Yes! They are indeed evidence of something! They are evidence that people of that time and culture had written language.
4 Likes
I prefer the Greek … Hesiod was a farmers son and complained about being poor and the “hard life”.
HOW fortunate for him that he received “divine” inspiration and special knowledge from the deities.
Prometheus (according to him) no longer has his liver picked apart day after day for giving mankind fire (stolen from the gods).
HOWEVER 
if he’s wrong, we as a human society SHOULD acknowledge the sacrifice of Prometheus who is still subjected to this torture (and he was satisfied with the punishment because of his love for humanity).
First hand account.
Divine knowledge.
Literal places mentioned.
Acceptance by the people.
Vital lessons for humankind.
3 Likes
Pure assumption, based on naught but hearsay. This is a second hand and anonymous account.
If it was independently corroborated by a reliable source, if the claim didn’t offend reason, and deny scientific facts, if the original source were both known and reliable, if the original source could be demonstrated to be a contemporary account, and so on and so on, or to put it exactly as people have been trying to explain to you, if it satisfied any of the criteria of the historical method.
There is no evidence anyone witnessed anything, Not one word was written by a contemporary source, you do know what eyewitness means don’t you?
Like the legends of Hercules, and I don’t believe they are true either.
No one is assuming that, it’s a straw man religious apologists use to create a false dichotomy fallacy. It’s a fact the material world, universe and natural phenomena exist, when someone demonstrates a shred of objective evidence for anything else then I’ll pay it due diligence and keep an open mind.
What a spectacularly stupid claim. The legends of Hercules are an ancient text, I have to hope this was some sort of an attempt at humour.
I never said you had?
I already linked criteria for historical methodology, and the primary source is listed as an important factor, so yes the fact they gospels are anonymous hearsay directly contradicts the notion they have any historical validity.
That’s not true, as I have said so plainly and repeatedly. I will embolden it for you then, so there is no more confusion: I believe what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence.
Since that criteria is applied without prejudice to all claims and belief, my being open minded is demonstrated. You on the other hand believe one particular superstition based on “evidence” any of the others could satisfy, how is that not bias?
I made neither claim? I was responding to a claim of yours, and disbelieving it for the reasons stated. You are again dishonestly pretending that disbelieving your claims equates to making a contrary claim, when it does not, and there is no logical fallacy in that quote, so that sounds like rhetoric?
Actually there were contemporary sources that mentioned him, and none for Jesus, but do you have a point?
1 Like
Very well, take that view if you want.
1 Like
There are names recorded, that’s a fact, go and check for yourself.
If it was independently corroborated by a reliable source, if the claim didn’t offend reason, and deny scientific facts, if the original source were both known and reliable, if the original source could be demonstrated to be a contemporary account, and so on and so on, or to put it exactly as people have been trying to explain to you, if it satisfied any of the criteria of the historical method.
What constitutes a reliable source for information written down two thousand years ago?
Your own reason might be offended but that’s all due to your subjective interpretation of the matter.
What “scientific fact” is denied? Science doesn’t help us with “facts” it is based on inductive reasoning, not deductive.
If the original source is not known then how can you presume it to be not reliable?
There are contemporary accounts, there are four canonical gospels and rather a lot more non canonical.
No, that’s not true. The written account does exist, it is evidence of something. You might interpret as evidence of radical religious zealotry but that’s nothing more than an interpretation. You have to do that too because you cannot reconcile this with your atheist world view.
Good.
You are assuming, of course you are, you even said above “deny scientific facts” betraying a naïve understanding of science, an assumption that it deals with facts! You can’t ask for a “shred of objective evidence” because you have no way of recognizing it, we’ve been over this in the other thread.
It is not a fact that they are anonymous hearsay, it’s a belief you hold, so there are no facts that contradict the view they possess historicity.
And I say again, all evidence is interpreted in such a way that it can be reconciled with some existing belief system.
But back to Spartacus:
But they (Plutarch et-al) were based wholly on prior sources, already existing material, they were not eye witnesses. For example the Histories of Salust was a source and here’s what’s said about this (emphases mine)
Although they (Salust’s writings) have not survived intact, about five hundred fragments have been preserved in excerpts or quotations by later writers
But there’s more bad news for you, the oldest fragments we have today from Salust are:
The most ancient scrolls which survive are the Codex Parisinus 16024 and Codex Parisinus 16025 , known as “P” and “A” respectively. They were created in the ninth century, and both belong to the mutili group. The oldest integri scrolls were created in the eleventh century AD.
