5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_KevinSim]

I equate belief with the tooth fairy with belief in deity because belief in either is of the same nature; belief in that which is undemonstrated, and unfalsifiable.

Whether belief in deity is belief "in that which is undemonstrated" or not, I simply don't know; I don't think humanity has progressed far enough to determine whether the existence of deity is demonstrated or not. But I would say that belief in the two items is not equivalent for the simple reason that we humans don't need the tooth fairy, but I firmly believe that we do need a deity.

[_sock puppet]

Ceeboo,

Do you have faith in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

[_SteelHead]

I equate belief with the tooth fairy with belief in deity because belief in either is of the same nature; belief in that which is undemonstrated, and unfalsifiable.

Whether belief in deity is belief "in that which is undemonstrated" or not, I simply don't know; I don't think humanity has progressed far enough to determine whether the existence of deity is demonstrated or not. But I would say that belief in the two items is not equivalent for the simple reason that we humans don't need the tooth fairy, but I firmly believe that we do need a deity.

Despite your belief, we need a diety like we need the tooth fairy.




Unbelievers now account for a little less than 20% of the planet's population. The Northern European countries with the highest level of secularism, also enjoy the highest standard of living.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi SP!

Ceeboo,

Do you have faith in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

No - because - in my opinion - it would be irrational to have faith (a.k.a. - belief) that the tooth fairy really exists.

Your turn: Do you believe that having a belief in the tooth fairy is equal and/or is reasonably comparable to having a belief in a Creator/God?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bret Ripley]

Hi SP!

Ceeboo,

Do you have faith in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

No - because - in my opinion - it would be irrational to have faith (a.k.a. - belief) that the tooth fairy really exists.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, Ceeboo, but you could also specify that for you the God hypothesis has explanatory power that the Tooth Fairy hypothesis lacks. If you are feeling a bit saucy, you could also observe that some unbelievers entertain things like Q, the Documentary Hypothesis and its spin-offs, or even some sort of historical Jesus -- things that cannot be definitively demonstrated to exist but are nevertheless pointed to for their explanatory power.

[_Chap]

If you are feeling a bit saucy, you could also observe that some unbelievers entertain things like Q, the Documentary Hypothesis and its spin-offs, or even some sort of historical Jesus -- things that cannot be definitively demonstrated to exist but are nevertheless pointed to for their explanatory power.

That would not only be saucy, it would be more the equivalent of mixing up Napoleon's mother and the Tooth Fairy.

'Q' is a supposed document that is hypothesized as lying behind the Synoptic Gospels. You can't prove it existed, but if it existed it was just a piece of papyrus with writing on it. Such kinds of things are known to have existed in the ancient world.

'The Documentary Hypothesis' is the idea that certain books of the Bible were not written by a single author, but were created by editing together certain older documents, now lost. You can't prove that happened, because the documents aren't there any longer, and we can't question the person or persons who supposedly did the work. But such kinds of thing have happened frequently in other times and places. Nothing unusual is involved.

A 'historical Jesus' would simply be somebody of that name who actually lived in first century Palestine, and on whose activities the Jesus in the gospels is in some way based. Again, you can't prove there was such a person. But nothing unusual is required by suggesting that a historical Jesus actually existed.

Now a deity existing is an entirely different ball-game. Documents existing, documents being edited from other documents, people getting stories told about them - happens all the time. We know what is involved, and we are clear that it can happen.

But a deity? There is not even agreement on what that term refers to. You can't show me one either. We don't even know whether a 'deity' can explain anything in the world that we agree exists.

[_RedJacket]

Is it a blatant attempt to mock? No. I have no interest in mocking believers, I just believe differently.

I wonder if you realize what you wrote there?

I stand by my post. I'm not interested in mocking a believer just because I believe differently. Why wouldn't I realize what I wrote? Care to explain.

Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another? No and I don't see how it could, it seems to be the opposite of blocking it seems to be sharing opinions and thoughts.

You don't think that an exchange (between someone who believes in a Creator/God and someone who does not) can be stopped/altered/blocked if and when the the non-believer throws "tooth fairy" or "Easter Bunny" in the conversation?

for what it's worth - I certainly do.

The most interesting discussions and debates that I've participated in and seen have been between two people who share vastly differing opinions. The question was about the intention being to block and stop sharing and when this topic has come up with people I love and they've shared their views on it and I've shared mine it's never resulted in stopping or blocking the conversation.

As for your updated question about it altering the conversation, it obviously could change the direction the discussion goes in, but I don't think it would shut down the conversation and it doesn't seem to have done in this case either.

Is it a performance aimed at a certain audience? Maybe, although I guess the act of writing online is by its nature a performance aimed at a certain audience.

Maybe?

I don't view it as being a performance any more than a Christian or Muslim or Mormon or Scientologist's profession of belief is a performance. In some cases it may be, in most cases it probably isn't. I can only speak for myself and the act of typing on a message board for others to read is a performance on some level, but the main intention is to express an opinion.

