• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Unlike God, Napoleon Bonaparte is proven to exist and there is both physical and historical evidence and context to prove he did.

    Most people who believe Napoleon existed, never actually saw him. Some say that they saw a figure in the distance board a ship, but that’s not very convincing. Nearly every “fact” about Napoleon comes straight from newspapers (paragons of accuracy, am I right?) that have been translated several times. Even most news today goes through redactions and corrections. So imagine trusting anonymous writers from 200 years ago. Which who’s reports would have went through multiple layers of gossip and hearsay. This is the shaky foundation your “history” rests on. Napoleon was also the perfect “clickbait”. Stories of big battles and grand escapes sold newspapers. The British government also fed these narratives to people in order to scare them and justify higher taxes as well as control parliament. Pretty convenient.

    Then, there’s the contradictions. Did Napoleon personally lead the charge over Lodi Bridge? Or was it Agerro? It depends on who you read. Waterloo timelines differ wildly, and both sides claimed victory at Boredino. Even descriptions of Napoleon himself range from a heroic genius to an insane tyrant.

    A critical reading also points out that Napoleon’s exile was likely a myth. The island symbolises England, his ultimate enemy. His escape represents the mythical trope of a hero escaping the realm of the dead, like Prometheus or Orifus rescuing Uritysy from the underworld. It’s quite obvious that Napoleon is a sun god disguised as historical figure. His name literally means “True Apollos” - The greek sun diety. Who, like Napoleon, was born on a Mediterranean island. His journey from Egypt conquering westward is also clearly showing the path of the sun.

    So prove to me Napoleon existed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      I am not going to prove anything to you because you are trying to distract from the original argument and shift the burden of proof onto me. You don’t understand what an extraordinary claim is, as the difference between claiming a historical figure existing and claiming the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible being is rather significant. The burden of proof is not mine, as you are the one claiming the latter exists and preaching to others.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        So, if I could prove that a historical person who claimed to be God existed, performed miracles, died and rose again, and was seen ascending into heaven, would that be proof of God?