Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:43 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Did Jesus exist?
#31
RE: Did Jesus exist?
(October 28, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Um. No it isn't. It is a lack of belief in the claims that a god exists. Some atheists claim agnosticism and some claim gnosticism, but all atheism is is the lack of belief in deities. There is a difference between "I do not believe in a god" - and - "I believe there are no gods".

Both views are atheistic, because they both entail a lack of belief.

Of course there is a difference between "I do not believe in a god" - and - "I believe there are no gods". Both are legitimate descriptions and definitions of two different kinds of atheism. They may both entail a lack of belief, but one definition of atheism is fundamentally different from the other because it leads to a fundamentally different set of conceptual consequences.

The idea that all the conceptual consequences of one type of atheism can sweep up and obliterate the conceptual consequences of the other is a little bit dictatorial (for want of a better word). And one of the consequences of the position that there is no god is that the existence or not of Jesus is of little importance to the atheist. I am happy to discuss why.

The claiming of "gnostic" atheism has not yet been made compulsory; it remains, of course, voluntary .
Reply
#32
RE: Did Jesus exist?
Hmm. I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I agree that both positions are atheist and I'm not trying to imply that "all the conceptual consequences of one type of atheism can sweep up and obliterate the conceptual consequences of the other", as you put it.

The word 'atheist' indicates a lack of belief in deities. That is all the word, by itself, indicates. Which sort of atheist (gnostic, agnostic, hard, soft, what have you) is not implied by the word itself. For example, if someone says, "I am an atheist", all we know about that person is that he or she lacks belief in deities, because that's all the word actually means. It will take more information, usually in the form of qualifiers, to determine if the person considers him or herself gnostic or agnostic, etc.

See what I mean? You can't assume anything about a person's views from that single word beyond it's most basic meaning.
Reply
#33
RE: Did Jesus exist?
(October 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Of course there is a difference between "I do not believe in a god" - and - "I believe there are no gods". Both are legitimate descriptions and definitions of two different kinds of atheism.

No, two different statements about knowledge and/or reasons for non-belief. Atheism, from the Latin A Atheos (A = Without, Theos = Belief in God(s)) simply means "without belief in God(s)"

Whether one believes "There are no gods" (positive) or "there is no reason to believe in gods" (negative) is a matter of claimed knowledge, not a subset of Atheism it's self, and to be concisely labelled requires Gnostic or Agnostic to be attached to Atheism.

Subsequently, I am an Agnostic Atheist, I am "without belief in gods" but not because of knowledge that "there are no gods".

Quote: They may both entail a lack of belief, but one definition of atheism is fundamentally different from the other because it leads to a fundamentally different set of conceptual consequences.

They necessarily entail lack of belief. Other than that I agree.

Quote:The idea that all the conceptual consequences of one type of atheism can sweep up and obliterate the conceptual consequences of the other is a little bit dictatorial (for want of a better word). And one of the consequences of the position that there is no god is that the existence or not of Jesus is of little importance to the atheist. I am happy to discuss why.

If one believes "there are no gods" then the existence of Jesus is only important in a historical and sociological sense, but these things alone are significant enough to take interest, especially the latter.

Also, in this regard I really see little difference between Angostic and Gnostic Atheists, even an Agnostic Atheist has little interest in Jesus other than for Historical and sociological issues, the claims made about him will have no weight (rationally) until the existence of God is substantiated AND he is shown to exist. Considering him in any way other than an influential figure/myth is the only relevant criteria in either case.

Quote:The claiming of "gnostic" atheism has not yet been made compulsory; it remains, of course, voluntary .

I would argue that it's plainly irrational. Claiming knowledge of the non-existence of gods gains a burden of proof. While it is perfectly true that many concepts of God are self-refuting and/or incoherent to say that you have knowledge of the non-existence of all gods seems to suffer the Ignostic problem.
.
Reply
#34
RE: Did Jesus exist?
(October 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: The word 'atheist' indicates a lack of belief in deities. That is all the word, by itself, indicates. Which sort of atheist (gnostic, agnostic, hard, soft, what have you) is not implied by the word itself. For example, if someone says, "I am an atheist", all we know about that person is that he or she lacks belief in deities, because that's all the word actually means. It will take more information, usually in the form of qualifiers, to determine if the person considers him or herself gnostic or agnostic, etc.

See what I mean? You can't assume anything about a person's views from that single word beyond it's most basic meaning.

I totally agree with you. But this discussion is at a different stage from the level of asserting a lack of belief in gods.

It has been boldly asserted in this thread that there is no atheist position on any matter other than the existence of gods. That assertion only stands if atheism is taken to mean a lack of belief in god. If atheism is taken to mean the position that god does not exist, then everything in the universe becomes conceptually free of an idea that would claim it. Therefore the atheist may take an atheist position on the existence or not of Jesus. Because the way I express my atheism is to say that god does not exist, I take the atheist position that the existence or not of Jesus is of little or no importance to me as an atheist.

