Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?

[Aractus]

If you take out all the woo Jesus did, not even Christians would be interested in the man behind the myth.

Not at all true. There are plenty of secular NT period scholars very interested. Just like there are plenty of ancient Rome scholars with no interest in following their beliefs. And plenty of Egyptologists with no interests in following the beliefs of ancient Egypt either.

[ignoramus]

OK, fair enough. But tell me why they're Christians in the first place?
Because woo.

[Aractus]

Well, purely from a physics POV because it has benefits, as observed in several peer-reviewed studies (see link in my sig). Since it has had societal benefits, we would expect it to be used once discovered.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's particularly beneficial when you have to navigate a society filled with christians.......although I'm not sure that the benefits, such as they are, have been shown to be anything other than the trend of non-conformity being disadvantageous.

[an0nemus]

I am not a mythicist; a lot of atheists are, of course.  As very few scholars are Jesus mythicists, does that POV give atheism a bad name?  Are we no different than the creationists who can point to a tiny handful of scholars who support our position?

Does not believing in Santa Claus give adults a bad name, I mean...children can point to The Night Before Christmas as written proof

[Aractus]

It's particularly beneficial when you have to navigate a society filled with christians.......although I'm not sure that the benefits, such as they are, have been shown to be anything other than the trend of non-conformity being disadvantageous.

It has been shown. I think that's where you display your clear lack of critical thinking and willingness to accept and examine evidence on the subject. You'd rather just cling to your ill-informed views, and don't want them challenged by the real world.

Again the very concept itself is easily explainable using the physics model of your choice (chaos, game theory) combined with the phenomena of mythology, the concept of self, and the challenge of fitting oneself into one's society.

There are several high-level studies that exist on the importance of cultural expression for the health and well-being of people; and religion itself is at least part cultural, therefore from that framework we also expect it to have direct influence on the quality of life of participants. And again, none of this is new revelations, it's stuff that's now well known and well established, and completely discredits the old 19th century views of colonialism and assimilation. You just have to look at Israel and the Palestinians to see a clear example of this today - in fact there is no better example of this anywhere else in the world. Despite the extreme oppression the Palestinian people live under in the occupied West Bank, they still prefer to live there and feel that access to their land is critically important to them. This same sentiment is felt by other Indigenous peoples across the world including in Australia, Canada, the USA, in NZ, and everywhere else where there are Indigenous peoples (which is most if not all countries).

[The Grand Nudger]

It has been shown. I think that's where you display your clear lack of critical thinking and willingness to accept and examine evidence on the subject. You'd rather just cling to your ill-informed views, and don't want them challenged by the real world.

My ill-informed view that non-conformity is "less-than-beneficial"..or my ill informed view that christians are more than willing to go out of their way to make life shitty for out-groups?

While we're at it, let's recall that you proposed these "benefits"........ as a reason that people were christian...."purely from a physics POV"....so..my ill-informed view that you're full of shit on every possible level?

[Aractus]

My ill-informed view that non-conformity is "less-than-beneficial"..or my ill informed view that christians are more than willing to go out of their way to make life shitty for out-groups?

While we're at it, let's recall that you proposed these "benefits"........ as a reason that people were christian...."purely from a physics POV"....so..my ill-informed view that you're full of shit on every possible level?

Your labelling of "conformity" for one thing is not what I would expect to hear from a critically-minded person. When you drive on the road do you conform to the road rules or decide to be a non-conformist? How about respect for law and order - do you want to be a non-conformist and possibly end up in prison? You seem to latch onto a single negative and then refuse to see anything positive.

Now, let me explain something. I have you at a disadvantage here because I'm actually very well aware of how difficult it is for people who find it very hard to conform to social norms - even highly intelligent and well educated people - if they cannot conform to social norms they can actually become unemployable, which leads to long-term unemployment, and further negatives from there. There is a certain level of conformity that we all need to have in order just to be able to participate in society, and those who can't (and there are people who can't, even intelligent people) find themselves in the unfortunate situation that I just described.

Again, your views are not consistent with the peer-review literature.

Here's a Level 1 study that reads "Discussion of religion and/or spirituality in the medical consultation is desired by patients and known to be beneficial."
Here's another (Level 1, listed in MEDLINE), it reads: "The findings highlight the benefits of spirituality and religion on health outcomes. ... Spirituality and religion appear to slow cognitive decline, and help people use coping strategies to deal their disease and have a better quality of life."
Here's another Level 1 study listed in MEDLINE: "Among the 43 publications that met these criteria, thirty-one (72.1 %) found a relationship between level of religious/spiritual involvement and less mental disorder (positive), eight (18.6 %) found mixed results (positive and negative), and two (4.7 %) reported more mental disorder (negative). All studies on dementia, suicide, and stress-related disorders found a positive association, as well as 79 and 67 % of the papers on depression and substance abuse, respectively. In contrast, findings from the few studies in schizophrenia were mixed, and in bipolar disorder, indicated no association or a negative one. There is good evidence that religious involvement is correlated with better mental health in the areas of depression, substance abuse, and suicide; some evidence in stress-related disorders and dementia; insufficient evidence in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and no data in many other mental disorders."

And the list continues. You'll find plenty more systematic reviews done on different areas of health, some find no correlation between the outcome measure and religion, some find positively for religion (as I've cited above), and none find negatively for religion (well none that I've seen anyway). Religious practise is consistently associated with better health outcomes and arguing otherwise is like arguing that tobacco isn't associated with lung cancer.

[Whateverist]

I am not a mythicist; a lot of atheists are, of course.  As very few scholars are Jesus mythicists, does that POV give atheism a bad name?  Are we no different than the creationists who can point to a tiny handful of scholars who support our position?

I'm not either.  I can't see any reason why it should matter to me whether J was historical or mythical.  To insist on either would seem to be an over-reach.  In that sense you could say it makes atheists who insist on mythicism seem shrill or petty. Even if historical, nothing supernatural need be involved.  Much ado about not very much?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Aract.

Already seen the types of studies you would point to, the last time we had this very same discussion.  If they were going to alter my opinion of the claims you make, they would have done so then. As was pointed out to you then, you might want to read those studies a little closer, or read the reviews of those studies. Then, maybe, you might want to take a look at the claim -you- made, on their backs.

As to the rest, some ill informed views I must have....that you feel the need to validate them in your disagreement with them...in summary-

"We need conformity, because our life will be negatively affected by our non-comformity to the dominant social groups demands"

Yeah...no shit.