Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:17 pm
Reply
Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:19 pm
Reply

Like this post
Here are a few important similarities between those who deny climate change and those who deny that Jesus existed:

*Rejection of experts. While the overwhelming majority of the experts in their respective fields agree that climate change is real or that Jesus was a historical person, deniers insist that a fringe group which has been criticized by the majority in fact has the truth.

*Rejection of evidence. When presented with the evidence, deniers insist that there must be some other unseen explanation. Usually that explanation is some form of elaborate conspiracy theory. “Paul or some other group manufactured the stories about Jesus!” “Scientists get millions in grants for saying that climate change is real and they want to keep the money flowing!”

*Complexity equals falsehood. Climate change is difficult to explain and various models have been put forth to predict its effect on the world. Information from antiquity is limited and not all details about Jesus life and the early growth of the church are certain. While the core statements are agreed upon (man-made pollution is causing the temperature of the world to increase; Jesus was a historical preacher who started the religion now called Christianity), uncertainty about details is used to deny all related facts.

*Not built on evidence. The opposing positions provide direct evidence (historical documents, scientific experiments). Deniers question the validity of this evidence or they provide a general setting (“This is what ancient Rome was like” or “Temperature varies from year to year”). However, they do not provide direct evidence to support their position. They do not put forth historical document or scientific experiments which support their position.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:38 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post (1): Divine Insight
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


No.

Climate change deniers examine hard evidence.

Jesus doubters examine the absence of hard evidence.

This attempted parallel won't establish that the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the mythological Yahweh on a human virgin either.

Parallels and analogies and epistemologically philosophic syllogisms and other smokescreens and amputee aliens and shiny distractions never do.

My Hat of Prophecy is telling me that Yahweh and the BVM will still be in the realm of fantasy when this topic is over too.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:22 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


Which mythicist position are you comparing to climate-change denial? There are several mythicist positions. You will find very significant differences between the mythicism of DM Murdoch, Robert Price and Richard Carrier. So depending on which mythicist position you consider, you will no doubt be able to draw different parallels between that position and climate-change denial.

I haven't studied climate-change denial that much, but it appears to be politically motivated. Some people fear that climate-change science will increase government regulation and the operating costs for some industries decreasing profits for those industries.

So how might some mythicist positions compare to climate-change denial? One significant difference appears to be the attitude toward science. As far as I know no mythicists oppose any accepted science except perhaps for Biblical archaeology, but climate-change deniers disagree with the scientific evidence for climate change.

In any case, I don't see the evidence for Jesus as nearly as robust as the evidence for climate change. So no, mythicism is not really comparable to climate-change denial.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:05 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post (1): 1213
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


The belief that bad weather is not a natural phenomena, but caused by 'bad people angering nature' is probably literally the oldest superstition known to mankind, and has always been used to try to elicit 'sacrifices'

Nothing has changed much here, switching scary masks and dances for scary computer sims doesn't make this belief any more 'scientific'

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:29 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


Not at all. Other than some purely academic interest, it makes no difference whether the Jesus mythology was based a real person or not.

Climate change is already making an impact on humans. Those denying this fact will simply encourage others to do nothing about a problem we could at least attempt to solve.

Denying that Jesus existed doesn't create any problem.

Denying climate change has and will continue to cause serious problems for humans.

Perhaps if we stopped wasting so much time and effort on issues that change nothing, we could address those that could provide genuine and lasting change.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:27 am
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


No. There is no evidence at all that the Jesus described in the Gospels ever existed.

Could some rebel Jew who might have been named "Jesus", have argued with the Jewish Religious Authorities, and have ultimately been crucified by an unofficial mob, have existed?

Sure. But that wouldn't be the "Jesus" described in the Gospels.

So denying the Jesus described in the Gospels is not at all like denying climate change. There is no compelling evidence for the Jesus described in the Gospels. In fact, the evidence against the Jesus described in the Gospels is actually quite overwhelming.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:12 am
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


I think it would be good to notice, do people deny climate change, or the claim that humans have caused it. There is vast difference in claiming “climate doesn’t change” or “the change is not caused by people”. Climate has probably always changed and probably, even if people would vanish, climate would change. What is caused by humans is very difficult to prove and I have not seen any good proof that humans have caused the change.

