Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Then it's too bad that you couldn't present an example of even a single such individual.The most amazing part about your OP is how reasonable your interlocutors are, and how your supposed "evidence" is just you quoting some portion of their entirely reasonable remarks, making a reply that doesn't substantively address their concerns, and then calling them names.Detailing precisely how you fall short in replying to your counterparts isn't, of course, on topic on this thread. But the notion that you've uncovered some kind of religious anti-religiosity among people who, say, doubt the historicity of Jesus based on the very true fact that there's no evidence for the historicity of Jesus is risible.Maybe reflexive, ideological, "7" atheists (to use the Dawkins Scale) exist. But your OP has not even a single example of anything but your inability to respond to arguments and your apparent surprise that there exist people who don't believe in a historical Jesus.Well, I'm one such individual, and there's nothing religious about it - there's just no evidence at all for Jesus outside of the Bible, which is a work known to be next to useless as a historical document. None at all. Nothing. For the world of 0 AD's largest, most complete bureaucracy to be possessed of such a lacuna is impossible; the only reasonable explanation is that there was no such thing as Jesus.The funny thing about the historical evidence for Jesus is that everyone simply takes it for granted that there is some, but nobody ever seems to be able to actually say what the evidence is. I think a thread could probably be dedicated to this and other instances of Heisen-evidence - evidence that everyone is certain exists, but which no one actually seems to be able to present.

Traditionally, they're delivered to the giant stone head:Zardoz!

In a post that wasn't a reply to you, didn't contain any reference to you, and in which the words "crime", "intellectual", or "slave" do not appear? Um, no, I'm not.Is it possible that English is not your first language?

I don't understand what I possibly could have done to merit this invective.Can you elaborate on how I've managed to cause you such apparently tremendous offense?

I've since come around to a more nuanced view, based on what I've learned from Jim Manzi and Matthew Yglesias: it's only mostly bullshit. There really is a genuine science of economics; it's just that economists are fundamentally in the business of dissembling for money, in order to provide academic cover for political ideologies. Not in the business of evidence-based inquiry into reality, like real scientists.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

It's reasonable, yes, to claim that your fallacies support the arguments of your opponents, in so far as your opponent is arguing that you have not supported your own argument.When you make a claim and support it with an argument, but it turns out that the argument is fallacious, then you've not supported your claim. If "TheJackel"'s argument is that you don't have any evidence for the existence of Jesus, then yes, a lack of evidence on your part is certainly support for his position. If that's not his argument, then you'll have to supply more context from these discussions before I can arrive at any judgement. You've yet to demonstrate any degree of irrationality, though. These atheists, after all, may be convinced that their positions are rational because they're rational positions; you've yet to supply any evidence to the contrary. Nobody's testimony carries any weight, because none of us are old enough to personally testify to the events recounted in Genesis. But if Buz had evidence that the Genesis account was accurate, he'd have all the standing in the world to present it, and those who rejected that evidence without consideration based on their judgement of Buz as a person would be the ones in error, not Buz.You can hardly disqualify people from advocating their own positions on the grounds that they believe in themselves. On that basis we'd have to exclude you from this thread. I'm not admitting to being a "fundamentalist atheist loony." I'm telling you that I'm a supporter of a position you seem to have no ability to refute - that there was, in fact, no such person as "Jesus Christ."

What research? Please be specific.

Then you can't proceed from the basis that denial of the historicity of Jesus is de facto unreasonable. If "fundamentalist atheism" exists, you'll have to provide examples of it that are more than just atheists denying the historicity of Jesus, since that's not actually unreasonable.

No, you didn't. You provided examples of how you have a congenital ability to grapple with topics. Where is your example of an atheist who asserts that the Old Testament God was "originally worshiped as a volcano"? Please be specific.

Sure.Because we've already had the discussion about the historicity of the Genesis myth, and they lost.Similarly, we've already had the discussion about the historicity of Jesus, and you lost. Your side, anyway. That obviates the possibility of having a discussion predicated on rejecting as "unreasonable" any position that Jesus was not historical. If you'd like to defend the position that it's unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus, you'll need to open a new thread for that and address the unanswered refutations of that position.Until then you'll find that any attempt to assume the historicity of Jesus is so well-established as to be an act of lunacy to deny it is met by people telling you "well, no, actually it's not." At such time as you actually win that debate you can use it as the basis for future discussions. Until then you're putting the cart before the horse, and making yourself out to be the one who won't listen to reason. "Warning: Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy_EUn5bQ0

Yeah. Supposed that Jesus Christ existed, except that his name wasn't "Jesus Christ", he didn't have twelve disciples, he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't perform any miracles, he wasn't captured and executed by the Romans, and he didn't rise from the dead three days later. Can you really say then that there was such a person as "Jesus Christ"?

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"?There's no evidence for any aspect of the Jesus myth.

I don't. As you well know, because I've told you many times, I actually would prefer that God existed. But more importantly than that, I prefer to believe things that are true.And it's true that there is no such thing as God.

Right, and that "sense" is that there's no such thing as Santa Claus, Dracula, or Jesus Christ. 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. What evidence?No, seriously. You say "this is the kind of evidence" but it's like you skipped over the part where you provide an antecedent to the pronoun "this."Another example of the very strange mental lacuna that occurs when people try to present the evidence for a historical Jesus, I guess. It's like their lips move wordlessly, their fingers hover over the keyboard for a little bit, and then they're like "and that's the evidence for Jesus. It's not much, I grant you." I fail to understand why people get so mentally blocked when they try to lay out the evidence for Jesus.

Right, but what's the evidence that the Romans ever referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews"? What followers of Jesus? What sources? 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.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.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.