Do atheists believe that Jesus existed?

Burning Down · 06-09-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

I don't think the basis of this thread was whether or not Jesus was extraordinary, or whether his life, if he did exist, in anyway mirrored the accounts in the New Testament, but whether or not he as a person, not the living incarnation of god, actually existed.

That was my initial question, paraphrased. Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to back up any claims that Jesus existed as a person in history, and I think stories of his divinity and/or how he obtained it are greatly exaggerated.

Gregor XIII · 06-09-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

I think it's silly to claim that you know someone existed, to a certain extent. While I obviously wouldn't contest that Louis XIV was a real historical figure, I think a healthy amount of skepticism goes a long way when it comes to figures that supposedly lived before, to be completely arbitrary, the 1300's. And I don't just mean in the realm of religion, I mean philosophers, writers, revolutionaries, etc. I think it's healthy to hold a standard of evidence that goes beyond relayed word of mouth and transcribed texts.

I'm pretty close to agreeing with you, but I disagree with your final sentence. If the standard of evidence aren't good enough for Yeshua, then you could say the same about an awful lot of figures. And about transcribed texts: The things they wrote on back then broke down quite easily. If you don't take transcriptions to be good evidence, then you really have to doubt pretty much everyone... It's just a level of sceptisism that seems unreasonable.

@ burning down: What would constitute enough evidence? Now, I always think this debate is somewhat weird. Really, Yeshua is one of the best documented carpenters of the first century. Why doubt it? It should really be the doubters who should bring forth the arguments. Science work by making hypothesis and then try and falsify them. The theory that seems least implausible would be considered correct. But what on earth is a more plausible theory, than the existence of Yeshua? Without a counter-theory, the existence of Yeshua is the most plausible theory - be default... - and the true reasonable sceptic has no reason to really doubt it. Is his existence a fact? No. But it seems highly likely.

And just to clarify: Yeshua is the Aramaic form of Jesus, i.e. the name the real historical person would go by. And if you try and work through the bible historigraphically, apparantly Yeshua never stated that he was the son of God, nor that he was the Messiah, or anything. All that was probably grafted on afterwards.

Mr November · 06-09-2011, 04:55 PM

Science works by first collecting evidence, second making a hypothesis based on that evidence, and third having it ruthlessly peer reviewed.

I don't think you can say that history and science are the same thing either. While the method of collecting, hypothesizing, and peer review is more or less the same, the kind of evidence used is totally different and the amount of clarity and truth that it is possible to achieve is also different.

Normally the amount of evidence that you need in order to believe something should change depending on the significance of the claim. For me to believe in God, I need very substantial evidence because of the size of that claim. But if you tell me that you have $3.25 in your right pocket, I'd just believe you because it isn't that impressive of a claim. So I'm more willing to suppose that Jesus might have been based on a real person, because that claim isn't that impressive.

**Janszoon** · 06-09-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

Now come on. At this point I really think you should try and put on a counter-thesis. You think that the story of Jesus evolved over hundreds of years, and then all of a sudden coagulated into this incredibly split personality, and they all weirdly think he is from Nazareth, and they all weirdly think he was killed by Pilatus. That is really a coincidence. I don't think you would get many historians to believe that.

What do you mean "put a counter-thesis"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

Your implication about Hercules makes no sense. Reductio ad absurdum. Really, if you want to be so scientific, bring up a counter-thesis, and we'll discuss how believable that one is.

How does it make no sense? People really believed in, and worshipped, Hercules. According to you that makes him real, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

The thing is: You can get absolute proof about very few people from that time. Aristoteles, Platon, Socrates. All of that could conceivably have been constructed after the fact, from oral traditions. Do you question their existence as well?

As far as I know there is a lot more evidence for those guys than there is for Jesus. I'm not sure about Socrates, but Plato and Aristotle actually have writings that survive to this day so I'm not sure why you'd describe either as part of an oral tradition.

Gregor XIII · 06-09-2011, 05:37 PM

In reverse order...

1) With Platon and Aristotle we only have transcripts, written much longer and after the fact. So it could easily be seen as having been constructed afterwards.

2) "People really believed in, and worshipped, Hercules. According to you that makes him real, right?" Nope. That is not even close to what I said. I described a certain incident, with certain other facts. You took it out of a context, in a ridiculous way, it is really not a very good way to argue, even on the internet.

