Are you an atheist?

[Frothingslosh]

Are you claiming Jesus didn't exist as a person in history? At least as a somewhat notable basis for the tale?

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

 

[ConnorGiles]

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

I read somewhere that they found some sort of parchment that backed "Someone" named Jesus existing around that time.

But not proclaiming he had healing powers and was the son of god. Pretty sure (may have imagined it) I read somewhere Jesus was found out to be a much darker skin colour than is depicted aswell.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I read somewhere that they found some sort of parchment that backed "Someone" named Jesus existing around that time.

But not proclaiming he had healing powers and was the son of god. Pretty sure (may have imagined it) I read somewhere Jesus was found out to be a much darker skin colour than is depicted aswell.

There's a real problem with any documentation claiming to prove Jesus lived then. "Jesus" is a corruption of the name Yeshua (a common alternative to Yehoshuah), which translated to Iesous in Greek and thus to Iesus in Latin, and thus became Jesus. It was a hilariously common name then - it also became the name 'Joshua' in use in modern times - and it would be like looking for a 'William' in an Anglican country today.

Because of that, you can know for a fact that any documentation claiming to be from that time but with the name "Jesus" in it is a forgery.

Edit: Oh, second half of your quote. Jesus would have been a Semitic Jew living in Judea in Roman times. He would have absolutely been fairly brown-skinned, with short, curly black hair, and probably not very tall. The tall white Jesus with long straight blonde or light brown hair is absolutely a fiction of Western European making.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point:

You asked if he's saying Jesus didn't exist. I pointed out he's merely saying that there's not a shred of proof that Jesus did exist.

Certainly he's using the second to infer the first, but he still merely said that there was no actual proof whatsoever. In fact, he very carefully didn't say that there was never some guy name Yeshua running around preaching to the rabble, because then the burden of proof would be on him.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point:

You asked if he's saying Jesus didn't exist. I pointed out he's merely saying that there's not a shred of proof that Jesus did exist.

Certainly he's using the second to infer the first, but he still merely said that there was no actual proof whatsoever. In fact, he very carefully didn't say that there was never some guy name Yeshua running around preaching to the rabble, because then the burden of proof would be on him.

I think he said no trivial evidence and means no contemporary however trivial evidence.

I don't disagree with that - I was asking if that he thought a real life basis for Jesus existed. One the facts of whom if we had them (we don't) we would recognise as the basis for Jesus.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

What the fallacy isn't part.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I think he said no trivial evidence and means no contemporary however trivial evidence.

I don't disagree with that - I was asking if that he thought a real life basis for Jesus existed. One the facts of whom if we had them (we don't) we would recognise as the basis for Jesus.

1. If Jesus had existed, then there is evidence
somewhere.
2. There is no evidence of Jesus Anywhere.
3. Therefore, Jesus never existed.

"Modus Tollens"

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

The last part of the article gave some points where you could prove a negative, at least some of the time. Basically, 'you cannot prove a negative' is an extreme oversimplification, which can be proven wrong any number of ways as a general principle.

Better would have been 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and 'the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim'. Fanatics especially hate the last one.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Not sure which points in the article you are referring to but the one mentioned regarding the correspondence seems false to me, and the comments regarding the maths examples seemed out of tune with the main issue, that is what is the negative they were proving, it seemed akin to me saying there is no such thing as pasta and somebody popping over to Tesco and buying a packet.

Of course it could be that I am not bright enough, a negative easily proved.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Not sure which points in the article you are referring to but the one mentioned regarding the correspondence seems false to me, and the comments regarding the maths examples seemed out of tune with the main issue, that is what is the negative they were proving, it seemed akin to me saying there is no such thing as pasta and somebody popping over to Tesco and buying a packet.

Of course it could be that I am not bright enough, a negative easily proved.

Brian

Hehe

They were just showing that, as a broad statement, 'You cannot prove a negative' is wrong, because for it to be true, it would need to apply at all times. Then they brought up examples where you CAN prove a negative, such as a claimed statement not being in the document someone said it was in, or by using something logical techniques like reductio ad absurdum and proof by contradiction.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Which is why you said

Better would have been 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and 'the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim'. Fanatics especially hate the last one.

Thanks

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

Me and a colleague of mine have just had a debate on proving negatives and we stumbled across "Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy" and remembered this phrase. (Relates to religion).

The Babel fish.

This in my mind proves a negative.

(Given if it was real, try changing the Babel fish with anything someone religious says was created by god due to its complicity.)

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

So lets take this Babel fish and replace it with something commonly placed as "can only have been made by god" - The Human Eye.

Opinions?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Hehe

They were just showing that, as a broad statement, 'You cannot prove a negative' is wrong, because for it to be true, it would need to apply at all times. Then they brought up examples where you CAN prove a negative, such as a claimed statement not being in the document someone said it was in, or by using something logical techniques like reductio ad absurdum and proof by contradiction.

Yes - so what you are saying is you have no contradiction generally for God.

A contradiction for Jesus exactly as in the bible - is in the bible. But a contradiction for Jesus the man does not seem to exist.


As for who should carry the burden of truth - as an agnostic. Should I be looking to the theist to prove his idea, or to the atheist to proof his with a contradiction.

Which is logical?

 

[ConnorGiles]

Yes - so what you are saying is you have no contradiction generally for God.

A contradiction for Jesus exactly as in the bible - is in the bible. But a contradiction for Jesus the man does not seem to exist.


As for who should carry the burden of truth - as an agnostic. Should I be looking to the theist to prove his idea, or to the atheist to proof his with a contradiction.

Which is logical?

Evidence of Absence

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

—Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

 

[Brianwarnock]

So lets take this Babel fish and replace it with something commonly placed as "can only have been made by god" - The Human Eye.

Opinions?

He made a proper mess of it in my case.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

He made a proper mess of it in my case.

Brian

Hey, even some babel fish may only be able to translate certain languages

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Evidence of Absence

Yes some ...

 

[Frothingslosh]

Yes - so what you are saying is you have no contradiction generally for God.

A contradiction for Jesus exactly as in the bible - is in the bible. But a contradiction for Jesus the man does not seem to exist.


As for who should carry the burden of truth - as an agnostic. Should I be looking to the theist to prove his idea, or to the atheist to proof his with a contradiction.

Which is logical?

No, I'm simply saying that I was wrong to state that 'you cannot prove a negative', becuase it some cases, you can.

This does not change the fact that there isn't a single piece of evidence that the Biblical Jesus ever existed.

As to the burden of evidence, it ALWAYS lies upon the person making the claim that something is different or unusual. If a scientist says 'Hey, this particle moves faster than light!', he is the one who needs to provie it. If a biologist were to announce that a kangaroo just gave birth to an octopus, he'd better have a mountain of evidence.

The same thing applies to people claiming God is real. The religious say He is real, that He determines everything that happens in the world, that He throws miracles around willy-nilly, yet when asked for proof, they simply say you have to have faith. The atheists (and atheist-leaning agnostics such as myself) say 'Prove it', but the deists cannot. (On the flipside, atheists point out that a world where God is imaginary would be exactly like this world, as there's no proof around of Him doing a single bloody thing.)