Why atheists seem to win the argument with theists.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I do not deny that back in that time and location, there was some dude who carried that name. So what? The big problem for you is to prove that the miracles linked to this jesus were performed.
And read very carefully what Erhman stated. He believed jesus did exist. He did not state that he believed jesus was divine or the miracles and stuff assigned to this jesus.
@ David Killens
You are right, and I was not trying to say Erhman believed Jesus was divine or anything like that.
So why did you attempt an appeal to authority?
Philo is not the only writer that did not mention the jesus figure, but, like the others would certainly have done so if they had known about him. Philo did not mention the religious structure of Judea as it was, to him, probably far too commonplace, just as now a catholic writer does not mention the hierarchy of his priesthood when explaining the Trinity.
Remember the claims for the magical Jesus figure as described in the gospels are extraordinary. Miracles, crowds numbering thousands, zombie rabbis wandering Jerusalem etc....yet not one mention. Not.One.
And to appeal to an another Authority, there are many historians including Robert Carrier who doubt that any type of Jesus figure alone existed, but the stories may be based on an amalgam of several of the Messiahs of the first third of the 1st century.
Note Ehrman is talking about a human Jesus not the one described in the gospels, also he is basing his argument on probabilities, gleaned from historiography not historical evidence. There is a big difference.
My personal opinion is that a very human Jesus may have existed, so the verdict is "not proven".
A divine Jesus? Nope.
Jo "To the best of my knowledge there was not a lot of historians around back then writing about everything going on. So a group of third class citizens in some backwater province, believing in some new figure, probably would not have attracted a lot of videographers."
Not a very conducive with the idea that it was the most important event ever. There also were historians who made meticulous records of important events, and people, and none of then mention a deity visiting the earth.
Why would a deity that meant everyone to follow it be so slapdash and incompetent? It could paint it's message in the sky with fire, every bible could be identical, and indestructible, or koran for that matter, now that would be compelling evidence the source was supernatural.
We get unevidenced hearsay delivered by unknown authors as third hand accounts decades if not centuries after the fact, which is evidence of nothing.
"To the best of my knowledge there was not a lot of historians around back then writing about everything going on."
Therefore you are lacking in knowledge. The Romans wrote about everything. For example, from the letters written by Julius Caesar, his medical decline has been documented and his failing health was a result of strokes. Back then, almost everyone wrote letters to each other while historians copied and created mountains of documents.
Additionally, if you do learn the true history of the Roman Empire, you will become aware of the brutality of that empire and how they dealt with Romans and everyone else.Once you become aware of the true conditions, then you can create a mental image that properly reflects that time and reality.
So just attempting to casually brush away this powerful contradiction, that the Romans did not properly document the life and death of jesus, flies in the face of historical research. There is a very good reason why the Romans did not document jesus, and that is because he was not the major player many imagined him to be.
The idea there existed a religious adventurer named Yeshua who met a sticky end in first century Palestine isn't that far fetched. But that really isn't the Jesus you're talking about now is it? You're talking about a mythological figure who rose people from the dead, walked on water, etc.
Oh, indeed, that's one of the essential principles I sometimes have to remind the usual suspects of, namely, that mythologies were not written in a vacuum. One of the diagnostic features of a mythology, is the reworking of a relatively mundane natural or historical occurrence into a fantastic and spectacular tale involving all manner of pyrotechnics. Numerous instances of which are already documented for relevant mythologies.
One of the contributory factors I was presented with, as far as the NT goes, is that the requisite part of the Middle East was occupied by a considerable number of apocalyptic preachers during the relevant time period, who could, in amalgamation, form the basis for the Jesus character. No one possessing the relevant scholarship would doubt that one or more actual extant human beings could form the basis for that character, what is severely in doubt among people other than the usual suspects, is the fantastic supernatural assertions woven around that character.
When "scholars of antiquity" typically discuss individuals such as Zoroaster, Homer, Pythagoras, Aesop, Sun Tzu, Laozi, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, and Muhammad, they don't tend to mention whether or not they even existed. They are usually interested in the tradition historically associated with them. When religious figures are involved, the majority of scholars in the subject tend to be of the same religion, and so are not liable to be objective.
I think typically, when scholars do look at the question of whether or not they existed, they either have the choice of going against centuries of convention, or of reiterating the view that it would take more effort to invent a person than for the person to have actually existed and to have "invented themselves". But that is of course the wrong way of looking at things.
