|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2004 : 11:10:31 [Permalink]
|
| I make no claims, I simply stated that probably, like thousands of other myths that, yes, people spend billions of dollars and hours of time chasing, it is a myth. It is you that are making a claim that Jesus existed, yet you tell me that it's my burden of proof to disprove your claim. I have no time for such nonsense. Thanks but no thanks. |
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
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 11:12:54 [Permalink]
|
It's down to semantics, Gorgo. You said that Jesus probably never existed, which puts a burden of proof on you to support that amount of certainty. Had you used different words, ones which did not imply - as fact - less-than-even odds that Jesus existed, this thread wouldn't have been started.
So, you did have an obligation to either support your statement or to clarify your meaning. You may have done the latter by saying that you don't care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 11:33:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, but the Mormons exist. As did Jesus.
Either this flew completely over ivanisavich's head or he intentionally muddled the matter. The question is not whether Christians nor Mormon exist, but whether:
1. Did Jesus really exist along with the disciples, etc.
And
2. Did Joseph Smith and the archangel Michael really exist along with the magical stone tablets, etc.
ivanisavich your logic can be extended to any religion or mythology for that matter. The Mayans, Aztecs, and other ancient Mesoamericans all believed in Quetzalcoatl as a real deity. Does that mean Quetzalcoatl is real? Ancient Greeks believe Hercules was real and walked amongst mortals. Does that mean Hercules is real? If not then you must present evidence as to why your mythology has special status, otherwise your logic is inconsistent.
quote:
Excuse me? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this thread was started because you Gorgo, claimed that, like Hercules, Jesus never existed.
No, he said probably. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 11:41:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does that mean Hercules is real?
Indeed. Greek mythology is full of accounts of gods mixing it up with humans. Hercules was the result of one such "mixer" so I guess if a text says something is true then that's all you need. Therefore Scientology has as much to offer as any other religion. Personally, I need more than a holy book's own say-so but those that don't ought to realize that their methods should validate any and all claims including the ones that directly contradict the ones they hold dear.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 12:12:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Either this flew completely over ivanisavich's head or he intentionally muddled the matter.
No, first, I stated that I believe Jesus existed using a vague breakdown of my reasons. You then continued to use my reasons to justify that the mormons are "right" (sarcastically, of course). I then corrected you by stating that my reasons don't prove Jesus was "right", but that he simply existed--so if you use my reasoning you can get no farther than to say that the mormons exist, and not that they are "right".
I obviously misunderstood what tangent you were going to take this off to though. My bad.
quote:
ivanisavich your logic can be extended to any religion or mythology for that matter. The Mayans, Aztecs, and other ancient Mesoamericans all believed in Quetzalcoatl as a real deity. Does that mean Quetzalcoatl is real?
No, and as I've already said, proving that Jesus existed doesn't prove that the Christian God exists. It simply proves that Jesus existed--and that's what we're arguing here.
|
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 12:14:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Therefore Scientology has as much to offer as any other religion.
No...but using my criteria we can determine that L. Ron. Hubbard existed.
I think that some of us are missing the point of this thread. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 12:56:14 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich,
quote:
No, first, I stated that I believe Jesus existed using a vague breakdown of my reasons. You then continued to use my reasons to justify that the mormons are "right" (sarcastically, of course). I then corrected you by stating that my reasons don't prove Jesus was "right", but that he simply existed--so if you use my reasoning you can get no farther than to say that the mormons exist, and not that they are "right".
Your logic follows:
1. There were people who believed Jesus existed and started a mythology based on this belief.
2. Thus Jesus must have existed.
For your logic to be consistent then it also follows that:
1. There were people who believed Hercules existed and started a mythology based on this belief.
2. Thus Hercules must have existed.
From the Mormon perspective it follows that:
1. There were people who believed that the archangel Michael existed and started a mythology based on this belief.
2. Thus the archangel Michael must have existed.
Your logic in abstract terms states:
1. People believed in figure X and started a mythology based on this belief.
2. Thus figure X must have really existed.
Also in more dramatic terms:
1. People believed that there were aliens around the comet Hale Bopp to the point they committed mass suicide.
2. Thus aliens around the comet have have existed.
Now unless you can give convincing evidence as to why this logic applies only to Jesus and not Hercules or Michael then I have to point out that your logic is inconsistent.
quote:
No...but using my criteria we can determine that L. Ron. Hubbard existed.
I think that some of us are missing the point of this thread.
