(January 14, 2019 at 8:04 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:No, flat earthers and holocaust deniers also think their opponents are plain wrong, and that they have no evidence. They claim photos are not evidence, because it was staged, etc..

Evidence is merely the things one draws logical inferences from. I provided a number of evidence, you merely tried to hand waive them away for whatever loopy reasons you had.


Case in point.


Nope the portion where Josephus mentions Jesus’s brother is not a Christian fake, but is authentic.

[auote]Attributed by the bible to itself. Hello circular reasoning.

Nope, the Bible is a collection of early Christin writings, that were later compiled together. Saying it can’t be used to derive historical inferences because it’s from believers, is more a product of your own prejudices than anything else. Either you can take these portions and draw a more probable a-historicist conclusion, or a historical one.  

Quote:FFS have you any clue how often this shit has been gone over in excruciating detail?

No, go over it again.

Quote:Sure, along with the rest of your fundie christian brethren who claim sandyhook was staged.

Nice, I've been on this forum all but three minutes, and I've already goytten accused of being a fundie, by your typical angry atheist.

There is no such thing as a typical <insert adjective> atheist.   For that matter, there is no such thing as a typical atheist.

(January 14, 2019 at 8:13 am)arewethereyet Wrote: There is no such thing as a typical <insert adjective> atheist.   For that matter, there is no such thing as a typical atheist.

that's about as a true as there's no such thing as a typical theist, or Christian.

but I was being sarcasric.

(January 12, 2019 at 8:42 am)Der/die AtheistIn Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 5:08 pm)PRJA93 Wrote: The honest answer?

The evidence I've seen, of which there isn't much, isn't very strong in favor of a Historical Jesus. I think the "consensus" that seems to exist which accepts that Jesus was real exists because our society tends to placate the religious among us, because realistically the type of evidence that exists for a Historical Jesus would not stand the test of scrutiny if said evidence was the best thing we had for any other historical figure. So basically, "Probably not, but maybe." would be the most honest answer you'd get from me.

The easy answer?

Just say I don't know. The people in favor of the historical existence of Jesus seem to be adamant that the evidence they have is sufficient, so arguing with them is usually futile.

I usually go with the honest answer, but I'm a little more willing to debate than most, as I don't see anything wrong with discussions where two individuals disagree with one another, it's no big deal. It's just a conversation between two humans who see things differently. Some people, however, hold their beliefs a little closer to their heart and will be offended if you disagree with them. I suppose it's a case of asking yourself, "Do I want to avoid conflict, or try to have an educated, intellectual discussion? How argumentative am I and am I willing to debate?" A combination of that and knowing your audience. If the person you're talking to is prone to getting aggravated and blowing up at you, you may just want to avoid the topic.

Good luck.

Thank you. There is also another aspect, what if the person you're talking to is not necessarily impolite, but extremely insistent. What if they don't agree to disagree? What if you feel you can't take it anymore? Should you just tell them politely that they're annoying you with their insistance?

In that case, I would simply go with the first answer and just tell them you don't know in the first place. If they then push that he was in fact real, just hear them out and say, "Okay, I guess I never considered thinking about it that way." - and then simply try to change the subject. I wouldn't get too hell bent on trying to prove this point because it honestly doesn't even matter, if he did exist, it was thousands of years ago, and it doesn't prove the case for Christianity any more than if Muhammed from the Quran were real, or Moses from the Torah.

In fact, even if we KNEW Jesus was real. It means absolutely nothing in proving the magical claims we hear of from the Bible. That would be a bit like saying since Daniel Radcliffe is real, Harry Potter is true.

The difference is we can actually see Daniel Radcliffe on camera. The fact remains, the evidence for Jesus is weak. Don't believe me either, look it up for yourself. The only accounts written about Christ were posthumous, meaning they were written after his death. No one wrote about Christ while he was alive. Christian apologists often argue that it's because the effects of Christ's actions weren't realized until years after his death and while that's an interesting speculation, I don't really buy it. But it can be one thing to know how you personally feel about a subject, even if what you feel includes what you know, and how you feel about dealing with the person trying to push the discussion on that subject.

For example, I refuse to discuss religion with my dad. Every time, it goes in the same loop and ends up with one of us getting frustrated and saying let's change the subject. It's something I simply avoid with him now, even if I feel I'm right and even if the evidence is in my favor. It's not worth the headache.

