Upon What Basis Do Atheists Claim that Jesus is a Myth?

[Justified112]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

 

[crossnote]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

They'd probably say, "That's the point, there is no evidence to a myth".

 

[GodsGrace101]

They'd probably say, "That's the point, there is no evidence to a myth".

You gave me a good couple of laughs just now.
Can I follow you around?
Can I ?
Can I ?
LOL

 

[GodsGrace101]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

That's the problem...it can't be proven...!
How would YOU prove Jesus really existed?

 

[crossnote]

You gave me a good couple of laughs just now.
Can I follow you around?
Can I ?
Can I ?
LOL

Sure, if you clean up my mess. lol

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sure, if you clean up my mess. lol

That settles it...
I'm in.

You can't be any worse than my hubby.
Are you sure your name isn't Bill??

 

[ananda]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

It fits the definitions of "myth"? E.g. "a person or thing having an ... unverifiable existence", "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events", "a popular belief or tradition", etc.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

Well, the atheist would first pick up a mirriam webster dictionary or google the definition, then go ... hmmm .. yepp, it's a myth.

Since the scripture says Faith is the evidence of things not seen, it's kind of up to God to cultivate faith in someone who doesn't believe in Him.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Its not about proving anything

Its called faith, even Jesus teaches about faith himself.

Its up to you to have faith, not evidence based on faith.

Then its not faith.

Test it I say, then you will know for sure.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, the atheist would first pick up a mirriam webster dictionary or google the definition, then go ... hmmm .. yepp, it's a myth.

Since the scripture says Faith is the evidence of things not seen, it's kind of up to God to cultivate faith in someone who doesn't believe in Him.

One thing we learn on this question of how faith arises, or how the seed of faith begins:
(10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. ...)
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

This way things are really fits our sense of how things work here -- how it is at all possible to believe in what one doesn't know about?

To believe at all, one would first need to hear the word of Christ.

Wonderfully, here our common sense feeling of how it would be, and the way it actually is, line up. We have to hear (and listen of course), in order to have what we could then respond to and believe, by the wonderful divine words.

And faith that saves is faith in the actual gospel message Christ taught, as captured in the gospels themselves, and also echoed in the epistles. This is because then one is believing in Him, His words, the real and true -- "the way, the truth, and the life"

 

[Occams Barber]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

To accept the full Biblical version of Jesus you must first accept the proposition that God exists, since Jesus is portrayed as the Son of God. If God does not exist He cannot, logically have a Son.

Having said this, it's still possible, perhaps even probable, that a character resembling Jesus actually existed and did some of the less miraculous things attributed to Him.
OB

 

[Justified112]

To accept the full Biblical version of Jesus you must first accept the proposition that God exists, since Jesus is portrayed as the Son of God. If God does not exist He cannot, logically have a Son.

Having said this, it's still possible, perhaps even probable, that a character resembling Jesus actually existed and did some of the less miraculous things attributed to Him.
OB

But since there is no compelling evidence for the non-existence of God, it is quite possible that Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a real, historical person.

 

[RichardY]

Atheism = Magic Brains? and/or NPC?

For love to exist, there must be at least two entities interacting. Perhaps one is Jesus Christ. Not just a historical person, but risen.

I found the filter theory of the mind interesting. A NDE of a neurosurgeon.

 

[Occams Barber]

But since there is no compelling evidence for the non-existence of God, it is quite possible that Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a real, historical person.

There are two basic varieties of atheist:

1. Strong Atheist: "I know God does not exist"
2. Weak Atheist: "In the absence of evidence I see no reason to accept that God exists"​

Along with most atheists, I fall into the second category. I don't need "compelling evidence for the non-existence of God". I need evidence for the 'existence' of God before I'm prepared to accept it.

I assume you have a similar attitude when it comes to accepting the existence of other, non-Christian, gods.
OB

 

[RichardY]

@Occams Barber
I think it depends what you mean by God.

God to me equals some kind of divine order. Why am I me and not you? What makes "my" consciousness unique. Vanity of Vanities, saith the preacher.

Aside from that, I basically, looked for confirmation bias/ similarities in the smartest people I could find. C.S Lewis, Isaac Netwon, Christopher Langan, Bishop Berkeley, Aldous Huxley. Also had an ancestor that was Lord Chancellor, so his train of thought appealed to my ego.

If Christianity fits with a Panenthesitic model of reality, so be it. I'm not certain yet, mostly playing around. A bit of fun, till it's not.

I did try being Athestic at one point as if the notion of God, was some kind of error to be purged from my system. Why is God a notion to me and not a random string of characters? Perhaps God equals "The Self", but I found that insufficient, to explain the problem of consciousness. Listened to Stefan Molyneux an Internet philosopher quite a bit.

 

[Freodin]

Atheism = Magic Brains? and/or NPC?

For love to exist, there must be at least two entities interacting. Perhaps one is Jesus Christ. Not just a historical person, but risen.

Perhaps one is Spiderman? Not just a imaginary hero from a comic, but a real historical person who was bitten by a radioactive spider?

 

[Freodin]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

I might not fall directly into the category of "Atheists" that you ask here: I just believe that it is possible that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was a mythological figure.