But there’s one more remaining detail I’d like to bring to your attention:
Several fragments of Sallust’s works survived in papyri of the second to fourth centuries AD. Many ancient authors cited Sallust, and sometimes their citations of Histories are the only source for reconstruction of this work.
Now consider the Rylands papyrus P52 a fragment of the book of John:
Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-4th century, has proposed a date for 𝔓52 of 125–175 CE.
Based the interval between the purported events and our earliest surviving reference to it, it seems to me that the accounts of Jesus are on somewhat stronger ground than the accounts of Spartacus
There’s therefore a very reasonable case here for asking Is Spartacus made up? what do you think?
The names “John” and “Mark” did not exist in that area at that time. You have shown that with your reference material. The names “John” and “Mark” are modern names. They may have grown from ancient words, but are not those ancient words any longer.
It’s sorta like evolution 
…
3 Likes
And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
I don’t think they had the whole name thing worked out back then. Kinda like ‘gender issues’ today. You could be a mark or a Luke or a john all at the same time. I mean, what’s in a name anyway? And if someone wanted to call you a TinMan, so what? But they probably did it with a Latin Accent “Vir Stagni” But the bible was written in Greek, so the name would have been ‘άνθρωπος από κασσίτερο.’ But then, like I said, back then names didn’t mean anything and people could call themselves whatever they wanted. Just like genders today. 
1 Like
And there we have the typical theist distraction. The trousers and raincoat have been respectively dropped and opened and all is on display. Egad.
2 Likes
I almost blew snot on that one… 
Edit to snicker
… (deeeeeep breath)… … (heavy panting)… …
3 Likes
There is magic recorded in the Harry Potter books, so your point escapes me? The gospels are unevidenced anonymous hearsay, and that is a fact, no need to check it for yourself, here is a citation:
“The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.”
There would have to be a single corroborating independent source first, before historians could give it due diligence, there are none, you seem determined to avoid addressing that fact. Beyond the scant mention of a crucifixion there is not one contemporary or independent source for the anonymous hearsay claims of the gospels. No archaeological evidence to corroborate anything they claim, and no corroborating contemporary writings.
NB This seems to be falling on deaf ears here so I will reiterate: Since you are the one making a claim by sharing a belief you hold, you, and you alone, are culpable to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for it, you don’t get to dictate that others lower their bar to validate your subjective faith based religious beliefs. Especially since you have refused to even try and explain any objective difference between your superstition and all the others. ON what grounds do you disbelieve in the Legends of Hercules for example? If that’s too easy try the Islamic Jewish or Hindu religions, how about scientology?
Take your pick…but your dishonest reticence on that point, demands an obvious inference.
People can’t rise from the dead after rigor mortis has set in, other than in archaic superstitions of course. Even the most biased apologist would have to note how sharply such resurrections tapered off as scientific rigour took hold. Just like the ever decreasing claims for miracles.
No there aren’t, the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. Not one word was written about Jesus until decades after he is alleged to have died.
No it really doesn’t, but do present it then for authentication, my advice would be to take it direct to the Vatican, I imagine they’ll be pretty chuffed to say the least.
No just apropos, as I’ve explained if I were to believe one piece of unevidenced hearsay from an archaic superstition, then I would have no rational justification for denying all the other such accounts.
Wow, so science doesn’t know anything to be true? I really shouldn’t laugh this hard at my age. IS this going to be another one of those “there are no objective facts” diatribes? What was the guy’s name, oh yes Apollo, he posted here for a while and that was one of his risible claims.
It is a fact, and beliefs can also be facts, they’re not mutually exclusive see. The gospels are anonymous hearsay dated well after the fact, if you have evidence that this is not the case then I’d stop wasting your time here and publish, you’ll be famous.
Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, it is an objective fact that the world is not flat, it is an entirely subjective belief that a deity exists. See two ends of the scale.
Not sure why you are obsessing over Spartacus, as I have made zero claims about him? So you can abandon this poisoning of the well straw man argument you’re brewing.
Woooooooooooosh! You seem determined to miss the point here, is it deliberate?
I think I don’t care, it has zero relevance to your inability to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, or the fact that the gospels are anonymous hearsay, the names assigned, Mathew Mark, Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over three centuries after the earliest known texts, and the earliest of these dates to between AD66-70
Did you want to rubbish radio carbon dating now?