3) I explained 'counter-thesis' above. Put forth a more likely explanation, than that Yeshua existed. And argue for it. Not just say: 'It might be, that...'. Yes, there can be other explantions. But they seem unlikely.

Engine · 06-09-2011, 05:39 PM

I seriously doubt that Jesus, Hercules, or Homer ever existed.

edit: No Shakespeare either, probably. But I do believe the Greek philosophers existed.

**Janszoon** · 06-09-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

In reverse order...

1) With Platon and Aristotle we only have transcripts, written much longer and after the fact. So it could easily be seen as having been constructed afterwards.

What do you mean by transcripts? I'm talking about the actual writings of Plato and Aristotle. They still exist and are still read by people today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

2) "People really believed in, and worshipped, Hercules. According to you that makes him real, right?" Nope. That is not even close to what I said. I described a certain incident, with certain other facts. You took it out of a context, in a ridiculous way, it is really not a very good way to argue, even on the internet.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by this then: "People seemingly actually believed that stuff to a very large extent, he was a dominant figure much more than a silly 'urban legend'. It does seem much less reasonable to me, than that someone existed."

Please explain what you meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor XIII

3) I explained 'counter-thesis' above. Put forth a more likely explanation, than that Yeshua existed. And argue for it. Not just say: 'It might be, that...'. Yes, there can be other explantions. But they seem unlikely.

You first. "They seem unlikely" isn't much of argument.

**Janszoon** · 06-09-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

I seriously doubt that Jesus, Hercules, or Homer ever existed.

edit: No Shakespeare either, probably. But I do believe the Greek philosophers existed.

Hercules existed. It's a fact because he's popular.

Gregor XIII · 06-09-2011, 06:25 PM

1) We do have their writings, but not the original, handwritten copies. Only copies of copies of copies of transcripts of copies. While it seems overwhelmingly likely that they existed, we cannot be completely sure, that their writings were not written by a small group of conspirators. Perhaps even much later.

2) You continue to take that out of a context... You, my friend, need to work on your debating skills. I promise I'll work on my english skills then. What is there is a comparison between Yeshua and an Urban Legend. Both of them developed over a short period of time - as opposed to Hercules, who therefore has nothing to do with this, really - but people would have been much more concerned about the details about Yeshua, since he meant much more to them.

3) Seruously? You want me to do your work? It's not my job to develop counter-thesises, when I'm perfectly fine believing in the dominant one. That would be your job.

You, my friend, has stopped seeming like a sceptic to me. You seem more like a denier (which does not mean that you are like other kinds of deniers). But ok. As I see it, there are three thesises:

1) Yeshua. What are the problems with this thesis? Yes there is a lack of concrete evidence (if you discount the gospels, the dead sea scrolls and Josephus, which hardly is what a historian would do...), but that isn't really surprising, so it can't be used as evidence against it.

2) Developed out of folklore. Elements of Jesus definitely did so. But some of the details, like dying under Pilatus, like coming from Nazareth. There is such an agreement about this, and it has happened in 40 years, that it seems unlikely. I would say, that there must be some agency behind it.

3) Conspiracy. Some people made it up to further their own goals. But then much of the gospels seem counterproductive. Why would he be from Nazareth? Why would he have followed John the Baptist if he had been the Messiah all along? Why did he talk against giving money to the church (something the church completely negated afterwards, obviously).

I can't see other hypothesis. The story of the creation of the gospels is probably a mixture of the three, but without a healthy dose of 1) it becomes really hard to explain.

Mr November · 06-09-2011, 10:39 PM

The existence of Socrates isn't really important compared to the question of Jesus's existence. Let me explain why:

The fictional or real character of Socrates leaves us philosophy in writings which we may still study to this day. The merit of those writings aren't dependent on them being said by Socrates, because they would mean the same if they came from anyone.

Jesus on the other hand, was supposed to be the son of God. So the words credited to him are completely dependent on it being him who said them. If someone who was not the son of God said them, then their merit becomes far far less.

