The difference being, of course, that “back then” people had no other sources of information than what they were being taught by their parents and peers, and the amount of knowledge about Nature/natural philosophy (as it was known back then) and of psychology and group dynamics didn’t exactly float around in society as public knowledge. Today, however, people have little or no excuses to not know about these things, at least on a primary or secondary education level. The rejection of said knowledge and acceptance of supernatural explanations are, however, due to the same millennia-old mechanisms regarding the importance of belonging to a group and thus to accept and adopt the doctrines and ritual behaviour of your in-group.
4 Likes
I never knew about Pierre Brassau before you mentioned him.
I like abstract art, and given a choice between having a Jackson Pollock vs. a Pierre Brassau . . I’d pick some of the Brassaus . . . as long as we’re talking about my taste, and not buying the art as a financial investment.
Below is a Jackson Pollock:
Now, compare to a Brassau:
I honestly believe that the chimp has talent.
Hmm. I love how open to interpretation art is. If I had to decide I would say, “shit stain on the wall in a McDonalds bathroom downtown”.
Many scholars conclude that the Christ did exist, was a real person, so that aspect of them at least is regarded as true, not made up. So there’s some truth, but how much? Well how much truth is there in any written historical account?
Historic truth is based on opinions and beliefs as to what is “reasonable” what is plausible and so on.
But by definition an account of truly extraordinary events cannot meet the criteria that many use for plausibility.
One cannot reject an account of a miraculous events as being untrue when that is based on the belief that such miraculous events cannot or did not occur.
We cannot escape from belief, those who accept the accounts often have sound rational reasons for that belief and those who reject the accounts also have sound rational reasons, each position though is based on an initial set of unprovable assumptions, we are free to select those.
1 Like
Well welcome to AR, before I forget.
Even if one accepts the scant evidence that Jesus existed, there is no objective evidence he was anything but human, and the gospels are anonymous hearsay.
No, at least not solely, here is a reasonable article explaining the historical method. As you can see historians identify secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence, such as that derived from archaeology, for example, and these are not merely opinion.
You’re using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to try and reverse the burden of proof. I don’t need to reject anything, but I can and do withhold belief from all claims that are unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, or in this case any. FYI a miracle is nothing more than an unevidenced appeal to mystery, and it is by definition an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy that leaps to the unevidenced assumption of divine causation in the absence of a natural or scientific explanation, how many of these has science disproved?
I’ve never heard one, and yours use all the logical fallacies I encountered in all the others in over 4 decades of listening to them.
Nope, firstly I need reject nothing, atheism is the lack or absence of belief, though an atheist is of course free to go farther, but I do not. This needs no assumptions, unevidenced or otherwise. Only a criteria for belief, which is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated before I accept any assertion. If a claim is unfalsifiable then I must remain agnostic about it, but I must also withhold belief, as to believe some and not others would be biased, and to believe all would inevitably be contradictory and so be irrational. So I disbelieve them all.
3 Likes
Even if one accepts the scant evidence that Jesus existed, there is no objective evidence he was anything but human, and the gospels are anonymous hearsay.
On the contrary the Gospels are evidence (but not proof), they are what we’d reasonably expect to find if the claims were true. What else could one expect if the events were witnessed and efforts made to record them and preserve that record?
What would you have done, had you witnessed such events first hand two thousand years ago? what could you do beyond what was done? No photographs, no voice recordings, no movie footage.
Further, there is no way to argue the accounts are untrue without first choosing specific assumptions, one must assume certain things in order to argue that the accounts are false.
No, at least not solely, here is a reasonable article explaining the historical method. As you can see historians identify secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence, such as that derived from archaeology, for example, and these are not merely opinion.
Well there are plenty of historians who are familiar with this yet conclude Christ existed and the claims are true.
You’re using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to try and reverse the burden of proof. I don’t need to reject anything, but I can and do withhold belief from all claims that are unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, or in this case any. FYI a miracle is nothing more than an unevidenced appeal to mystery, and it is by definition an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy that leaps to the unevidenced assumption of divine causation in the absence of a natural or scientific explanation, how many of these has science disproved?
