MovieChat Forums > The God Who Wasn't There (2005) Discussion > Even Snopes says Jesus is a MYTH! Christ...

Even Snopes says Jesus is a MYTH! Christians OWNED as usual!

posted 10 years ago by megafauna005
11 replies | jump to latest

LMAO! Clyons and you other CHRISTNUT fools get ready for more OWNAGE! Any informed person knows just is another god man/resurrected MYTH and even famed debunking site Snopes agrees!

The website Snopes recently derived sharp criticism from members of the Christian faith after publishing an article that declared the life and death of Jesus Christ as little more than an ancient bamboozle.

For the last 18 years Snopes has been documenting hoaxes, scams, chain letters and urban legends for the perusal enjoyment of web surfers. Created in 1995 by the husband and wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, the website has since expanded to become one of the most comprehensive and respected archives of human chicanery to date.

- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/snopes-debunks-jesus/#sthash.rrDscc8z.dpuf

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

What'd they say about Muhammad?

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Nothing. There never was any such article at snopes.com, as snopes.com has confirmed. Megasucker got taken by professional hoaxsters. Though I suspect the actual target of their hoax was fundamentalist Christians. His spiritual brethren.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Apparently they report provocative attention-grabbing stories that didn't actually happen, hoping that brainless suckers will repost them as fact, thus boosting the number of hits they get, thus making them more money. Gee, I wonder why they think a hare-brained con like that would work? How dumb do they think you are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report

National Report (nationalreport.net) is a satirical website devoted to often subtle parodies of real news which convince the unwary. It is published by Allen Montgomery.

Among headline-generating spoofs are a report that Arizona's governor Jan Brewer intended to introduce mandatory gay-to-straight conversion courses into the state's public school system, and a report that fooled researchers at Fox News Channel, in which the President was purported to have announced his intention to spend his own money to keep a Muslim museum open during a government shutdown.[3] Another report that fooled people in Wyoming claimed that a man in Hanna, Wyoming was the first recipient of a RFID chip which, the report claimed, was part of an Obamacare pilot program.[1] A report published by National Report on November 2, 2013 claiming a fictitious Assam Rape Festival created a furore in Indian national and local media. Several newspapers and blogs reported the same.

Did you actually TRY to find the article on snopes? This discussion thread was all I found. The general consensus is that the Jesus Myth arguments are weak and discredited, and that it's important to separate religious arguments from historical ones.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=87595

A Snopes editor specifically states no such article ever existed. So you bought into a hoax perpetrated by a website specifically known for hoaxes. Ironic, huh?

Are you even going to have the decency to admit you got fooled?

I doubt it.

Here's your one and only chance to prove me wrong about something.

[–] countgroucho 10 years ago

Good God, that’s hysterical. Thank you, megafauna, for making my life just a little bit more entertaining. I honestly think, though, that he is a troll: the way he leaves threads after carrying on for a bit, the use of capitalization, the use of “CHRISTNUTS”, posts like this one, and his copy and paste replies make me think that he has to be a troll. Of course, I’ll keep responding because it’s fun, in a strange sense.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

He's a troll on the square--he's not pretending to believe in this guff, just to get a rise out of people. He really does want to make converts to the Church of Megafauna.

It is funny, though--he's saying anybody who believes in the historical Jesus--as every qualified scholar on the planet does--is a dupe. But he actually GOT duped! By a website so well known for duping people that it has its own Wikipedia article. That any idiot could have googled up in half a second. I mean, if I saw an article saying snopes.com had debunked something I wanted debunked, I'd want to READ THAT ARTICLE. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone? Wouldn't you head off to snopes.com to find it? And if you didn't find it, wouldn't you smell even the teensiest whiff of rat?

It's like a Cliff's Notes version of how every Myther shows up here with one discredited theory after another--reads something online--likes the way it sounds--does not bother to do even the most basic research to see if it holds water--runs off to tell everybody. And then gets all huffy when people point out all the holes in it.

Actually, that's pretty much how "The God Who Wasn't There" was produced.

It just sums the whole mini-phenom of Mytherism so beautifully. The Snopes that Wasn't There.

