Jesus never existed (video)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 07:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 06:11 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Bucky Ball, "They're biased even if they're atheists if they were religious at any point in their life".

Please point me to where I said that.
I never said that.

(12-12-2015 08:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ehrman used to be an Evangelical Fundamentalist. His views are and will be, forever, colored by his past. Yes he is biased.

Well, that was easy.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 06:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Likewise, that doesn't make them right either.

It's reasonable to trust the expert consensus, unless you find reason to doubt the basis of the consensus. So hundreds of scholars with years upon years of combined experience can still be undermined if they're built upon assumptions that are later questioned and shown to be either unfounded or incorrect, as indeed they should be.

The potential biases of the field is nothing more than a possible piece of a puzzle to help explain things like academic inertia, especially in light of how this fight already played out once before vis-a-vis the mythicism of the Jewish patriarchs. Hell, even Einstein never bought into quantum mechanics, but that didn't make quantum mechanics a less valid explanatory tool. Granted, Einstein not accepting quantum mechanics wasn't evidence in favor of it either, it is merely an example of how even the best and brightest can fight paradigm shift; even one responsible for a major shift himself.

I do not, and indeed should not, give a flying fuck if you find my doubt of the consensus to be in poor taste; provided I have justifiably reasons for my doubt. I've read Ehrman and Carrier and Price, and I think the mythicists have the better arguments.

Plus, I don't appreciate you waving around the 'credentials' stick, as if Carrier and Price are not also trained and accredited experts, or that a degree is a necessary prerequisite to having a seat at the debate table. So I can't read Greek, should I therefore not hold an opinion on the works of others who's work is based off of translated Greek, since I'm unable to read the original myself? If so, might as well shut down this forum, because none of us would be qualified to have an opinion on the Bible.

(14-12-2015 07:12 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 06:11 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I would suggest that you ask your questions in a place like /r/AskHistorians (famous for its sourced, high quality answers) or Historum (historian forum that ghostexorcist is a member of) and report back to us what they say.

I would suggest that discussing the authenticity of an historical religious figure on an atheist website is a perfectly legitimate exercise.

I was not aware that a background in research, teaching, academia or credentials of any sort were required to participate or comment in such discussions.

From what I have read on these forums, there are many other posters like myself, who come from a religious background, where the existence of Christ was 150% guaranteed fact.

In reality, we have no way of knowing whether or not Jesus ever existed.
That fact alone merits discussion.

The answer to both of these posts is the same: I don't have a problem with people discussing a subject that's outside of their own area of expertise. Heck, I do it myself all the time. What I do have a problem with is when people who have little to no training in a given academic field come along and arrogantly proclaim that they know better than the hundreds of experts in said field. Not even one person in this thread, as far as I can see, made a genuine attempt at trying to understand why the experts in the field of history reached a consensus regarding the historicity of Christ.

What people decided to do instead was to a.) deny that there is a consensus even though both prominent irreligious scholars and proponents of mythicism agree that it exists b.) deny the significance of the consensus based on the fact that most Bible scholars are religious c.) dismiss the views of a prominent atheist scholar as biased because he used to be a Christian earlier in his life (something that mysteriously "colors" someone's views for life). It really isn't all that different from the appalling intellectual laziness that Luminon displayed in many of his threads.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 12:54 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 07:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please point me to where I said that.
I never said that.

(12-12-2015 08:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ehrman used to be an Evangelical Fundamentalist. His views are and will be, forever, colored by his past. Yes he is biased.

Well, that was easy.

Unfortunately it was not that easy. I did not say what you said I said.
You GENERALIZED one specific case, and twisted it.
Did you get stupid when you were gone ?
I said ONE person was biased because of his past beliefs.
I made no generalization that you PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTED (yes LIED) about what I said. I also never said anything about "any time" in their past lives.

You owe me an apology for intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

Also "ripe" was not a spelling error. It was a usage error.

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
14-12-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The answer to both of these posts is the same: I don't have a problem with people discussing a subject that's outside of their own area of expertise. Heck, I do it myself all the time. What I do have a problem with is when people who have little to no training in a given academic field come along and arrogantly proclaim that they know better than the hundreds of experts in said field.

Bullshit.

The OP posted a link to a video with a short statement saying that it was new info to them. jennybee posted two replies, one a general statement about there being multiple viewpoints and one linking to a Richard Carrier video. Then you started in on consensus.

(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Not even one person in this thread, as far as I can see, made a genuine attempt at trying to understand why the experts in the field of history reached a consensus regarding the historicity of Christ.

As I noted above, you didn't give anyone a chance.

(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What people decided to do instead was to a.) deny that there is a consensus even though both prominent irreligious scholars and proponents of mythicism agree that it exists b.) deny the significance of the consensus based on the fact that most Bible scholars are religious c.) dismiss the views of a prominent atheist scholar as biased because he used to be a Christian earlier in his life (something that mysteriously "colors" someone's views for life). It really isn't all that different from the appalling intellectual laziness that Luminon displayed in many of his threads.

You set this discussion on the consensus path.

You set the tone of it by criticizing and belittling other posters.

If this thread is not up to your academic standards, how do your posts improve it? You did not provide any links or citations or do anything beyond what everyone else has done.

