|
rudatron posted:But that's a different claim! Claiming, in the abstract, that there may have been a preacher/there was duel over leadership is categorically different to claiming that they're somehow historical characters! It's a transparently desperate/weak sauce comparison. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't; are we sure there is an actual, historical causal connection between the stories and events, and the http://www.somethingawful.com/d/forum-rules/forum-rules.phpstory both portrays the events correctly (even if using metaphor), and that the events had the same significance then as they did later, and that they weren't just invented wholesale to satisfy a convenient need later on? Have you ever played the game 'telephone' before? Remember everyone because the game telephone exists that means Jesus Christ could not have ever existed. Likewise I still am having to go with Hannibal being part of a Roman conspiracy of genocide.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, no. Beliefs like creationism and faith healing are demonstrably harmful both to individuals and to society, so I'm gonna impose the poo poo out of my beliefs against people who promote those things. Creationism is fine. If you aren't a scientist there is little to no utility in you having knowledge of evolution or cosmology; so it really isn't a big deal if some kids don't get to learn about Darwin or the big bang. Knowledge is just a means to an end, so if someone isn't going to do anything with the knowledge it doesn't matter if they have it or not. Scientists may not be as revered, but that's good. No need to make priests of science guys; they aren't the Guardians of Objective Truth. If you get more out of the creation myth than scientific trivia about early universe physics, you'd be a fool to move away from the myth. As for faith healing, it isn't good if it falls under false advertising but as long as people know what they are getting into when they sign up have at it. Faith healing, palm readers, and mediums are all fun guys to have around, and society would be more drab and mundane for their absence. Luckily they aren't going anywhere anytime soon!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Creationism is fine. If you aren't a scientist there is little to no utility in you having knowledge of evolution or cosmology; so it really isn't a big deal if some kids don't get to learn about Darwin or the big bang. Knowledge is just a means to an end, so if someone isn't going to do anything with the knowledge it doesn't matter if they have it or not. Scientists may not be as revered, but that's good. No need to make priests of science guys; they aren't the Guardians of Objective Truth. If you get more out of the creation myth than scientific trivia about early universe physics, you'd be a fool to move away from the myth. Signed. I'm in 9th grade and I can tell I'm never going to use 90% of the crap they teach us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone because the game telephone exists that means Jesus Christ could not have ever existed. Likewise I still am having to go with Hannibal being part of a Roman conspiracy of genocide. Like if I could teach everyone in the world one thing, it' be 'learn to recognize your own biases', I feel like that'd make everyone happier in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Creationism is fine. If you aren't a scientist there is little to no utility in you having knowledge of evolution or cosmology; so it really isn't a big deal if some kids don't get to learn about Darwin or the big bang. Except that it actively discourages a new generation from becoming scientists in those fields when they may have otherwise been. Not to mention that a basic knowledge of evolution is required in nearly every single scientific field that deals with anything biological, including multiple fields of medicine. The same with cosmology and fields of physics and geology. Creationists also try and make it harder for people in relevant fields to get grants and public support. There is literally no upside to creationism and multiple downsides. quote:As for faith healing, it isn't good if it falls under false advertising but as long as people know what they are getting into when they sign up have at it. Faith healing, palm readers, and mediums are all fun guys to have around, and society would be more drab and mundane for their absence. Luckily they aren't going anywhere anytime soon! Faith healing doesn't just take place under big tents in Alabama or in giant Mega-Churches. Faith healing includes parents letting their children die when they try and pray away asthma, or a cold, or cancer, or refuse blood transfusions all in lieu of letting the LORD miraculously heal them with his powers. People actually die because of this, it's not just harmless fun. Not to mention people scamming the elderly to send them their pensions in order to receive "blessed oils" and "holy water" to cure them of their arthritis, or diabetes, or whatever else they have. Why should I leave these people alone when they're causing real, demonstrable harm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Uhhh, why is there a broken link in that quote you have of me? Anyway, you're missing the point. There's no respectable historical evidence that he ever existed, claiming in spite of that that 'oh he was probably based on a true story' is nothing but speculation. It's clear that there are pretty strong reasons why a Christian might want to grab onto such speculation, and demand its validity, but that doesn't make it true. Actually Josephus, Tacitus and the Gospels all talk of him. But then they must have been planted just like Cato made up all the stuff about this guy named Hannibal existing. Also 
