Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-13-2010, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

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

Did Robin Hood exist?

spin

gurugeorge · 10-13-2010, 06:24 AM

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.

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.

But the MJ-ers have a burden of proof too - they have to demonstrate how and why the Christian religion and texts came into existence, if it wasn't because there was some guy called Jesus who started it all off.

Thewhole foofaraw (for rational investigators) doesn't hinge on a human Jesus, it hinges on the existence of Christian texts, and the Christian religion. A human Jesus is but one hypothesis about how such might have come into existence. Naturally enough, rational Christians will pursue an HJ idea (it's a way of retaining some meaning and purpose to their religion, absent the full-blown god-man). But we, as rational investigators, mustn't be bamboozled into playing the game on their terms.

bacht · 10-13-2010, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

But the MJ-ers have a burden of proof too - they have to demonstrate how and why the Christian religion and texts came into existence, if it wasn't because there was some guy called Jesus who started it all off.

Right, and until modern times the texts were given credence as viable history, which is now being questioned. There have been new explanations presented for the surviving material, among them the pure mythic construction of Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 10-13-2010, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

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

There is evidence. It doesn't convince you. It doesn't convince me, either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Juststeve · 10-13-2010, 07:01 AM

Doug:

What do you regard as the best evidence for an HJ, understanding that you don't think it's good enough.

Steve

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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

I never said that data from 2000 years ago "doesn't count." I said that such data is of dubious value. Even eyewitness accounts TODAY are of dubious validity as people's memories are often flawed and deceived. Many people claim to have conversations with gods, ET's, and ancestors, so one must not be gullible and accept everything at face-value. There are huge information gaps concerning ancient history and much is guesswork. We may have some general grasp of what happened and to whom, but there remains the lilliehood of misrepresentation and exaggeration. People often believe strange things, and these preconceptions color their perceptions. In addition, few people were literate in the ancient world, and writers were often creating history that favored those for whom they were writing. The same thing happens today. It takes a great deal of detective work to separate fact from fiction TODAY, and even more so 2000 years ago.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

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

There is evidence. It doesn't convince you. It doesn't convince me, either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Care to offer some?

spamandham · 10-13-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

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.

Yikes! That's a 100+ page thread, ...anyway, the exchange of interest is on page 105 for those interested.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

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.

But the MJ-ers have a burden of proof too - they have to demonstrate how and why the Christian religion and texts came into existence, if it wasn't because there was some guy called Jesus who started it all off.

Thewhole foofaraw (for rational investigators) doesn't hinge on a human Jesus, it hinges on the existence of Christian texts, and the Christian religion. A human Jesus is but one hypothesis about how such might have come into existence. Naturally enough, rational Christians will pursue an HJ idea (it's a way of retaining some meaning and purpose to their religion, absent the full-blown god-man). But we, as rational investigators, mustn't be bamboozled into playing the game on their terms.

Your scope is very limited. There was no NT at the time of Jesus, only the OT of which, according to Chritian apologists, Jesus was allegedly the fulfillment. Logically one must not assume that a book validates itself, especially where impossible miracle claims are asserted, and no amount of books written then or now would validate the earth's pause in rotation for 24 hours, a worldwide flood, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. etc. That is fiction, pure and simple. One may also not logically investigate the NT independently of the OT which is the context for the NT. Unless and until one can produce copious, incontrovertable evidence for a Jesus, a Moses, and an Abraham, etc. these phantoms remain myths.

Steve Weiss · 10-13-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

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

Did Robin Hood exist?

spin

No. Neither did King Arthur, Merlin, Sir Lancelot, Knights of the Round Table, Babe and the Blue Ox, Jack and the Beanstalk, and a whole host of make-believe and entertaining folk heroes. Add Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena, etc.

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

10-13-2010, 07:01 AM	#95
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Doug: What do you regard as the best evidence for an HJ, understanding that you don't think it's good enough. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.