|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
 Posted - 12/07/2003 : 02:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So, you argue "that it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure" in the absence of compelling evidence?
Actually, I said that "it's NOT UNREASONABLE to SUGGEST that it's more likely than not..." This is hardly a stand I'm taking here and I'm trying to understand what you're objecting to. I'm not making any claims of fact. I'm merely saying that, based on what we know and don't know about the origins of the Bible, it's gross inaccuracies and multiple contradictions, to suggest that Jesus is a mythical character is NOT UNREASONABLE. I also believe that it's NOT UNREASONABLE to suggest that Jesus was a real person.
quote:
There was no compelling evidence for any number of things prior to the discovery of that evidence. Since the existence of a Jewish cult leader named Yeshua violates no natural law, it is simply untrue that the proclaimed absence of evidence renders the claim "unlikely to be true" or to assert that "it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure.". At the very most one can argue for agnosticism with regards historicity.
There is no evidence that aliens built the pyramids or that George Washington was a voodoo practitioner or that there is a purple dragon in my garage. If you don't think that it's valid to suggest that, based on the lack of evidence for these things, that it's more likely than not that they are not true, then I think you're being unrealistically and impractically dogmatic.
Do you think it's likely or unlikely that aliens built the pyramids? Do you think it's likely or unlikely that Washington was a voodoo practitioner? Sure, no one reported seeing Washington practicing voodoo, but that doesn't mean they didn't see it. There's no evidence that aliens built the pyramids, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If this reasoning were followed universally, we wouldn't know anything about anything because there would be no conclusions.
And, hell, I'm not even making conclusions. I'm just saying that a lack of evidence permits a reasonable person to legitimately doubt something. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 05:21:26 [Permalink]
|
There is no reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. People make myths, and this is probably a complete myth as are myths like Hercules. There is certainly good evidence that people make myths, and there is good evidence that this is one of those myths. Is it possible someone named Jesus lived in that area? Yes, but it isn't likely that someone famous named Jesus lived in that area for any length of time or we'd have some contemporary accounts of it. Does it matter? No. If he did live, he did not show his followers how to walk on water or raise the dead or even pay their bills.
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gorgo
Look for yourself. Are you saying that the claims are not true?
I honestly do not know what you are asking? I presented two statements by you. I agree with the first, challenge the second, and, perhaps most importantly, assert that the two statements are not equivalent.
[/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 07:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
There is no reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
That is clearly one of your positions.A nother position that you seem to hold is that there are many reasons (i.e., "lots of reason") to think that he did not. I have repeatedly asked you to suggest reasons other than your argument from silence, and you repeatedly refuse to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
People make myths, and this is probably a complete myth as are myths like Hercules.
Again, why do you find it probable?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
There is certainly good evidence that people make myths, and there is good evidence that this is one of those myths.
Yes, people make myths. Yet again, what is this "good evidence that this is one of those myths"?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Is it possible someone named Jesus lived in that area? Yes, but it isn't likely that someone famous named Jesus lived in that area for any length of time or we'd have some contemporary accounts of it.
I do not find this argument from silence compelling for two reasons ...
The issue of historicity centers around the existence or nonexistence of a Jewish cult leader circa 30 CE, and neither requires nor expects that this person be any more "famous" that the previously unattested Teacher of Righteousness. The reference to "someone famous named Jesus" is a strawman and you know it.
The history of the period is extremely tenuous, and what we know is often fortuitous. For example, a great deal of the history of Hellenistic Judaism comes to us solely through the works of Josephus. Similarly, our understanding of the plurality of 2nd Temple religious texts, the viability of the Septuagint, and the characteristics of early Christian Gnosticism is the result of the relatively recent availability of the DSS and the Nag Hammadi library.
Unfortunately, much history awaits to be discovered, and even more is lost forever. To believe that we would necessarily have contemporary accounts is simply naive. There is an interesting site that provides an Overview of Messianic Claimants. How many of them are now deemed historical solely due to their appearane in Antiquities?
So, I'll ask again: Other than your argument from silence, what are the compelling reasons to claim that Jesus, James, and the Jerusalem church are fabrications?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 07:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Again, I will answer your question by referring to the experts on the matter. If you have some argument with what they have to say, let me know. Otherwise, I don't really wish to spend my time on the matter. No offense meant to you. I have neither the time nor the energy.
Suppose we found tomorrow that Jesus or Hercules did exist. It would not change my life at all. They have added nothing to the world of any value. If you find that they have added something of value, please let me know. That would be of more worth to me than an argument as to whether or not they exist. My point is simply that there is good evidence to assume that these people probably did not exist. Maybe not conclusive evidence, but good evidence.
quote:
So, I'll ask again: Other than your argument from silence, what are the compelling reasons to claim that Jesus, James, and the Jerusalem church are fabrications?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/07/2003 07:26:11 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 07:34:05 [Permalink]
|
Permit me to quote you out of order ...
quote:
Originally posted by Les
I'm merely saying that, based on what we know and don't know about the origins of the Bible, it's gross inaccuracies and multiple contradictions, to suggest that Jesus is a mythical character is NOT UNREASONABLE. I also believe that it's NOT UNREASONABLE to suggest that Jesus was a real person.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Actually, I said that "it's NOT UNREASONABLE to SUGGEST that it's more likely than not..." This is hardly a stand I'm taking here and I'm trying to understand what you're objecting to. I'm not making any claims of fact.
Were you to change the phrase "more likely than not" to "as likely than not" I would have no objection at all.
