[Bored chemist]

A Harvard study links air pollution to bad covid-19 outcomes.

Guess what is also likely to coexist with air pollution?

Yes, it's important to look for confounding variables.
A while ago the stupid story of the day was that power lines made people ill.
Obviously, they didn't.
What power lines did was highlight areas where poor people lived. (In affluent areas, the power lines were buried because they are not pretty, but burying them is too expensive for poor folk).
Poor people generally have worse health.

So, if you try to look for areas where there's a lot of pollution, you will find what the media are referring to as "underlying health issues". And those people will unsurprisingly be more susceptible to covid.

What is interesting is that pollution has been identified as a factor in covid infection/severity.
But what has not been found is that 5G is a factor.

Guess what is also likely to coexist with air pollution?

poverty.
And, since 5G is new and expensive, I expect pollution to coexist with a relative shortage of 5G coverage.
So, the evidence suggests that the (poor) people in low 5G areas have high covid incidence/ severity.

The evidence suggests a negative correlation between covid and 5G.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[alancalverd]

Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

Some things are much more certain. Various popes believed, and insisted against the evidence, that everyone else should believed the sun  moves round the earth. If that is the required level of Christian certainty, it labels millions of people as fools. But that's hardly surprising when you watch them queueing to eat the body and blood of Christ once a week. Barbaric fools.

[duffyd]

I have no reason to doubt that he existed. As I said much earlier, he was a radical rabbi (addressed by his friends as such) who was killed for causing trouble. Nothing unusual about that, nor was the radical Judaism he preached beyond the very broad span of our ancient traditions.

Our genius keeps running. Nobody be following. Jesus was transformed into all kinds of things he wasn't to make sure nobody saw him for who he really was: GOD.
2,000 years after they thought they were finished with him, they still can't stop him. He's GOD. Never will stop him, especially as some radical Rabbi long dead and gone.

[duffyd]

"(addressed by his friends as such)"

Well, that clinches it. (His buddies also called him GOD, THE LORD, MASTER, SAVIOR, THE MESSIAH,). Whoops. Sorry 'bout that. Didn't take 200 years before they identified him as the risen KING of KINGS, either.
But, when you got nothin, remember to tag him with labels and slander. Maybe you'll plant some doubt in their minds. WHEN YOU GOT NOTHIN

[duffyd]

There is a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel which deals with the evidence for Christ as if it were a legal matter to prove. He says legally anyone would win a legal case based on the evidence considered admissible.

Yes, he says that.
It may not be true, but he says it anyway.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

The one thing you can say with certainty is that half the people in a courtroom are lying. It is the job of the judge and jury to decide which. And a lot depends on presentation, not facts: "He who defends himself has a fool for a client".

My experience is that judges want someone to write their order and their reasons for judgment and if a layman happens to have a lawyer who has connections inside the court (and especially outside the court), the judge does not do his job and dispense justice. And the appeal Courts do not want the status quo upset so they dismiss appeals with one sentence. I have seen many lawyers rip off their own clients. At least when I represented myself, I had an honest lawyer.

When a jury is involved, the selection of the jury and the manipulation of the jury (a la Simpson) can play a big part. As we see on many forums, a fact can be twisted and presented in such a way that it means the opposite of what it should. Most jurors are are emotional and not analytical. One sees that with the historical convictions of blacks in the South.

The only fair and just judgments happen in the afterlife.

Disappointed. The Wire was all that. Maybe so, except for the writing, the acting, the plot, the direction, the filming, the botched accents of inner city thugs, the fake scenes of violence, the timing, the melodramatic overplayed attempts at criminal jive. Other than that, it was all that.

[duffyd]

No matter what they do
No matter what they done
Can't erase the man
Dying, bleeding,
I can't stop crying, crying
Don't go. Don't go.
Never had a friend like you
No one was ever as good as You

[Bored chemist]

2,000 years after they thought they were finished with him, they still can't stop him.

Give it time.

