If you’re a Christian, you almost certainly believe that Jesus existed as a human, was the son of God, performed miracles, died, resurrected, and ascended to heaven.
Even among atheists and agnostics, however, it’s common to believe that Jesus did exist, though he was one hundred percent human and mortal; that he was a religious leader at the time, who inspired a new faith, an offshoot from Judaism.
But did he really exist? If so, what was he like?
Of course, we can’t know with absolute certainty without a time machine. But we can, I believe, look at several theories and interpretations, and figure out which one is the most likely, according to whatever facts we have.
I’ll start by refusing the “he really was the son of God” one. There’s absolutely no proof of that, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan said. I won’t repeat all my reasons here; readers of WotM should know them by now. 
Until recently, however, I believed that Jesus did exist; a fictional being wouldn’t be such a big influence in the world for thousands of years, would he? (ahem…) But how was he like? A meek, religious figure like the Gospels suggest?
Two books, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (and before you say “they’re crackpots”, yes, their Merovingians / Templars / Saunière / Priory of Sion theory was completely wrong, but their research on Jesus through the Gospels does make a lot of sense - and, after all, the Gospels are available to anyone; it’s not as if they’re claiming to have some secret source of information) suggest something different: that Jesus - the “Christ”, or “Messiah”, or “Anointed One” - was more of a political leader, the rightful king of the Jews (in a temporal sense), and was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews, as a real threat to their authority. According to this theory, the Gospels, having been written decades after Jesus’ death, were written for a Roman audience, and therefore turned Jesus into a meek, “turn the other cheek”, “render unto Ceasar” religious figure, removing any political / revolucionary content from his story.
Also according to them, Jesus was always a devout Jew and never intended to create a new religion; it was Paul who did so, always stressing Jesus’ divinity without ever mentioning Jesus’ actions or teachings. Reading Paul’s letters, this is obvious - Paul writes about Jesus as God, not as someone who really lived on Earth, taught men, and died years ago. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln’s conclusion, then, is that Paul “stole” Christianity, using Jesus’ name to create his (Paul’s) own religion.
Which certainly makes a lot of sense.
However, more recently I read about a different theory, in Ebon Musings: that Jesus never existed as a man… and that the early Christians actually believed that.
According to Ebon, to early Christians Jesus died and resurrected in heaven, not on Earth. Some of them even said as much, in writing. Besides, there are no historical mentions of Jesus at the time, or even a hundred years later - and there would have been, if he really had hundreds or thousands of followers, as the Gospels say. This also explains why Paul never wrote about anything Jesus said or did: Paul’s letters were all written before the Gospels, and he wasn’t writing about a man who lived and died on Earth, but who supposedly did so in a spiritual realm.
But what about the Gospels themselves? Well, not only were they written many decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived, but they were written as a story - there are many parts where some events are described even though no disciple of Jesus could have been there, such as:
[...] in Matthew 28:11-15, we see a gospel recording, with no difficulty, things that none of Jesus’ followers should have been there to witness. In this case it is a conspiracy between the temple priests and the guards set at Jesus’ tomb, after the resurrection, when the priests bribed the guards to say the disciples had stolen his body. Was Matthew present to hear this? Again, how is it possible that any gospel records things that none of the gospel writers could have seen?
The list goes on and on. Matthew 27:19 writes about a private message Pilate’s wife sent to him. Matthew 27:3-8 describes how Judas returned his blood money to the priests and then hanged himself out of guilt. (Did he make a quick detour in between to confess to the other disciples?) Luke 7:39 tells us what a Pharisee was thinking.
Besides, it’s accepted that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and the others used it as a source, adding to it, or reinterpreting some parts. The idea here, then, is that Mark was written as a fictional story, and the others were revisions of it. Certainly, none of the authors was present there at the time.
This view is also corroborated by the documentary The God Who Wasn’t There. You can see a part of it here, and I highly recommend it. Among other things, that film shows how every single part of the Jesus story (virgin birth, healing the sick, raising the dead, sacrifice for our sins, resurrecting after 3 days, and many more) existed before, in pagan myths - sometimes, centuries earlier.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Completley (sp?) and utterly true, as always Pedro.
Off Topic: Is it ironic to everone else that all the google ads are the exact opposite of the message of this entire site?
[quote comment="3653"]Completley (sp?) and utterly true, as always Pedro.[/quote]
Thanks!
[quote comment="3653"]Off Topic: Is it ironic to everone else that all the google ads are the exact opposite of the message of this entire site?
:)[/quote]
Yep, their algorithms find words like “Jesus”, “Christianity” and such, and think that that’s what this post is about.
