Thursday, February 09, 2006

Atheists, Win Metacrock's House!

Here is a chance for an atheist to win a free house.


Image hosting by Photobucket
dramatic representation, not my actual house


This offer is true and valid. All you have to do is prove Jesus never existed and I will deed my house to you.

by "prove" I mean furnish a veriafiable quotation from a frist century source that says Jesus didn't really exist as a man in history.

Free house, peer and beam foundation, real wood floors, no foundation problems at all. (you have one month to produce the results).

Moreover, here are more prizes in exchange for proving other things:

Prove the miracles at Lourdes are a fake, win my car.
Prove JFK was not assasinated win my dog.
prove bigfoot doesn't exist, win a free year of posting unmolested by Metacrock
prove the earth is falt win $10,000 dollars, personally given by me (avaible only in "blue country" currency).


I have had experinces with the cheap ploy of offering money to prove things before. The alledged amazing Randy offers some large sum of money for proof of any miraculous or sueprnatural event. Oddly enough, we wont accept the idea that the host is infussed with supererogatory merit as a supernatural event. That's dumb, my theology books form Perkins all say it is.

The somewhat amazing Randy has never included any analysis of the miracles at Lourdes. I emailed him and asked him why he had not. He did not respond. I told him he should give the Catholic chruch the money. His answer is not repreatable in this forum. This lead to a rather raw exchange and a ridiculous exchange of very amazing emials. I thought, I am having a "p-ing contest with this famous guy--if i have to have ctant with a famous person, why this person and why this way?" Not at all as fulfilling as my email exchange with Judy Collins. After that I was in love with her again. I thought, well, when she see I have all her albums its sure to mean something. That didn't work out either.

It is such a cheap ploy because the one giving the money always structures the argument in such a way that on one can fulfill the requirements. Thus the illusion is created that the test is accruate because no one ever wins.When I lived in New Mexico there was a minster of an extremists funadmentalist chruch who ran an on going add in a little thift sheet, stating that he would give $5000, to anyone who would prove that the Bible teaches that Jesus is our "perosnal savior." Well, I aruged until I was blue in the face that what it says means that he's our personal savior, but because it doesn't use that exact term, of course he doesn' thave to give the money.

Of course this is all in response to the "Ratioanl Response squad" and their offer to give money to anyone who canprove jesus did exist, of course they demand a frist century person saying that Jesus existed, and guess what? This person has to be "objective." So of coruse if we show Paul or Clement of Rome or any Christian well they aren't objective. Josephus of cousre they will never adit, regardless of what schoalrs say that the TF isn't tweeked. Atheits will say anything (at leats the myther kind). To the other passage in Jospheus, the "brother" passage, which is rarely criticiqued as a forgery, they say "well prove its the same James? the same Jesus?" So even when you produce some evidence they just refuse to see it as evidence.

After all, its not objective because their subjective view ponit says it's not!


It's easy to prove your view point when nothing ever coutns against it. It's easy to make your view immune to evidence, just recognize anything as evidence except that which supports your claims.


BTW my house is up for forecosloure, but I will deed it to you for a month if you can prove that someone in the first century said Jesus of Nazerath didn't exist. After that, its up to you to make the mortgage company care.


This contest broght to you by The Hysterical Ninja Christian response squad (Hilarius the Aussie Pope founder).

7 comments:

J.L. Hinman said...

As it turns out, these highschool kids doing that are trolls I met on infeidel guy. These are the kind who curse at me and then say I'm intellectually dishonest when I get angry and defned myself.

Anonymous said...

Please list for us what you would consider valid proof of the nonexistence of Jesus of Nazareth. Randi states (with the agreement of the applicant) before the test what will be considered "passing" the test.

As to your comments concerning James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge and Lourdes, the challenge is for someone to perform anything which would be considered paranormal. Past miracle claims arent subject to the prize. It must be performed under carefully controlled conditions to rule out the possibility of fraud and it must be a particular person claiming to have a paranormal power---not a place having a paranormal power.

The procedure for claiming the prize is for the claimant to state specifically what paranormal feat they can perform, to what degree of accuracy (if applicable) and under what conditions.

A faith healer can apply for the prize. A place cannot.

