3538
3539

/r/allDebunking Christianity: For the Fourth Time Jesus Fails to Qualify as a Historical Entry In The Oxford Classical Dictionary (debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com)

AtheistElron_de_Sade が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
新着
ベストトップ論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NaugahydeWindpipe -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jesus why are athiests so worried about Christianity? There are women being beaten & killed in the middle east in the name of their religion and this is the religion you are always worried about. Priorities, ever hear of them?

[–]JRSHAW7576 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

/u/cabbagetroll

[–]Agnostic AtheistTulanol 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Eyewitness accounts are bad evidence even for events we know happened and we know the witnesses were actually there.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

^ these types of articles are very easy to find etc.

so to believe the grandiose claims of the new testament when you don't even have any evidence the authors were there is basically nuts. I almost can't come up with a large enough adjective to encapsulate how foolish it would be to consider these accounts credible :)

[–]Mentioned_Videos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO VOTES - COMMENT
(1) The Existence of Jesus - Christopher Hitchens (2) The True Core Of The Jesus Myth Christopher Hitchens @ FreedomFest (1) 211 - My TIL! Yes, from the responses to the TIL it seems that the prevailing opinion is that there is very likely that a person that the story of Jesus is derived from walked the earth. Meaning that around the start of the first century a controversial Je...
Christopher Hitchens Destroys Biblical miracle claims 63 - And as Hitchens pointed out, it makes a banality out of Jesus' Resurrection.
Game of Thrones 5x08 - The Night's King - Battle of Hardhome Ending 9 - I've never heard a sermon where this is addressed. Were they animated skeletons or re-fleshed? Could they eat/talk/shit etc? Did they have the bluest eyes, and were White Walkers behind them?
[NSFW] FIST OF JESUS www.fistofjesus.com 8 - FIST OF JESUS
Did the historical Jesus exist -Bart Ehrman 5 - Did the historical Jesus exist - Bart Ehrman
Jesus Christ - History or Myth? Zeitgeist Excerpt 1 - I don't understand.. I'm talking about the Jesus myth theory that is proposed in Zeitgeist:

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

Info | Contact | Chrome ExtensionNEW

[–]pimpst1ck 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jesus doesn't get a distinct entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary because he's covered in the section on Christianity.

From page 312

When Judea came under the direct Roman control soon after the death of Herod the Great in 4BC, cultural and religious controversies were further exacerbated by the ineptitude of some Roman governors. Jesus therefore, and his followers, lived in a divided province.

So not only is Jesus covered in the dictionary, but his historicity is so clear that is can be spoken of as if it should be assumed.

Seriously the historicity of Jesus is not seriously questioned by any western Ph.D historian excluding Richard Carrier, who doesn't have an impressive resume at all. Dont any of you wonder why /r/atheism has the reputation of a festering shithole of pseudo-intellectualism when you upvote crap like this (and other historical nonsense like "Hitler was Christian") into the thousands?

[–]Secular HumanistMerari01 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, you've just shown yourself to know nothing about history.

I have absolutely nothing but disdain for liars like you. First you insist upon a concensus that does not exist and for good measure you throw in a little lie about Hitler as well. Yes. He was a Christian. Yes. Anti-semitism is a Catholic invention. Yes, fascism and the Catholic right-wing are synonymous.

These are simply facts. I find it insulting beyond belief that you would attempt historical falsification like that, especially when there are people on this fucking sub, like me, who are European, who have Jewish heritage, and who live in a formerly occupied nation. As if Nazism is not one of the most well documented atrocities of its kind.

[–]HumanistSpuds_Jake 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If we wait long enough, though - he'll become MORE historical!

[–]SSrqu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I always felt that Jesus was real, but more like a Jewish Confucius, roaming around and teaching values. Then he was executed as a common criminal for disrespecting Roman beliefs or something. Then I imagine everything got weird after his death and they started spouting magical crap. It wouldn't be the first time something normal got all messed up, like Bigfoot, who gets automatically capitalized by auto check.