In a way, it is… though not in the usual sense.
I sometimes see ads for atheist sites, though. So there’s hope yet.
Last site I saw for a “atheist” turned out to be a link to “101 facts to why God exists and why hes going to strike you down!”
Well, kiddies, as hard as my life is, I haven’t been hit by lightning, lighting yes, but not lightning.
Please, when lightning hits me, and a thunderous voice does so announce, “all atheists are wrong” then I’ll belive.
K?
Till then I’m happy sitting in my nice little cynical rut!
It has a hot tub!
On a completely side note… I love the picture of Buddy Jesus!! While I didn’t agree with the theological message in the movie Dogma, I did love that it tweaked the Christians.
Hell honest reasonable people even living tweaks xns..
WOW
Firstly, he points out a bit over a hundred Christians… (Out of how many millions that have lived ) that did horrible things… and therefore wouldn’t be living by what a “Xtian” lives by.
Watch TV guys. Or a fucking movie of any kind. You can see DIRECTION immediately. The idea that Christians are BAD people is the FIRST THING IMPLIED.
Then on to the voiding out the religion itself. (Which is fine with me.)
But not when all the facts aren’t known… especially admitting that 30 years of facts aren’t known, and that there was ONE person who wrote the rest according (USING REASON HERE) to his own point of view.
Something that’s so obviousely flawed can’t be taken as truth, Timmy.
On a total side note. I’m sure I’ll be disected and all of my comments will be “Straw manned” by tomorrow, but listen to just ONE thing okay?
The sight itself started (as the one before it) as a place for thinkers. Recently it has become a place for Anti Religion. (Mostly Christian, but hey, now it would be SO politically incorrect to be anti Muslim right now, wouldn’t it? Besides, Christianity is POPULAR, and we HATE the popular kids)
Anti religion. Think about that for a second.
Seperation from most of humanity.
I myself have been called (Directly or indirectly… not sure at this time but STILL) a person who is NOT logic based. (Someone of which you would think could never even make it through middle school… but hey.. who’s counting?)
Anti Religion… what a great thing to be?
Hitler, (or the people he answered to at least) were anti ONE religion.
The religions you preach against were all anti another religion.
Anti religion… those stupid people… how could they think such a thing… they all need to wake up.
They are all… inferior.
Anybody religious or not who can desipher right from wrong can see the problem here. If I have to explain it to you… let me know.
But I used to be excited when I saw a new post on this sight. Now I just think… what NOW?
PS… FSM rocks.
I am sorry Xtianity has had, oh, occording to yourselves, the enitre period of the universe to come up with a viable and undespitable argument.
Atheism has had, oooo about 400 years.
We certainly seem to be winning despite the 4-billion year behind start, wouldn’t you say?
No viable facts of God or gods existence (Extraodinary claims, Extrodinary proof)
No viable facts of Jesus’s divinity.
Hell, the only thing you got on us is what I call
“Anti-Proof”, go read the article on God-Of-Gaps, because the OTHER side dosen’t have proof you say that YOUR right, despite having no proof yourself.
THE SITE!
Its become a place for anti-religon, and you want to destroy it?! Hell its one of the few powerbases we have, how bout you balance this out a little and go burn down 95% of your churches, and tell the people to THINK!
Anti-religions (not singular religions, theism in general)have barley been given a chance, because, on a fair play field, we’d win.
By the way, I’m anti-christian, yes, but not in the same way you describe being anit-muslim. I’d never kill for my beliefs (screw that, not my beliefs, what I know to be true), as the christians have so often done. I’d gladly die if the world would come to its senses.
Furthermore
How much money is spent on religion Per year? Enough, I think to cure cancer in a decade or so. Hell my school spent 500 000AUD on a chapel, in one year. In that same year they spent under 4k on media, and under 10k on the ENTIRE COMPUTING DEPARTMENT.
Somehow, I don’t think that thats a level playing field.
Oh and.
Hot-Tub, yeah you want some atheist hot tub, you aint getting no… (contiues on)
Kren,
It is worth noting that you jump to the old tactic xns have been using from the get go: the “Poor us” tactic. With no basis in reality, nor reason, you simply attack those who point out these deficiencies implying when not asserting that they are identical to Hitler, etc.
What you call “anti-religion” or “antixn” is simply REASON and REALITY. It is identical to pointing out that a square has four sides and four 90 degree corners.
The mistake is understanding in one sense, in that you admit to being anti-logic, however since logic is the only tool we have to know reality, it means that your claims will not and cannot reflect or even actually refer to reality.
