Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[rikuoamero]

I[Replying to post 149 by For_The_Kingdom]

Sorry for disappearing FtK, I was busy. I'm going to do one post as a reply to everything you said since our last interaction.

You are right, but the problem is...who knows when I will have a conversation like this in "real life" in "real time", where there may not be time to sit there and gather my "thoughts".

I can empathise with this feeling. I've often yearned to sit down and have a good talk with my secondary school religion teacher, but when I pause and think for a moment, I realise that there would be no point. There's nothing that can be said in a face to face conversation that a slower discussion like we have on our forums can't have. As I said before, a face to face discussion can only really penalise a cogent thinker who needs time to say what he has to say.
Given your tactics with your Modal thread, I'm highly suspicious of what a face to face conversation with yourself might involve. I'll still do it, but just know, I'm going to be carefully listening to what it is you say.

On Yahoo, if they still have the IM conferences, we could all probably meet in there.

You've mentioned Yahoo a few times. I don't have a Yahoo account and don't plan on getting one. If I absolutely have to, I will, but I don't want to.

It is a fight, and whether you accept Jesus is a matter of life or death.

Again, this reminds me of what the overlay said in the video you linked in your Modal thread. The overlay explained that the goal of the MOA isn't to lead the atheist to some new understanding, it's to get the atheist to say something.
Here, it's apparently the same. You want the atheist to 'accept Jesus', which is NOT the same as leading the atheist to some new understanding. Imagine if instead of 'accept Jesus', you said "vote for Hillary". Well...you don't have to actually lead the person you're talking to to some understanding of truth to get them to vote for your preferred candidate; indeed one could accomplish that by using dishonest tactics.

And what makes you think a real-time conversation would be otherwise?

Because, in real time, there is the added pressure of time. Here, I can take my time to think things through before posting, whereas in real-time, I don't have that luxury. So responses may not be as cogent as here.
Seriously...did I need to explain that?

It isn't like that, sir. I am not looking to debate, per se...rather...discuss.

Whereas I am looking for a debate, moderated, with a set topic.

Everyone interested should get their Yahoo IM's ready.

I'd prefer to do it by voice chat if possible, so Skype maybe?

Please clarify that for me.

There were recent head to head debates (you took part in one, if I'm not mistaken), and in them, I heard that there were apparently things agreed to beforehand. However, I couldn't find such a thread, so I don't know what was agreed to.
Basically, I'm looking to have a debate, moderated (for fairness, two moderators, one theist, one non-theist, if they're up for it) with a set topic that we agree to beforehand.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 152 by MadeNew]

!

[center]

MadeNew demands us to demonstrate Jesus' Non-existence.[/center]

Every piece of evidence we have tells us Jesus existed.

What evidence?
Do you mean the Holy Bible that can't be wrong?

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence, from any reasonable time frame after his existence, that tells us he never existed.

This is an IMPOSSIBLE request.
The more one asks for the impossible, the more one will not get it. If your goal is to preserve your belief in a historical Jesus, making impossible demands is a way to do it, but it's a very bad way, in my estimation.

You might as well ask us to prove that Uranus is smelly without us being able to go there to smell it.

Again with this demand for evidence of something that doesn't exist?.
Isn't anyone familiar with Russell's Celestial Tea Pot?

Could you possibly explain what kind of evidence you would need to NOT believe in a historical Jesus? .. A letter by Jesus himself explaining how he didn't exist?

What we have, and the only thing that we have are stories about a historical Jesus promoted for centuries by believers of a historical and godlike Jesus.

That's IT for the evidence.
It's just too bad, but this Jesus was NOT the real king of the Jews, because then, we might have had a little more in the way of evidence, like a STATUE or something... more JEWISH tales of Jesus. At best, Jews think that if Jesus existed he was a heretic and a blasphemer.

The earliest mention of Jesus by Jews MIGHT be the Talmud.. 600 CE.

All the evidence points one way.

Some skeptics think that the evidence is very poor.
I do. It's important to a skeptic to not fall into the trap that is confirmation bias.

Are you sure you are looking at all of the data, for and against?

Of course, the STORIES all point one way.
I'm just not convinced that the STORIES of Jesus are true.

Do you believe that all stories ( of any kind ) are true?

Arguing Jesus never existed is only a recent criticism, only after enough time has passed, which isn't back up by ANY evidence but only trying to discredit all the evidence we have.

How does RECENT imply WRONG?

If any one thinks he never existed, why have they not provided any evidence of this?

Your logical fallacy is shifting the "onus probandi". It's as if you want US to DISPROVE your belief.

