Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Davian]

Well, you readily use him as a reference.

Only on a cherry-picking basis, it would seem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not making an argument.

I'm asking you if you acknowledge that this is what a well educated, scholar has concluded from researching these matters. A scholar who is vocal about not being a Christian.

Do you acknowledge all of this?

Why? What's your point?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not making an argument.

I'm asking you if you acknowledge that this is what a well educated, scholar has concluded from researching these matters. A scholar who is vocal about not being a Christian.

Do you acknowledge all of this?

The only reason I'm asking you why you're bringing this up, is I don't particularly care about Ehrman...I doubt his intellectual honesty. He commits some rather massive logical errors, like the ones I pointed out, and when these are shown to him...he ignores or repeats them. He seems well researched, except when it comes to Jesus mythicism...in his book on that he looks rather idiotic.

I understand why too...he's made a living writing to christians about Jesus. To accept where current scholarship is going on this would be the same as admitting he's been wrong all these years.

Also, why do you keep bringing up that he isn't christian? You do realize that kind of intellectual honesty only goes one way...right? Any christian scholar who comes to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist probably won't be a christian for very long lol.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am.

Are you, really? Or this another instance of crying "wolf"?

 

[anonymous person]

Are you, really? Or this another instance of crying "wolf"?

Really.

 

[anonymous person]

The only reason I'm asking you why you're bringing this up, is I don't particularly care about Ehrman...I doubt his intellectual honesty. He commits some rather massive logical errors, like the ones I pointed out, and when these are shown to him...he ignores or repeats them. He seems well researched, except when it comes to Jesus mythicism...in his book on that he looks rather idiotic.

I understand why too...he's made a living writing to christians about Jesus. To accept where current scholarship is going on this would be the same as admitting he's been wrong all these years.

Also, why do you keep bringing up that he isn't christian? You do realize that kind of intellectual honesty only goes one way...right? Any christian scholar who comes to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist probably won't be a christian for very long lol.

Well maybe I should ask this.

Are all the atheists who affirm that Tacitus and Josephus are reliable extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus, intellectually dishonest?

Is that what you want to tell me?

Or are there some, unlike Ehrman who you now claim is intellectually dishonest, who you think are intellectually honest?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well maybe I should ask this.

Are all the atheists who affirm that Tacitus and Josephus are reliable extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus, intellectually dishonest?

imo, that would depend entirely on how informed they are on the matter and if there are any other beliefs or practices at play which "force" them to take that position or not.

Genuine ignorance is not intellectual dishonesty.

Or are there some, unlike Ehrman who you now claim is intellectually dishonest, who you think are intellectually honest?

Ehrman has his opinion, just like we all have our opinion.
I don't see why you continue to drop that name. It smells like an argument from authority.

If Ehrman has an actual case for a historical jezus, then it would be better to actually present that case, instead of trying to give weight to the idea by saying "Ehrman believes it". I don't give a rat's behind what Ehrman - or anyone else for that matter - believes. I care about their reasons for believing what they believe.


I'm not going to agree with a position "because person X holds it".
I'll look at why person X holds that position and see if it can convince me to hold that position as well.

So if Ehrman has valid reasons to believe what he believes, you are welcome to present those reasons here in your own words, and we can discuss them.

But, above all, get it into your head that nobody here (well, at least not those that oppose you in this thread, from what I can observe) is going to be convinced by an argument from authority.

I don't care what Ehrman believes any more then I care about what you believe or what Capitain Kirk believes. If you have a case for something, then present it. It matters not how the case originated or who came up with it. If it's a good argument, then it's a good argument, and it will be a good argument on it's own merrits.

I'll even go further and state that if an "authority" MUST be attached in order to sound believable, it's a clear sign that the argument is a very weak one.

So, please, for the love of all that is logical, stop with the name-dropping already. It impresses nobody, nore does it convince anybody.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well maybe I should ask this.

Are all the atheists who affirm that Tacitus and Josephus are reliable extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus, intellectually dishonest?

Is that what you want to tell me?