[–]alshaw 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Without a copy of the Dictionary in front of me, it's difficult to both verify the claims made in the blog post, or to evaluate the reasons why the editors have chosen to include or omit certain content.

Perhaps the facts that Jesus wrote no books, did not lead an army, held no position of power, did not travel far from his home town, and lived on the margins of the empire may be contributing factors to the editor's decisions.

The claim that such an editorial decision has "debunked Christianity" seems a rather strange and excessive one to me.

[–]ShillinAintEasy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here is the book on google books. All three authors of this work believe that Jesus did exist and the actual entry on Christianity in the book acknowledges this (e.g., the statement "Jesus therefore, and his followers, lived in a divided province"), it just also acknowledges that using the gospels as a source for understanding the historical Jesus is problematic. There is a reason for the overwhelming consensus amongst actual scholars on the topic.

[–]alshaw 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. I'll take a look.

[–]mike112769 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is no "overwhelming concensus" about Jesus being a real person. There is more proof that Jesus was Julius Caesar than there is for him being the son of a god. Get a grip.

[–]ShillinAintEasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Amongst actual historians who have their work peer reviewed, there absolutely is a consensus. Even amongst the three who wrote this book that this article is wrongly claiming supports the idea that Jesus doesn't real there is a consensus that he existed as a historical person. I am an atheist myself, nobody is claiming that Jesus is the actual son of god, just that he existed as a historical figure. I know Jesus not existing is, like, a total checkmate against Christians, but it's just not at all an idea taken seriously in academia.

[–]Strong AtheistSpartacusMaximusxxl 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

or ya know, maybe he never existed?

[–]alshaw 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unlikely for a number of reasons.

[–]jackv79 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If only Jesus had a Facebook account and liked to post selfies...

[–]scandalousmambo -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why didn't the Romans or Jews (or both) simply publish proof He didn't exist? Would have served them both rather well, given the trouble they supposedly had with his followers.

Did any contemporary historian write the statement "Jesus didn't exist" or its equivalent?

Are there any such documents, and if so, why weren't they taken seriously 2000 years ago?

Or maybe this is all a load of bullshit?

[–]AtheistElron_de_Sade[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

People in recent history have been writing things like, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus..." and you don't often see anyone writing today with articles such as "Paul Bunyan Didn't Exist!". It just wouldn't command a lot of attention.

[–]scandalousmambo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Paul Bunyan was not the Roman Empire's political enemy.

Paul Bunyan was not the Hebrew's religious enemy.

[–]mike112769 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can't prove nonexistence.

[–]scandalousmambo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can produce evidence of it. For example, by answering my question.

To take this assertion at face value we must assume that 12 random Judean peasants woke up one day and decided to put treason against the Roman Empire in writing, sign their names to it and then proceed to run hither and yon shouting their treason at the top of their lungs recruiting people to follow a non-existent leader.

We must also assume they did this knowing full well far in advance they had absolutely nothing to gain and were risking execution by slow torture.

Later, when their followers were being hunted down and killed, they not only stuck to their beliefs but continued to try and recruit others.

According to this theory, the deranged, paranoid suicide pact I just described became the largest religion in the history of man.

Does that sound reasonable to you? Or is it more likely the people who desperately insist Jesus didn't exist have rigid, irrational beliefs just like the allegedly Christian dingbats they claim to oppose?

Edit There is no point in posting on this subreddit. The people here are only interested in calling Christians names, and if they get called names in return, the mods step in and delete/ban all the non-atheists. This place is just a monument to bigotry.

[–]Strong AtheistSpartacusMaximusxxl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

How do you prove someone didnt exist? All we know is that there is no evidence he did.

[–]TotesMessenger -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Stopher -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

And here I thought he was only denied three times.

[–]Anti-TheistAzara1th 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Perhaps a better categorization of Jesus would be "potentially existed" or "plausibly existed", instead of "definitely existed" or "definitely did not exist".

