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

Recognition

Cognitive abilities

Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe said "I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann's does not indicate a species superior to that of man",[40] and later Bethe wrote that "[von Neumann's] brain indicated a new species, an evolution beyond man".[451] Paul Halmos states that "von Neumann's speed was awe-inspiring."[416] Israel Halperin said: "Keeping up with him was ... impossible. The feeling was you were on a tricycle chasing a racing car."[452] Edward Teller admitted that he "never could keep up with him".[453] Teller also said "von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us."[454] Peter Lax wrote "Von Neumann was addicted to thinking, and in particular to thinking about mathematics".[449] Claude Shannon called him "the smartest person I’ve ever met", a common opinion.[455]

When George Dantzig brought von Neumann an unsolved problem in linear programming "as I would to an ordinary mortal", on which there had been no published literature, he was astonished when von Neumann said "Oh, that!", before offhandedly giving a lecture of over an hour, explaining how to solve the problem using the hitherto unconceived theory of duality.[456]

Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim described von Neumann as the "fastest mind I ever met",[457] and Jacob Bronowski wrote "He was the cleverest man I ever knew, without exception. He was a genius."[458] George Pólya, whose lectures at ETH Zürich von Neumann attended as a student, said "Johnny was the only student I was ever afraid of. If in the course of a lecture I stated an unsolved problem, the chances were he'd come to me at the end of the lecture with the complete solution scribbled on a slip of paper."[459] Enrico Fermi told physicist Herbert L. Anderson: "You know, Herb, Johnny can do calculations in his head ten times as fast as I can! And I can do them ten times as fast as you can, Herb, so you can see how impressive Johnny is!"[460]

Eugene Wigner described him in this way: "I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Max Planck, Max von Laue, and Werner Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother-in-Law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. And I have known many of the brightest younger scientists. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jancsi von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men, and no one ever disputed me. You saw immediately the quickness and power of von Neumann's mind. He understood mathematical problems not only in their initial aspect, but in their full complexity. Swiftly, effortlessly, he delved deeply into the details of the most complex scientific problem. He retained it all. His mind seemed a perfect instrument, with gears machined to mesh accurately to one thousandth of an inch."[461]

Halmos recounts a story told by Nicholas Metropolis, concerning the speed of von Neumann's calculations, when somebody asked von Neumann to solve the famous fly puzzle:[462]

Two bicyclists start 20 miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, southbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, northbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained.

The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles.

When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the geometric series."[463]

Wigner told a similar story, only with a swallow instead of a fly, and says it was Max Born who posed the question to von Neumann in the 1920s.[464]

Similarly, when the first computers he was helping develop were completed, simple tests like "what is the lowest power of 2 that has the number 7 in the fourth position from the end?" were conducted to ensure their accuracy. For modern computers this would take only a fraction of a second but for the first computers Johnny would race against them in calculation, and win.[416]

Accolades and anecdotes were not limited to those from the physical or mathematical sciences either, neurophysiologist Leon Harmon, described him in a similar manner, "Von Neumann was a true genius, the only one I've ever known. I've met Einstein and Oppenheimer and Teller and—who's Norbert Wiener? I don't mean McCulloch, but a mathematician. Anyway, a whole bunch of those other guys. Von Neumann was the only genius I ever met. The others were supersmart .... And great prima donnas. But von Neumann's mind was all-encompassing. He could solve problems in any domain. ... And his mind was always working, always restless."[465] US President Dwight D. Eisenhower considered him "the outstanding mathematician of the time".[466] While consulting for non-academic projects von Neumann's combination of outstanding scientific ability and practicality gave him a high credibility with military officers, engineers, industrialists and scientists that no other scientist could match. In nuclear missilery he was considered "the clearly dominant advisory figure" according to Herbert York whose opinions "everyone took very seriously".[467] Nicholas Kaldor said he was "unquestionably the nearest thing to a genius I have ever encountered."[285] Paul Samuelson, "We economists are grateful for von Neumann's genius. It is not for us to calculate whether he was a Gauss, or a Poincaré, or a Hilbert. He was the incomparable Johnny von Neumann. He darted briefly into our domain and it has never been the same since."[468]