The fact that people believed in something or someone does not guarantee its existence. Notice I am not stating anything about the nature of Hercules, Michael, nor the aliens, other than their basic existence. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 17:05:04 [Permalink]
|
No. If you said homeopathy was probably completely a pseudoscience I wouldn't tell you that the burden of proof was up to you to prove that it wasn't. You would say that it was up to those that believed in homeopathy to prove that it wasn't a pseudoscience. The same logic applies. If you have good evidence that Jesus or Hercules existed, please present it. However, as I said, the thread is not mine and I am not responsible for keeping up with it. If you're truly interested in the subject, read about it and I can help you find books on the subject. It's not up to me to keep up with a discussion I care little about.
Now, had I said that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and I can prove it, that might be (might not be) a different matter. What I said was that he probably didn't. Mithra probably didn't. Hercules probably didn't. Can I say that they did not without a doubt? Certainly not, but the likelihood based on the lack of good evidence to the contrary allows me to say that they probably didn't exist.
Enough said. I'm out of it, thanks for asking. I appreciate the thought, but I don't want to continue.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's down to semantics, Gorgo. You said that Jesus probably never existed, which puts a burden of proof on you to support that amount of certainty. Had you used different words, ones which did not imply - as fact - less-than-even odds that Jesus existed, this thread wouldn't have been started.
So, you did have an obligation to either support your statement or to clarify your meaning. You may have done the latter by saying that you don't care.
|
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 - 02/17/2004 : 18:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think I've said in other posts that if you wish to understand my perspective, read books like The Jesus Puzzle
You presume, incorrectly, that I haven't. Furthermore, at issue is not me wishing to understand your perspective, but, rather, you being willing to substantiating your claims. Again, if you choose to evade, or otherwise avoid, this issue, I am perfectly willing to let the thread die.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
It would take more time than I have and more effort than I'm willing to make to explain it to you.
That seems rather convenient.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
That's why I asked what good evidence you have. If you present good evidence for your conclusion, and you are the one making a claim, not I, then I could work a little to show you why I think otherwise. But not much.
So you hope to simply repeat claims without substantiation? I thought you were better than that -- a misjudgement on my part.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think @tomic did very well to smash the idea that there must be a god or Jesus must have existed or people wouldn't believe in these things.
Smash? Oh my! You obviously prefer histrionics to historiography. That's OK. I happen to agree with @tomic's position. What does any of this have to do with your evasions?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
People believe all kinds of stupid things.
This is precisely why I ask you to substantiate your beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
There is no good evidence that anyone ever saw such a person.
Depending on your definition of "good evidence", there is "no good evidence that anyone ever saw" any number of people. Are you now claiming that absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence?
|
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
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 18:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote:quote:
No. If you said homeopathy was probably completely a pseudoscience I wouldn't tell you that the burden of proof was up to you to prove that it wasn't.
Right. If I were to say such a thing, the burden of proof would be on me to substantiate the word "probably" with evidence that many aspects of homeopathy are indeed pseudoscience (not to show that it isn't pseudoscience). Like the fact that its modern formulation is jam-packed with anti-scientific thought and outright falsehoods. It would be a fairly simple matter to meet the burden of proof implied in "homeopathy is probably completely a pseudoscience," since there are reams of evidence showing as much.quote:
You would say that it was up to those that believed in homeopathy to prove that it wasn't a pseudoscience.
Only if someone else, not me, claimed that homeopathy was good science. If I say it's a pseudoscience, it's up to me to demonstrate that, and not to shift the burden of proof to someone else. If someone else claims it's good science, it's up to them to demostrate their claim, and not to me to prove them wrong.quote:
The same logic applies.
Precisely, except it seems that you may be thinking that "positive claims" don't have the word "not" in them, which, when it comes to matters like this, simply isn't true. If somebody says, "Chevrolet does not attend to the consumer's best interests," it is up to that person to support their claim, and not up to someone else to demonstrate that Chevrolet does care about its customers (unless, of course, someone else makes such a claim).quote:
If you have good evidence that Jesus or Hercules existed, please present it.
No, I make no such claims. I simply pointed out that your use of the word "probably" did, indeed, burden you with a "claim" which should be supported.quote:
However, as I said, the thread is not mine and I am not responsible for keeping up with it. If you're truly interested in the subject, read about it and I can help you find books on the subject. It's not up to me to keep up with a discussion I care little about.
You can feel that way if you wish, of course, even for threads which are "yours." It doesn't matter if you create an evidenciary burden or not, you're always able to back away simply by not answering. On the other hand, this thread does have your name on it, due to a statement you made in another thread.quote:
Now, had I said that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and I can prove it, that might be (might not be) a different matter.
No, not a different matter, just a difference in how high the evidenciary bar is set. It's a matter of degree, not a fundamental difference in argument. You would need to show a 0% chance of Jesus existing versus the less-than-50% chance your actual statement implies.quote:
What I said was that he probably didn't.