The evidence seems very shaky at best, but you could say that he was simply not a significant figure at the time and was regarded as no more important than any of the other apocalyptic preachers and religious nuts of the time, but became more important later as some followers wrote about him and for one reason or another they got more and more popular. The claims about him in the Bible are almost certainly mostly false (definitely the resurrection, miracles, zombies, etc), but that doesn't mean there was never a person that the stories were based on.

Perhaps it's like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, spread like wildfire and somehow becoming viewed as historically accurate by a large proportion of people in 4015. The fact that Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is ridiculously not true wouldn't make Abraham Lincoln not a real historical figure. Of course we have way more documentation about the real Abraham Lincoln, but if that was lost... Just a hypothetical.

[–]stevewmn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What seems obvious is that Paul took whatever kernel of truth there is in the story and ran wild with it, successfully preaching or inventing a vast new religious doctrine that turned Judaic traditions upside down. The question is, did he really get all or most of it from Peter and the other disciples or did he pull it out of thin air?

Were his epistles to all these other priests real, or literary devices to provide a semblance of widespread Christian belief outside of Rome to impress his Roman target audience? Was it normal to write letters and then keep a copy of them for publication? Have his epistles ever been found in references outside of Rome, within the communities he supposedly sent them to?

[–]B_Boss 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Josephus was one poor historian. Paul was delusional as hell. I mean a guy who has been claimed as existing in ms kinds history....surely one should be able to evidently conclude it as either true or false beyond reasonable doubt yes? Imagine all the intelligent theists and atheists who argue for and against, respectively, their cases....yet the simple premise would be the absolute conclusion: Jesus/God simply does not exist. Something is terribly wrong here.

[–]SenatorBeatdown 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Holy shit.

Look, I am an atheist too, and you guys need to chill. Jesus existed. Period. I know a lot of you have a bone to pick with Christianity, but there are better arguments to make with them. There were independent Roman records that also speak of Jesus, and there are many other historical figures that would not pass the impossible amount of proof that you guys demand of Jesus.

Get of the "Jesus never existed" train. I know we are in the age of "pics or it didn't happen", but doing this throws you guys in with the 9/11 Truthers and the Birther conspiracy theorists. It just makes us look irrational, and I think that is exactly the opposite of how we want to come across.

[–]Secular Humanistskeptical_views 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Read Fitzgerald, Price and Carrier on this subject. The claim that Jesus existed is by no means as clear as you seem to suggest that it is.

[–]ShillinAintEasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nevermind the fact that all three authors of this book agree that Jesus existed and say as much in the books entry on Christianity.

[–]DenIb_Qatlh 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There may have been one or more itinerant preachers or others that the Yeshuha of Nazareth myth is based on but there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus GOD incarnate is anything but fictional. A logical assessment of the claims yields a probability approaching zero of even a mortal man that lived as the Bible teaches.

[–]arthurpaliden 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

No records what so ever. None, nada, zip, zilch ....

[–]Secular HumanistMerari01 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There were independent Roman records that also speak of Jesus,

Nope, none.

there are many other historical figures that would not pass the impossible amount of proof that you guys demand of Jesus.

Nope, none.

Note that I am not saying that Jesus never existed. What I do think however is that due to the complete lack of evidence that he did exist the only honest conclusion must be that we simply do not know. I am agnostic as to his existence.

[–]ookimbac 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

And there ya go.

[–]B_Boss 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As simple as that eh?, lol.

[–]Strong AtheistOferZak 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

its cause hes a hallucination

[–]futurecop 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

But wasn't there a thread not long ago where some guys with historian background said , among pro historians there is pretty much no doubt that Jesus did exist ? Just the whole focus pocus part was bs?

[–]AtheistElron_de_Sade[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I recall that thread, too. That's why I thought this link was important to submit.

