Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Belacqua]

Belaqua and Fake Messiah,
I'm assuming those PM's were discussed and it's ok to post them publicly.

Sorry, I'm not following... (as usual)...

Were there some PMs? I've not sent any. But if I've (uncharacteristically) done anything interesting you can make it public. 

I was just worked up about Goethe because I'm interested in color and art and all that. But that topic seems to have blown over now.

[EgoDeath]

A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

The honest answer?

The evidence I've seen, of which there isn't much, isn't very strong in favor of a Historical Jesus. I think the "consensus" that seems to exist which accepts that Jesus was real exists because our society tends to placate the religious among us, because realistically the type of evidence that exists for a Historical Jesus would not stand the test of scrutiny if said evidence was the best thing we had for any other historical figure. So basically, "Probably not, but maybe." would be the most honest answer you'd get from me.

The easy answer?

Just say I don't know. The people in favor of the historical existence of Jesus seem to be adamant that the evidence they have is sufficient, so arguing with them is usually futile.

I usually go with the honest answer, but I'm a little more willing to debate than most, as I don't see anything wrong with discussions where two individuals disagree with one another, it's no big deal. It's just a conversation between two humans who see things differently. Some people, however, hold their beliefs a little closer to their heart and will be offended if you disagree with them. I suppose it's a case of asking yourself, "Do I want to avoid conflict, or try to have an educated, intellectual discussion? How argumentative am I and am I willing to debate?" A combination of that and knowing your audience. If the person you're talking to is prone to getting aggravated and blowing up at you, you may just want to avoid the topic.

Good luck.

[Brian37]

A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

The honest answer?

The evidence I've seen, of which there isn't much, isn't very strong in favor of a Historical Jesus. I think the "consensus" that seems to exist which accepts that Jesus was real exists because our society tends to placate the religious among us, because realistically the type of evidence that exists for a Historical Jesus would not stand the test of scrutiny if said evidence was the best thing we had for any other historical figure. So basically, "Probably not, but maybe." would be the most honest answer you'd get from me.

The easy answer?

Just say I don't know. The people in favor of the historical existence of Jesus seem to be adamant that the evidence they have is sufficient, so arguing with them is usually futile.

I usually go with the honest answer, but I'm a little more willing to debate than most, as I don't see anything wrong with discussions where two individuals disagree with one another, it's no big deal. It's just a conversation between two humans who see things differently. Some people, however, hold their beliefs a little closer to their heart and will be offended if you disagree with them. I suppose it's a case of asking yourself, "Do I want to avoid conflict, or try to have an educated, intellectual discussion? How argumentative am I and am I willing to debate?" A combination of that and knowing your audience. If the person you're talking to is prone to getting aggravated and blowing up at you, you may just want to avoid the topic.

Good luck.

Um no, I disagree. There certainly is strong evidence of a history of making the claim that a man named Jesus existed yes. That cannot be disputed. Claims of Jesus started late in the first century after what the bible claims, but still way after the fact.

A man, but more likely a group of people, a splinter sect of Hebrews got tired of the old ways, and wanted a messiah to come during their time, so they manufactured stories of an underdog hero who stood up to the powers of the time. That did happen, but the actual magic baby with super powers who went on to survive rigor mortis, that did not happen.

There is no mention of the letters in sequence "J-e-s-u-s" or "Jesus" mentioned in the OT. The first mention outside the NT, outside the bible of a "Jesus" by an outside "historian" was Josephus, but again, that was also way after what the bible claims about the character's lifespan.

That says to me, the earliest writings that went on to become part of the final first complete version of the bible, were creating a hero after the fact. The only real argument to be made is that a person, or group of people wanted to start a new religion. But in no case, were the fantastic feats of the claimed character true.

Someone started Christianity, otherwise it would not exist. But the character "Jesus" is infinitely likely to be a product manufactured after the movement started.

[Rahn127]

"Someone started Christianity, otherwise it would not exist."

Very true.
You can't just make up a religion out of thin air.
Some spaghetti monster had to have created it.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

The honest answer?

The evidence I've seen, of which there isn't much, isn't very strong in favor of a Historical Jesus. I think the "consensus" that seems to exist which accepts that Jesus was real exists because our society tends to placate the religious among us, because realistically the type of evidence that exists for a Historical Jesus would not stand the test of scrutiny if said evidence was the best thing we had for any other historical figure. So basically, "Probably not, but maybe." would be the most honest answer you'd get from me.

