The God of Convenience

[Thumpalumpacus]

The box I live in unquestionably exists, and I'm having so much fun exploring its many still-mysterious facets that spending time worshiping a hateful monster of a god doesn't hold much charm for me. The fact that this god-thingy doesn't have a single shred of evidence in favor of his existence, on this or any other "plane", "dimension", or any other hidey-hole you invent to explain his absence, means that not only do I find him morally repugnant, but so unlikely as to not merit further attention -- no matter how many people have been successfully programmed to suspend their disbelief.

Do you believe that Plato existed and that he wrote the works attributed to him?

You're asserting that a god exists, and asking me if a man existed? I'm smelling a bait-and-switch coming.

But hey, I'll play along. I believe Plato existed. He is mentioned in contemporaneous works, he left a body of his own works, and he wasn't claimed to be to be a divine being born of a virgin who resurrected after his death ... just in case you're trying to go there.

---

Because a lot of people wrote about him, we have dozens of his own works, and we witness philosophers writing down their ideas all the time. Is this hard?

No. I's not hard and I'm willing to accept most of that evidence. It shows that you also believe in the existence of persons based on that type of unscientific evidence. We have the same type of evidence for Jesus, except there's more and it's more recent.

This is factually incorrect. See H_M's thread about the Resurrection for details.

Also, having evidence for a man named Jesus is not the same as having evidence for the god named Jesus. Stop sliding those shells around.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Lek]

Do you believe that Plato existed and that he wrote the works attributed to him?

You're asserting that a god exists, and asking me if a man existed? I'm smelling a bait-and-switch coming.

But hey, I'll play along. I believe Plato existed. He is mentioned in contemporaneous works, he left a body of his own works, and he wasn't claimed to be to be a divine being born of a virgin who resurrected after his death ... just in case you're trying to go there.

---

No. I's not hard and I'm willing to accept most of that evidence. It shows that you also believe in the existence of persons based on that type of unscientific evidence. We have the same type of evidence for Jesus, except there's more and it's more recent.

This is factually incorrect. See H_M's thread about the Resurrection for details.

Also, having evidence for a man named Jesus is not the same as having evidence for the god named Jesus. Stop sliding those shells around.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No shell game. I believe that Plato and Socrates existed based on the same type of evidence we have for the existence of Jesus, except that we have more and newer evidence for Jesus. You accept the evidence for Plato and Socrates, but not for Jesus. Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of one and not the other?

[Mudhammam]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of one and not the other?

Because this:

I believe that Plato and Socrates existed based on the same type of evidence we have for the existence of Jesus, except that we have more and newer evidence for Jesus.

...Is entirely incorrect.

You accept the evidence for Plato and Socrates, but not for Jesus.

Right. Because one (Plato---Socrates is more disputed) is substantiated by other evidence, such as his contemporaries, his critics, other historians, all with reputations, archeological excavations, and analogy with events we witness throughout the world, today and in times past. Jesus Christ is not. Jesus was a figure with very little historical importance until the author of Mark's Gospel placed Christian theology in a specific time and location, probably in response to the Docetics, and also because that's how revered teachings of figureheads, mythical or not, were recorded.

You do realize it makes zero difference whether or not Plato was an actual person, though, right? When Christians can say the same about Jesus, their arguments for historicity will start to look more credible.

[Jenny A]

Because a lot of people wrote about him, we have dozens of his own works, and we witness philosophers writing down their ideas all the time. Is this hard?

No. I's not hard and I'm willing to accept most of that evidence. It shows that you also believe in the existence of persons based on that type of unscientific evidence. We have the same type of evidence for Jesus, except there's more and it's more recent.

Sure, but belief in historical figures is based on historical evidence and limited by the quality and quantity of that evidence. The evidence for Plato, and even his predecessor Socrates, is pretty good. It's multiple sourced and contemporary.

Jesus (despite my playing with H_M who thinks he can prove the resurrection) probably was a real man. But the evidence for him was written at best 30 years after his death, was written in a language not his own based upon oral tradition or worse yet visions, contradicts itself, contradicts things we know about the time period, includes many, many, highly improbable events. And we still can't say for sure when or where he was born, or when he died. Additionally, what we do have has been embellished and/or suppressed because of the theological interests of early Christians.

