Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

How would I know? Evidently Robert Price isn't your type of Christian.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Clearly, anyone "who argues it is quite likely" must be completely closed minded.
And qualifying your arguments with solid reasons is obviously the first sign of a madman (or loon). And this is you demanding evidence of jesus not existing (even though you accept that "Jesus may well have been so different from any accounts of his life as to be unrecognizable to any modern person studying the matter").
What kind of discussion are you expecting, when you can't even state which particular jesus you are talking about?When people talk about the christian jesus - they are not talking about someone "unrecognizable to any modern person".
But that seems to be the sole basis for your argument that atheists are closed minded - because they won't accept that a jesus "unrecognizable to any modern person" could have existed.So, to summarise:
When someone says that the christian jesus is a myth: you respond by equivocating about who/what jesus was and then start demanding evidence for the non-existence of a mythical figure, complaining (incorrectly) that evidence of absence is a fallacious argument.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It won't; which is why I've avoiding such conflating.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

The Jesus Myth theory isn't restricted to denying the existence of only the Jesus of the canonical gospels.And this thread isn't about that theory anyway.

---

Love your enemies!

I agree it seems to be about Atheist bashing.Why don't you respond to Message 56?
You responded to my post to Mod after it and others. How about addressing criticism instead of lame attempts to deflect them.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well, all your examples in the OP are about the existance of jesus.
I question your inclusion of them in the OP if they are not related to the topic.Perhaps you should have included examples that were connected to what it was you were trying to say.{abe}
And, no.
The Jesus Myth theory does NOT deny the existence of a jesus "unrecognizable to any modern person".
You are still failing to give a valid example.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I think many of these groups have various motives. I don't think any of them are reasonable, but we all knew that already about the religious. I think the anti-theistic motives get too often overlooked and forgotten as these people crown themselves kings of rationality and reasonability on account only of their anti-theism. 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?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

No they weren't.

---

Love your enemies!

Yes they were.

Hope all is well .. We're in agreement here. Unfortunately you have yet to avoid this stumbling block, as the concluding summary within your OP clearly demonstrates.Rather, you equate anti-theism with extremity and religious hatred - two characteristics not found in typical atheism.But, then again, you are well aware of this fact.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

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.

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.

Everyone who's ever lived, but they did so tacitly.We practice science, and indeed everyday life, with the assistance of a set of rules to which we know no exceptions (the law of gravity; the proposition that cyanide is poisonous to humans; the statement that pigs can't fly). Although we can conceive of exceptions to such generalizations (and indeed the history of science is replete with examples of them turning up) no-one has come up with any superior practice (and if you like I shall argue at length that it is impossible to do so) than that we should act as though such statements are true unless and until we have positive evidence that they are false. Anyone who objects to this practice is free to put cyanide on their cornflakes or to try to defy gravity from a thirteenth floor window; but no-one does. Everyone tacitly agrees with the epistemological principle I have stated when it comes to a matter of life or death, even if they inconsistently repudiate it when it comes to relatively trivial and inconsequential beliefs such as their religious doctrines.Now, it follows immediately from this principle that rules of the form: "Objects of class X do not exist" must be provisionally accepted as true in the absence of positive evidence that would lead us to suppose that there are instances of class X. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is certainly evidence of it, and is in fact tacitly taken to be so by the universal consent of mankind, even those who use the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".And this applies to the various classes of supernatural beings just as much as to anything else.---And I think in the normal course of things you would in fact so apply it. Suppose we consider the existence of the Great Panjandrum, an invisible and malevolent being who is likely smite you with cancer of the everything unless you immediately send me $1,000. You can presently supply no positive evidence against his existence --- how could you? On the other hand, you have no reason to suppose that he does exist. Now, here's the question: how will you act? You will act (will you not?) as though he doesn't exist, and hold on to your hard-earned cash, thus coming down definitely on one side.Actions speak louder than words; and if you also were to pay lip service to agnosticism and to maintain that the proposition that he does exist is no more or less compelling than the proposition that he doesn't, then the question would arise whether you consider a 50% chance of an premature and agonizing death to be genuinely preferable to a 50% chance of wasting $1,000. To which your answer would of course be "no" --- in which case the only explanation for you not sending me the money is that you do not really think that the chances are 50:50, and that your lip service to equiprobability is the mere conventional hypocrisy of one who wishes to be thought open-minded.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I suspect that the idea is probably wrong, but it may well be another fringe idea rather than simply silly nonsense, as Jon would appear to suggest (somewhat hypocritically). And it is only the specific identification as a volcano god that is really in question. Yahweh seems to have started as a typical Canaanite god, and I believe that he is more commonly identified as a storm god, which might also fit the descriptions.

OK, and I suppose that if I were to be honest, I myself dont consider atheism to be "as likely true" as I do the Christian God. I would, perhaps, not take circumstantial evidence against my biased beliefs as readily as I would confirmation bias, thus my only purpose in argument is for the sake of said argument.Perhaps what frustrates Jon is that as a self proclaimed agnostic theist, he is frustrated when people do not follow his very arguments that have kept him from becoming an atheist all these years. I never claimed to be totally open minded. It is they who should be. Always they.