this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
119 points (66.9% liked)

Atheist Memes

5586 readers
35 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
fkn@lemmy.world
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
Donjuanme@lemmy.world
Not2Dopey@sh.itjust.works
119
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, so it feels counter productive to try to assert that he didn’t exist.

Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?

I follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it’s convenient.

I do as well and I am still waiting for the evidence that he wasn't a myth.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Is something true because the majority says that it is true or because it is true?

This is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. These scholars have done the research and digging into sources and have the evidence that Jesus, the man, existed in the time that the gospels Bible describes. Until you have evidence that either disproves his existence or disproves all the historical records, this is contrarian nonsense with no basis in how historical research is done.

[–] nadiaraven@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consensus does matter when it's a consensus of experts in a specific field. When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists. When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I'm not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that's true for everyone outside of their expertise.

Plus I would probably agree with you that if a "scholar" believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn't trust that scholar.

All I'm saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion. Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject, the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn't the case. But acknowledging that this is the case doesn't threaten my belief in materialism.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consensus does matter when it’s a consensus of experts in a specific field.

Can experts be wrong, yes or no?

When I look at evolution, I follow the consensus of evolutionary biologists.

We have evidence of evolution. Evidence that you can gain access to and verify for yourself. Frankly this is theist logic right here. The consensus of people who have studied the Bible is that Jesus was the literal son of god. Do you follow that consensus as well or only the ones that support your view?

When I look at the historicity of Jesus, I follow the consensus of historical scholars who study that era. I’m not an expert myself, so I have to trust someone else. I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.

You trust, I will verify. Which one of us is being a better skeptic here, the person who puts faith in others to tell them what happened or the person looking at the actual evidence?

I think that’s true for everyone outside of their expertise.

I am a specialized worker and if you came to my work I can show you exactly the evidence that went into every single decision I made. There is no magic, nothing up my sleeve, no demands of trust. Just evidence.

Plus I would probably agree with you that if a “scholar” believes that Jesus did miracles, I wouldn’t trust that scholar.

But the ones that confirmed what you already believed you would trust and not verify? Do you know what expert shopping is?

All I’m saying is that most likely, some guy named Joshua was baptised and crucified, and in between probably did some preaching that inspired a religion.

What evidence did you use to make that determination?

Given that this is the consensus view by experts on the subject,

Again. I am not interested in consensus, I am interested in what is true.

the onus is on others to provide evidence that this isn’t the case.

In that case every atheist should give up now because the consensus is that there is a god and it is up to us to disprove it, which we can't do. The burder of proof is always on the person making the claim how common the claim is does not remove that burden.

But acknowledging that this is the case doesn’t threaten my belief in materialism.

Alright? Does that make the claim true?

[–] CthulhuPudding@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed. Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn't care less about historical proof; they've already accepted everything on faith. You are free to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it's a meaningless hill to die on.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Very well. You must believe in ghosts.

Simply because we lack proper primary sources concerning Jesus from during his lifetime does not mean that he never existed.

It also means that we can't assert that he did. We do have evidence however that he didn't exist. The accounts all differ and are convenient for those spreading it. So while I can't disprove him or ghosts I can point to the people making money off ghost hunting shows.

Additionally, those who would care most about the existence of Jesus couldn’t care less about historical proof; they’ve already accepting everything on faith.

If you mean modern people: Just because other people have a low bar doesn't mean we have to.

If you mean people at the time: that is convenient. Suspiciously so.

but it’s a meaningless hill to die on.

I disagree.

[–] CapnAssHolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Bro you should sue whatever educational institution you went to. They fucking duped you lmao

[–] fkn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are in a bad spot here.

  1. Your argument is poorly formed and not a very valuable one to fight for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  1. Your argument shows a distinct lack of awareness of how history is analyzed and measured for authenticity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

  1. You are being extremely aggressive about a thing you are simply wrong about.

It doesn't even take that long to find credible sources to demonstrate that denying the historicity of Jesus is the fringe theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

This is a meaningless hill to die on. You are simply wrong and you should move on to things that are actually valuable.

Edit: and the first comment even linked how you are wrong and you still want to fight this battle???