I think the problem has arisen, and repeatedly arises, because the correct statement that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, which at rudimentary level covers both the main definitions of the word atheist, is being used to prevent the statement that atheism is the belief that there is no god from having any consequential meaning. Essentially, an effort is being made to say that the idea that atheism is the belief that there is no god is the same as the idea that atheism is the lack of belief in god. I don't see how this can be described as anything other than a logical fallacy.
Reply
#35
RE: Did Jesus exist?
But... atheism does not mean to believe there is no god. One that believes there is no god is an atheist, but that is not what the word atheist means. As an atheist, the question of Jesus' existence holds little meaning to me, because even if he did exist, I still do not believe in divinity. On that we can agree.

Existentialist Wrote:It has been boldly asserted in this thread that there is no atheist position on any matter other than the existence of gods.

That assertion is strictly true. Atheism is the position of lacking a belief in gods and it is nothing more or less than that. Anything beyond or parallel to that lack of belief is not automatically inferred by the use of the word 'atheist'. An atheist can certainly insist that he or she believes that there is no god, but that belief is not what makes him or her an atheist. It is the fundamental lack of belief that deities exist that makes one an atheist. It may seem like semantics, but it is an important distinction.

Atheists can hold positions on any number of issues and their atheism most likely colors their views, but the only position that can accurately be called 'atheist' is the lack of belief in gods.
Reply
#36
RE: Did Jesus exist?
If Jesus existed he's not the same fucking 'Jesus Christ' of the Bible because if he existed he didn't have fucking magical powers. So who gives a fuck about a man who is supposed to be magical but fucking isn't?
Reply
#37
RE: Did Jesus exist?
(October 28, 2010 at 6:17 pm)theVOID Wrote:
(October 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Of course there is a difference between "I do not believe in a god" - and - "I believe there are no gods". Both are legitimate descriptions and definitions of two different kinds of atheism.

No, two different statements about knowledge and/or reasons for non-belief. Atheism, from the Latin A Atheos (A = Without, Theos = Belief in God(s)) simply means "without belief in God(s)"

No, the statements I described don't necessarily imply any concept of knowledge or reasons for belief. Of course you can add them in, but I don't think they're innately part of the statements themselves. People keep talking about the words "gnostic" or "agnostic" being required. Who or what requires these? I don't see any evidence for this requirement.

Quote:Whether one believes "There are no gods" (positive) or "there is no reason to believe in gods" (negative) is a matter of claimed knowledge, not a subset of Atheism it's self, and to be concisely labelled requires Gnostic or Agnostic to be attached to Atheism. Subsequently, I am an Agnostic Atheist, I am "without belief in gods" but not because of knowledge that "there are no gods".

I think you need to say more to demonstrate the necessity for a position on knowledge and belief. The denial of God's existence doesn't imply knowledge. A person can take a stance about reality without claiming to know the reality itself. By all means try to persuade me otherwise but I haven't been persuaded by anyone yet. There again, I haven't been discussing these aspects of atheism all that long either, so I'm open to persuasion from a convincing argument.

'Belief' is a bit unexplained. I know I used the term 'belief' above but that was in passing really. To use the word atheism legitimately as a way of describing one's assertion that God doesn't exist, it seems to me it's not necessary to make any statements about belief. Belief and knowledge are add-ons to this kind of atheism, not intrinsic parts of it.

Actually this is a useful point for me to say why I think whether Jesus existed or not is of little importance to the atheist. If you merely 'lack belief' in the existence of God, then usually this seems to be on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to persuade you that God exists, That position seems to invite a massive volume of supposed evidence from theists of the existence of God, or Jesus as God. You're then obliged to sift through the evidence in order to establish a position on it. Sifting through theist evidence is boring and becomes rather stressful, there's so much of it, none of it proves useful, and it gives you a headache. Well it does me anyway. "Agnostic atheists" - the sort of atheists who do not have belief in the existence of God - seem to get into a kind of love-hate relationship with theists, of whom they constantly demand more evidence which inevitably never gets delivered.

However, if by atheism you mean denial of the existence of God, then this can be on the basis of many things, but obviously not on the basis of evidence, supposed or otherwise. Therefore you can chuck all the evidence in the bin and go and enjoy your life instead. This is far preferable and infinitely more relaxing. I feel much happier this way.
(October 28, 2010 at 10:34 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Atheism is the position of lacking a belief in gods and it is nothing more or less than that.

Well obviously it can be something more than that, because a lot of atheists go around asserting that god does not exist. That assertion is more than merely lacking a belief in god/s. It's more words, more defined, more meaningful, more interesting. Overall, it's more.

Quote:An atheist can certainly insist that he or she believes that there is no god, but that belief is not what makes him or her an atheist. It is the fundamental lack of belief that deities exist that makes one an atheist. It may seem like semantics, but it is an important distinction.

