invaluable reasoning tool. It has been considered so by intellectuals for thousands of years.
Formal logic has been systematically suppressed by our State controlled public schools and media precisely for this reason. Your failure to understand the significance of this completely puzzles me.
P.S. Julius Caesar noted over two thousand years ago the courage that spiritual faith could produce. Many civilizations have taken advantage of this fact to enhance the bravery of their people. The Vikings immediately come to mind.
Our masters wish to force atheism down our throats through school and media to accomplish the exact opposite. It serves their purpose to make us cowards. You don't understand that either?
You write: "I re-read your comment and am baffled as to why you don't realise that logic is hopeless without sound factual bases."
You are right, formal logic is limited to inferences from the verifiable evidence that we possess. This is the essence of sound or cogent reasoning.
"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge." -Aristotle, the first sentence from "Posterior Analytics", 4th Century B.C.
What you fail to understand is that to believe the great lies of our government one must violate this ancient rule of logic. For instance, there is no verifiable evidence from which to logically infer that man ever walked on the Moon. Anyone properly educated in the rules of Aristotelian formal logic would be much more likely to understand this. You see, it turns out that it is very difficult to properly support a lie with solid verifiable evidence. (Unfortunately, our "natural logic", the logic that we are all naturally endowed with to varying degrees, most often is not limited to inferences from verifiable evidence. We tend naturally to fail into all sorts of logical and rhetorical traps. And these traps have been well studied since ancient times.)
That is why formal logic has not been taught in State controlled public schools in the U.S. for more than 100 years. John Gatto claims that this has been the case here since the end of the U.S. Civil War. This seems correct to me since I find almost no one, even among the elderly, that has any practical understanding of formal logic. I suspect that this is also true in Great Britain.
"Fallacious Even If Valid So far, we have considered arguments that are fallacious precisely because they are invalid. But arguments may be fallacious for reasons other invalidity --even valid arguments may be fallacious. Thus we have the fallacy category 'fallacious even if valid. 1. Suppressed Evidence When arguing, it is human nature to present every reason you can think of that is favorable to your own position, while omitting those that are unfavorable. Nevertheless, anyone who argues in this very human way argues fallaciously. Let's call this the fallacy of 'suppressed evidence... Questionable Premise The fallacy of the 'questionable premise' is simply the fallacy of accepting premises in an argument that are both questionable and inadequately supported." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
Formal logic is an invaluable reasoning tool. It has been considered so by intellectuals for thousands of years.
Formal logic has been systematically suppressed by our State controlled public schools and media precisely for this reason. Your failure to understand the significance of this completely puzzles me.
P.S. Julius Caesar noted over two thousand years ago the courage that spiritual faith could produce. Many civilizations have taken advantage of this fact to enhance the bravery of their people. The Vikings immediately come to mind.
Our masters wish to force atheism down our throats through school and media to accomplish the exact opposite. It serves their purpose to make us cowards. You don't understand that either?
Rerevisionist 8 hours ago
I'm not sure there's much point answering.
[1] You *claim* there is no verifiable evidence for moon walks. But government people, who I agree are liars, pretend there is. Refutation is a factual thing, relying for example on facts about human biology and e.g. food, drink, excretion, resistance to radiation etc. And on rocketry, acceleration etc etc. I don't agree that people knowledgeable about syllogisms would go straight to the heart of it. I don't know of any people who consider themselves skilled in Aristotelean logic, who have done any useful work in dispelling any errors of the sort we're talking about.
[2] You claim that Christianity makes people brave. It takes more than a quotation in a rather obscure language to prove it. How many bishops and archbishops have led battles, for example? Genuine courage in opposing evil is probably a product of rage and indignation and decent armaments more than anything else. Yours an empirical argument, and the fact that Christ was/is popularly supposed to be pacifistic doesn't sound like incitement to courage. --- I wish you'd face the fact that you've very likely been deceived, and you're like someone at a Star Wars convention believing their stuff is true.
And they don't force atheism down people's throats. There are 60? million Zionist Protestants in the USA, for example, all woodenly stupid.
[1] You *claim* there is no verifiable evidence for moon walks. But government people, who I agree are liars, pretend there is. Refutation is a factual thing, relying for example on facts about human biology and e.g. food, drink, excretion, resistance to radiation etc. And on rocketry, acceleration etc etc. I don't agree that people knowledgeable about syllogisms would go straight to the heart of it. I don't know of any people who consider themselves skilled in Aristotelean logic, who have done any useful work in dispelling any errors of the sort we're talking about.
[2] You claim that Christianity makes people brave. It takes more than a quotation in a rather obscure language to prove it. How many bishops and archbishops have led battles, for example? Genuine courage in opposing evil is probably a product of rage and indignation and decent armaments more than anything else. Yours an empirical argument, and the fact that Christ was/is popularly supposed to be pacifistic doesn't sound like incitement to courage. --- I wish you'd face the fact that you've very likely been deceived, and you're like someone at a Star Wars convention believing their stuff is true.
And they don't force atheism down people's throats. There are 60? million Zionist Protestants in the USA, for example, all woodenly stupid.