3 ms·

And Galileo? Look, that’s not the point. Consensus undoubtably can change. The majority of historical scholars in this field are religious. I would love it if

And Galileo? Look, that’s not the point. Consensus undoubtably can change. The majority of historical scholars in this field are religious. I would love it if better evidence could verify the historical Jesus, rather than appeals to authority like you are using. There is compelling lack of evidence to prove Jesus as a historical figure. I never personally questioned it until seeing the lack of evidence.

dorchadas 8y ago
Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus), I hope you don't believe in anything science says. After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. [0] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-reviewed-journal-takes-richard-carriers-jesus-mythicism/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-review...
- owens99 8y ago
  > Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. It's the exact point so many (apologists) make. Unfortunately it's not true. Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 > Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus) Exactly how what percent are atheists? > After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Yes, but the difference is we have evidence for global warming, but we don't for Jesus. > Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Did you link to the right article? This is a religious website, which merely shows one journal disagreed with Carrier. It has no mention of evidence against Carrier's claims nor does it show Carrier is dogmatically motivated. Is this all you got? > Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. FYI Galileo was imprisoned in the 1600s by the Roman Inquisition for promoting the idea that the earth was a sphere that revolved around the sun. Just because plenty of sources knew the earth was a sphere doesn't mean it was consensus. Plenty of scholars believe Jesus is made up, yet here we are.

dorchadas 8y ago

Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus), I hope you don't believe in anything science says. After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. [0] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-reviewed-journal-takes-richard-carriers-jesus-mythicism/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-review...

owens99 8y ago
> Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. It's the exact point so many (apologists) make. Unfortunately it's not true. Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 > Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus) Exactly how what percent are atheists? > After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Yes, but the difference is we have evidence for global warming, but we don't for Jesus. > Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Did you link to the right article? This is a religious website, which merely shows one journal disagreed with Carrier. It has no mention of evidence against Carrier's claims nor does it show Carrier is dogmatically motivated. Is this all you got? > Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. FYI Galileo was imprisoned in the 1600s by the Roman Inquisition for promoting the idea that the earth was a sphere that revolved around the sun. Just because plenty of sources knew the earth was a sphere doesn't mean it was consensus. Plenty of scholars believe Jesus is made up, yet here we are.