I don’t know what you are watching, but the number of xn shows has been increasing for decades. The xn movie niche has gotten the attention of the big players such that there are any number of xn movies coming out each year.
As for xnty being popular, sadly this is true. It is so popular that one xn nation has begun a “crusade” (the actual word used repeated by the head of this religious state) against muslims. Naturally this is of course very xn of him, but it is also obviously purely evil. That he enjoys the support of his xn “brothers” speaks of the great harm that this religion brings. Standing up for what is right does put the honest person at odds with xnty, but that does not make him “antireligion” in the sense you try to imply.
I am “anti-religion” in the same sense that I am “anti-santa claus” Being a reasonable, and if I do say so reasonably intelligent person, I understand that santa claus does not exist, but I do not base my life on it. So too with the xn god and the inherently evil aspects of the religion. I am aware of these objective facts, but I do not base my life on it. In fact I give over very little of my life or thought to the religious nonsense, though admittedly the evils of religion as seen in Iraq at the hands of xns has taken up more time as of late, but this is only appropriate for good people cannot help but be so affected by evil.
Now you make the error of thinking that because a belief of yours is false, that others must assume that you are inferior. Clearly, or it would be clear if you had not walked away from logic (or never approached it), this is fallacious reasoning. If I point out that your barn is red, I am not insulting you. So too with the idea that there is a god, or that xnty is good, or that murder, rape, theft, slavery, and the other elements of xnty are good.
Ideas are not our children, we ought not treat them as such.
Pointing out elements of the idea is not an insult to you, and it does not mean that anyone thinks less of you as a person. Remmeber that honest reasonable people do not follow the dictates of religion to devalue any who do not believe.
Let me add that this one wasn’t about whether God exists or not, but about who Jesus was - if he existed at all.
EDIT: Ah, I think I get it: Kren’s reply was about the post below this one. His mention of the FSM is a clue.
Jesus: Guy with a superiority complex, on more magic mushrooms than the entire 12th year at my school, and fanatical religious beliefs.
That was easy.
Tim- WTF?
I don’t recall stating that Xtianity is RIGHT in that post. Pedro adds that just above. And I noted that FSM rocks because I thought the sight was hillarious a year or so ago. The fact that it’s getting recognition is awesome.
And it’s not just about the reply, it’s about many posts and replys in the past few months.
The fact that the sight is turning down an anti religion path doesn’t mean I want to destroy it. I like this sight, otherwise I wouldn’t come here. Even arguements with TX are good for me to learn from. Religion or lack thereof is a good topic to talk about. Yet, talking, and judging are two different things.
TX- I didn’t mean to imply any “poor us” Xtain tactics. Every race and or religion has been persecuted against at one time or another and some even whiped clear off the earth. It has nothing to do with that. It’s the basic mind set that ANY group of people is inferior… which you seem to cow tow to. Even in the post above, you seem to paint a picture that you are merely pointing out peoples flaws and have no other feelings beyond that toward religion. However you even mention the crusades, and Iraq, which if you really look at either one of those situations the problems are actually greed of power.
You also state that religious people are not logical. Which is obviousely a false statement. I’ve given examples before of logically based people who were very religious. Thinking that alone would mean that you view religious people as inferior to you in the form of inteligence, or logic.
Being anti religion has nothing to do with Reason, unless you’re looking for a REASON to downplay people. For instance, you don’t have to be Anti religion and Atheist at the same time.
In fact, it would be hypocrytical to say that religious people are inferior, because their religion makes them judge others unfairly. That itself, is an unfair judgement.
Religious BELIEF is not logical, a religious person can be logical, obviously, however belief in something, such as a deity, as opposed to belief in a person (I belive you can do this well etc), is irrational, as its based not on collected evidence, not on careful deduction, hell it’s not even based on educated guessing, its based on seeing something that you (not an attack on you Kren, I like the word “you”) don’t understand and using the quickest explanation for it.
Or it’s “Projection Theory”, the need to be judged and observed by something not human (i.e. perfect), so we create something to do it for us. Think about humanity, “Democracy” a group of people trying to cover each others faults so they can act as a judge and an observer, or “fame”, the judgment and observation of others.
Kren,
The primary problem here is one of sound reasoning. You have admitted that you have abandoned it in favor of faith, but then you try to argue that your claims are true, despite the absence and even shunning of sound reasoning. This approach will simply never work.
Here again it is clear that you are not treating ideas as ideas, but as your own children. You are responding emotionally to factual statements, imposing your own emotional reactions to otherwise simply objectively true statements.
