Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Alt Thinker]

I would ask you from where do you derive your expectations? A general trust of humanity perhaps? I assume you already know in this case that your trust is highly unwarranted.

So you are not going to read and comment on my arguments? I presume that is what you mean by 'unwarranted'? If you do, I am here. If not...whatever.

 

[Bunyip]

Alt Thinker

I can't imagine a worse argument than just trying to dismiss the most accurate position by claiming that 'I don't know' is either useless/dumb or an impediment to learning more.

You really need better, that is just denialism. 'I don't know' is where ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BEGAN. It is not an impediment to learning, it is the inspiration for all learning,

Especially in terms of the historicity of Jesus - there is so much more to learn.

His date of birth for example, and any details of his life between childhood and his mission, contemporary records from other sources. Josephus refers to several different men as Jesus - wouldn't you love to know which one was the Jesus Christians worship? But if you claim to know already - why look? Wouldn't there still be value in connecting the Jesus story to a specific place, time and person? Isn't that what real historicity is all about?

 

[Prophet]

So you are not going to read and comment on my arguments? I presume that is what you mean by 'unwarranted'? If you do, I am here. If not...whatever.

By 'unwarranted', I am saying your general trust for humanity is, in Bunyip's case, demonstrably 'unwarranted' by his inhuman attitudes towards those who voice disagreement with him. I see Bunyip as a horse needing to be broken.

I have been reading your arguments and find them so destructive to Bunyip's that he is unable to address them. However, if you have read the thread, you'll see that you are not the first person here to place Bunyip in such an argumentatively supine position. Upon being mounted, it is the first instinct of some unwilling mates to "buck". It is, more or less, an intellectual version of "bucking" the various fallacies he must perpetuate in his mind to avoid submission to the superior argument.

Bunyip is, as Legion put it, 'cheating at solitaire'. He is gleefully celebrating victory while the rest of us look on puzzled as he celebrates, as Mister Emu put it, 'intentionally stunting [him]self intellectually'.

It is no use arguing with one who can think down is up and left is right. So all of us just keep on mounting him over and over again with superior arguments until he learns to recognize his betters.

 

[Bunyip]

By 'unwarranted', I am saying your general trust for humanity is, in Bunyip's case, demonstrably 'unwarranted' by his inhuman attitudes towards those who voice disagreement with him. I see Bunyip as a horse needing to be broken.

I have been reading your arguments and find them so destructive to Bunyip's that he is unable to address them. However, if you have read the thread, you'll see that you are not the first person here to place Bunyip in such an argumentatively supine position. Upon being mounted, it is the first instinct of some unwilling mates to "buck". It is, more or less, an intellectual version of "bucking" the various fallacies he must perpetuate in his mind to avoid submission to the superior argument.

Bunyip is, as Legion put it, 'cheating at solitaire'. He is gleefully celebrating victory while the rest of us look on puzzled as he celebrates, as Mister Emu put it, 'intentionally stunting [him]self intellectually'.

It is no use arguing with one who can think down is up and left is right. So all of us just keep on mounting him over and over again with superior arguments until he is a good trained little mare.

Reported. That is an attack, posted to a third party and a breach of forum rules. That is not winning mate.

 

[Prophet]

reported. That is an attack, posted to a third party and a breach of forum rules. That is not winning mate.

You attack every post. Your report is hypocritical. You're cheating at the game of debate here and you're getting exposed. I own you, which, I'll admit, isn't saying much because everyone here is owning you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You boys are so cute with your dick measuring.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Alt Thinker

I can't imagine a worse argument than just trying to dismiss the most accurate position by claiming that 'I don't know' is either useless/dumb or an impediment to learning more.

You really need better, that is just denialism. 'I don't know' is where ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BEGAN. It is not an impediment to learning, it is the inspiration for all learning,

Especially in terms of the historicity of Jesus - there is so much more to learn.

His date of birth for example, and any details of his life between childhood and his mission, contemporary records from other sources. Josephus refers to several different men as Jesus - wouldn't you love to know which one was the Jesus Christians worship? But if you claim to know already - why look? Wouldn't there still be value in connecting the Jesus story to a specific place, time and person? Isn't that what real historicity is all about?

I presented for comments some arguments intended to advance knowledge. But you have repeatedly insisted that I must return to ‘I don’t know’. Yes, that IS dumb and useless.

By my arguments I believe I am establishing the likely historicity of Jesus by arguments not commonly used. Again I am saying and have been saying ‘more likely than not’. Upstream you falsely accused me of claiming the definite historicity of Jesus. Then you launched into a campaign of denying that it is possible to know anything, even about Hercules. Then you moved on to arguing what ‘likely’ means. Now you are back to saying that I ‘claim to know already’.