Though if someone claims that they can bring about healings by bringing people to Lourdes that might be a legitimate scientically testable claim open to the prize.

J.L. Hinman said...

Please list for us what you would consider valid proof of the nonexistence of Jesus of Nazareth.


>>>already did.

(1) a recorded document, verifiable to meusiums and other scholars. Something I can look up, not just your word for it. Not "this is in a obscure text in London that has never been published." I'm not saying it has to be published. But I have to be able to call real actual college professors and get their verification on it.

(2) a writter of firt century origin

(3) must say "Jesus of Nazerath did not exist, and the Gospels that speak of him are a hoax."

is that clear enough?




Randi states (with the agreement of the applicant) before the test what will be considered "passing" the test.

>>>why doesn't just deal with the medical evidence that already exists. Are you sure he even mentions Luordes? Because at the time I had my exchange with him he didn't deal with it at all; he did not mention Luordes at all.Ever. Not part of his challege.



As to your comments concerning James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge and Lourdes, the challenge is for someone to perform anything which would be considered paranormal. Past miracle claims arent subject to the prize. It must be performed under carefully controlled conditions to rule out the possibility of fraud and it must be a particular person claiming to have a paranormal power---not a place having a paranormal power.

>>>prayer is not a paranormal power.



The procedure for claiming the prize is for the claimant to state specifically what paranormal feat they can perform, to what degree of accuracy (if applicable) and under what conditions.

A faith healer can apply for the prize. A place cannot.


>>>but the people invovled in the case could. The Lourde mireacle committee could. I will email them ask them to.

Though if someone claims that they can bring about healings by bringing people to Lourdes that might be a legitimate scientically testable claim open to the prize.


>>>every wonder why he's afraid to deal with the past medical evidence?
4:02 PM

Anonymous said...

>>>but the people invovled in the case could. The Lourde mireacle committee could. I will email them ask them to.




>>>every wonder why he's afraid to deal with the past medical evidence?

The challenge is to demonstrate in a mutually agreed on set of conditions a paranormal or supernatural ability. If someone can perform miraculous healing they are welcome to demonstrate that ability. Heck, if they can simply diagnose, not heal, just diagnose illnesses by paranormal means then they can claim the prize.

When we are talking about a million dollars it wouldnt be difficult to get a doctor who would be willing to hoax the "evidence" for a cut of the prize.

The whole point of the prize is to demonstrate that, despite the thousands of people claiming paranormal or supernatural powers, not one can actually demonstrate such abilities under carefully controlled conditions.

--otherness

Anonymous said...

1) a recorded document, verifiable to meusiums and other scholars. Something I can look up, not just your word for it. Not "this is in a obscure text in London that has never been published." I'm not saying it has to be published. But I have to be able to call real actual college professors and get their verification on it.

(2) a writter of firt century origin

(3) must say "Jesus of Nazerath did not exist, and the Gospels that speak of him are a hoax."

So if an archaeologist uncovers a document fitting this description and it is accepted as authentic by most scholars you are going to send him the deed to your house?

J.L. Hinman said...

>>>but the people invovled in the case could. The Lourde mireacle committee could. I will email them ask them to.




>>>every wonder why he's afraid to deal with the past medical evidence?

The challenge is to demonstrate in a mutually agreed on set of conditions a paranormal or supernatural ability. If someone can perform miraculous healing they are welcome to demonstrate that ability. Heck, if they can simply diagnose, not heal, just diagnose illnesses by paranormal means then they can claim the prize.


>>I said it' not an ability people pozzess its something God does. the healings at Lourdes have arleady been done. but the evidence is there to prove it.

When we are talking about a million dollars it wouldnt be difficult to get a doctor who would be willing to hoax the "evidence" for a cut of the prize.

The whole point of the prize is to demonstrate that, despite the thousands of people claiming paranormal or supernatural powers, not one can actually demonstrate such abilities under carefully controlled conditions.

--otherness

J.L. Hinman said...

So if an archaeologist uncovers a document fitting this description and it is accepted as authentic by most scholars you are going to send him the deed to your house?


>>Yes but:

(1)he only has a month

(2) he has to verify it with other archaeologists