Even for writer Arthur Koestler, who was not an academic, von Neumann was "one of the few people for whom Koestler entertained not only respect but reverence, and he shared Koestler's Central European addiction to abstruse philosophical discussions, political debate, and dirty jokes. The two of them derived considerable pleasure from discussing the state of American civilization (was it in crisis or simply at the stage of adolescence?), the likely future of Europe (would there be war?), free will versus determinism, and the definition of pregnancy (“the uterus taking seriously what was pointed at it in fun”)."[469]

He is often given as an example that mathematicians could do great work in the physical sciences too, however R. D. Richtmyer describes how during von Neumann's time at Los Alamos he functioned not as a mathematician applying his art to physics problems, but rather entirely as a physicist in the mind and thought (except faster). He describes him as a first-rate physicist who knew quantum mechanics, atomic, molecular, and nuclear physics, particle physics, astrophysics, relativity, and physical and organic chemistry. As such any mathematician who does not possess the same talent as von Neumann should not be fooled into thinking physics is easy just because they study mathematics.[470]

Eidetic memory

Von Neumann was also noted for his eidetic memory, particularly of the symbolic kind. Herman Goldstine writes:

One of his remarkable abilities was his power of absolute recall. As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how A Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes.[471]

Von Neumann was reportedly able to memorize the pages of telephone directories. He entertained friends by asking them to randomly call out page numbers; he then recited the names, addresses and numbers therein.[40][472] In his autobiography Stanislaw Ulam writes that Johnny's memory was auditory rather than visual. He did not have to any extent an intuitive 'common sense' for guessing what may happen in a given physical situation.[473]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45819354)

greatest intellectual processing speed? best memory? greatest impact? most inventions? most ahead of his time? best engineer or theoreticist or military strategist? most impressive to his contemporaries? most spiritual impact?

poasters below are just picking their own definition & running with it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45826121)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkMiWH4n1lw&t=2s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45819381)

A lot of these accomplishments are just a smart person being at the right time in the right place, but his accomplishments seem to be things we wouldn't have figured out for another 50 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823040)

2. Poincaré (or another) would have discovered relativity had Einstein not done so.

3. Re: "the relationship between mass and energy," you seem confused. See https://faculty.washington.edu/seattle/physics544/Eismc2/2009%20Hecht%20Einstein's%20E%20and%20m%20AJP.pdf

Abstract:

>>>

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the evolution of Einstein’s understanding of mass and energy. Early on, Einstein embraced the idea of a speed-dependent mass but changed his mind in 1906 and thereafter carefully avoided that notion entirely. He shunned, and explicitly rejected, what later came to be known as “relativistic mass.” Nonetheless many textbooks and articles credit him with the relation 𝐸=𝑚𝑐2

, where 𝐸

is the total energy, 𝑚

is the relativistic mass, and 𝑐

is the vacuum speed of light. Einstein never derived this relation, at least not with that understanding of the meaning of its terms. He consistently related the “rest energy” of a system to its invariant inertial mass.

EDIT: I'll add for completeness that Gibbs scooped Einstein, and with more rigor, on statistical mechanics foundations. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/41134058

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823083)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45824848)

https://youtu.be/GOJFznzSZhM?t=2764

"Albert Einstein's looking glum because he's lost the argument [vs Bohr regarding quantum physics]"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45824394)

so many atheists and people with other faggy beliefs want you to think its low iq to be terrified of death

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45820514)

(TBF)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823443)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45820499)

Also see generally Murray, Human Accomplishment, which quantitatively supports my list.

If we're doing arts, I think I'd name Bach & Michelangelo before da Vinci. If engineering, da Vinci wouldn't rate; I'd include people like Archimedes, Gibbs, William George Armstrong, etc. (Also Lord Kelvin, Whewell, Kolmogorov, Maxwell, etc. deserve consideration.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45820528)

So a Jew comes up with more Jewish bullshit? Got it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823452)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823188)

