Is "God doesn't exist if Jesus didn't exist" an argument any atheist uses?

[Elixir]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

 

[bilby]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God

Did he?

What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?

I saw Ehrman say that on a YouTube video that I didn't bookmark. I'd recommend that if you're interested in seeing that video, then just search YouTube. If you can't find it, then let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.

Anyone who trusts your paraphrases is mistaken.

You got to keep an eye on guys like me!

But seriously, what relevance does that have to the topic I raised in the OP? I'm just curious to see if any atheists make the argument that Bart Ehrman says they do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God

Did he?

What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp? Anyone who trusts your paraphrases is mistaken.

I still haven't figured out exactly what he means by "mythicism".

It's very simple and easy to understand: "Jesus mythicism" is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of the New Testament, never existed as a real person. He only ever existed as a figure created in religious mythology like Zeus or Odin were.

I used to think it meant that historical Jesus didn't exist at all. Jarhyn told me differently.

If by "historical Jesus" you mean Jesus of Nazareth, then yes, mythicists say he never existed.

This entire conversation is rife with vague semantics.

Again, just ask if you're not clear on something I said.

Personally, I believe it most plausible that historical Jesus was a major figure in a tiny Judean drama. So tiny, there's no record of it happening.

Talk about vague semantics; what do you mean by a "tiny Judean drama"?

Christ is a miracle working demigod who became a part of a Divine Trinity. I do not find that plausible at all. Christ is a mythical character.

But Jesus isn't.

Hmmm. That's novel. Now we have a "Jesus not Christ" to debate.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.

 

[Elixir]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.

Yawn. Then I suppose theists have the burden of proof that the fabled purple dragon of my garage doesn’t exist.
Not an interesting discussion, long resolved.
In fact, afaics theists are generally uninterested in pursuing the dragon question. I am similarly disinterested in the existence/non existence of supernatural characters in books.

 

[bilby]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.

Nope.

No more than people who argue that Clark Kent never existed have a burden of proof.

"Jesus existed", like "Clark Kent existed" is a positive claim requiring proof. In the absence of any evidence, the appropriate belief is that this character is probably fictional. If they're said to have done implausible things, that probability increases. Claims that they did impossible things constitute proof that that version of them is definitely not someone who existed.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.

Then I suppose theists have the burden of proof that the fabled purple dragon of my garage doesn’t exist.

"Theists" do have such a burden if said theists assert there is no such dragon.

Not an interesting discussion, long resolved.

Then why are you posting on this thread?

In fact, afaics ...

It's best to avoid using acronyms in discourse unless they are well known.

...theists are generally uninterested in pursuing the dragon question.

Then they have no burden of proof.

I am similarly disinterested in the existence/non existence of supernatural characters in books.

Then why are you posting on this thread?

I've seen this kind of thing many times: Some person in a forum posts on a thread complaining that he's not interested in the topic of that thread. I suppose some threads raise issues that might serve to falsify what some people wish to believe. The solution then is to derail the thread.

 

[abaddon]

What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?

... If you can't find it, then let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.

See if you can find it. No one should have to do your work for you. The reasonable expectation is that EVERYONE will cite their quotes and paraphrases so that the context can be looked at.

But seriously, what relevance does that have to the topic I raised in the OP? I'm just curious to see if any atheists make the argument that Bart Ehrman says they do.

If he did comment on atheist motivations in arguing against historicism, it might have been something much more insightful than what got attributed to him. Also, attributing dumb claims to people isn't inconsequential.

I tend to like to know what's true.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?

... If you can't find it, then let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.

See if you can find it. No one should have to do your work for you. The reasonable expectation is that EVERYONE will cite their quotes and paraphrases so that the context can be looked at.

Very well. I will go with your rule and let you do your own work. If you want to know what Bart Ehrman said about atheism as a supposed motive for mythicism and won't take my word for it, then do your own search.

But seriously, what relevance does that have to the topic I raised in the OP? I'm just curious to see if any atheists make the argument that Bart Ehrman says they do.

If he did comment on atheist motivations in arguing against historicism, it might have been something much more insightful than what got attributed to him. Also, attributing dumb claims to people isn't inconsequential.

It might. It looks like there's only one way to find out (aside from what I already told you).

I tend to like to know what's true. Is that good enough reason to ask for citations?

I like to know what's true too. That's why I look things up on Google and YouTube. If I'm curious about some uncited claim on a thread, then I look it up myself.

Now, let's get back to the topic of the thread: Do any atheists argue that Jesus never existed to prove God doesn't exist? It's your work to answer that question.

 

[Elixir]

Do any atheists argue that Jesus never existed to prove God doesn't exist? It's your work to answer that question.

Short work. No rational atheist would make that irrational argument. Not all atheists are rational. Few Christians are rational about the Jesus thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do any atheists argue that Jesus never existed to prove God doesn't exist? It's your work to answer that question.

Short work. No rational atheist would make that irrational argument. Not all atheists are rational.

Thank you for that straight answer to a straight question!

