Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 165 (616585)
05-23-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jon
05-23-2011 12:34 PM


Re: The Topic
To that end, you should probably acknowledge the controversial nature of the term 'fundamentalist atheist' and your idiosyncratic characterisation of what a fundamentalist is.
There are no fundamental dogmas in atheism.
You might argue that there are anti-theistic notions which some anti-theists stick to dogmatically and it is to this you are referring to - but these aren't notions that should define anti-theism so can hardly be called 'fundamental'. The idea that the crucifixion is a myth may be held dogmatically by someone, but it is not necessary to have this belief to be an anti-theist by anyone's standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 12:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 1:40 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 165 (616650)
05-23-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
05-23-2011 1:40 PM


Re: The Topic
But if my use of a word is hindering discussion, let me reverse the claim; taking the denial of an historical Jesus, do you suppose that, though not shared by all anti-theists, that all people who share it are likely to be anti-theists/extreme atheists?
No. First of all there are members of many religions that could conceivably hold that opinion, Jews being the least of them.
But run of the mill atheists can hold that position too. The arguments in favour of a historical Jesus are hardly cast iron. They are basically of the form 'it would be unusual to include x in the gospel accounts unless it really happened'.
But I suppose the if you refer to a strong statement that Jesus absolutely did not exist, then if you were to find that opinion it would likely be from 'extreme atheists'.
However, I wouldn't necessarily characterise Robert M Price as an extreme atheist. Although his position is a negative one on the existence of Jesus, he does suggest there is a historical basis for the religion and he isn't necessarily fanatical or dogmatic about the non-existence of Jesus:
quote:
There might have been an historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton we'll never know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 1:40 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 7:55 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 8:23 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 165 (616652)
05-23-2011 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
05-23-2011 2:34 PM


Re: The Topic
The Volcano idea I think comes from the Exodus description of God as being a cloud filled with fire that likes to hang around the tops of mountains.
Exodus 24:
quote:
And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
And earlier in Exodus 13:
quote:
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
There are other descriptions of the mountain shaking as the top was covered in smoke and fire.
That said - I don't think the geology actually supports this notion at all.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2011 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 05-24-2011 1:35 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 165 (616671)
05-23-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jon
05-23-2011 8:23 PM


The Santa Gap
And why do you suppose they hold to these positions? Is extremism just one of those things that cannot be rationally investigated? Do we just call them irrational and move on?
I suspect many of them come from Christian backgrounds and have come to see Jesus in much the same way as they see Santa Claus. It isn't extremist to say Santa Claus is a fiction - even though there may have been a real person that inspired the stories. If we placed them on a scale with 'the real Nicklaus' on one end and 'Santa Claus of the 20th Century' on the other we can call the distance between them, The Santa Gap.
I suspect that the Jesus Gap, for those that have been raised on Jesus especially, could be seen to be sufficiently similar to the Santa Gap in magnitude so that it isn't necessarily extreme to declare 'Jesus didn't exist' in the same way we might say 'Santa Claus doesn't exist'. This would be an error of sorts, but being raised on Jesus it might not be obvious that the Historical Jesus might be referring to something other than Jesus of the Bible as written.
I could be wrong, this is all speculation, but you did ask me to speculate...
In my limited view, strongly held black and white views are the province of the young and the old. In the case of atheism, mostly seen in the young. Religious dogmas can reinforce this thinking through middleage, but I suspect most of those kinds of atheists mellow out with age. On the other hand it could be part of the early conversion to a new way of thinking process. That is, swinging from one end of a spectrum to another before settling towards the middle as more mental time is given to the idea.
It's not that they are 'irrational'. No more than you or me, at least. You just have to find the right way to engage with them, if engage with them you wish. I suspect you main gripe is that the posters you posted earlier dismissed your request for evidence - and there is no real way to progress if dismissal is the only response you get after earnestly attempting to engage.
But if you dismiss them as dismissive fundamentalist anti-theists, you may find an opportunity to understand another's viewpoint is now doomed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 8:23 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 11:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 165 (616721)
05-24-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
05-23-2011 11:17 PM


Re: The Santa Gap
If the "historical Jesus" wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead, then in what possible sense was he the "historical Jesus"?
The historical Jesus is said to have had the same name (or the local equivalent) and people believed he performed miracles, and the Romans heard rumours of his claiming to be the King of the Jews and subsequently executed him for this.
It's the same sense that Niklaus is the historical Santa Claus, Voivode Vlad Tepes III is the historical Count Dracula the Undead.
There's no evidence for any aspect of the Jesus myth.
There is evidence, it's just not fantastic or conclusive. The 'king of the Jews' claim is interesting because Jesus' followers did not claim he was king of the Jews (any that were persuaded he was the messiah would have called him 'King of Israel' not 'of the Jews'). This seems to be what the Romans heard when they heard 'king of Israel', its an interesting and unnecessary nuance.
This is the kind of evidence that supports, but does not prove, the existence of a real Jesus person - who is presumably as far removed from the Christ character as Dracula is to Vlad Tepes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 10:07 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 10:31 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 165 (616739)
05-24-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 10:07 AM