Or are there some, unlike Ehrman who you now claim is intellectually dishonest, who you think are intellectually honest?

I don't know...I'm sure I haven't read every non-christian historian's analysis of the two passages.

The point is that both passages are rather heavily disputed, by both christian and non-christian historians so they aren't very useful as evidence.

Are you going to respond to that argument I made or not?

 

[anonymous person]

imo, that would depend entirely on how informed they are on the matter and if there are any other beliefs or practices at play which "force" them to take that position or not.

Genuine ignorance is not intellectual dishonesty.



Ehrman has his opinion, just like we all have our opinion.
I don't see why you continue to drop that name. It smells like an argument from authority.

If Ehrman has an actual case for a historical jezus, then it would be better to actually present that case, instead of trying to give weight to the idea by saying "Ehrman believes it". I don't give a rat's behind what Ehrman - or anyone else for that matter - believes. I care about their reasons for believing what they believe.


I'm not going to agree with a position "because person X holds it".
I'll look at why person X holds that position and see if it can convince me to hold that position as well.

So if Ehrman has valid reasons to believe what he believes, you are welcome to present those reasons here in your own words, and we can discuss them.

But, above all, get it into your head that nobody here (well, at least not those that oppose you in this thread, from what I can observe) is going to be convinced by an argument from authority.

I don't care what Ehrman believes any more then I care about what you believe or what Capitain Kirk believes. If you have a case for something, then present it. It matters not how the case originated or who came up with it. If it's a good argument, then it's a good argument, and it will be a good argument on it's own merrits.

I'll even go further and state that if an "authority" MUST be attached in order to sound believable, it's a clear sign that the argument is a very weak one.

So, please, for the love of all that is logical, stop with the name-dropping already. It impresses nobody, nore does it convince anybody.

Well you see, it's not just Ehrman saying that the historicity of Jesus is a sure as any other person from antiquity. His view on the historicity of Jesus is representative of a consensus of relevant scholars.

In other words, the vast majority of scholars, atheists included, do not deny that Jesus was a historical person.

In other words we have atheists saying this.

The fact that we do would rebut the idea that the only people who defend the historicity of Jesus are Christians.

That's all I'm saying really.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't know...I'm sure I haven't read every non-christian historian's analysis of the two passages.

The point is that both passages are rather heavily disputed, by both christian and non-christian historians so they aren't very useful as evidence.

Are you going to respond to that argument I made or not?

I have never argued that the veracity of the two sources in question is not debated. It is debated by a few people.

Rather, I am telling you that it is a fact that there are scholars who are not Christians who affirm Tacitus and Josephus are reliable extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus.

This fact does NOT support your claim that the only historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe that Tacitus got this information from Roman records which he would have had access to.

Unless you want to argue that every atheist scholar who thinks Tacitus used Roman records thinks this because they want to believe in a historical Jesus. This is a view I would love to see you defend if it is one you hold.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well you see, it's not just Ehrman saying that the historicity of Jesus is a sure as any other person from antiquity. His view on the historicity of Jesus is representative of a consensus of relevant scholars.

If you say so.

Like I said, I don't care what Ehrman believes, nore what anyone else believes.

I care about the reasons they give for believing it.

Changing your argument from authority into an argument ad populum isn't going to improve your case either.

In other words, the vast majority of scholars, atheists included, do not deny that Jesus was a historical person.

First of all, "not denying Jesus was a historical person" is NOT THE SAME as not accepting the statement "Jesus was a historical person" as a true-ism.

In other words we have atheists saying this.

Great. Nobody cares.
To repeat myself once more, I care about the case for it, not about people's opinions on it.

The fact that we do would rebut the idea that the only people who defend the historicity of Jesus are Christians.

Who made that claim?

That's all I'm saying really.

Ow. Okay.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you see, it's not just Ehrman saying that the historicity of Jesus is a sure as any other person from antiquity. His view on the historicity of Jesus is representative of a consensus of relevant scholars.

