I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
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.Did he?Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God
What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?
You got to keep an eye on guys like me!Anyone who trusts your paraphrases is mistaken.
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 still haven't figured out exactly what he means by "mythicism".Did he?Bart Ehrman asserted that Jesus mythicism is a way that many atheists use to falsify the existence of God
What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp? Anyone who trusts your paraphrases is mistaken.
If by "historical Jesus" you mean Jesus of Nazareth, then yes, mythicists say he never existed.I used to think it meant that historical Jesus didn't exist at all. Jarhyn told me differently.
Again, just ask if you're not clear on something I said.This entire conversation is rife with vague semantics.
Talk about vague semantics; what do you mean by a "tiny Judean drama"?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.
Hmmm. That's novel. Now we have a "Jesus not Christ" to debate.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.
Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
Yawn. Then I suppose theists have the burden of proof that the fabled purple dragon of my garage doesn’t exist.Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
Nope.Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
"Theists" do have such a burden if said theists assert there is no such dragon.Then I suppose theists have the burden of proof that the fabled purple dragon of my garage doesn’t exist.Maybe atheists have no burden of proof, but anybody who argues that Jesus never existed does have a burden of proof.I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
Then why are you posting on this thread?Not an interesting discussion, long resolved.
It's best to avoid using acronyms in discourse unless they are well known.In fact, afaics ...
Then they have no burden of proof....theists are generally uninterested in pursuing the dragon question.
Then why are you posting on this thread?I am similarly disinterested in the existence/non existence of supernatural characters in books.
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.... If you can't find it, then let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?
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.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.
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.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.... If you can't find it, then let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.What's the exact quote? What video? What timestamp?
It might. It looks like there's only one way to find out (aside from what I already told you).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.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.
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.I tend to like to know what's true. Is that good enough reason to ask for citations?
Short work. No rational atheist would make that irrational argument. Not all atheists are rational. Few Christians are rational about the Jesus thing.Do any atheists argue that Jesus never existed to prove God doesn't exist? It's your work to answer that question.
Thank you for that straight answer to a straight question!Short work. No rational atheist would make that irrational argument. Not all atheists are rational.Do any atheists argue that Jesus never existed to prove God doesn't exist? It's your work to answer that question.
Apparently anybody can be irrational about "the Jesus thing." Ehrman is but one example.Few Christians are rational about the Jesus thing.
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.I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
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.I don't think they need them, but they certainly seem to enjoy them...I take issue with the underlying presumption that atheists need arguments.
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.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.
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.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.
Okay.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.
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.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.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.
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?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.
I suppose you can call Carrier a mythicist if by mythicist you mean a person who doubts that Jesus existed.Isn't Richard Carrier a Jesus mythicist?
for some. But the more emotionally mature can separate "god" from "religious god". On many levels.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.
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.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.
Okay.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.