I’m just not seeing the double standard you’re referring to. I’m perfectly willing to look at the evidence and accept your opinion on the matter. I just don’t happen to agree with it. I look at the evidence and I see some evidence on both sides. I think Josephus nudges us down to about 60-40 in favor of Jesus existing. You think he nudges us just past that, say to 51-49 against. We differ on our informal estimates of the probability of an obscure preacher in Palestine living about 2000 years ago by about 11 pecentage points. So what? That’s not a double standard. It’s barely even disagreement.
You do realize that your example supports my position, right? You can assert that the squirrels aren’t interplanetary, and people don’t call you out on that. Wasn’t that supposed to be analogous to claiming that Jesus doesn’t exist? In which case, wouldn’t the analogy imply that calling me out for looking at the evidence and saying “Nope, no jesuses here” is the incorrect thing to do?
Though I think the evidence is stronger against the squirrels than it is against Jesus. Unless you have some severely freaky squirrels.
By this standard, “we just don’t know” anything about history. Literally.
So either you failed history class due to refusing to answer questions, or there are multiple standards at play here.
Evidence presented in this thread alone solidly supports the position. I’m not so determinedly agnostic as to deny this - but then, I don’t have a bias or an agenda that’s favored by doing so. (Nor the opposite, believe it or not - Jesus the hairy wandering street preacher doesn’t bother atheist-me a bit, especially since I’d have no reason to think he said anything that’s attributed to him.)
I think the “odds” are closer to 80-20 against, actually - if the dude was real, the dudes who were there when he died would have some idea of how many of them went to his tomb when, I’d think. The telephone game doesn’t work as well if the guy at the beginning of the line is repeating the correct version to everyone down the line.
And I think I’ve made explicitly clear what the double standard is here. I don’t think explaining it again can clarify it further. If you can’t see it…that’s the double standard in action.
That may be true or it may just be your own biases showing. Or maybe there is a double standard that I just haven’t seen. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest or biased is poisoning the well. Maybe we just disagree.
A statement about interplanetary squirrels is less likely to get called out simply because nobody has evidence to contradict it. But I still can’t accurately state a negative as an absolute, even on a matter as unlikely as that.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that statements like “Jesus never existed” draw more attention because there is some evidence (generously defined) to support the claim that he did, even though we can debate the sufficiency and relative merit of the evidence (the evidence being, for example, the Josephus reference and the writings in the New Testament).
So while some statements draw more criticism, I still don’t see a double standard at play. Frankly, I don’t even see how any of this is really in question.
I think I should point out that this little sub-discussion grew out of cosmosdan’s assertion:
As best I can tell this specifically means that “Resolved: Jesus doesn’t exist” is unkosher to him - despite as best I can tell the classic way to open such a debate. Guess as long as you’re not debating Jesus’s existence…
More generally, he’s attacking the non-agnostic position on arguments in general. You’ll note that his protest says nothing about the persuasiveness of the arguments presented - he just thinks that while you’re allowed to make the arguments, you’re not allowed to assert your conclusion. It is forbidden to behave as though your arguments are persuasive - you must always act as though you believe your position is in perpetual doubt.
In one sense, this is correct for all statements outside of self-contained purely abstract systems - you say you’re not a blue monkey? Absurd! All your senses may be lying to you, therefore all statements based on evidence must be stated tentatively and with severe qualification.
In the other sense, cosmosdan’s position is absurd. Of course we can make absolute statements based on merely observable evidence. Sure, we may be wrong. Sure, there’s a possibility of error. The squirrels may have a secret rocket, and Paul may have been kidding when he said that physical ressurection was impossible. But as we’re not inclined to be perpetually paralyzed by indecision, we can make positive assertions about things anyway.
There is no middle ground here - either it’s valid to make assertions based on a compelling evidence-based argument, or it isn’t. And I don’t believe for an instant that everyone around here refuses to make assertive statements about anthing but math, logic, and “I think therefore I am”.
So, then, the existence of an opposing argument is sufficient to make it invalid to make a positive assertion then?
'Cause if not, then the proper response to “Jesus doesn’t exist” is “You haven’t convinced me”, and not “You’re making some kind of error by claiming certainty based on evidence!”
In history class we accepted certain untruths to be true because they were written in books and taught by authority figures. That’s at least similar to Christianity. Later, we learn not to accept whatever we’re told and ask questions and do our own research. It’s in doing the research that I realized we have no solid evidence that Jesus was based on an actual individual. It’s in asking questions I came to the conclusion we just don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no.
That’s the conclusion you come to. Others have looked at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion including a very knowledgeable atheist. I assume you don’t mind if I just disagree with your assessment of the evidence. You wouldn’t want to afflict me with anything would ya?
