Why do so many atheists deny the existence of an historical Jesus?
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.
@Nyarlathotep: YEAAAAAAA! I can put my poo back in the safe and save it for another day. Actually, Old Man was doing such a good job, I often felt late to the party. I also hate the shotgun approach to argumentation, ala WLC. "If you can not dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." 100 claims in a single post is always fucking annoying. Especially in written form.
Damn it all, I always spend time responding before checking they haven't been booted.
Can I ask was his previous account claiming to be a theist or an atheist?
Good question, imo. Both actually (one of each).
Well I can't say I'm surprised. He is no doubt telling his school chums of his victory over those heathens on AR right now, bless.
In a way I am sad to lose this fraudulent flatulence of a poseur...I would love to know what he meant by this little gem:
"I don't "believe in a human jesus," I merely pointed out that the historicity of Jesus is well-supported by the evidence.
A lizard people jesus? A divine jesus? A leprechaun jesus? An Alien jesus? WTFF??? Now we shall never know....until he crawls out the sock drawer once again.
I was back reading on this thread and the guy was probably not a good typist. Or at least he isn't the best at using language. I would notice weird glaring grammatical mistakes or weird phrases that were obviously just a wrong understanding of a phrase - He would say, "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" when he clearly meant it the other way around.
He was also said in the thread that he doesn't believe in a "divine Jesus" multiple times so a good guess is that that's what he meant. He even went as far as to saying that those who do are fools. I think he was an atheist.
He also said, as I quoted, that he did not believe in a human Jesus either....but that the historicity of jesus could not be doubted...
So what did he mean? Alien Jesus? Lizard Jesus? Leprechaun Jesus? Green Cheese carved Jesus?
Guy has been on before arguing with the same mistaken vehemence about other things....
And like I said, basing on how he constructed his statements, it could've easily been a simply typo. Regardless, I don't see the merit of discussing this. That wasn't my argument.
Btw, Happy New Year, everyone!
And a Happy New Year to you JoC. I wish you and your loved ones enjoy a happy and prosperous 2020.
@JoC Re: "I think he was an atheist."
Then you obviously were not paying very good attention. The guy was an annoyingly obnoxious and dishonest troll posing as an atheist, and he was on here for the simple purpose of stirring up shit and getting reactions. I recognized his style from earlier encounters when he was here under a different name. And, as Nyar said, he has used both atheist AND theist designations. But thanks for your input, nonetheless.
I find it very interesting (and telling), however, how you seemed to be so quick and eager to concur with the deceptive and disruptive individual as being an atheist. Almost as if you were cheering inside to be able to show some sort of "proof" as to how horribly "flawed" we godless heathens are. And the irony of that is how you don't seem to stop and consider how your own behavior on here reflects in a far less than positive manner on your chosen faith. Sure, I will agree one hundred percent that there are some really nasty and fucked up atheists out there. Thankfully, they are the exception to the rule. Moreover, though, is that if they are stupid enough to show their asses in here, most of us will not hesitate to call them out on whatever bullshit they may be spewing. Funny, though, how I have yet to see a theist correct another theist here in the same manner. Hmmm..... *scratching chin*.... Oh, and maybe it is just my over-active imagination, but I find it mildly curious that you just happen to show up to "defend" this obvious troll almost immediately after the rancid piece of road kill gets himself ousted. And, if my decrepit old memory serves me correctly (it is hit and miss at times), I could almost swear it is not the first time this has ever happened. Hmmmm..... *waving hand in dismissal*.... Eh, I'm sure it is just coincidence... *strolling away toward bathroom*...
Well if I had to guess, then I'd guess he was an atheist; but it really doesn't matter much. A troll is a troll.
Which Jesus are we talking about? This mythical saviour never existed. It is a fairy-tale swallowed by western man who cannot decipher a myth. Josephus in his histories mentions three independent Jesus´s. Will the real savoir please stand up!
"Which Jesus are we talking about? This mythical saviour never existed. It is a fairy-tale swallowed by western man who cannot decipher a myth. Josephus in his histories mentions three independent Jesus´s. Will the real savoir please stand up!"
Interesting affirming (positive) which attracts the burden of proof. Let' see it. Lots of luck
I am agnostic on historicity of Jesus the due to a lack of proof either way . It seems to be another of those pesky unfalsifiable claims
My position, in brief: based the amount of secondary evidence (there is NO primary/.contemporary evidence ) it seems possible, even likely that a wandering rabbi, called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf existed in first century Judea. BUT THAT he had little or nothing to do with the religion claiming him as founder.----Those beliefs/teachings are almost certainly far more myth than history.
It's true enough that myths are not always or even often, even loosely based on fact . However, sometimes it is the case. I think Christianity MAY be one of those cases .
It is my observation, that generally speaking, historians are cautious about making dogmatic statements. This seems especially true of ancient historians of all kinds, and of biblical historians especially. (unless of course they are committed believers, starting with beliefs ,and trying to prove those beliefs)
I can only find one jesus mentioned apart from the two spurious interpolations i.e Jesus son of Damneus
Could you supply line references for the other two? I am intrigued!