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually Josephus, Tacitus and the Gospels all talk of him. Actually, it's possible, although there's not enough evidence to claim certainty, that the Josephus account is a forgery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Except that it actively discourages a new generation from becoming scientists in those fields when they may have otherwise been. Not to mention that a basic knowledge of evolution is required in nearly every single scientific field that deals with anything biological, including multiple fields of medicine. The same with cosmology and fields of physics and geology. Creationists also try and make it harder for people in relevant fields to get grants and public support. There is literally no upside to creationism and multiple downsides. Science doesn't have any unique value though. If we need more scientist (citation needed) just import some immigrants that want to do it. There is no value to knowing some trivia about dwarf stars unless it gives your car better gas mileage or some such. Sure, science can produce a feeling of awe in some people, but art and religion have done it longer and better than science. Science is plenty good, it just doesn't occupy the privileged place that some want to place it in. Science can never have access to underlying reality (nor can any human endeavor), but like many other projects it can achieve some goal or the other, the desirability of which is purely subjective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Earlier accounts of Josephus, stored in non-medieval-churches, don't have that mention of Jesus, Tacitus mentions it in passing (but it's not sure whether he's basing his claims on a contemporary historical account that existed at the time, or on the word of Christians themselves, who existed then), and the gospels contradict each other, and as primarily religious texts, should be looked at with suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
The New Testament is a historical source which includes books written only 20 years after Jesus' death. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus didn't exist. And what's the alternative, that somebody just made him all up for a laugh? Why would anybody do that? It's just a bullshit conspiracy theory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually, it's possible, although there's not enough evidence to claim certainty, that the Josephus account is a forgery. Most scholars consider this to be Josephus. Its the part where when he is talking about Someone who actually lived in the first century CE posted:And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. Now the Testimonium Flavianum was certainly altered being that the writing suddenly changes when suddenly a a man who is part of a very different sect of Judaism is all about praising this guy he certainly did not believe in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Science doesn't have any unique value though. If we need more scientist (citation needed) just import some immigrants that want to do it. There is no value to knowing some trivia about dwarf stars unless it gives your car better gas mileage or some such. Sure, science can produce a feeling of awe in some people, but art and religion have done it longer and better than science. Science is plenty good, it just doesn't occupy the privileged place that some want to place it in. Science can never have access to underlying reality (nor can any human endeavor), but like many other projects it can achieve some goal or the other, the desirability of which is purely subjective. Oh, you're just poorly trolling. Well ok then, never mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Science doesn't have any unique value though. If we need more scientist (citation needed) just import some immigrants that want to do it. There is no value to knowing some trivia about dwarf stars unless it gives your car better gas mileage or some such. Sure, science can produce a feeling of awe in some people, but art and religion have done it longer and better than science. Science is plenty good, it just doesn't occupy the privileged place that some want to place it in. Science can never have access to underlying reality (nor can any human endeavor), but like many other projects it can achieve some goal or the other, the desirability of which is purely subjective. Can we import some immigrants to post in your place please?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
It's traditional to put [citation needed] in brackets like I just did, not parentheses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh, you're just poorly trolling. Well ok then, never mind. I don't see why not putting science on a pedestal makes me a troll, but okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I don't see why not putting science on a pedestal makes me a troll, but okay. That's not what you are doing. You are stating that pseudoscience doesn't harm anyone (false), that there's no reason to care about it (false) and then treating it like a temp job rather than an intensive field of study. Should we just import some preachers or pastors? You are either trolling, or being an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I don't see why not putting science on a pedestal makes me a troll, but okay. He says, using a device made using science. But please, do tell me more about how science can't improve our lives. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:That's not what you are doing. You are stating that pseudoscience doesn't harm anyone (false), that there's no reason to care about it (false) and then treating it like a temp job rather than an intensive field of study. Should we just import some preachers or pastors? I never said there are no reasons to care about it; just that most of the egregious complaints are false advertising as I said before. If they are advertising physically effective medical benefits, yeah thats wrong because it only suckers in the gullible. Faith healing does have benefits though for people with terminal illnesses or debilitating pain; if it gives these people some relief it benefits them, and many have subjectively gained relief from faith healing. As far as the pseudoscience goes, that would only be applicable to intelligent design as a scientific theory and not creationism as such. Should we import some preachers or pastors? I would love it if they have new and novel beliefs to spread; otherwise I don't see why they should have different treatment than other immigrants. We have enough establishment religious institutions that I don't see what demand would be served by bringing in say, another Baptist guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
