Jesus never existed (video)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-12-2015, 06:43 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 12:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In science it is the scientists themselves who are constantly trying to prove each other wrong, because not only is doing so a great way to keep everyone honest, it's also a great way to gain prestige if your work overturns another; and the more established the work is that you've overturned, the more prestige you gain for making a bigger paradigm shift.

Also we have already seen the biblical scholarship shun, attack, and otherwise ostracize their own whenever someone rocks the boat too much. Just look at the history in regards to the historicity of the Jewish patriarchs. Those who proposed, backed, or otherwise supported the idea that Moses, Abraham, and David were myth were blacklisted by their peers. The biblical scholarship community, consisting of people with degrees not just from Harvard but also from such backwater institutions such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, represents a very different spectrum of competency than does evolutionary biologists with accredited degrees.


If someone could overthrow evolution with a theory that explained all of the evidence better, they'd be a living legend. If their work withstood scrutiny and peer review, the community would come around; as would many multi-billion dollar industries that rely upon good science. But Christianity is heavily invested in the assumption that Jesus really existed, they have to be; and they are the money behind the vast majority of biblical scholarship. The religion can change, does change, and will change; it is a marvel of social evolution. But while it can mold itself to absorb evolutionary theory and modern cosmology, it cannot do that with mythicism. Or at least, not in the same way or to the same degree. It's possible, and we might yet see 'cultural Christians' in the way we see cultural Jews and others within that faith that already accept the mythical origins of the Torah and their patriarchs.
That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is something else entirely. History is absolutely ripe with examples of scientists whose theories became mainstream science only after years of being ostracized and shunned by the scientific community. That and there are a bunch of special interest groups who regularly invest a lot of money into science to benefit their agenda (Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.). It's naive to pretend like the scientific community is so noble as to be above the sort of behavior that you criticize the community of biblical scholars for. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your point, it just means that research can never be free of biases because someone is always providing the funding for research. An argument could be made that few people, in general, would dare bite the hand that feeds them.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
12-12-2015, 06:48 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 06:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 12:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In science it is the scientists themselves who are constantly trying to prove each other wrong, because not only is doing so a great way to keep everyone honest, it's also a great way to gain prestige if your work overturns another; and the more established the work is that you've overturned, the more prestige you gain for making a bigger paradigm shift.

Also we have already seen the biblical scholarship shun, attack, and otherwise ostracize their own whenever someone rocks the boat too much. Just look at the history in regards to the historicity of the Jewish patriarchs. Those who proposed, backed, or otherwise supported the idea that Moses, Abraham, and David were myth were blacklisted by their peers. The biblical scholarship community, consisting of people with degrees not just from Harvard but also from such backwater institutions such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, represents a very different spectrum of competency than does evolutionary biologists with accredited degrees.


If someone could overthrow evolution with a theory that explained all of the evidence better, they'd be a living legend. If their work withstood scrutiny and peer review, the community would come around; as would many multi-billion dollar industries that rely upon good science. But Christianity is heavily invested in the assumption that Jesus really existed, they have to be; and they are the money behind the vast majority of biblical scholarship. The religion can change, does change, and will change; it is a marvel of social evolution. But while it can mold itself to absorb evolutionary theory and modern cosmology, it cannot do that with mythicism. Or at least, not in the same way or to the same degree. It's possible, and we might yet see 'cultural Christians' in the way we see cultural Jews and others within that faith that already accept the mythical origins of the Torah and their patriarchs.
That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is something else entirely. History is absolutely ripe with examples of scientists whose theories became mainstream science only after years of being ostracized and shunned by the scientific community. That and there are a bunch of special interest groups who regularly invest a lot of money into science to benefit their agenda (Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.). It's naive to pretend like the scientific community is so noble as to be above the sort of behavior that you criticize the community of biblical scholars for. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your point, it just means that research can never be free of biases because someone is always providing the funding for research. An argument could be made that few people, in general, would dare bite the hand that feeds them.

Agreed, but in the end, the evidence wins out. All of the fallacious bullshit was shown to be fallacious by other scientists.

Science is a self correcting process, history is not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 06:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Since when was Ehrman an atheist? I've only ever seen him identify himself as an agnostic. Consider
The man himself said so on his own website a few years ago. Tongue

"As to not being clear: I’ve repeatedly said I’m both an atheist (about what I believe) and an agnostic (about what I know). Is there some way to be clearer?"
Source: http://ehrmanblog.org/am-i-an-agnostic-or-an-atheist-2/

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 07:05 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 06:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Agreed, but in the end, the evidence wins out. All of the fallacious bullshit was shown to be fallacious by other scientists.

Science is a self correcting process, history is not.
Good point, but it's also one of the reasons why I think that the idea of mythicism doesn't hold a lot of merit. The manuscripts that are used as evidence for and against the historicity of Christ are the same ones that have been studied by countless historians for the past millennium. As far as I can tell, mythicists aren't skeptical of the historicity of Jesus based on a new discovery in the field of history, but based on a general distrust of the accounts about Jesus' life, the Gospels in particular. I'm too much of a layman to have an educated opinion on the subject, though the views of those who doubt the validity of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony do tend to make more sense to me.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
12-12-2015, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2015 05:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(11-12-2015 10:04 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-12-2015 09:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Show me ONE poll of any "experts" in the field. It's not "conjecture and hyperbole" to assume that people EMPLOYED by religious institutions are "occupationally obligated" to tow the line. It's just healthy skepticism. There is no "body" of non-religious experts in the field that even talk about the subject. The claim is that there is a consensus. Where did you get that idea ?
Now you're just being silly. A consensus is the sum of all published scholarly works and papers in a given field, not the result of an opinion poll. Do you think you'd be able to provide, say, Luminon with a single poll which attested to the fact that the majority of physicists don't believe in the existence of Ether? Of course not. The reason we know that is because that's what the vast majority of the scientific literature on the subject points towards.

