So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions.
There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. Their case is stronger than you would think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand.
Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close.
More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus.
Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in every sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it).
The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute.
The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly).
There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication.
Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it.
To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain.
Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.
So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions.
There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. There case is stronger than you think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand.
Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close.
More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus.
Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in ever sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it).
The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute.
The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly).
There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication.
Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it.
To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain.
Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.
Maybe I'm dense, but I read the question, even with the commas, as that it was only a subset of atheists who believe that Jesus never existed.
With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement.
Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.
Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts.
Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus.
As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.
With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement.
Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.
I prefer to try to read to infer what the writer is trying to communicate. If I was teaching a class on English grammar, I'd agree with you.
OTOH, did you go on Quora to ask the writer of that question for clarification? Did you post some snark there too about the grammar?
Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts.
Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus.
As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.
Indeed, Thomas Paine, one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers, was a Deist. He took a lot of crap for his essay on the Age of Reason. Because it undermined the superstition that dominated religion in that era.
I actually did answer this one on Quora, though I will answer it here differently.
The fact that multiple people believe in a deity is not impressive unless all those people believe in the same deity, in my opinion. That fact that South American natives (Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) all had gods does not signify that their belief validates the existence of Yahweh, Allah or any of the Greek, Roman or Eastern gods. Now, if the Incas worshiped a God named "Llejova" whose only begotten son was executed on the other side of the earth for the sins of mankind, they might be onto something. That might actually be impressive.
But the truth is, independent societies have never, ever managed to concoct the same gods with the same name and the same rules and restrictions along with the same philosophies for what happens in the afterlife and what criteria man must meet in order to be eternally rewarded.
So?
So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity!
Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts.
Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus.
As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.
"Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts."
This is going to sound nitpicky, but you need to be more precise. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. It is the absence of the belief that he does.
What's the difference? It has to do with where the burden of proof lies. In debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion. If you make an assertion, it is on you to prove that assertion is true. Atheists tend to argue that we are not making an assertion. Rather, we are denying yours. Atheism can only be disproved by proving the existence of God. One can never prove atheism is correct, but you can prove atheism is incorrect in a heartbeat by proving the existence of God.
This is similar to our earlier debate and discussion about speaking in tongues. Remember how I was asked to prove everyone was faking it, and I admitted I couldn't? I shouldn't have to prove everyone is faking it, because I am not the one making a claim. I am rejecting a claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove you're producing a language.
We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. No one demands such proof of them. No one says they have a belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No one suggests it's their job to prove their case. They're not making a case. They're rejecting some other schmoe's case.
As for the founding fathers, it gets a little complicated. I think if you looked carefully at some of the significant ones, you would find beliefs that would be roundly criticized by modern Christians. Jefferson produced a Bible that stripped the life of Jesus of all miracles and claims of divinity (by which I am including references to being the "son of God"). Christians love citing his references to God, but they fail to recognize that his God and theirs have very little in common. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, Jefferson refers to man's "creator" and to "nature's God."
"Nature's God" is not a Christian concept. The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Nature's God." It is a deist idea. More accurately, it is the concept of "God" that transcends any one religion. The point of "nature's god" in deism is to take the concept of God out of the hands of members of a particular sect.
George Washington was a lukewarm Christian at best.
John Adams signed a treaty that specifically noted the USA was not founded on the Christian religion.
Madison, Monroe, Franklin... These founders understood the significance of religion and spoke admiringly of faith, but they were not Christians by today's church definitions. They'd get chased out of the congregations of Falwell, Graham and others.
Other founders were undoubtedly Christian by any reasonable definition of the word, and no one should be permitted to deny that.
It’s not snarky. Atheists can believe in anything and still be atheists, as long as they don’t believe in gods.
P.S. I don’t believe in “souls.” I can’t speak for anyone else. I believe in brains.
Expanding here, a GSC exclusive:
Atheism is the absence of a belief in God. They can believe in souls. They can believe in ghosts. They can believe in astrology. Apparently there are Buddhis atheists. Don't ask me about them. They can believe in UFO's and reincarnation. They can be totalitarian. They can be capitalist, democratic. They can be ugly. They can be smoking hot. The only thing atheists have in common is, if you were to ask one whether he or she believes in God, the answer would be no.
