My Take on Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 09:46 PM
RE: My Take on Atheism
A simpler take on atheism....

I don't believe in gods

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
03-09-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: My Take on Atheism
(03-09-2015 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 08:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  There is quite a bit more debate about the work of Tacitus, problems with the passage's meaning and citations, and whether he was citing from lost Roman official documents or hearsay sources for his information, which are not from Carrier.

Again, in main stream academia, there is no debate at all about where Tacitus got his sources. None whatsoever. Here is a little sampling of why:

Tacitus Opens His Annals With This:

[1:1]
"The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus - more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed."

Tacitus' View On Hearsay:

[4.11]
"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance."

Tacitus On His Sources For The Great Fires of Rome, Which Includes Christ and the Christians:

[15.38]" A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts."

It's obvious that Tacitus was accessing previously written Roman records for his information on the Great Fires of Rome, which includes Christ and the Christians. Not only that, in the very next paragraph after the mention of Christ, we see this:

[15:45] According to some writers, poison was prepared for him at Nero's command by his own freedman, whose name was Cleonicus.

And again we see Tacitus accessing previously written Roman records.

But also ...

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea..."

The above quote actually tells us many things:

1. It shows the history of Nero, consistent with Tacitus' chapter on Nero.
2. It names Christ as being the originator of the Christian religion.
3. It names a high ranking Roman official, Pontius Pilate, as Christ's executioner.
4. It show that a superstition broke out (arguably, the resurrection) in Judea as a result of the execution of Christ, demonstrating that Pilate was, in fact, in Judea.
5. It names a Caesar, Tiberius, within the text.

All of this is completely consistent with Tacitus' works, and it is virtually unanimous in the academic world that it is 100% Tacitian. This is not even about Christ. It's all about Nero, and Christ is just a very small part of this Neronian history.

This "procurator verses prefect" business is insane. The Pilate Inscription shows he was a Prefect, which is just fine. The early governors of Judaea were of Prefect rank, the later governors were of Procurator rank. At the time there was absolutely no difference between the two. Their functions were identical, and therefore any governor could be considered as being either a Prefect or a Procurator. The titles were interchangeable, and so they were also within the Roman ranks.

It is entirely plausible that Pontius Pilate was first a Prefect, and then as the title of Procurator emerged within 5 years of him being governor of Judea, his rank title was changed within the Roman ranks and records as that of a Procurator.

In short, the titles of the governors of Judea was changed from Prefect to Procurator in Ad 41 - 44, a few short years after Pilate's commission in Judea. Therefore, Pilate started out in Judea as a Prefect, but his title and rank was later changed to Procurator by the Roman administration.

You can read more here.

So the question of Tacitus using hearsay has been answered by Tacitus himself. Actual history tells you all the rest you need to know. You won't find this on Jesus Mythicist sites, or from Carrier, as actual history simply does not work with their conspiracy theory agenda.

Tacitus was indeed known for working meticulously from records, but your giant response does not address whether or not the claims about the "Christ" were based on written records. It's not an all or nothing proposition, especially since written records, "authors have given both accounts", can still constitute hearsay.

And this is the reason I have not previously engaged with you in your other discussions on this, Free, and why they "bug" me. I accept that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. You're attacking as though that is not the case.

None of the above indicates in any way that Jesus was a miracle man, let alone God, nor does it indicate that the stories about him (or the followers who caused the troubles), including the crucifixion, were from official Roman records or simply the works of various authors (Christians?) who testified to this information. Even if we grant the supposition that he was working from official Roman records, that only makes it worse for the Christians' case, because he would certainly not have omitted specific examples of the troubles in Judea, such as zombie infestations or sudden, inexplicable darkness. In short, Tacitus and the others indicate that Christians existed, but does not provide much in the way of evidence that the Gospels are true in any respect, except to cite that the Anointed One was crucified by Pilate, a story he may have been passing on (as a footnote to the actions of Nero) from claims offered to him by Christians in Rome.