Yes it would be nice to know those things you mentioned. But if I put forth arguments about those you would just say that “I don’t know” is the more accurate position, as you have been saying all along. Might it be that I have presented arguments that you are not familiar with and have no canned responses to? Try reading them, thinking about them and responding cogently and in detail.

 

[Bunyip]

I presented for comments some arguments intended to advance knowledge. But you have repeatedly insisted that I must return to ‘I don’t know’. Yes, that IS dumb and useless.

Alt, I addressed your points - that was just an attack and unnecessary. I keep insisting that claiming knowledge in this case is misplaced, because that is the truth. Calling the contention 'dumb and useless' is a very juvenile dismissal. Please try to think of a logical response instead.

By my arguments I believe I am establishing the likely historicity of Jesus by arguments not commonly used. Again I am saying and have been saying ‘more likely than not’. Upstream you falsely accused me of claiming the definite historicity of Jesus. Then you launched into a campaign of denying that it is possible to know anything, even about Hercules. Then you moved on to arguing what ‘likely’ means. Now you are back to saying that I ‘claim to know already’.

Please Alt, there is no need to lie. I did not at any point deny that it is possible to know anything. Nor have I argued about what 'likely' means. Inventing these false accusations is not necessary or helpful. Please retract them, I thought better of you.

Yes it would be nice to know those things you mentioned. But if I put forth arguments about those you would just say that “I don’t know” is the more accurate position, as you have been saying all along. Might it be that I have presented arguments that you are not familiar with and have no canned responses to? Try reading them, thinking about them and responding cogently and in detail.

I did respond to your arguments, specifically and in detail - instead of responding to them you have sadly chosen to invent some false allegations. Please re -read my responses, you will not find the sins you accuse me of, but will see where I have specifically addressed your points.
If my position here is so untenable, why is it that you feel the need to make up lies instead of responding to my rebuttals?

 

[Bunyip]

Alt Thinker

It seems that the common practice here when my opposition can not address my rebuttals is to simply invent some crazy claim and pretend that I have made it. Please, let's just have a civilised and friendly discussion instead and kindly resist the temptation to assign more false claims to me.

I am very careful about what I say and claim, simple misrepresentation is not helpful.

I can and have backed every claim I have made, I have no need to lie, to distort or to deny and have maintained the same positions from the outset. Lets just stick to the arguments and leave the petty demonisation to others?

 

[Alt Thinker]

Alt Thinker

Your summary of the case was; "The credible historic context, the credible original message of Jesus in the context of the times, Paul’s efforts to explain the death of Jesus, the empty tomb and the evolution of*parousia*all suggest to me that a real historic Jesus is more likely than not."

Mate, credibility within the historical context, Paul's testimony of the post mortem Jesus, the empty tomb are a fragile case for historicity indeed. Nowhere near sufficient. They are suggestive of a historcial Jesus - but how do you get from 'suggestive' to 'more likely than not'?

If you consider these things a fragile case then surely you can find flaws in my arguments. ‘More likely than not’ results from all of these things being suggestive of a historical Jesus with no reasonable alternative explanations that I know of. Multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction. And an embarrassing direction for Christians – that Jesus was just a man who fancied himself a prophet and who got killed for upsetting the apple cart. Without a historic man behind it, why do they need to work so hard to cover this up? Can you provide reasonable alternative explanations? Please do so. Just saying ‘nowhere near sufficient’ does not cut it.

EDIT: I just noticed - You said "Paul's testimony of the post mortem Jesus". I made no mention whatsoever of that. I talked only about Paul's lame explanations for why Jesus got killed. Did you really read my arguments? Perhaps this is why the only part you quote is the summary - that you did not read anything else. I am right aren't I?

 

[Bunyip]

If you consider these things a fragile case then surely you can find flaws in my arguments. ‘More likely than not’ results from all of these things being suggestive of a historical Jesus with no reasonable alternative explanations that I know of. Multiple pieces of evidence all pointing in the same direction. And an embarrassing direction for Christians – that Jesus was just a man who fancied himself a prophet and who got killed for upsetting the apple cart. Without a historic man behind it, why do they need to work so hard to cover this up? Can you provide reasonable alternative explanations? Please do so. Just saying ‘nowhere near sufficient’ does not cut it.

I can only continue if you agree to be honest.

In your last response you accuse me of "denying that it is possible to know anything, even about Hercules"

I made no such claim, would you be kind enough to retract that accusation please?

You also accused me of arguing about what 'likely' means, when I did not do so. Your claim was thatthe historicity of Jesus was MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. Which I assumed to mean greater than 50% probability. Are you denying that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT infers a probability higher than 50%?

Alt I can and will back any and all claims that I have made, but we need to get past the misrepresentations please.

If my position is so easily defeated, none of the false accusations would be necessary, and you would be able to engage with my claims and counter claims directly.

