Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K.Josiah · 01-03-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

I voted for one but must add that Jesus did not exist in the literal sense of the word exist. This is obvious in that when Christ was born they called him Jesus who therefore existed only in the myth.

How can someone who did not exist be born?

sakrilege · 01-05-2003, 01:19 PM

To Ab_Normal & AbbyNormal,

How're we supposed to tell you two apart?!?! Same answer & thinking & all that.

Thieving Magpie · 01-05-2003, 01:32 PM

Without accurate historical data about Jesus I do not see how anyone can choose any option other than either first (if you are a Christian) or the last (if you are not). The first requires faith, and the last requires facts. The middle two require neither to any extent that deserves acknowledgement.

Psycho Economist · 01-05-2003, 11:03 PM

I'm torn.

On the one hand, we have no reliable means of proving his historical existance.

On the other... that there was a guy named Jesus who ran around Roman Judea and was eventually killed by the Jewish authorities for preaching folk-heresies doesn't stretch my imagination at all.

seebs · 01-05-2003, 11:06 PM

I want an extra option. I want "at least roughly as described in the Bible". I don't buy into "exactly"; that's much more than I'm convinced of.

Psycho Economist · 01-05-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thieving Magpie
Without accurate historical data about Jesus I do not see how anyone can choose any option other than either first (if you are a Christian) or the last (if you are not).

Carl Sagan loved to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It follows (if you agree) that ordinary claims have a lighter burden of proof.

I'd go so far as to say that what seperates a mundane claim from an extraordinary one is that a mundane claim is one accepted until disproven. An extraordinary claim is one that is rejected by default, until conclusively affirmative evidence is presented.

That's why saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is regarded as a product of inductive reasoning and not some sort of blind faith.

Of course, the way I painted this pucture, the line between mundane and extraordinary is a subjective one. To atheists, the statement "Odin is the king of gods" is an extraordinary claim... but if you believe in Odin, it's mundane.

seebs · 01-05-2003, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist
Carl Sagan loved to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It follows (if you agree) that ordinary claims have a lighter burden of proof.

I'd go so far as to say that what seperates a mundane claim from an extraordinary one is that a mundane claim is one accepted until disproven. An extraordinary claim is one that is rejected by default, until conclusively affirmative evidence is presented.

That's why saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is regarded as a product of inductive reasoning and not some sort of blind faith.

Of course, the way I painted this pucture, the line between mundane and extraordinary is a subjective one. To atheists, the statement "Odin is the king of gods" is an extraordinary claim... but if you believe in Odin, it's mundane.

Indeed, it is. For me, "God told me to stop hitting my wife" is a mundane claim (well, it would be if I were in the habit of hitting her), but "God told me to rape those people" is an extraordinary claim.

The line is purely subjective; no one has ever offered a definition that wasn't based on existing personal model of reality. An extraordinary claim is one which contradicts part of my world view; an ordinary claim is one which does not contradict my world view.

To a metaphysical naturalist, any claim of the supernatural is extraordinary.

To a geocentrist, any claim of things orbiting something other than the earth is extraordinary.

I think there's a tendency to pull this out and wave it at people who believe things you personally wouldn't accept on that evidence, but this is pointless; obviously, different people draw the "extraordinary claim" line in different places.

Thieving Magpie · 01-06-2003, 09:07 AM

Yes.. that is exactly my point seebs. I can understand why Christians may believe some things, though I do not believe them myself. I have faith primarily in science, logic, et cetera, and they have faith primarily in God and Christ. I think I happen to be -more- right than they are (in general) but that really has little to do with this poll.

If someone has faith in JC, that is fine. I will not debate them here.

If someone does not, that is fine. I will not debate them here.

There are not other options that have been presented that I think are worthwhile to pursue.

View Poll Results: Did Jesus Exist?
Yes, exactly as described in the bible	5	4.39%
Yes, but not in the Biblical sense	41	35.96%
No he was purely ficticious	32	28.07%
I am agnostic on this issue	36	31.58%
Voters: 114. You may not vote on this poll

01-05-2003, 11:03 PM	#34
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	I'd vote twice. I'm torn. On the one hand, we have no reliable means of proving his historical existance. On the other... that there was a guy named Jesus who ran around Roman Judea and was eventually killed by the Jewish authorities for preaching folk-heresies doesn't stretch my imagination at all.

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

01-05-2003, 01:19 PM	#32
sakrilege Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Folding@Home Godless Team Posts: 6,211	To Ab_Normal & AbbyNormal, How're we supposed to tell you two apart?!?! Same answer & thinking & all that.

01-05-2003, 01:32 PM	#33
Thieving Magpie Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 253	Without accurate historical data about Jesus I do not see how anyone can choose any option other than either first (if you are a Christian) or the last (if you are not). The first requires faith, and the last requires facts. The middle two require neither to any extent that deserves acknowledgement.

01-05-2003, 11:06 PM	#35
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I want an extra option. I want "at least roughly as described in the Bible". I don't buy into "exactly"; that's much more than I'm convinced of.

01-06-2003, 09:07 AM	#38
Thieving Magpie Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 253	Yes.. that is exactly my point seebs. I can understand why Christians may believe some things, though I do not believe them myself. I have faith primarily in science, logic, et cetera, and they have faith primarily in God and Christ. I think I happen to be -more- right than they are (in general) but that really has little to do with this poll. If someone has faith in JC, that is fine. I will not debate them here. If someone does not, that is fine. I will not debate them here. There are not other options that have been presented that I think are worthwhile to pursue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.