Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Do you have any understanding about the difference between "positive claims" and "negative claims" and what that means in context of the burden of proof?Have you ever heared the brilliant sentence
"what is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence"?Let's draw an analogy...
You are driving on the high way at high speed. Suddenly, I claim that there is an invisible rock in the middle of the road. I have no evidence to offer, you "just have to believe me". I'm being very serious about it, because I genuinly fear for your life.
You, off course, see nothing at all on the road. You ask me how I know and I say "I can feel it" or "deity/angel/spirit X told me".Will you slam your breaks? Honestly...Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

It's in all four Gospels. The ones that followed him. The four Gospels. 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'. No. I appreciate that the later gospels took information from the earlier ones, and probably from sources that have not survived. 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: From Message 50If 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.

It could be broken down differently though:A. You believe god exists.
B. You don't believe god exists.
C. You don't know if god exists or not..
D. You believe god doesn't exist.
E. You don't believe god doesn't exist.
F. You don't know what you believe.So you could not have a belief that god exists, but also not have a belief that he doesn't, and I don't think you should be considered an atheist for that.I'm not sure any particular break-down is more correct than another, but I don't think you can force people to break it down the way you have chosen.Another way to distinguish atheism from agnosticism is1 = belief that god exists
0 = no belief either way
-1 = belief that god does not existNot 1 (!1) can be either 0 or -1 so simply being not 1 doesn't necessitate being a -1.

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.

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. I was referring to those that believed him to be the Messiah. What is the relevance of this question? 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 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.

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?

Im sure he means the writings which compiled the Bible.WE can throw away "divine inspiration", although it would be wise to question the intentions of the authors.I have yet to see any solid evidence from antagonists of the Bible, at any rate.

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

I didn't refer to any such writings. Relevance? 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? I know, and the conflict in our respective meanings resulted in the apparent conflict in what was being said. 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 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. 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. The Gospel authors. I'm fairly sure I mentioned that before. 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.

---

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.

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?

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.

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?

It wouldn't take long to find atheists that fit this description. A scan of a few articles at HuffPo would probably turn up a few. I wouldn't doubt that you could find an atheist that praises the curative powers of homeopathy. I really enjoy reading the articles at Pharyngula. This isn't because I agree with everthing that PZ says. I just find it entertaining. PZ walks a fine line between atheism and the strident anti-theist you are talking about. Sometimes he brazenly blows right past the line (which is why I find it entertaining). At the same time, he can be quite reasonable and even admit where his arguments could be flawed.Can atheists be unreasonable and completely wrong on certain subjects? Well, yeah. Atheists are also human. Ego, emotional investment, defensiveness, . . . you know, our human flaws. Like anything, each and every claim needs to be judged by the evidence, not by who says it. Einstein got Relativity right, but his dogmatic position with respect to a Steady State universe did more harm than good as one example.

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.

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?