Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-06-2011, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The "Cooke Cutter Christ" theory is a truly insignficant part of anti-Christian rhetoric, and is not the focus of any atheist or secular group.

Graves was not an atheist. Acharya S has a following, but is not influential in any atheist or civil liberties group. If Loughner liked Zeitgeist, it was probably for the second two thirds.

There are anti-religious or anti-Christian groups who have picked up some misinformation on Mithraism, but this is not the focus of their work, and it does not form the basis of their opposition to Christianity. If FFRF has not bothered to update its pamphlet, that is probably because the issue is trivial, and they are spending their time on real legal issues involving church state separation.

Atheists are one group of people, anti-religious activists are another group of people, and I tried to maintain that distinction. It is true that most atheists don't know or even care so much about the historical issues. But, the anti-religious activists are the ones who make their views known, influence the society and represent all atheists. The silent atheists do not matter as much, concerning the future, as the people who are actively influencing society--you, me and all of those who speak out. ...

I strongly suspect that you overrate your own and my influence.

Quote:

...
These people are not the normal atheists who keep to themselves. They are the atheists who are changing society. I'll tell you how I know this.

I guess I missed that part.

Quote:

Yeah, if they never made a difference, then I probably would not care. You never heard of anyone who was persuaded by CCC which contributed to deconversion. I have known two such people online. One of them was a moderator of the Apologetics section of ChristianForums.com. She was a pastor's wife. She engaged in the debates with atheists, continually lost of course, and she read the book, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read (or via: amazon.co.uk), strong on CCC. Then she became an anti-religious activist. The deconversion was like an atomic bomb. It was big.

It's been a while since I read that book, but there is a lot in it besides "CCC."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your idea that if American atheists became predominant, that they would try to force the cookie cutter Christ theories on American education just like they did in the Soviet Union, shows a complete lack of understanding of American politics and everything else.

Well, I made my case, and you are free to make your counter-arguments, or you can just insult me and leave it at that. I would love it if we could talk in real time and you could quiz me about American politics. I don't think I have ever been accused of possessing a "complete lack" of understanding about American politics, nor even a moderate lack.

Every atheist I have met in America is more concerned with protecting civil liberties than with promoting atheism or enforcing some idea of historical truth. Your claim that atheists in 21st century America might copy some failed tactic from early 20th century Russia is just - some wild fantasy. You did not make a case for this as a possible scenario.

Toto · 02-06-2011, 10:56 PM

I took the liberty of editing the title of this thread. The original title talked about "The ugly public face of atheist rhetoric about history" but Abe has decided the problem is anti-religious activism and not atheism per se.

Besides, the original title was just a little too inflammatory.

Steve Weiss · 02-07-2011, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Since there is no comprehensible definition of a deity, religion is an irrelevance. As to the existence of an historical "human" Jesus, let us first outline the necessary and sufficient contextual evidence that would be required to substantiate the claim of his "human" existence. I contend that by any reasonable standard the "evidence" falls far short of satisfying the necessary requirements.

OK, so you seem to think there should be a standard of evidence that a historical claim (like a human Jesus) must meet before the claim should be accepted. I have a different perspective, and I think it best matches the general practice of history. The claims that are accepted are merely the claims that fit the evidence the best, surpassing all competing explanations of the same evidence. There is no autonomous set of requirements, no metaphorical "bar," that is independent of all of the explanations on the table, nor should there be. The "bar" for any explanation put on the table needs to only score higher than the highest-scoring competing explanation that is also on the table. Not that there is a scoring system that assigns absolute numerical values--the better methodologies require subjective judgments--but there are nevertheless rigorous sets of criteria used to judge the hypotheses, varying from one historian to the next. The methodology that I prefer, and it is seemingly the most well-established in historicism, is the "Argument to the Best Explanation," by C. Behan McCullagh. It is on Wikipedia, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...st_explanation

The topic of this thread is something completely different, by the way, but I am OK talking about it with you. Maybe a new thread would be better, if you care to start one.