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

He's not a troll. Pretty sure he's a true believer. He used to fight hard on his gun control rants. No troll would stick with it for as long as he did. Finally he gave it up. Didn't learn a damn thing I'm sure. He just backed himself into indefensible positions too many times. He tried hard to wriggle his way out of it, but to no avail.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

I doubt he's given up on anything--he's trying to convince Jay Leno to take back The Tonight Show. If Leno died tomorrow, he'd be waiting in joyful hope for The One True Host to rise from the dead--I guess he'd be sitting on the right hand of Johnny Carson in the meantime? Point is, Megafauna never lets go of an obsession.

As to gun control, I was curious, so I went back and found his last post on that subject.

Yes, it is utterly ridiculous to say that Gandhi's successful use of nonviolent resistance means we don't need guns. Most people will never need a gun ever, and for a depressingly large number of people (many of them children) they lead to premature violent death, but that's not a valid argument. Megafauna has probably never made a valid argument in his life. The best possible response to the Holocaust was getting the hell out of there before it happened.

Seriously, man--you think if the Jews had more guns, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened? Many of them got guns, you know. They banded together and fought. They got slaughtered. Violence was an understandable reaction, but they were hopelessly outnumbered, and in Germany, at least, relatively few of them had any military training. If every single able-bodied Jew in Europe had a gun, it wouldn't have changed much. I can understand fighting back just to make them pay as dearly as possible for their atrocities, but as a practical survival strategy, it kind of sucked. The only practical survival strategy was running and hiding.

And btw, I hope you're not one of those people who think Hitler banned private gun ownership (for non-Jews) and that means gun control is fascism. I'm not assuming you are, but for the record, he didn't, and it's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

So the Weimar Republic actually banned private gun ownership, and the Nazis merely required permits--and only for handguns. They didn't ban Jews owning guns until 1938 (which was about as clear a warning as you could have asked for), but obviously many could have stockpiled weapons before then, and those with connections could still have obtained them in secret afterwards.

This law, of course, only applied to Jews in Germany--Jews in Poland and elsewhere often fought in the armies of those soon-to-be-overwhelmed nations, and got guns that way--or just bought them. There were determined, incredibly brave resistance movements, and I would never say they were pointless, but without the Allies, they would all have been doomed to failure and extermination. You need overwhelming numbers (and probably outside aid from a foreign power) to make armed resistance to military incursion an option. And even that only works if said military incursion isn't actually out to exterminate you--same basic argument as the one against non-violence, really. If they want to kill all of you, and they're better organized and armed, they're probably going to do it. Guns will just slow them down a bit.

So the moral of the story is that Megafauna is wrong to say non-violence could have saved the Jews from Hitler, but you're equally wrong to say guns could have done so. Strong gun control laws (as opposed to just selectively banning gun ownership for ethnic minorities) are an important part of making for a safer and saner environment in any modern state--and you know who agrees with at least half that statement? Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/28/israeli-g un-laws-are-much-stricter-than-some-u-s-gun-advocates-suggest/

Of course Israel does actually ban Palestinians in the Occupied Territories from owning guns. I bet they don't even see the irony there.

I'm am equal opportunity destroyer of bad arguments.

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

Seriously, man--you think if the Jews had more guns, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened?

No. Of course not. You misunderstood. I said that armed resistance against an enemy like Nazi Germany (whose goal in the end was complete annihilation) would be "more effective" than Gandhi's civil disobedience, which would have absolutely no effect at all. The aims of the Nazis were drastically different than those of the British in India. Against the Nazis neither will ultimate save you. The Jews simply did not have any form of civil, military or political organization that in any way approached the level the Nazis had. But with even small scale and fractured armed resistance, at least you can make them bleed. Make them pay before they slaughter you, which may slow their progress. All I'm saying. If the Jews in Europe under the heel of the Nazis had simply sat down and refused to work, the nearest guard would have shot them, and never looked back.

And btw, I hope you're not one of those people who think Hitler banned private gun ownership (for non-Jews) and that means gun control is fascism.

No. I'm not. Fauny has repeatedly screamed his head off for 'gun bans'. Which would leave all the power in this country in the hands of the government. THAT is wrong. A well armed populace is a strong deterrent against government oppression. One I refuse to give up lightly.

Megafauna is wrong to say non-violence could have saved the Jews from Hitler

I don't think he ever said that. Certainly not in that thread, and I don't recall him ever saying that before. He simply implied that because Gandhi didn't use guns, and his aims were ultimately achieved (I'll note he ignored countless other factors that were more directly related to the decision by the British to leave India) that nobody ever needs to have guns. That is the most ridiculous stretch I've ever heard in my life, and is a clear illustration of what an ignorant buffoon he is.

you're equally wrong to say guns could have done so

I never said that either. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here. You seem to have a propensity for putting words in other peoples mouths. I'd check that if I were you. I know, we all do it sometimes, but try to avoid it.