(January 13, 2019 at 8:47 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 4:28 pm)Der/die AtheistIn Wrote: A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

You can apply the same logic to any legendary figure. If you argue that tales about a figure wouldn't exist or be as plentiful as they are without either, a) a historical foundation, or b) an implausible conspiracy, then there is no end to the number of figures and legendary events you would be forced to accept as real. So your argument simply doesn't work as a practical matter. It is an inadequate sieve for separating out fact from fiction. It also ignores that we are motivated inventors of myth. We create myth without any additional motivation than because we can. And we perpetuate myths and legends for reasons unrelated to their truth. So, no, a conspiracy isn't required at all. Just normal human folklore processes, widespread credulity, and so on.

(January 15, 2019 at 10:13 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 13, 2019 at 8:47 am)Acrobat Wrote: I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

You can apply the same logic to any legendary figure.  If you argue that tales about a figure wouldn't exist or be as plentiful as they are without either, a) a historical foundation, or b) an implausible conspiracy, then there is no end to the number of figures and legendary events you would be forced to accept as real.  So your argument simply doesn't work as a practical matter.  It is an inadequate sieve for separating out fact from fiction.  It also ignores that we are motivated inventors of myth.  We create myth without any additional motivation than because we can.  And we perpetuate myths and legends for reasons unrelated to their truth.  So, no, a conspiracy isn't required at all.  Just normal human folklore processes, widespread credulity, and so on.

No, in the case of non-existent figures, spiderman, superman, etc.. ahistorical explanations tend to have greater explanatory power, make better sense of the material than a historical explanations, which is not the case with Jesus. 

If you think you can explain the data better by ahistorical explanation, by all means try, but the reality is that historicist position is far more able to do this, than ahistorical one, which doesn't get too far before it stretches all credulity.

(January 13, 2019 at 8:47 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 2, 2019 at 4:28 pm)Der/die AtheistIn Wrote: A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

I'm not trying to be insulting but this is a ridiculously low bar of thinking.  All of the things you mentioned are modern with heaps of evidence compared to Jesus.     Maybe we can look back in 2000 years to see how those stories have changed.   

Why not compare it with historical figures such as Gilgamesh, An Dương Vương, or Qin Shi Huang.

(January 15, 2019 at 10:13 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You can apply the same logic to any legendary figure. If you argue that tales about a figure wouldn't exist or be as plentiful as they are without either, a) a historical foundation, or b) an implausible conspiracy, then there is no end to the number of figures and legendary events you would be forced to accept as real. So your argument simply doesn't work as a practical matter. It is an inadequate sieve for separating out fact from fiction. It also ignores that we are motivated inventors of myth. We create myth without any additional motivation than because we can. And we perpetuate myths and legends for reasons unrelated to their truth. So, no, a conspiracy isn't required at all. Just normal human folklore processes, widespread credulity, and so on.

I didn’t argue that tales about a figure wouldn’t exist or be as plentiful as they are without either a historical foundation etc……..

I consider two conclusions, does the evidence and data we have better support a historical person or a non-historical person. Does the ahistoricist conclusion or the historical conclusion have greater explanatory power.

I get it that many atheists, are not accustomed to taking a holistic, or relational approach to questions of truth. Their rules of reasoning seem to be, to withhold belief absent of any single piece of evidence that gives them near certainty.

In order to understand my argument, you’d have to recognize that it’s reasoning between a conclusion and it’s alternative conclusions. Ahistorical explanations vs historical explanations, and the truth granted to the explanation that’s more probable, more likely, with greater explanatory power, doesn’t stretch credulity etc…

You can take any legendary figure you want, and in these instances they would be better explained by ahistorical explanations, this is not the case with Jesus. We have first hand accounts of a person who met his brother and disciples, we have a historical account for jewish historian, writing of his brother’s death. We have multiple writings containing his sayings, and parables attributed to no one other than him, written shortly after his death, placing him within events at the time, giving him historical titles like the messiah, dealing with unexpected outcomes of messianic prophesies, such as Jesus unexpected and humiliating defeat at the hands of romans. We have strong critics of christianity, roman historians all indicating Jesus was a historical person.

If you think ahistorical conclusion can make sense of these elements better than a historical conclusion, then I got some swampland to sell you in Florida.

---

(January 16, 2019 at 5:09 am)ohreally Wrote:

(January 13, 2019 at 8:47 am)Acrobat Wrote: I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

I'm not trying to be insulting but this is a ridiculously low bar of thinking.  All of the things you mentioned are modern with heaps of evidence compared to Jesus.     Maybe we can look back in 2000 years to see how those stories have changed.   

Why not compare it with historical figures such as Gilgamesh, An Dương Vương, or Qin Shi Huang.

Holocaust deniers, and flat earth's believe there's no evidence for these things. You claim there's heaps of evidence, they say that's not evidence.

