Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Hanafuridake]

Rejecting the existence of Jesus Christ is pretty silly imo. I fully understand and agree if you reject the notion that he was the son of the Abrahamic god but I feel like there's more than enough evidence to say that yes he probably was a religious teacher in the middle east who was probably put to death.

By the standards put forth, not only Jesus Christ, but a bunch of other historical figures could not reliably be said to exist. I don't think we can have a reliable picture of what Jesus said and did, but most scholars do agree he did exist.

[Neutraligon]

Rejecting the existence of Jesus Christ is pretty silly imo. I fully understand and agree if you reject the notion that he was the son of the Abrahamic god but I feel like there's more than enough evidence to say that yes he probably was a religious teacher in the middle east who was probably put to death.

By the standards put forth, not only Jesus Christ, but a bunch of other historical figures could not reliably be said to exist. I don't think we can have a reliable picture of what Jesus said and did, but most scholars do agree he did exist.

Correct, there are many historical figures that we cannot say for certain exist. I already answered the part of most scholars saying he did exist.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one believes Spiderman exists, however.

If you had word of mouth of people who had lived in the 80's, that would be pretty reliable.

So, basically, things that almost no one who lived 2000 years ago has. Hell, by that standard there's no evidence that Socrates existed, and potentially not even evidence that Muhammad existed.

Yes, there are a ton of ways, and those ways have led the vast majority of historians except for a few who are now regarded as fringe cranks to conclude that there was a historical figure who inspired the Christian religion.

Correct, because Spiderman was taught as fiction. Actually no, simple word of mouth is highly unreliable
There where graces 2000, there where plenty of contemporary writing. As to Socrates, yep, there is a debate as to whether the man existed, and if such a man existed, ho much of what is attributed to him is correctly attributed to him. Muhammad has more evidence to him due to him being a warlord and because there is contemporaneous non-Muslim writings about him.

As to your last statement, that in and of itself is debatable. Much of what we know of western history was after all written by Christians. How much did they look into the historicity of Jesus before relatively recently, and how many did so with a mind open to the possibility that he did not exist? Finally, can you claim that Jesus existed, if none of what is written about him in the bible accurately portrays the person names Jeshua who was an endtimes preacher back hen there where hundred of them.

Word of mouth is all the evidence we have for many things that are accepted widely as historical fact, even in contemporary history. Ancient history? You have to take some writers at their word and critically examine things. That people believed someone existed not long after their existence is evidence that the person existed.

Socrates' existence isn't doubted by any serious scholar. As for Muhammad, all of the written sources for his existence are either Islamic, or were inspired by Islamic sources. Yet no one doubts his existence.

No, it isn't debatable, even atheist scholars reject the Christ myth theory overwhelmingly.

The historical claim isn't that Christ was the son of God, it's that there was a religious teacher who inspired the Biblical tales, of which we know little else. It's still a historical figure.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one believes Spiderman exists, however.

If you had word of mouth of people who had lived in the 80's, that would be pretty reliable.

So, basically, things that almost no one who lived 2000 years ago has. Hell, by that standard there's no evidence that Socrates existed, and potentially not even evidence that Muhammad existed.

Yes, there are a ton of ways, and those ways have led the vast majority of historians except for a few who are now regarded as fringe cranks to conclude that there was a historical figure who inspired the Christian religion.

Mohammed left a corpse. That is decent supporting evidence of his existence.

How many have actually seen the corpse? How do we know it's the Muhammad of the Quran?

[United Muscovite Nations]

By the standards put forth, not only Jesus Christ, but a bunch of other historical figures could not reliably be said to exist. I don't think we can have a reliable picture of what Jesus said and did, but most scholars do agree he did exist.

Correct, there are many historical figures that we cannot say for certain exist. I already answered the part of most scholars saying he did exist.

Yes, part of the humanities is being able to say things aren't certain, but still making claims of fact. It's not a science. That you're totally dismissing scholarly consensus because it doesn't meet the snuff of testable repeatability is proving my point about the dismissal of the humanities as a discipline.

[Page]

Mohammed left a corpse. That is decent supporting evidence of his existence.

How many have actually seen the corpse? How do we know it's the Muhammad of the Quran?

There is solid evidence that Mohammed was a real person and fairly solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person too.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How many have actually seen the corpse? How do we know it's the Muhammad of the Quran?

There is solid evidence that Mohammed was a real person and fairly solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person too.

Absolutely!

[Neutraligon]

Correct, because Spiderman was taught as fiction. Actually no, simple word of mouth is highly unreliable
There where graces 2000, there where plenty of contemporary writing. As to Socrates, yep, there is a debate as to whether the man existed, and if such a man existed, ho much of what is attributed to him is correctly attributed to him. Muhammad has more evidence to him due to him being a warlord and because there is contemporaneous non-Muslim writings about him.

As to your last statement, that in and of itself is debatable. Much of what we know of western history was after all written by Christians. How much did they look into the historicity of Jesus before relatively recently, and how many did so with a mind open to the possibility that he did not exist? Finally, can you claim that Jesus existed, if none of what is written about him in the bible accurately portrays the person names Jeshua who was an endtimes preacher back hen there where hundred of them.

Word of mouth is all the evidence we have for many things that are accepted widely as historical fact, even in contemporary history. Ancient history? You have to take some writers at their word and critically examine things. That people believed someone existed not long after their existence is evidence that the person existed.

Socrates' existence isn't doubted by any serious scholar. As for Muhammad, all of the written sources for his existence are either Islamic, or were inspired by Islamic sources. Yet no one doubts his existence.

No, it isn't debatable, even atheist scholars reject the Christ myth theory overwhelmingly.

The historical claim isn't that Christ was the son of God, it's that there was a religious teacher who inspired the Biblical tales, of which we know little else. It's still a historical figure.

And word of mouth is notoriously unreliable. Written word is a little different then word of mouth. No, people believing that something existed not long after they supposedly existed is not actually evidence for that existence. Yes it is debatable. As to rejecting the christ myth, depends hat you mean. Some accept that their might have been a person names Jeshua who preached endtimes in that era, but can that person really be considered the Jesus of the bible? Some do not accept that the bible as based on any one person, but rather based on many, and as such singular Jesus did not exist. Yet others think that there was no person, and that Jesus grew out of essentially tall tails.

[Neutraligon]

How many have actually seen the corpse? How do we know it's the Muhammad of the Quran?

There is solid evidence that Mohammed was a real person and fairly solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person too.

Oh, please provide the solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Word of mouth is all the evidence we have for many things that are accepted widely as historical fact, even in contemporary history. Ancient history? You have to take some writers at their word and critically examine things. That people believed someone existed not long after their existence is evidence that the person existed.

Socrates' existence isn't doubted by any serious scholar. As for Muhammad, all of the written sources for his existence are either Islamic, or were inspired by Islamic sources. Yet no one doubts his existence.

No, it isn't debatable, even atheist scholars reject the Christ myth theory overwhelmingly.

The historical claim isn't that Christ was the son of God, it's that there was a religious teacher who inspired the Biblical tales, of which we know little else. It's still a historical figure.

And word of mouth is notoriously unreliable. Written word is a little different then word of mouth. No, people believing that something existed not long after they supposedly existed is not actually evidence for that existence. Yes it is debatable. As to rejecting the christ myth, depends hat you mean. Some accept that their might have been a person names Jeshua who preached endtimes in that era, but can that person really be considered the Jesus of the bible? Some do not accept that the bible as based on any one person, but rather based on many, and as such singular Jesus did not exist. Yet others think that there was no person, and that Jesus grew out of essentially tall tails.

There was written word of Christ within 30-50 years of his death. That's contemporary.

The second one is more an existential question. And you're wording it wrong. "Almost everyone vehemently agrees there was a person named Yeshua who preached end times in that era, who inspired the Christian religion" would be more accurate.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is solid evidence that Mohammed was a real person and fairly solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person too.

Oh, please provide the solid evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_f ... y_of_Jesus

You've got some reading to do.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, that virtually every anti-Christian source that was contemporary or near contemporary never questioned Christ's existence casts a lot of doubt on the idea that the Christians just made Jesus up. They may have made his actions up or embellished them, but no one writing about him for the first like 1900 years of Christian history ever questioned that there was a Jesus figure who claimed to be the messiah.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tbh there's nothing even really outlandish about the story of Christ that makes it seem like it would have been invented after the fact, discounting the Christian view of the man. Someone like Alexander whose story sounds like it came straight out of the Illiad sounds vastly more implausible on paper.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbh there's nothing even really outlandish about the story of Christ that makes it seem like it would have been invented after the fact, discounting the Christian view of the man. Someone like Alexander whose story sounds like it came straight out of the Illiad sounds vastly more implausible on paper.

Not to mention that, like Socrates, it would take a vast and very convincing conspiracy to invent the person of Jesus, then build a cult around him that was big enough to take over the Roman Empire, and then have no one question the central part of the cult -- including its enemies -- until the 19th century.