Here is my case in a nutshell...

1. I don't CARE to disprove whatever it is you believe.
2. You can believe anything that you like.
3. If you want to convince a SKEPTIC of your belief, then the onus is on YOU to prove that your belief is true.
4. Trying to get other people to do YOUR intellectual work, is not only muddle headed, but intellectually LAZY.
5. Your demand for evidence of non-existence isn't logically coherent.
6. And the REQUEST does nothing to prove the historicity of Jesus.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

If you imagine that dragons never existed, why have you not provided any evidence of this? Fairies, ghosts, leprechauns, mermaids, invisible beings from other dimensions? Santa, for that matter? He lives magically at the North Pole in an UNDETECTABLE way, 'xcept for at Xmas, apparently only to those who believe in Santa. What about Vishnu and Quezacoatl, got any real good evidence that THEY don't exist in some super god dimension?

Can you give us evidence that Paul Bunyan didn't actually exist?

Are you starting to see the problem with your request?
If something isn't THERE to be seen, how can we SEE IT?

If there isn't something, shouldn't we EXPECT nothing?
So, your demand for evidence of nothing SHOULD be nothing, correct?

It's not as if I can point to something that doesn't exist and shout out "There it ISN'T!!"

Most people cite the AUTHORITY of the Bible scholars about the historicity of Jesus, but unfortunately, history is not an exact a science as say... physics.

Some of us skeptics are still dubious about the certainty of a historical Jesus as described in the Gospels. My probability percentage on the topic is about a 49%. Not good ENOUGH for me. I start belief at about 51%.

But then again, I don't start OFF by believing in the infallibility of a book. Any book.
Humans are FALLIBLE, in my skeptical way of thinking. And I am aware that religious propaganda EXISTS, and that believers are CONVINCED that they have 100% truth and so forth...

Well, I for one QUESTION certainties.
All of them, by DEFAULT... I'm trying to be a very good skeptic, you see.

How about you? No room in your epistemology for DOUBT?
Some people are PROUD to never doubt what they believe. But then I have to ask:

"With a mindset like that, how would you EVER know that you had a false belief?"

[For_The_Kingdom]

I can empathise with this feeling. I've often yearned to sit down and have a good talk with my secondary school religion teacher, but when I pause and think for a moment, I realise that there would be no point. There's nothing that can be said in a face to face conversation that a slower discussion like we have on our forums can't have. As I said before, a face to face discussion can only really penalise a cogent thinker who needs time to say what he has to say.

Given your tactics with your Modal thread, I'm highly suspicious of what a face to face conversation with yourself might involve. I'll still do it, but just know, I'm going to be carefully listening to what it is you say.

It sounds like to me that some of you would rather life to be one big game of "message forum". It is called having a verbal conversation with another human being. You do it all the time in every day life, but all of a sudden when it comes to this, there is so much restraint. I just don't get it.

But oh well. Those who want to come, come. Those that don't, don't.

You've mentioned Yahoo a few times. I don't have a Yahoo account and don't plan on getting one. If I absolutely have to, I will, but I don't want to.

Please do. Unless you are still living in the 90's with dial-up connections, the Yahoo IM software takes no more than 2 minutes to download. I think we all have 2 minutes of our precious time to spare.

Again, this reminds me of what the overlay said in the video you linked in your Modal thread. The overlay explained that the goal of the MOA isn't to lead the atheist to some new understanding, it's to get the atheist to say something.

Bruh, you have been talking an awful lot about the MOA thread. You liked it, huh? I know, it was a classic.

Here, it's apparently the same. You want the atheist to 'accept Jesus', which is NOT the same as leading the atheist to some new understanding.

Bro, you have no idea of how much of a thinker I am. I love to lead people to new understanding, and I also love to gain new understanding. No one is above or immune to learning something new. But learning is all relative...we all should accept what we need to accept, and reject what we need to reject.

Imagine if instead of 'accept Jesus', you said "vote for Hillary". Well...you don't have to actually lead the person you're talking to to some understanding of truth to get them to vote for your preferred candidate; indeed one could accomplish that by using dishonest tactics.

Well, I want people to accept Jesus because they find the evidence and concept of Christianity/Resurrection to be compelling enough to accept it...and it is my job as a Christian to try to get them there.

Because, in real time, there is the added pressure of time. Here, I can take my time to think things through before posting, whereas in real-time, I don't have that luxury. So responses may not be as cogent as here.
Seriously...did I need to explain that?

Yes you did need to explain it because I wanted to know. If you don't want to do real-time, then simply don't do it.