"Church attendance in advanced industrial societies is in gradual general decline with people shifting from weekly to monthly or holiday attendance. Sociologists have attributed this trend to a number of reasons, starting from a simple boredom during services and lack of motivation, to generational incompatibility of belief systems and social changes attributed to modernity"
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance#Trends

[alancalverd]

His buddies also called him GOD

citation needed, particularly as none of the current bible was written by anyone who knew him.

[duffyd]

citation needed, particularly as none of the current bible was written by anyone who knew him.

Got to say, pretty, pretty, pretty good. Not bad. Not bad at all. "His friends called him radical." Um, you got a citation?
You can't make this stuff up.

[alancalverd]

If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it.

Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.

[duffyd]

If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it.

Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.

You better split. You were having your fanny for lunch. Excellent time to take cover, just as you brush off your premise with more generalized bull.

Wow, very clever, "his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream..."
So you hope to be convincing by "proving your lies"  aren't lies because only wild rabbis get criticized.
The quicksand pulls her in deeper and she utters  one last gasp, "Only the wild rabbis got in trouble." It is pure coincidence that she realized it was time to run away from me. She got as far as she could lying to me. Belly laughing, jumping off the roof. Excellent Alan. I was completely believing you.

[Bored chemist]

There's a plot there somewhere.
Duffy is no longer associated with it

[duffyd]

Hey Alan. One more thing. Are you suggesting you have some room to give on the "200 year" allegation, you know, the time you state elapsed before they started writing the ramshackled hodgepod bullcrap, about him?

[duffyd]

As you may recall, Alan insisted that the trash that we call the N.T, was not even written for 200 years after Christ was crucified and raised from the grave. I asked her if she would back up this claim, knowing she couldn't and she doesn't even try--but she insults me instead, and says see ya.
As I said from the beginning, these unbelievers, this batch, don't debate. They can't debate. They don't know anything. They attend Unbeliever's University (UU) for intensive 3 day training and are placed throughout the internet and told to blaspheme Christianity and Believers. That's it. They receive no further training.

[duffyd]

Not in any bible I have read. He wasn't that stupid. To Wit:
"And even if he had, why would you believe him, let alone a third-hand edited translation of a book written 200 years after his death by somebody who wasn't there and didn't speak Aramaic?"

[duffyd]

Practically everything we need to know is wrapped up in this brilliant statement by Professor Metzger, Ehrman's reason for attending Princeton Theological Seminary. "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

You are right , but not for the reason you think.

It is very obvious that some things- such as the existence of the Emperor Nero are more certain.
So, it is very obvious that Professor Metzger, Ehrman is factually incorrect.
Any school-kid would understand why he's wrong- because each and every Roman coin with Nero's head stamped into it shows that Nero was "king". And, of course, there is a lot of lother evidence.

And yet, in spite of the clear evidence that the man is not telling the truth, people still cite him as some sort of authority.

Andy ou can't even claim that it's just that you hadn't noticed.
I have pointed it out a few times.
But you still won't accept that he's not telling the truth.

What did you come to this site for?

I disagree. Don't judge others. State your opinion and let others state theirs. Move on. Don't accuse those who disagree with you of lying. How immature. Additionally, I have asked you to leave me alone. I am not interested in your opinions.

[Bored chemist]

I disagree.

There are many words for people who disagree with reality.

[duffyd]

considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom

confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?
To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.
Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?


Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "?
Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking.

Your opinion.
HE is the leading figure in history. More people are aware of who him than any other human being. He's changed more lives than all the people who were alive when Nero ruled temporarily.

[duffyd]

considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom

Look it up.

[Bored chemist]

HE is the leading figure in history. More people are aware of who him than any other human being. He's changed more lives than all the people who were alive when Nero ruled temporarily.

Not bad for a myth.
There's next to no actual physical or documentary evidence he existed.

considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom

Look it up.

OK, so you need to find out how the quote function works, and you need to work out who has the burden of proof (Hint: it's you in this case)