So, history amounts to a best guess viewpoint. I suppose that that is the conventional wisdom and serves some kind of purpose as long as one doesn't take it seriously. Lacking any documentation whatsoever when other events of lesser importance are duly recorded does leave one rather unconvinced, however.

Maybe there was a King Arthur, and the story explains why people believe in his historical existence, and it's such a cool story and all, but lacking a body, contemporay, verifiable information, birth or death records, a body of writing, artifacts that can be definitely linked to this character, all we have is a fable. Trying to figure out how these stories originated is entertaining speculation and a nice research project, but don't expect a smoking gun of any sort. History is a very inexact science, especially since most of the records either never existed or have disappeared, like some of my own.

rizdek · 02-07-2011, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"The ancient evidence for that claim does not actually exist. If you disagree, then find the ancient writing, not just someone else who repeats the claim."

But when faced with an outlandish story about a woman giving birth to a god, one wonders where the people that wrote it came up with it. Either it really happened and they wrote the account, they made it up out of thin air, or they heard it from somewhere else. Where does the evidence point?

Steve Weiss · 02-07-2011, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"The ancient evidence for that claim does not actually exist. If you disagree, then find the ancient writing, not just someone else who repeats the claim."

But when faced with an outlandish story about a woman giving birth to a god, one wonders where the people that wrote it came up with it. Either it really happened and they wrote the account, they made it up out of thin air, or they heard it from somewhere else. Where does the evidence point?

No matter how many stories are told about alleged miracles (events that contradict the facts of reality, not just improbabilities), they didn't happen. So, if someone tells a story based upon a miracle, what you've got is a lie. Now, you can spend a lot of time doing research on who told the first lie and who just repeated or embelished it, but a lie it remains.

Some 2000 years ago people were ignorant and very superstitious, so they could be easily conned into believing just about anything. Now, there is no excuse for believing such nonsense unless it fulfills a psychological need of some sort that insecure people rely upon in order to face the facts of reality, as unpleasant as they may be.

What would qualify as evidence for an impossibility?

mountainman · 02-07-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My contempt is directed specifically at the very many people online who pass on the lists of god-men and the list of characteristics they share with Jesus, in a game of telephone traceable to Kersey Graves of the 19th century, without citing primary evidence nor qualified scholars.

This contempt is obviously both blind and uneducated, since it would seem that qualified scholars have not yet assessed this work of Kersey Graves. Carrier admits this fact, and provides a number of disclaimers against whitewashing Graves completely, which you are trying to do without doing the necessary scholarship

Carrier on Graves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

All this is not to say Graves didn't have some things right. But you will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source.

For example here is Graves on the miracles and religion of Apollonius of Tyana. If the apologists can use books like those in the new testament canonical collection as sources for the HJ, then all Graves has done here is to use "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus as a source for the historical Apollonius.

Which of these citations by Graves about Apollonius do you object to and/or are contemptuous of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kersey Graves

