An Atheist Myth of Historical Evidences

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by everneo, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    The Atheists' argument of Non-availability of independent , secular historical evidences to prove the existance of Jesus is self-cheating for the following reason :


    What is the chance of survival of any independant, secular historical references indicating the existance of Jesus.?

    NIL. For 2 reasons of Atheists' own arguments :

    - In a christian world where any such reference would have been treated as blasphemy and destroyed by 'intolerent' Chruch and the christian states.

    - If that reference depicted Jesus as anything less than a God then that reference would have been 'modified' in such a way that Jesus would be referred as God. In effect such reference would join the league of christian references.

    1. How, then, come the Atheists could expect any such secular, independant references to be available at present.? &

    2. How the non-availability of such secular, independant references at present does prove the non-existance of Jesus.?

    Any honest self-analysis forth coming..?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Are you serious?

    You say that there are no proofs that Jesus has existed, and then you say that it's not a proof that he didn't. That's right... :bugeye:
    It doesn't! But it doesn't prove its existance neither!
    So, what's the point?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Truly brilliant! The Atheists "argument ... is self-cheating [sic]" because the early Church Fathers would purge, forge, or otherwise mutilate and revamp the textual record, i.e., the corpus upon which Christianity relies.

    Very well, I promise not to self-cheat [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] anymore. Rather than question the historicity of Jesus, I'll simply agree that what you think you know of him his the product of pervasive pious fraud.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    I understand the reason for your name, ConsequentAtheist.
     
  8. Mucker Great View! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    758
    Yeah, just because there is no solid evidence doesn't mean he didn't exist. It's quite obvious that he existed because people wrote about him!
     
  9. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    "We wish you a merry christmas, we wish you..." Ooops! We're not talking about Father Christmas?

    No jokes, I guess Jesus existed... as Rael does! That doesn't mean that we must trust everything he said and everything that has been said about him.
     
  10. Mucker Great View! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    758
    lol!

    Yeah but people don't write about Santa's life do they?? There was however a St. Nicholas who 'Santa' was based on, and he did exists (...as far as I know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).
     
  11. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    In fact St Nicolas existed... that's why I chose to talk about Father Christmas who is just a "commercial".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    It's not an "atheist argument" that there are no period documents about the "Jesus Christ" of the Christian myth- it is a fact.

    If such a character of history were authentic there should be more recorded about him. The Gospels aren't compelling evidence, nor are the few (two?) extrabiblical references- since they are both anachronistic at best, and fraudulent at worst.

    We know considerably more about "less important people" whose historicity is unchallenged, and who are, technically, prehistoric.

    We have the names of Babylonian sheep traders preserved on cuneiform tablets, Egyptian dynasties, Chinese dynasties, etc.

    The facts don't support the Xtian myth.

    /shrug
     
  13. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    This is an absurdly fallacious argument on two levels:
    1. There is absolutely no basis for asserting that "there should be more recorded about him". For example, there is a whole list of Messianic claimants known to us solely or primarily through the works of Josephus. Had Josephus not been preserved, even these references would have been lost. None of this renders these people less "authentic".
    2. That we know more about the "less important" has zero relevance, and clearly is not evidence for the non-existence of the 'more important'.
    You're not very good at this, qwerty mob, and you seem intent on proving it.
     
  14. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    Both of my points draw upon the facts, and aren't axonometric.

    The strawman of "historicity => *abundance* of records" is slain.

    My points were aimed directly at a *specific* individual who is claimed to have had supernatural powers and origins.

    It is not unreasonable to expect such a "wonder" to have captivated the attention of sages and scribes of the time- the world over.

    "He" didn't.

    One is free to speculate to the contrary, but so much for the baselessness of my "baselessness"- if all one has is counter-assertion.

    That and "what if Josephus hadn't survived" and similar red herrings.

    ... Speaking of which ...

    Records of "unimportance" which have survived millenia are hardly "irrelevant" to the point that ancient records *have* survived; from the mundane (chicken trading) to the fantastic (Gilgamesh).

    The strawman of "importance => survivability" is slain.

    We know that *if* such an individual as the supernatural "Jesus Christ" existed, so too *could* records of his existence have survived- and, probably *should* have.

    The fact is, the records that we do have today are at best second hand testimony; legally, that is called hearsay.

    Many believers fall into the trap of accepting the historicity of a mythological "magic-man named Jesus" on faith alone; and the dubious records describing "Him" are moot and inconsequential.

    Just as with with Atlanteans and Healing Crystals and shit.

    Faith is the key to believing any amount of nonsense despite a lack of evidence, or despite contrary evidence.

    Perhaps the faithful, or my lone detractor, have some records of importance to share regarding any historical "water walkers" and "miracle workers" named "Jesus"- or, LOL- not.
     
  15. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    You have not read the thread starter or have not understood that the post also says why this 'fact' is not a reasonable fact.

    If you are searching for a 'non-fardulent' record then you are searching for a pleasing record that says Jesus was a fraud or Jesus did not exist. Why this search is a myth is the whole point of this thread. Any other record would not satisfy your intent whether they are biblical or extra-bilical.

    What is that contrary evidence.?

    Repeatedly asking for the independent, secular historical records [other than the much loathed (by you) christian references] for "water walkers" and "miracle workers" named "Jesus" is, as said earlier, self-cheating. You won't find any such records to your satisfaction.
     
  16. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    Oh, I understood the thesis, everneo.

    "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

    On that, we agree.

    The "absent evidence," however, is *for* the unbelievable tales attributed to the Jesus of legend by the Gospels.

    You can't blame me for being skeptical, nor for pointing that out.

    "He" allegedly did these great and miraculous things 2000 years ago, but all posterity is now supposed to just "believe" second hand stories, and take such unlikely events on "faith."

    Riiiiiiight!

    If the facts are inconvenient, or seem unreasonable, I assert that it is your paradigm which must move.

    My congratulations to you on coining a new and unusual cop-out: "self cheating"

    Enjoy and Beware.
    Q
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2003
  17. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    You missed the whole point, Q (qwerty mob)

    Disbelieving in the miracles ( of Jesus as described in biblical / extra-biblical, in general all the references considered to tbe christian ) is the only thing anyone can expect from you as an atheist.

    Believing in the non-existance of Jesus cannot be because of your atheistic rejection of 'unsatisfying' evidences or non-availability of 'satisfying' evidences - as per your definition of evidences.
     
  18. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    I think the main strawman of the opening post is here:
    It is in the wording "Atheists". It is "atheists" (no capital a). There are, to be sure, people out there whose near religious zeal might earn them an Atheist label, but if you want t odiscuss their viewpoints, you must find and engage them. Other atheists are not obliged to answer for them.

    The most common atheist viewpoint, as I have encountered it, is that there may have been a historical Jesus, but that we cannot know for sure, due to lack of records.

    It is, of course, the standpoint of an atheist that a historical Jesus was a mortal man, a prophet and political revolutionary (religion and politics were inextricably connected back then), who made enough of a name for himself to be made a political prisoner and to be executed.

    However, all the miracles etc. ascribed to Jesus are, from an atheist viewpoint, myths. And not unusual myths at that. When you read ancient history, you regularly encounter various miracles and magic feats being ascribed to kings, heroes, religious leaders, even ordinary people.

    Hans
     
  19. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    If the occurrence of miracles did not add weight to any claims an individual made, then using the absence of miracles to provide sufficient proof that they must have been mythical shouldn't either - a "miracle" does not prove anything either way, it is an event in itself. It is what accompanied the miracles that is important. The Biblical miracle is an indicator of faith.

    The only reason Jesus' life has been recorded in the fist place is because many people became convinced that Jesus was more than a miracle-maker. The Jews were familiar with Moses and all the miracles in the Old Testament, and would expect their messiah to perform them. As it is, Christianity and Judaism form a point of convergence in the vicinity of 0-40 AD that points to a person called Jesus.

    That the Jews to this day do not recognize Jesus as their messiah is evidence that the miracles were not the main axis of Jesus' persuasion. but rather the experience of people who benefitted by his ministry (were healed etc.) That Christ's first followers were Jews who were convinced He was the messiah, means that had sufficient reason to believe, despite the miracles.

    Disbelief in miracles is not sufficient reason to disbelieve the writings of those who did believe in Him.

    Everneo is right. Hans, would you rather he used the term "antichrist"? Then let me rephrase: the antichrist's argument is self-defeating. There were no "early church fathers", kings, or people with hidden agendas - these claims are conspiracy theories which CA and qwerty ascribe to. And for reasons less founded than the ones by which we believe in the integrity of the authors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2003
  20. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Actually I came to know that there are few atheists exist and they don't come under this generalization only after their posts (so far 3 of them including you, SG-N and ConsequentAtheist).
    The main reason to start a separate thread is, of late, there were so many of them outrightly reject the existance of Jesus in different threads. It would be difficult to respond to them in seperate threads with seperate posts and i would end up in wild-goose chase.

    If it is the most common view point, which i doubt because i have not encountered it so commonly, then there is a room for meaningful discussion on religion (in this case christianity) as the christians will be given a fair chance to represent their faith.
     
  21. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    That's me!
    However I'm not :
     
  22. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    What criteria would you use?
     
  23. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    Actually, I do not normally refer to myself as an atheist. I'm a skeptic; not all atheists are skeptics and not all skeptics are atheists.

    Hans
     

Share This Page