The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[MrEmpiricism]

Lucky for you I am not that philosophical.

The same could be said about the writings about Jesus Christ - very meaningful.

Can this same criteria be applied to those who wrote about the life of Jesus and their writings?

Interesting. How are atheists absolutely certain there is no God, in your opinion? They usually claim they don’t believe because there is no proof. According to what you have said here, if someone is expecting proof for anything, including God, they are asking for the impossible.

Thoughts?

Atheists are not certain there is no god, they reject the claim there is a god. Two totally different things.

The same criteria can not be applied to those who wrote about the life of Jesus and their writings because their writing are not empirical.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

In other words you have faith in the writings of those dead people.

LOL no

Go read up on the process of verification, then you will understand the difference between “faith” and accepting that which can be DEMONSTRATED. Like I said before I do not believe it because of who wrote it, I belief it because it is demonstrable, which is the exact opposite of faith.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

The inconsistency of atheism becomes quite obvious here. What many atheists positively require from theists is certain or absolute “proof” before they will accept any form of theism, yet that level of proof is not required with regard to everything else they willingly accept.
.

Actually the problem here is you simply do not understand what the word atheist means.

 

[exnihilo]

Atheists are not certain there is no god, they reject the claim there is a god. Two totally different things.

Certainty is more of a psychological state that pertains to the beliefs one has. You aren’t advocating the definition of atheist as one who lacks a belief in God?

Go read up on the process of verification, then you will understand the difference between “faith” and accepting that which can be DEMONSTRATED. Like I said before I do not believe it because of who wrote it, I belief it because it is demonstrable, which is the exact opposite of faith.

How do you define the words faith and belief? What does it mean to demonstrate something? How do the words of an author demonstrate something?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Atheists are not certain there is no god, they reject the claim there is a god. Two totally different things.

Well, they can’t be two TOTALLY different things because rejecting “the claim there is a god” depends upon the level of certainty that “there is no god.”

It wouldn’t be logical to categorically “reject” the existence of what you were uncertain existed or not. Reject based upon what? Your uncertainty? That is precisely what should STOP you from rejecting the claim, no?

You are a firefighter uncertain about whether anyone is left in the burning building. Would you “reject” a claim from a bystander nearby that someone is left in the building BECAUSE you “are not certain there is no” person in the building?

Would you say the claim by the bystander that there is a person in the building and your acceptance or rejection of that claim are “two totally different things?”

That doesn’t make sense to me.

Could you explain?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Certainty is more of a psychological state that pertains to the beliefs one has. You aren’t advocating the definition of atheist as one who lacks a belief in God?

I hope not because then rocks, trees and slugs all lack such a belief (by incapacity) and are therefore, by definition, “atheists.”

Doesn’t say much about the intellectual requirements for atheism, unfortunately.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Certainty is more of a psychological state that pertains to the beliefs one has. You aren’t advocating the definition of atheist as one who lacks a belief in God?

How do you define the words faith and belief? What does it mean to demonstrate something? How do the words of an author demonstrate something?

" atheist as one who lacks a belief in God?"

That is exactly all that is required to be an atheist.

I am not even sure where to begin with your last question, I suggest you start here… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I hope not because then rocks, trees and slugs all lack such a belief (by incapacity) and are therefore, by definition, “atheists.”

Doesn’t say much about the intellectual requirements for atheism, unfortunately.

LOL at this level of puerile discussion.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Well, they can’t be two TOTALLY different things because rejecting “the claim there is a god” depends upon the level of certainty that “there is no god.”

It wouldn’t be logical to categorically “reject” the existence of what you were uncertain existed or not. Reject based upon what? Your uncertainty? That is precisely what should STOP you from rejecting the claim, no?

You are a firefighter uncertain about whether anyone is left in the burning building. Would you “reject” a claim from a bystander nearby that someone is left in the building BECAUSE you “are not certain there is no” person in the building?