MIRACLES AND RELIGION OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA

Everything was subject to his miraculous power.
He performed many miraculous cures.
He restored sight to the blind.
He cast out devils, which sometimes "cut up" like those of Christ.
He enabled the lame to walk.
He re-animated the dead.
He could read the thoughts of bystanders.
Sometimes disappeared in a miraculous manner.
Caused a tree to bloom, while Christ made another tree to wither away.
The laws of nature obeyed him.
Could speak in many languages he had never learned.
Was at one time transfigured, like Christ.
His birth was miraculously foretold by an angel.
Was born of a spotless virgin.
There were demonstrations of joy and singing at his birth.
Exhibited proofs in infancy of being a God.
Manifested extraordinary wisdom in childhood.
He was called "the Son of God."
Also "the image of the Eternal Father manifested in the flesh."
He was also styled "a prophet."
Like Christ, he retired into mystic silence.
His religion was one of exalted spirituality.
He taught the doctrine of "the Inner Life."
He possessed exalted views of purity and holiness.
Like Christ, he was a religious ascetic.
His religion, as in the case of Christ, forbade him to marry.
He ate no animal food, and would wear no woolen garments.
Gave his substance to the poor.
Eschewed love for wine and women.
Refrained from artificial ornaments and sumptuous living.
He was a high-toned moral reformer.
He condemned external sacrifices.
Also condemned gladiatorial shows.
He religiously opposed dancing and sexual pleasures.
He recommended the pursuit of wisdom.
Was of a serene temper, and never got angry.
Was a true prophet, foresaw and foretold many future events.
Foresaw a plague, and stopped it after it had commenced.
Crowds were attracted by his great miracles and his wisdom.
He disputed with and vanquished the wise men of Greece and Asia, as Christ the learned doctors in the temple.
When imprisoned by Domitian and loaded with chains, he disinthralled himself by divine power.
He was followed by crowds when entering Alexandria, like Christ when entering Jerusalem.
Was crucified amidst a display of divine power.
He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.
Like Christ, he convinced a Tommy Didymus by getting him to feel the print of the nails in his hands and feet.
Was seen by many witnesses after his resurrection, and was hailed by them as the "God Incarnate," "the Lord from Heaven."
He finally ascended back to heaven, and now "sits at the right hand of the Father," pleading for a sinful world.
When he entered the temple of Diana, "a voice from above was heard saying, 'Come to heaven.'"
Accordingly he was seen no more on earth only as a spirit.

All these events are taken from this source by Philostratus, which Eusebius specifically refers to as a "history" many times in his "Against Hierocles".

show_no_mercy · 02-07-2011, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Since there is no comprehensible definition of a deity, religion is an irrelevance. As to the existence of an historical "human" Jesus, let us first outline the necessary and sufficient contextual evidence that would be required to substantiate the claim of his "human" existence. I contend that by any reasonable standard the "evidence" falls far short of satisfying the necessary requirements.

OK, so you seem to think there should be a standard of evidence that a historical claim (like a human Jesus) must meet before the claim should be accepted. I have a different perspective, and I think it best matches the general practice of history. The claims that are accepted are merely the claims that fit the evidence the best, surpassing all competing explanations of the same evidence. There is no autonomous set of requirements, no metaphorical "bar," that is independent of all of the explanations on the table, nor should there be. The "bar" for any explanation put on the table needs to only score higher than the highest-scoring competing explanation that is also on the table. Not that there is a scoring system that assigns absolute numerical values--the better methodologies require subjective judgments--but there are nevertheless rigorous sets of criteria used to judge the hypotheses, varying from one historian to the next. The methodology that I prefer, and it is seemingly the most well-established in historicism, is the "Argument to the Best Explanation," by C. Behan McCullagh. It is on Wikipedia, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...st_explanation

The topic of this thread is something completely different, by the way, but I am OK talking about it with you. Maybe a new thread would be better, if you care to start one.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/CarrierDec08.pdf

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10150

bacht · 02-07-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

CCC is the theory that Jesus was a merely mythical character whose traits were inspired by the mythical god-men of the world. The theory began primarily with a book by Kersey Graves titled, Sixteen Crucified Saviors (published on infidels.org), in which he proposed that sixteen mythical characters in history were also born on December 25th, were born of humble virgins, had twelve disciples, were crucified, and were raised back to life. Graves' claims were written without citations, and the claims remain without evidence, but they remain present today among anti-religious activists and authors. Such a theory rose to prominence with Arthur Drews, and the focus today has narrowed mainly to claimed similarities between Jesus and Mithra, Horus, and/or Krishna. There are many other titles to such a theory besides "cookie-cutter Christs," ("pagan parallels," "crucified god-men," "copycat Christs"), but I will call them CCC....

Why does this matter?