I did not make the claim that all religous people are not logical people. This is another of your famous strawman attacks. However as Timmy notes, it is not possible to reasonably reach the conclusion that there is some magical mystical impossible being watching your every move. Don’t (again) make the part-whole fallacy and assume that this means that the individual always and necessarily shuns logic simply because he/she avoids/shuns it in a particular instance.
Notice how YOU assume that by pointing out the failings with regard to logic, one must be looking down on the other, but no where in my own statements can you actually find that attitude. What you do here is reveal how YOU choose to look at those with whom you disagree. Reasonable individuals however can point out facts, clearly objective descriptors without adding some value judgement to the person themselves.
As to the notion that I assume that any group of individuals is inferior as a whole, you of course have exactly zero basis for making this claim. This is yet another of your red herrings (in this case specifically it is an ad hominem attack) which is inteded to draw attention away from the lack of sound reasoning in your position. BTW it is “Kowtow”
“I’ve given examples before of logically based people who were very religious.”
This is simple a false claim.
“In fact, it would be hypocrytical to say that religious people are inferior, because their religion makes them judge others unfairly. That itself, is an unfair judgement.”
Ah, but you see no one is taking the position you are attributing to me. You are the only one who has introduced the idea and the practice of looking down upon others because of their beliefs. While it is true that religion does encourage and dictate that others who do not share the belief are of no value, it does not follow that those who point this out are “anti-religion” in the sense you are using it.
You’ve assumed that there is an “anti-religion” bias in play without any evidence of this. You mistake honest, objective, verifiable statements about religion for an irrational bias against religion. You say that being anti-religion has nothing to do with reason, but then you blindly and baselessly label any and all who dare to offer up honest objective, verifiable statements about religion, that is to say those who employ reason, as being ‘anti-religion.” Of coruse this is a false dichotomy, but it is also simply intellectually dishonest as it is merely a tactic to draw attention away from the fact that you have nothing upon which to base your claims, your arguments, and your assumptions.
Timmy- Perfectly sound arguement, but not against the actual point of my post. Let me clarify that.
The belief that any group of people is inferior to you is… bigotry. Religion is one large group of people. To think that they are all inferior, is, therefore a large form of bigotry, or prejudice.
TX-
[quote post="160"]“I’ve given examples before of logically based people who were very religious.”
This is simple a false claim.[/quote]
I looked back, and I gues I posted that on some other forum recently. So yes, that statement must have been false. Let me give an example now.
Einstien.
Newton.
Done.
I’m sorry about all of my STRAWMEN. But not once did you actually debate MY position this time. Which is that the sight itself seems to be heading in an anti religious direction which IMO, is a bad one, which may convince people that belief in God is bad. Which it isn’t.
Yes, in YOUR definition of religion, believing in God is a structured belief that all who don’t agree are inferior, IS bad. Again IMO.
But I for one am religious yet don’t have such a superiority complex, and I am not the only one.
Of this at least I am sure.
[quote post="160"]You’ve assumed that there is an “anti-religion” bias in play without any evidence of this.[/quote]
ANY evidence? Correct me if I’m reading wrongly between the lines here, but you yourself seem to have an anti religion bias, by pointing out horrible things that happened “because of religion”, and never once pointing out a good thing. Like Mother Theresa, or Muhatma Ghandi, who based almost all of his actions upon his own religion, freeing many people from tirany. When you focus on all of the bad aspects of something, you are being bias.
This sight itself, has many religiously bias posts.
[quote post="158"]Strike up a conversation with a religious person, and claim to be a member of any religion other than the one of your subject. Usually this will result in a nod, or maybe a weird look, or maybe some questions.
Now, strike up another conversation with a religious person, and this time, say you are an atheist. Whole other ball of wax, huh? Popular reactions include:
* “You’re Stupid”
* “You’re going to hell”
* “I’ll pray for you”
* “You think you have all the answers, huh?”
Which is something I didn’t post in reply to at that time, yet obviously is an anti religious point of view.
I’ll post on that one next. Anyways, thanks for all of the rebutles TX.
Einstein used the word “God” for the universe. He certainly didn’t believe in a personal, intelligent, designer god. I may write about that one in the future.
Anyway, you’re saying that this blog has becoming more and more anti-religion. The point is: it always was… among other things. I’ve simply been reading a lot about religion, religious history and atheism recently, and it reflects on what I write.
I am anti-religion - or, more precisely, anti-faith, or, even more precisely, pro-reason.
No, this blog isn’t “all atheism, all the time”. Just look at the categories list (back from the dead!) on the right, and click on any of them. But you can’t fault me for writing about what I want to write about.