[–]ShillinAintEasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

All three authors of this book agree that Jesus existed and say as much in the books entry on Christianity.

[–]DenIb_Qatlh 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

And what do we call claims based on authority that are not backed with evidence?

[–]AtheistTheCarrzilico 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm guessing that the Christians that are so interested in "how marriage has always been defined" don't really care about definitions, though.

[–]Florist_Gump 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I never can remember the term for it but I'm inclined to believe the story of Jesus is at least based on real events (albeit highly, highly embellished) instead of being entirely fabricated because there are elements of the stories that make little sense to have been made up. Jesus' very human response in anger to the moneylenders, for example. That strikes me as a real guy who was later deified, not a crafted deity.

[–]Atheistbtao 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right, it's called the Zodiac.

http://www.solarmythology.com/bibleastrology.htm

They're not the only ones, or first ones. Mithras, Horus, Buddha.... there's a bunch, with stories that match the dates, times and themes, which also match the procession of the sun over the ages.

[–]coryeyey 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

The only things written about jesus was supposedly written 10 years after his death. Why nothing was written about him before that always raised questions with me when I was a kid. Now that I'm an adult it makes perfect sense, he never existed.

[–]ShillinAintEasy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or you're just imposing an impossibly high standard of evidence for an itinerant preacher in first centruy Palestine...

[–]coryeyey 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or you have a very low standard of evidence. If any evidence existed when Jesus was alive I would be more inclined to believe he existed.

[–]ShillinAintEasy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Haha even the three authors of this book that this article is wrongly claiming supports the idea that Jesus doesn't real agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure, and the books entry on Christianity says as much. Here you go, you can check on page 314 for yourself. Why would there be info about one of literally hundreds of random itinerant preachers in a largely illiterate land? Absolutely nobody in academia who studies this and has their work peer reviewed thinks that Jesus isn't real. Keep grinding that axe though.

[–]DenIb_Qatlh 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So why didn't GOD incarnate, come to earth to teach man how to live, not write what HE wanted us to know down on papyrus or clay tablets or in stone so there would be no doubt? Deities just like to fuck with us I guess.

[–]Atheistbtao 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

10 years? You're generous.

[–]coryeyey 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I haven't taken a history class in awhile. I forgot how many years my history teacher actually said. How many years was it?

[–]Agnostic Atheistjpguitfiddler 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I believe it was somewhere around 40.

[–]coryeyey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah all I remember is that my teacher describing it in a matter of decades. I just didn't know how many it was.

[–]Atheistbtao 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least 30. That's 3 decades! Compare a world with computers to a world without computers. There's a lot that can happen in 30 years.

However, the bible references were even later than that. We're talking generations passing in between his death and stories regarded as gospel. Ever play the telephone game in elementary school? People can't get stories right that are 5 minutes apart. Big fish that Jesus was. I heard he was 7 feet tall.

[–]Tetragramatron 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is what happens when you use a historical perspective rather than a theological (even if it is secularized) perspective.

[–]CharlieDancey 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, since the rest of the Bible is evidently a work of fantasy, or at least wildly inaccurate, this should be no surprise!

[–]AtheistStoicismus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most historical books were work of fantasy back in the ancient world. It was customary to make up stuff (events, dialogues) to enrich the work. Nonetheless we use them, carefully, to determine what happened in the past. Same goes for the bible.

[–]Hmmsphil -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yet your bankers believe in satanic rituals - ooops conspiracy

Figure it out

[–]SickSinceSunday -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed. Satanism is actually just a term for the worship of power.

I'm not a Christian, and I don't have any religious affiliation, whatsoever. That being said, the, "sayings," of "Jesus" contain a lot of distilled wisdom from various sources living before, during and after that time period to which they were ascribed, reflecting on how society then and to this day operates as a whole.

[–]Hmmsphil -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well said! Crazy how revelations is all unfolding, must be a coincidence in your view?

