Humanity of Jesus

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by geetarmoore

That, amazingly enough, is the apologists excuse! Satan planted the stories ahead of time, along with them pesky dinosaur bones, I guess

Bill Hicks, bless him, did a brilliant skit about creationists. "So ... God's f--king with my mind?!" "Have you noticed how creationists look unevolved?" I was rolling around. The tears ran down my trouser-leg. Loved that man.

[geetarmoore]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

My minimum for a historical Jesus is somebody who was crucified in Pilate's days following serious disturbances in Jerusalem in which they played an important part. I tend towards there being such a person.

What specific pieces of evidence do you use to come up with this theory? I'm interested in learning more, and it sounds like you have something more than what I have so far come up with...

Thanks.

[Iacchus]

The Christian Church was established in Greece.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The Christian Church was established in Greece.

It was also established in LIES.

[Iacchus]

E-li-jah? Or, was that John the Baptist?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by geetarmoore

What specific pieces of evidence do you use to come up with this theory?

We're faced with fragmentary evidence, often contradictory. The best I can do is construct a vague narrative that's credible in what I know of the context. It's quite possible that the crucifixion is borrowed from, say, Judas of Galilee, the healing from Jewish charismatic healers of the period, the conjuring from contemporary scam-artists. There may be no solid heart of the matter.

On the other hand ...

Why the nonsense about Pilate traditionally releasing a terrorist each year at the behest of the mob? That's not how Rome ran an empire. The story becomes that the crowd bayed for Barabas, rejecting Jesus in their rejectionist Jewish way, but why bring the subject up and put incredible spin on it? The likelihood is, to my mind, that by the time the spin was being applied there was already a tradition of an anti-Roman mob calling for Jesus's release. A tradition that existed cheek-to-jowl with Pauline Christianity as it was emerging.

Bits and pieces like that suggest to me that there was a guy, entirely compatible with the circumstances of the time, who sparked off a hopeless revolt against the Romans, or had one launched in his name, during Pilate's tenure. Only 30 or 40 years later a major revolt really did break out. 60 years after that, another one.

It's just the impression I get. I think there probably was a person around whom coalesced the mythical Jesuses.

[DSE]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It was also established in LIES.

Sure, but lies in Greece.

[DSE]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It was also established in LIES.

To be fair, I don't think they knew it was lies then. In fact, there were some good ideas in the beginning there (along with some bad ones, and some bad execution). But still...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It was also established in LIES.

So what's the TRUTH?

You must know if you're able to tell us what LIES are.

[thaiboxerken]

Truth is, there are no gods.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Truth is, there are no gods.

Thanks for sharing your belief. That takes a lot of courage.

You must believe others will take that on faith, though, considering you have not surveyed all space and time to have the basis to make that statement.

Or do you believe that since you made a negative claim, that therefore you do not have burden of evidence because it is a negative claim? -that we can all go around making negative claims, and because they are negative claims we don't have to do any work?

[thaiboxerken]

No, T'ai Chi. It's not a belief, it's a conclusion based on the fact that there is NO evidence of any gods. I do not have a burden of claim since my statement "There are no gods" is simply a strong doubt of the claim that there are gods. Negative claims carry the burden of evidence if they go against established facts.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's not a belief, it's a conclusion based on the fact that there is NO evidence of any gods.

Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.

Quote:

I do not have a burden of claim since my statement "There are no gods" is simply a strong doubt of the claim that there are gods. Negative claims carry the burden of evidence if they go against established facts.

Saying 'there are no X' is a negative claim about the existence of X.

A "strong doubt" about X, would be "I really doubt X exists".

You understand. They are quite different things. You might thing it is strong, but it is only strong in emotion, and weak in logic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.

Excuse me? You just called scientific knowledge "belief".

According to you, is there no difference between knowledge and belief?

[CapelDodger]

There are no gods. Nor are there any elves or pixies, no invisible troll is sitting on my chimney when the fire smokes, and there definitely ain't no Sanity Clause. Why does any adult have a problem with that?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by DSE

Sure, but lies in Greece.

The theology and stories behind Christianity are mostly Greek, but Greece came to the Middle East with Alexander. There must have been interaction between Greek and Jewish philosophy - why else was the Septuagint created? So Christianity might have been invented in the Middle East.

[elliotfc]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The theology and stories behind Christianity are mostly Greek, but Greece came to the Middle East with Alexander. There must have been interaction between Greek and Jewish philosophy - why else was the Septuagint created? So Christianity might have been invented in the Middle East.

Just as a point of order, and I'm not saying that you don't know this...but the Septuagint is the Old Testament, and not the New Testament.

As for the "why"...there was a large Alexandrian Jewish population, and you didn't have a higher population of scribes than you had in Alexandria, Greece. It's pretty obvious why the Septuagint took hold...because it was copied, and copied, and copied.