OK, so what? Isn't the false belief that Jesus was a cookie-cutter Christ more forgivable than the false belief that his words according to the New Testament are infallible? Maybe so. But, here is the thing: truth is important. If we value the reasonable truth, then we should not be letting this ignorant, easily-refuted and outright false theory represent the critical perspective against the Christian religion....

So what can we do about this?

We, all of us, need to speak out against bullshit....

You seem to be on a mission Abe.

Here's another piece of truth: religion has been around a lot longer than logic or science. It relates to the irrational, emotional parts of our brains (excluding theology, which is a later development).

You could say that religion is a symptom, not a cause, of illogic and anti-intellectualism. Eliminating the symptom won't cure the disease.

De-constructing religion is relatively easy. Coming to terms with our full human nature is an ongoing challenge that won't be accomplished by argument alone imo.

rizdek · 02-07-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

But when faced with an outlandish story about a woman giving birth to a god, one wonders where the people that wrote it came up with it. Either it really happened and they wrote the account, they made it up out of thin air, or they heard it from somewhere else. Where does the evidence point?

No matter how many stories are told about alleged miracles (events that contradict the facts of reality, not just improbabilities), they didn't happen. So, if someone tells a story based upon a miracle, what you've got is a lie. Now, you can spend a lot of time doing research on who told the first lie and who just repeated or embelished it, but a lie it remains.

Some 2000 years ago people were ignorant and very superstitious, so they could be easily conned into believing just about anything. Now, there is no excuse for believing such nonsense unless it fulfills a psychological need of some sort that insecure people rely upon in order to face the facts of reality, as unpleasant as they may be.

What would qualify as evidence for an impossibility?

I agree. I really meant where does the evidence point as to whether folks just made up the stuff about Jesus on the spot or borrowed/embellished stories that were already around. I could easily believe stories of miraculous births, miracles, sacrifices, and gods walking the earth existed and were shared and then applied to some guy named Jesus (real or mythical, I don't care). For me, it isn't so much can anyone prove that's what happened but is it a possibility, and is it more likely than what was written about Jesus actually happened? I think it is.

Perspicuo · 02-07-2011, 03:01 PM

A core historical Jesus, if there is one, would be so far buried under the mythical one that all attempts to find him are doomed. At most what you can do is what Thomas Jefferson did: rewrite the gospels without the miracles.

But a wedding at Cana without miracles has no more evidence of being true than the miracle you took out. You don't know if it's a real wedding beautified with a miracle, or it was made up just to give a story-context for the miracle!

Which is the reason why I believe that "Historical Jesus" rhetoric is as futile as a hypothetical Historical Heracles rhetoric.

By the way...
Why don't we have a group arguing for a Historical Heracles? Why the discrimination? The only difference is that the pagans were wiped out by the Christians and are no more... so now there is no social conditioning to motivate people to wish there ever was a real Heracles as they have with Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2011, 10:56 PM	#32
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I took the liberty of editing the title of this thread. The original title talked about "The ugly public face of atheist rhetoric about history" but Abe has decided the problem is anti-religious activism and not atheism per se. Besides, the original title was just a little too inflammatory.

02-07-2011, 03:01 PM	#40
Perspicuo Moderator - History of Non Abrahamic Religions, General Religious Discussions Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Latin America Posts: 6,620	A core historical Jesus, if there is one, would be so far buried under the mythical one that all attempts to find him are doomed. At most what you can do is what Thomas Jefferson did: rewrite the gospels without the miracles. But a wedding at Cana without miracles has no more evidence of being true than the miracle you took out. You don't know if it's a real wedding beautified with a miracle, or it was made up just to give a story-context for the miracle! Which is the reason why I believe that "Historical Jesus" rhetoric is as futile as a hypothetical Historical Heracles rhetoric. By the way... Why don't we have a group arguing for a Historical Heracles? Why the discrimination? The only difference is that the pagans were wiped out by the Christians and are no more... so now there is no social conditioning to motivate people to wish there ever was a real Heracles as they have with Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.