[–]SickSinceSunday 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't consider anything about modern society to be coincidental. It's mostly made up of groups of business partners with one silently understood goal in mind: the acquisition of power, wealth and leisure time.

[–]Anti-TheistPrincessJezebel33 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dash Cam or it didn't happen. (anything jesus)

[–]RogerWaterZ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Harry Potter might as well be on that list too. Atleast that book was written by ONE author.

[–]davidjricardo 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Did the historical Jesus exist - Bart Ehrman

[–]Jinbuhuan 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's because there was no jesus character! The Oxford is not fooling around, just because a bunch of people "believe," against science!

[–]DDancy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is old-ish news as this version was published in 2012, but. Time for an update from the 3rd edition? Bring it Amazon. Ouch! £90

This will be my son's "bible". where he can actually learn facts not bullshit.

*edit: I'm thinking of maybe just letting him read through the bible with no prior knowledge to see what his reaction is.

Has something like this been done already?

Sure it probably has.

I remember a story about a devout believer going on a missionary quest to proselytize to the local tribe who had no knowledge of christianity etc. and was laughed at by them. Sky People!! WTF are you talking about? That kind of thing.

[–]WoodyHarrlesonsAgent 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whelp, there you go. Time to close down and move on to the next bullshit argument that means nothing about some fantasy: UFOlogy

/drops mic

[–]ghrog -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gospels are proleptic, they are an allegory for the first genetically modified human being born when Mary's cross is broken and born to King David's seed. https://gnosticearth.wordpress.com/introducing-messiah/

[–]stale_ennui -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hahahahaha this is great, thanks for the chuckles.

[–]HalfroThunda 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

If Jesus gets inducted, then so does Dumbledore and Obi Wan

[–]Jinbuhuan 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

If Jesus gets inducted, then so does Dumbledore and Obi Wan< And Snow White, and Ronald McDonald, and Yogi, and Boo Boo, and Cinderella, and Deputy Dawg, and Tweety and Sylvester, and Jinx, and Qwick Draw McGraw.

[–]HalfroThunda 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dont forget Optimus Prime.....I praise him!

[–]Jinbuhuan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That was after my time as a little tyke. I grew up on the Three Stooges, Popeye, and loony Tunes...black and white TV. Our first tape recorder was a 4" reel-to-reel. No picture, just low quality sound.

[–]Merendino 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Give this argument a couple thousand more years and we won't be having this argument. It will be taught exactly like Hurcules' story. It's just time. Might not be a thousand years, but it likely won't be in my lifetime.

[–]PantheistEllytoad 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not quite so optimistic. Second coming anticipations endure like radiation half-lives, and people desperately want their epic Revelation apocalypse.

[–]CaptaincavemanJay 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its alright, its covered in the Mythology book instead

[–]Agnostic Atheistanomicofficedrone 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

What I do not get is how people of faith have so little actual faith that they need to be told their religions are fact by everyone else.

[–]Atheistpctech86 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know this is actually a really great way of putting it I'm gonna have to remember that one

[–]PantheistEllytoad -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a burden that I certainly don't appreciate.

[–]Udontlikecake 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

So many strawmen arguments in here.

No legitimate historian thinks Jesus or anyone came back from the dead.

But there was a historical figure named Jesus in that area, at that time who had some religious ideas.

[–]frankhlane 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nice try cultshit!

[–]Secular Humanistpubliclurker 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Legitimate citation needed.

[–]Jinbuhuan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

there was a historical figure named Jesus

I don't think so!

[–]Atheistpctech86 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

So many strawmen arguments in here.

No there's not, I can name literally hundreds of people who claim the Bible is a legitimate historical record, and it is in fact more prevalent than most of us atheists seem to think (at least in this country).

No legitimate historian thinks Jesus or anyone came back from the dead.

I would agree with this, just like saying something along the lines of "the majority of most legitimate scientists don't believe there's a god". But then again, most religious people aren't concerned with evidence or finding the truth they are only interested in finding answers that fall along the lines of their beliefs.

