That is outrageous! It’s unfair!

Frogger 2: Swampy’s Revenge was genuinely great though

That’s why I only play AAAA games

You clearly don’t know what I mean

I know exactly what you mean. 100% crystal clear.

I asked for actual evidence.

You asked for physical evidence.

If you have none, you could have said that near the beginning of this conversation rather than whatever you’ve been doing.

Once I realized you had a radically strict criteria for what types of evidence could be considered “actual evidence” far and beyond what the most serious scholars and historians would apply, I did say that.

https://lemmy.ml/comment/18918021

Right here I said we were done and I had nothing more I could give you.

You also clearly don’t know what I mean since you’ve been attributing random meanings to me that have been wrong every time. I don’t have nefarious purposes, I actually just want the actual evidence you claimed to have

I gave you the evidence I claimed to have.

You want evidence I never claimed to have, but which you mistakenly think I did.

and I don’t put stock in people’s stories, because people are often mistaken for many reasons. For evidence to be taken seriously , it should not rely on subjective accounts.

Are you sure?

Earlier you told me we know Australopithecus existed because we found their bones.

I believe some scientist may have found a bone, but why do you accept its as old as they say it is, why do you accept it belonged to a distinct species called Australopithecus? Where’s the physical evidence of that?

In between the Australopithecus and the homo sapien there are quite a few missing links that need stories to fill them in.

Maybe they migrated this way in this period? Maybe the water was lower and there was an ice bridge here? Maybe this was a distinct species and not a direct ancestor?

These are all stories aren’t they, opinions of archaeologists and paleontologists and biologists?

Why do you consider finding a weird looking bone evidence of Australopithecus if you don’t follow the subjective accounts of evolutionary scientists and archaeologists when they’re dating these bones and sequencing genetic material and so forth?

All right, let’s start again with no more assumptions about what you think I might possibly mean.

I know exactly what you mean.

Literally, you said there was evidence of Jesus’s existence.

Yes, due to the fact I agree with historians that contemporary sources are evidence, I say there is evidence.

I literally only asked for one example of said evidence.

And I gave you 8 contemporary sources and listed more.

The issue is that you disagree with the scientific community this is valid and are demanding physical evidence.

I’ve told you multiple times no physical evidence exists. It’s an impossible demand, and there’s nothing to show you.

I am not asking for books or videos

You asked if I had any other evidence but what i gave you or if we were done here and I said “yes we are done here” because there’s nothing fucking else to give you. Get that through your dumb skull holy shit. How are we this many comments deep into you still not getting there’s no physical evidence and I have never claimed there to be.

If your default position is to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of scientists, but then instead of learning even the slightest about what they’re saying you choose to argue with randos on social media about it you’re just anti intelligence. You’re choosing to be dumber on purpose. I’m not here for that shit.

You might as well argue the earth is flat.

Jesus Christ, I never asked you to transcribe a video, what are you even on about?

You didn’t specifically ask me to transcribe the video, but you would realize if I did transcribe the video that it is the exact answer to your question and answers every issue you’ve raised.

So as you keep pestering me over and over again for “one piece of physical evidence” I’m frustrated by the fact you’re basically just demanding me to transcribe it instead of watching it yourself.

I asked for ONE thing:

Give me one piece of evidence to support your claim.

That’s all.

I listed like 8 contemporary sources written by people who knew of him in the early 1st century including some people (like Paul) who would have personally met his disciples.

What I have given you is what historians consider valid evidence. That you have a problem with it is your issue with the field of history, not my lack of evidence.

It’s simple, and something a child could understand.

But yet here we are.

For instance, we know Australopithecus existed because we’ve found bones.

It’s that simple.

Dude how many times do i have to repeat myself. You’re not going to find bones. Give up on the bones.

How is this hard?

It’s impossible.

No physical evidence exists of almost any Palestinian at that time.

Bones are created in very specific conditions, the real Jesus would by all likelihood have been thrown into a mass grave. If I had a 2000 year old bone how would we even prove it was Jesus?

Historians look at the earliest contemporary sources written about him to judge if he exists, and all modern historians agree that by scrutinizing and comparing these documents a man named Yeshua probably existed, he was probably from Nazareth and he was probably crucified.