Now, there are things many atheists have in common. But those things are typically disconnected from atheism. Like souls.
A soul, in most usage, is an imaginary unit of existence that is not part of a person's body but is independent of it. We wonder, for example, if the soul survives death.
There is, however, no reason dependent on atheism to believe the soul is something that actually exists independent of the brain.
Plenty of reasons that are NOT dependent on atheism to believe in the soul. Just because I do not believe in souls does not mean all atheists agree with me, or any!
A lot of people equate "not believing in God" with folowing or worshipping the DevilMileage may vary...I have seen though my own personal experience that religious people in general tend to be less moral than non-religious people, including atheistsThe folks from "Atheists in Foxholes" (see link on previous post) would disagree. I think the people who reflexively jump to praying when in danger are not atheists (although some might be) but folks who are not habitually religious. Sounds like a side bet to Pascal's Wager. In the event that you are wrong, what would you say to Allah at the end of time? Or to the Norse gods in Valhalla?
would you say to Allah at the end of time? / sorry i gotta butt in here- i'd ask allah of the islamics - "why did u tell your followers- to KILL anyone who did not believe as u told them to??" and pls don't cite the Inquisition//in retort--
would you say to Allah at the end of time? / sorry i gotta butt in here- i'd ask allah of the islamics - "why did u tell your followers- to KILL anyone who did not believe as u told them to??" and pls don't cite the Inquisition//in retort--
Very recently, I asked someone on FB where it says that in the Quran. She gave me a chapter and verse. A rudimentary internet search enabled me to find said verses. They didn't say what she claimed they said.
Do YOU have a chapter and verse to back up that claim? Or do you just go by what the Islamaphobes in your congregation tell you?
In "atheism" there is no satisfaction of eternal cosmic justice. Hitler dies. Mother Theresa dies. My grandmother dies. No one gets before a judge who rewards them for good deeds done or punishes them for evil deeds done. If you got away with murder on earth, you got away with murder, period. If you saved 30 people from a burning bus or hundreds of people from certain death at a Nazi death camp, enjoy the satisfaction of the good deed done while you're on earth. It's all you're getting.
Hitler gets the same fate as Martin Luther King Jr? Afraid so.
This outcome is personally and morally dissatisfying. It also happens to be (I believe) the truth. An uncomfortable truth, but I'd prefer an uncomfortable truth to a comfortable lie. There is evidence we all die. There is no evidence of rewards or punishment afterward.
Personally, I look at nihilism as a "glass half empty" subset of atheism. To nihilists, as I interpret the term, values are of no value. Nothing matters ultimately, therefore nothing matters now.
I don't believe life must have an imaginary purpose in order to have a purpose at all. It is all we have. And it is worth preserving.
That's a short answer. But no, atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and believing there is no cosmic justice does not make one a nihilist.
Personally, I look at nihilism as a "glass half empty" subset of atheism. To nihilists, as I interpret the term, values are of no value. Nothing matters ultimately, therefore nothing matters now.
I don't believe life must have an imaginary purpose in order to have a purpose at all. It is all we have. And it is worth preserving.
That's a short answer. But no, atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and believing there is no cosmic justice does not make one a nihilist.
I agree with Raf. Atheism ≠ nihilism even though there may be some overlap.
“Though pagan,” Wyatt-Brown writes, “the Stoics recognized the brotherhood of man. The greatest virtue was helping others for one’s own sake and peace of mind as well as theirs. Justice, goodness of heart, duty, courage, and fidelity to fellow creatures, great and lowly, were abstractions requiring no divine authority to sustain them; they were worth pursuing on their own.”
[...] what does he mean by pagan or divine authority? The author is making an important point about Stoicism. Most religions tell us to be good because God said so. Or they tell us not to be bad because God will punish us. Stoicism is different. While not incompatible with religion, it makes a different case for virtue: A person who lives selfishly will notgoto hell. They willlivein hell. And both these points are related to the final and most important part: We are all connected to each other, and to help others is to help ourselves. We are obligated to serve and to be of service.