Conclusion (by me, having read the various arguments, of which you have cited nothing new) : there was a rabbi, called the Anointed One by a cult of followers that existed in the mid to late first century, who lived in the Roman province of Judea in the early first century, and who appears to have been executed by Pilate as a way of suppressing an anti-Roman cult... unsuccessfully, as noted by Tacitus, requiring measures by Emperor Nero in response to complaints he was receiving about their "abominations". Even Tacitus appears skeptical about the claim by Nero that the fire was set by Christians, indicating to me that he was reading authors from both sides of that debate.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
04-09-2015, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 07:35 AM by Free.)
RE: My Take on Atheism
(03-09-2015 09:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 09:12 PM)Free Wrote:  Again, in main stream academia, there is no debate at all about where Tacitus got his sources. None whatsoever. Here is a little sampling of why:

Tacitus Opens His Annals With This:

[1:1]
"The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus - more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed."

Tacitus' View On Hearsay:

[4.11]
"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request all into whose hands my work shall come, not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history which has not been perverted into romance."

Tacitus On His Sources For The Great Fires of Rome, Which Includes Christ and the Christians:

[15.38]" A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts."

It's obvious that Tacitus was accessing previously written Roman records for his information on the Great Fires of Rome, which includes Christ and the Christians. Not only that, in the very next paragraph after the mention of Christ, we see this:

[15:45] According to some writers, poison was prepared for him at Nero's command by his own freedman, whose name was Cleonicus.

And again we see Tacitus accessing previously written Roman records.

But also ...

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea..."

The above quote actually tells us many things:

1. It shows the history of Nero, consistent with Tacitus' chapter on Nero.
2. It names Christ as being the originator of the Christian religion.
3. It names a high ranking Roman official, Pontius Pilate, as Christ's executioner.
4. It show that a superstition broke out (arguably, the resurrection) in Judea as a result of the execution of Christ, demonstrating that Pilate was, in fact, in Judea.
5. It names a Caesar, Tiberius, within the text.

All of this is completely consistent with Tacitus' works, and it is virtually unanimous in the academic world that it is 100% Tacitian. This is not even about Christ. It's all about Nero, and Christ is just a very small part of this Neronian history.

This "procurator verses prefect" business is insane. The Pilate Inscription shows he was a Prefect, which is just fine. The early governors of Judaea were of Prefect rank, the later governors were of Procurator rank. At the time there was absolutely no difference between the two. Their functions were identical, and therefore any governor could be considered as being either a Prefect or a Procurator. The titles were interchangeable, and so they were also within the Roman ranks.

It is entirely plausible that Pontius Pilate was first a Prefect, and then as the title of Procurator emerged within 5 years of him being governor of Judea, his rank title was changed within the Roman ranks and records as that of a Procurator.

In short, the titles of the governors of Judea was changed from Prefect to Procurator in Ad 41 - 44, a few short years after Pilate's commission in Judea. Therefore, Pilate started out in Judea as a Prefect, but his title and rank was later changed to Procurator by the Roman administration.

You can read more here.

So the question of Tacitus using hearsay has been answered by Tacitus himself. Actual history tells you all the rest you need to know. You won't find this on Jesus Mythicist sites, or from Carrier, as actual history simply does not work with their conspiracy theory agenda.

Tacitus was indeed known for working meticulously from records, but your giant response does not address whether or not the claims about the "Christ" were based on written records. It's not an all or nothing proposition, especially since written records, "authors have given both accounts", can still constitute hearsay.

And this is the reason I have not previously engaged with you in your other discussions on this, Free, and why they "bug" me. I accept that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. You're attacking as though that is not the case.

None of the above indicates in any way that Jesus was a miracle man, let alone God, nor does it indicate that the stories about him (or the followers who caused the troubles), including the crucifixion, were from official Roman records or simply the works of various authors (Christians?) who testified to this information. Even if we grant the supposition that he was working from official Roman records, that only makes it worse for the Christians' case, because he would certainly not have omitted specific examples of the troubles in Judea, such as zombie infestations or sudden, inexplicable darkness. In short, Tacitus and the others indicate that Christians existed, but does not provide much in the way of evidence that the Gospels are true in any respect, except to cite that the Anointed One was crucified by Pilate, a story he may have been passing on (as a footnote to the actions of Nero) from claims offered to him by Christians in Rome.