The problem behind this is to seperate a "historical person" from the "stories about a historical person"... which may or may not be correct.

For example: George Washington and the chopped down cherry tree. This story is a myth. It did not happen. But does the existence of a myth involving George Washington make him a mythological figure?
How much "true" stories about a person do you need before you declare them "real historical person"? How much false stories do you need to declare them "mythological"?

Another example: Robin Hood. He didn't go on crusade with Richard the Lionhart. He didn't have a coterie of Merry Men including Little John, Alan a Dale and Friar Tuck. He didn't have a lover named Marion. He didn't fight evil Prince John or the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Yet there were reports of outlaws, some even called something like "Robin Hood", at various times in various areas in the English history.

Is Robin Hood a "historical person"? Is he based on an historical person? Is he based on multiple historical persons?
Where does the "historical person" end and the myth start?

So it is, in my view, with Jesus. There are stories about him. The Christians assert that these stories are all completely accurate and true.
I find that doubtful.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think it depends what you mean by God.

God to me equals some kind of divine order.

This makes no sense. Divine order might be something a God promotes/causes but it would not actually be a god. You need to rethink what you mean by 'divine' (and 'order').

Aside from that, I basically, looked for confirmation bias/ similarities in the smartest people I could find. C.S Lewis, Isaac Netwon, Christopher Langan, Bishop Berkeley, Aldous Huxley. Also had an ancestor that was Lord Chancellor, so his train of thought appealed to my ego.

Other people believing in God doesn't make it true. I think that's called an "Appeal to Authority Fallacy".

What makes "my" consciousness unique.

Perhaps God equals "The Self", but I found that insufficient, to explain the problem of consciousness

There is no "consciousness problem. Consciousness is an emerging property of the brain. What makes your consciousness unique is that it has arisen out of your past experience combined with the physical properties of your brain.

You seem be a nice person Richard but your thinking on this topic appears to be a little muddled.
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

True Christ Myth theories, that Jesus never existed, are utter ungrounded hogwash, as the overly vast majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, who lead a messianic movement in 1st century Judaea and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The fringe mythologisers like Richard Carrier are in the academic wilderness and usually fail peer review. Their arguments are deeply flawed, at best specious, and run foul of historic criticism and method.

That is different from considering the Gospels to have mythic elements within them, which many commonly assume. This is a development of Form Criticism, a method of investigating old texts by breaking them up into presumed source forms - the idea being that they weren't written as a unit as events unfolded, but represent the history and accretive material from when actually written. For example, like Robin Hood mentioned above, in Form Criticism they would say that Friar Tuck was a later addition from another noted outlaw, his crusader status a modern addition, that Sherwood Forest only became his regular haunt in the 15th century, etc. They would look at individual elements, and try to place when and how they entered the narrative, and how that narrative was eventually woven together to encompass them all. Form Criticism starts with doubting the entirety of the narrative though, the a priori assumption is that it doesn't have a legitimate historic coherence - which it then sets out to prove by smashing the coherence of the narrative - so always runs the risk of being called a circular argument. In instances where you have later and early forms of the same legend, like Robin Hood or King Arthur, it is more justified; with the Gospels all written shortly after one another and no earlier forms, it is more an exercise in supposition and assumption.

Thing is, most ancient texts look very similar. Normal histories still have miraculous events; like omens, eagles bringing laurel branches to Livia, the dead rising before the battle of Pharsalus, Alexander the Great's mother maybe lying with a snake to signify his divine parentage, chasms in the forum demanding sacrifice before closing, etc. If you dismiss the Gospels as historical texts on those grounds, then frankly most ancient history must be rejected - though the Gospel's claim of the Incarnation of the Supreme God and His Resurrection are far more extreme. It is true though that they represent the beliefs of the Church when written, within 40 years at most of the crucifixion mind you for the earliest one, but you cannot really show that this represents accretion of legendary material as opposed to merely remembered events - that remains a presumptive position in either case.

Our history is creating an elaborate narrative, a simulacrum of events based on what parts of our sources we deem trustworthy, not 'what definitely happened'. So a lot of it changes, gets argued about, and is heavily dependant on the biases and a priori positions of the historian. This is as true for Alexander the Great (where many trust Arrian more than Plutarch for instance) as for Jesus of Nazareth. In neither case have we proven what really happened, though we can justify our specific beliefs thereon, by reference to the texts we based it on. History is an elaborate game of probability and reconstruction, and often says more about the historian than the history he is writing about.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Consciousness is an emerging property of the brain

This is solely an a priori position. The very fact that it is called 'emergent' means we can't pinpoint where it comes from, but that it must be there somewhere, because we assume it is. If consciousness is emergent from the electro-chemical function of the brain, then far more complex electro-chemical systems like the Sun may be just as conscious; essentially, you are just resurrecting ideas like Pagan Helios.
Fact is, there is no empiric proof that consciousness is an emergent property, nor even an agreed definition of what consciousness entails, or whether or not it is present. There is only no Problem of Consciousness if you abandon Scientific Method, Empiricism and curiosity, and merely assume on blind faith that that non-specific and untestable hypothesis is correct; or deny Consciousness exists at all.