Ten oz

The way gun laws and self defense laws (stand your ground) are written here in the U.S. I am not sure this Officer broke the law. That is how absolutely out of control our laws are. I suspect the Officer loses her job but probably little else. This is perfect example where had the gun simply not been present everyone would be alive and well today. The officer either would have ran out of the apartment and been realized she was in the wrong place while talking to the man.

Nothing he has published as it relates to this topic.

What repeatable tests are Bart Ehrman conducting?

You are applying a different context. In science we accept what can be repeatedly tested.

Right, what might be factual is close as one can get. Which is my point. What might be true isn't equal to what is true. The proposition of might is not definitive. You seem to understand this yet isn't that there is a reason to error on one side vs the other. I do not. An unknown is a unknown. In my experience people who play the odds are still wrong a lot. Many of gamblers have lost money betting the favorite. You and I have argued this issue for years. In more depth in the past. My position isn't based in ignorance of the facts. Your insistence of superior knowledge accomplishes little towards proving a historical figure from 2 thousand years ago was real. Our differences are less in knowledge of the facts and more in respect for disciplines use to collect those. Challenging me to provided a competing theory is also out of place. I have not claimed to know whether or not Jesus was real. I do not need a theory for that. It is you who are insisting Jesus was real and thus it is you who must support that. Not vice versa. 85/15 (no idea how you determine that other than using it because it is the sort of high probability Carrier's work references as necessary) still isn't 100%. In Las Vegas even with those odds one is still gambling. More over what are you applying that high probability to: That what Tacitus said was about Jesus specifically and not merely describing Christians, that Paul accurately recorded his interactions with James, that James was the bother of Jesus, that all the disciples to a person were all illiterate, etc? Different components of this issue all have different probabilities. For a conclusion based on specific individual points to be true all the individual points must be true. Arguing that one conclusion is better than the alternative based on your understand isn't a compelling argument to me. I leave unknown factors as unknown and do not bother with judgement calls unless I have not choice. I look for the right answer rather than which answer is probably the best one. Guessing at the best means one doesn't actually know which is the right one.

This whole thread you have been repeatedly referring to Bart Ehrman's work as credible have dismissed the work of scholars who disagree with Ehrman saying you "feel the anger" (wtf?). You are trying to have it both ways here. You can't push Ehrman as then gold standard and then cry ad hominem when Ehrman is addressed individually. His views are rooted in his interpretations of the Gospels. If you are going to claim to "feel the anger" in Richard Carrier's work you really shouldn't be calling ad hominem when I reference Bart Ehrman education and stated positions on his religious faith. I have addressed Bart Ehrman work directly many times. The short version is there are too many things in the Gospels which are known not be inaccurate. Even Ehrman acknowledges multiple contradictions and issues identifying authorship. So I considered ALL of them an undependable source. Parsing between which bits are exaggerations, hallucinations, lies, edits made later by the Church, mis-translations, and so on as a means to decipher truth isn't a process I accept as capable of producing an outcome greater than 50/50. Using the Gospels to prove the existence of Jesus simply doesn't work because one cannot prove enough definitive things about the Gospels themselves in the first place. It is a house of cards. Yes, I do find that interesting. I do not pretend to know Jesus did or did not exist. So if they can authenticate a tomb that would awesome. I have no agenda here. That said the article you linked notes some of the things I believe make Jesus's historicity so complicated: Christians have spent millennia directing the narrative on this. From Constantine's council of Nicea to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisitions Christians have made edits, taken control of lands, artifacts, and literally killed people in attempts to force specific beliefs. What Hadrian built, when it was built, and why it was built are relevant questions not easily answered. If building the tomb was an assertion of dominance that it is possible that the tomb was just propaganda. Then what changes were made later and why also are very hard to answer. It is a complicated process understand what actually happened in past vs what people who lived in the past wanted people to believe.