If that’s not good enough for you that’s really not my fault. It’s simply what the evidence is and how history works.

Isn’t it ironic to you that you wanted to ask me to read an entire book for your point, but you’re now assuming I want you to watch a gasp half hour video, though I never asked that?

I already watched the video. I’m saying it’s unrealistic of you to ask me to go back and keep restarting it to transcribe it for you.

Evidence is not bible stories. Evidence is archaeological artefacts or bones or literally anything physical that is not some guy’s stories. This is not hard. I’m only asking for ONE example.

The reason you’re asking me to transcribe the video is because I timestamped the exact moment for you where it addressed this as a completely unrealistic demand and that no serious historian would expect to find any or find it a compelling argument against his existence.

There are no examples, nor should that be a problem for a historians. Which is why I brought up the example of William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great.

But yeah, I’m the troll because you’d rather spend an hour harassing me about explaining the basics of the scientific discipline of history instead of watching 2 minutes of a 20 minute video.

We’re done here. You have the evidence.

Why are you trying to have a debate with me? I’m not a historian. I showed you what the leading historians have to say.

They are the ones who have studied all the sources and know the right answer you want. All I can do is go back and cite when I found them addressing your arguments.

If you are moving the goalposts and starting to demand physical evidence like you need to see Jesus’ shin bone to believe he existed then the problem is that you don’t know how history works. It’s not my fault we don’t have his bones. We don’t have anyone’s bones. I already sent that info to you.

You don’t doubt William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great existed do you?

I already timestamped the exact part of the video where he addresses why no physical evidence exists but also why that’s not a problem.

Just watch the damn thing for 5 minutes.

You’re really demanding I watch the video 18 times and try to type it out for you?

That took an incredible amount of time to format and edit everything in only to receive such a rude dismissive response.

I really hope a lurker appreciates how much effort i spent to give you exactly what you asked for, because you’re a genuinely miserable person.

Know that if you choose to argue against facts attested by the overwhelming majority consensus of scholars, academics and historians then you are the one making extraordinary claims.

If you want to hear him talking on this I suggest skipping to 14:35 since you’re impatient:

https://youtu.be/hnybQxIgfPw

Read through page 55-101 of below:

https://archive.org/details/jesus-apocalyptic-prophet-bart-d.-ehrman/page/55/mode/1up

Most people in our society probably think that Jesus must have had an enormous effect on the people of his day — not just on his immediate followers. He was, after all, the founder of the most significant religion in the history of Western Civilization.

Unfortunately, the commonsensical view is not even close to being right—biblical epics on the wide screen (the source of many people’s knowledge about the Bible!) notwithstanding. If we look at the historical record itself—and, I should emphasize, for historians there is nothing else to look at—it appears that whatever his influence on subsequent generations, Jesus’ impact on society in the first century was practically nil, less like a comet striking the planet than a stone tossed into the ocean. This becomes especially clear when we consider what his own contemporaries had to say about him.

Pagan sources

Pliny the Younger

The first reference to Jesus in any surviving pagan account does not come until the year 112 CE. It appears in a letter written by a governor of the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus (northwestern part of modern-day Turkey), a Roman official named Pliny. The letter tells us some interesting things about these followers of Jesus. We learn, for example, that they comprised a range of ages and socioeconomic classes, that they met in the early morning before it was light, that they partook of food together, and—the chief point for our present investigation—that they worshiped “Christ as a god.” The name “Jesus” itself is not given here, but it’s pretty clear whom Pliny had in mind. Unfortunately, he doesn’t give us any information about Jesus—for example, who he was, where he lived, what he said or did, or how he died—only that he was worshiped as divine by his followers.

Suetonius

A few years later, the Roman historian Suetonius made a casual comment that some scholars have taken to be a reference to Jesus. Suetonius wrote a set of biographies on the twelve Roman Caesars who had ruled up to his own time, starting with Julius Caesar. There is a lot of valuable historical information in these books, along with a lot of juicy gossip—a gold mine for historians interested in major events of the early Roman Empire. In his Life of Claudius, emperor from 41 to 54 CE, Suetonius mentions riots that had occurred among the Jews in the city of Rome and says that the riots had been instigated by a person named “Chrestus.” Some historians have maintained that this is a misspelling of the name “Christ.” If so, then Suetonius is indicating that some of Jesus’ followers had created havoc in the capital, a view possibly confirmed in the New Testament (see Acts 18:2).