 

[Alt Thinker]

I can only continue if you agree to be honest.

In your last response you accuse me of "denying that it is possible to know anything, even about Hercules"

I made no such claim, would you be kind enough to retract that accusation please?

You also accused me of arguing about what 'likely' means, when I did not do so. Your claim was thatthe historicity of Jesus was MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. Which I assumed to mean greater than 50% probability. Are you denying that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT infers a probability higher than 50%?

Alt I can and will back any and all claims that I have made, but we need to get past the misrepresentations please.

Go back and read the edit I made to this post. I AM right. You did NOT read my arguments. You just want to argue about peripheral nonsense to avoid addressing those arguments. And you call ME dishonest...

 

[Bunyip]

Go back and read the edit I made to this post. I AM right. You did NOT read my arguments. You just want to argue about peripheral nonsense to avoid addressing those arguments. And you call ME dishonest...

No, I do not wish to argue about peripheral nonsense. I'm afraid that I do not see false accusations as peripheral nonsense. Sadly, they form the bulk of the responses I get.

I have read your arguments and responded to each of your points specifically. I am just asking for an honest exchange. And yes, until you retract your false accusations, you are being dishonest.

Why you believe such misrepresentation is needed, I do not know.

I can and will defend any claim I have made. If you can only levy false accusations and deny my rebuttals then no further exchange is likely to be productive.

 

[Bunyip]

Alt Thinker

Sadly, unlike my opposition here I can in fact argue my case without need for insult, deception, distortion, deflection or invention.

If you think you can do the same, why don't we start from scratch?

As to why the case for the historicity of Jesus is insufficient, that is because we have so many important details missing - such as a date and year of birth. Placing a figure in a specific time and place is generally accepted to be an important element of a case for historicity. As would any details about the life of Jesus between his childhood and his mission, details about his parents and so on. (I have said that several times before, but you seem to miss my responses). Connecting Jesus with an actual specific person living in those times has yet to be accomplished.

 

[Alt Thinker]

No, I do not wish to argue about peripheral nonsense. I'm afraid that I do not see false accusations as peripheral nonsense. Sadly, they form the bulk of the responses I get.

I have read your arguments and responded to each of your points specifically. I am just asking for an honest exchange. And yes, until you retract your false accusations, you are being dishonest.

Why you believe such misrepresentation is needed, I do not know.

I can and will defend any claim I have made. If you can only levy false accusations and deny my rebuttals then no further exchange is likely to be productive.

Give me links to your specific responses to each of my points about the reasons for thinking that a historic Jesus is more likely than not. I do not see it. All I saw was a post that looked a whole lot like you never even read my arguments.

And it still looks a whole lot like you are doing everything possible to avoid that.

 

[Bunyip]

Give me links to your specific responses to each of my points about the reasons for thinking that a historic Jesus is more likely than not. I do not see it. All I saw was a post that looked a whole lot like you never even read my arguments.

And it still looks a whole lot like you are doing everything possible to avoid that.

I can and will prosecute my position without any need for dishonesty, diversion, misrepresentation etc etc.

Can we start by your addressing my request and retracting your false accusations (I identified both of them)?

Secondly are you denying that 'more likely than not' infers a probability greater than 50%?
Saying something is likely to be true is a different claim that that it is more likely than not. So I ask how you could have calculated a probability in this case?If by 'more likely than not', you do NOT mean a greater than 50% probability, please simply say so. Then at least we both know what claim it is you are asking me to respond to.

 

[Alt Thinker]

I can and will prosecute my position without any need for dishonesty, diversion, misrepresentation etc etc.

Can we start by your addressing my request and retracting your false accusations (I identified both of them)?

Secondly are you denying that 'more likely than not' infers a probability greater than 50%?

I went through all of our conversations. My 'accusations' as you insist on calling them are not false. I would do a lengthy post with quotes illustrating that but it would simply play into your program of avoiding my arguments concerning the likelihood of a historic Jesus.

I alluded to this before but I will say it more explicitly now. Show me any work by a professional historian in which the likelihood or not of an uncertain historical event is expressed as a percentage. If you cannot then why do you insist that I 'show the math'? (Your phrase) I have put forth multiple arguments that account for aspects of the scriptures that otherwise have no reasonable explanation other than a historic Jesus. Arguments based on evidence that strongly favor a position, in the absence of any counter-arguments, makes that position more likely than not.

You continue to avoid addressing my arguments concerning the likelihood of the historicity of Jesus. Is there any reason why I should not suspect that (a) you are unable to address them or (b) you never actually read them. Your previous substantial error concerning the subject matter suggests (b). That particular error raises the notion that you think I am arguing for a divine Jesus who was raised from the dead. If you actually read my arguments you would immediately see that I am saying just the opposite, that Jesus was only a man who thought of himself as a prophet. But I already said that just now and you failed to respond.