Dr. Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus (OHJ) is a very dense but thorough literature review of the prevailing scholarship relevant to the issue of whether Jesus was a real person or not, plus his own assessment of the evidence. His conclusion is that there is at best a ≈32% chance that Jesus was an actual person (and at worse it is ≈0.008%). He makes this conclusion using Bayesian statistics. To prove historicity, Dr. Carrier determines the prior probability of Jesus’ historicity, and then surveys the relevant evidence of Jesus’ historicity (i.e., extrabiblical sources, Acts, Gospels, Epistles), juxtaposed to his minimalist mythology theory (h) with the minimalist historical theory (¬h), and assigns percentage values as to how consistent the relevant evidence is to each theory. Next, Dr. Carrier imports these figures into Bayes’ theorem to determine the probability of Jesus’ historicity. To be honest, at first, prior to reading the book, I was not convinced he could make a persuasive case for an actual percentage using Bayesian statistics, because the probability of a theory is always going to be subjective. Yet, when I read the book, I found the statistics he uses appear to be fair especially the ones he uses to give historicity the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it still is a value judgment he advances for the theory. But, in the end, the analysis is comprehensive and persuasive.

To paraphrase, Dr. Carrier’s minimalist mythology theory (¬h) is that that Jesus did not exist as a person, rather he was a celestial figure, who died in heaven, battling Satan, and whom Christians learned about through revelation and scripture after which Christians created mythical stories about. (OHJ, at 34.) His minimalist historical theory (h) (also paraphrased) is that that Jesus was a man, who had acquired followers (and the followers continued as an identifiable movement after his death), and Jesus was executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities. (OHJ, at 53.) That’s pretty minimal as you can get.

After setting up the various theories, and before getting into the analysis, Dr. Carrier presents an elaborate discussion of background information one needs to fully understand the analysis that he is about to present. He calls these “Elements” and often refers to them when he makes a point. The one area that I think is lacking in this background information is a clear understanding of Jewish sources, which he cites to and uses from time to time. Specifically, when he discusses Jewish sources, like the Talmud, it does not seem like he has a good grasp on them, and his analysis lacks the thorough treatment that he provides with other source material. For example, he briefly only mentions, without much discussion the topic of Mashiach ben Yoseph and Mashiach ben David and admits that although it was the product of the Middle Ages, “it is clear from the Talmud that the outline of it long predated that period”. (OHJ, 75.) He could have consulted to relevant contemporary Jewish sources to flesh this out and explain its relevance. This is only one minor issue, and I don’t think it detracts from his overall thesis or the persuasiveness of the book.

The extrabiblical evidence that Dr. Carrier discusses is Clement’s Epistle and the works of Ignatius, Papias, Hegesippus, Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Thallus. Perhaps, the most controversial argument that Dr. Carrier has here is that Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum and his reference to James, being the brother of Jesus, were complete interpolations, because, as Dr. Carrier readily admits, the current historical consensus is against him. But, that does not matter, and even if we admit the passages are authentic, it hardly constitutes concrete evidence for historicity, since Josephus was not a contemporary and does not cite his sources. It's just unsourced hearsay.

Moreover, Dr. Carrier’s discussion of the Acts, Gospels, and Epistles is very enlightening. His central argument is that Paul’s Epistle (the authentic ones) are the earliest sources of Christianity that we have, and they remarkably say very little to nothing about an actual, living Jesus. As Dr. Carrier points out, Paul states that whatever he learned, he learned from revelation and scripture. He also disclaimed any learning from the other apostles. Dr. Carrier posits that the Christianity of Paul perhaps only knew of a Jesus who died in the heavens, i.e., there was no living and dying Jesus. Juxtaposed to these documents, Dr. Carrier points out that the Acts and Gospels are written in a very myth-like manner. For example, the Gospels basically rewrite certain stories in the Torah and update them thematically to fit the life of Jesus.

Although Dr. Carrier's reasoning to his conclusion is sound, one issue that I have is that he lacks a clearly unifying explanation or theory as to why the Christianity of Paul – or proto-Christianity – evolved from an understanding of a celestial being dying in the heavens, to a religion whose article of faith became a living and dying Savior Messiah. As Dr. Carrier notes, we have a dearth of information from the relevant time-period culminating to the creation of the Gospels (mostly because the Church destroyed anything it found heretical, which ironically would have been the Christianity of Paul). Yet, Dr. Carrier does not give a thorough analysis who had the means, motive, and opportunity to compose the Gospels. As Dr. Carrier points out the Gospels as works of amazing literature, even if they are not history. And, writing the Gospels was no small project. Presenting the various actors and factions that would have the means, motive, and opportunity to create the Gospels would be helpful.