I don't view grading opinions on a scale from better to worse as useful. Even if a real person was the best answer any of us could think of it wouldn't make it so. Plus I don't even share the view. I feel too many assumptions are made if concluding an existence of a real Jesus is a better explanation. For example I understand your position that Jesus's followers were all conveniently illiterate and couldn't have written anything but that doesn't explain why they did not bother with other useful bits like where here was interred, the date of his death, and etc. They carried his words in memory for decades yet didn't bother to remember specific locations or dates. I think a better explanation for that would be that Jesus is a amalgamation of several people. To me that better explains why there is so little specificity in dates and locations. However I also do not think it matters what I think. What I think proves nothing. I said written sources provide windows. I did not call them useless. I think you are exaggerating my position a bit. If a tomb was found which mirrored the written story and could be dated to the timeframe I would consider it good evidence. As previously mentioned I find it strange none of Jesus's followers bothered to remember where that tomb was. Seem like the sort of thing which would have been important to them. Humans across nearly all culturals going back to the Stone Age marked the locations where loved ones were layed to rest. Sadly if a tomb had ever been found it surely would have been denied and scuttled by Christians. Per Christianity Jesus's body can't actually exist. That is the catch 22 here. Any evidence of a real person would have been destoryed had it ever previously been found in the first place. Jesus's body would conflict with Resurrection. Clues about a real man who may have had a family, disease, or whatever would conflict the Bible. So any evidence of a real man would have been scrubbed by the Church had it been known of. Christianity is having it both ways with Jesus. He was a real human who was born, lived, and died. Yet was born of an impossible birth, lived an impossible life, and came back from the dead. Jesus as Illustrated throughout history is both a real human man while simultaneously being an immortal God. Real evidence of the real man complicates the latter. My conclusion is that Jesus may have been a real person or he may not have been. I don't pretend to know.

Worse still than many scholars being Christian is the fact that many of the scholars known as Jesus Historicity experts have devoted their lives to the study of Christianity almost. Obviously someone who would give their life's work to Christianity is has some bias. Eise cites Bart Ehrman but who is Ehrman: got his Bachelors from Wheaton College which is a Christian school founded by Evangelicals and his Doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary. He grew up a born again Christian, began to questions some contradictions in the bible as an adult, and around the age of 40 became an agnostic (not atheist). Dawkins fights a lot of battles. For example many accuse his of being Islamophobic. I think he simply has to many battle brewing, his health has been poor too, to wade into the issue of Jesus's historicity. There simply isn't anything in it for him.

Written sources when not contemporary provide windows into the past but not always proof. There are remants of Eygt, Rome, the Greeks, and etc cultures to study. We do not merely really on things written which can't be confirmed. I do not doubt the age of Christianity. There is plenty of artifacts which prove how long Christianity has been around. I accept all the general things which can be proved and consider the rest unknown. We are finding out new things all the time. I grew up being taught Columbus was the first European in the Americas but today we know Norsemen visited North America much earlier. We know because we found the artifacts. Just as I grew up being taught Neanderthal and Home Sapiens never successfully reproduced but today we know everyone with Eurasian ancestors in fact carry Neanderthal genes. Humans are incredibly imperfect regarding the way we record the past. Humans intentional lie and rewrite history in an attempt to alter perception, hide the past, and support their own beliefs. People can't even accuratly keep track of their own family trees for more than 3 generations much less the indentity of individuals over thousands of years. A lot of history is lost. I take all history which can't be proved with hard evidence with a grain of salt. If Jesus's tomb was found tommorow I would consider that proof he was real. Why is that a bar you consider too great? Why insist that something which is a "maybe" must be viewed as a "probably"? I see little difference between the two. If something isn't known it isn't known. No big deal.

@Eise, you are natural science has no place here but science is used to prove history all the time. That is what carbon dating is, ice core are, DNA does, and etc. There is lots of history proved by real science.

@Eise, the difference here between you and I is that you are treating Ehrman's, best guess is equal to fact and I don't. It is merely a guess. An educated guess but still a guess. I prefer tangible proof. For history that would come in the from of archaeology and not theology. There is currently no way to prove Jesus was real. That is simply a fact. You can argue he probably existed but can't say it is a fact he did. That is just a simple truth.