I agree with TXStorm, by the way: you are treating your ideas as if they were your children, who need protection. And you’re responding emotionally to any perceived “attacks” on them. I’m not attacking anyone; I simply say what I think. Offending anyone is not my goal. I hope you don’t give up on this blog.
By the way (getting on-topic), what do you think about this post? Do you believe Jesus existed? Was he the son of God, a mortal preacher, or something else? Why?
Pedro, I didn’t mean to respond emotionally. But I do stand by my opinnion that being “anti” someones elses point of view will lead to prejudice.
I think there was a guy who lived who whose tales have been told. Maybe they’ve become tall ones like Paul Bunyan. People refer to him as Jesus. Being the son of God, I don’t know. After all of the years and languages his story has been through, who knows what was added or mistranslated.
I am of the opinnion that this guy had some great things to teach. Things that people couldn’t ignore because they were so downright true, that they ended up writing it down and passing it around.
My own thoughts are different from most who think that he died on the cross and now we’re saved from sin. I think he was trying to teach us how to save ourselves.
Why do I believe that? The teachings themselves make so much sense to me, and so does the fact that he died trying to teach them.
Like Galileo being imprisonned for telling everyone that the earth revolves around the sun.
I know those things are different, science and faith, but they are the same in the fact that one person realized something nobody else had at that time and was punished for trying to tell them.
Kren,
You seem to be very confused on many points. First off you claim that I did not respond to your argument simply because I was so easily able to completely refute it. Clearly your claim is false, as is evidenced by that refutation.
“Yes, in YOUR definition of religion, believing in God is a structured belief that all who don’t agree are inferior, IS bad. Again IMO.”
Notice how your strawman arguments are getting increasingly absurd? No where can you find any hint of the claim of inferiority, yet you explicitly state that this is my belief (which demonstrates your own presumptions of omniscience) despite having it explicitly disproved in the post to which you were responding.
“But I for one am religious yet don’t have such a superiority complex, and I am not the only one.”
Your posts scream to the contrary.
“ANY evidence? Correct me if I’m reading wrongly between the lines here, but you yourself seem to have an anti religion bias, by pointing out horrible things that happened “because of religion”, and never once pointing out a good thing. Like Mother Theresa, or Muhatma Ghandi, who based almost all of his actions upon his own religion, freeing many people from tirany. When you focus on all of the bad aspects of something, you are being bias.”
Not only is your claim wrong in principle, it is wrong in fact as well. When I point out that a square has four sides, I am not being biased against triangles. Your argument necessitates that I would be biased against every shape but the square…
The good of Ghandi came not from religion, but from reading Thoreau. The others have similar explanations, but that is completely tangential.
Your argument still remains completely circular: “There is a anti-religious bias because there is an anti-religious bias” No where do you offer evidence which could support your claims.
To split hair with Pedro, I am not anti-religion in the sense that this is my focus, rather as he said, I too am pro-reason and pro-reality. This means that of course I will scoff at appeals to illusion, falsehoods, and fallacious belief. This goes double when the speaker is claiming, as you do, that falsehoods must be true becuase you “feel” that they are true. When someone such as yourself chooses to try to bastardize reason such that faith has the illusion of value I am inclined to call them on it. We could easily point out that you are in fact anti-reason. You have stated it in fact, unlike your accusations against others. So given that you are anti-reason as you claim, then why do you try to use reason to argue for your false claims? Why not just stipulate that they are faith-true (as opposed to really true)?
BTW as to those you claim were “very religious” I would point out that you are playing very fast and loose with the terms. While they may have participated in the church of their time, as was SOCIALLY expected, this is not evidence that they shunned reason for faith. As for Einstein, if I recall correctly his “very religious” stance was that without anything else to explain a particular event, we might as well call it god for now…. Not exactly the little old lady condemning them youngsters for playing on Sunday…
“I know those things are different, science and faith, but they are the same in the fact that one person realized something nobody else had at that time and was punished for trying to tell them.”
Actually since in one case there is at best unfounded belief, and the other good (if rudimentary) science, these two are not in fact identical as you claim. There is no evidence that jebus “realized” anything at all, in fact quite the opposite is true if you belief the religous claims. “He” claimed that the impossible must exist, which means that in fact it was not “realized” but rather fictionalized, or imagined. Gallileo discovered a fact about the universe, so yes realized it.
The sole similarity is that they were both punished, if there was ever a jesus that is, but you seem to have forgotten who it was that punished Gallileo.. the Xn Church! This is understandable since killing knmowledge and learning is necessary for the church to grow.
TX- I did NOT state what is in the below quotes, so please don’t quote me on it.
