The Search function works- if you havn’t seen one of the dozens of “Jesus didn’t really exist” threads in GD or Comments on Cecil’s Colums, then Search for one. 
Although I agree I’ve seen the argument used on the SDMB against the validity of Christianity (but not in support of atheism), why should Baldwin be expected to research your thesis, DD? Also, how would a “Jesus never egzisted1!” thread validate your contention that it’s one of the “prime arguments” against religion? Seems to me, those generally depend on either the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence school of thought or on an examination of the hypocrisies and inconsistincies of religious doctrine and dogma.
Unfortunately, we don’t get to choose what other people think is important. Christians (most, anyway) believe their religion is a factual, objectively true one, and have no (conscious, at least) interest in comforting stories that aren’t true.
And considering Jesus and Mohammed lived centuries apart …
I’m kind of unclear on what the OP wanted. Do you expect a TV morning show to come on with “of course it may all be a collection of ancient myths with no grounding in fact whose followers are all deluded”?
I’m pretty low-maintenance. I would’ve settled for something like:
“The Pool of Siloam was recently discovered by biblical archeologists in Jerusalem, where **it is believed ** that Jesus performed a miracle and returned sight to a blind man.”
As opposed to what I recall, which was:
“The Pool of Siloam, where Jesus cured a blind man, was recently discovered by archeologists.”
Even though I don’t believe that a miracle was performed there, I’m interested in the discovery of historical sites, and I’m interested in archeology…as a science, and not as a tool for trying to advance theological views.
They should just announce the discovery of the pool and mention that it’s a site where John claims Jesus performed a miracle. What they should NOT do is suggest or insinuate that the discovery is evidence for the miracle itself (or even for the existence of Jesus).
This kind of craven and irresponsible reporting is one of my pet peeves. They are reporting religious beliefs as if they were proven facts. I remember a while ago when some Palestinian radicals occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for a while. The US press kept reporting that the site was the birthplace of Jesus. I kept screaming “Cite” at the TV.
Because such debates are like the 'words that end in GRY" threads. Really, if he hasn’t seen one, then he’s a Newbie. There’s no “thesis” or “research”. Nor did I use the word “prime”. In fact, it’s a rather piss-poor argument- but it is used here fairly often, none the less. It’s a quite specious argument even, but it doesn’t stop the hard-core atheists from making it from time to time. Although, it is possible some of them are just trolling, I guess.
From post #9 of this thread
I’ve been posting here for almost three years and have been especially active in religion threads. I can’t recall a single poster ever trying to claim that the non-existence of Jesus or David would prove the non-existence of God. if I had seen such an argument, I would have corrected it myself.
Then it shouldn’t be difficult for you to link to two or three of these threads then, should it? In other words, cite?
Diogenes is incorrect in his categorical declaration that “There really is no such thing as Biblical archaeology.” There really is. That’s why Google gives 927,000 hits. That’s why there’s a Biblical Archaeology Society that publishes a Biblical Archaeology Review. I think what he meant to say was that some archaeologists don’t particularly like the label, and prefer the labels Near Eastern Archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology. He is also incorrect in his categorical declaration that “Most people who search for Biblical sites or artifacts - or who seek to confirm Biblical events- are not credentialed archaeologists.” It would indeed be interesting to learn that credentialed archaeologists searching Israel and Palestine did not emerge until 1997, when Biblical Archaeologist changed its name to Near Eastern Archaeologist. His categorical declaration that “Legitimate archaeology is about examining what is found without preconceived assumptions or agendas” is prima facia absurd. Obviously no one would bother digging up anything at all if they were not expecting to find what they were looking for — be it the city of Troy, the pottery of Ming, or the tomb of Christ. Finally, his categorical declaration that Biblical archaeologists “are considered to be a nuisance by a lot of serious Israeli archaeologists” is, as you know, of course, absolutely meaningless. A lot of physicists consider string theorists to be a nuisance, but a lot don’t.
They didn’t have to add that “ipso facto”- as I said, it was clearly unspoken.
**
This Year’s Model ** are you really asking for a cite that “Did a Historical Jesus really exist?” threads have occured? Both** DtC** and xenophon41 here have said they also have seen them. Do you deny they exist? Or are you just trying to be a jerk? :rolleyes: :dubious:
I am asking for a cite that hard-core atheists on this board have started threads using the denial of the historicity of Jesus as one of their primary arguments.
Meanwhile, the latest in Biblical cuisine.
Near Eastern Archaeology is not “Biblical” archaeology. There is no such thing as “Biblical” archaeology. Yes, there are people who call themselves that, but they’re akin to “Creation scientists.” Near Eastern or Israeli archaologists are just trying to recover the history of the region as it is without a preconceived agenda to seek artifacts or sites from the Bible. Those who specifically go looking for stuff from the Bible are generally not credentialed and are considered a nuisance by those who take the archaeology of the region seriously.
“Clearly unspoken?”
I guess you mean it was clearly implied. I’ve never gotten that sense. I think you’re reading motives that aren’t there.
What he’s asking for is a thread where someone tries to argue that the non-existence of Jesus is proof that God does not exist. At most, they were trying to disprove Christianity but the existence of God does not rise or fall with the validity of Christianity. This may come as a shock, but it is entirely possible to believe that Christianity is BS and still believe in God. There’s this religion called Judaism, for instance…
That is clear- TO ME- from the context, however, as I said “True, sometimes the “ipso facto” is not specifically mentioned, but it’s there”. You can’t be that dense. Do you think that the dudes who hold up “John 3:16” signs only want their face on TV? :dubious:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_186.html
No, both sides want dudes to convert. Both sides sometimes use methods which aren’t clearly obvious.
DtC, well, you’re right- most of them were “only” trying to disprove Xianity, not religion in general. An Atheist is anti all faiths, of course. But- here in the USA, few Atheists bother with attacks upon Zorastism.
I have not yet seen a hard-core Buddhist try to disprove the existance of an Historical Jesus here. Most of the attacks upon Xianity in particular- and religion in general- come from the hard-core Athesist. In their own way, they can be as annoying in their proslytising as a “Fundie”. And, here- there are far more of them than Xtian Fundamentalists!
(I don’t doubt that Xtians outnumber Atheists even here, but few Fundies dare raise their head.)
For crying out loud, you can’t be that dense! I, for one, do believe that Jesus lived in the place and time in the Bible. Now ask me if I believe that person was a god.
I also believe that you are imagining things. You are not demonstrating your claim, even in an “ipso facto” sort of way. All you can come up with is “It’s clear to me.” Big whoop.
Posted by DrDeth:
Spell-check also works; you might want to try that. Of course I’ve seen such threads. My point (one made by several other posters, which you seem almost preternaturally resistant to) is that I haven’t seen an argument against the historical existence of Jesus used as a primary support for atheism.
You’ve made a good point here; you should listen to yourself, and then take it a little further. Atheists in the USA have very little exposure to Zoroastrianism (I presume that’s what you meant to say); it’s simply not a noticeable part of the culture. Christianity, on the other had, is pervasive. Use the Search function you’re so fond of and you’ll find that in most threads having to do with religion at all, the religion discussed is Christianity (although the last four years have seen a lot of new interest in Islam). You talk about what’s most readily recognized and understood in the culture in which you’re operating.
Personally, I’d love to talk about Zoroaster.
Arguing in the Pit means that you can swear and fume as much as you like. It doesn’t mean that you won’t be asked to provide factual support for assertions such as you’ve been making.