Conclusion (by me, having read the various arguments, of which you have cited nothing new) : there was a rabbi, called the Anointed One by a cult of followers that existed in the mid to late first century, who lived in the Roman province of Judea in the early first century, and who appears to have been executed by Pilate as a way of suppressing an anti-Roman cult... unsuccessfully, as noted by Tacitus, requiring measures by Emperor Nero in response to complaints he was receiving about their "abominations". Even Tacitus appears skeptical about the claim by Nero that the fire was set by Christians, indicating to me that he was reading authors from both sides of that debate.

Not directed to you specifically, but ...

Here is exactly why professional academics actually laugh at the Jesis Mythicist question regarding Tacitus' sources:

Within the context of the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ & the Christians- Tacitus is seen accessing previously written Roman records at least twice. Within his Annals, he is seen accessing all types of Roman records countless times, as well as doing some fact checking with living persons such as Pliny the Younger.

Now here is why academics laugh at Jesus Mythicists on this question. All they do is ask a couple of simple questions:

Q: Does the Tacitus text regarding the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ and the Christians- provide any evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay?

A: No it certainly does not. The only evidence it provides is that Tacitus used previously written Roman records.

Q: Since there is no evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay, how then can anyone justify any possible claim that he used hearsay?

A: They have no evidence whatsoever to justify the claim.



And that is exactly why Jesus Mythicists get laughed at. Their assertions regarding hearsay are unsupported, conclusively refuted with evidence, and dismissed as nothing more than denialism.

That's how actual history works, and it doesn't matter in the slightest how Carrier or any idiotic Jesus Mythicist puts a spin on it. And if people don't like it, that's not a problem that historians can solve for them.

Hence, this claim about "hearsay" is a non evidenced assertion that is 100% dismissed by 99.9% of historians.

So what is the usual Jesus Mythicist response to this? Here it is:

But you still haven't proven conclusively that Tacitus didn't use hearsay!

Remember the Burden of Proof? Jesus Mythicists are making a positive claim that Tacitus possibly used hearsay. Therefore, they are obligated to provide evidence to support this claim.

They have failed to meet the burden of proof.

But historians have met the burden of proof.


Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 07:38 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
(04-09-2015 07:16 AM)Free Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 09:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Tacitus was indeed known for working meticulously from records, but your giant response does not address whether or not the claims about the "Christ" were based on written records. It's not an all or nothing proposition, especially since written records, "authors have given both accounts", can still constitute hearsay.

And this is the reason I have not previously engaged with you in your other discussions on this, Free, and why they "bug" me. I accept that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. You're attacking as though that is not the case.

None of the above indicates in any way that Jesus was a miracle man, let alone God, nor does it indicate that the stories about him (or the followers who caused the troubles), including the crucifixion, were from official Roman records or simply the works of various authors (Christians?) who testified to this information. Even if we grant the supposition that he was working from official Roman records, that only makes it worse for the Christians' case, because he would certainly not have omitted specific examples of the troubles in Judea, such as zombie infestations or sudden, inexplicable darkness. In short, Tacitus and the others indicate that Christians existed, but does not provide much in the way of evidence that the Gospels are true in any respect, except to cite that the Anointed One was crucified by Pilate, a story he may have been passing on (as a footnote to the actions of Nero) from claims offered to him by Christians in Rome.

Conclusion (by me, having read the various arguments, of which you have cited nothing new) : there was a rabbi, called the Anointed One by a cult of followers that existed in the mid to late first century, who lived in the Roman province of Judea in the early first century, and who appears to have been executed by Pilate as a way of suppressing an anti-Roman cult... unsuccessfully, as noted by Tacitus, requiring measures by Emperor Nero in response to complaints he was receiving about their "abominations". Even Tacitus appears skeptical about the claim by Nero that the fire was set by Christians, indicating to me that he was reading authors from both sides of that debate.

