Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?

[Jehanne]

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

The Bible is not evidence of a historical Jesus. Any other supposed evidence of a historical Jesus, if there is any, is not the Jesus described in the Bible. We don't have to give credit to the other side. Of course it doesn't "give atheism a bad name." There is no weakness of atheism, what could possibly be weak about absence of belief in gods?

-Hammy

[KevinM1]

The problem with creationists isn't that the viewpoint is only supported by a few, but rather that their methodology is a combination of faulty and completely lacking. I don't know enough about the mythicists to say whether they fall into the same illogical pitfalls.

That said, the existence of a real Jesus has no real bearing on atheism because it doesn't make it more plausible that he actually was a magic zombie. I mean, I guess it'd be nice to go "Ha ha! He never actually existed in the first place!" But from a practical standpoint it doesn't really matter. It isn't the mundane life and death of Jesus that matters but his supposed miracles and resurrection. A real guy doesn't make any of that more likely (cue the ghost of Randy and his five minimal bullshits).

[Minimalist]

The fucking bible is not evidence.  Find some evidence that anyone resembling jesus ever walked around and I'll examine it.

Moses. Mohammed.  Zeus. Shiva. And Quetzlcoatl do not get a pass.  Neither does the xtians godboy.

[Alex K]

I find just thinking in these two categories pointless because it is not obvious and unique what criteria precisely a person has to fulfil to be "the historical Jesus" and to what degree of certainties they are claimed to be known by scolars. Without these important subtleties which are rarely mentioned in discussions, to me the whole topic is a bit tedious.

[Jehanne]

The fucking bible is not evidence.  Find some evidence that anyone resembling jesus ever walked around and I'll examine it.

Moses. Mohammed.  Zeus. Shiva. And Quetzlcoatl do not get a pass.  Neither does the xtians godboy.

The best evidence is probably the Q document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#S...ature_of_Q

[Edwardo Piet]

I find there are far too many versions of a historical Jesus to even make it worthy of anything other than dismissal. I find it analogous somewhat to theological non-cognativism/ignostism.

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

The fucking bible is not evidence.  Find some evidence that anyone resembling jesus ever walked around and I'll examine it.

Moses. Mohammed.  Zeus. Shiva. And Quetzlcoatl do not get a pass.  Neither does the xtians godboy.

The best evidence is probably the Q document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#S...ature_of_Q

No evidence actually provides evidence of the Jesus of the Bible though. A Jesus is not the Jesus. So even if it does provide evidence of a Jesus that's not Jesus.

-Hammy

[Homeless Nutter]

The best evidence is probably the Q document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#S...ature_of_Q

Oh, right - that document that no one's seen in thousands of years, if it existed at all - and we're only able to guess its potential content by examining... the bible?

Sounds legit.

[paulpablo]

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?

The stories of Jesus make me think he was a real cult leader.  

His stories are more similar to Charles Manson, David Koresh, Reverend Jim Jones and so on than they are similar to stories of Zeus, Shiva or Hercules.

There was nothing really supernatural in the stories of Jesus that other cult leaders haven't managed to persuade followers they did.  He's healing the sick, coming back to life, turning water into wine, pretty standard stuff for a cult leader.  It's nothing like killing fire breathing multiple headed creatures, flying through the air and growing a lions head or whatever.
There's more of a cult leader feel to the stories of Jesus in that he was going around talking people into following him, leaving their homes and families.  Other mythical figures didn't do much talking to my recollection, guys like Zeus or Hercules just kicked the shit out of everything and everybody around them presumably knew they were great, I don't think there's much talk of these guys caring what mortals thought of them at any point.

Of course I'm no history expert and I'm not emotionally attached to Jesus being real or a myth.  Just looking at comparisons between myths, cult leaders and Jesus I notice much more of a similarity between the cult leaders and Jesus rather than mythical characters and Jesus, although it also seems likely that a lot of stories surrounding Jesus are just total myths, but that's the case with a lot of successful cult leaders, even pop stars and celebrities too.

I don't think having ideas and criticisms about something will give atheism a bad name on the grand scale of things. As long as atheists don't start detonating bombs and shooting large groups of people at train stations or rock concerts for believing Jesus was a real person. I can understand the logic behind why people might think Jesus was a total myth, they just look at the lack of evidence and dismiss his existence based on a that. As I say, I think he was real just because he sounds so much like a cult leader in the accounts that there are of him, he doesn't sound like a three headed, fire breathing, not giving a shit, pulverizing everything kind of mythical character.