With the figures I mentioned, there is little or no evidence that can be used to directly independently verify they existed. You also have to seperate the impossible claims associated from them (which certainly do not happen) from the possible. Why are the individuals I mentioned in a different category to figures such as Rama (a great deal of people in India believe he exists), King Arthur, Prester John, Pope Joan, or Robin Hood?
Concerning Jesus, I highly recommend On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, who gives good qualified reasoning: even if you do not believe as he does that Jesus most likely did not exist, it will give you access to an interesting range of sources.
Sapporo: "Concerning Jesus, I highly recommend On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, who gives good qualified reasoning: even if you do not believe as he does that Jesus most likely did not exist, it will give you access to an interesting range of sources."
Very good read. Very highly recommended for both atheists and theists.
Because the only people arguing for the existence of god are people like Grace, God is Awesome, Catholicray, AJ777and Searching for Truth. We don't get any theists in here who actually challenge us.
(Edited to add AJ777 to the list. He certainly deserves to be recognized.)
The only thing they are challenging is my continuing sanity.
I'm stealing that from you...thanks.
I am convinced that idiots are being directed to AR as part of a holding pattern while they are waiting for their village to adopt them.
Not saying is true, but could the Screen Name "Jo" be a dirty sock that "JoC" just happen to not have washed in his last load?
Here you are lying the ground work for an error. To be clear, you know life has occurred one or more times; you don't know that it has only occurred once.
And here you bring the error to its fruition.
There is only one place in the entire universe over 14 billion years, that life has ever occurred. That is known, the rest in unsupported claims. All life on earth is descended from some unknown event in the past when the first life emerged. Is that not what we know from science? There has been attempts for about 50 years to find life in our solar system and elsewhere in the universe, with no success.
I am just stating what is known. Not making any unsupported claims. Claims that life might have occurred at other times and other places is just speculation with no evidence.
Is there any evidence that life has occurred more than once?
It seems like everyone is dodging the evidence presented.
Jo: "Is there any evidence that life has occurred more than once?"
Doing Religious Absolutists favorite game.
I was responding to Nyarlothotep's post when he said "Here you are lying the ground work for an error. To be clear, you know life has occurred one or more times; you don't know that it has only occurred once."
Is this not a true statement? - We know of only once when life has occurred in our universe in 14 billions years, in only one location. The rest is speculation or unsubstantiated claims.
So far everyone has ducked my question and the evidence I presented.
What question? Seems to have been answered multiple times.
What evidence? I ain't seen you present any.
I see you have decided to double down; that's unfortunate.
Maybe I didn't say it very well, but what is my mistake? I stated what we know. It was not speculation or an unsubstantiated claim.
Instead of just saying I am wrong, can you point out where and why I am wrong?
How many more times do I need to do it? If you don't understand what I've said, ask about it. Don't pretend I didn't explain it.
Really? You only stated what we know? I don't know that life has only ever occurred once in the universe. How do you know that?
On the first part we seem to be going in circles, so I will drop it.
I am using the same line of reasoning that atheist do. I want evidence, not conjecture or some God of the gaps. I think you are ignoring that I said "as far as we know".
We know life occurred on our planet. We have no evidence of any life occurring any other place in the entire universe for almost 14 billion years. Am I wrong on that? All life on this planet has a common ancestor, is that right?
You told us life has only occurred once, and that this is something we all know. We don't know this. Personally, I have no idea how many times life has occurred. I'll ask my question again:
How do YOU
I am making no claim, just asking questions, stating evidence, and trying to reach a rational conclusion based on the evidence. I think you are misrepresenting what I said.
Why have you or no one else answered the question I have repeatedly asked as below.
Is there any evidence that life has occurred anywhere in our universe in almost 14 billion years, except here? Does all life on this planet have a common ancestor?
That is clearly a claim Jo. Most apologists who come here start lying after a few posts, I hope you are not intent on following that path.
I've been extremely careful to quote you, to ensure I wouldn't be accused of misrepresentation. Funny, you just went ahead and accused me of it anyway. If you misrepresented your own views, that is your fault.
I qualified that statement you are quoting many times by stating "as far as we know". You keep going back to what I am NOT saying.
You have not once again failed addressed my question. What can I make of that?
That is not accurate. No where in the post where that statement appears, does the quote "as far as we know" appear.
In many other places and times I said "as far as we know"
Are you repetitively pointing out an error I made, that I have corrected many times, as a way to avoid my question.