Celine

I have some of the same problems, just in terms of genuine argument methods, that Kosh does -- whether your "intellectual gambit" teacher is an atheist or not.
Conceding an ASSUMPTION is equivalent to not having a genuine argument (formal) at all. That is to say, formal or scholastic arguments are build on claims and evidence, with assumptions (or "warrants" as some call them) being only the 'bridges' between the two.

Furthermore, your admission that you "don't find the material that good" about Jesus's non-existence is simply an admission that you don't come to the debate with any kind of an open mind at all. And that you want to have your warrants/assumption undebated, with free reign.
Wouldn't we all like to have that argumentative advantage?
In formal argument, this [your above admission] is a crucial blunder; ideally, you're supposed to be prepared to concede other points, if they're valid. Your "gambit" method, then, is simply a ruse to guarantee that the game is played in your favor, rather than objectivity's.

freigeister

You may want to look at this book (Quotations here).

Sarpedon

So, Jesus existed. What reason is there to believe that he was anything other than a cult leader, like Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones? You say "the resurrection" is evidence? No, you don't have a resurrection. You just have people claiming there was a resurrection. So the 12 apostles say they witnessed it. Well, they were cult leaders too, I wouldn't take their testimony as to the truth of resurrection any more than I would take Brigham Youngs testimony as to the truth of Mormonism. They also claim that there were 500 other witnesses. Who? What are their names? Where are their own sworn testimonies? Why aren't there 500 accounts of the resurrection, instead of a few?

Isn't the following a more reasonable story: Jesus died. His closest followers continued his cult, claiming his resurrection and inventing posthumous miracles and appearances. Their successors continued this practice. Somewhere along the line, even the leaders came to believe it.

There are so many cults in recent, well documented history that have followed this pattern; why can't we extrapolate it to older religions?

Kosh

Just to nit, and this has been beat to death here...

You don't even have the 12 apostles claiming that.

The gospels are 40+ years after the fact, not written by the apostles or any other "eyewitnesses" to the ressurection. Pauls claim of 500 other witnesses is also secondhand hearsay.

But I'm glad you brought up Mormanism. Based on this line of reasonng,
ignoring weather or not the angel Moroni (I still think there's a B. Young joke in that name) and the gold plates and specticles are true, what else is there to argue against Mormonism?

I mean, it's grown faster than Christianity did in the first century, and it's the fastest growing religion today. How could all those people be wrong?

In fact, there are "sworn" witnesses to Mormonism!

Mountain Man

That still wouldn't prove anything. You still have to prove this jesus existed and you still have to prove that the person called Paul wasn't didn't eat some bad pita bread or have some kind of psychotic halucination. I, nor anyone esle has to prove the negative, you have to prove beyond a doubt that the person called Paul actually saw what he claimed to have seen. Your shifting the burden of proof is not going to work.

Mountain Man

Big deal! A jesus may have existed. It was a popular name back then. I know two guys named Jesus. I hired one of them to put up some fencing at my ranch. It's all the myths associated with a jesus that's the problem. None of those Atheists you mention believe that the BIBLICAL jesus exised and did all those miracles, died, and then came back.

Atheism, which is simply a lack (or absence) of belief in gods. It has NOTHING what so ever to do with the bible. Atheism does not stand on proving or disproving the bible.

AV-98 Ingram

Maybe you should give Thomas Jefferson's version of the bible a read where he does precisely that.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

freigeister

Jefferson did great work. All he was missing really was knowledge about Judaism. Brunner gives this is spades.

Zeichman

That Mountain Man's claim that none of the Biblical authors witnessed any (significant) events is incorrect. Nothing more.

Sarapedon:

No one has made this claim in this thread, as far as I know.
Given their negative (to say the least) portrayal in many early sources, and nearly complete lack of evidence (save Acts) I wouldn't make such a hasty generalization about them all being "cult leaders" or well regarded by early communities.
The argument from silence here is not too useful, given the amount of early Christian writings which we KNOW have not survived independently. Not to mention an absurdly high literacy rate and the generally counter-cultural nature of pre-70 Jesus/Christ groups.
No. Your story lacks any evidence, given the earliest Christian writings, it seems to be wishful thinking on your part. Convince me otherwise.

Mountain Man:
No, I don't. All I did was counter your claim that there are no first person account of (significant) events in early Christian history. Whether or not Jesus existed is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or not Paul and others believed themselves to have witnessed the risen Christ. Whether or not it was a hallucination is irrelevant. Your claim that I have to prove "x" occurred is wrong. The truth of the risen Christ (granted a non-fleshly resurrection) is outside of the realm of historical inquiry. You made the general claim, I provided one counter-example, and so your initial claim is rendered untrue. And rather, you are the one bearing the burden of proof. You failed to provide an argument for your "reason" to doubt the truth of Christianity. Essentially, this is how the thread is going, given gross exaggeration for clarity:

Original Question) What is the biggest reason to beleive pigs fly?
You) All Pigs fly. There is no reason to assume otherwise.
Me) I know one pig which does not fly. Your generalization is incorrect.

Stating something is correct is not the same thing as arguing it.

Mountain Man

My statement was entirely correct. Not one of the authors of the NT had ever met, in person, the jesus they talk about. They saw none of the alleged miracles. They did not see any execution. They only heard about it from others AFTER THE FACT. Claiming to see apparitions only casts further doubt on their veracity.There are no first person accounts. I know many need to believe there are, but that doesn't make it true. That's why it's a religion based on beliefs. If it were based on facts it would be reality.That is a gross, and dishonest, misrepresentation of my argument. Why do you feel the need to stoop so low? My argument here would be that no pigs fly and there is no reason to start a discussion based on the inane belief that they do.