All in all, I think Dr. Carrier did a good job both summarizing the relevant evidence and putting a well-reasoned argument for why there is at best a ≈32% chance that Jesus was an actual person. Highly recommended.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823195)

“Virtually all scholars of antiquity see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted, and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.”

But please, continue to post fringe takes from retards.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823257)

Also, lol at whining about fringe takes on a website where people regularly espouse race realism, anti-vaxism, Holocaust denial, moon-landing conspiracy theories, etc. as viable positions. What do the scholars quoted on Wikipedia say about those topics? Go back to Reddit if you want to only discuss institutionally approved orthodox goodthink.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823305)

In the meantime you can read some of the already published peer-reviewed monographs arguing that Jesus never existed. They are linked to in the list I posted above. Hth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823391)

It’s small dick guys right? The white loser thing? That’s what the sociologists say, right? I fucking knew it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823376)

Let's put aside the fact that many modern academics are frauds and faggots.

You do realize that there is a huge fundamental difference between scholars continuing to carrying on a historical view that has literally been the dominant view for 1000+ years, and scholars just coming up with some totally new random "hehe" theory from wholecloth like 20 years ago which then quickly becomes the fad in intellectual circles, when it comes to evaluating whether we want to give modern academics and their views on a particular issue any weight. Right?

You do understand that that's night and day, right?

Like, I didn't even really have to type this out, because you already realized these are two completely different postures (even though you seem dead set on conflating them here as though they are basically indistinguishable from one another), and because of that fundamental difference, someone can indeed say "the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure" without opening themselves up to some sort of gay ass "aha well you MUST also believe in STRUCTURAL WHITE SUPREMACY because most modern scholars also believe in that!" rebuttal.... right?

Right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823462)

Oh wow, a smug sarcastic faggot didn't read my poast on the internet (but did take the time to signal that he didn't read my poast). This is the end!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823573)

I never denied that "the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure;" I only denied that questioning it is some retard view. And the analogy to ideologically driven "white supremacy" woke shit may be more apt than you think: unlike most areas of historical scholarship, biblical scholarship has mostly been done by priests and Christian theologians, so hardly an unbiased group of people investigating the issues dispassionately.

For example, in light of modern scholarship, the dominant view of Old Testament patriarchs existing has completely shifted over the past 50 years or so, even among the mainstream scholars who believe Jesus existed. This article may be illuminating: http://ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/80/47

Also, I hope you don't expect me to read and respond at length to a whole bunch of screeds from you about this issue. The last time I engaged with you about religion, it ended with you responding "(Faggot.)" to me over and over ( https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5156372&mc=97&forum_id=2 ). So I doubt another exchange with you would be any more productive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823550)

"Critical Bible scholarship doesn't even exist yet, you fools -- you can't burn me at the stake for merely questioning whether Jesus Christ exisAAHHHHHHH" screamed the time travelling megafaggot as he was literally burned at the stake for committing the unspeakable heresy of questioning whether Jesus was really the Son of God in 1250, and every single "elite" member of the European society that he was visiting (without a single exception) nodded in total approval as his screams echoed through the cavernous hall.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823570)

The idea that 13th-century scholarship isn't to be taken all that seriously, is a very mainstream scholarly opinion, including among bible scholars who are believing Christians themselves and are very much certain that Jesus existed. Have you ever actually researched the Jesus mythicism issue at all? If so, what are your objections to the theory as laid out by Carrier, Price, et al.? Sounds like you're just making gotcha arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823604)

"Who gives a shit -- what the fuck did all those old ignorant people know about this topic, anyway?" sneered the megafaggot on the internet who was busy invoking the authority of a bunch of modern experts who... spend their entire professional lives trying to discern what a bunch of 'old ignorant people' knew about 'this topic' (except now they're 1000 years even more removed in time, so in many ways their task is actually harder).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823621)

I think that we "know" a lot more about "performance practices" of the Baroque Era in 2023 than we did in 1853, but LJL at using that "fact" to say something like "Who gives a shit what Franz Liszt or Johannes Brahms thought about interpreting Bach, we know so much more than they do now that they're basically just a bunch of old irrelevant ignorant guys who cares, look, we REALLY need to be listening to Dr. Jeremy Cohen at Yale, I mean, LOOK BUDDY, he literally got his *PhD* in how to turn mordants and realize trills correctly according to all of the leading sources from Vienna between 1650 an..."