Tacetus

Tacitus is probably best known for the Annals, a sixteen-volume history of the Roman Empire covering 14-68 CE. Probably the most famous passage in the Annals (book 15) reports the megalomania of the emperor Nero, who had Rome torched in order to implement some of his own architectural designs for the city. When he was suspected for the fire, Nero sought to place the blame elsewhere and found in the Christians a ready scapegoat. He rounded up members of this despised sect (Tacitus himself says that the Christians were widely held in contempt for their “hatred of the human race”) and made a public display of them, having some rolled in pitch and set aflame to light his public gardens, and others wrapped in animal skins to be torn to shreds by savage dogs. Nero was not known for his timid tactics. In any event, in the context of his discussion of Nero’s excesses against the Christians, Tacitus does manage to say something about where they had acquired their (to him) strange beliefs and so provides us with the first bit of historical information to be found about Jesus in a pagan author: “Christus, from whom their [i.e., the Christians’] name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (Annals 15.44). Tacitus goes on to indicate that the “superstition” that emerged in Jesus’ wake first appeared in Judea before spreading to Rome itself.

Early Jewish Sources

Josephus

I’ll take the references in reverse order, since the second is of less historical interest. It occurs in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus, who abused his power in the year 62 CE by unlawfully putting to death a man named James, whom Josephus identifies as “the brother of Jesus who is called the messiah” (Ant. 20.9,1). From this reference we can learn that there was indeed a man named Jesus (Josephus actually discusses lots of different people with that name—many of them at far greater length than the Jesus we are concerned about), that he had a brother named James (which we already knew from the New Testament; see Mark 6:3 and Gal. 1:19), and that he was thought by some people to be the Jewish messiah. The information is not much, but at least it’s something. I should point out that Josephus himself does not happen to agree with those who called Jesus the messiah. We don’t know how much he knew about the Christians, but it is clear that he remained a non-Christian Jew until his dying day.

Early Christian sources

Documents and oral tradition now lost but existent at time the Gospels were written

All of these written sources I have mentioned are earlier than the surviving Gospels; they all corroborate many of the key things said of Jesus in the Gospels; and most important they are all independent of one another. Let me stress the latter point. We cannot think of the early Christian Gospels as going back to a solitary source that “invented” the idea that there was a man Jesus. The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive were produced. Where would the solitary source that “invented” Jesus be? Within a couple of decades of the traditional date of his death, we have numerous accounts of his life found in a broad geographical span. In addition to Mark, we have Q, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources), L (also possibly multiple sources), two or more passion narratives, a signs source, two discourse sources, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly others. And these are just the ones we know about, that we can reasonably infer from the scant literary remains that survive from the early years of the Christian church. No one knows how many there actually were. Luke says there were “many” of them, and he may well have been right. And once again, this is not the end of the story." (page 83)

Q

One of the most controversial and talked-about sources that scholars have used for studying the life of the historical Jesus is, oddly enough, a document that does not exist. Most scholars are reasonably sure, though, that at one time it did exist, and that it can, at least theoretically, be reconstructed. The document is called “Q.” What else did it contain? It certainly had some of the most familiar sayings of Jesus. It contained, for example, the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20-23) and the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2-4); it included the commands to love your enemies, not to judge others, and not to worry about what to eat and wear (Luke 6:27—42; 12:22—32); and it provided a number of familiar parables (e.g., Luke 12:39-48; 14:15-24). The reality, though, is that we don’t have a full picture of what Q contained, since our only access to it is through the agreements of Matthew and Luke in passages not found in Mark. So, while we can say what probably was in it, we’re hard-pressed to say what was not.

Letters of Paul

Matthew, Mark, Luke

Clement of Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

Polycarp of Smyrna

Dead Sea Scrolls

Many more…

Check out Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist?, he goes over all the evidence.

