On "Scholarly Consensus"

[Statler Waldorf]

So, basically, if you don't agree with it, it has no merit, and you'll never let yourself be convinced otherwise. I don't know if that's more ignorance or arrogance, but it certainly puts a damper on your potential for spiritual growth.

Best of luck. You're gonna need it.

How does this relate to anything in my post?

I'm sorry, Stat, but that particular spelling is just not going to fly.

Lol. Even though that’s not relevant to my point, thank you. I tried to go back and fix it but it wouldn’t let me edit the post.

Then you must accept the proclamations of David Icke with the same vigor that you accept the proclamations in the Bible.

Non-sense, reasoning from scripture is a form of deduction.

If you analyze the historicity of the Christian faith, you will see its stories become less and less the "likely" truth. Jesus was of no concern to the Jews or the Romans while he was alive, he only grew in importance with the spread of Christianity to the pagans, and the adaptation of Pagan myths (such as the virgin birth and rising on the 3rd day) and fantasy into the story of his life.

You do realize that none of this is accepted by scholars and is only perpetuated by the internet right? There is no evidence that any of Christ’s stories were borrowed from Pagan myths; in fact there is substantial evidence to doubt that this is even a possibility.

It's entirely possible that these people never even existed and are nothing more than fanciful characters.

As it is also possible that George Washington is a mythical character but I see no reason to believe that is the case.

Someone of the stature that Jesus rises to in the bible would have been written about by many different writers…

The Jews thought Jesus was a false prophet and the Romans only viewed him as a Jewish criminal. The Romans rarely mention their own Prefects so it is remarkable that they mentioned Jesus at all.

but all we can find to substantiate Jesus' existence are the bible and a few very questionable external sources.

Very questionable? According to whom? Historians accept Josephus’ and Tacitus’ references to Jesus.

What appears to be most likely is that either no Jesus existed, or the Jesus that did exist was so vastly different from what the bible describes that it's barely valid to say Christ was based on a real person.

Historians, secular and religious, vehemently disagree with this sort of statement.

He specifically said 'unless he finds reasons to doubt it'. Come on man.

Thanks for the response! You don’t have to fight DP’s battles for him though, he’s a big boy.

I know what he said, but he has provided no actual reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus besides the fact that he does not find the evidence compelling which is a merely arbitrary reason.

That evolution happens is known.

No, it’s an inference.

However, you could do with realizing that the colloquial usage of 'proof' simply means 'greatly evidenced'.

Words have meanings.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Why would I (or he, in this case) accept an extraordinary claim on its face?

What do you mean by extraordinary? I thought atheists believed that Christ-like stories were all over the place at that time, but now you’re telling me that Jesus’ story was unique? Well, which is it?

Further, why would you assume that any but an adherent would assume anything else?

I wouldn’t, I knew you assumed the Bible was false a priori which is exactly what the Bible says you do.

Or to make it historical, Socrates?

When I first heard that there was a man named Socrates I did not automatically assume that he did not really exist.

This seems irrelevant.

It was indeed irrelevant, which was my point. He found little evidence in comparison to his own arbitrary and unrealistic expectations of what he would find which demonstrates nothing. I think there is far more evidence for Jesus than I would have expected to find given is socio-economic status and region he lived in.

There tends to be recordings of some sort when something extraordinary supposedly happened.

An example please.

We know of at least a dozen or so "Messiahs" before, during and after Jesus' supposed lifetime, and there were almost certainly more.

That’s merely speculation.

Whether or not they were put to death by Pikate I myself don't know, but I don't think it can be claimed that you know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate (and the Gospels' portrayal of him is historically inaccurate).

Historians believe Jesus was put to death by Pilate. In fact, all but one of the few times Pilate is ever mentioned is in reference to Jesus. Even Roman historians believed it was more important to mention Pilate because he put Jesus to death than to simply mention him as one of their own Prefects. Remarkable eh?

Not always. Especially if they themselves were Christians when they became scholars/historians of it. That's not to say that they're untrustworthy per se, but more that humans are easily affected by confirmation bias, especially when the belief is a deeply held one.