FTR I don’t care if hairy teacher Jesus existed or not either. Does that make me less or more likely to have conformation bias? You and ambushed seem to value your critical thinking skills so highly that you think you’re immune and anyone who disagrees just isn’t thinking clearly.
Now there’s some assertion for us. It exists because you say so and those who don’t see it are guilty of it. Priceless.
Well there you go. My comments were not evidence of a double standard at work, I just had no idea what you were talking about. But thanks for assuming I was arguing in bad faith.
I suspecty that you may similarly be misunderstanding cosmosdan, but I’ll let him speak for himself.
I was assuming nothing of the sort - I was assuming that you were most probably influenced by a standard of belief that has almost completely permeated modern western society. Perhaps surprising coming from an atheist, in my opinion that doesn’t make you dishonest or an idiot. Bad premises don’t make an argument invalid, after all.
Looks to me like he just said that there are no known evidence-based facts - that crap we were taught in history? Lies!
But he’s free to correct that read of him.
No, of course not. All assertions of something as fact are open to scrutiny and requests for evidence. In practice, many such assertions aren’t subjected to scrutiny for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s because nobody holds any contrary beliefs (ex: Napoleon never had a twin) or because nobody has any interest one way or another (ex: my interplanetary squirrels).
So, while it’s always proper to ask for evidence, the question’s not always asked. It should come as no surprise to anyone that a statement about which many people hold strong beliefs (ex: the historicity of Jesus) gets challenged more than others.
Well you were still wrong. I would actually be thrilled to learn that Jesus never existed. It would be a fascinating discovery that would cause us to re-evaluate almost everything we think we know about 1st century religion. I’m an atheist, so I have no real concern with whether he existed, but I have to admit a part of me would feel slightly smug about it if he didn’t.
Completely incorrect. In debate it’s fine to make such an assertion providing you are willing to then back it up. I never asserted that Jesus did indeed exist historically , even though **ambushed ** accused me of it fairly often. My position was and is that the evidence is not as conclusive as he first presented. I then proceeded to examine his arguments and read the links he provided and came away believing I’m still correct. We’ll also note that he backed off his original assertion and then admitted he couldn’t really provide adequate evidence and arguments here. That’s his problem not mine.
This is a load. I specifically addressed the arguments more than once. Read from the links provided , took notes and returned to address them again.
I prefer accurate language so IMO “I believe the evidence is fairly conclusive that Jesus did not exist as a living person in history” is an accurate statement. “Jesus did not exist” is not. If you make such a statement , which true scholars disagree on you’re welcome to present your case. Good luck. **ambush **tried and failed and had to eventually admit he couldn’t do it. In the meantime, he took the opportunity to piss all over {rather than rationally discuss} my disagreeing with him and made a couple of blatantly incorrect assumptions about me and my position. You called it having a temper. I call it ego. I can appreciate the fact that he did a lot of research to come to his conclusion but if you willingly enter GD with an assertion then back it up or admit you can’t. That’s what he eventually did.
All he had to say from the outset is here’s part of the research I’ve done and authors I recommend. Instead he chose to bluster and get nasty and waste a lot of bandwidth that didn’t help the discussion.
No, this is absurd. Your comparisons are ridiculous and irrelevant. When scholars start doing historic research on whether or not someone’s a blue monkey get back to me. I repeat, the question of whether JC was based on an historic real life individual is a legitimate question that true scholars have tried to answer and there are actual historic facts to consider.
Make all you want. When you make one in GD you can expect to be challenged. If you can’t support it adequately, or if someone looks at your argument and doesn’t find it compelling ,choose something other than whining and mocking. Present your argument and allow people to disagree with you without lashing out at them.
It can be both or at least, “You’re making an error by claiming certainty based on inadequate evidence”
It’s valid to make an assertion even if you don’t have compelling evidence. You’re just expected to defend it. I believe I said quite a few posts back that I didn’t find the argument or the evidence presented compelling. You dropped by to say you did, and then didn’t respond to me until now when you misrepresented my position. Evidently I did exactly what you now say is the proper response.
The point is, there’s rather large difference between, I believe, I strongly believe, and I’m certain. All of them require some evidence and convincing argument here in GD yes? If you admit you can’t be certain, or that you don’t have time to really present all the available evidence that’s perfectly okay. That changes the discussion. All I’m saying is that when you start with an assertion of fact, one you evidently know you can’t really prove, then take responsibility for that and spend less time pissing all over disagreements and making false assumptions about other posters.
total bullshit. I didn’t come close to saying that. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith or just screwing around to entertain yourself.
Then we’re in the same boat, except that I apparently find the arguments for his non-historicity to be a little more compelling. Not that it’s been proven beyond doubt, at least not to me. (Though it’s certainly not incorrect for a person who is so convinced to make an affirmitive factual statement of the fact.)