[Hanafuridake]

Considering we can reliably say that obscure Indian teachers existed and date their lifetimes based on philological analyses of Pali texts, historical writing can't be discounted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbh there's nothing even really outlandish about the story of Christ that makes it seem like it would have been invented after the fact, discounting the Christian view of the man. Someone like Alexander whose story sounds like it came straight out of the Illiad sounds vastly more implausible on paper.

Not to mention that, like Socrates, it would take a vast and very convincing conspiracy to invent the person of Jesus, then build a cult around him that was big enough to take over the Roman Empire, and then have no one question the central part of the cult -- including its enemies -- until the 19th century.

So yes, there isn't a "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" with regard to Jesus existence. But with the evidence we have, it is more unreasonable to believe the alternative.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Like just statistically, there would have had to have been at least a few hundred worshippers of Jesus by the time of his death to get the number of missionaries to spread it to where it spread by the 3rd century AD
So if there really was not a person at the center of Christianity, that really would require a few hundred people to be in on a conspiracy and then be dedicated enough to that conspiracy to go to India and China to spread it.
Yes, there's not like rock solid evidence he existed, but you'd have to jump through all kinds of ridiculous loops to believe he was just made up, and that's what New Atheists do

The alternative is that you accept there was some rabbi preaching doomsday in 1st century Judea who had a reasonably sized cult following. That is much less implausible than the alternative beliefs, so we go with that.

[Neanderthaland]

Tbh there's nothing even really outlandish about the story of Christ that makes it seem like it would have been invented after the fact, discounting the Christian view of the man. Someone like Alexander whose story sounds like it came straight out of the Illiad sounds vastly more implausible on paper.

We have all those Macedonian dynasties appearing well outside of Greece that sort of corroborate Alexander. But since you mention it, many historians do question the more outlandish aspects of Alexander's story. Modern historians routinely question the accuracy of Greek histories.

Now there's plenty of reason to think that a person like Jesus probably existed. For one thing, the fakery of the story suggests it. Why undertake the fabrication of a fictional census with nonsensical procedure just to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, unless he's already well known to be from Nazareth? If you were making him up from scratch, you could just have him be from Bethlehem.

So that points to there being a real person, but it doesn't demonstrate that any of the things that are said of him are actually accurate. And there's plenty of reason to think they might not be.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Tbh there's nothing even really outlandish about the story of Christ that makes it seem like it would have been invented after the fact, discounting the Christian view of the man. Someone like Alexander whose story sounds like it came straight out of the Illiad sounds vastly more implausible on paper.

We have all those Macedonian dynasties appearing well outside of Greece that sort of corroborate Alexander. But since you mention it, many historians do question the more outlandish aspects of Alexander's story. Modern historians routinely question the accuracy of Greek histories.

Now there's plenty of reason to think that a person like Jesus probably existed. For one thing, the fakery of the story suggests it. Why undertake the fabrication of a fictional census with nonsensical procedure just to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, unless he's already well known to be from Nazareth? If you were making him up from scratch, you could just have him be from Bethlehem.

So that points to there being a real person, but it doesn't demonstrate that any of the things that are said of him are actually accurate. And there's plenty of reason to think they might not be.

Yes, one could do the Ship of Theseus argument that Neut mentioned above (though not by that name) to question whether they are meaningfully the same person, but as you allude to in the first part of your post, that's a philosophical question we could apply to many historical figures tbh. But it's usually only for the figure of Christ that we use this discrepancy to assert that they are a myth.

[Neanderthaland]

We have all those Macedonian dynasties appearing well outside of Greece that sort of corroborate Alexander. But since you mention it, many historians do question the more outlandish aspects of Alexander's story. Modern historians routinely question the accuracy of Greek histories.

Now there's plenty of reason to think that a person like Jesus probably existed. For one thing, the fakery of the story suggests it. Why undertake the fabrication of a fictional census with nonsensical procedure just to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, unless he's already well known to be from Nazareth? If you were making him up from scratch, you could just have him be from Bethlehem.

So that points to there being a real person, but it doesn't demonstrate that any of the things that are said of him are actually accurate. And there's plenty of reason to think they might not be.

Yes, one could do the Ship of Theseus argument that Neut mentioned above (though not by that name) to question whether they are meaningfully the same person, but as you allude to in the first part of your post, that's a philosophical question we could apply to many historical figures tbh. But it's usually only for the figure of Christ that we use this discrepancy to assert that they are a myth.

Well that's not really hypocrisy. That's just the nature of the figure in question, and what is said of them.

For sake of comparison let's talk about King Arthur: First of all, I'd say King Arthur is less well established then the person of Jesus. I'm getting that out of the way, because I don't want it distracting from the point I'm making. Let's suppose King Arthur really is based on a real person. Would that person recognize the legends attributed to them at all? Probably not. They would probably be very confused by just about every aspect of the story. To the point where King Arthur himself (or whatever his real name is) would say, "That's not me you're talking about! You've got me mixed up with someone else!"

So the question is, would Jesus recognize himself in the stories we tell of him? And if he doesn't, are we really talking about him?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, one could do the Ship of Theseus argument that Neut mentioned above (though not by that name) to question whether they are meaningfully the same person, but as you allude to in the first part of your post, that's a philosophical question we could apply to many historical figures tbh. But it's usually only for the figure of Christ that we use this discrepancy to assert that they are a myth.

Well that's not really hypocrisy. That's just the nature of the figure in question, and what is said of them.

For sake of comparison let's talk about King Arthur: First of all, I'd say King Arthur is less well established then the person of Jesus. I'm getting that out of the way, because I don't want it distracting from the point I'm making. Let's suppose King Arthur really is based on a real person. Would that person recognize the legends attributed to them at all? Probably not. They would probably be very confused by just about every aspect of the story. To the point where King Arthur himself (or whatever his real name is) would say, "That's not me you're talking about! You've got me mixed up with someone else!"

So the question is, would Jesus recognize himself in the stories we tell of him? And if he doesn't, are we really talking about him?

That's a reasonable question, and I can't say I'm certain because we don't know the real nature of Christ's ministry, but one would presume that the doctrines his followers preached are based on what he himself preached.

[Neanderthaland]

Well that's not really hypocrisy. That's just the nature of the figure in question, and what is said of them.

For sake of comparison let's talk about King Arthur: First of all, I'd say King Arthur is less well established then the person of Jesus. I'm getting that out of the way, because I don't want it distracting from the point I'm making. Let's suppose King Arthur really is based on a real person. Would that person recognize the legends attributed to them at all? Probably not. They would probably be very confused by just about every aspect of the story. To the point where King Arthur himself (or whatever his real name is) would say, "That's not me you're talking about! You've got me mixed up with someone else!"

So the question is, would Jesus recognize himself in the stories we tell of him? And if he doesn't, are we really talking about him?

That's a reasonable question, and I can't say I'm certain because we don't know the real nature of Christ's ministry, but one would presume that the doctrines his followers preached are based on what he himself preached.

They probably are. Though it wouldn't surprise me of they were elaborated upon, or if emphasis got shifted. Or if some things got quietly dropped. In fact, I would be surprised if this didn't happen. Even if Jesus really were a divine person.

The early emergence of Gnostics, for instance, might be a clue that there was an aspect of Jesus' teachings which modern Christianity has sidelined. But this comes dangerously close to a discussion of the history of religion.

[Albrenia]

I know it's just a small thing, but something which points towards Jesus being a person who existed is His not hanging around long after He died. You'd expect a fictional entity to do some super flashy godstuff for a chapter or two longer before leaving to bulk up the story a bit.

That's my thoughts anyway.

[Hanafuridake]

Well that's not really hypocrisy. That's just the nature of the figure in question, and what is said of them.

For sake of comparison let's talk about King Arthur: First of all, I'd say King Arthur is less well established then the person of Jesus. I'm getting that out of the way, because I don't want it distracting from the point I'm making. Let's suppose King Arthur really is based on a real person. Would that person recognize the legends attributed to them at all? Probably not. They would probably be very confused by just about every aspect of the story. To the point where King Arthur himself (or whatever his real name is) would say, "That's not me you're talking about! You've got me mixed up with someone else!"

So the question is, would Jesus recognize himself in the stories we tell of him? And if he doesn't, are we really talking about him?

That's a reasonable question, and I can't say I'm certain because we don't know the real nature of Christ's ministry, but one would presume that the doctrines his followers preached are based on what he himself preached.

Given the Hellenization and departure from Judaic roots that Christianity underwent, there's probably a ton of differences between what the historical Jesus taught and what the religion became over time. It's very much possible that Jesus was a fairly orthodox rabbi who was deified after death by his followers who thought he was the Messiah.

[Phoenicaea]

much plausible they are historical figures, melted with myths and wishes.