Chaucer

There's a puzzler here that has long bothered me, and it's past time to ask others here to weigh in on their own thoughts about it. The fact is, there's a disconnect between prevailing assumptions here among atheists and skeptics on this board versus 99.999999999999% of all atheists and skeptics whom I have ever known throughout an active life of reading and participating in academia, including my own parents, who were both professors and skeptics. Here, there is not a single skeptic to be found who is not also a Jesus mythicist. In the outside world, my entire busy circle of lifelong friends, most of whom are avid readers like myself and real skeptics, do not include a single mythicist among all those many skeptics.

Thus -- bluntly -- among the many skeptics of all ages whom I know well (they comprise the majority of my friends), there is not a single Jesus mythicist among them at all, while among the skeptics here, there doesn't appear to be even one single historicist. How come?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Chaucer

dog-on

Perhaps we just considered the actual evidence for a couple of minutes.

Chaucer

That is not a serious answer. All the skeptics I know personally, and I know p-l-e-n-t-y, are avid readers and came to their conclusions after a lifetime of reading, not a couple of minutes. Plainly, the strength of conviction shown by the mythicists on this board is also the product of some considerable weighing back and forth, not just of a few minutes, and it displays an in-depth knowledge of mythicist apologetics. How come the mythicist numbers on this board are entirely atypical of all skeptics in the real world?

The question still stands.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Chaucer

Tom Sawyer

By Jesus mythicist, do you mean someone who thinks that Jesus never existed in the first place? If so, I'm not one. I think the story is based on someone, but just totally blown out of proportion to what that someone actually did.

I just don't care enough about the Bible to bother posting much in the Biblical criticism forum, though. Those atheists who do care may have a different view of the available evidence about that, though.

Chaucer

Consequently, you're the first skeptic I've met here who is like any of the many skeptics I know in the real world.

This thread may help tell us if you're as lonely on this board as I suspect you may be. We'll see.

Unless --

I am curious, though: By "blown out of proportion", do you take it that the basic crucifixion, without any of the supernatural add-ons, plus approximately 25% of the sayings, are historical, as 99.999999999% of the skeptics I know do? Certainly, that's about where all the skeptics I personally know are.

Or do you not even take 0.1% of the sayings as historically tied to a Jesus of Nazareth plus doubting that even his basic crucifixion is historical? In which case, I'd say you count as essentially a mythicist just like the other skeptics here.

So where do you put history as cutting off here and tall-tale-telling as cutting in? Thanks.

Chaucer

jakejonesiv

It is a good question. I suspect that most religous skeptics haven't taken the time to investigate the historical assumptions underlying the faith; it is easy enough to reject the supernatural claims without engaging on a historical investigation or even reading much of the Bible.

Why don't you ask your friends why they hold the opinions they do? If you ask them if Jesus is God, I am sure 99.999999999999% of all atheists and skeptics could wax eloquent on the reason why they do not.

Then ask, "How do you know Jesus really lived?" and jot down the reasons. It is an entirely different question, and many may not even care, since the first question covers the important stuff to them. Let us know what you find.

jakejonesiv

Didn't you see where Tom Sawyer wrote, "I just don't care enough about the Bible to bother posting much in the Biblical criticism forum"? I think that confirms my point.

Do you see this as a "wedge issue" to divide skeptics?

Tom Sawyer

Basically, I think there was some preacher who had a few followers, said some shit and ended up killed for it with no supernatural occurances involved. Other than with the followers, there's no real reason to assume that his life or death was important enough for anyone else to bother to record.

After he died, his followers were still around and spreading the story, which they started to blow out of proportion and then others glommed onto to it for various bits of political gain and tossed in bits from other stories to make the guy sound more impressive and the dude ended up becoming some mythical messiah and then the rest is history.

The whole tale sounds like a trumped up story of some guy's life, and I haven't seen a good reason to assume that the life it's based on never actually occured.

show_no_mercy

Wrong.

You're a "skeptic", but can't seem to do any of the methodology that skeptics should be doing. The only "Jesus Mythicists" that you've met on this board are the ones that post in BC&H. This is a terribly piss poor sample size. Not everyone who posts on this board posts in BC&H.

Not every skeptic posts at FRDB for that matter. I direct you to Hasty Generalization, which is probably the true disconnect.

DCHindley

My impression is that the skeptics here (many, but not all) tend to be "true disbelievers" who resort to crazy rationalizations and appeals to authority, etc, that are mirror images of those employed by fundamentalists of all stripes.

I don't know which is worse to endure.

DCH