I'm am equal opportunity destroyer of bad arguments.

That's good. Never once have I seen fauny attack his own side on anything. That's one of the many reasons he is such a vile person. He goes 100% for 'his side' all the time, with no regard for truth or honesty. Disgusting.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

No. Of course not. You misunderstood. I said that armed resistance against an enemy like Nazi Germany (whose goal in the end was complete annihilation)

In the end, but historically speaking, not originally--the Final Solution wasn't policy until after the Wannsee Conference.

would be "more effective" than Gandhi's civil disobedience, which would have absolutely no effect at all.

If only practiced by a small minority, obviously. If a large segment of the German population had participated, it might have proven quite effective--German women protesting the incarceration of their Jewish husbands actually won their release. This was in 1943, and we're not talking about a huge protest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest

I agree with you that for Jews to have engaged in passive resistance would not have stopped the Holocaust--that's obvious. But it does not logically follow that nonviolent protest could never have any impact on a totalitarian regime. The British viewed the native Indians as inferior, and there were atrocities committed in response. It was not just "Oh alright, jolly good chaps." And of course the reason Gandhi could get so much popular support for nonviolent rebellion was that a military uprising would have been doomed (though there were armed nationalist movements active in India).

The aims of the Nazis were drastically different than those of the British in India. Against the Nazis neither will ultimate save you. The Jews simply did not have any form of civil, military or political organization that in any way approached the level the Nazis had. But with even small scale and fractured armed resistance, at least you can make them bleed. Make them pay before they slaughter you, which may slow their progress. All I'm saying. If the Jews in Europe under the heel of the Nazis had simply sat down and refused to work, the nearest guard would have shot them, and never looked back.

Actually that happened even if they agreed to work. But yes. It was a very dark time in human history. It was the tricksters like Schindler who managed to save the most people, by finding holes in the system--using it against itself.

No. I'm not. Fauny has repeatedly screamed his head off for 'gun bans'. Which would leave all the power in this country in the hands of the government. THAT is wrong. A well armed populace is a strong deterrent against government oppression. One I refuse to give up lightly.

Well, we are way offtopic here, but let's just state for the record that you have no basis for that statement other than personal sentiment. A well-armed populace is not going to stop government oppression. If an oppressive government takes power, it can simply disarm the people. Or crush them. And the chaos that can result from an overly well-armed and bellicose population can actually help create an oppressive government in response.

And gun control does not mean banning guns. Any more than it means dictatorship--the United States is basically the only western nation that doesn't have strong national gun control laws, and yet none of the other nations have any more oppression than we do. I believe people should have the right to own guns, but those guns should all be licensed and registered, there should be extensive background checks before anyone is allowed to buy a gun, and people should only be allowed to have hunting rifles (not semiautomatic rifles), shotguns, and handguns for use in defending the home (and for use at target ranges). People should NOT be allowed to carry loaded guns around with them in public places, concealed or otherwise. That's insanity. It makes us all less free. And the only argument anyone can make in response to that is an emotional anti-historical one--more or less on the same level that Megafauna argues, though probably not quite as incoherent.

I don't think he ever said that. Certainly not in that thread, and I don't recall him ever saying that before. He simply implied that because Gandhi didn't use guns, and his aims were ultimately achieved (I'll note he ignored countless other factors that were more directly related to the decision by the British to leave India) that nobody ever needs to have guns. That is the most ridiculous stretch I've ever heard in my life, and is a clear illustration of what an ignorant buffoon he is.

Well that is not in dispute.

I never said that either. I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here. You seem to have a propensity for putting words in other peoples mouths. I'd check that if I were you. I know, we all do it sometimes, but try to avoid it.

I honestly don't think I did that, but let's all try, sure.

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

Seems we have some disagreement in the gun control area. Nothing wrong with that. You make your arguments MUCH better than poor pea-brained fauny. I think a conversation with you on gun control (a real conversation, not a typed, turn-based, IMDB one) would be quite invigorating, and I might learn something from it. But this really isn't the right board for it.

To quote my favorite film, you seem a decent fellow. See you around the internets.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with disagreement. As long as it doesn't involve firearms.