[quote post="160"]Your argument still remains completely circular: “There is a anti-religious bias because there is an anti-religious bias” No where do you offer evidence which could support your claims.[/quote]
My position AGAIN, was that the sight itself is heading in an anti religioun direction, and that would be bias.
As far as not having evidence, how does this work for you?
[quote post="160"]Anyway, you’re saying that this blog has becoming more and more anti-religion. The point is: it always was… among other things. I’ve simply been reading a lot about religion, religious history and atheism recently, and it reflects on what I write.[/quote]
Kren,
You really should not shun logic if you are going to try to use it. You say “My position AGAIN, was that the sight itself is heading in an anti religioun direction, and that would be bias.” WHICH IS PURELY CIRCULAR AS I POINTED OUT.
Had you not dismissed reason as unacceptable to you you might have come across the notion of a false dichotomy, which is the description for your tactic in this case. Being pro-reason does not necessitate any bias against religion, it merely results in refuting the absurdities of religion since religion is ANTI-REALITY and ANTI-Reason.
I notice that you ignore the previous explanations… I am sure there are “reasons” for this… just not good ones.
BTW a bias is a prejudiced, irrational force which determines the outcome prior to examination. In other words it is a method of religion, not reason. You mistaken assume that since reality is contrary to religion, reality must be in error (so you call it a bias) without accepting that in fact reality is not mistaken, rather it is merely your belief.
You’ve never given any hint of evidence of any such pre-judgement. Certainly all of your claims about me have been shown to be not merely absurd, but grossly dishonest on your part.
[quote post="160"]Certainly all of your claims about me have been shown to be not merely absurd, but grossly dishonest on your part.[/quote]
It was not “grossly dishonest” of me to point out that you misquoted me. It was a claim that was true, as anybody can see above.
That arguement may be circular, sure, I assumed that maybe you could reach into that sophisticated brain of yours to see what I was trying to say.
In my opinnion the sight itself is heading in an anti religioun direction, and that would be bias. The anti religion part is true, admittedly by pedro. The bias part is not something it is either, only something it could be headed toward. Think about it. Take any viewpoint that automatically comes to the conclusion that a group of humans is bad. That’s a bias, is it not? I did not say that this sight IS bias, but (as I have clearly pointed out) that clip is.
My fear was that if the sight’s contents might become the same.
Hmm, I think that “bias” thing deserves a post. Later today, I hope.
Kren,
At best you are playing games, but certainly you are not using the word “bias” per its meaning.
You say: Take any viewpoint that automatically comes to the conclusion that a group of humans is bad. That’s a bias, is it not?
Okay so let’s follow that reasoning, so any viewpoint which aoutomatically comes to the conclusion that a shape with four equal sides and four right angles is a square is biased.
Bias is not determined by the conclusion, what you are presenting is merely your personal dislike of the necessary and true conclusions. Bias occurs, if it occurs at all, at the other end, that is to say at the beginning. Bias is a judgement before the facts are in, before reason has a chance to enter into it. So faith requires bias, but reason necessarily cannot. You complain that when one thinks critically, employs sound reasoning, and comes to a true conclusion that they are being biased, but you fail to describe any element of bias in making these accusations.
TX-
[quote post="160"]Okay so let’s follow that reasoning, so any viewpoint which aoutomatically comes to the conclusion that a shape with four equal sides and four right angles is a square is biased.[/quote]
I didn’t state that. It’s nice how you twist what I say to make it work for you in a totally different manner.
This is what I said:
[quote post="160"]Take any viewpoint that automatically comes to the conclusion that a group of humans is bad. That’s a bias, is it not?[/quote]
Notice how the two are different?
Should I explain to you that humans aren’t two dimentional shapes?
Notice how the same logic doesn’t work with both BECAUSE humans aren’t two dimensional shapes? Or that a group of them are different individuals, and therefore could never be MEASURED with such logic?
[quote post="160"]Bias is a judgement before the facts are in, before reason has a chance to enter into it[/quote]
This is what I meant when I said “… automatically comes to the conclusion…” Sorry if that confused you, I don’t think it really did, I think you’re trying to view what I stated as the opposite, or just twisting my words again.
[quote post="160"]You complain that when one thinks critically, employs sound reasoning, and comes to a true conclusion that they are being biased, but you fail to describe any element of bias in making these accusations.[/quote]
Again, that was not at all my position. First, my “complaint” was, again, the opposite. When people come to conclusions when the facts AREN’T all there. Like the element that I DID describe in that video clip.
Everything that you wrote there was a horrid missjudgement of everything that I stated.
Hmmm… when you create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent… isn’t there a word for that?
