fkn

Do you think I am defending the belief in a god?

And yet, somehow there is still a bug in the datetime implementation.

I should have realized engaging with you was pointless.

It sounds to me like you want to argue about the second point more than the first one.

You appear to have issues with how historical research is performed, and you have difficulty accepting secondary sources in historical records. You have repeatedly asked for primary sources. It appears that you, falsely, believe that primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources in historical context. (A reasonable discussion of how and why neither is more valuable/reliable than the other: https://www.historyskills.com/2023/05/02/primary-or-secondary-sources-which-are-more-reliable/ )

The issue, primarily, is that any and all probable first hand accounts of Jesus are part of the new testament, but have been so heavily edited as to be removed from being reliable first hand accounts. Basically we can't trust the recorded "first hand accounts" because the people who copied them had very heavy imputes to embellish or rewrite them to create a convincing first hand narrative.

Tl;Dr: the first hand accounts were edited by secondary sources creating an unreliable first hand narrator. Basically what we always say, the people who wrote the new testament a couple hundred years after Jesus life lied and wrote a bunch of garbage and obliterated any reliable first hand account.

To be crystal clear, what this means is that first hand accounts probably existed but were so heavily editorialized that they became invalid.

Basically, what you are asking for no longer exists (or does and is intentionally hidden by the Catholic church, since they are the ones who might have any documents that old) in any credible form.

That only leaves us with secondary sources. Of which, one is the bible itself. We know that the bible does contain some historical events, but that it is also a fairly poor source for historical accuracy. We know this because we can compare it to other secondary sources and we evaluate their congruency.

There are only two pieces of information that all known secondary sources agree upon with respect to Jesus.

1. there was a man who was baptized by John the Baptist.

2. that same man was executed by the Romans via crucifixion.

There is enough secondary evidence to have reasonable certainty that this man existed, was baptized and was crucified.

That's it.

This is a reasonably small claim and this requires reasonably small evidence to accept.

Under no circumstances am I asking you accept or believe that any of the other claims about Jesus life are real or valid. There is no other corroboration for any other events.

The argument is a pointless one to have for most of us as it holds no bearing on anything. There are a couple million people named Jesus today... And some of them probably think they are the son of god. That doesn't make their existence less real. It doesn't make their delusions more real. It doesn't mean a god exists.

Historical Jesus most likely existed. So what?

With regards to your assertion that "You link dumped."

Your arguments were poor and continue to be poor. Poor arguments don't deserve more than a cursory dismissal. I dismissed your argument, made positive statements and provided sources for my position.

I know you feel strongly about this, but that doesn't mean jack shit.

I know what you want, but asking for it shows a distinct dismissal of historical research and the way you demanded it demonstrated a lack of willingness to participate, if not an intentional facade to advance a tenuous position.

Either you already knew that any primary sources that might have existed for Jesus were obliterated in the churches re-write of the new testament during its construction by the secondary authors and instead of engaging in a good faith argument as to the validity of secondary sources cross referencing or the validity of using the christian bible as a secondary source at all you demanded a thing you knew to be impossible to obtain... Or you were ignorant of the existing historicity discussion.

At the end of the day, you were either ignorantly defending a fringe position or you are actively baiting people into a bad faith discussion trying to further a fringe position.

A fringe position that is irrelevant to the discussion of if the historical Jesus has anything to do with a god.

Jesus H Christ man. What the fuck do you want? At this point you are an asshole either way. Either you are willfully ignoring the arguments people are making (not just me) or you are actively trying to make them mad.

Like I said. You are at a bad place here in the discussion.

Once again, I already provided evidence for my claim. What about my evidence is unsatisfactory?

That's not how this works. Go gish gallop elsewhere.

To refute your only relevant point in this post:

Dumping a link is not providing evidence.

I made a claim and I linked a specific article as a source.

You are making a fringe claim. Even if you were an expert, which you are not, the claim you are making is a fringe argument.

I backed that position up with a specific article (which also has sources) explicitly stating backing up my position.

If you have a relevant source refuting this, I will happily continue this discussion.

I already provided evidence for my position. If you would like to provide references that refute the Wikipedia pages on these topics I will be happy to read them.

I'll answer in a couple of different ways.

1. If I am writing library code my why is you have an end use and I don't care why you use it and you don't care why I wrote it. You only care about what my code does so you can achieve your why.

2. If we are working on the same code we have different whys but the same what. Then your comment as to why isn't the same as mine which makes the comment incorrect.

3. We are looking at a piece of code and you want to know how it works, because the stated what is wrong (bugs). This might be the "why" you are looking for, but I call this a "how". This is the case where self documenting code is most important. Code should tell a second programmer how the code achieves the what without needing an additional set of verbose comments. The great thing about code is that it is literally the instructions on the how. The problem is conveying the how to other programmers.

There are three kinds of how: self evident, complex how's requiring multiple levels of abstraction and lots of code and complex short how's that are not apparent.

The third is where most people get into trouble. Almost all of these cases of complexity can be solved with only a single layer of abstraction and achieve easily readable self documenting code. The problem for many cases is that they start as a one off and people are lousy at putting in the work on a one-off solution. Sometimes the added work of abstraction, and building a performant abstraction, makes a small task a large one. In these cases comments can make sense.

Sometimes these short, complex how's require specialists. Database queries, performant perl/functional queries, algorithmic operations, complex compile time optimized templates (or other language specific optimizations) and the like are some of the most common examples of these. This category of problem benefits most from a well defined interface with examples for use (which might be comments). The "how" of these are not as valuable for the average developer and often require specialist knowledge regardless of comments for understanding how they work. In these cases what they do is far more valuable than how or why.

You are in a bad spot here.

1. Your argument is poorly formed and not a very valuable one to fight for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

2. Your argument shows a distinct lack of awareness of how history is analyzed and measured for authenticity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

3. You are being extremely aggressive about a thing you are simply wrong about.

It doesn't even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.

Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???

See, I think length limits and readability are sometimes at odds. To say that you 100% believe in length limits means that you would prefer the length limit over a readable line of code in those situations.

I agree that shorter lines are often more readable. I also think artificial limits on length are crazy. Guidelines, fine. Verbosity for the sake of verbosity isn't valuable... But to say never is a huge stretch. There are always those weird edge cases that everyone hates.

This is a pretty ridiculous position to take but if you believe it then I'm glad you write the comments you do.

There is an argument that commenting on the lack of expected code is valuable for this reason, but it certainly isn't true in all situations.

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be condescending... I was exasperated. I recognize that the source of my exhaustion was ill earned this time, but I don't know how many times I have had this conversation in earnest.