Would you say the claim by the bystander that there is a person in the building and your acceptance or rejection of that claim are “two totally different things?”

That doesn’t make sense to me.

Could you explain?

Yes I can explain, you have failed to understand the very important dissection between rejecting a CLAIM regarding X and rejecting X.

The CLAIM that a god exists is not supported by ANY verifiable evidence. I can therefore reject that claim due to it not meeting its burden of proof. That however DOES NOT MEAN I am then making the claim, or indeed saying anything about, the non existence of god. I am simply withholding believe due to lack of evidence.

I would have thought, since you seem to be a fan of philosophy, that you would have an understanding of simple philosophical concepts, like onus probandi.

 

[campeador]

" atheist as one who lacks a belief in God?"

That is exactly all that is required to be an atheist.

I am not even sure where to begin with your last question, I suggest you start here… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Also from wiki:

There is “near universal consensus” among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Also from wiki:

There is “near universal consensus” among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed…

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[DCNBILL]

LOL no

Go read up on the process of verification, then you will understand the difference between “faith” and accepting that which can be DEMONSTRATED. Like I said before I do not believe it because of who wrote it, I belief it because it is demonstrable, which is the exact opposite of faith.

Not according to James;

James 2:18 (ESV)

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes I can explain, you have failed to understand the very important dissection between rejecting a CLAIM regarding X and rejecting X.

I am not clear there is such an “important dissection [distinction?].”

If we are interested in the truth of any matter then regardless of whether a claim is made or not with reference to X, the truth or falsity of X is what ought to concern us.

It makes no sense, IMHO, to make a distinction between “I reject that the FSM exists,” and “I reject claims that the FSM exists.” The latter just seems academic if the FSM demonstrably does or does not exist. In fact, “claims" need not even concern us if the truth of the matter is what we are concerned about – talk of “claims” just adds a unnecessary layer.

Furthermore, “I reject claims that the FSM exists,” is actually meaningless without the rejection being grounded in justifiable certainty that the FSM, does indeed, NOT exist.

The CLAIM that a god exists is not supported by ANY verifiable evidence. I can therefore reject that claim due to it not meeting its burden of proof. That however DOES NOT MEAN I am then making the claim, or indeed saying anything about, the non existence of god. I am simply withholding believe due to lack of evidence.

I would have thought, since you seem to be a fan of philosophy, that you would have an understanding of simple philosophical concepts, like onus probandi.

Onus probandi isn’t a philosophical concept, it is a means of off-loading responsibility for arriving at the truth – which is what ought to concern us, primarily – and a means of conveniently placing the burden concerning what we are not interested in onto others.

Never been much of a fan, since, in effect, it means using “I am not interested” as the philosophical equivalent of “Go suck a lemon!” It assumes that one’s own position is correct and the alternatives are not – at least, until someone else proves otherwise. But why is THAT up to someone else?

A good philosopher will anticipate alternative perspectives and work to either disprove or accept them, not counter with “The burden is yours!”

No, the burden is on anyone interested in the truth to get to bottom of any issue by assiduously considering all possibilities.

 

[campeador]

Trying to move the conversation back to the original topic.

I was hoping you could comment on my wiki link beyond a simple shrug…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Y
The CLAIM that a god exists is not supported by ANY verifiable evidence.

If you mean by “verifiable evidence” that God cannot be made to jump through scientific hoops such that his behaviour is predictable and, therefore, “verifiable,” sure. THAT kind of god’s existence hasn’t been verified by ANY evidence.

But who ever claimed that God is that kind of entity that is subject to “control” and verification by small minds using test tubes and statistics?

If God is anything he is beyond human intelligence NOT limited by the constraints of it.

To revise your statement…

The CLAIM that **that kind of **god * exists is not supported by ANY verifiable evidence.

But who believes in **that kind of ** strawgod, anyway? And who would argue for it?

Not me.*

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I am not clear there is such an “important dissection [distinction?].”