Kren,
You are begging the question. The argument form remains invalid as demonstrated, all you have done is denied the nature of sound reasoning. In no way did I twist your words, in fact the truth is that I kept them perfectly in order (as the use of counter-example demonstrates).
You claim that “everything” I demosntrated was “the opposite” of what you stated, yet as can be clearly seen, what I have done is use your exact argument as you stated it. I understand that given your own admission that you shun logic, shun the use of reason, that you might not FEEL that the two are identical, since the counter-examples demonstrate that the argument you offer is logically invalid, but that FEELING does not change the facts.
You have contradictory claims, which further weaken the position that bias exists where you dislike the necessary conclusions from sound arguments. You claimed that the site has a distinct anti-religion bias, (by which you can only mean that the individuals here have that bais, since only sentient being can have a bias) but then you claim that you actually meant to say that bias is a judgement BEFORE the facts are in. Yet your complaints arise not from any such pre-judgement, but from THE APPLICATION OF SOUND REASONING. Unable to address that reasoning, you employ ad hominem and equivocation, choosing to mis-characterize the intentions, motivations, and nature of the individuals rather than addressin the arguments.
Now, to make further clear that the demonstration that your argument form is in fact invalid, you claim that the argument does not work logically, but you do not address any element of the actual argument itself. Instead you try to bring in irrelevencies to distract from the fact that the form remains invalid. That humans are not two dimensional objects has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Squares are not round, but I could apply the argument to circles also in demonstrating the invalidity of the form.
Of if you prefer we could simply put it into symbolic logic form so as to make it even more clear, but since you have chosen to shun logic, again by your own admission, I have little confidence that this method would make it any more clear to you.
[quote post="160"]In no way did I twist your words, in fact the truth is that I kept them perfectly in order (as the use of counter-example demonstrates). [/quote]
You did not keep them in “perfect order” as blatantly shown above. The counter example demonstrates how off it was.
[quote post="160"]what I have done is use your exact argument as you stated it.[/quote]
Again, look at the quotes above. This is a lie TX. Not only did you twist my words then, but look here:
[quote post="160"] You claimed that the site has a distinct anti-religion bias[/quote]
AGAIN, let me show you what I ACTUALLY stated:
[quote post="160"]In my opinnion the sight itself is heading in an anti religioun direction, and that would be bias.[/quote]
IN FACT, I ALSO stated:
[quote post="160"]The bias part is not something it is either, only something it could be headed toward.[/quote]
Please stop accusing me of stating things that I didn’t.
[quote post="160"]Now, to make further clear that the demonstration that your argument form is in fact invalid, you claim that the argument does not work logically, but you do not address any element of the actual argument itself. Instead you try to bring in irrelevencies to distract from the fact that the form remains invalid. That humans are not two dimensional objects has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. Squares are not round, but I could apply the argument to circles also in demonstrating the invalidity of the form.
Of if you prefer we could simply put it into symbolic logic form so as to make it even more clear, but since you have chosen to shun logic, again by your own admission, I have little confidence that this method would make it any more clear to you. [/quote]
I claimed that the same logic doesn’t work with both things. The fact that humans aren’t two dimensional objects is EXACTLY why the logic doesn’t work with both things.
Since MY claim was… AGAIN
[quote post="160"] Take any viewpoint that automatically comes to the conclusion that a group of humans is bad. That’s a bias, is it not?[/quote]
Another reason why (and I can’t believe I didn’t see this before) your rebutle was so off is that my position was about coming to a conclusion before the facts are in play, your rebutle is in the nature of HAVING facts in play.
TX, I can’t argue with you if you’re going to misquote me and argue against your own made up position of mine.
Kren,
Fine, you have acknowledged that you shun logic, though here you pretend to be an expert on it, though you put your FEELINGS over the facts. So here is the symbolic form of your argument, as well as that of the analogy used to demonstrate that the argument form is invalid.
(XY)-> Z (where Z= “bad”)
Another way of putting it is (XY) -> -X
Neither of these is a valid argument form.
Now you will likely claim that because your argument was symbolized, and you did not use the symbols, that it is not your argument, but will no more fly than your other false claims about the refutation.
“I claimed that the same logic doesn’t work with both things.”
Logic is not selective in this sense, which means purely subjective. Again you are essentially claiming that because you really really want for your argument to be valid, that we should dismiss the refutations based upon pointing out that the argument form is necessarily invalid (therefore does NOT lead to your desired conclusion)
Nonetheless you cannot get past the fact that you have asserted knowledge of the intentions and mental states of others here (as you must when you attribute bias) without offering one whit of evidence, and in fact basing the claims solely upon the fact that sound reasoning simply leads to conclusions you dislike.