Re: The Santa Gap
The bible. Nothing else. There is no contemporary evidence at all.
Naturally.
There is no evidence that the Romans heard anything at all about Jesus. The first mention in any Roman records is at least 50 years after the supposed crucifixion.
There is no evidence outside of the Bible, I don't recall saying otherwise.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 10:07 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 165 (616754)
05-24-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 10:31 AM


Re: The Santa Gap
Right, and that "sense" is that there's no such thing as Santa Claus, Dracula, or Jesus Christ.
I believe I already said that. Further, I noted that this was the source of confusion between Jon and his 'extreme atheists', which you seem to have just supported.
When you say "this seems to be what the Romans heard", precisely what are you referring to? Your own experience with what Romans said or did? No, that can't be right - you're not 2000 years old. Roman writings? Well, no, that can't be the case, there aren't any contemporary Roman writings that mention Jesus at all.
I'm at a loss for what your source for what "the Romans heard" could possibly be.
In all four Gospels the Romans refer to Jesus as King of the Jews. The followers of Jesus would have thought of him at best as a prospective King of Israel. It is a strange nuance that they write 'King of the Jews' in multiple sources. It was as if it was an accurate recording of the charge against Jesus, which would have been a capital offense. Often with these kinds of stories the tellers make errors of reference or knowledge. We might have seen the Romans executing the 'Son of man' or 'messenger of Yahweh'. Instead a consistent message that is somewhat at odds with the viewpoint of the authors.
Another example of the very strange mental lacuna that occurs when people try to present the evidence for a historical Jesus, I guess.
I think, when you are imagining 'evidence' you are picturing killer knockout scientific evidence. But we are talking history, not science. While science can help uncover history, much that is historical doesn't have the support most scientific notions do. There are various methods people employ when presented with an ancient text to try and extract what historical truths may be behind the writings.
The historical Jesus is much like the historical Appolonius. Very little can be discerned, but there is some weak support for the notion that an apocolyptic jew called Yeshua or similar, preached an impending end times, people thought he was a messiah, and his contingent was possibly armed, and after he was executed, the apologetics to explain why their Camping didn't fulfill Messianic prophecy started.
If you really want to discuss it in any sort of depth it would probably be best left for Reconstructing the Historical Jesus or some other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 10:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 92 of 165 (616772)
05-24-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 11:01 AM


Re: The Santa Gap
Right, but what's the evidence that the Romans ever referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews"?
It's in all four Gospels.
What followers of Jesus?
The ones that followed him.
What sources?
The four Gospels.
No, I'm imagining evidence. You know, some kind of physical or textual record that would only exist of Jesus was an actual historical person.
There is no evidence that necessarily demonstrates Jesus' existence. And I didn't claim as such. So this kind of thing is nothing to do with any claims I made and your request I provide that kind of evidence is at odds with the claim I actually made. I said there was some evidence that weakly supports the notion of a real apocolyptic jew that was executed which we call 'the historical jesus'.
You seem to be under the impression that it counts as "corroboration" of Alice's story if we ask Bob, Charlie, and David and they tell the same story - never mind the fact that they're just repeating what they heard from Alice.
No. I appreciate that the later gospels took information from the earlier ones, and probably from sources that have not survived.
I'm asking for evidence for the historicity of Jesus. You keep telling me there is some but your fingers just seem to wave over the keyboard and it doesn't actually wind up in your posts. Frankly, I'm less interested in the non-existent evidence for Jesus than I am in this strange psychological phenomenon where people become hypnotized into the belief that there's all this evidence for Jesus.
Again, I told you one piece of the kind of weak evidence that supports the figure. If you want to debate it, take it to a thread about that subject. It's not like I have this absolute belief that there is knockout evidence for Jesus that proves he really danced on water. I just think the writings that we have are consistent with the notion there was at least one real guy that inspired the stories.
If you are really interested in the phenomenon of having opinions stronger than 'I guess it is a little supported' you should probably just use your memory:
crashfrog writes:
... I am an evolutionist and an atheist, so I hope you'll find it significant when I tell you that I do believe the historical person Jesus probably really did exist, though perhaps under a different name.
From Message 50
If you don't remember what caused you to say that six years ago, then you could always look at wikipedia or something to remind you. And then try arguing it in a thread where it is more appropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:33 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 95 of 165 (616788)
05-24-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 11:33 AM