In other words, the vast majority of scholars, atheists included, do not deny that Jesus was a historical person.

In other words we have atheists saying this.

The fact that we do would rebut the idea that the only people who defend the historicity of Jesus are Christians.

That's all I'm saying really.

Haile Selassie is surely a real person from history.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=haile+Selassie

Does that mean Jesus really did come back to Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari

Muhammad surely was a real person, yet you don't accept he Koran. Joseph Smith was a very real person, yet you probably don't accept the Book of Mormon. It isn't a matter of Jesus being a real historical person or not. It is the claims about Jesus that are not evidenced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Haile Selassie is surely a real person from history.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=haile+Selassie

Does that mean Jesus really did come back to Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari

Muhammad surely was a real person, yet you don't accept he Koran. Joseph Smith was a very real person, yet you probably don't accept the Book of Mormon. It isn't a matter of Jesus being a real historical person or not. It is the claims about Jesus that are not evidenced.

If archaeologists were to one day find the remains of a man they had confidently identified as Jesus of Nazareth, that would indeed provide strong evidence for Jesus' historicity. But it would also undermine claims concerning his divinity. Establishing the historicity of Jesus does not automatically establish his divinity, even though the case for the latter depends on the former.

 

[Loudmouth]

If archaeologists were to one day find the remains of a man they had confidently identified as Jesus of Nazareth, that would indeed provide strong evidence for Jesus' historicity. But it would also undermine claims concerning his divinity. Establishing the historicity of Jesus does not automatically establish his divinity, even though the case for the latter depends on the former.

Precisely. Finding the remains of Joseph Smith does not prove the Book of Mormon is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Precisely. Finding the remains of Joseph Smith does not prove the Book of Mormon is true.

Though it does at least establish the authorship of the work. The same cannot be said of the Bible, an amalgam of works from multiple authors, many of whom were anonymous, each claiming to speak for the same person.

 

[anonymous person]

If you say so.

Like I said, I don't care what Ehrman believes, nore what anyone else believes.

I care about the reasons they give for believing it.

Changing your argument from authority into an argument ad populum isn't going to improve your case either.



First of all, "not denying Jesus was a historical person" is NOT THE SAME as not accepting the statement "Jesus was a historical person" as a true-ism.




Great. Nobody cares.
To repeat myself once more, I care about the case for it, not about people's opinions on it.



Who made that claim?



Ow. Okay.

I was addressing Ana the Ist specifically.

And I do agree that appeals to popularity are not the best arguments. That is why I don't use them.

Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious either.

 

[bhsmte]

I was addressing Ana the Ist specifically.

And I do agree that appeals to popularity are not the best arguments. That is why I don't use them.

Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious either.

This is the reason I asked you whether you agreed with Ehrman on his overall interpretation on the historical credibility of the gospels, which are much more far reaching, than his opinion on whether Jesus was a real historical figure.

 

[anonymous person]

Haile Selassie is surely a real person from history.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=haile+Selassie

Does that mean Jesus really did come back to Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari

Muhammad surely was a real person, yet you don't accept he Koran. Joseph Smith was a very real person, yet you probably don't accept the Book of Mormon. It isn't a matter of Jesus being a real historical person or not. It is the claims about Jesus that are not evidenced.

Well notice, i am not concerned at the moment with arguing that the claims in the gospels are true. I am simply highlighting the fact that there are scholars who are not Christians that affirm that there are good reasons to think Tacitus did indeed use reliable sources when writing about Jesus.

This is a fact.

 

[anonymous person]

If archaeologists were to one day find the remains of a man they had confidently identified as Jesus of Nazareth, that would indeed provide strong evidence for Jesus' historicity. But it would also undermine claims concerning his divinity. Establishing the historicity of Jesus does not automatically establish his divinity, even though the case for the latter depends on the former.

I wholeheartedly agree. Just because we have evidence that Jesus is a historical person, it does not follow that this is evidence of His divinity.

 

[anonymous person]

Precisely. Finding the remains of Joseph Smith does not prove the Book of Mormon is true.

I agree.