As for your claims that I have lied, I would ask that you retract these with an apology. You are basing your claim solely upon your own admitted shunning of logic, as opposed to any facts. I have not twisted your words in any fashion, rather I showed what necessarily follows from your claims.
BTW if your complaint is one of sentience not existing in squares, or some other irrelevant element then you need to have that in your argument (and no it is not introduced by appealing to humans, as not even humans are mentioned, much less necessary to the argument)
I mention this because if you were to spell out the argument that I suspect you wish you had made, you will find that it will devolve into absurdity before you can finish it, thus negating any need for the easy refutations based upon the invalidity of form.
I won’t appologize when there is nothing to apologize for.
I SHOWED you how lied. I wasn’t basing my claim on my own “shunning of logic” when if FACT you DID state that I stated something, I DIDN’T STATE.
AGAIN
[quote post="160"]I have not twisted your words in any fashion, rather I showed what necessarily follows from your claims.[/quote]
I don’t know how many times I’ll have to show you this, but:
This is what you said about me.
[quote post="160"]You claimed that the site has a distinct anti-religion bias[/quote]
When here are two quotes of what I actually DID say:
[quote post="160"]In my opinnion the sight itself is heading in an anti religioun direction, and that would be bias.[/quote]
And:
[quote post="160"]The bias part is not something it is either, only something it could be headed toward.[/quote]
It’s funny how when I stated that I’d not be able to argue with you when you twist my words, you deny it AGAIN, and then DO IT AGAIN:
[quote post="160"]BTW if your complaint is one of sentience not existing in squares, or some other irrelevant element then you need to have that in your argument (and no it is not introduced by appealing to humans, as not even humans are mentioned, much less necessary to the argument)[/quote]
Now my arguement, something I said… several times:
[quote post="160"]Take any viewpoint that automatically comes to the conclusion that a group of humans is bad. That’s a bias, is it not?[/quote]
Notice the word HUMANS there?
WOW, are you reading every other word?
Now back to the argument itself. You STILL keep the direction that when I said what’s last quoted up there, I DIDN’T mean being bias, when I did. (As I previousely explained to you.) When a bias would mean that your X, or Y, or both would be missing and the conclusion would still be the same, decided regardless of what X or Y COULD be.
You state that I have shunned logic, and point to a logic that I didn’t actually shun. A position I didn’t actually take. That is another strawman.
On a side note, just 2 more things.
1. You might be right when it comes to that equation and judging a large group of humans, but I still don’t THINK so. When it comes to deciding that a group of people is bad, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be so simple. When judging that even ONE person is bad, mathematical equations USUALLY don’t have much to do with it, and in FACT wether or not even that ONE person is bad can be purely circumstantial.
Notice how I can admit that I might be wrong, and even when you’re SHOWN that you’ve twisted my words you can’t admit to even that much of an obviouse thing.
2. I won’t have this conversation anymore. I told you that I wouldn’t continue if you were going to use strawman tactics, something you yourself have called me dishonest for and then… (see above)
If I missunderstood something that you said. I DO apologize, but at best you’ve been extremely dishonest and ignore anything I have to say, ignore my real position, deny any misquote SHOWN to you, and claim that I have shunned logic, using a strawman. If any appology was in need here, it would need to come from you sir.
Guys… this is becoming too much. Not only is this way past “off-topic”, but, while not actually insulting each other, you are becoming very “un-nice”.
I won’t attempt to “censor” either of you, as I respect you both, and have enjoyed the comments by both of you so far. But I ask you: please, move on from this one. You’re so far from the origin of the disagreement that nothing productive can come from here.
If you want to comment about the historical Jesus (remember? :)), however, feel free to do so.
As to the “bias”, I have a new post in mind about it.
Pedro out of respect for you I will drop it with the one last comment to Kren:
Kren,
I suspect that your gross mischaracterizations and dishonest representations stem from your admitted shunning of logic (btw it is not “a” logic, but logic). Certainly your claims are false, including the personal attacks. All I can suggest is before you claim to be an expert in a subject you should first study it.
I studied religion in school for 8 years and my final exam was about this topic, so I guess I qualify on commenting on this. What you said is written in the Two books, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln is exactly right. Jesus as a human did exist, but he was a jewish political leader, which was the reason that he was executed. Crucification was the typical method of execution somebody by Romans. There are also non-religious sources that prove that this man lived, but there was nothing devine about him. One source even reports the execution of Jesus’ brother. But there were hundreds of people at this time pretending to be prophets and supposedly healing people and bringing them back to life.
The ebon theory is nonsense.