Not directed to you specifically, but ...

Here is exactly why professional academics actually laugh at the Jesis Mythicist question regarding Tacitus' sources:

Within the context of the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ & the Christians- Tacitus is seen accessing previously written Roman records at least twice. Within his Annals, he is seen accessing all types of Roman records countless times, as well as doing some fact checking with living persons such as Pliny the Younger.

Now here is why academics laugh at Jesus Mythicists on this question. All they do is ask a couple of simple questions:

Q: Does the Tacitus text regarding the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ and the Christians- provide any evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay?

A: No it certainly does not. The only evidence it provides is that Tacitus used previously written Roman records.

Q: Since there is no evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay, how then can anyone justify any possible claim that he used hearsay?

A: They have no evidence whatsoever to justify the claim.



And that is exactly why Jesus Mythicists get laughed at. Their assertions regarding hearsay are unsupported, conclusively refuted with evidence, and dismissed as nothing more than denialism.

That's how actual history works, and it doesn't matter in the slightest how Carrier or any idiotic Jesus Mythicist puts a spin on it. And if people don't like it, that's not a problem that historians can solve for them.

Hence, this claim about "hearsay" is a non evidenced assertion that is 100% dismissed by 99.9% of historians.

So what is the usual Jesus Mythicist response to this? Here it is:

But you still haven't proven conclusively that Tacitus didn't use hearsay!

Remember the Burden of Proof? Jesus Mythicists are making a positive claim that Tacitus possibly used hearsay. Therefore, they are obligated to provide evidence to support this claim.

They have failed to meet the burden of proof.

But historians have met the burden of proof.


Big Grin

Free: Always assuming it's not hearsay unless it can be show otherwise, instead of, you know, just not assuming it's authenticity unless it can be verified. You know, null hypothesis type stuff.

And around and around the circle we go. I swear, you're as bad at shifting the burden of proof as any theist. There's a reason why people don't likes to engage with you anymore. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-09-2015, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 08:25 AM by Free.)
RE: My Take on Atheism
(04-09-2015 07:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 07:16 AM)Free Wrote:  Not directed to you specifically, but ...

Here is exactly why professional academics actually laugh at the Jesis Mythicist question regarding Tacitus' sources:

Within the context of the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ & the Christians- Tacitus is seen accessing previously written Roman records at least twice. Within his Annals, he is seen accessing all types of Roman records countless times, as well as doing some fact checking with living persons such as Pliny the Younger.

Now here is why academics laugh at Jesus Mythicists on this question. All they do is ask a couple of simple questions:

Q: Does the Tacitus text regarding the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ and the Christians- provide any evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay?

A: No it certainly does not. The only evidence it provides is that Tacitus used previously written Roman records.

Q: Since there is no evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay, how then can anyone justify any possible claim that he used hearsay?

A: They have no evidence whatsoever to justify the claim.



And that is exactly why Jesus Mythicists get laughed at. Their assertions regarding hearsay are unsupported, conclusively refuted with evidence, and dismissed as nothing more than denialism.

That's how actual history works, and it doesn't matter in the slightest how Carrier or any idiotic Jesus Mythicist puts a spin on it. And if people don't like it, that's not a problem that historians can solve for them.

Hence, this claim about "hearsay" is a non evidenced assertion that is 100% dismissed by 99.9% of historians.

So what is the usual Jesus Mythicist response to this? Here it is:

But you still haven't proven conclusively that Tacitus didn't use hearsay!

Remember the Burden of Proof? Jesus Mythicists are making a positive claim that Tacitus possibly used hearsay. Therefore, they are obligated to provide evidence to support this claim.

They have failed to meet the burden of proof.

But historians have met the burden of proof.


Big Grin

Free: Always assuming it's not hearsay unless it can be show otherwise, instead of, you know, just not assuming it's authenticity unless it can be verified. You know, null hypothesis type stuff.