But there was a historical figure named Jesus in that area, at that time who had some religious ideas.

I mean yeah most likely. But that's no different than me saying "There is a person alive right now named John in the area of the Vatican who has some religious ideas". Sure it's obviously going to be true, but that has no bearing on anything whatsoever. There are people named Jesus alive today who have religious ideas, doesn't mean they should be put into the Oxford Classical Dictionary either agreed?

And given that there was probably a random dude named Jesus (probably millions over history in fact) that had religious ideas, we do not know anything specific, historically accurate, or of any historic significance that would make us want to put that guy's entry into the Oxford Classical Dictionary...agreed?

[–]frankhlane -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nice try cultshit!

[–]Atheistpctech86 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Looking through your recent comment history I guess your statement

Nice try cultshit!

is to be wholly expected. Nice try :)

[–]frankhlane -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Keep trying cultshit!

[–]Secular Humanistpubliclurker 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

just because a bunch of willful idiots make a claim does not mean that it is true. If that were the case, then Santa and the Easter bunny would exist too.

[–]Atheistpctech86 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes but they are indicative of the majority of the population (of religious people). Even though they are wrong doesn't mean we can ignore the claims solely because so many people are making them

[–]Secular Humanistpubliclurker 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, we can ignore them the same way we ignore any other made up BS. Remember, in the real world, reality does not care what you think.

[–]Atheistpctech86 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We could ignore them if they are not people who are close to you whom you love, or when you get cornered by somebody in your family at a family gathering. But, I don't seem to get invited to those too much anymore.

But your statement is incredibly true nonetheless

[–]Tuplex 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Let's not resort to using a single book to argue against Christianity. We don't let them get away with it, and we shouldn't allow arguments against to do that either.

[–]Atheistpctech86 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The way I put it when debating with a religious person is that "I do not believe in any gods, therefore I do not believe the bible is accurate. So in me debating the bible with you, it solely for the purpose of humoring you as it does nothing for me."

If a person uses the Bible as a reference, it is fair game to tear down its credibility, not every person who is religious uses the bible as a reference, but then again they can't really be christian without it (references to being the followers of christ)

As an atheist I don't feel I have to debate the validity of the bible at all because if there's no god it is obviously an invalid book anyway, but nevertheless I still keep a cheat sheet of verses I like to start throwing out there when religious people start quoting the Bible.

[–]trollxic 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like how it's called the "OCD".

[–]Agnostic AtheistLaszloKovacs 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jesus may very well have been a real person but that in no way validates the outrageous claims made by the bible. Even if they did prove that he existed beyond a shadow of a doubt it would not lend any credibility to the Christian faith. The earth isn't 6,000 years old, an old man didn't build a boat and gather two of every animal, and no one has ever parted the red sea. These facts wouldn't change even if jesus was proven to have existed.

[–]De-Facto Atheistcryo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But those things aren't dependent on Jesus, of course, since they are from the Torah.

[–]SheriffofBanshee 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Integrity in nice.

[–]unicornmane 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its debunking all religions that have mentions of Jesus not just Christianity

[–]codemoney 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tell the morons from Kansas who picket funerals to go to Oxford with 'god hates Oxford' signs.

[–]Jinbuhuan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They should, because people won't understand them and might think it's just a prank! Ha ha. It is, after all!

[–]newuser27 13ポイント14ポイント  (9子コメント)

The atheist argument for Jesus: he was a man, not named Jesus, born to a mother and father but not in Bethlehem, who didn't do anything the bible says he did.

I've never understood the attachment some have to him being a real person.

[–]Jinbuhuan 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are many people named mike! (Which reminds me of a joke: Oh, you're from Texas? Do you know this guy named Mike?)

[–]vjmurphy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If he isn't real, then he couldn't die, and if he didn't die, there's no religion. Jesus' death is the reason for Christianity. That's why people are invested in his existence.