The problem with faith healing is not that it can give relief by making people feel better, but that it prevents people from seeking out more effective treatment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:I never said there are no reasons to care about it; just that most of the egregious complaints are false advertising as I said before. If they are advertising physically effective medical benefits, yeah thats wrong because it only suckers in the gullible. Faith healing does have benefits though for people with terminal illnesses or debilitating pain; if it gives these people some relief it benefits them, and many have subjectively gained relief from faith healing. People have literally died because they tried to pray away cancer rather than get real treatment. So I guess you're not wrong if you're arguing that death is the ultimate relief from pain (and all other sensation forever).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:People have literally died because they tried to pray away cancer rather than get real treatment. So I guess you're not wrong if you're arguing that death is the ultimate relief from pain (and all other sensation forever). Well. No. If you have read my book about detecting activity in the brain after dead, it can last as long 2 weeks. Activity don't stop abruptly, it vanishes slowly. (just kidding  )
Tei fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
Yeah. I agree. The amount of tantrum rage elicited by this is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wait so two men who were brothers and foght to the death for leadership of said tribe couldn't have happened? Just like some backwoods preacher calling himself a chosen one couldn't have been executed for blasphemy. oh my godddddddddddd
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The problem with making that argument, where history is made up of assumptions, is that then we have to go to if there is archaeological evidence. The problem with archaeological evidence being that that means alot of people we are told of in old texts have no actual evidence for their existence. Which would then suggest we should act as though for instance Socrates did not exist. Neither did Atilla the Hun, or Hannibal Barca. It depends upon the nature and quantity of non-archeological evidence. Important factors to consider are "was this person a contemporary" (as opposed to someone writing about them 100 years after they died) and "do their accounts match the accounts of others". For example, if multiple writers (especially if they're unrelated to one another) say that a contemporary of theirs did something, it's likely that what they're saying is true. Another factor to consider is "does what this person say explain something we know to have happened." For example, if we know a civilization was destroyed and some historical source claims it was destroyed by ________, that definitely contributes to the evidence for ________'s existence. The issue with Jesus is that it doesn't sound like there are many (if any) contemporary accounts that weren't religious in nature. That being said, it's unlikely that these accounts just materialized out of nowhere, so they probably had *some* basis. But the lack of many contemporary (as in "person who directly knew and lived at the same time as Jesus") sources is definitely a reason to be skeptical. A good analogy is to the reign of Nero; due to a lack of contemporary sources and the likely bias of other sources, there's good cause to be skeptical about what we "know" about him. I just read some more about this issue, and it sounds like the problems I mentioned in my post (the fact that the majority of biblical historians are associated with religious organizations or are Christian themselves and have a bias towards wanting to prove Jesus existed) are very real. So while it seems likely that a single historical Jesus probably existed, if asked to bet my life on it I would definitely be uneasy. Crowsbeak posted:Wait so two men who were brothers and foght to the death for leadership of said tribe couldn't have happened? Just like some backwoods preacher calling himself a chosen one couldn't have been executed for blasphemy. ...do you seriously not understand the difference between "it's not impossible that _____ happened" and "it's likely ______ happened"? The mere fact that something could have happened does not mean it is likely to have happened. No one here is arguing that a historical Jesus definitely didn't exist. They're arguing that the nature of existing evidence is kind of questionable. Just to address another thing, you made the argument that there's no reason for people to mention Jesus if he wasn't real. This is a dumb argument; there are countless stories about fictional people that have been told throughout history. Again, this doesn't mean that Jesus *isn't* real, and these tales DO serve as some evidence for his existence. But they do not in any way prove that he existed. icantfindaname posted:Yeah. I agree. The amount of tantrum rage elicited by this is hilarious It really is bizarre. No one is saying "Jesus definitely didn't exist"; it's just natural to be skeptical in a situation like this. A consensus among biblical scholars as to the existence of a single historical Jesus is not the same thing as a consensus among scientists in a given field; there's some biases more or less built into the field itself. It's like if you had a field of science called Etherology and the vast majority of research on the existence of Ether was conducted by Etherologists. This wouldn't mean that there *isn't* such a thing as Ether, but it definitely is reason to be skeptical of the conclusions such scientists make, since they would have a vested interested in Ether being real. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It really is bizarre. No one is saying "Jesus definitely didn't exist"; it's just natural to be skeptical in a situation like this. A consensus among biblical scholars as to the existence of a single historical Jesus is not the same thing as a consensus among scientists in a given field; there's some biases more or less built into the field itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I would take a wild guess that biblical scholars are inordinately predisposed to being Christian, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Do you really think that most people have such clear beliefs (in general)? People have definite, clear, and usually contradictory beliefs but these operate for the most part subconsciously and people tend to have strong inconsistencies between their conscious beliefs that they tell themselves and their subconscious beliefs which drive their behavior and structure their perception of reality