06-09-2011, 05:37 PM	#55 (permalink)
Gregor XIII Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San Diego Posts: 57	In reverse order... 1) With Platon and Aristotle we only have transcripts, written much longer and after the fact. So it could easily be seen as having been constructed afterwards. 2) "People really believed in, and worshipped, Hercules. According to you that makes him real, right?" Nope. That is not even close to what I said. I described a certain incident, with certain other facts. You took it out of a context, in a ridiculous way, it is really not a very good way to argue, even on the internet. 3) I explained 'counter-thesis' above. Put forth a more likely explanation, than that Yeshua existed. And argue for it. Not just say: 'It might be, that...'. Yes, there can be other explantions. But they seem unlikely. __________________ Agnes Varda's Le Bonheur + thoughts on women in Akhmatova and Mizuguchi: The Centrifugue

06-09-2011, 05:39 PM	#56 (permalink)
Engine air quote Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: pollen & mold Posts: 3,108	I seriously doubt that Jesus, Hercules, or Homer ever existed. edit: No Shakespeare either, probably. But I do believe the Greek philosophers existed. __________________ Like an arrow, I was only passing through.

06-09-2011, 06:25 PM	#59 (permalink)
Gregor XIII Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San Diego Posts: 57	1) We do have their writings, but not the original, handwritten copies. Only copies of copies of copies of transcripts of copies. While it seems overwhelmingly likely that they existed, we cannot be completely sure, that their writings were not written by a small group of conspirators. Perhaps even much later. 2) You continue to take that out of a context... You, my friend, need to work on your debating skills. I promise I'll work on my english skills then. What is there is a comparison between Yeshua and an Urban Legend. Both of them developed over a short period of time - as opposed to Hercules, who therefore has nothing to do with this, really - but people would have been much more concerned about the details about Yeshua, since he meant much more to them. 3) Seruously? You want me to do your work? It's not my job to develop counter-thesises, when I'm perfectly fine believing in the dominant one. That would be your job. You, my friend, has stopped seeming like a sceptic to me. You seem more like a denier (which does not mean that you are like other kinds of deniers). But ok. As I see it, there are three thesises: 1) Yeshua. What are the problems with this thesis? Yes there is a lack of concrete evidence (if you discount the gospels, the dead sea scrolls and Josephus, which hardly is what a historian would do...), but that isn't really surprising, so it can't be used as evidence against it. 2) Developed out of folklore. Elements of Jesus definitely did so. But some of the details, like dying under Pilatus, like coming from Nazareth. There is such an agreement about this, and it has happened in 40 years, that it seems unlikely. I would say, that there must be some agency behind it. 3) Conspiracy. Some people made it up to further their own goals. But then much of the gospels seem counterproductive. Why would he be from Nazareth? Why would he have followed John the Baptist if he had been the Messiah all along? Why did he talk against giving money to the church (something the church completely negated afterwards, obviously). I can't see other hypothesis. The story of the creation of the gospels is probably a mixture of the three, but without a healthy dose of 1) it becomes really hard to explain. __________________ Agnes Varda's Le Bonheur + thoughts on women in Akhmatova and Mizuguchi: The Centrifugue

06-09-2011, 04:55 PM	#53 (permalink)
Mr November Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Halifax, Canada Posts: 429	Science works by first collecting evidence, second making a hypothesis based on that evidence, and third having it ruthlessly peer reviewed. I don't think you can say that history and science are the same thing either. While the method of collecting, hypothesizing, and peer review is more or less the same, the kind of evidence used is totally different and the amount of clarity and truth that it is possible to achieve is also different. Normally the amount of evidence that you need in order to believe something should change depending on the significance of the claim. For me to believe in God, I need very substantial evidence because of the size of that claim. But if you tell me that you have $3.25 in your right pocket, I'd just believe you because it isn't that impressive of a claim. So I'm more willing to suppose that Jesus might have been based on a real person, because that claim isn't that impressive.

06-09-2011, 10:39 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mr November Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Halifax, Canada Posts: 429	The existence of Socrates isn't really important compared to the question of Jesus's existence. Let me explain why: The fictional or real character of Socrates leaves us philosophy in writings which we may still study to this day. The merit of those writings aren't dependent on them being said by Socrates, because they would mean the same if they came from anyone. Jesus on the other hand, was supposed to be the son of God. So the words credited to him are completely dependent on it being him who said them. If someone who was not the son of God said them, then their merit becomes far far less.