Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

My opinion about what constitutes a science may be different from yours.

It's different from the dictionary definition, the academic classification, the lot. It's from the Humpty Dumpty approach to language and is nonsense.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

We're moving into a tangent: the status of 'social sciences'. But it is an interesting tangent. I of course agree they are not exact sciences, but to me (and generally in my culture) there are still sciences. What is a science, according to you and the non-Humpty Dumpty approach to language, then? Please try and provide a clear definition.

Also, what is the status of history in your culture, if not a science? A form of art? A genre of literature?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

History is not a social science. Economics and Sociology are social sciences. Anyway you said History was a science, not a social science. History is counted as one of the humanities, throughout academia.

Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right—' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that SEEMS to be done right—though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now—and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents—'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I did say that history was considered a social science in my culture. Social sciences, as their name imply, are considered sciences. That should go without saying.

The term "humanities" has no equivalent in French that I know of. I looked at the wiki definition and got:

Quote:

The humanities are academic disciplines that study human culture. The humanities use methods that are primarily critical, or speculative, and have a significant historical element[1]—as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural sciences.[1] The humanities include ancient and modern languages, literature, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts such as music and theatre. Areas that are sometimes regarded[by whom?] as social sciences and sometimes as humanities include history, archaeology, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, classical studies, law, semiotics and linguistics.

These "humanities" looks like a catch-all phrase, a loose bag of law, arts and social sciences. A rather vague, dated or down-right obsolete concept, if you don't mind me saying so.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You can say whatever you want, just don't expect me to take any notice.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

My feelings entirely. It's not like A2K is a place to exchange ideas, is it?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You can say whatever you want, just don't expect me to take any notice.

All this statement says to me is, regardless of what argument is presented even if it is a rational one that makes sense, I will just disregard it anyways because it might change my beliefs.

Stubborn to the point of remaining willfully ignorant. Yeah good choice there. If this is really your stance then how can you expect anyone else to take what you say as a perspective of growth or understanding? If you are not willing to do the same?

It's like you have no problem promoting your own ideas but you couldn't care any less what the counter argument has to say. Your opinion is always right and everyone else is wrong by default so there is no need for you to even consider what anyone else has to say.

Great mindset.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, i suppose it depends what one calls science. I thought that was consensual but it doesn't seem to be. To me, history is one of the oldest and most respectable sciences, a very important one, and I don't like people who deny it with facile superficiality. And if they deny evidence, if they peddle lies in the process, and post crappy amateurish websites crying that academia is rotten... i shall call them deniers. It is all very simple for me. It's not about the domain of knowledge, but about the approach to evidence and the relation with academia.

History is the science that allowed you to know about Pyrro... If Pyrro ever existed, of course. :-)

This is off the point, I think. The point is to compare the quantity and quality of the evidence for the historical Jesus against that for BBT, evolution, etc. We can image and measure the cosmic background radiation, measure the velocities of the stars, the accelerating rate of expansion of space, etc etc, but the only evidence for the historical Jesus is that his name appears in a collection of ancient documents, which also includes the story of his birth of a virgin, working various miracles, 3-day death, ascension, god-hood, etc.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Says the Holocaust belittler. I pay no regard to you, mostly because you're thick as ****.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Exchanging ideas is one thing, doggedly sticking your heels in the sand and insisting you have a monopoly on truth is quite another. I have yet to come across any academic institution where History is classed as a science, and no, it's not a cultural thing either.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

This is off the point, I think. The point is to compare the quantity and quality of the evidence for the historical Jesus against that for BBT, evolution, etc. We can image and measure the cosmic background radiation, measure the velocities of the stars, the accelerating rate of expansion of space, etc etc, but the only evidence for the historical Jesus is that his name appears in a collection of ancient documents, which also includes the story of his birth of a virgin, working various miracles, 3-day death, ascension, god-hood, etc.

As explained, I don't think there is any objective way to compare the degree of certainty of the GG versus Jeebus. That would be comparing apple and oranges. You cannot compare a series of texts with some cosmic radiation in terms of what certainty they give. Also I don't feel technically competent to assess the strength of the evidence for and against BB. It does seem very well established empirically but I always found the dark matter invoked to balance the equations a bit fishy. Also I wonder if the BB at time 0 is not an asymptotic limit rather than a 'real' moment in which the entire universe would 'really' concentrated on one point. The latter idea so counter-intuitive that it's almost magical.

But the important difference between a guy like Qehog and me, is that I tend to trust the specialists. I am ready to accept that i am not qualified to assess the strength of the evidence in favor or against the BB, and that some people called astrophysicians are better qualified than I am. I'll go with whatever the consensus among them seems to be, knowing that it could all change tomorrow of course, like it did at the beginning of the 20th century.

