Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve Weiss · 10-12-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

If there were no historical Jesus, how could there be Jesus's words? A folk hero with the assigned name of Jesus may have said similar things, or may not. There simply is no record to verify anything.

If we can track the rise of Christianity independent of a historical Jesus - and I think we mostly can - then Christianity did not result from a historical Jesus. Searching for The Real Jesus™ is then a distraction, since he was not the founder of Christianity.

I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways. Since there was no HJ, the religion must have been formulated independently of the biblical Jesus. Christianity, and all religions, are based upon frauds, myths, politics, legends, etc. Religion is the playground of the unscrupulous.

Steve Weiss · 10-12-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Indeed. There is evidence, but it is not sufficient to do more than make informed speculation. This results in many speculations, for example about what Jesus was, by HJers that are flights of imagination more than historical inquiry.

And if we want to leave it here, the onus is always on the substantive claimant to demonstrate the claim with sufficient evidence. If one wants to say that there was no Jesus, however, one makes a substantive claim needing demonstration. The HJer usually ignores their own problems and claims that there is no alternative, attacking--using questionable presuppositions--the lack of substance of the mythicist and related positions. This is simply obfuscation.

spin

You have it exactly backwards. It is the HJ advocates that are making a truth claim. They are asserting the existence of a personage for which there is zero credible evidence. One is not required to produce evidence for the absence of something. The HJ'ers claim x and do not substantiate the claim with necessary and sufficient evidence. In that case their claim fails and is thrown out of the court of consideration. In a court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and one is presumed innocent unless a valid case is made. If there is no case to be made and no evidence is presented, the claimant is wasting the time of the court and should bear the costs. In addition, there are rules of evidence as to what constitutes valid evidence, and HJ'ers do not satisfy that requirement either. Next case.

Steve Weiss · 10-12-2010, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're shifting the issue. Depending on the evidence, there is quite a lot that can be said about the past that is not "in the realm of fiction". I know for example with relative certainty that there was a battle between the Egyptians and the Hittites that led to a peace agreement between the two antagonists that involved a Hittite princess marrying the pharaoh (Ramses II). That's well over 1000 years earlier than the time we are investigating. We go with the evidence and talk about what we can. We know with relative certainty that the basic events narrated by Josephus about the Roman conquest of Masada happened because of the corroborating archaeological evidence. Extracting history out of unprovenanced, undated, anonymous works that have no external support is beyond most efforts of history. We work with standards and say what we can, acknowledging that there are many things that we can only speculate about. And I'm not too interested in the speculative aspects of christianity.

spin

Indeed. There is evidence, but it is not sufficient to do more than make informed speculation. This results in many speculations, for example about what Jesus was, by HJers that are flights of imagination more than historical inquiry.

What evidence do you refer to outside the bible? Have you made a new discovery that stands up to scrutiny.

Steve Weiss · 10-12-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Separating fact from fiction is nearly impossible in ancient history. Certain very basic observations can be made that are highly likely, but as to the entire fabric of history being something that one can have confidence in, that is without support.

For example, "Did FDR know of the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened. Conspiracy theorists insist yes, while most other observers say no. Did a space ship land in Rozwell, New Mexico in 1947, or was it a weather balloon. Was there a second assassin in Dallas in 1963 when JFK was killed? Was the recent financial crisis the result of an uncontrolled banking and financial sector, or was it the result of government policy of forced lending to the uncreditworthy?

There are tons of records tha can be studied concerning recent events, but precious few for antiquity. All that one can say about ancient history is that it is educated guesswork, and anything more is giving credit where it isn't due.

You're shifting the issue. Depending on the evidence, there is quite a lot that can be said about the past that is not "in the realm of fiction". I know for example with relative certainty that there was a battle between the Egyptians and the Hittites that led to a peace agreement between the two antagonists that involved a Hittite princess marrying the pharaoh (Ramses II). That's well over 1000 years earlier than the time we are investigating. We go with the evidence and talk about what we can. We know with relative certainty that the basic events narrated by Josephus about the Roman conquest of Masada happened because of the corroborating archaeological evidence. Extracting history out of unprovenanced, undated, anonymous works that have no external support is beyond most efforts of history. We work with standards and say what we can, acknowledging that there are many things that we can only speculate about. And I'm not too interested in the speculative aspects of christianity.

spin

The same alleged events that you describe above may be related very differently from the Hittite point of view. There are Egyptian hieroglyphics that describe a Hittite/Egyptian battle, but winners and losers are subject to debate. Who won the Battle of Jutland? The Germans think that they did, and the British think that they did. Depends on who is writing the story. Ancient stories are based upon incomplete and often slanted evidence.

spin · 10-12-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're shifting the issue. Depending on the evidence, there is quite a lot that can be said about the past that is not "in the realm of fiction". I know for example with relative certainty that there was a battle between the Egyptians and the Hittites that led to a peace agreement between the two antagonists that involved a Hittite princess marrying the pharaoh (Ramses II). That's well over 1000 years earlier than the time we are investigating. We go with the evidence and talk about what we can. We know with relative certainty that the basic events narrated by Josephus about the Roman conquest of Masada happened because of the corroborating archaeological evidence. Extracting history out of unprovenanced, undated, anonymous works that have no external support is beyond most efforts of history. We work with standards and say what we can, acknowledging that there are many things that we can only speculate about. And I'm not too interested in the speculative aspects of christianity.