Right, and the burden is placed upon you to substaniate that "probably not." That's what ConsequentAtheist asked of you in the OP.quote:
Mithra probably didn't. Hercules probably didn't. Can I say that they did not without a doubt? Certainly not, but the likelihood based on the lack of good evidence to the contrary allows me to say that they probably didn't exist.
Had you said that in your first post to this thread, you probably (haha!) could have left it there, so long as it was understood by everyone that "the likelihood" is based upon your judgement, and not on any sort of absolute or objective "likelihood" measurement. Instead, you shifted the burden of supporting your own statement to others.quote:
Enough said. I'm out of it, thanks for asking. I appreciate the thought, but I don't want to continue.
Later. |
- 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 - 02/17/2004 : 19:27:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Given that we have a heavily edited document (the Bible) as the only mention of Jesus during the time frame 5 BCE- 33 CE, it is highly unlikely that a Jewish Rabbinical figure named Jesus existed during that time frame. No Jewish records record a Jesus of Nazareth. Nor do Roman.
That is pathetic reasoning - little more than an unnecessarily verbose suggestion that the absence of evidence somehow constitutes compelling evidence of absence.
As for the rest, if you truly wish to discuss the textual transmission of the NT, I will gladly oblige in a different thread. Meanwhile, it would be most helpful if you limited your comments to that which is relevant. Such restraint might, in fact, leave you with enough spare time that you could actually read something of worth about Mithras. Manfred Claus would be a good place to start. |
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 - 02/17/2004 : 19:32:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I'm out of it, thanks for asking. I appreciate the thought, but I don't want to continue.
Enough said. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 20:20:59 [Permalink]
|
Well Gorgo, you have still not addressed the issue properly, but if you wish to leave, it's your call.
quote:
Your logic follows:
1. There were people who believed Jesus existed and started a mythology based on this belief.
2. Thus Jesus must have existed.
They wouldn't have simply "believed" he existed, because the early X-ians lived alongside with him. They would have known for a fact whether or not he existed, and in this case, they say he did. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2004 : 20:38:56 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
That is pathetic reasoning - little more than an unnecessarily verbose suggestion that the absence of evidence somehow constitutes compelling evidence of absence.
Sometimes it does. There is an absence of evidence for live unicorns. So much so that it seems safe to say that they do not exist.
Likewise, there is a gaping chasm of evidence for any of the mob events which Jesus allegedly sparked, until 30-someodd years after his alleged death, and those written by his buddies. Similarly for any other record of him, in an empire which supposedly kept lots of records. Surely somebody would have noticed.
And I put this to you again (if I remember correctly): when people ask, "did Jesus really exist," they aren't asking about some rabbi who might have been walking around at the time, they're asking about a guy who actually did the stuff written about in the Bible (even excluding the supernatural feats). What they're actually asking (in my opinion) is, "was there a guy named Jesus, born in a stable to his mother Mary, who actually gave a sermon on a mount in which this and that were said, and who stirred up so much trouble that, after a last supper with his 12 closest friends, he got arrested and later nailed to a cross?"
Even if there was some rabbi named Jesus wandering around at the time, about whom all sorts of wild stories were created and later written down and finally incorporated into the Bible, who cares? Even if that is probable - based on how common 'Jesus' was as a name, and how many rabbis were walking the countryside in those years - it doesn't matter since it's not the Jesus, the one to whom people are praying and dedicating their lives. Nor can we pinpoint any particular Jesus and say, "that's the guy around whom the stories are based," so even if we assume that one existed, we get nothing from the assumption.
So, yeah, the absence of any independent supporting contemporary evidence does indicate, to me, that there probably was no such Jesus as written about in the Bible. |
- 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 - 02/18/2004 : 04:39:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sometimes it does.
Granted, but I would suggest that this is rarely the case in the field of history.
Let me as you a question: how would you rate the probability of the Teacher of Righteousness or The Samaritan Prophet (36 CE)?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Similarly for any other record of him, in an empire which supposedly kept lots of records. Surely somebody would have noticed.
I find that simply naive.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And I put this to you again (if I remember correctly): when people ask, "did Jesus really exist," they aren't asking about some rabbi who might have been walking around at the time, ...
And this, Dave, is simply disingenuous. The historicity debate has little to do with virgin births, fish picnics, and resurrections. See, for example, Historical Jesus Theories
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So, yeah, the absence of any independent supporting contemporary evidence does indicate, to me, that there probably was no such Jesus as written about in the Bible.
As I've said, I find this to be simply disingenuous. If you wish to offer your views on Christology, at least have the decency to do so in its own thread. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