Ok time for a recap as we are getting bogged down in your denials of facts, and losing the larger context, so I will bullet point a synopsis here:
- The earliest copies of the gospels that exist are dated to between AD66-70. So any potential eyewitnesses would be unlikely to have survived long enough, even given a life expectancy in excess of 70 years.
- All of the gospels are unauthored, and therefore anonymous, the names being assigned (subjectively) over three centuries later, by early Christians eager to lend credence and gravitas to their beliefs in the claims contained in the gospel narratives. .
- The gospels by definition are therefor anonymous hearsay.
- No contemporary records exist about Jesus, ipso facto there are no eyewitness accounts, only unsubstantiated hearsay from anonymous authors that make claims for the same.
CONCLUSION
I don’t care if you had an independently corroborated signed affidavit by Pontius Pilate, notarised by Mary and all 12 apostles making claims for a resurrection, with a vial containing Jesus’s DNA. I would still disbelieve the subjective unevidenced claims for a resurrection or supernatural miracles, as they would be unsupported by any objective evidence, and NB such evidence would need to match the extraordinary nature of the claim, as it contradicts scientific facts, in that humans do not and cannot rise from the dead after rigor mortis has set in. This fact is not based on pure assumption, but on compelling objective scientific evidence.
4 Likes
I know, it’s the old poisoning of the well fallacy, if you believe in X you must believe in Y. If anyone made any supernatural claims for Spartacus I’d disbelieve them as well, he is just in denial.
I don’t disbelieve the claims because I am an atheist, as he keeps implying, I am an atheist because I disbelieve the claims, and treat the claims as I treat all other claims. Apart from his ludicrous denials of science and misrepresentations of historians, the main difference is that I am trying to avoid bias in favour of any claims, while he is bending all facts to his a priori religious beliefs, even to the ludicrous point where he is arbitrarily denouncing all scientific knowledge and even the methodology as if it is little more than a guess or subjective assumption.
If we indulge his risible fantasy for the sake of argument, if the entirety of scientific endeavour, and all of the historical method were exposed as useless hokum right now (one wonders what we’d use to do this of course), it would lend not one shred of credence to any religious claims or the existence of any deity, or that anything supernatural is even possible, as they would still remain naught but entirely subjective beliefs, unsupported by even a shred of objective evidence, and he can throw all the semantics around that he wants, any objective reader can see the claim “the earth is not flat” is an objective fact, were as the claim I have fairies at the bottom of my garden is entirely subjective. To pretend all claims somehow exist on a level plane is absurd, asinine even.
2 Likes
Some basics for our scientifically challenged friend:
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
- Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow if the evidence demands.
- Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
- Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
- Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
CITATION
" the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected."
CITATION University of Berkley
3 Likes
This is such an important distinction to which not many pay attention. Thank you for it. With your permission, I’ll likely paraphrase it many times in the future.
5 Likes
By all means, as you say it sometimes gets left unsaid, and is so often misrepresented by apologists struggling to comprehend atheism and atheists.
3 Likes
Why do you say that? do you have evidence to support this claim?
Distraction? I was asked on what basis I regard the NT as a historic record, I then showed that it is as sound as the claim about Spartacus in terms of scant references, lack of eye witnesses and copying and paraphrasing and lack of contemporary sources.
It is you who wants to distract, I wonder why…
No one cares if Spartacus exists or not because a religion that threatens eternal damnation does not revolve around him.
What does “independent source” mean to you? The writers for the Gospels are known to not all be the same person, this is undoubted by scholars. In the case of Spartacus there are less sources.
So now you want “archaeological evidence”? In which case we must reject the claims about Spartacus
The claim “X can never happen” is a belief it is unprovable. Perhaps this stems from you other (mistaken) belief that science is all about “facts”, one need look no further than Newton to see how unwise that line of thinking is. So you make the claim based on assumptions, you are (rightly) skeptical but to the point of being dogmatic, illogical.
Very well in which case there are no contemporary accounts of Spartacus given the oldest surviving source fragments date from the 2nd century at the earlies.
Regarding anonymity, what would it mean if the manuscript was signed? would you announce your identify if doing so might mean you and your family become persecuted? This obsession with “anonymity” is silly, it is meaningless, unless you have DNA or fingerprint evidence you can never know who wrote what from material that originates in antiquity.
The fact is that you will refuse to accept the Gospels as an account of actual events no matter what evidence exists. There is no evidence even in principle that could ever convince you because that standard of evidence is intentionally defined to always exclude the possibility of the accounts being historic.
Contrast that with the untold multitude of things you do believe and will defend that also cannot meet this same standard.
.