Not sure anyone equated atheism with nihilism. I'm sure one can believe in gods and still be a nihilist. One can believe in gods and believe there is no eternal cosmic justice either.
My apologies for reading into your question, though, independent of that error on my part, I do believe I answered it.
To be sure: I do not believe that the atheism I described is "atheism with a nihilistic view" per se. I think nihilism draws from a view present in the atheism I described.
My apologies for reading into your question, though, independent of that error on my part, I do believe I answered it.
To be sure: I do not believe that the atheism I described is "atheism with a nihilistic view" per se. I think nihilism draws from a view present in the atheism I described.
That sounds about as I understand the two. An atheist can have moral values as Rocky notes the example in Stoicism. (the origin of them would be another story but arguably they're ingrained in the human being, the soul if you will and bloom as we grow and develop and which allow the step towards faith - a different view than extreme Calvinism for sure but is how many understand the platform put forth in the Bible's book of Romans, where man is "without hope", with a termination date of death but still very much a living being of say, lesser scope without that faith) ... But nihilism concludes then that moral values are meaningless, there are none and that life will be a general shit fest whether one enjoys it or not, with the Big Flush at the end. Although it covers a lot of ground it seems to be more rejection-of then absence-of, although it appears it could be either / or. I might put it as a question - can one be a nihilist without any experience of life to cause that rejection and be so simply "as born".....my guess, no. It requires some experience to conclude that. Course then, what doesn't? is another question, etc. etc.
I actually did answer this one on Quora, though I will answer it here differently.
The fact that multiple people believe in a deity is not impressive unless all those people believe in the same deity, in my opinion. That fact that South American natives (Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) all had gods does not signify that their belief validates the existence of Yahweh, Allah or any of the Greek, Roman or Eastern gods. Now, if the Incas worshiped a God named "Llejova" whose only begotten son was executed on the other side of the earth for the sins of mankind, they might be onto something. That might actually be impressive.
But the truth is, independent societies have never, ever managed to concoct the same gods with the same name and the same rules and restrictions along with the same philosophies for what happens in the afterlife and what criteria man must meet in order to be eternally rewarded.
So?
So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity!
Numbers do not confirm truth.
I would tend to agree with you - although I do think there is a significant number of people "of faith" who have similar beliefs, the greater commonality is less the exact identity of the god/gods of all religions and their similarities, the commonality is that humanity has such a large widespread tendency towards looking for or at a greater authority in their existence.
I'm not nitpicking the language so there's some flab in that statement but I'm specifically choosing "greater authority in their existence" to convey the idea that it may be a designer, a giver of purpose, a creator, a giver of laws and rules, of care and guidance, of justice, a sense of order in the short and the long term and the foeveroutthere term....I'm suggesting too that "greater authority" also covers the ground of faith, the part of trusting in something that may not be rewarded or punished in immediate gratification or punishment.
All ideas and conception of God exist in a known universe of our own perception at the least (or I guess the most) so while I might think there's no way to know how this came to be or who is responsible, I can allow for greater even "ultimate" forces to be at work. Granted that's more deism than faith and probably covers some atheist ground more than the array of "religious" beliefs about it all, it still lives on that side of the fence, to me.
I noticed you mentioned Richard Carrier in a previous post. I was wondering if you are familiar with his 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus.
I am indeed. It's a fascinating argument I am still trying to digest. Most of it is ironclad, but there are still pieces that I find untenable. His "brothers of the lord" explanation seems a little too convenient, as does his explanation of "born of a woman." But I am not an expert in the field. The experts in the field disagree with Carrier, interestingly, but I find their arguments even less convincing than Carrier's.
Some things I am sure of: Neither Luke nor Matthew had any idea of the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Their stories are irreconcilable.
And the raising of Lazarus simply never took place. Think about it. How did three biographies of Jesus circulate with no mention of this astonishing miracle? Mark, Matthew, Luke... nothing at all on the raising of Lazarus. How is that even remotely conceivable? And where did Lazarus go? Again, absolutely inconceivable that he walks around for any length of time as living proof of the power of Jesus only to disappear from any future noteworthy narrative? Seriously?