All of which is to say that what we know about Plato and what Plato thought is a lot more reliable than what we know about Jesus or what Jesus thought.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I accept the evidence for Plato and Socrates, but not for Jesus. Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of one and not the other?

The "evidence" for the physical existence of Jesus seems to be largely fabricated after the fact, unlike that supporting the two Greeks under discussion.

And there's no evidence that he was a deity, performed miracles or resurrected after death.

And yes, a shell game is exactly what you're running here in drawing this comparison.

[dyresand]

I accept the evidence for Plato and Socrates, but not for Jesus. Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of one and not the other?

The "evidence" for the physical existence of Jesus seems to be largely fabricated after the fact, unlike that supporting the two Greeks under discussion.

And there's no evidence that he was a deity, performed miracles or resurrected after death.

And yes, a shell game is exactly what you're running here in drawing this comparison.

Also the romans had great records and even censuses so if jesus did exist he would have shown up some where in records. But i don't get why people still believe out of blind faith when blind faith is stupid.

[Lek]

Right. Because one (Plato---Socrates is more disputed) is substantiated by other evidence, such as his contemporaries, his critics, other historians, all with reputations, archeological excavations, and analogy with events we witness throughout the world, today and in times past. Jesus Christ is not. Jesus was a figure with very little historical importance until the author of Mark's Gospel placed Christian theology in a specific time and location, probably in response to the Docetics, and also because that's how revered teachings of figureheads, mythical or not, were recorded.

You do realize it makes zero difference whether or not Plato was an actual person, though, right? When Christians can say the same about Jesus, their arguments for historicity will start to look more credible.

I don't know of any archaeological excavations that reveal the existence of Plato. How many historians from Plato's time write of his existence? The oldest surviving manuscript of any of Plato's works dates to 895 AD. That's about 1,300 years after his supposed lifetime. Yet virtually everyone believes he did exist. Most historians today believe that Jesus did exist. The manuscript evidence for Plato's existence doesn't hold a candle to the manuscript evidence for Jesus, of which the earliest copies date to one to two hundred years after his lifetime.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are serious qualms about the integrity of the "evidence" regarding Jesus.

[bennyboy]

If anyone bothers to link actual facts to them, are you going to accept them as fact? Why don't you and I, here and now, actually attempt to dig up proof for both Jesus and Plato, and see which is more convincing?

I think we've examined the evidence for Jesus quite thoroughly in the this forum. I don't have to dig up all the new testament writings as well as the non-canonical writings, although I will present them as evidence. So what re your "actual facts" to prove the existence of Plato; or better yet, Socrates if you believe he existed. Actually, he's a better example than Plato.

Right, Socrates is a better example than Plato, because he's known largely through Plato's works.

Similarly, you can make a better case for the existence of John, Matthew, Luke, etc. than for Jesus because they seem to have written (or caused to be written) the Gospels.

But if Jesus was such a big deal, why aren't there Gospels written during his life? You'd think a dude walking around on water, changing water into wine, magically healing people and coming back from the freaking dead would be events that would attract a lot more attention. How about letters to Caesar reading, "Holy, shit, dude, you gotta hear this. . ." ?

[JuliaL]

How could a story like this have possibly the largest influence on the modern western world? Could you say that a large majority of the people that made us what we are today are stupid?

I would never contend that the apostles and their immediate followers
were stupid. I find a more plausible scenario in this, that they were
dependent on their community for support. They had been for at least a
couple of years, following their guru, JC. They put on shows, they
scammed the rubes. Then JC got himself in trouble with The Man.
Sort of overstepped his bounds as a street preacher and tried for a better
deal. The Jewish Ecclesiastic Authorities, and their military cronies the Romans topped him.

Now what are the apostles going to do for their bread and butter? They
covered as well as they could. "He meant to do that. No, really, he had to
die to become......let's see now....Master of the Universe! Yea, that's the
story." Con men, sure, stupid, no. And the gig has gone on for the last 2000 some years.
Fits the facts as far as we know them and much more plausible. No magic.