[–]geekyamazon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even that is stretching it. There scant historical evidence at all for him and what little does exist is often so contradictory that it is meaningless to claim it is real.

[–]Atheistpctech86 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are no atheist arguments for Jesus. Like I mentioned above in another comment, anytime we mention anything out of the bible it is usually serving the sole purpose of humoring the person they are talking with.

The only time you see an atheist saying something like "well yeah there was definitely a man named jesus who had religious ideas when somebody says something prior, similar to this

there was a historical figure named Jesus in that area, at that time who had some religious ideas.

So we are conceding that statement, because it can be surmised with a fair amount of certainty that SOMEBODY alive was named Jesus who DID have religious ideas, but atheists are not conceding that it is the same jesus you are referring to in the bible.

I wish theists would understand exact vocabulary and quit making inferences when there is no room to do so.

[–]JoePesciOfGoneFishin -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

How about the historic significance of the small cult he founded going on to become the largest and most influential religion the world has ever known?

[–]Aprilsfooled [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How about the significance of the same scenario happening around completely fictitious people over and over again throughout history?

Humanity has proved over and over again that an entity doesn't need to have existed in order to become popular.

[–]mdmcgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The cult founded by Paul (Saul of Tarsus)?

[–]newuser27 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

So what you're saying is that Star Wars must also be based on real people.

[–]PantheistEllytoad 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He may have even been inspired by more than one spiritual teacher at the time, if I recall correctly.

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 127ポイント128ポイント  (33子コメント)

My biggest issue with the approach people take to this question is that very few define what it means for a person to EXIST.

If you wish to prove someone's existence, but you have:

  1. a mythical birthdate (Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Hermes, Bacchus, etc etc etc)
  2. a name lost in translation (Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, etc etc etc),
  3. no actual events that are corroborated by any independent source of the time (Dead men rising from their graves and walking throughout town wasn't recorded by a single person, despite there being plenty of correspondences recovered from that time and area, Solar eclipses in that area do not match timelines recorded in the bible, etc)
  4. family that is ephermal and have no evidence for their existence either.
  5. obviously stylized facial features drawn centuries after death which preclude any kind of recognizable portraits.

how do you define what would constitute an identity? I am not just my name. Others may have my name but they are not me. I am identified by a combination of records of my birth, my face, my job, and things that I have done and places I have visited throughout my life, along with my family and their own identities.

Finding a gravestone marked Yeshua would prove nothing. A bloody cross would prove even less considering how common it was, as a tool of torture and execution. And since all the other information regarding birth dates, events of his life and his family, are so heavily borrowed from everywhere, or just plain fabricated, I would say that people claiming Jesus was a real figure have a seriously difficult task ahead of them.

EDIT: /u/newuser27 said it nicely a few comments down:

The atheist argument for Jesus: he was a man, not named Jesus, born to a mother and father but not in Bethlehem, who didn't do anything the bible says he did. I've never understood the attachment some have to him being a real person.

[–]Gnostic AtheistYourFairyGodmother 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good piece for you to read: http://www.jstor.org/stable/368550?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Now then, with respect to historical investigations there are some standard core principles for source criticism. Frequently cited is the formulation put together by Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):

  • Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

  • Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

  • The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

  • An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

  • If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

  • The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

  • If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

By those standards, there is no evidence of an historical Jesus.

Now then, that old trope about "there was a Jesus but he was just some unremarkable schmoe" is laughable. If he was just another wandering preacher, and to be sure there were many, how the fuck did such a legend arise? Why that preacher? While people often say that's the "simple explanation" it's just the opposite. William of Ockham rolls in his grave each time it's said.

[–]geekyamazon 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You think Zeus is real too because a religion is based on him?

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I argue the exact opposite. I do not think there is any reasonable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

What I was trying to say in my comment above, is that there is almost nothing about the mythical figure of Jesus that isn't already copied from somewhere else, or so common that it would be meaningless. My post was largely against all the people in these comments who are cribbing that "historians support the existence for the historical Jesus! NOT for Bilbical Jesus who did miracles and joo-joo." as if that somehow makes the entire process A-okay and completely validates the concept.