Why does Paul actually BRAG that he did not get any of his information from the disciples who supposedly walked with Jesus, studied under him, witnessed his wonderful works for the better part of a year (if not three)? If someone claimed to have learned everything about me from God, and you believed that person over my best friends and co-workers, who actually knew me, people would be justified in thinking something was wrong with you.
But Paul claimed to have learned everything about Jesus from Jesus and God himself (themselves). The people who actually walked with Jesus? Paul swears he never learned a thing about Jesus from them. Who would brag about that?
Someone who believed the story of Jesus was a spiritual one and not a historical one would brag about that. Someone who never mentioned Pontius Pilate or the Jews or the Romans but that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world" (which did not happen).
Someone who knew there was a group called "the Twelve" but did not know they were only 11 after Judas betrayed Jesus [because the story that they were physical witnesses and that Judas betrayed Jesus had literally not been invented yet].
There's a LOT about Paul that makes more sense when you remove a historical Jesus from the framework and make it a spiritual revelation instead.
But in my view, there are still things that make no sense (yet?) if Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Like James being the brother of Jesus. Why distinguish the 12 and the Brothers of the Lord? Makes little sense.
I'm condensing a lot of arguments into one tiny post, but it's an interesting subject.
P.S. A couple of days ago Carrier and I became friends on Facebook. Not that he has time to answer my personal questions, but I can always ask.
By the way, one of the major arguments of the mythicists is that the authentic epistles never refer to the "return" of Christ or the "second coming." Always the parouisia(?) or "presence."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
53
16
24
21
Popular Days
Mar 14
16
Mar 29
16
Mar 16
14
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 53 posts
waysider 16 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
TLC 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 14 2017
16 posts
Mar 29 2016
16 posts
Mar 16 2017
14 posts
Mar 17 2017
14 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I tou
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning
Raf
So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions.
How do atheists, who claim that Jesus never existed, explain the fact that hundreds of people have witnessed his resurrection and all the Apostles died for him?
There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. Their case is stronger than you would think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand.
Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close.
More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus.
Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in every sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it).
The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute.
The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly).
There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication.
Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it.
To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain.
Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Maybe I'm dense, but I read the question, even with the commas, as that it was only a subset of atheists who believe that Jesus never existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As a matter of grammar, you are mistaken.
With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement.
Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A (negates what follows)
Theism (belief in the existence of God )
Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts.
Theism is a rather large umbrella of spiritual, religious beliefs. Under that umbrella there exist many variations, including Christianity, Deism, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, etc. They all share a common thread. They all believe in the existence of one or more Gods. The common thread they don't share is Jesus.
As an example: Founding fathers Jefferson , Franklin, and likely others, believed in the existence of God but not in the existence of a supernatural Jesus or supernatural powers and events. They were Deists, a subset of Theism. They believed in the possible existence of God but not in the supernatural aspects involved with Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I prefer to try to read to infer what the writer is trying to communicate. If I was teaching a class on English grammar, I'd agree with you.
Edited by RockyOTOH, did you go on Quora to ask the writer of that question for clarification? Did you post some snark there too about the grammar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed, Thomas Paine, one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers, was a Deist. He took a lot of crap for his essay on the Age of Reason. Because it undermined the superstition that dominated religion in that era.
Edited by Rockygrammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you click on the link, you'll see that most of the answers presume he meant the same thing I presumed he meant.
Thus, I did him a favor by answering the question without the commas as well. Most people did not extend that courtesy.
[Note: I actually did not answer on Quora because I found multiple adequate replies]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do atheists truly maintain that the 6.5 billion people today, and the nearly 100 billion people throughout the history of our species are completely wrong in their belief in a deity?
So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts."
This is going to sound nitpicky, but you need to be more precise. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. It is the absence of the belief that he does.
What's the difference? It has to do with where the burden of proof lies. In debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion. If you make an assertion, it is on you to prove that assertion is true. Atheists tend to argue that we are not making an assertion. Rather, we are denying yours. Atheism can only be disproved by proving the existence of God. One can never prove atheism is correct, but you can prove atheism is incorrect in a heartbeat by proving the existence of God.