-Elliot

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by elliotfc

Just as a point of order, and I'm not saying that you don't know this...but the Septuagint is the Old Testament, and not the New Testament.

Its existence shows that there was interchange between Greek and Jewish philosophy for some time before Christianity.

Quote:

As for the "why"...there was a large Alexandrian Jewish population, and you didn't have a higher population of scribes than you had in Alexandria, Greece. It's pretty obvious why the Septuagint took hold...because it was copied, and copied, and copied.

Shouldn't that be Alexandria, Egypt? As in "Philo of Alexandria"?

[elliotfc]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Its existence shows that there was interchange between Greek and Jewish philosophy for some time before Christianity.

Yes.

Quote:

Shouldn't that be Alexandria, Egypt? As in "Philo of Alexandria"?

Of course, mea maxima culpa. Of course Alexander and Ptolemy spread Greek and Greek culture/ideas wherever they went.

-Elliot

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

There are no gods.
...
Why does any adult have a problem with that?

Forget 'adults', I think 'logic' has a problem with your belief.

You suddenly throw it out the window, with your statement of a universal negative (which you cannot prove) as some fact.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Based on your finite experience, and the sum of finite experiences of others, that is your belief.

Is there any other kind of experience? We can only draw conclusions based on facts that we know. Also, my statement is entirely falsifiable. All that has to happen is for a person to give evidence that a god exists. The claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, and thus immediately inherits all burden of evidence.

Quote:

Saying 'there are no X' is a negative claim about the existence of X.

A "strong doubt" about X, would be "I really doubt X exists".

You understand. They are quite different things. You might thing it is strong, but it is only strong in emotion, and weak in logic.

Wrong. The statement "there are no X" is entirely dependant on the claim that "there are X". Without the initial, positive claim that "There are X" my statement that "there are no X" would never come about. It is because of this that my statement is one of doubt and not a position that has a burden of evidence, unless "there are X" has been established as fact.

"Negative" statements that have no burden of evidence are such as these:

There are no gods.
Superman isn't a real person.
Pixies don't exist.
Creationism isn't science.

"Negative" statement that have the burden of evidence are these:

Gravity doesn't exist.
2+2 does not equal 4
Apples are not a fruit.
The USA is not a country.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

We can only draw conclusions based on facts that we know.

Could god(s) be in a different dimension? A bubble universe? Somewhere in this unverse that you haven't looked? Somewhere that you haven't thought of? Saying 'no god(s) exist' is a fact is premature. Of course, you really mean 'I believe no god(s) exist from what I've seen and understand'.

Quote:

Without the initial, positive claim that "There are X" my statement that "there are no X" would never come about.

This coming from one who often claims that 'we are born atheists' is somewhat amusing. For that to be true, you now argue that first we are born not atheists?? Which is it?

Quote:

"Negative" statements that have no burden of evidence are such as these:
There are no gods.

You've just restated your belief. You're basically trying to state your belief as fact, then claim that you have no burnen of evidence. You don't, but only if you toss logic out the window.

[thaiboxerken]

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods. One cannot believe in any gods if one has no concept of such a being.

Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods." I've explained to you why that is, but you could care less about explanations and logic, you just want to troll.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods. One cannot believe in any gods if one has no concept of such a being.

Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods." I've explained to you why that is, but you could care less about explanations and logic, you just want to troll.

And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation? To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is? Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation? To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is? Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?

Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.

Do you know what humility is? ... No, I didn't think so.

[elliotfc]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Even a small child deserves an explanation why they are being punished. The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant. The only reason to worship such an entity would be out of fear.

I can come up with other reasons!

Loving, parental types ought to punish their children. As for explanations, they don't always come immediately, for various reasons.

Christians have theological reasoning behind all of this...if you except the theological reasoning, it makes sense. If you don't, then yes, you will see God in such a way, although uncaring tyrant might be a bit much given the person of Jesus.

-Elliot

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods.

Nobody's born with critical thinking skills either .

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Forget 'adults', I think 'logic' has a problem with your belief.

You suddenly throw it out the window, with your statement of a universal negative (which you cannot prove) as some fact.

There are almost infinite ideas that the human imagination can come up with. Gods, naiads, brain-control rays from Rigel. The vast majority are ludicrous by obervation - the huge panoply of gods that have been imagined, for instance. Why should the ludicrous not be called ludicrous and dismissed out-of-hand? Adolescent sophistry apart, and there comes a time in our lives when we must put aside childish things.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It is a fact that we are born without beliefs, including that of any gods.

Then we're born lacking atheism as well because we are unaware of philosophy and worldviews.

Quote:

Again, logically, the burden of evidence always rests on the claim "there are gods" and not "there are no gods."