And around and around the circle we go. I swear, you're as bad at shifting the burden of proof as any theist. There's a reason why people don't likes to engage with you anymore. Drinking Beverage

Good morning, and sorry that I am about to piss all over your fucking cornflakes.

And there you are; assuming the possibility of hearsay without ever providing one single stitch of evidence to support the claim.

YOU have the burden of proof, not me or the historians. Get it?

If not, then the next time I see your sorry ass telling any fucking theist that he must meet the burden of proof I will call out your sorry ass as nothing more than a fucking hypocrite and an intellectually dishonest prick. It's fucking hilarious how you Jesus Mythicists employ a double standard regarding the burden of proof.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
If we're going to discuss whether or not Jesus was a real person, don't we have to ask, which Jesus? I think it extremely likely that there was a guy names Jesus who went around preaching the end of the world, got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified. Apparently he was not the only person preaching the end of the world around then, and he was certainly not the only person who was crucified.

But I reject out of hand that there was a person named Jesus (or anything else) who raised the dead, turned water to wine, and rose bodily from the grave three days after being crucified and buried. For one thing, the Romans did not permit the burial of people who'd been crucified. Being left on the cross and eaten by animals after you were dead was part of the punishment since, in Roman theology, your spirit could not find rest if you were not buried. For another, it's all obvious bullshit.

So, there was most likely a real Jesus, and there's a mythological Jesus, and the two are so unlike each other that conflating them seems ridiculous. And, FWIW, although the character of the mythological Jesus is pretty well set nowadays, this was not always the case. Before the Trinitarians slaughtered all their opponents, there were many christologies, each with its own very different mythological Jesus. There were at least a half a dozen, and maybe far more, distinct mythological Jesuses.

And considering how unreliable the Bible is, we don't even know if his name was really Jesus. Maybe, as Monty Python suggested, the guy who was crucified was actually named Brian. What does that do to the historicity argument? Can you say there was a historical Jesus if his name was actually Brian?

And to make matters even better, it's unlikely that there was only one person named Jesus. It's a common name in Latin American countries today.

So, was there a historical Jesus? Yes, tons of them. And there still are. And what does it really matter? Religion is still bullshit.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like daniel1948's post
04-09-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
It's a conspiracy, maaaaan!

Q: Does the Tacitus text regarding the Great Fires of Rome- which includes Christ and the Christians- provide any evidence whatsoever that Tacitus used hearsay?

A: If you're using the phrase "which includes Christ and the Christians" in your question, it shows you're a really bad historian, because you're assuming the whole passage is one thing, rather than a composite of data from numerous reports, as Tacitus himself says it is. Information sources for each piece of data in his report can be different, and there are things that are extremely strange omissions (detailed in my previous reply) if he is reading that particular part on the basis of official (or as you say, "previously written") Roman records. You simply cannot assume that the whole thing is based on records, when Tacitus is so specific about what part he is referring to as based on the written reports, regarding the main subject of discussion, the actions of Emperor Nero. It appears pretty clear that the "Chrestus/Christus" stuff is just a footnote, and comes from various sources which, even if written down, are not necessarily Roman Empire records, but could simply be various written reports he collected from various sources regarding the fire, as he appears to indicate, there.

The burden of proof is on you, making the clear implication that they were Roman records, rather than witness statements and/or claims made by common citizens of Rome that he gathered as part of his own efforts to piece together a composite story, as historians (even accurate ones) must sometimes do when conclusive proof is unavailable, even if it is their usual practice to provide detailed documentary evidence when possible.

The surmise that it appears to be written hearsay rather than official Roman Empire documents is an argument developed by a number of historians, not just Carrier, so your attempts to call the whole thing "Jesus mythicist" is a red herring, and a bad one. And again, considering our earliest copy of this thing is 11th century, copied by Christian monks 1000 years after it was purportedly written, I think no matter how unpopular his surmise may be, we should pay close attention to small details that imply something may have been interpolated (he cites to a removed section from a few pages prior, for instance), and must consider the whole weight of the evidence, not just that which has become chic in historian circles. But when you push the argument back in the direction of the mythicist element, it strikes me as an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. It is ground you know well how to defend, and I can sympathize, but it's not the point being made, here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-09-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
(03-09-2015 04:15 PM)jabeady Wrote:  It's well-known that it's impossible to prove a negative (there is no god), so demanding that someone do so is inherently a dishonest deflection of the conversation.
The inverse is equally true. Claiming to have proof of an unfalsifiable proposition is also a complete misdirection. Particularly when standards of proof are basically nonexistent and consist of holy writ, subjective personal experience, and flawed logic.