This is an unreasonable standard not held by historians. When learning of Rome it is not inappropriate to cite Roman historians. When learning about early Christianity it is not inappropriate to cite early Christian writings; you are not allowed to construct a special set of rules for this one historical figure.

His point was obviously that ancient Rome is practically silent on Jesus.

…but not totally silent, which is amazing. The most powerful empire on Earth took the time to mention a humble Jewish carpenter in an unimportant region of their empire. Again, nothing short of remarkable.

Even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they believe. "Because I'm the expert and I say so" is not a valid argument. Ehrman needs to do more than assert The Historical Jesus existed. He needs to prove it.

Again, we’re not dealing with proof. Ehrman has an entire book on the subject. You’re not debating with Ehrman though, so it is completely reasonable for me to rely upon the testimony of such experts. You’ve got nothing of your own to rely upon, not even a handful of experts.

"There is no proof" is a perfectly good reason to doubt a claim about a miracle working godman with popular and controversial ministry that nobody paid any attention to.

There is no proof that any historical figure existed; do you therefore reject all of history now? Like all Mythicists you are adopting a special and completely arbitrary standard for Jesus that you do not apply to anyone else in history, which is logically fallacious.

That may be a new signature quote.

You’re absolutely right! I should totally put the fact that you think science deals with proof in my signature.

“The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.”- Psychology Today

Yes. When presented with claims of woo, I don't believe them. I assume claims of woo to be untrue until presented with evidence.

Define “woo”.

Just for instance, little in comparison to John the Baptist, who had a much smaller ministry with a smaller following and still got a mention in Josephus.

Josephus mentions Jesus as well. Fail. Don’t bother trying to argue that both references to Jesus by Josephus are merely Christian interpolations, that is merely self-serving speculation and not accepted by historians (even Ehrman accepts Josephus’ references to Jesus as valid evidence).

Why does being executed by Pilate or persecuted by Nero make a reference in Tacitus more plausible?

Because that means Tacitus is referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

Ehrman, most notably.

The man who wrote an entire book demonstrating Jesus existed? Ok.

Invalid comparison. Even the most biased of political propaganda is about real events, however much the propaganda may distort them.

That’s not true at all. You’re just engaging in special pleading.

Religious propaganda (aka sacred texts), by contrast, is about fantasy and woo.

Demonstration needed.

It's about supernatural agents that there's no evidence for doing magical things that there's no evidence ever actually happens, all written about to suit the agenda of a church.

Assertion, demonstration needed.

In a rational world, all religious texts should be assumed to be mythology unless secular sources or evidence can provide corroboration.

“All evidence that contradicts my view of reality must be tossed out and ignored!” is not a rational position. I am glad we live in the world where even secular scholars laugh at people like you.

Well, that means I'm fucked. I've tried to be as nice as possible on this forum, but all I've received from Christians is a lot of shallow-minded, arrogant bullshit. I'm not looking to make enemies, but I'm slowly learning that there are no religious "friends" here to make. Or even respect.

You can thank people like Min and Chuck for that.

I had a brother die when he was 3 months old and he was not baptized. I have had fucktards tell me that he is rotting in hell, since he was not baptized. When will people start to use logic and realize the absurdity of the bible?

I feel honored for being mentioned in your post. I am sorry for your loss, but out of curiosity why would that even bother you if you know hell does not exist? I really don’t let it bother me when atheists tell me what awaits me after death because I know they are wrong.

I think its important to note here that Minimalist has the highest kudos and reps of anyone on this site and probably always will.

I’ve always viewed that as a huge blemish on the face of an otherwise great forum (but I guess it proves that atheists really are not as moral as they claim to be). The most rude, crude, and immature poster on the site also being the most popular poster is not something I’d brag about if I were an atheist.

There are some great posters on here, and they are the reason I have such high regards for this site. Take for instance DeistPaladin- he and I agree on very little (nothing comes to mind), but I genuinely respect him and enjoy my discourse with him. I wish there were more posters like you and him on here but there just isn’t. I suppose it has gotten better though, when I first got on this site it was like the freaking Octagon (I even had someone on here try to steal my identity, scary stuff); all but a couple of those militant atheists are gone now.