Re: The Santa Gap
You mentioned that it was in the Gospels. But what's the evidence?
In history, writings about a person are considered evidence. The historians job is to sift through that evidence and try to extract some kernel of historical truth.
Who were the people who followed him?
I was referring to those that believed him to be the Messiah. What is the relevance of this question?
So, there's no evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? And isn't that the opposite of what you meant all those times you kept saying "this is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus"?
As I said, the apparent conflict of meaning is down to what we mean by evidence. You mean 'something that could only be if Jesus existed', which is not how I was using it. I referred to that kind of evidence as conclusive and from the outset I said I did not have that kind of evidence. It's not my fault you were demanding a kind of evidence from me that I openly stated I don't have from the outset.
If you did, I'm completely at a loss for what it was supposed to be. Like I said I'm reading your posts, anxious to see this evidence people keep referring to, and all of your posts are basically like this:
Sure, there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, like
and
. That's the evidence.
If you were reading my posts and interpreting them to be starting with the premise 'there's plenty of evidence' there's no wonder you've made errors later on. I actually said there is weak evidence supporting the idea there was a historical Jesus, like the multiple attested reference to King of the Jews which goes against the viewpoint of the authors. This is the kind of thing that is usually referenced. Weak on its own, but similar tools are used to construct a historical Jesus that is consistent with the evidence (and the lack of evidence).
My position is that there is sufficient weak supporting evidence for a historical Jesus that denying the existence of said entity is taking steps beyond evidential support. It is kind of like denying that someone saw a cat because there is no supporting evidence. Cat sightings are common enough, and I dare say local religious groups would piss off the Roman government with some regularity. It seems consistent and coherent with what evidence we have that one poor sap got crucified and had a bunch of Chuck Norris style stories added onto his word of mouth biography.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 11:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 12:30 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 99 of 165 (616818)
05-24-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 12:30 PM


Re: The Santa Gap
And I'm asking you, what are the writings to which you refer that corroborate the Gospel accounts?
I didn't refer to any such writings.
And who were those people?
Relevance?
You referred to the attitudes and testimony of "Jesus's followers." I'm asking you who those people were and how you come to know about their attitudes and testimony.
No - I was just saying that Messianic jews would be refer to the Messiah as the King of Israel not the King of the Jews. Do you want evidence for this?
And I've explained what I meant - I mean "evidence."
I know, and the conflict in our respective meanings resulted in the apparent conflict in what was being said.
Now, all of a sudden, you don't know what "evidence" means? I refuse to believe that. Evidence is something that supports a proposition.
Of course I know what 'evidence' means. I was referencing historical evidence, the use of primary and secondary sources to attempt to derive some historical truths. In the case of Jesus we only have secondary sources. Paul is the closest source we have, unfortunately he doesn't give us much information about Jesus.
I'm asking you: what evidence is there that supports your contention that there was a real historical Jesus?
I made no such contention. I merely said there was evidence that was suggestive of the reality of historical Jesus and that although that evidence is not on topic here, I gave a singular example of the kind of thing that is meant by this.
Ok, so then the evidence is "weak." Granted.
But what is it?
Not on topic. I've stated one example several times, you can look up other examples using the internet. You suggest you have done this. If your position is that together the case is still too weak, that's fine by me.
What references? What authors? This is the kind of reference to things you didn't actually present that I keep talking about.
The Gospel authors. I'm fairly sure I mentioned that before.
This is literally the first I've heard in this thread, from you, about any "references" or "authors."
I referenced the Gospel (and the authors of the Gospels) directly in Message 85.
quote:
In all four Gospels the Romans refer to Jesus as King of the Jews....Instead a consistent message that is somewhat at odds with the viewpoint of the authors.
Maybe, but I'd like to judge for myself. So what evidence do we have?
Please, in your next post to me, present the evidence. Maybe in a convenient list form?
The writings ,especially the earlier writings, of the New Testament. The information I'm sure we can dig up about the culture of the time, the nature of some of the reports, certain consilliences, things that are embarassing to the author or contrary to their agenda indicating kernels of truth here and there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 12:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 1:13 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 101 of 165 (616837)
05-24-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 1:13 PM


Re: The Santa Gap
The Gospels and the letters from Paul represent secondary sources to Jesus' existence. Primary sources would be direct witnesses or participants in Jesus' life.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 4:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 104 of 165 (616843)
05-24-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 4:25 PM


weakly supported suggests no strong opinions
Only if Jesus actually existed. If he didn't then they're primary sources to the Jesus invention.
Well obviously. But that can be said of any secondary source. Hence why they can only weakly support that Jesus existed. The challenge then becomes to try sorting through what is in there and filtering out what could be said about this person. What historians that have done this have ended up with is a weakly supported notion of a preacher that people at some point believed could perform miracles who was executed. It's hardly a controversial proposition, and one that seems strange to want to outright deny.
Returning towards the topic, I also note that it is possible to examine the same evidence and conclude otherwise, but I think that anyone that has strong opinions one way or another would fall under the category of people that Jon is trying to indict.
It seems that in this regard, Jon has hoisted himself on his own petard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 5:31 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 05-24-2011 6:27 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 165 (618277)
06-02-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 9:43 AM


Re: definition
It seems like its being diluted to reduce irrationality and be more inclusive. Why?
Because whenever a person would say 'I don't believe that god exists' they were called 'atheist' by theists. So those people that theists called 'atheists' decided to adopt the title. Unfortunately the same people that called those that didn't believe 'atheists', also held an internal equivocation that atheists believed that god does not exist.
Take a look at Dawkins, is he an atheist? He holds that evidence is required to increase the probability of something being true, that there is no evidence of gods, and that therefore god is a likely to be true as any other unevidenced claim...which is not very.
What do you call someone that doesn't believe in god/s? If you have a better word, then you can try introducing it into usage. But in a world of people that do believe in gods are called 'theist', 'atheist' seems like a natural enough word for those that don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024