Do I personally view belief in God to be comparable with other myths and fairy tales? Yes.

I don't.
As a matter of opinion - I think a belief in a Creator/God is as sound and as rational (if not more so) than any other option I am aware of.

What is it that you believe?

Interesting that you refer to it as a Creator/God. Do you have a particular brand of deity that you're attached to?

I'm an agnostic. I don't see any reason to believe in any of the current or past world religions. I don't rule out a "God" who has no interest in humanity but I find a personal god to be extremely unlikely. I don't see any evidence for God but since one has never been proven it obviously hasn't been completely disproven.

Is profession of belief in a God on these boards intended and designed to achieve any of the aims you describe above?

On the MDB?.......... Heavens no!

Am I missing something about this board?

As far as answering questions with questions I can't think of anything more "Christlike".

Uhhhhhhhh - I can't think of anything more Christlike than that either. :confused

If you quoted my whole point it might be a little less confusing. To be christlike is usually defined as being like Christ. Christ had a habit of answering people's questions with questions. This link shares a few examples. Something that we both seem to enjoy doing too judging by this thread.

So do you agree that belief in God and other myths is comparable?

No, not only do I think they are not comparable - I personally find it absurd to do so. (And - far too often in my opinion - the projected absurdity is intentional and by design)

You find the beliefs of others to be absurd and I'm sure others find your beliefs to be equally absurd. That said the question of whether someone is being intentionally absurd is another matter. My holding the view I do isn't to intentionally provoke anyone. I assume that yours is likewise held, because after reviewing the evidence that is the conclusion that you came to.

Or was that just a dismissive response without actually engaging the topic.

Not only do I frequently engage topics - I always try my best to engage people - which in my opinion - is often much more valuable and mutually rewarding than engaging topics. To be honest with you though - there are times I fail at one or both.

I wasn't talking about your posting history Ceeboo which I'm not in a place to know about having just arrived here. I was just curious about the response you made. I've just realized that I didn't place a question mark after that question which makes it appear to be a declaration which was not my intention. From what I've seen you aren't failing Ceeboo, but I would say it's obvious you are understandably emotionally involved in this subject.

There are some people who seem to be more interested in the feelings of others when discussing concepts and others who are more interested in the concepts themselves. I think the world is a better place having both.

Are the responses above a blatant attempt to mock?
No
a sincere effort to help us unbelievers see how foolish we are?
No
Is it done to block and or stop sharing with one another?
No
Or is it a performance aimed at a certain audience?
No

Interesting responses.

As a rule of thumb I prefer giving posters the most charitable interpretation that I possibly can.

Cool!
Do you think you did that for me in this exchange?


Peace,
Ceeboo

I'd like to think so, and I like to think that you did too.

[_Fionn]

Are there any contemporary Jewish sources who wrote about Jesus? Seems to me that is where one might find som mention of him.

Sorry, but the "it seems to me" assertion is not an argument.

As I point out earlier, Philo of Alexandria was an absurdly important Jew living in the 1st century AD. He is mentioned by Josephus and never by any pagan sources. No one doubts his existence.

Here's another fun one. Honi the Circle Drawer was a miracle working Jew living in the 1st century BC. He is mentioned by no contemporaneous Jewish or pagan sources and by one Jewish source a century later (Josephus). As far as I know, nobody doubts the existence of Honi.

To belabor the point, this shows that we can expect famous Jews to get on average 1 reference in a Jewish author within a century of their deaths and zero in pagan authors.

I will also point out, Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the 1st century. He is mentioned by Josephus and twice by pagan sources. We have what we would expect given the sources.

My statement was an implied conditional. I did not intend it as an argument nor an assumption. That's why I lead with a question. And hence the use of the word "might".

[_KevinSim]

Whether belief in deity is belief "in that which is undemonstrated" or not, I simply don't know; I don't think humanity has progressed far enough to determine whether the existence of deity is demonstrated or not. But I would say that belief in the two items is not equivalent for the simple reason that we humans don't need the tooth fairy, but I firmly believe that we do need a deity.

Despite your belief, we need a diety like we need the tooth fairy.

SteelHead, why do you think so?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's interesting to me to see some people fall all over themselves to establish some sort of historicity re: Jesus. Anyone who has lived more than a day or two on earth understands how lies and rumors can take on a life of their own, and it's no surprise there were many people who claim to have met the Messiah and were preaching a gospel of some sort.

Regardless, even if the gospels were correlated and time stamped, the authors' claims, the miracles, the existential reasons for a blood sacrifice by the Jewish god are as believable as Joseph Smith' s fable. I mean, we're 2,000 years on from the narrative. crap hasn't changed yo. People are still dicks. Ain't no Angry Jesus coming back for an Armageddon. And God is still making parasites that bore into the feet of African men, women, and children.

Best to focus on Mankind in the here and now, no?

V/R
Doc