In an environment like these fora, about every 100th theist I encounter is happy to admit that they believe despite (lack of) evidence, and their faith-claims are no better than the next person's. In the real world, it's more like 1 out of 10 (I think most of those who hold their faith loosely aren't interested in debating it). I get along fine with such theists and they get along fine with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
(04-09-2015 08:37 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  If we're going to discuss whether or not Jesus was a real person, don't we have to ask, which Jesus? I think it extremely likely that there was a guy names Jesus who went around preaching the end of the world, got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified. Apparently he was not the only person preaching the end of the world around then, and he was certainly not the only person who was crucified.
I think it more likely he's a composite character or an outright fabrication, but yes, as an historical figure he's far more likely than a miracle-working god-man.

The only source concerning this Jesus is the NT. Secular mentions are nearly non-existent and the ones we have are of very uncertain provenance ... the best and clearest one (Josephus) has all the hallmarks of a pious fraud.

What clears it up for me is reading the NT in the chronological order it was written in. Done that way, the first mention of Jesus is in Paul's letters, the earliest authorship of which is dated to roughly a decade to a decade and a half after the alleged events in the gospels.

To me it is telling that Paul, rather than appeal to living eyewitnesses for the authority of his teachings about Jesus and the meaning of the Christian faith, appeals instead to a personal subjective experience that we must take on his say-so -- a vision in which he was "caught up into heaven". Even then he's oblique and coy about it, talking about it with faux humility in the third person and not sure if he was physically caught up to heaven or just in his mind.

And then there's his prickly, fractious, adversarial relationship with the apostle Peter, another one of those eyewitnesses that should have lent Paul support, but didn't.

Finally, decades later when the gospels were written, they talk about a flesh and blood miracle-working god-man that Paul does not talk about. In fact the Jesus Paul talks about is almost heavenly and non-corporeal. Today the gospels come first in the NT and we tend to interpret Paul in the context of the gospels that did not exist at the time Paul wrote and taught. But if you read them pretending you don't know a single tall tale from the gospels, you get a different version of Christ and of Christianity than we have today. Almost as if the gospels were written in part as a corrective, to half-assed harmonize Paul's musings with the evolving dogma of the church.

So ... while a historic Jesus is certainly possible, I see no particular evidence for it, either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
04-09-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: My Take on Atheism
(04-09-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 07:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Free: Always assuming it's not hearsay unless it can be show otherwise, instead of, you know, just not assuming it's authenticity unless it can be verified. You know, null hypothesis type stuff.

And around and around the circle we go. I swear, you're as bad at shifting the burden of proof as any theist. There's a reason why people don't likes to engage with you anymore. Drinking Beverage

Good morning, and sorry that I am about to piss all over your fucking cornflakes.

And there you are; assuming the possibility of hearsay without ever providing one single stitch of evidence to support the claim.

YOU have the burden of proof, not me or the historians. Get it?

If not, then the next time I see your sorry ass telling any fucking theist that he must meet the burden of proof I will call out your sorry ass as nothing more than a fucking hypocrite and an intellectually dishonest prick. It's fucking hilarious how you Jesus Mythicists employ a double standard regarding the burden of proof.

Drinking Beverage

To help clarify, for what Jesus are you insisting there is strong evidence?
  • The one as described in the Gospels? That magic man most certainly did not exist.
  • Someone on whom in the Gospel myths were created? That man may well have existed.
  • Some collection of preachers on whom in the Gospel myths were created? They may well have existed.
  • Some other Jesus?

And to what Jesus do you think mythicists refer? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: