Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 2113

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If it's any consolation to you, I think it's getting tedious too. I don't mind repeating myself or going over relevant evidence in detail if it means that somebody might learn something or investigate the evidence in detail, but I sure as hell am not interested in endless nitpicking of past discussions and dickwaving without any actual evidence being discussed.

All I can see currently is Jo moving so close to my position that the two become totally indistinguishable. This is encouraging because the debate might soon come to a close and I can move on to something more interesting, but also discouraging because it seems she hasn't yet realised that her position has changed.

Here's Jo six months ago:

"Going back to (A) most of those agree that while we don't have proof he ever existed, we also don't have proof that there wasn't such a figure: That for the legend to catch on and grow so quickly, it very likely was tacked onto an actual person or persons. But whomever that person(s) was, is, as Michael said, a completely different entity than the Jesus of the bible."

Here's Jo now:

"Show me a single post where I've said it's impossible or even improbable that there was a human Jesus who became the template for bible-Jesus AND bears significant resemblance to bible-Jesus.
"


"Completely different entity" <===> "Bears significant resemblance"

As anyone can see, she clearly hasn't changed her position one bit. Ahem.
Its possible that a man named Jesus did exist but was he the son of God? Nope and he never had any special powers so my answer would be A or B
It's possible. But if he did he exist he was just a man, not the son of a god. Though it's also very possible that it was all just made up.
No I don't think he existed.....No evidence. I suspect he is a compilation of many different ancient myths.
There's quite a bit more than "no evidence" actually.
I would say there is quite a bit more no that evidence.
Not sure what you meant to say there, but I'll assume you mean there is still no evidence. Either you're ignorant of the evidence we have, or you're just choosing to categorize evidence you don't accept as not being evidence at all. We've got reasonable evidence to suggest quite to the contrary.
I am starting to suspect that perhaps you lied an are not in compliance with the "no theists allowed" clause of this forum.
He didn't lie, and he's not a theist.
For the record, we take a dim view of implying that other people are theists around here, especially when you have no reason at all to think this. So be careful with those accusations, or your next notification could be from the mods.

And I mean that as a very friendly reminder.

For the record, you've made a statement which you haven't yet backed up:
"I suspect he is a compilation of many different ancient myths."
Care to substantiate that? We're all rationalist here so we expect good reasons for beliefs ;)

Take care,

Matt
Perhaps you should read his post a bit more carefully. The one where he says I am ignorant of the facts. I have no evidence to present that jesus didn't exist any more than I have evidence to present that unicorns don't exist. He claims, and I quote, " We've got quite reasonable evidence to suggest to the contrary." My first question is Who is the we?? That pronoun is used several times in the post.My second question is What evidence?? As for a defence of my opinion that jesus is a myth a brief perusal of the this forum will more than answer that question. And finally if you feel compelled to tell on me to the modeators, have at it. I'm sure they've heard the same tired argument that we have evidence of christs existence before too.
Calm down and stop being so defensive. We're not threatening you at all,(*if you're willing to respect a position contrary to yours without writing us off as theists) there's no need for this "bring it on" response. We are rationalists and enjoy logical discourse, many atheists arriving at their non belief through skeptical inquiry. What you've demonstrated is a lack of skeptical inquiry I would argue, or ignorance. At least peruse the thread you've just contributed to a little bit, the last few pages at least. You've also demonstrated that having your position challenged will illicit an emotional response. Please leave that emotion at the door if it's going to muddy the waters of reason. There is historical evidence that a man existed who the biblical myth is based upon. You seem ignorant of the distinction we make between a historical Jesus and a biblical one. We will argue, with evidence, that a man who was a faith healer and preacher was crucified by the Romans who claimed to be the Jewish messiah, which is a prophet, and probably never claimed to be the son of god in the first place. If you're ignorant of the evidence we have for this, check the thread a little. If you want to argue the evidence, make a specific contention. Spare us your raised hackles.
My hackles remain raised and I maintain that your arguments are those of a theist.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service