Come on, Bucky. Even Bart Ehrman, one of the world's most prominent irreligious scholars, said the following in his book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth: "He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."

Are you going to tell me that he's biased as well?

He and Carrier had a huge fight. In the end, Ehrman backed off, and stopped responding to Carrier's points and questions. Ehrman used to be an Evangelical Fundamentalist. His views are and will be, forever, colored by his past. Yes he is biased. Carrier and Price ARE competent scholars. The historicity argument is about the history, and the evidence. All the (so-called) "evidence" has holes in it. It's not about who holds what views. You yourself have admitted you are too much of a "layman" to actually be in the debate itself.

"Concensus" is a claim made by many. It needs evidential support. Statements by believers are not unbiased evidence. If on examination, the supposed "consensus" is 99% comprised of believers who never really even considered non-existence a real possibility, then it can be questioned and dismissed as not serious.

For those that never even thought about his "non-existence" it seems preposterous. In fact Carrier makes some good arguments, (the structure of the gospels is that of mythology), and to me (not one of Carrier's arguments BTW) it seems mighty strange that the theology and content of the writings (Acts and the gospels) are FAR more *developed and complex* than one would expect a nascient cult to have, and reflects a LATER period, (the gospels reflect the concerns of Rabbinic Judaism post diaspora, and post temple destruction, NOT early First Century), and the theological content developed later ... so something is very very screwy. Maybe he did exist. There were lots of Jesuses. There were lots of dying and rising sons of gods. They were a dime a dozen. So what. The gospels were totally invented and do not reflect in any way, "history". So the Jesus of the gospels was a myth. Whether there happened to be a Jesus or not, is then, rather irrelevant. The point is, (as Atwill attempts to do), is to examine what was the intent of the writings, and determine what purpose they served, not to determine whether a character in them was real or not. We know most of what was said about him, if not all, was made up or assembled and re-assembled, to serve whatever purposes that (those) were.

Ehrman once made a comment that he dismissed (a) "political" motivation behind the early development of Christianity as "cynical". But we know for a fact that religion was used as a tool, for exactly that, as a politically unifying force, again and again in the ancient world (Judaism, Rome, the Greek empire and the Islamic/Arabic expansion). I see no reason to exempt Christianity from at least the possibility of having been cooked up for that reason.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
As atheists, we are constantly confronted with the theists that equate Jesus existing as validating the entire New Testament. The stronger argument to make is that the miracle working son of god didn't exist. But try talking a fundie down from their head-in-the-clouds position using measured and thoughtful words.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 08:44 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  As atheists, we are constantly confronted with the theists that equate Jesus existing as validating the entire New Testament. The stronger argument to make is that the miracle working son of god didn't exist. But try talking a fundie down from their head-in-the-clouds position using measured and thoughtful words.

I think what really helped me is tearing apart the first section of the OT--i.e. Genesis. God lies right out of the gate. How can you trust anything He "god-breathes" into scripture after that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
12-12-2015, 10:59 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 06:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is something else entirely. History is absolutely ripe *** with examples of scientists whose theories became mainstream science only after years of being ostracized and shunned by the scientific community. That and there are a bunch of special interest groups who regularly invest a lot of money into science to benefit their agenda (Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.). It's naive to pretend like the scientific community is so noble as to be above the sort of behavior that you criticize the community of biblical scholars for. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your point, it just means that research can never be free of biases because someone is always providing the funding for research. An argument could be made that few people, in general, would dare bite the hand that feeds them.

*** rife
http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rife/?_r=0

Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-12-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 10:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 06:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  That sounds nice in theory, but the reality is something else entirely. History is absolutely ripe *** with examples of scientists whose theories became mainstream science only after years of being ostracized and shunned by the scientific community. That and there are a bunch of special interest groups who regularly invest a lot of money into science to benefit their agenda (Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.). It's naive to pretend like the scientific community is so noble as to be above the sort of behavior that you criticize the community of biblical scholars for. That doesn't mean that I disagree with your point, it just means that research can never be free of biases because someone is always providing the funding for research. An argument could be made that few people, in general, would dare bite the hand that feeds them.

*** rife
http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rife/?_r=0

Tongue

I believe he needs to give you a rep point for that. I'm still waiting on my three he owes me. Cool

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(11-12-2015 10:08 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-12-2015 09:41 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  What happens when it is a bunch of theologians who make their living peddling bullshit to the ignorant masses? Oh, I know. THEY don't have an AGENDA like the skeptics, do they?
Well, similar arguments have been advanced by some Creationists, e.g. that most scientists support the theory of evolution because they would be fired or have their funding cut if they publicly came out against it or because it supports their atheistic world views. I don't think I need to point out why baseless conjecture like that is absurd.

And if creationists had any evidence that life began 6,000 years ago in the middle east they would have to be taken seriously.

The Historical Jesus crowd ( which cannot even agree among themselves what a "historical jesus" means has only their bible nonsense which, in case Ehrman forgot, he has spent 20 years trashing as heavily edited, error-ridden, crap. Still, having spent a career pissing in the pond he now wants to say "it's okay, I found a clean spot you can drink from." Thanks, Bart....but no sale.

We have nothing but the pious blather of early believers for their boy. Not a single Greco-Roman writer heard of any "jesus" until Celsus in the late 2d century.

You can ignore these facts if you wish - as obviously you do - but they remain.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: