Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don’t believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don’t believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists.
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion.
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject,
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can’t do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed.
It also means that we can’t assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn’t exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can’t disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.
Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepting everything on faith.
If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn’t mean we have to.
If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.
Thank you. We know that Mohammed existed, yet I don’t believe that an angel came to him with the words of the Quran, and I don’t believe in islam. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist. His existence is not a threat to my worldview, and besides, I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.
Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?
I do as well and I am still waiting for the evidence that he wasn’t a myth.
This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.
Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.
Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.
All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.
Can experts be wrong, yes or no?
We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?
You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?
I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.
But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?
What evidence did you use to make that determination?
Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.
In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can’t do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.
Alright? Does that make the claim true?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.
Very well. You must believe in ghosts.
It also means that we can’t assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn’t exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can’t disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.
If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn’t mean we have to.
If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.
I disagree.
You are in a bad spot here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
It doesn’t even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.
Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???
Bro you should sue whatever educational institution you went to. They fucking duped you lmao