Of course, with regard to smugness, by the time you get to the historicist position being defended in this thread, you’re already to the point that for most believers, Jesus didn’t exist. No ressurection? No christmas story? No miracles? <heads explode> 
Let’s presume for a moment that you’re arguing in good faith and not screwing around. If so, you can reasonably reach the conclusion that ambushed’s arguments and evidence are not convincing, and that there is no reason to reject the conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure.
You haven’t stopped there.
This endless noise about how how dare he assert as fact a statement that you are not convinced of is complete garbage. Completely unconstructive. An impediment to debate. Adding nothing. Wasting time. Semantic sealawyering. Worthless.
You say that he backed off his original assertion and then admitted he couldn’t really provide adequate evidence and arguments here. I disagree. I am certain that all along he knew that it was literally impossible to prove an existential negative. I suspect he merely assumed that he would be dealing with people who would argue in good faith, and simply say “I’m not convinced”, if he didn’t convince them.
Then you roll in, get pissed off at him, and get pedantic. You whip out the philosophical agnosticism stance of being unable to prove an existential negative, which is, like the solipsism position, 1) impossible to argue against, and 2) argumentively bankrupt. As that’s impossible to argue against, he conceded it, and you have now claimed victory! Doin’ the victory dance, oh yeah, pelvic thrusts included. Wee-hee, he has conceded that he can’t make statements of logical certainty about anything but math, logic, and cogito ergo sum! I win! Weehee!
What a steaming crapload. All this noise and all you’ve done is say “You haven’t convinced me” in two thousand words or more. With a dollop of completely unjustified self-superiority and a cherry on top.
No. Nobody is expected to prove certainty with evidence and a convincing argument in GD, because as you know, because it is impossible to achieve certainty with an evidence-based argument, beyond cogito ergo sum.
Which completely kills your argument here. Certainty isn’t on the continuum, so “strongly believe” is all that’s implied when a person makes a positive assertion about an evidence-based statement. And his argument is sufficient for that - for him. So he wasn’t making any statement that he couldn’t prove sufficiently to justify his positive assertion on the subject. So there is no unmet responsibility for him to take. Despite you wasting all this time pissing all over the thread about it.
You are now going to shit all over me some more, and I’m going to let you, because having said my peice I’m going to shut up, in the hopes that you shut up, and maybe some interesting dicussion on the thread topic might resume. Maybe.
Which is exactly what I did. I addressed the specific arguments didn’t I, even though you falsely claimed I didn’t, and I said I found them unconvincing and not compelling and tried to explain why. Now go back and count how many times **ambushed **,rather than address my argument specifically, simply called it stupid or worthless and not worthy of a response. Had he explained himself early on as he did towards the end we could have avoided all that.
Kindly point out specifically where I did that. What I responded to was his mistaken attempts to shift the burden of proof after starting with a definitive statement. What I did was repeatedly remind him that I was not arguing for a historic Jesus so there was no burden of proof on me. What’s really worthless here is your assessment of my postings.
Were you actually reading his posts? He did say fairly early on that his original assertion was merely to get things started and I accepted that and went on to consider his arguments and read the links he provided. I specifically addressed his arguments and Doherty’s. How is that not arguing in good faith. I explained why I was unconvinced and got pissed on for my efforts. First by him and now by you.
So you read my posts and his and conclude I was the one pissed off? That’s pretty realistic. :rolleyes: I was the one trying not to stoop to his level of mockery and continued to address his points in spite of the BS.
A gross misrepresentation of my position and posts. After he conceded early on that his original assertion was just to get the ball rolling and he knew he couldn’t actually prove it I tried to address his specific arguments and those of his hero. I explained why I found them unconvincing and riddled IMHO with conformation bias. I explained with specifics. He then implied that those who have done a lot of research and used critical thinking don’t or can’t have confirmation bias. I called BS on that because that’s what it is.
You’ve displayed an incredible amount of selective reading in my posts to create this position. To use a ploy you repeat quite often, it puts your credibility in serious question. {sound familiar?}
Let’s not mistake your own tactics for mine. I’m sure **ambushed **still believes Jesus never existed. I find the arguments interesting and I said so. I’ve also said I appreciate the research he has done and Doherty’s scholarship. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with those arguments.
You’ll be disappointed to find out I’ve seen your posting style enough to not take this transparent bait. Compare **ambushed’**s words and then tell me about feeling superior. I had to keep correcting his false assumptions about me and deal with his dismissal and mockery while trying to specifically address the arguments presented. I acknowledge , as he did, that the subject is to deep and complex to discuss and resolve in this thread. All I could do is deal with the arguments presented here. I even made a suggestion about presenting the argument since his tendency just to use mockery wasn’t working. Had he recognized his mistake earlier there would have been a lot less words form both of us. {mostly him}
So my statements were absolute and wrong while his were never intended to be and correct. More BS. When you make a strong statement you’re expected to provide strong evidence and a strong argument. His argument was legitimate and interesting but IMO bias and overstated and not compelling, so I said so. You obviously don’t agree. Should I care?