Every week I receive maybe two or three emails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being.   When I started getting these emails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously.  Of course Jesus existed.  Everyone knows he existed.  Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming and soon I began to wonder:  why are there so many people asking?  My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles – misquoted rather – as saying that Jesus never existed.  I decided to look into the matter.  As it turns out, to my surprise, there is an entire literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, the history of the church’s first three hundred years.   Like all New Testament scholars, I have read literally thousands and thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity.  But I was almost completely unaware of this body of skeptical literature, except as a slight image on the very periphery of my vision.   As are most of my colleagues in this field of scholarship.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at parrying counter-evidence that to the rest of the civilized world might seem completely compelling and even unanswerable.  But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention.  The reality is, whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.  That is what this book will set out to demonstrate.

I hardly need to stress what I have already intimated, that this is the view of virtually every expert on the planet.   That in itself is not proof, of course.  Expert opinion is, at the end of the day, still opinion.  But why would you not want to know what experts have to say?

https://ehrmanblog.org/my-book-did-jesus-exist-an-answer-to-the-mythicists/

And yeah, it’s the same old “they really knew how to make * in the past”. Houses, bridges, spoons, video games, whatever. It’s just that the well made ones survive, and the badly made ones don’t.

Idk, there’s certain structures like the pyramids where you gotta give credit where credit is due.

They really knew how to make some shit.

I don’t know if it’s necessary a bad thing. Presumably these people were enjoying the book until they read this.

How can we presume that?

All we know is that these people were promised a novel written as art by humans and were baited and switched into getting an algorithm.

It’s kind of like the invention of the printing press. Sure, the content may not be artistically crafted any more, and there may be waaaay more slop. But I bet we will end up getting way more high quality content too.

If we’re still in the betting process for whether AI might one day potentially be high quality then it sounds like you understand that today it’s not a viable product to write novels with.

I get what you’re doing but they can just change pennames

You just listed a bunch of animated children’s movies?

If you’re looking for actual examples there’s Silent Hill, Fallout, or The Last of Us.

Lmao, k

I get where you’re coming from.

B. The game is a product that they want to sell to more people, adding difficulties sells more

Sure. Not not necessarily untrue.

I don’t see the issue either way

My stances is forced here. I support the artists.

Unfortunately, supporting artists means sometimes you have to disagree with the businessmen when the two groups disagree.

Selling microtransactions and skins and deluxe editions and pre-order exclusive content, etc, etc all “sells more” (or at least makes more money).

If the artists feel for whatever reason adding more difficulties is too much to manage or prevents them from making the experience they want to make, I have to take the side of the artist.

There’s always going to be an argument the product needs to change to make more money, that’s not the art I find super interesting.

Why care what audience it’s conforming to, you’ll either enjoy the game or you won’t?

Because I think of the people who make games as artists and it pisses me off to think of some guy in a suit pressing his fingers into the Mona Lisa and pestering Da Vinci to make her smile and show cleavage so it can sell more.

I get that a business needs to make money, but those should be decisions the artists are in the room for at least.

If it’s A I don’t care, if it’s B I do.

Software As A Surprise

I have to be honest here and say I don’t understand where you’re coming from at all.

Thats okay! Thanks for asking. I’m coming from the place that video games are art.

If games are art, then I choose to support artists, even if they want to make weird or unconventional art. If an artist has a vision which clashes with my own I want them to be able to follow their vision that instead of always conforming to “general audiences”.

As to the rest of your comment I already said first thing accessibility options are good so I’m not sure what got miscomminicated there.

What instruments do you play?

Better approach is to calm yourself by sincerely accepting that you will miss one note and just follow through - mind blank.

Many licks are built off scale structures. If your fingering is off for one note, then means every note in the scale might be one note off.

if you do miss a note, it’s fine, you’ve already accepted it.

It’s only fine when you’ve got your fingering back and you know where you are on your instrument again.

On piano for example, its not only about the note but which finger lands on the note. Having your middle finger where you expect your index can mess you up even if you played all the right notes up until then.

On guitar you need to know which fret you’re on.

I have to agree with the other user practice is the way to go here. No amount of confidence can make up for the skill that comes with hard work.