Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Prophet]

I believe Christ myth theorists are to scientists what intelligent design advocates are to Christians. And by this I mean they are fundamentalist, irrational, hopelessly agenda-driven, bunch of other bad things, etc. And I imagine there's not a single argument Christ myth theorists make that don't have a ID parallel. Let's discuss!

 

[Riverwolf]

A primer? What, exactly, IS Christ Myth Theory?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A primer? What, exactly, IS Christ Myth Theory?

The idea that Jesus never existed.

 

[Prophet]

The position that Jesus of Nazareth has no historicity.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's worse than that. Christ Myth theory has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Why? Because that is exactly what it is...a baseless insane conspiracy theory and any atheist who subscribes to it is definitely in the tin foil hat crowd.

 

[Skwim]

I believe Christ myth theorists are to scientists what intelligent design advocates are to Christians. And by this I mean they are fundamentalist, irrational, hopelessly agenda-driven, bunch of other bad things, etc. And I imagine there's not a single argument Christ myth theorists make that don't have a ID parallel. Let's discuss!

Interested in what kind of science these Christ myth theorists are using to put them in the science camp.

Got anything?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's worse than that. Christ Myth theory has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Why? Because that is exactly what it is...a baseless insane conspiracy theory and any atheist who subscribes to it is definitely in the tin foil hat crowd.

I used to be into it. Guess whose books introduced it to me? David Icke.

This guy is another example of it: Welcome to Enlightenment! ? Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Oh, and that idiot who thinks Christianity is a Roman conspiracy to quell Jewish revolutionary movements and that Jesus was modeled after Caesar. There's also Acharya S. and her ****** excuse for "research".

One thing that always got me is that the people who believe that Jesus didn't exist can't agree on how Christianity came into being and so they come up with all sorts of wacky ideas that have no evidence for them.

 

[LuisDantas]

One would expect some kind of evidence of the existence of Jesus to have presented itself by now if he existed as such. To the best of my understanding, it has not.

To this day I there was ever meant to be a literal Jesus as such. He has every single characteristic of a made up character.

 

[Prophet]

Interested in what kind of science these Christ myth theorists are using to put them in the science camp.

Got anything?

Atheists like being called scientific, so I thought I'd throw them a bone in my wording. I am not saying that Christians can't be scientific in their philosophies.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, if that's all it is, I can't see it as equivalent in any way. There's not enough evidence that the Jesus spoken of in the Gospels is a historical figure exactly, so the default position is negative. There is enough, however, I think, to point to at least one figure who could serve as the analogue.

 

[fantome profane]

I do not agree. And I am speaking as an individual who believes in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Denying evolution which has mountains of empirical evidence which can be seen, measured and tested is not the same thing as denying the existence of a single individual who live 2000 years ago.

I find the evidence for the existence of Jesus satisfactory, but it is not overwhelming, certainly not anything on par with the theory of evolution.

I find it frustrating when people arguing for the existence of Jesus make ridiculously over-exaggerated claims. Like "there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar", or "we have archeological evidence that proves everything in the New Testament is true", or even "denying Jesus is just like denying evolution". I wish people could see that making these kind of irrational over-exaggerated claims actually makes your argument weaker, not stronger.

In the last little while on this board I can think of two posters arguing against the historicity of Jesus who I have had reasonable exchanges with, and I can think of two who were absolutely irrational idiots. This is a much better percentage than I have had with people who deny evolution. I don't think any of the people on this board who deny evolution are even remotely rational, and some of the are completely insane. Although I think those who deny the historicity of Jesus are wrong, skepticism in this area is not insane.

 

[Bunyip]

The 'Christ Myth theory' is nothing more than a pathetic strawman. It is shifting the burden of proof.

Apologists attack the CMT as if by attacking their own transparent strawman, they are somehow magically manifesting evidence for historicity by dint of their opposition being unable to prove a negative.

"No serious scholars defend mythicism" is the mantra here - and of course it is true, no serious scholars defend mythicism because it is a nonsense invented by apologists in an attempt to deflect attention away from the dearth of reliable evidence.

So the CMT is just like the creationist version of evolution, as if by simply misrepresenting the opposition you can defeat it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meh...I've done some 'research' (or at least reading) on the historicity of Jesus, and it just got really confusing, really quickly.
To my mind, as an atheist, there are a lot of sources which are compromised, and a general lack of verifiability (which I might have just invented as a word).

I lean gently on the side of Jesus being a historical figure, but am kinda unconvinced either way. If anyone has anything even vaguely resembling scientific evidence, I'd be interested.

Otherwise my general thoughts are similar to fantome profane's I guess.

 

[outhouse]

Only the vast minority of atheist even question his existence.

Its such a small insignificant group of bloggers and a few post in forums, and that is it.


Those who followed the ignorance of ID, are much greater in numbers

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, the two are hardly comparable in any case.

For obvious reasons, the historical existence of Jesus is only meaningful for those who believe that he did exist.

Evolution denial is something of an entirely different scale. It is serious enough in itself, and it is an indicator of even more serious problems.

 

[outhouse]

Come to think of it, the two are hardly comparable in any case.

For obvious reasons, the historical existence of Jesus is only meaningful for those who believe that he did exist.

Evolution denial is something of an entirely different scale. It is serious enough in itself, and it is an indicator of even more serious problems.

That's where I was going with it lol


Good catch

 

[Skwim]

Atheists like being called scientific,

Really, and what evidence do you have to support this rather odd claim, or are you just making it up because . . . . . . . . ? The reason I ask is that I've known quite a few atheists, and none of them ever said or implied they liked being called scientific, whatever being scientific is.

 

[Sapiens]

Evolution denial partakes of a denial of objective evidence that is corroborated by a large number of interlocking completely consistent sources that the expert agree upon, save minor details.

Jesus denial partakes of skepticism with reference to unrecorded and undocumented people and events that the experts have little or no agreement about.

Hardly the same thing, hardly in the same ballpark.

 

[Bunyip]

A far better analogy would be to compare doubting the historicity of Jesus to doubting the historicity of King Arthur.

There is evidence for both, and still plenty of room for doubt.

Certainly doubting the historicity of Jesus would be a more rational position than believing that the historicity of Jesus had been evidentially established beyond question.

Just as a historical Arthur is the best explanation of the available evidence - but if you think there is no room for doubt, you misunderstand how history works.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Really, and what evidence do you have to support this rather odd claim, or are you just making it up because . . . . . . . . ? The reason I ask is that I've known quite a few atheists, and none of them ever said or implied they liked being called scientific, whatever being scientific is.

Meh...not sure whether I'd LIKE being called scientific, but it's certainly a tag I would struggle to live up to.
I'm way too warm and fuzzy...lol