Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Put it in whatever thread you like, I don't give a shit.What's the evidence that confirms the historicity of the Biblical Jesus?

You mentioned that it was in the Gospels. But what's the evidence? Who were the people who followed him?Why is this starting to approach an Abbot and Costello routine? What are the sources of the four Gospels? 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"? And what is that evidence? 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:

quote:

---

Sure, there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, like

​

and

​

. That's the evidence.

---

Every time it's like you're just about to type in the evidence then you experience some kind of physical paralysis or mental blackout for just as long as it would have taken you to type in the evidence, and then you're like "that's the evidence."What could possibly be the explanation for these lacuna? Ok, but what writings? What writings are there that suggest there was a "real guy" who inspired the Gospels? I do remember what caused me to say that six years ago - the utter conviction of all the people I thought were reasonable that they had evidence that there was a real historical Jesus. People like you. I assumed that there was no way they'd believe that on the basis of no evidence, and they said, like you've been saying, that there was evidence.Eventually I got around to asking them what the evidence was and that's when I discovered the very curious phenomenon I've been referring to - the widespread conviction that there's all this evidence for a historical Jesus, but nobody is able to actually communicate it. When I say that people believe there's evidence for a historical Jesus despite not knowing about any of it, that's not a cheap rhetorical trick or a joke. I'm relating my own personal experience of actually being someone who thought there was all this evidence for a historical Jesus, but didn't actually know any of it. It happened to me! That's why I believe it's happening to you, and to everyone else who says there's abundant evidence for the existence of Jesus, but aren't able to actually recount any of the evidence.

And I'm asking you, what are the writings to which you refer that corroborate the Gospel accounts? And who were those people? 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. And I've explained what I meant - I mean "evidence." You know:

quote:

---

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvidenceI don't see why it's necessary to argue about the definition of "evidence" all of a sudden. We trade in evidence all the time around here. We've provided evidence for millions of positions, you and I, over half a decade or more of this interaction.Now, all of a sudden, you don't know what "evidence" means? I refuse to believe that. Evidence is something that supports a proposition.I'm asking you: what evidence is there that supports your contention that there was a real historical Jesus? Ok, so then the evidence is "weak." Granted.But what is it? Even when you get to the part where you're about to put in the weak evidence there's a strange lacuna in your posts where you mention the evidence but never present it. What references? What authors? This is the kind of reference to things you didn't actually present that I keep talking about. You're talking about "references" and "authors" you presented, but you didn't actually present them!This is literally the first I've heard in this thread, from you, about any "references" or "authors." Was a post of yours deleted by some board mishap? Ok, but what is the evidence? 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?

What writings are those? What do they say, specifically?

Ok, but what is the evidence that there was a Jesus who had followers who were "Messianic Jews"? Ok, so what are the "primary sources" that are evidence for the historical existence of Jesus? And what are the "secondary sources" that are secondary to something other than the primary source? After all if I have a primary source in Alice making a claim, I don't need a secondary source Bob to remind me that "Alice says..." I know what Alice says because she said it to me. Secondary to what? How do you know they're not primary? Jesus, fine! But what is that evidence? I don't understand why it's so hard for you to answer. If you really don't know what it is, that's fine! I don't care what thread you put it in, Mod. If you'd prefer to reply in the evidence of Jesus thread, that's fine. I'm just asking you what the "weak evidence" is. What Gospel authors? I'm not asking you about the Gospel or its authors, I'm asking you about the historical Jesus. Don't treat me like an idiot, Modulous. I know where the Jesus stories are. I have, like, three Bibles around here.I'm asking you about the evidence that those stories refer to someone who actually exists. You said it was "weak." Fine, it's weak. But what is it? What author? How do you know what would embarrass him?

Only if Jesus actually existed. If he didn't then they're primary sources to the Jesus invention.So, again, what's the evidence of the historical existence of Jesus?

Well, right. That's why single sources aren't taken at face value.It's relatively common for a primary source to claim to be a secondary source. The Lord of the Rings does this, for instance. If they can't be corroborated then they provide no support, not even weak support, for the existence of a Jesus. Ok, but what's the evidence that that figure was the historical Jesus?

I'm surrounded, constantly, by people who believe that there's an intellectually valid case for belief in God, but who always tell me to go ask someone else when I politely ask them to present it. "Well, I believe on the basis of faith, of course, but I'm sure that there's an intellectual case, too! Why don't you go ask some other theist about it..."I'm fascinated by these mental lacuna, where people are (apparently) hypnotized into the belief that there's a substantial amount of good evidence for something they believe, but aren't actually able to present any of it. I don't expect every human being to join me on my quixotic quest to only believe things on the basis of good evidence - oh, wait, yes I do because that's the definition of being a "reasonable adult."You're quite correct - humans don't operate entirely on good evidence. In fact humans are subject to a wide variety of cognitive biases that frequently lead us to poor conclusions. But that doesn't mean we should embrace the suck, or that because its easier to be unreasonable, we should be ok with it. Do you believe that a dream is a good reason to believe something?

Hey, you're probably not! Having good evidence isn't going to keep you from making a mistake.But it's bound to help, don't you think? I mean what on Earth do you possibly gain by not insisting on the best evidence before you make decisions?That's what I don't get. Everybody tries to tell me how it's not reasonable to be the guy who doesn't just believe things all willy-nilly - that I'm too hard to convince, that it takes too much evidence to get me to make up my mind, and so on. Well, ok - but what's so great about doing it your way? What's so great about making it easier for people to fool you? What's so great about making it more likely that you'll make a decision based on poor evidence?Please, I'm seriously dying to know. What are the advantages of believing things on the basis of poor evidence or no evidence at all? Is that what you think my attitude is? "Smug assurance that we're logical beings"? Jesus, Phat, not at all. Nobody is more cognizant of the failure of human cognition than I am. Nobody is more suspect of the human ability to reason than I am.Nobody. All this insistence on good evidence and rationality - that comes from my deep and abiding humility about the capacities of human reason. You can't just shoot from the hip when it comes to thought because the human brain isn't good at thinking clearly. It takes concentration, discipline, and good information to get it right. You have to be careful or you wind up all kinds of wrong - maybe when lives depend on it. I'm all in favor of making mistakes as part of the learning process, but sometimes you have to get it right no matter what, or someone else suffers the consequences.It has nothing to do with pride. I'm not at all a prideful person. I'm a person very much aware of his own limitations, which is why I don't trust myself to arrive at conclusions on any basis but good evidence.

Really?Despite the fact that disbelief in at least some gods is a position held by all human beings?Just because we take something and apply the label "god" to it, doesn't remove our capacity to arrive at sensible conclusions about it. Those conclusions might even be related to whether or not it exists.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.