You've claimed 'there are no gods, and that is a fact'. You belief is based on your and others' finite knowledge. For example, if god(s) exist in other dimension or universe, you'd have no clue, yet your belief, which you claim is a fact, doesn't reflect reality.

Truzzi, on pseudoskeptics, wrote
(bold mine)

Quote:

Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary--for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma, or that someone in a psi experiment was cued via an abnormal ability to hear a high pitch others with normal ears would fail to notice. In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by Tricky

The God you describe is not a loving parental god, but a uncaring tyrant.

Based on your finite human understanding, perhaps. I, and you, certainly think things like disease, destructive weather, and human-made catastrophies are terrible, but we lack the foresight to see the whole picture that god(s) could see if they exist.

What you are doing, I'm afraid, is equivalent to criticizing a book that you are not able to read the whole way through.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

This coming from one who often claims that 'we are born atheists' is somewhat amusing. For that to be true, you now argue that first we are born not atheists?? Which is it?

Your inference is hard to grasp. Born atheists - as we all are - would never say "there are no gods" until somebody imagined there were and said so. We skeptics wouldn't say "there are no alien abductions" without somebody claiming there are. We don't spend our lives imagining all the ludicrous ideas that people might imagine and pre-emptively denying them.

Without the claim, there is no denial. Without "There is X" there is no "There isn't X" response. Which is what thaiboxerken said.

There are no claims of brain-control rays from Rigel, by the way. I made that up. But then again, how do I know there aren't Rigelians who claim there are? It's all terribly confusing ...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Born atheists - as we all are - would never say "there are no gods" until somebody imagined there were and said so.

Says you. Since we are just telling stories here, one could equally imagine a chap, wondering about his orgins, first saying 'We must have just popped into being out of the dirt/we always existed/only chance and time created us/etc.', and then another chap said 'No, I think we were created by a higher being', thus an example of someone saying 'there are no gods' before someone said 'there are gods'.

Of course, your belief is self-defeating, because you possess two contradictory statements about the state of affairs. You hold that

1) we are born atheists, and
2) people imagined gods first, and then came along atheists to say there are no gods

at the same time. So, how exactly can both be true?

Quote:

Without the claim, there is no denial. Without "There is X" there is no "There isn't X" response. Which is what thaiboxerken said.

I'm not sure where you are getting lost. It doesn't matter who said what first as far as burden of evidence is concerned. What matters is that some negative claims are claims that has a burden. See the Truzzi article. For someone to say that 'no gods exist, and that is a fact', that is an extraordinary claim and logic demands a demonstration of their amazing facts.

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.

[Iacchus]

The whole of human history is rife with tales of the supernatural. Of course is this just a by-product of sentience? Or, could sentience be a by-product of IT?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And why does God necessarily owe anybody an explanation?

I doubt that any gods exist, so I don't expect an explanation from any of them. It's the believers that need to provide evidence and explanations.

Quote:

To prove to you that He's not the creep that you think He is?

Again, this is about whether gods exist or not. It's not about the personality of these beings. I think some gods would be great to hang out with, if they existed, such as Aphrodite, Odin and Thor. Loki might be a fun guy to go out partying with as well as Dionesis.

Quote:

Why should anybody have to explain themselves under such circumstances?

N/A

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

Nobody's born with critical thinking skills either .

This is true, some people learn it from the environment and others are taught. Many, too many, simply don't gain these skills at all, a good example is T'ai Whodini.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Then we're born lacking atheism as well because we are unaware of philosophy and worldviews.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't require philosophy and worldviews.

Quote:

Truzzi, on pseudoskeptics, wrote
(bold mine)

Truzzi is simply an idiot and another woo-woo who attacks the skeptical position. Negative claims of things not factually established bear no burden of evidence.

[KelvinG]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I personally think that if people like Ken are correct, then they must be in fact incorrect, and they are in fact gods since they've surveyed all of space and time in order to make their statement in the first place. Or, using Occam's Razor, they are just wrong.

Ah yes. This again. I always have said that if the best argument in favour of God's existence is "Well, you can't prove he doesn't exist" then issue is hardly even worth debating. It's a pathetically weak argument.
There are many, many things I can't prove don't exist, but I don't waste valuable seconds of my life worrying about them.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

This is true, some people learn it from the environment and others are taught. Many, too many, simply don't gain these skills at all, a good example is T'ai Whodini.

Actually, he/she sounds to me like someone who's given it considerable thought.

[DSE]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The whole of human history is rife with tales of the supernatural. Of course is this just a by-product of sentience? Or, could sentience be a by-product of IT?

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's true. There are a lot of reasons why, given what early humans would need to survive, these stories would be created. It's not a by-product of sentience, just a by-product how humans without knowledge would create explanations about how the world works.