It's just so retarded that there's nothing more to say about it, really. If that's really how you feel, then you're so divorced from reality and how things actually work in the real world and what really matters outside of the gay little academic ivory tower (and I don't mean like street smarts level stuff, I mean even more basic stuff like "hmmm wait so how IS human knowledge passed on from one generation to another?") that you should really just be ignored in conversations like this because you're a naive fucking idiot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823929)

What human knowledge about ancient events did medieval writers possess that we lack? I'm not even sure what your argument is supposed to be here since (as I predicted) you seem mainly interested in writing up your little catty screeds and fictional dialogue and sneering insults rather than anything that can be productively addressed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45824032)

(Guy who just can't seem to grasp the point)

Anyway I'm sure you can find a bunch of retarded academic papers written by laughably out of touch academics that "prove" whatever "point" you're making here. Congrats, I hear that means they, and you, are correct! You won!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45824038)

"Being a medieval theologian writing about what he thought happened at the origins of his own religion 1000 years earlier, is totally analogous to being a brilliant musician engaging in the musical interpretation of another brilliant musician." Wow... I never thought of it that way! Thanks for once again demonstrating your complete lack of ability to substantively engage on any subject other than Jews or the redneck revolution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45824058)

In that case I agree! Nothing that has survived peer review a full TWO times has ever been false!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823383)

I don’t get the freak out. It must be upbringing.

The thing is, someone reasonably smart could do a take down of the Carrier argument if they put the time in but the whole idea is too offensive to MASE for him to engage fully in.

The no-historical-Jesus argument is a fun little pastime regardless of where you come out on it, and, like Egyptology, you learn something about human nature just as a bonus.

Worth checking out unless it’s too triggering and you have mental vulnerabilities.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823432)

I will retract “retard” and change to “fringe.” Thank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823464)

We all know the Bayesian assignments of likelihood for individual facts are subjective; that’s low hanging fruit but that’s fine to attack although not exciting or new.

Check back on the topic *after* youve gotten into it a bit. And that will take some time for a dive into the materials enough to be genuinely interesting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823498)

Also, lol, what "eyewitness accounts of Jesus"? All MAINSTREAM, NON-FRINGE scholars agree that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823560)

In your defense, 90% of the types you are dealing with on that side of the fence at absolutely infuriating smug "amazing atheist" type faggots who probably still belong to the "I F'in Love Science" Boomer-tier NPC Facebook group and who deserve a swift fist in the face, including several who are poasting ITT right now. It is very easy to get triggered by their presence.

And I say that as someone who is FREQUENTLY a strong critic of modern Christianity and someone who does not personally ascribe to Christian religious beliefs (100% not Jewish, fuck kikes gas them all just in case that needed to be said for the pumos out there).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823584)

"very easy to get triggered by their presence"

"deserve a swift fist in the face"

You ever think maybe you take this place a little too seriously?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823699)

Yeah, fair point, *checks notes*

"other guy who also just spent hours of his Saturday night strenuously arguing with retarded strangers about this gay pointless shit on XO (because, just to be clear, he's NOT a faggot who cares too much about dumb shit on the internet)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823960)

1. Plenty of scholars would agree that Jesus not existing is a respectable opinion.

2. Jesus not existing is a settled issue.

State your IQ before I engage you further.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823496)

You are probably technically correct here (subject to the important distinction I raised above which you are still oddly refusing to acknowledge even though it's obviously true and you just look like an asshole conflating the two stances), but you come off as such a smug "amazing atheist" type faggot on this stuff that I don't blame MASE for getting triggered by you and I say that as someone who does NOT personally believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" as a matter of my own personal religious conviction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823596)

I'm the smuggest faggot on this bort.

That literally makes me the ultimate expert on this subject.

You need to trust the experts, retard. What part of that didn't you learn over the last 3 years?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823952)

Hebrews 2:9 (ESV)

9But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823304)

Because he wrote some literary works that scholars study but no one enjoys?

liberal arts majors want to act like that makes you in the same league as the people who realized that light can be a particle?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823050)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethean_science )

Can you explain why physicists with uneven, autistic cognitive profiles who can't write a literary classic belong on the list with him?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823104)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5274738&forum_id=2#45823437)