May I ask a question: Given Josephus and the Bible, do you find the fabrication of James, the fabrication of Cephas, the fabrication of Jerusalem church, and the fabrication of a dispute between Paul and that church the more likely scenario?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/07/2003 07:40:01 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 09:41:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
May I ask a question: Given Josephus and the Bible, do you find the fabrication of James, the fabrication of Cephas, the fabrication of Jerusalem church, and the fabrication of a dispute between Paul and that church the more likely scenario?
I'm going to claim ignorance regarding Cephas and the Jerusalem church, but I'll do a little homework and get back to you. As far as James is concerned, I recall reading a few articles that called into question the bits of evidence provided as proof of his existence. When I consider that every time Christians abandon their faith and attempt to prove it objectively (Shroud of Turin, weeping statues, etc.), it turns out to be a fabrication. That said, if I was a betting man, I'd bet that James is a fabrication. Maybe I'd lose, but I'm not a high roller.
I'd still like to know if you consider it "AS likely than not" that aliens built the pyramids since there is no evidence to prove that they didn't. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 11:20:45 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAthiest wrote:quote:
There is an interesting site that provides an Overview of Messianic Claimants. How many of them are now deemed historical solely due to their appearane in Antiquities?
Let's find out:
- Judas, son of Hezekiah: Not solely based upon Antiquities
- Simon of Peraea: Two sources
- Athronges, the shepherd: Not solely based upon Antiquities
- Judas the Galilean: Two sources
- John the Baptist: Several sources
- Jesus of Nazareth: Several sources
- The Samaritan prophet: Bingo!
- King Herod Agrippa: Two sources
- Theudas: Two sources
- The Egyptian prophet: Three sources
- An unnamed prophet: Bingo!
- Menahem: Not Antiquities
- John of Gischala: Not Antiquities
- Vespasian: Several sources
- Simon bar Giora: Not Antiquities
- Jonathan the weaver: Not Antiquities
- Lukuas: Several sources
- Simon ben Kosiba: Many sources
- Moses of Crete: Not Antiquities
Later personages, of course, are definitely post-Antiquities, and thus out of consideration.
So based upon the criteria you set forward, two people who don't even have proper names might be considered to be historical based upon no other writings but Antiquities. Big deal. Not that I would consider them historical on such flimsy evidence, and I don't see any discussion on the linked site about whether or not these people really existed, but you and the site's author(s) are obviously free to believe what you want to believe. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 11:35:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Let's find out: ...
Sorry. As the text should have made clear, I was using 'Antiquities' as a euphemism for 'the historical works of Josephus'. That said, you response is one of the more disingeuous that I've encountered for a long time. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 11:40:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
I'd still like to know if you consider it "AS likely than not" that aliens built the pyramids since there is no evidence to prove that they didn't.
No. Nor do I believe that the question is comparable. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 12:32:52 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
Sorry. As the text should have made clear, I was using 'Antiquities' as a euphemism for 'the historical works of Josephus'.
Re-read, and I still don't see it. Have it your way. Adding Josephus' other work to Antiquities only adds a six more names to the list of people only supported by Josephus (Judas, son of Hezekiah, Athronges, the shepherd, Menahem, John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora and Jonathan the weaver). And what does it matter? Does the fact that one historian - who was definitely not perfect - wrote about people multiple times mean that those people must have existed in real life?
Whatever your answer, there are a lot of things that should be made more clear by you, and your refusal to clarify any of them in the face of direct questions signify to me that you're less interested in the historicity of anyone than you are in promoting dogma. That you don't consider Les' question to be comparable is astounding, and you provide no reasoning as to why you believe it incomparable. Just your opinion, backed up by nothing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 13:51:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
[quote]No. Nor do I believe that the question is comparable.
Why not? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 15:08:29 [Permalink]
|
I wrote:quote:
Does the fact that one historian - who was definitely not perfect - wrote about people multiple times mean that those people must have existed in real life?
No, of course not. What was I thinking? Nevermind that question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 17:12:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. Nor do I believe that the question is comparable.
Why not?
One posits an unattested, scientifically problematic and, therefore, unnecessarily speculative mechanism/process, while the other does not. There are no known examples of alien architecture and plenty of examples of messianic cult leaders. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 17:44:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Les
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. Nor do I believe that the question is comparable.
Why not?
One posits an unattested, scientifically problematic and, therefore, unnecessarily speculative mechanism/process, while the other does not. There are no known examples of alien architecture and plenty of examples of messianic cult leaders.
Ah, very good. That makes sense. Here's another one (and I only offer these to fine tune my understanding of your point of view; not just trying to be argumentative):
Do you think that it's "as likely than not" that bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster exist? Certainly new species are discovered regularly, even some that had been long thought extinct. There are many, many people (not just one) who have claimed to have seen them (though, like Jesus, there's no physical evidence to support their claims).
Is it valid for those who claim to have seen these creatures to say, "Since you can't disprove their existence, you have to accept that there's at least a 50/50 chance that they do exist."
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 04:23:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Is it valid for those who claim to have seen these creatures to say, "Since you can't disprove their existence, you have to accept that there's at least a 50/50 chance that they do exist."
No, I do not.
I'll expand on ths later, but I have kids and a grandkid coming in this week, and my time will be limited. I'll get back as soon as possible ...
[edited to add the following ...]
Do you see a distinction between the following two question?
(1) The existence of the Loch Ness Monster is as likely as not.
(2) Reported sightings of the Loch Ness Monster can as likely as not be attributed to its existence.
Thanks. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/08/2003 05:18:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