There is heaps of evidence for Jesus's existence, I named several of them in the previous post. Let me guess, you're going to suggest those things are not evidence?

I tend to treat Jesus the way I treat King Arthur.

Was there a 1st century preacher in Palestine who got into trouble with the authorities?  Very probably.  Are the Gospel stories about him true?  Very probably not.

Was there a 6th century warlord in Britain who gave the Saxons a rough time?  Very probably.  Is Monmouth's Historia an accurate representation of his life?  Very probably not.

Boru

(January 16, 2019 at 7:59 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 15, 2019 at 10:13 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You can apply the same logic to any legendary figure. If you argue that tales about a figure wouldn't exist or be as plentiful as they are without either, a) a historical foundation, or b) an implausible conspiracy, then there is no end to the number of figures and legendary events you would be forced to accept as real. So your argument simply doesn't work as a practical matter. It is an inadequate sieve for separating out fact from fiction. It also ignores that we are motivated inventors of myth. We create myth without any additional motivation than because we can. And we perpetuate myths and legends for reasons unrelated to their truth. So, no, a conspiracy isn't required at all. Just normal human folklore processes, widespread credulity, and so on.

I didn’t argue that tales about a figure wouldn’t exist or be as plentiful as they are without either a historical foundation etc……..

I consider two conclusions, does the evidence and data we have better support a historical person or a non-historical person. Does the ahistoricist conclusion or the historical conclusion have greater explanatory power.

I get it that many atheists, are not accustomed to taking a holistic, or relational approach to questions of truth. Their rules of reasoning seem to be, to withhold belief absent of any single piece of evidence that gives them near certainty.

In order to understand my argument, you’d have to recognize that it’s reasoning between a conclusion and it’s alternative conclusions. Ahistorical explanations vs historical explanations, and the truth granted to the explanation that’s more probable, more likely, with greater explanatory power, doesn’t stretch credulity etc…

You can take any legendary figure you want, and in these instances they would be better explained by ahistorical explanations, this is not the case with Jesus. We have first hand accounts of a person who met his brother and disciples, we have a historical account for jewish historian, writing of his brother’s death. We have multiple writings containing his sayings, and parables attributed to no one other than him, written shortly after his death, placing him within events at the time, giving him historical titles like the messiah, dealing with unexpected outcomes of messianic prophesies, such as Jesus unexpected and humiliating defeat at the hands of romans. We have strong critics of christianity, roman historians all indicating Jesus was a historical person.

If you think ahistorical conclusion can make sense of these elements better than a historical conclusion, then I got some swampland to sell you in Florida.

---

(January 16, 2019 at 5:09 am)ohreally Wrote: I'm not trying to be insulting but this is a ridiculously low bar of thinking.  All of the things you mentioned are modern with heaps of evidence compared to Jesus.     Maybe we can look back in 2000 years to see how those stories have changed.   

Why not compare it with historical figures such as Gilgamesh, An Dương Vương, or Qin Shi Huang.

Holocaust deniers, and flat earth's believe there's no evidence for these things. You claim there's heaps of evidence, they say that's not evidence.

There is heaps of evidence for Jesus's existence, I named several of them in the previous post. Let me guess, you're going to suggest those things are not evidence?

OK, you've repeated the same thing.    I just don't have the words to convey my point of view.

But Jesus isn't supernatural so who gives a shit if he existed or not.  It doesn't matter.

(January 13, 2019 at 8:47 am)Acrobat Wrote: I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother

We don't have those. We have psuedepigraphy, interpolations, and downright forgery...all swirling around a hellenic mytheme.

Quote:, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

The vox populi.  Everyone wants to cram their favorite saying into the mouth of a demi-god, lol.  

Quote:In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

The romans also acknowledged the existence of the dragons of britain... and vowed to defeat them.  

Quote:If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

What events?  The rise of christianity didn't happen until 300ad.  "Jesus" wasn't exactly around to help at that point in time.  They spent their first 1k years as a church purging their own myths......and textual criticism has spent the last 200 pointing out the legendary. They had to stomp on a few heretics along the way....oddly enough, people didn't seem to agree about "the events"..and, by people, I mean early christians.

If you want to know about events that shaped the christian movement..consider this. Following a generation of pandemic...and a the assumption of a new dynasty whose emperor needed to fire all the praetorians plotting to kill him.........christ, as we know him...was born. It was a culture that improved the sick and poors way of life...and an ideology that was useful to that populations owners..both in the immediate (then)present and near future. The whole situation with the christian apparatus was a sort of street war between vox and the imperial cult, the same man heading both sides of that culture war for a time.