No, I disagree that this is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Of course there’s a burden of proof and you do need a reason other than whim to reject something, you surely have to apply some process to a claim to be able to categorize it as “acceptable” or not.
You say “I can and do withhold belief from all claims that are unsupported by sufficient objective evidence” but such a position requires a clear definition of what is “objective evidence” I just said that the NT is evidence, but you choose to believe it isn’t. If the record was literally, to all intents and purposes, true, then where does that leave you?
The problem the atheists have is one of reconciliation, they cannot reconcile claims like those in the NT with their assumptions about reality, change the assumptions or at least question them and the problem starts to diminish.
Witnessed by whom? Certainly not by the writers of the gospels. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and when you filter it through many oral tellings and re-tellings over several decades before it gets written down, it becomes exponentially more unreliable.
I would have immediately written down my recollections of the event as soon as possible and confirmed my memory of the events by talking to other witnesses. In the case of the gospels, the witnesses of the events (assuming they happened at all) were likely illiterate, so the events were only propagated orally (and that’s assuming they weren’t just made up).
Which ones? There were plenty of other historians active at the time, both in Judea and elsewhere, that make no mention of jesus or any of the events described in the gospels. Don’t you think these historians would notice things like the sky going dark for three hours or dozens of zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem?
Have you considered the possibility that the NT is religious propaganda made up to promote the religion?
What assumptions about reality? I base my view of reality on scientific theories that are backed up by empirical, objective evidence, not ancient texts written by what one fellow on this forum likes to describe as followers of an ancient goat herder mythology.
2 Likes
No, unless they are either committed evangelists or theologians. That a very human jesus (yeshua) figure, that may have inspired the later stories, existed in the first third of the 1st century is indeed, considered probable by “most” historians studying the 1st century.
That is a far cry from the magical, divine “Christ” figure as described in the gospels. Most historians would not accept that conclusion.
A warning, word games are not looked on kindly here.
4 Likes
On the contrary? They are in fact of anonymous authorship, and they are ipso facto hearsay, they are no more compelling evidence for the claims made than Harry Potter novels are “evidence” for wizardry, though you are free to believe otherwise.
I strongly disagree with your bare unevidenced assertion. In fact unevidenced hearsay is about as weak an example of evidence as I can imagine, and for the most extraordinary of claims.
Sufficient objective evidence, have I not made that clear as my criteria for belief? I’d certainly need more than completely unevidenced hearsay, else I would have to believe every such claim.
Well I need have no expectation of course, as the claim and belief are not mine, but one could rationally infer that an omnipotent omniscient deity can do better than unevidenced superstitious hearsay, that directly reflects the ignorance and superstition of the people from the epoch in which it is derived.
No that’s wrong as well, we already have overwhelming objective evidence that people don’t rise form dead, and we know why. Do you think it is a coincidence such claims tapered off in direct proportion to the advances of medical science’s understanding of human biology? None of that requires any assumptions. However even if I had no explanation I can still rationally withhold belief from the unevidenced hearsay of the gospels, obviously.
Well I don’t care what subjective unevidenced beliefs theists hold, just because they also happen to be historians, there is some scant indepenatant evidence for the crucifixion, as I said the gospels are anonymous hearsay, you may base belief on that if you wish, but then what is your criteria for disbelieving it elsewhere?
You’re free to do so, but you’re wrong.
I already said quite plainly I need not reject anything in order to disbelieve it, so this is dishonest, it is also a repetition of your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy of course as one cannot rationally assert a belief has any credence because it has not been disproved, or because a contrary explanation or belief has not been offered,
No, it is irrational to claim a belief gains any credence in the absence of contrary explanations or evidence, this is the very definition of any argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Both words are in the dictionary.
You did, though of course since it is anonymous hearsay, it is neither objective nor sufficient to support its own claims, else I’d have to believe the Harry Potter novels evidence for wizardry, were they written in earnest.