The easy answer?

Just say I don't know. The people in favor of the historical existence of Jesus seem to be adamant that the evidence they have is sufficient, so arguing with them is usually futile.

I usually go with the honest answer, but I'm a little more willing to debate than most, as I don't see anything wrong with discussions where two individuals disagree with one another, it's no big deal. It's just a conversation between two humans who see things differently. Some people, however, hold their beliefs a little closer to their heart and will be offended if you disagree with them. I suppose it's a case of asking yourself, "Do I want to avoid conflict, or try to have an educated, intellectual discussion? How argumentative am I and am I willing to debate?" A combination of that and knowing your audience. If the person you're talking to is prone to getting aggravated and blowing up at you, you may just want to avoid the topic.

Good luck.

Thank you. There is also another aspect, what if the person you're talking to is not necessarily impolite, but extremely insistent. What if they don't agree to disagree? What if you feel you can't take it anymore? Should you just tell them politely that they're annoying you with their insistance?

[Acrobat]

A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

[Der/die AtheistIn]

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

Do you believe that Jesus actually existed? 
In my case I am not sure he didn't exist. There are many possibilities. Maybe he was based off one or more people who actually existed and didn't have the exact name.

[Acrobat]

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother, we have Josephus writing of his brothers death, we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

Do you believe that Jesus actually existed? 
In my case I am not sure he didn't exist. There are many possibilities. Maybe he was based off one or more people who actually existed and didn't have the exact name.

Yes I believe he existed. I also don’t do maybe, like maybe I’m a brain in a vat.

You take the variety of evidences and form a most likely conclusion  based on them. Historians and others have long been able to break up the gospels, NT writings and confer what they see as belonging to the historical Jesus’s life and message, and other that didn’t.

The world of truth here is dependent on explanations with greater explanatory power.

[Abaddon_ire]

A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that Jesus might've never existed, not even as a regular human. I'm pretty sure that it happens in most if not all cases of coming out to unsopportive friends and family, that the outedt person is asked whenever they believe that Jesus existed as a person and was a good man. What should they respond? Should they tell the truth or change the subject?

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist.

No, just no. Flatties and HDs are plain wrong. there is bugger all evidence for a historical jesus.

We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother,

Sure. Purple monkey dishwasher

we have Josephus writing of his brothers death,

From the church of the latter day fakers.

we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

Attributed by the bible to itself. Hello circular reasoning.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

FFS have you any clue how often this shit has been gone over in excruciating detail?

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

Sure, along with the rest of your fundie christian brethren who claim sandyhook was staged.


Oh, silly me, you have the correct version of christianity all neatly wrapped up, right? Of course you do.

[Acrobat]

I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist.

No, just no. Flatties and HDs are plain wrong. there is bugger all evidence for a historical jesus.

No, flat earthers and holocaust deniers also think their opponents are plain wrong, and that they have no evidence. They claim photos are not evidence, because it was staged, etc..

Evidence is merely the things one draws logical inferences from. I provided a number of evidence, you merely tried to hand waive them away for whatever loopy reasons you had.

We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother,

Sure. Purple monkey dishwasher

Case in point.

we have Josephus writing of his brothers death,

From the church of the latter day fakers.

Nope the portion where Josephus mentions Jesus’s brother is not a Christian fake, but is authentic.

[auote]

we a number of sayings, parables, stories incorporating a unique style of irony, reversals of expectstions, etc.. in mutiple texts, attributed to none other than Jesus.

Attributed by the bible to itself. Hello circular reasoning.

Nope, the Bible is a collection of early Christin writings, that were later compiled together. Saying it can’t be used to derive historical inferences because it’s from believers, is more a product of your own prejudices than anything else. Either you can take these portions and draw a more probable a-historicist conclusion, or a historical one.

In fact Jesus was acknowledged as historical person even from staunch Roman opponent said of Christianity.

FFS have you any clue how often this shit has been gone over in excruciating detail?

No, go over it again.

If you try and explain all the events that transpired and gave rise to the Christian movement, without a historical Jesus, it’s not long before it drifts into the mother of all conspiracy theories, that you start sounding like someone suggesting sandyhook was staged

Sure, along with the rest of your fundie christian brethren who claim sandyhook was staged.

Nice, I've been on this forum all but three minutes, and I've already goytten accused of being a fundie, by your typical angry atheist.