Yes, the Jesus-mythicism argument against God is rather weak. If an atheist wants to disprove God, then arguing for a purely human Jesus would pack as much punch as a mythical Jesus. In fact, Ehrman says exactly that--Jesus was only a man. So by Ehrman's own criteria, he's as motivated by atheism to say Jesus existed as any other atheist might be to argue that Jesus didn't exist.

Few Christians are rational about the Jesus thing.

Apparently anybody can be irrational about "the Jesus thing." Ehrman is but one example.

 

[Bronzeage]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...

This assumes such an argument was ever proposed. It starts with an an obvious straw man. It's not really an argument, as much as it's trolling. The question of who is being trolled is different discussion.

 

[TomC]

I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.

I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...

This assumes such an argument was ever proposed. It starts with an an obvious straw man. It's not really an argument, as much as it's trolling. The question of who is being trolled is different discussion.

Exactly.

The only context I can imagine anyone using that argument is a context where "God" is clearly defined as the Christian Trinity. That does happen, I know because I've done it.

But very rarely, as I avoid discussing religious tenets under such circumstances.
Tom

 

[TomC]

One needn't even be an atheist to make the argument. I'm not.

One could be a Hindu. Or a Shinto. Or whatever.
If your God image depends upon the Christ described in the New Testament for existence, Its easy to eliminate from rationality. Because many other prophets of God failed to notice Him.

Abraham and Moses practically took baths with God. They didn't notice Jesus. No Trinity in the Original Testament, quite the opposite. Jesus's Divinity is proof that Yahweh was a fictional character.

At least to me it is.
Tom

 

[Daisy]

I was recently watching a YouTube video in which Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God. Do any atheists actually argue that since Jesus didn't exist, then God doesn't exist? I cannot recall ever hearing or reading that argument. No doubt proving Jesus didn't exist would be a major problem for Christian theism, but the basis for the existence of most other Gods would be unaffected by such a discovery. Yahweh, for example, would be safe as would Brahma. Even Christians might save their faith in their God by creating a doctrine in which Jesus never actually visited the earth as a physical man but only reigns from heaven and only interacts with people via revelation, a "Pauline" Jesus.

I find it hard to believe that that is what Bart Ehrman said because he is a former Christian who deconverted while studying ancient history. His position is that the consensus, among historians of the turn of the millennia in the Near East, is that Jesus the human preacher did exist and that there is more evidence for his existence than against and that he concurs with this position.

Isn't Richard Carrier a Jesus mythicist?

 

[Daisy]

It's a fallacy on its face. "God doesn't exist if Jesus didn't exist" proposes that a previous event is dependent on a later event.

Except there are some Christians who claim that Jesus or Christ (I'm not sure how distinguished they are) was the Word that was there in the beginning. "Elohim" was plural because the Trinity always existed in one form or another. It's a mystery.

Jesus could be the Messiah, a charlatan, or just an ordinary man, who lived sometime before the calendar was rearranged in his memory. Whether he was any of these things or none of them, cannot determine whether or not God exists.

Okay.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I was recently watching a YouTube video in which Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God.

I find it hard to believe that that is what Bart Ehrman said because he is a former Christian who deconverted while studying ancient history.

Why would Bart Ehrman being a former Christian make it unlikely that he would see mythicism as atheism run amok? The atheist-drive theory of why some people are mythicists is not peculiar to Ehrman. Maurice Casey holds to the same theory.

His position is that the consensus, among historians of the turn of the millennia in the Near East, is that Jesus the human preacher did exist and that there is more evidence for his existence than against and that he concurs with this position.

Yes--that's what Ehrman says. Can you imagine somebody making a case for biological evolution by citing that the consensus of evolutionary biologists don't doubt that species evolve?

Isn't Richard Carrier a Jesus mythicist?

I suppose you can call Carrier a mythicist if by mythicist you mean a person who doubts that Jesus existed.

 

[SIB]

I was recently watching a YouTube video in which Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God. Do any atheists actually argue that since Jesus didn't exist, then God doesn't exist? I cannot recall ever hearing or reading that argument. No doubt proving Jesus didn't exist would be a major problem for Christian theism, but the basis for the existence of most other Gods would be unaffected by such a discovery. Yahweh, for example, would be safe as would Brahma. Even Christians might save their faith in their God by creating a doctrine in which Jesus never actually visited the earth as a physical man but only reigns from heaven and only interacts with people via revelation, a "Pauline" Jesus.

for some. But the more emotionally mature can separate "god" from "religious god". On many levels.

Many, if not most, atheist believe in something more. Some just don't go past that we part of a larger more complex system. For example:, if a cell is the smallest unit of life and the system we are in is vastly more complex ... what's one to say. The cell is "more" alive than what? exactly. talk to some atheist in that context. Not religous scarred ones, but just the average ones.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a fallacy on its face. "God doesn't exist if Jesus didn't exist" proposes that a previous event is dependent on a later event.

Except there are some Christians who claim that Jesus or Christ (I'm not sure how distinguished they are) was the Word that was there in the beginning. "Elohim" was plural because the Trinity always existed in one form or another. It's a mystery.

Jesus could be the Messiah, a charlatan, or just an ordinary man, who lived sometime before the calendar was rearranged in his memory. Whether he was any of these things or none of them, cannot determine whether or not God exists.

Okay.