Disbelieving it, I’m not sure why my criteria for withholding belief needs so much repetition? It is at least consistent and unbiased, unlike yours apparently, as I doubt you believe every claim that is based on anonymous hearsay, and if you do a violation of the law of non-contradiction would be inevitable and you’re back to being irrational. Though of course you are free to be as irrational as you like.
So deny facts in order to believe in unevidenced anonymous hearsay? No thanks, that’s irrational, also knowing why the cells of the human body can’t reanimate themselves after the death of the brain is not based on assumption, so you’re being pretty disingenuous there.
Now how are we looking on a demonstration of any objective evidence for any deity?
1 Like
You mean it is true that many scholars agree that a person called Jesus may have existed is true. That says nothing of Jesus, the magical deity of the bible. Scholars are not agreeing to someone who can spit in your eye and cure blindness. You are making an equivocation fallacy by confounding what scholars are actually agreeing to and a supernatural being.
Do you know what the word ‘History’ means? (The study of past ‘events.’) Events being an operative term here. Things that actually happen. How does one study an event that did not happen?
Then the correct reply for the cause of such events is (I don’t know.) and not (God done it.)
You certainly did not say this correctly, but I get the gist. The belief that such events cannot occur does not mean they do not occur. Correct! And the time to believe that such events are supernatural is when that claim has met its burden of proof. Until then there is no reason to believe such claims. (Each and every time, all throughout history, when we have discovered the reason behind a supernatural claim, that reason has NEVER been supernatural. That reason has always been natural.
5 Likes
Scholars concluding stuff has gone on for quite some time. And their conclusions are based not only upon what information is available, but also upon what is popular at the time.
Scholars have concluded that the earth is flat, that women are inferior to men, that blood-letting is an effective treatment for ailments. None of these, and so very many more, are not, in fact the case. We’ve learned that.
So your dependence on these scholars of yours to determine that there is no doubt that an individual names jesus, who was divine, existed without a doubt is, well, just the other side of firm.
1 Like
The New Testament (the entire Bible actually) does not contain a single verse written by anyone who ever met the character/person of Jesus (in the flesh).
3 Likes
Scholars also hold subjective religious beliefs, what a scholar deduces using methods like the historical method, and religious beliefs they subjectively hold, are not remotely the same. He tried to imply that historical scholars believed the new testament to be historical fact, when no historian would claim to have historical evidence to support the gospels, which they would know are anonymous hearsay.
There is some scant independent evidence for the crucifixion, but beyond that there is no independent or historical evidence for the claims in the gospels. I confronted him with this, and how historians use secondary sources and archaeological evidence for example and he waved it away. His claim is simply wrong.
This is nonsense,
“Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology may all be drawn on.”
"Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.
Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divide source criticism into six inquiries:[1]
- When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
- Where was it produced (localization)?
- By whom was it produced (authorship)?
- From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
- In what original form was it produced (integrity)?"
1 You will note the earliest texts are dated to decades after the events they purport to describe, with not one single word written by a contemporary source - so no eyewitness accounts, only claims for the same using hearsay.
2. This cannot be corroborated independently.
3. The gospel texts were unauthored and so are anonymous, ipso facto they are hearsay.
4. There is no corroborating evidence outside of the bible, and no objective evidence that the supernatural claims associated are even possible, some like resurrections are even roundly disproved by scientific facts.
5. Again there was no authorship, and the earliest accounts are dated to decades after the events they claim to describe.
2 Likes
As I highlighted in my post he tried to interpolate “Christ” which is a particular religious title into the “scholars believe” narrative. I corrected him and of course I have been treated to a chorus of crickets.
But then, I am used to the dishonesty that inevitably accompanies theists claims to historical accuracy.
2 Likes
Witnessed by whom? Certainly not by the writers of the gospels. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and when you filter it through many oral tellings and re-tellings over several decades before it gets written down, it becomes exponentially more unreliable.
There are names recorded of those who witnessed the events, John, Mark and so on, I also never said that these witnesses penned the record but they are the source of what has been penned.
I would have immediately written down my recollections of the event as soon as possible and confirmed my memory of the events by talking to other witnesses.
And why would an account of your testimony be regarded as true thousands of years later?