Well it is semantics but it's better to be on the right side in an argument about semantics, and I am. The belief that there is no god would make someone an atheist. I feel this is a sound statement. By all means feel free to try and persuade me otherwise - I'm always up for a decent discussion, but I'm pretty certain I've got the more defensible position.
(October 28, 2010 at 6:17 pm)theVOID Wrote: Atheism, from the Latin A Atheos (A = Without, Theos = Belief in God(s)) simply means "without belief in God(s)"
Sorry forgot to say, Atheos is Greek originally. A- is probably better translated as merely meaning some negative position, not necessarily "without". Theos just means god doesn't it? Not belief in god - that's an optional inference.
Reply
#38
RE: Did Jesus exist?
(October 28, 2010 at 6:07 am)solja247 Wrote: Ok so I created a thread called, 'Where did Jesus get His morality' and for some reason a lot of people doubt Jesus's existence.
So I would love to see some credible books and encyclopedias saying that Jesus did not exist.

Do you count the Bible as a credible book? I don't but this is the only book that offers any detailed account of the alleged life or ministry of Jesus.

See 1John 4:1-3

Quote:Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

and 2John 1:7

Quote:For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Read both passages between the lines and we learn:

1. There were early Christians who did not believe in a flesh and blood Jesus. If we take seriously that this account is from John, these Christians had lived within the lifetime of those who would have known Jesus.
2. These early Christians were a problem for the church since two of three of John's epistles that were adopted by the Church into the Bible speak of these Christians.
3. John chooses to blame this belief on demonic possession and the efforts of antichrists instead of ridicule. After all, if these early Christians were denying an obvious historical reality, why not rely on references to Jesus' family, eye-witness accounts and other accounts that he was a real flesh-and-blood human being?
4. John is apparently unable to find any facts with which to refute these early Christians and instead invokes the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess" that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood being.

JC's bullcrap, this I know,
for the Bible tells me so.
John's epistles say as much.
Used his faith then as a crutch.
Yes, JC's bullshit.
Yes, JC's bullshit.
Yes, JC's bullshit.
The Bible tells me so.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#39
RE: Did Jesus exist?
Quote:What you have is not called credibility.

Why not?

The four gosphels shows an early picture of how people viewed Jesus, how is it not credible?

Quote:What about jesus? Is there any historical evidence other than bible??

I could ask the same thing about Socrates (Any evidence outside of what his students abstractly wrote about him).
Josehpus can help you out here.

Quote:My point was that it doesn't mean there was anything special about Jesus, if he existed (which the quote implied there was).

Jesus was special, just like Mohammad was. They have captivated millions of followers
Quote:So I would love to see some credible books and encyclopedias saying that Jesus DID exist

All of them do! Here is a good place to start: Brill's Encyclopedia of the Ancient World New Pauly

Quote:There is no contemporary evidence for mohammad's existence, either. Same as jesus. Same as King Arthur. Or the Easter Bunny.

People dont live their whole lives and die for a dellusion. You would think that Jesus's followers would be the most skeptic. To my knowledge when a human dies, they stay dead. Jesus's friends believed He was more than a human, because they had been in His presence and because they believed what they saw.

Quote:Rene Salm is an Archaeologist Author who has lead Aggregated the most thorough Archaeological excavation of the Galilee region to date, one of the things that he discovered was that there is absolutely no evidence of Nazareth existing until the second CE

There is still a lot to uncover Wink. lack of evidence does not mean it did not happen.

Quote:AND There were no Pharisees outside of the temple at the time, by law, it wasn't until the destruction of the temple that we have evidence of their activities in any formal sense outside of Jerusalem. The Pharisees were temple priests, and we have almost no accounts of them travelling, let alone living in a shit hole in Galilee Yet Jesus had many run-in's with these Pharisees...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

You may find this interesting.

Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.

You dont hate God, you hate the church game.

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine

Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Reply
#40
RE: Did Jesus exist?
Quote:Jesus was special, just like Mohammad was. They have captivated millions of followers

At the point of a sword - in both cases.

Jesus and mohammad do have one thing in common. Both are fiction.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Brick If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist zwanzig 738 35151 June 28, 2023 at 10:48 am
Last Post: emjay
  Why did Jesus suffer for sinners and not victims zwanzig 177 17885 June 9, 2021 at 11:14 am
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy
  Did Jesus ever have a perm? Cod 32 4315 April 3, 2019 at 11:03 am
Last Post: Foxaèr
  Why did the Jews lie about Jesus? Fake Messiah 65 5523 March 28, 2019 at 5:32 pm
Last Post: Aliza
  Did Jesus decompose? Natachan 77 5718 March 26, 2019 at 8:18 pm
Last Post: fredd bear
  Did Jesus call the Old Testament God the Devil, a Murderer and the Father of Lies? dude1 51 8380 November 6, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  How long did Jesus spend in Hell? Gawdzilla Sama 43 6902 February 5, 2018 at 2:15 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  On this world if humans ceased to exist would god cease to exist? brewer 58 12245 November 24, 2017 at 3:17 am
Last Post: pocaracas
  Did Jesus Christ ever tell a joke ? The Wise Joker 12 2678 January 31, 2017 at 11:37 am
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement. Jehanne 155 23338 January 21, 2017 at 1:28 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)