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

[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.

If there is, or is not, an omnipotent being who is independent of space and time, what any human claims to true or false, is irrelevant.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and it's easy to demonstrate that humans are frequently wrong. Finding a paradox or a contradiction in another human's logic and thinking, has no bearing on whether something which cannot be perceived with our ordinary senses, exists or doesn't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

It's just extra steps. God doesn't exist because the idea that it does is ridiculous. You really don't need to make it more complicated. If that doesn't convince someone then they don't care about rational arguments. So you can save your breath

 

[SIB]

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.

If there is, or is not, an omnipotent being who is independent of space and time, what any human claims to true or false, is irrelevant.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and it's easy to demonstrate that humans are frequently wrong. Finding a paradox or a contradiction in another human's logic and thinking, has no bearing on whether something which cannot be perceived with our ordinary senses, exists or doesn't.

Based on what we know Binary thinking doesn't apply.
The only thing that matters is, for us, is how we think.

 

[SIB]

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

As an atheist, I take issue with this special pleading ...

 

[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.

Some do. But they are more literal type thinkers like fundy think theist to me. they are both fundy think types to me.

 

[Elixir]

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

As an atheist, I take issue with this special pleading ...

Very well, let's explore your issue.
Why do I need arguments? Are the mean theists going to come after me for failure to make an argument against their silliness?

 

[SIB]

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

As an atheist, I take issue with this special pleading ...

Very well, let's explore your issue.
Why do I need arguments? Are the mean theists going to come after me for failure to make an argument against their silliness?

You don't Lets leave theist out it. We are both atheist. There is no deity, well, as the religions I know describe anyway. There is a sliding scale of reliability in belief to me. Based on observations.

It is certainty ok to tell someone "I don't have a position". Then we don't take a position. Some atheist take it to a level that is special pleading. !00's to 1000's to 10000's of post denying everything that is brought up. With a specials focus on some religions only. Anything outside of a forward thinking deity is not what they are are talking about.

That is when it is special pleading to me. That is when, for political reasons, they are just deny everything so that "we don't give theist an out.". Other wise this is pretty simple. We are part of a larger more complex system. Lets compare what I say to what you say it is.

If you offer "I don't have to say anything" and I offer one with a mechanism, repeatability, and makes predictions, whos is more reliable?

When does 1000's of post denying all beliefs to stop religion become special pleading? I do know one thing, when some says "I am only talking about a forward thinking thingie". They are special pleading. They are not in these discussions for the same reason I am.

 

[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.

If there is, or is not, an omnipotent being who is independent of space and time, what any human claims to true or false, is irrelevant.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and it's easy to demonstrate that humans are frequently wrong. Finding a paradox or a contradiction in another human's logic and thinking, has no bearing on whether something which cannot be perceived with our ordinary senses, exists or doesn't.

Based on what we know Binary thinking doesn't apply.
The only thing that matters is, for us, is how we think.

I have no idea how this applies to the discussion.

 

[SIB]

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.

If there is, or is not, an omnipotent being who is independent of space and time, what any human claims to true or false, is irrelevant.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and it's easy to demonstrate that humans are frequently wrong. Finding a paradox or a contradiction in another human's logic and thinking, has no bearing on whether something which cannot be perceived with our ordinary senses, exists or doesn't.

Based on what we know Binary thinking doesn't apply.
The only thing that matters is, for us, is how we think.

I have no idea how this applies to the discussion.

 

[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. 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.

Some do. But they are more literal type thinkers like fundy think theist to me. they are both fundy think types to me.

I remember when I became an atheist it basically resulted from my finding errors in the Bible. I realized then as now that although an imperfect Bible can falsify the Christian God, other Gods can remain. But I figured why bother with any God now that I know that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Those other Gods look much the same, after all.