More reasonable than speaking about climate change would be to think how we could live in balance with nature. Even if climate would not change, it would be reasonable to not pollute too much. It would be reasonable to keep balance, for example, if we produce CO², it would be reasonable to take care that there are enough trees to bind the CO². CO² is not bad, it is necessary for plants, only problem is, if there are not enough plants for the CO² amount. I think it is really stupid to focus only to production of CO² and not to the balance. But by what I see, the real question is not about nature or wellbeing, but about tax money.

But are Jesus denialism and “climate change” denialism equal? I think it depends on the person and his reasons. If person doesn’t believe, because he doesn’t see enough evidence, I think it is as reasonable. If person believes other things without evidence, and in other things he needs evidence, then I think the person has double standard, which I think is not reasonable.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:33 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
1213 wrote:

bjs wrote:

Is the mythic position about Jesus (that he did not exist) reasonable comparable to the position of those who deny climate change?


I think it would be good to notice, do people deny climate change, or the claim that humans have caused it. There is vast difference in claiming “climate doesn’t change” or “the change is not caused by people”. Climate has probably always changed and probably, even if people would vanish, climate would change. What is caused by humans is very difficult to prove and I have not seen any good proof that humans have caused the change.

More reasonable than speaking about climate change would be to think how we could live in balance with nature. Even if climate would not change, it would be reasonable to not pollute too much. It would be reasonable to keep balance, for example, if we produce CO², it would be reasonable to take care that there are enough trees to bind the CO². CO² is not bad, it is necessary for plants, only problem is, if there are not enough plants for the CO² amount. I think it is really stupid to focus only to production of CO² and not to the balance. But by what I see, the real question is not about nature or wellbeing, but about tax money.

But are Jesus denialism and “climate change” denialism equal? I think it depends on the person and his reasons. If person doesn’t believe, because he doesn’t see enough evidence, I think it is as reasonable. If person believes other things without evidence, and in other things he needs evidence, then I think the person has double standard, which I think is not reasonable.


Yes, climate changes, there used to be 2 miles of glacier above my head where I sit- (and similarly for you I would imagine?) just a few thousands years ago- & it all melted at an extremely rapid pace, thousands of miles, without a single SUV or incandescent light bulb

Nobody really denies climate change, but there are natural, scientific v anthropomorphic reasons for that

and even if 'agw' were true, it's tricky to argue more warmth from an enhanced GH effect as being somehow negative anyway- glacial periods are not known for supporting a thriving biosphere

8 degrees F (-12 C) in Michigan tonight... so I think we could just about handle 9 or 10 F without too much trouble if we really had to!... how about Finland?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:53 pm
Reply
Re: Comparing denying Jesus to denying climate change

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:
No. There is no evidence at all that the Jesus described in the Gospels ever existed.


I'm going to need to disagree with you on this issue. While the evidence for Jesus is arguably weak, ambiguous, and for us unconvincing, it is nevertheless evidence. The evidence for Jesus is all in the form of stories. If he did exist, then some people may well have written stories about him and his exploits. That's why I consider those stories evidence that he is historical.

But just for the record, I'm not sure if he existed. The evidence isn't good enough to establish his historicity, in my opinion.

Quote:
Could some rebel Jew who might have been named "Jesus", have argued with the Jewish Religious Authorities, and have ultimately been crucified by an unofficial mob, have existed?

Sure. But that wouldn't be the "Jesus" described in the Gospels.


Now here I agree with you completely. Some scholars like Bart Ehrman try to save the historicity of Jesus by stripping him of his magical powers reducing him to an "apocalyptic preacher." But like you say, such a stripped-down Jesus is no more the Jesus of Christianity than a mild-mannered newspaper reporter is Super Man.

So we need decide who Jesus is. When I think of Jesus, I think of a guy who inspired the Christian religion. That's the Jesus I'm not sure of. I am sure the magical Jesus didn't exist, and the apocalyptic-preacher Jesus is too vague to say.

Quote:
So denying the Jesus described in the Gospels is not at all like denying climate change. There is no compelling evidence for the Jesus described in the Gospels. In fact, the evidence against the Jesus described in the Gospels is actually quite overwhelming.


Again I agree, but some people can always fall back on the Jesus of Jewish lore in their desperate search for a historical Jesus.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version