This is similar to our earlier debate and discussion about speaking in tongues. Remember how I was asked to prove everyone was faking it, and I admitted I couldn't? I shouldn't have to prove everyone is faking it, because I am not the one making a claim. I am rejecting a claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove you're producing a language.
We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. No one demands such proof of them. No one says they have a belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No one suggests it's their job to prove their case. They're not making a case. They're rejecting some other schmoe's case.
As for the founding fathers, it gets a little complicated. I think if you looked carefully at some of the significant ones, you would find beliefs that would be roundly criticized by modern Christians. Jefferson produced a Bible that stripped the life of Jesus of all miracles and claims of divinity (by which I am including references to being the "son of God"). Christians love citing his references to God, but they fail to recognize that his God and theirs have very little in common. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, Jefferson refers to man's "creator" and to "nature's God."
"Nature's God" is not a Christian concept. The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Nature's God." It is a deist idea. More accurately, it is the concept of "God" that transcends any one religion. The point of "nature's god" in deism is to take the concept of God out of the hands of members of a particular sect.
George Washington was a lukewarm Christian at best.
John Adams signed a treaty that specifically noted the USA was not founded on the Christian religion.
Madison, Monroe, Franklin... These founders understood the significance of religion and spoke admiringly of faith, but they were not Christians by today's church definitions. They'd get chased out of the congregations of Falwell, Graham and others.
Other founders were undoubtedly Christian by any reasonable definition of the word, and no one should be permitted to deny that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As atheists don't believe in God (presumably because of lack of evidence), aren’t they likely to also disbelieve other things lacking evidence? “Atheists: do you believe in the soul?" is often answered by snarkily restating atheism’s definition. Why?
My answer on Quora:
It’s not snarky. Atheists can believe in anything and still be atheists, as long as they don’t believe in gods.
P.S. I don’t believe in “souls.” I can’t speak for anyone else. I believe in brains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
katabillups
would you say to Allah at the end of time? / sorry i gotta butt in here- i'd ask allah of the islamics - "why did u tell your followers- to KILL anyone who did not believe as u told them to??" and pls don't cite the Inquisition//in retort--
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You actually don't get to tell us what to cite in retort.
Especially if you worship a God who ordered a man's execution because he picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week.
The same God to the Israelites that if they have a kid who explored other gods, they are to throw heavy rocks at the kids' heads until they die.
Oh, but that was the Old Testament. I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Very recently, I asked someone on FB where it says that in the Quran. She gave me a chapter and verse. A rudimentary internet search enabled me to find said verses. They didn't say what she claimed they said.
Do YOU have a chapter and verse to back up that claim? Or do you just go by what the Islamaphobes in your congregation tell you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
From Quora: What are some problems with atheism?
My answer:
In "atheism" there is no satisfaction of eternal cosmic justice. Hitler dies. Mother Theresa dies. My grandmother dies. No one gets before a judge who rewards them for good deeds done or punishes them for evil deeds done. If you got away with murder on earth, you got away with murder, period. If you saved 30 people from a burning bus or hundreds of people from certain death at a Nazi death camp, enjoy the satisfaction of the good deed done while you're on earth. It's all you're getting.
Hitler gets the same fate as Martin Luther King Jr? Afraid so.
This outcome is personally and morally dissatisfying. It also happens to be (I believe) the truth. An uncomfortable truth, but I'd prefer an uncomfortable truth to a comfortable lie. There is evidence we all die. There is no evidence of rewards or punishment afterward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Is this, "atheism", really atheism with a nihilistic view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What is the difference between atheism and nihilism?
Good question.
And it depends on how you define nihilism.
Personally, I look at nihilism as a "glass half empty" subset of atheism. To nihilists, as I interpret the term, values are of no value. Nothing matters ultimately, therefore nothing matters now.
I don't believe life must have an imaginary purpose in order to have a purpose at all. It is all we have. And it is worth preserving.
That's a short answer. But no, atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and believing there is no cosmic justice does not make one a nihilist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I agree with Raf. Atheism ≠ nihilism even though there may be some overlap.