If we are interested in the truth of any matter then regardless of whether a claim is made or not with reference to X, the truth or falsity of X is what ought to concern us.

It makes no sense, IMHO, to make a distinction between “I reject that the FSM exists,” and “I reject claims that the FSM exists.” The latter just seems academic if the FSM demonstrably does or does not exist. In fact, “claims" need not even concern us if the truth of the matter is what we are concerned about – talk of “claims” just adds a unnecessary layer.

Furthermore, “I reject claims that the FSM exists,” is actually meaningless without the rejection being grounded in justifiable certainty that the FSM, does indeed, NOT exist.

Onus probandi isn’t a philosophical concept, it is a means of off-loading responsibility for arriving at the truth – which is what ought to concern us, primarily – and a means of conveniently placing the burden concerning what we are not interested in onto others.

Never been much of a fan, since, in effect, it means using “I am not interested” as the philosophical equivalent of “Go suck a lemon!” It assumes that one’s own position is correct and the alternatives are not – at least, until someone else proves otherwise. But why is THAT up to someone else?

A good philosopher will anticipate alternative perspectives and work to either disprove or accept them, not counter with “The burden is yours!”

No, the burden is on anyone interested in the truth to get to bottom of any issue by assiduously considering all possibilities.

***If we are interested in the truth of any matter then regardless of whether a claim is made or not with reference to X, the truth or falsity of X is what ought to concern us.

It makes no sense, IMHO, to make a distinction between “I reject that the FSM exists,” and “I reject claims that the FSM exists.” ***

There is a massive difference, one is about our current level of knowledge, the other is about what is. We cannot accept a claim until it is supported by evidence, to suggest otherwise is utterly absurd. You would then be accepting every nonsensical claim there is.

***A good philosopher will anticipate alternative perspectives and work to either disprove or accept them, not counter with “The burden is yours!” ***

This is just simply nonsense, point me to ONE good contemporary philosopher that rejects the burden of proof. And by asking me to disprove god when I simply reject the claim is asking me to address two prongs of an argument simultaneously.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

If you mean by “verifiable evidence” that God cannot be made to jump through scientific hoops such that his behaviour is predictable and, therefore, “verifiable,” sure. THAT kind of god’s existence hasn’t been verified by ANY evidence.

But who ever claimed that God is that kind of entity that is subject to “control” and verification by small minds using test tubes and statistics?

If God is anything he is beyond human intelligence NOT limited by the constraints of it.

To revise your statement…

The CLAIM that **that kind of **god * exists is not supported by ANY verifiable evidence.

But who believes in **that kind of *** strawgod, anyway? And who would argue for it?

Not me.

You have done this countless times now, please try to focus on what I actually say otherwise, and I am sure you will agree, discussion is pointless.

I DID NOT say scientific, I SAID** verifiable**.

If one can not verify a claim, how on earth could they possibly accept it???

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Trying to move the conversation back to the original topic.

I was hoping you could comment on my wiki link beyond a simple shrug…

My apologies, you are correct we have moved from the OT and should not be doing so, I thought you were trying to put words in my mouth, you were not and my response was petty. Sorry.

 

[lax16]

Atheists are not certain there is no god, they reject the claim there is a god. Two totally different things.

I thought agnostics were the ones that are not certain there is no god?

I looked up several definitions of atheist and found this to be a consistent definition:
atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

The same criteria can not be applied to those who wrote about the life of Jesus and their writings because their writing are not empirical.

Please explain why those who wrote about the life of Christ and their writings are different than those wrote about the cosmos and their writings.

What definition of empirical are you working with? This is from Merriam Webster:

1
:* originating in or based on observation or experience
2
:* relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3
:* capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4
:* of or relating to empiricism

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have done this countless times now, please try to focus on what I actually say otherwise, and I am sure you will agree, discussion is pointless.

I DID NOT say scientific, I SAID** verifiable**.

Okay, “verifiable” how?