The same alleged events that you describe above may be related very differently from the Hittite point of view. There are Egyptian hieroglyphics that describe a Hittite/Egyptian battle, but winners and losers are subject to debate.

So, you have no problem accepting the fact that the battle was historical, that the participants are known, the location agreed on, the aftermath clear. You want to worry about the sort of thing that isn't necessarily what one is analyzing. This is just more of the same shifting of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Who won the Battle of Jutland? The Germans think that they did, and the British think that they did. Depends on who is writing the story.

Was there a battle of Jutland? Were the participants the Germans and the British? Etc. Etc. Perspectives don't change the facts so much, do they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Ancient stories are based upon incomplete and often slanted evidence.

Uh-huh. But that doesn't add up to being "in the realm of fiction" working on materials 2000 years old, does it?

spin

spin · 10-12-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And if we want to leave it here, the onus is always on the substantive claimant to demonstrate the claim with sufficient evidence. If one wants to say that there was no Jesus, however, one makes a substantive claim needing demonstration. The HJer usually ignores their own problems and claims that there is no alternative, attacking--using questionable presuppositions--the lack of substance of the mythicist and related positions. This is simply obfuscation.

You have it exactly backwards.

If you say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

It is the HJ advocates that are making a truth claim. They are asserting the existence of a personage for which there is zero credible evidence.

Basically, yes. That's why I said, "the onus is always on the substantive claimant to demonstrate the claim with sufficient evidence". Context is important, I responded to someone talking about HJers and (I added) "if we want to leave it here", ie not go beyond the HJer's problem to make a substantive claim to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

One is not required to produce evidence for the absence of something.

Unless of course they are asserting a substantive claim that the opposite is the case, ie that Jesus didn't exist. That is going too far. If they shut up and leave the HJers to flounder about until they make their case, then there is no problem. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate their claim, be it the HJer who claims that Jesus existed or the anti-HJer who claims that Jesus did not exist.

spin

Kapyong · 10-13-2010, 12:19 AM

Gday folks,

FYI:
Some of you may be interested in Earl Doherty taking on Tim ONeill over at Rational Sceptics,
in the last few pages of this mega thread :

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...esus-t219.html

K.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The same alleged events that you describe above may be related very differently from the Hittite point of view. There are Egyptian hieroglyphics that describe a Hittite/Egyptian battle, but winners and losers are subject to debate.

So, you have no problem accepting the fact that the battle was historical, that the participants are known, the location agreed on, the aftermath clear. You want to worry about the sort of thing that isn't necessarily what one is analyzing. This is just more of the same shifting of the issue.

Was there a battle of Jutland? Were the participants the Germans and the British? Etc. Etc. Perspectives don't change the facts so much, do they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Ancient stories are based upon incomplete and often slanted evidence.

Uh-huh. But that doesn't add up to being "in the realm of fiction" working on materials 2000 years old, does it?

spin

As the quantity and quality of evidence declines the futher one goes back into the hsitorical record, and the reliablity of the conclusions drawn follows in the same inverse proportion. Were there seven wonders of the ancient world? We can only be sure of the pyramids because there is uncontested evidence available for that. As for the others there is little more than myths and conjucture. The Battle of Jutland was only 65 years ago+/- so we can be sure of most of the details, but less and less so the further back in time that we go.

When it comes to biblical stories there is very little hard evidence to verify the stories, some of which are clearly fantastic and impossible. The more extreme the claims the more stringent the evidentiary requirements, but some claims like the Jordan River opening for Joshua and the earth pausing in its rotation for 24 hours require no verification because they are impossible.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

You have it exactly backwards.

If you say so.

Basically, yes. That's why I said, "the onus is always on the substantive claimant to demonstrate the claim with sufficient evidence". Context is important, I responded to someone talking about HJers and (I added) "if we want to leave it here", ie not go beyond the HJer's problem to make a substantive claim to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

One is not required to produce evidence for the absence of something.

Unless of course they are asserting a substantive claim that the opposite is the case, ie that Jesus didn't exist. That is going too far. If they shut up and leave the HJers to flounder about until they make their case, then there is no problem. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate their claim, be it the HJer who claims that Jesus existed or the anti-HJer who claims that Jesus did not exist.

spin

Until evidence is produced for an HJ he or it didn't exist, just like the unicorn.

spin · 10-13-2010, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

As the quantity and quality of evidence declines the futher one goes back into the hsitorical record, and the reliablity of the conclusions drawn follows in the same inverse proportion.

This doesn't change the hyperbole of the statement of yours I objected to in the first place. You remember what the history teacher said, "Go back 2000 years and one is in the realm of fiction." Evidence from 2000 years ago doesn't count.

spin

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

10-13-2010, 12:19 AM	#87
Kapyong Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Perth Posts: 1,779	Gday folks, FYI: Some of you may be interested in Earl Doherty taking on Tim ONeill over at Rational Sceptics, in the last few pages of this mega thread : http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...esus-t219.html K.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.