Sounds like you expected old canned arguments that could be addressed with old canned responses. My arguments are rather different. Deal with it. If you can.

 

[Bunyip]

I went through all of our conversations. My 'accusations' as you insist on calling them are not false. I would do a lengthy post with quotes illustrating that but it would simply play into your program of avoiding my arguments concerning the likelihood of a historic Jesus.

I ask only that you validate one of them - that I denying it was possible to know anything, even about Hercules.

That is one false accusation, and a specific one please either retract it or support it by quoting any of my earlier posts. I am pretty sick of the false accusations by this point.

I alluded to this before but I will say it more explicitly now. Show me any work by a professional historian in which the likelihood or not of an uncertain historical event is expressed as a percentage. If you cannot then why do you insist that I 'show the math'? (Your phrase) I have put forth multiple arguments that account for aspects of the scriptures that otherwise have no reasonable explanation other than a historic Jesus. Arguments based on evidence that strongly favor a position, in the absence of any counter-arguments, makes that position more likely than not.

By 'more likely than not' do you mean a prohability greater than 50%? (the third time I have asked, and it addresses a specific accusation of yours - please answer to it).

You continue to avoid addressing my arguments concerning the likelihood of the historicity of Jesus. Is there any reason why I should not suspect that (a) you are unable to address them or (b) you never actually read them. Your previous substantial error concerning the subject matter suggests (b). That particular error raises the notion that you think I am arguing for a divine Jesus who was raised from the dead. If you actually read my arguments you would immediately see that I am saying just the opposite, that Jesus was only a man who thought of himself as a prophet. But I already said that just now and you failed to respond.

Sounds like you expected old canned arguments that could be addressed with old canned responses. My arguments are rather different. Deal with it. If you can.

If you could please resist the temptation for further ad hominem attacks I would appreciate it. I am not arguing for a divine Jesus either by the way, and have no idea where you got that from. I have addressed your arguments repeatedly and specifically. If there is something you think I have missed, please point it out.

 

[Alt Thinker]

I ask only that you validate one of them - that I denying it was possible to know anything, even about Hercules.

That is one false accusation, and a specific one please either retract it or support it by quoting any of my earlier posts. I am pretty sick of the false accusations by this point.

How can you be sure Hercules never existed? How did you figure that?

I don't see your point - surely believing that we don't know if Hercules lived or not is the better option? Claiming confidence either way would be equally illogical wouldn't it?

Well yes, that was my point - that is why I ask you why believing that hercules did not exist is just as illogical as believing that he did. The best position here is uncertainty - confidence either way is equally misplaced.

By 'more likely than not' do you mean a prohability greater than 50%? (the third time I have asked, and it addresses a specific accusation of yours - please answer to it).

And it is the third time that I challenge you to show me any professional historian who was favoring one position over another ever giving a percentage of probability. Historians do not do that. Yet you insist that I do it. Sure sounds like yet another attempt to not address my arguments concerning the likelihood of a historic Jesus. Not trying to avoid that? Then go ahead and address those arguments.

If you could please resist the temptation for further ad hominem attacks I would appreciate it. I am not arguing for a divine Jesus either by the way, and have no idea where you got that from. I have addressed your arguments repeatedly and specifically. If there is something you think I have missed, please point it out.

I most definitely never thought you argued for a divine Jesus. You claimed that one of my arguments was about “Paul's testimony of the post mortem Jesus”. I never even went near Paul talking about a resurrected Jesus. My argument concerning Paul was about his convoluted and unsustainable excuses for why Jesus died. If you had actually read that section instead of misinterpreting my summary you would know that. You were assuming I was making some old familiar argument. I was not.

You have NEVER addressed my arguments concerning the likelihood of a historic Jesus in any but the briefest un-detailed dismissal in which you got my arguments wrong. Your continued diversions when this subject is raised convinces me more and more that you are not able to address them and apparently have not even read them.

Until you can provide arguments against my position concerning the likelihood of a historic Jesus (or favoring it?) , there is really no reason to talk to you anymore. Happy reading.

 

[Bunyip]

Alt Thinker

I was asking you to support your accusation, not repeat it. What Imsaid was that we do not know if hercules was based on a real person or not. A claim of knowledge either way would be equally misplaced.

We do not know if hercules was based on a real person or not, that does NOT mean that we can make no knowledge claims about him.

As to the second point, I was not asking what historians think. I was asking you a direct question: Does ' more likely than not' mean 'greater than 50%'? All I was trying to do was get a clear picture of what you meant - not argue about math.

Lets unpack: Here is my argument against the knowledge claim that Jesus was a real historical person.

You ask for alternative explanations.
Can I then take it that you agree that the historicity of Jesus is an inference to the best explanation, and that is abductive reasoning? This is why you ask for alternative explanations correct?