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, you simply believe something without a reason to, which IMO sounds like something a sucker does. Pretending that all of your beliefs are justified through the light of your own reason or via empiricism is what autistics do
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Aspie atheists remind me of liberals who actually believe that they are Not Affected By The Social Construct of Race or by Racism because they "don't see race" as if insisting on colorblindness makes race any less socially real
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Uhhh, why is there a broken link in that quote you have of me? Anyway, you're missing the point. There's no respectable historical evidence that he ever existed, claiming in spite of that that 'oh he was probably based on a true story' is nothing but speculation. It's clear that there are pretty strong reasons why a Christian might want to grab onto such speculation, and demand its validity, but that doesn't make it true. What are your own biases and internal contradictions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would take a wild guess that biblical scholars are inordinately predisposed to being Christian, however. I honestly have no idea. The ones I typically read and respect aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:People have definite, clear, and usually contradictory beliefs but these operate for the most part subconsciously and people tend to have strong inconsistencies between their conscious beliefs that they tell themselves and their subconscious beliefs which drive their behavior and structure their perception of reality Yes, thanks you
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone because the game telephone exists that means Jesus Christ could not have ever existed. Likewise I still am having to go with Hannibal being part of a Roman conspiracy of genocide. The Kingfish posted:The New Testament is a historical source which includes books written only 20 years after Jesus' death. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus didn't exist. This is great, this is how the religious do it. 1) Try to play by big-boy history rules 2) Cry when it doesn't work Everything up to acts is made up. Decades after the fact. And you come crying about "there's no good reason." I'll give you a reason, the historical evidence is nonexistent. The Gospels are a hallucinating pamphlet, and three of them are based on the other one and some poo poo that's lost now. If Jesus existed, he didn't make it into the Gospels as anything more than a Post-It note's worth of sayings (the Q source). But you don't know about the Q source because you're too busy believing that prayer has value.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Biblical Scholars are historians who study the bible, there is no reason to believe they have a bias towards a physical Jesus because it has a limited relevance to their studies on the bible as a whole. It is absolutely nothing like your preposterous etherology example. First off, I should apologize because you're right - my example wasn't a very good one. I shouldn't have used a thing that we know to be false as an example, especially given that there's a pretty good chance a historical Jesus actually did exist. The point I was trying to make is that there's a good reason to be skeptical* of the conclusions of a field of study when a majority of people involved have a vested interest in certain conclusions (in this case Christians wanting to believe Jesus existed). Even though not all are Christian, I think it's safe to say that, at the very least, a majority of biblical scholars are. * Please understand that when I say skeptical I don't mean "this research is all bunk and should be disregarded!" I just mean that it needs to be more critically examined in light of its biases. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
The desire to concede that there is a "pretty good chance" a historical Jesus existed is nothing more than pandering to Christians who will poo poo all over discourse if they are not pampered. There's no evidence for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The desire to concede that there is a "pretty good chance" a historical Jesus existed is nothing more than pandering to Christians who will poo poo all over discourse if they are not pampered. I think that multiple people referring to a person within a reasonable time since his purported existence is reason enough to at least strongly consider that he might have existed. It's probably not sufficient to say "this guy almost certainly existed" but it's enough to at least make the question worth asking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
It doesn't matter whether Jesus existed, because there is no good reason to believe that if he did exist he actually did or said anything as outline in the bible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that multiple people referring to a person within a reasonable time since his purported existence is reason enough to at least strongly consider that he might have existed. It's probably not sufficient to say "this guy almost certainly existed" but it's enough to at least make the question worth asking. Who are these "multiple people" and what is the time frame as you understand it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Aspie atheists remind me of liberals who actually believe that they are Not Affected By The Social Construct of Race or by Racism because they "don't see race" as if insisting on colorblindness makes race any less socially real there are no 'aspie atheists' here. there are people pointing out that premodern, and especially ancient, and especially ancient religious narrative history is based on very shaky factual grounding, and people going apeshit over that being pointed out. i guess because saying so is mean to religious people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:there are no 'aspie atheists' here. there are people pointing out that premodern, and especially ancient, and especially ancient religious narrative history is based on very shaky factual grounding, and people going apeshit over that being pointed out. i guess because saying so is mean to religious people? Mainly because the people who harp on it come off as annoyingly partisan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:06
|
|