@Commander imprisoning journalists and assaulting/killing activists is wrong and no govt should oppress their citizens that way. You can simply state as much, as I just have, and we can discuss it. When you copy and paste the words of others it makes it unclear what you wish to discuss. What are your personal insights on this issue?

Jeff Session is not committed to anything, hahaha. Sessions is just smart enough to know better than to interfere with ongoing investigations being conducted by career prosecutors while himself being investigated. Sessions already lied to the Senate under oath and possibly broken other laws during the 2016 campaign by meeting with Russians. Let's not forget that those lies are the reason he had to recuse himself from the Russian investigation. Session is in survival mode at the moment and regardless of how this all end his political career is finished at a minimum and he's just trying to ensure prison isn't in his future.

The arguments here are not rooted is any natural science Eise. In natural science things are not claimed to be true till proven so. For example all evidence very strongly suggests that life should exist elsewhere in the universe however it has never been proven to so that matter remains an unknown. Scientists say they "think" or there "probably" is, there "should" be, and etc when talking about life in the Universe. I am not claiming Jesus absolutely did or didn't exist. I am merely saying that issue is not known, can't be proved, either way. Ehrman doesn't know that Jesus existed. Ehrman believes Jesus probably existed. Ehrman is not trained in Natural Science. Ehrman studies the Net Testament. Ehrman is an expert in Christian belief. Theology is the study of the nature of a religion. It is not a discipline which proves things about the real world. Archaeology proves things through excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains. That isn't what Ehrman does. Knowing something and believing something are not equals. You yourself have already acknowledged numerous times that not all scholars agree and have yet to provide any reason why Ehrman's work is superior to those scholar who disagree with it.

Right, too many arguments are based on assumptions in Eise's post. It is assume that because none of his followers wrote anything down that they were all illiterate. I don't see any reason to assume that. Clearly they were people of great enough influence that they themselves were written about. The argument attempts to have it both ways by first insisting they were illiterate poor people of zero stature but then insisting that decades later people all over even in other countries were still memorizing and repeating their tales. Besides there are ways to record someones existence without writing. I guess we also must assume none of his followers could draw, sculpt, hang on to a piece of his carpentry, save a lock of his hair, or etc.A pair of Jesus's sandals passed on by followers would be a long way here considering nothing contemporary exists. The references to James also require many assumptions.James was said to have been, decades later, Jesus's brother but that doesn't literally mean he must have been. People who never meant Jesus, weren't even aware of his existence contemporary to the time of his supposed life, describing James as Jesus's brother isn't actually good evidence. Especially when those same people state many other inaccurate things. To my knowledge Eise is not deeply religious. I do not believe his opinion on this stems from personal faith. Christian's have dominated Western Society for hundreds of years and during that time the Western World has dominate the whole world. So it has long been understood that Jesus was real. That is what has been taught. That is where the needle has been. It is a self affirming notion. To move the needle one would need evidence that Jesus never existed. What would even be evidence of none existence? To me lack of contemporary evidence is a good start but is it enough?

@Phi for All I see the problem having 4 layers: - First layer is money as your pointed out. Some Democrats are puppets for their wealthy benefactors. - Second layer is a type of pretentious fallacy where people on the left believe themselves to be more inherently fair and go out of their way to make concessions as a way of proving how fair they are. Being viewed as fair is more important than simply being correct. - Third layer is a focus on not losing rather than a focus on winning. Many Democrats are more preoccupied with what they fear will turn voters against them than they are with what will motive people to vote for them. Take marijuana for example. If wins basically ever time it is on a ballot yet national Democratic candidates still talk around the issue rather than just coming out as pro pot out of fear of backlash and being viewed as soft on crime. Another example was Gay marriage. Back in 2008 both Obama and Clinton were pro civil unions but not gay marriage. It took another couple years to get them publicly on board. - Fourth layer is race. The majority of Republicans are white men. In our society white men are our authority figures. They are our Police, Judges, CEOs, Deans, and etc. Society simply doesn't ignore of dismiss their feelings about anything.