Nothing you’ve offered so far.
Do tell. Gosh that’s good info
Great, except he made that argument in a debate forum remember?!!
Now I suspect you haven’t actually read all the posts but just the last few and decided to come in and try and jerk me and others around.
I think your decision to shut up is what’s best for everybody, especially you.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Why posit an unremarkable person for whom no historical evidence exists and arbitrarily assert on zero evidence that Jesus the alleged founder of Christianity was this non-entity? It makes no sense. What distinguishes this non-entity from Augustus’ bathroom slave number 47’s (you know, the one with the missing leg) mother’s next-door neighbor’s childhood’s friend’s drunk brother in law if he was so unremarkable?
Those are not accurate statements, nor does it reveal an accurate picture. It’s a highly distorted representations that’s far from the reality.
Celsus’ True Doctrine was at least partly (no way to know how extensively) destroyed by Christians who didn’t want his work to survive simply because it was critical of Christians and Christian tenets and dogma. All we have left is whatever Origen chose to comment on in his cafeteria-style, cherry-picked, easy answers-only retorts.
Celsus makes no comments or arguments about any historical founder (though he read at least two Gospels, the Gospel references are no such historical references, of course) and so he does not challenge the existence of one because he simply never mentions a historical person. But since if Celsus had known of one, he would have mentioned it, so Origen is aiding the mythicist case, not the historical one!
Instead, Celsus criticizes the Christian followers and their belief system and also the Gospel myths. No historical Jesus is ever mentioned, let alone defended.
Unsophisticated historicists hark on Origen and Celsus and almost always misrepresent the case. They point to the lack of a challenge to a historical Jesus’ existence and fallaciously transmute that magically into Celsus’ belief he did exist! That’s obvious logical absurdity.
The arguments that historicists who employ that type of rationale seldom, if ever, reveal the enormously important fact that Christians spent the intervening centuries destroying any and every work that challenged their beliefs. Had arguments against the historicity of Jesus been documented outside of apologetic works, they would never have survived.
Obviously, we mythicists cannot possible argue that such did exist merely because of that! I, for one, am not that stupid. However, historicists also cannot argue that no such challenges existed merely because none of have passed through the gauntlet of wanton Christian destruction of everything that challenged their beliefs that wasn’t embedded in some apologetic work.
Moreoever, by the time of Celsus, given the lack of any historical references to Jesus at all, how could they have challenged them? How could they possibly debate that which didn’t exist?
Note also that Justin preceded Origen by quite some time. Although Trypho in Justin’s dialogue was primarily a literary device, Justin makes Trypho cast doubt on the messiah’s existence, as follows (from The Christian Fathers by Browne (1838) in the Ante-Nicene Library):
(Italics mine).
So how does Justin rebut that? He cannot and does not provide any rebuttal to this existential skepticism other than meekly retorting with the infantile: “We do not give heed to vain and idle stories”. That’s all! Not one historical reference whatsoever to rebut the mythicist argument he himself puts in Trypho’s mouth!
In summary, Sage Rat, your arguments fail utterly.
You can’t take a portion of one paragraph completely out of context and ignore everything else and consider that an argument.
Try again.
Sheesh. I’ve heard that third-rate blind apologetic, anti-rational rubbish hundreds of times and it just keeps getting funnier. I’m not going to debunk it again for someone who ignores 99% of the argument as a whole and just tried to re-pick nits that have failed time and again. That whole thing has already been debunked more than once right in this thread. Gainsaying is not an argument. Appeal to your personal authority is not an argument, either.
If it were someone more reasonable, I’d debunk it yet again, but the cost/benefit ratio in this case is far too unsatisfactory in this particular case. Sorry.
A set of gullible blind assertions without evidence does not become an argument merely by repeating it over and over again.
C’mon, Dio! You should have recognized what a garbled, intolerably out-of-context piece of non-responsive junk FriarTed’s argument was. He was responding to a tiny piece of a much longer argument that we have zero record of a historical Jesus. The list I gave was not a list of everything we should have, it was a sample listing of a few arbitrary things we don’t have that would have helped establish a historical Jesus! Sheesh!
You can’t tell me an honest reading of my post to which FriarTed is responding was accurately represented by his -or- your reply! Here is what you both should have been responding to:
In other words, that was a very short listing of a few things we MIGHT have had that could have helped establish a historical Jesus; NOT an exact list of all the things we MUST have to establish such! Very poor reading comprehension, gentlemen, and very unfair taking things out of necessary context.
C’mon, now!