Australian Atheist
A view from the other side. Hmmm. AA, are you seriously suggesting that Jesus is not an historical figure?
A view from the other side. Hmmm. AA, are you seriously suggesting that Jesus is not an historical figure?
since May06
I will delete
objectionable comments
14 comments:
*Groan*, pop-atheists again!
I'd have far more respect for the guy if he said "God doesn't exist. Jesus did, but he was just a man and the Bible contains historical errors".
Choosing to disbelieve in the historical Jesus is intellectual suicide.
I'm cool with Atheists, but it seems to be a tough gig...it looks as though they're essentially defined by what they're against, while seemingly not actually being for anything.
I must admit that the suggestion that Jesus is not an historical figure is quite a strange thing to say. Mind you, maybe we have to ask ourselves what someone is really saying when they make that claim. At what point does one become an historical figure? Needless to say Jesus need not have resurrected or performed miracles to remain an historical figure, but where is the threshhold? If we disproved for instance that there was a man who grew up in Nazareth who taught about the Kingdom of God, what would we be left with? Not an historical figure, I would conjecture - not that I hold that position.
Perhaps what AA is suggesting is that you can't *prove* that Jesus existed, or indeed the events that are described in the Gospels. And if so, he'd be right, strictly speaking. Our knowledge is derived inductively and inferentially through the conduct of the early church ("why does this Jesus cult even exist in the first place and where are they getting their teachings from?") and many of the secular historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. This isn't what one would call "proof" but it's very strong inferential evidence. Speaking from the experience I am gaining in criminal law, there is rarely any evidence available which is direct proof (especially for particular crimes), but inferences and circumstantial evidence is very effective, when used with discernment.
Everyone - No I'm not arguing the Jesus never existed. Just that there is no evidence that he was what he said he was - god.
OSO - Never been called a pop-atheist. Straight to the pool room.
Jeff a - Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I'm not for anything. You don't believe in astrology, I presume, but it's not a tough gig and you still hold numerous political etc. positions.
I'm not arguing the Jesus never existed. Just that there is no evidence that he was what he said he was - god.
True. You also said he was "A delusional hippie with a penchant for party tricks" and an "egomaniac".
I find it interesting that you seem to feel the need to describe Jesus in such extreme terms in order to reject him. Most atheists seem to be capable of regarding Jesus as a remarkable person in many ways, even if either fundamentally mistaken or badly distorted by the reports of his followers. Exaggerating your opponents' character defects can come across to others as a sign of insecurity.
Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I'm not for anything. You don't believe in astrology, I presume, but it's not a tough gig and you still hold numerous political etc. positions.
Fair point, but on the other hand Jeff hasn't set up a website called "Australian Astrology Sceptic" or made his anti-astrology position a defining public statement about himself.
Oh, and what is it with atheists these days saying "god" in lower-case all the time? It wasn't like that back in my day. I'm not a Buddhist, but I can still bring myself to use a capital "B" for the word "Buddha". Ditto "Allah", "Krishna" and "Flying Spaghetti Monster". :-) What next? Dropping the typeface a couple of points to show you really, really don't believe in God?
I don't think that these are "extreme terms". They are what would be used to describe someone who claimed to be god today.
Fair point, but on the other hand Jeff hasn't set up a website called "Australian Astrology Sceptic" or made his anti-astrology position a defining public statement about himself.
But on the other hand no one is flying planes into buildings in the name of astrology. Rape victims are not being denied the morning after pill at astrology run hosptials etc, etc.
what is it with atheists these days saying "god" in lower-case all the time?
I had a shot at answering it here: Australian Atheist
But on the other hand no one is flying planes into buildings in the name of astrology. Rape victims are not being denied the morning after pill at astrology run hosptials etc, etc.
Mind you, I wouldn't have much confidence in my wellbeing if I went for an operation at an "astrology run hospital".
I'm with you there David. I have a irrational preference for science based medicine.
AA, your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Thanks for your interest Paul. I have just added a link to the top right of my blog which should allow you to subscribe via email. Let me know if you have any problems.
Ah, someone doesn't watch the Simpsons.
Mental note to self: be more obvious with your sarcasm next time
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Jeff A "they're (atheists) essentially defined by what they're against, while seemingly not actually being for anything."
That's just it. I won't be defined by my non-belief in something which other people erroneously believe in. The burden of proof for those who believe in unicorns is on them, otherwise the presumption is that there are no unicorns even if there is no proof that there isn't any. Is there any proof that Zeus or Apollo exist? So are we all Azeusists? or Aapollists? or Aunicornists?
What I'm for is truth as revealed by reason and evidence at least as a starting point. I'm also for birdwatching, running, swimming in the sea, action on climate change, visiting my parents, etc..
Jesus may well have existed. However, I want to know how the Old Testament prediction that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus if his mother was a virgin. It was his "father", Joseph, after all who was the descendant of David.
Ricki supposes himself in relationship to another in which the other has a burden of proof. In this Ricki chooses to define himself by his non-belief, yet being so stupid doesn't realise it.
Post a Comment