Just for there rookie year. There would still be armed police for all over the city they'd be in radio contact with.

Impeachment requires a super majority in the Senate. Even if Democrats won every Senate race up in 2018 they wouldn't have a super majority. It is my belief that Democrats won't impeach Trump out of fear that it would rally his base and help him in 2020. It is an error in my opinion. Like a sports team purposely avoiding scoring opportunities when they are behind because they fear their opponent might run the score up even more. It is nonsensical. To win you got to play to win. Republicans always play to win and as a result are able to dominate every branch of govt without majority national support. I don't want to be hyperbolic but I wonder if Trump would attempt to shut the govt down and demand re-elections if Republicans lose control over Congress in November. Thus far Trump has basically gotten everything he wanted and has shown no regard for protocol or the law. He a giant bully that throws the weight of the office around indiscriminately and argues that nothing a President does can be legal or checked. He and his supporter treat his power as absolute. If Democrats win big in Nov. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump claims it was rigged, orders an investigation, and attempts to postpone a new session from beginning. Thing could get really crazy really fast.

Of course

It probably is not practical but I wish all Police Officers had to spend their first year on the job walking the streets as unarmed safety officers. No taser, no pepper spray, no police cruiser, or etc. Just walking the neighborhood, or cycling, wearing a bright yellow vest with a radio and first aid kit. It would familiarize them with the community and they'd learn how to speak to people. I also wish Police Officers had to live in the cities they work in.

It is certainly fair to say I did a poor job expressing my point. Especially as it zig zag'd around being an on and off since. Younger people are less interested in political news and political news accounts for a lower portion of what they use the internet for compared to older people. I also think younger people do not think about news in terms of political balance, equal time, or needing to show both sides of the U.S.'s two party system. Those are ideas pushed by network and cable news. The median audience for cable news, for example, is over 60yrs old. What Alex Jones and Trump are pushing regarding fairness are concepts which exist to tv news audiences (old people). So in my opinion the issue of political bias via the internet is one that primarily only exists/matters to older people as they, we, are the ones who think about news in those terms.

I recently completed the 2nd season of West World. I was disappointed with all the biblical references but am overall encouraged at the direction the story is going. I do have a couple questions about the show and am interested in seeing what others here have have sent it thought. *I assume anyone who participates in this discussion has seen both seasons so I do not plan on avoiding discussing key plot points and reveals.

Was I was a kid in the city I grew a family who'd recently immigrated from China call the police because their teen aged mentally disabled daughter was acting erratically and the parents didn't want her to hurt herself. When the police arrived outside the girl came to the front door hold a knife. The door was open but the mental door screen was closed. The police demanded to girl drop the knife. The girl, who was mentally disabled, didn't speak English. The police shot and killed her through the screen door. It was considered lawful. The girl clearly had a weapon and failed to comply with orders. Growing up my fathers always stressed to me to never call the police. He insisted that involving the police always makes a situation worse. As an adult I don't agree with that. There are situations were it is important to have police involvement. However I am not a father with a house full of boys I worry about.

Only an election defeat in 2020 will rid us of Trump. Even if Democrats controlled both the House and Senate I doubt they successfully impeach Trump. Democrats have a habit of being over responsive to their critics rather than their base.....Or rather maybe it is more because the Republicans are so good at crying wolf. Look at what happened with James Comey. Republicans had gotten so for up in his business with accusations of bias and demands for more investigation that he ultimately broke protocol and gave a press conference that Clinton was back under investigation days before the election out of fear of how he'd be criticized if he didn't, lol. Seems so silly in retrospect because Comey was going to be tarred and feather regardless.

Understanding of how computers work has no barring on the way one perceives information online. Considering the amount of apps young people use today and the fact most were never directly exposed to DOS or Linux I would imagine someone like yourself knows much more about programming than them. Would you agree that younger people are far less interested in politics overall and that far less of what young people do online involves political related media?