In the case of the gospels, the witnesses of the events (assuming they happened at all) were likely illiterate, so the events were only propagated orally (and that’s assuming they weren’t just made up).
So events witnessed by illiterate observers must be dismissed, is that an argument you are proposing?
Which ones? There were plenty of other historians active at the time, both in Judea and elsewhere, that make no mention of jesus or any of the events described in the gospels. Don’t you think these historians would notice things like the sky going dark for three hours or dozens of zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem?
The paucity of the record might be due to any number of causes. It was only with a Herculean effort on behalf of many hundreds of people over many centuries that we even have the Gospels. There must have been countless historic events too that are not recorded or have left no surviving record.
Consider too that there are a great many non-canonical documents preserved, actually rather a lot.
Have you considered the possibility that the NT is religious propaganda made up to promote the religion?
Yes, of course I have, I was a staunch atheist myself once.
What assumptions about reality? I base my view of reality on scientific theories that are backed up by empirical, objective evidence, not ancient texts written by what one fellow on this forum likes to describe as followers of an ancient goat herder mythology.
Assumptions like the only viable explanations must be materialist explanations. Ancient texts are objective evidence, they are real tangible things! Look at the hieroglyphs in Egypt or the Sumerian clay tablets are they not evidence of something?
You raise numerous objections, again for the sake of expediency I’ll deal with these for the time being:
On the contrary? They are in fact of anonymous authorship, and they are ipso facto hearsay, they are no more compelling evidence for the claims made than Harry Potter novels are “evidence” for wizardry, though you are free to believe otherwise.
I didn’t use the term “compelling”, at least I don’t think I did. That you do not know who exactly put pen to paper has no bearing on the efficacy of the record. But the Harry Potter novels are fiction, this is openly admitted and readily confirmed.
Sufficient objective evidence, have I not made that clear as my criteria for belief? I’d certainly need more than completely unevidenced hearsay, else I would have to believe every such claim.
No you’ve not been clear at all. What would serve as examples of some tangible, material find that could make you react with “Ahh, OK, I see now, yes I think these accounts might well be true after all”? This is another way of asking you to show that you are truly open minded.
No that’s wrong as well, we already have overwhelming objective evidence that people don’t rise form dead, and we know why. Do you think it is a coincidence such claims tapered off in direct proportion to the advances of medical science’s understanding of human biology? None of that requires any assumptions. However even if I had no explanation I can still rationally withhold belief from the unevidenced hearsay of the gospels, obviously.
This is a fallacious argument. That X has never been observed by you does not prove that X can never be observed. That X has never been observed by you does not prove that others who claim to have observed it are not telling the truth.
Spartacus is as “unevidenced” as Jesus.
There isn’t much surviving contemporary sources for Spartacus, but some does exist (fragments of the writings of the historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus, who was a young man during Spartacus’s revolt).
There are no (known) contemporary sources for the character of Jesus.
3 Likes
Unlikely. How did “John”, “Mark”, and so on, convey their eyewitness testimony to whoever wrote the stories down?
And where did the jesus dialog in the “red letter” bible come from? The gospels were written decades after jesus was supposedly alive, so how was his words recorded? How were those words preserved so accurately through decades of oral traditions? And how were his words from his supposed time alone in the desert preserved at all (Matthew 4:1-11)?
It wouldn’t be without collaborating secondary sources and archeological evidence.
Not at all. Since the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, how do we even know they accurately describe the events depicted in the gospels? There’s little or no collaborating secondary sources or archeological evidence for anything in the gospels–that’s why they should be dismissed.
Yes, but billions of people aren’t basing their lives on or trying to impose their morals on others as a result of these other unrecorded historic events.
Unless you can show that anything other than materialist explanations exist, that is the only objective evidence. Sure, ancient texts exist and are material objects, but that says nothing about the validity of their contents. I have a Spiderman comic book in my closet–does that prove the existence of Spiderman?
I seriously doubt that.
3 Likes
Are you asserting that there were men living in the area of current-day Israel ~2000 years ago who were named John and Mark?
3 Likes