In the case of Jeebus, i apply the very same approach. If you really want to re-assess by yourself the body of evidence in a serious manner (not facile, à la Qehog), it will take you some serious study. This is because the evidence goes beyond the Gospels to include greco-roman and rabbinic texts. It also involve the lack of a credible alternative theory.

You could do worse than start with one of the best specialists of the question, Bart Ehrman. I posted an article of his some time back:

http://able2know.org/topic/215173-85#post-5809535

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
This is off the point, I think. The point is to compare the quantity and quality of the evidence for the historical Jesus against that for BBT, evolution, etc. We can image and measure the cosmic background radiation, measure the velocities of the stars, the accelerating rate of expansion of space, etc etc, but the only evidence for the historical Jesus is that his name appears in a collection of ancient documents, which also includes the story of his birth of a virgin, working various miracles, 3-day death, ascension, god-hood, etc.

As explained, I don't think there is any objective way to compare the degree of certainty of the GG versus Jeebus. That would be comparing apple and oranges. You cannot compare a series of texts with some cosmic radiation in terms of what certainty they give. ...

This is where we seem to disagree most fundamentally. People are actively measuring and imaging the cosmic background radiation, the recession of galaxies and a fair handful of other parameters that all strongly support the Standard Model. Nothing comparable is currently available with regards to the historicity of a textual character. It's not apples and oranges except in the magnitude of available evidence. We're not talking about two different universes in which different sets of rules apply. If you make a claim, you need to present supporting evidence, which can be weighed against other evidence. Degrees of certainty are measurable, and the Standard Model has explained the universe to within a few milliseconds of the BB. Asymptotic it may be, but that doesn't invalidate the extant evidence, nor even weaken it to the equivalent of a few stories in an old book that also contains miracles that violate the known laws of the universe.

Let me reiterate that I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this. I'm not making a claim that I know either one to be true or false; I'm only saying that the strength of the evidence isn't equivalent by the standards with which the sciences have found to be most trustworthy.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You also think you are right, izzy. Everybody does, it's the basic idea of a message board. Your parochial classification of history in 'humanities' together with law and theater is not terribly useful.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I'm fine to disagree with anyone. Deniers are not very important, just annoying...

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

You, as a denier, are not important either.

Your presence on message boards, with the only purpose of winning arguments, is derisory..

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm fine to disagree with anyone. Deniers are not very important, just annoying...

I'd like to agree more, but unfortunately there is a troubling number of deniers in the US gummit at the moment. Sadly, they have power.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Actually, let me rephrase that. Jeebus deniers are not very important (it's yesterday's denial), but other types can be important. For instance, people who think 9/11 or the Chralie Hebdo massacre were a con job are unfortunately significant.

0 Replies

@FBM,

I don't know now, but Bush was definitely a Global Warming denier, so i take your point that some deniers are more dangerous than others.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Amen, bruvah.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I don't know now, but Bush was definitely a Global Warming denier, so i take your point that some deniers are more dangerous than others.

I have some conservative views and some liberal views so I don't really take either camp. But as far as human caused global temperature changes, I am still not convinced.

In the past the Earths average global temperature was not a few degrees warmer but it was over twenty degrees warmer than it is now. Most of the planet was covered in tropical forests. 90% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. So even if global temperatures rise things will either be forced to adapt or die. This is not something new.

We know that solar activity is picking up, the sun is actually getting brighter than previously recorded. There is no disputing this information. A sun that puts out more energy will ultimately effect how much solar radiation hits the Earth thus causing it to become slightly warmer.

The Earth's crust actually absorbs carbon dioxide from the air and locks it into the rocks. They don't even need to be molten to do this. The carbon dioxide levels were over 500 times higher in the past than they are now and it was due to millions of years of rocks locking the gas into them. This is why when volcanoes explode they give off lots of carbon dioxide. The molten rock releases the gas. When they explode they give off more CD than all the combined cars do in a year.

Global temperature readings of the other planets in our solar system has also been measured to be on the rise as well. So I guess driving your car is making Mars warmer as well.

The leading people who are pushing for global temperature caused by humans are political leaders who want to impose new taxes so the government and themselves make more money. It is known that Al Gore fraudulently paid for some scientists to claim global temperature rise was due to human activity. Some of these scientists have come forth recently to admit to the findings were doctored to give the results that were wanted rather than how they really are.

I won't deny that humans are extremely wasteful and take huge shits on this planet with how we go about consuming natural resources but as far as effecting global temperatures I am not convinced. There are just too many natural factors involved to say.

We know that the Earth's past temperatures have swung widely from far warmer to far colder. To say humans are speeding up this process is just egocentric.

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know