Whereas I am looking for a debate, moderated, with a set topic.

Sounds like we need to see other people, then. LOL.

I'd prefer to do it by voice chat if possible, so Skype maybe?

I'd prefer Yahoo, but if it gotta be Skype, Skype it is.

There were recent head to head debates (you took part in one, if I'm not mistaken), and in them, I heard that there were apparently things agreed to beforehand. However, I couldn't find such a thread, so I don't know what was agreed to.

Oh yeah, the terms of the debate..yup...there were predetermined, agreed upon terms/conditions (, so that there wouldn't be any surprises once the debate was underway).

Basically, I'm looking to have a debate, moderated (for fairness, two moderators, one theist, one non-theist, if they're up for it) with a set topic that we agree to beforehand.

Maybe some day, riku.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 171 by For_The_Kingdom]

It is called having a verbal conversation with another human being.

Do not presume that your opposites on this forum do not interact with other humans.

Please do. Unless you are still living in the 90's with dial-up connections, the Yahoo IM software takes no more than 2 minutes to download. I think we all have 2 minutes of our precious time to spare.

I don't like Yahoo, so I'll use own IM software, although again, I'd prefer to do voice chat.

Well, I want people to accept Jesus because they find the evidence and concept of Christianity/Resurrection to be compelling enough to accept it...and it is my job as a Christian to try to get them there.

How does springing a 'gotcha, you said it's possible!' on atheists in your MOA thread involve convincing people of the evidence for the resurrection?

Sounds like we need to see other people, then. LOL.

Very well. I haven't heard of anyone else who wants to take you up on your offer of a discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Sounds like we need to see other people, then. LOL.

Very well. I haven't heard of anyone else who wants to take you up on your offer of a discussion.

I, for one, do not debate in private because my intent is NOT to 'win' or to convince an opponent. Instead, my comments are directed toward readers; the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of views our threads receive. Many of those people are likely to be open to consider the merits of what is said rather than simply attempting Apologetics.

I also have no interest in exchanging messages. Quick quips and sound bites may seem impressive in live debate; however, I prefer a more reasoned approach --one that allows time to digest what is said and to respond appropriately and thoughtfully (as in Head to Head http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 8&start=10).

Those whose arguments depend on immediate emotional appeal free of fact-checking often dislike a more reasoned approach.

[For_The_Kingdom]

How does springing a 'gotcha, you said it's possible!' on atheists in your MOA thread involve convincing people of the evidence for the resurrection?

Um, huh?

Very well. I haven't heard of anyone else who wants to take you up on your offer of a discussion.

Right, you haven't heard. Keyword: You. There is some behind the scenes stuff in the works...a conversation of the willing, sort of thing.

[MadeNew]

What evidence led you to believe Jesus never existed?

I take the existence of about five Jesus movements to be evidence that he did exist. One could hardly expect five such disparate groups to have emerged from thin air, all claiming to be true followers of an imaginary person. But I reject that there are any extant eyewitness reports of Jesus.

Ok, so you believe Jesus really existed, yet you call him imaginary? This would be a an example of cognitive dissonance if i am reading your response properly. Explain yourself.

I think we are finished. You don't seem to be able to understand what I write.

"One could hardly expect five such disparate groups to have emerged from thin air, all claiming to be true followers of an imaginary person. "

Fine, we have nothing to debate about anyways, if you admit Jesus actually lived.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 175 by MadeNew]

Boo-hooo-hooo-hooo-hooo!

But I proved he didn't exist, why don't you listen to me!

I showed you Lazarus, I showed you his doctrine was blasphemous, therefore false.

Hey Talishi: I told you he thought he tricked you into saying Jesus was real. Is that what you said? LOL.

[Talishi]

Hey Talishi: I told you he thought he tricked you into saying Jesus was real. Is that what you said? LOL.

I admitted voting that Jesus was real, and my argument was that there were at least five Jesus movements in existence after Jesus was executed. I can believe that Jesus was the imaginary friend of one Jesus movement, but not five different simultaneous ones. Therefore Jesus must have been a real fellow. However, this Jesus turned wine into water, like I do, not the other way around.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 175 by MadeNew]

Boo-hooo-hooo-hooo-hooo!

But I proved he didn't exist, why don't you listen to me!

I showed you Lazarus, I showed you his doctrine was blasphemous, therefore false.

Hey Talishi: I told you he thought he tricked you into saying Jesus was real. Is that what you said? LOL.

Because you don't make sense in what you say Willum. I don't even know what you are talking about.