And you accuse the posters in this thread of arrogance?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 01:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unfortunately it was not that easy. I did not say what you said I said.
You GENERALIZED one specific case, and twisted it.
Did you get stupid when you were gone ?
I said ONE person was biased because of his past beliefs.
I made no generalization that you PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTED (yes LIED) about what I said. I also never said anything about "any time" in their past lives.

You owe me an apology for intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

Also "ripe" was not a spelling error. It was a usage error.
Well, it didn't take long for you to lose your manners again. You didn't change much while I was gone, that's for sure. Having said that, I don't think I owe you anything because I don't think that I misrepresented you. To claim that I did so on purpose with the intention of lying is just another one of the baseless conjectures you've been throwing around in this thread. What I see is someone trying to backpedal after making an absurd and frankly, completely indefensible statement. The part about "at any point in their past lives" is a direct implication of your claim that Ehrman's religious past colors his views forever. I'll illustrate it to make it easier to understand.

Here's an example of someone who is currently 30 years old, was a Christian from ages 13 to 23 and deconverted at 24.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + - - - - - - -

+ (years in which person Y was religious)
- (years in which person X was not religious)
green (views are colored)
red (views are not colored)
You can change the value for + as much as you like in this illustration, it won't affect the end result. In other words, it doesn't matter at what point in their life someone was religious, they will always end up with colored views because the 'coloration' allegedly lasts forever. If, as you say, I was simply generalizing your statements about Ehrman when I applied them to other people, then you should be able to explain what exactly it is about Ehrman's past that makes him such a unique snowflake. Why doesn't the rationale behind your claims about him apply to anyone else with a religious past?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 02:01 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  The answer to both of these posts is the same: I don't have a problem with people discussing a subject that's outside of their own area of expertise. Heck, I do it myself all the time. What I do have a problem with is when people who have little to no training in a given academic field come along and arrogantly proclaim that they know better than the hundreds of experts in said field.

Bullshit.

The OP posted a link to a video with a short statement saying that it was new info to them. jennybee posted two replies, one a general statement about there being multiple viewpoints and one linking to a Richard Carrier video. Then you started in on consensus.

(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Not even one person in this thread, as far as I can see, made a genuine attempt at trying to understand why the experts in the field of history reached a consensus regarding the historicity of Christ.

As I noted above, you didn't give anyone a chance.

(14-12-2015 01:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What people decided to do instead was to a.) deny that there is a consensus even though both prominent irreligious scholars and proponents of mythicism agree that it exists b.) deny the significance of the consensus based on the fact that most Bible scholars are religious c.) dismiss the views of a prominent atheist scholar as biased because he used to be a Christian earlier in his life (something that mysteriously "colors" someone's views for life). It really isn't all that different from the appalling intellectual laziness that Luminon displayed in many of his threads.

You set this discussion on the consensus path.

You set the tone of it by criticizing and belittling other posters.

If this thread is not up to your academic standards, how do your posts improve it? You did not provide any links or citations or do anything beyond what everyone else has done.

And you accuse the posters in this thread of arrogance?
You're not making a whole lot of sense. There was ample opportunity for Bucky Ball, the first person to respond to my post, to demonstrate curiosity about why there is a consensus regarding the historicity of Christ in the corresponding academic community. Yet, that isn't what he did, not even close. BB instead denied the existence of an unbiased consensus and made the arrogant claim that most, if not all of the historians who reached this consensus are biased.

He furthermore asserted that 99% of the historians who reached this consensus never seriously entertained the possibility that Jesus may not have existed. The obvious hyperbole aside, he has no knowledge about what the individual historians did or did not consider, what their religious background is or what their personal views are. He simply presumes to know all this and then uses those assumptions to handwave away the decades of academic research that we can point to when we say that there is a consensus. If you don't think that this is the epitome of arrogance and close-mindedness, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 04:05 PM
Jesus never existed (video)
(12-12-2015 10:33 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(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?

What verse is that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 04:05 PM)musicharmony87 Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 10:33 AM)jennybee Wrote:  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?

What verse is that?

Just about all of them. Genesis 1:1 is a good start when it states that god made heaven and Earth, then the sun on day three. Facepalm

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
14-12-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
I read Richard Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus, which is aimed at scholars. I am not a scholar. I am also not convinced. I think the best explanation for early Christianity is that there was some Jesus dude out there whose followers believed he was the Christ. More than one, in fact. The majority of what we know about him is bullshit, of course. But what Carrier calls the "minimalist historicity" position makes the most sense to me.

I would be willing to bet that this Jesus fellow was baptized by John the Baptist and executed on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Everything else is not reliable, historically. John the Baptist's cousin? Yeah right. Born during the Quirinian census? Not if Herod was alive. Walked on water? Bullshit.

But did he exist at all? I think so.

Paul says he was born of a woman, born under the law. I think the natural reading of those verses makes more sense than Carrier's counterargument, that they refer to a celestial birth and not a literal, here on earth birth.

But again, I'm not a scholar. I can't refute Carrier anymore than I can refute Ehrman. I want Carrier to be right. But I can't bring myself to agree that mythicism fits the facts better than historicity. It doesn't. Some fellow named Jesus probably existed. And died. And is still dead.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 09:31 PM
RE: Jesus never existed (video)
(14-12-2015 03:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You're not making a whole lot of sense.

(12-12-2015 06:20 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't understand what you're getting at.

I'm sensing a pattern. You seem to be adept at finding fault with everyone else, yet unable to understand when your own issues are pointed out.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: