The point was that Charles Dickins is arguably more influential than Emily Dickinson and Pocahontas. He’s bitching about there not being enough women, but I don’t think the list is that bad.
Did somebody actually mention Pocahontas?
Please read what I’m quoting before responding. 
And the exclusion of Marie Curie from the list.
Gotta vote Jesus. For one, there’s no logical reason to take the Bible at its word about who he may have been and what he may have been like. Second, there’s no convincing evidence that any of the magical crap associated with his ‘life’ actually happened. Third, incredibly far-reaching and wide-ranging negative consequences, which continue to this day, following the creation of a religion based on his existence. Mohammed will be my next vote.
I’d have been happy with this claim, were it less absolutist.
Many myths are based on fact, but exaggerated. For example, there probably were one or more epic floods that caught ancient people’s attention. By saying that, am I agreeing that Noah placed seven giraffes in his ark, but couldn’t find the unicorn? :dubious:
So if there was any historical basis whatsoever to Exodus, then 2 million people spent 38 years in the desert? If I claim there was an ancient flood, it means I believe in unicorns? Do you get my point?
And the absolutist notion that Hebrews either were or were not indigenous to Canaan denies the reality of culture mixing. In addition to Canaan and Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea-Peoples have been proposed as an Hebrew source; these theories are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, there are several important migration events from 3000 years ago that can be confidently inferred, but for which no archaeological evidence exists.
…
It’s absolutist because it’s proven fact.
Yes, the Exodus was probably vaguely based on the Hyksos expulsion, but the Hyksos were not Israelites.
Nope. There was no human presence at all at Kadesh Barnea, or anywhere at all in the Sinai during anything close to the presumed time of the Exodus. More significantly, the Israelites just beginning to arise from indigenous Canaanite tribes at the time. They were never imprisoned in Egypt. Never happened. Not even as a historical kernel turned legend. The legends drawn on for the Exodus myth were based on the histories of peoples other than Israelites.
No they haven’t. They are proposed as an origin for the Philistines. The Israelites are demonstrably an indigenous Canaanite people.
They did not include any migration of Israelites in from the Sinai or anywhere else. The Israelites are demonstrably Canaanite. The Hebrew language is Canaanite, and the Israelite pantheon (the original one before they became monotheistic) was Canaanite. In the archaeology, you can see one group of originally indistinguishible Canaanite people slowly becoming more and more distinguisible as Israelite.
You should update yourself on the scholarship here. Finkelstein and Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed would be the best place to start.
No matter which way Curtis decides he wants his game played there is no way I can avoid voting for Jesus.
Hm. Well, if the rules are such that you are simply voting for the person on the list that you feel has had the least overall influence on humanity, I don’t see how JC meets that criteria.
Well, since Jesus is not actually known to have existed, he is arguably ineligible as a fictional character.
Whoa, what on earth? A morality of universal love is far from established, and religion in general and Christianity in particular seem to be in the forefront of singling out targets for hate. And “promoted human equality” is so far outside the stated goals of Christianity, its historical use by cynical rulers, and the actual historical record that it looks more like something you accidentally pasted in from your clipboard than something someone would intentionally assert.
Good for you. You can vote for someone else then. My vote for Jesus still stands.
First of all, the voting rules as Curtis has set them up are NOT simply that we are voting for the person with the most overall influence, so I’m certainly not trying to convince anyone to change their vote on that basis.
Second, I had thought that perhaps my comment would lead bannerrefugee (or anyone else) to explain their thinking behind why Jesus Christ would qualify as the person on the list with the least overall influence, because, you know, that might make an interesting little side discussion.
Third, if you look up-thread, I already voted in this round, and it was for Jesus Christ anyway, based on Curtis’s criteria. (Least positive/most negative influence.) Criminey.
OK. My bad.
Did we kill Jesus yet?
Since there is no proof and plenty of doubt Jesus ever existed, I think he has to go first.
Depends on the rules. If they’re “most negative influence,” including indirect influence, then absolutely Moses is first, followed by Jesus. But that’s a totally stupid rule, to be honest. If it’s “net negative influence,” then c’mon, y’all–you’re just yanking Curtis’s chain. Well, Der Trihs isn’t, but most of y’all are. Jesus’s influence includes plenty of hospitals and plenty of chairties and plenty of small wonderful acts by individuals, in addition to plenty of wars and plenty of tortures and plenty of small cruel acts by individuals (when I was a kid, I knew a Cherokee guy who’d been beaten and left for dead by the KKK because he refused to accept Jesus as his personal savior. Jaundiced my view of Christians, it did). No way is his influence more of a net negative than Hitler’s or Stalin’s.
And if we’re doing net influence, period, no way is Jesus the lowest on the list. That’s as stupid as the original rules for the game.
Curtis: redefine, reopen.
Yup.
And that’s why.
Despite ongoing confusion over what we’re voting on, here are the current standings:
Jesus Christ- 12 votes
Adolf Hitler - 2 votes
Mohammed - 2 votes
Ludwig von Beethoven - 1 vote
Christopher Columbus - 1 vote
Henry Ford - 1 vote
Karl Marx - 1 vote
Moses - 1 vote
Nicholas Otto - 1 vote
St Paul - 1 vote
With 12 out of 23 votes, it’s looking bad for Jesus.