Well, the only thing we know about Jeebs is what was written in the Bible. So if historians really are discounting all of that, then they can pick any simple jewish guy from that era and pin the medal of Jeebs on him!

[–]geekyamazon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for the clarification. Completely agree.

[–]Nebuchadnezzar-II 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

The question is whether these descriptions were originally based on an existing person, not whether someone with these exact characteristics existed.

[–]JoePesciOfGoneFishin -5ポイント-4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Biblical stories, an admittedly made-up birthday and westernized depictions of Jesus all have NOTHING to do with the study of Jesus as a historical figure. You're arguing points that mean nothing to historians.

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

my comment to someone else:

I think you completely misunderstood what I said. I argue the exact opposite. I do not think there is any reasonable evidence for the existence of Jesus.

What I was trying to say in my comment above, is that there is almost nothing about the mythical figure of Jesus that isn't already copied from somewhere else, or so common that it would be meaningless. My post was largely against all the people in these comments who are cribbing that "historians support the existence for the historical Jesus! NOT for Bilbical Jesus who did miracles and joo-joo." as if that somehow makes the entire process A-okay and completely validates the concept.

Well, the only thing we know about Jeebs is what was written in the Bible. So if historians really are discounting all of that, then they can pick any simple jewish guy from that era and pin the medal of Jeebs on him!

[–]JoePesciOfGoneFishin -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a very bad argument. Historians aren't as concerned with the stories in the Bible, but the historical rise of Christianity and the importance of its central figure. You're arguing points that make no sense and don't matter at all to the question at hand.

[–]PantheistEllytoad 22ポイント23ポイント  (23子コメント)

I think the main argument as to why he's declared a real person at all is the unlikelihood of such a popular religion forming around a nonexistent teacher.

[–]rozhbash 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus, like many religious figures at the time, started off as a "celestial being" like an archangel but was Euhemerized into a historical person over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

[–]Gnostic AtheistYourFairyGodmother 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

HAHAHAHA That totally explains Zeus, Odin, Jehovah, Horus, ... Your fallacy today is what I call the John Frum fallacy.

[–]PantheistEllytoad 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, they think it's unlikely, is my point. Of course I know human fabrication can be just as real to adherents as real figures.

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 28ポイント29ポイント  (3子コメント)

see: Zeus, Shiva, Thor, Jupiter, Moses.

Most religions have formed around fictional characters. Most have teachers who use parables to drive home various lessons. Some religions have figures that are beyond ordinary belief, while others go to painstaking effort to make them lifelike, give them backstories and flesh out the protagonists.

There is no reason Christianity is exempt from that.

[–]powercow 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

ALL religions have formed arround fictional chars.

unless you got a god in your pocket you can share with the crowd.

the point was the teacher... the prophet.. was real. or claimed to have been.. not someone in some far off heaven.

I still agree with you, that you dont need any reality to get people to follow.. NONE ZIP.. but the claim, isnt about the gods its about the teacher.(though it gets conflated with christanity as the teacher is a god)

[–]fsm_vs_cthulhu 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Islam's prophet quite certainly existed. That is why I don't say all religions. So did L Ron Hubbard and many others. On the other hand, Moses was almost certainly a fictional character. A parable. All these people are prophets (teachers).

[–]royalbarnacle 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

But the teacher doesn't have to be Jesus. Jesus can be just another character in this religion being taught by this teacher or teachers (whoever they may be, apostles, forgotten minor characters, etc). If you were trying to peddle a religion wouldn't it make sense to invent such superhuman yet relatable figures to make the whole narrative more compelling?

[–]0Faith 6ポイント7ポイント  (14子コメント)

Except the christian religion was not formed around and from him

コメントをもっと表示する (719 返事)