Why you should help others. (From the Daily Stoic)
“Though pagan,” Wyatt-Brown writes, “the Stoics recognized the brotherhood of man. The greatest virtue was helping others for one’s own sake and peace of mind as well as theirs. Justice, goodness of heart, duty, courage, and fidelity to fellow creatures, great and lowly, were abstractions requiring no divine authority to sustain them; they were worth pursuing on their own.”
[...] what does he mean by pagan or divine authority? The author is making an important point about Stoicism. Most religions tell us to be good because God said so. Or they tell us not to be bad because God will punish us. Stoicism is different. While not incompatible with religion, it makes a different case for virtue: A person who lives selfishly will not go to hell. They will live in hell. And both these points are related to the final and most important part: We are all connected to each other, and to help others is to help ourselves. We are obligated to serve and to be of service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Not sure anyone equated atheism with nihilism. I'm sure one can believe in gods and still be a nihilist. One can believe in gods and believe there is no eternal cosmic justice either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My apologies for reading into your question, though, independent of that error on my part, I do believe I answered it.
To be sure: I do not believe that the atheism I described is "atheism with a nihilistic view" per se. I think nihilism draws from a view present in the atheism I described.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That sounds about as I understand the two. An atheist can have moral values as Rocky notes the example in Stoicism. (the origin of them would be another story but arguably they're ingrained in the human being, the soul if you will and bloom as we grow and develop and which allow the step towards faith - a different view than extreme Calvinism for sure but is how many understand the platform put forth in the Bible's book of Romans, where man is "without hope", with a termination date of death but still very much a living being of say, lesser scope without that faith) ... But nihilism concludes then that moral values are meaningless, there are none and that life will be a general shit fest whether one enjoys it or not, with the Big Flush at the end. Although it covers a lot of ground it seems to be more rejection-of then absence-of, although it appears it could be either / or. I might put it as a question - can one be a nihilist without any experience of life to cause that rejection and be so simply "as born".....my guess, no. It requires some experience to conclude that. Course then, what doesn't? is another question, etc. etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I would tend to agree with you - although I do think there is a significant number of people "of faith" who have similar beliefs, the greater commonality is less the exact identity of the god/gods of all religions and their similarities, the commonality is that humanity has such a large widespread tendency towards looking for or at a greater authority in their existence.
I'm not nitpicking the language so there's some flab in that statement but I'm specifically choosing "greater authority in their existence" to convey the idea that it may be a designer, a giver of purpose, a creator, a giver of laws and rules, of care and guidance, of justice, a sense of order in the short and the long term and the foeveroutthere term....I'm suggesting too that "greater authority" also covers the ground of faith, the part of trusting in something that may not be rewarded or punished in immediate gratification or punishment.
All ideas and conception of God exist in a known universe of our own perception at the least (or I guess the most) so while I might think there's no way to know how this came to be or who is responsible, I can allow for greater even "ultimate" forces to be at work. Granted that's more deism than faith and probably covers some atheist ground more than the array of "religious" beliefs about it all, it still lives on that side of the fence, to me.
Peace n love homies!
Edited by socksPlease see the cashier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockman
Raf,
I noticed you mentioned Richard Carrier in a previous post. I was wondering if you are familiar with his 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am indeed. It's a fascinating argument I am still trying to digest. Most of it is ironclad, but there are still pieces that I find untenable. His "brothers of the lord" explanation seems a little too convenient, as does his explanation of "born of a woman." But I am not an expert in the field. The experts in the field disagree with Carrier, interestingly, but I find their arguments even less convincing than Carrier's.
Some things I am sure of: Neither Luke nor Matthew had any idea of the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Their stories are irreconcilable.
And the raising of Lazarus simply never took place. Think about it. How did three biographies of Jesus circulate with no mention of this astonishing miracle? Mark, Matthew, Luke... nothing at all on the raising of Lazarus. How is that even remotely conceivable? And where did Lazarus go? Again, absolutely inconceivable that he walks around for any length of time as living proof of the power of Jesus only to disappear from any future noteworthy narrative? Seriously?
Why does Paul actually BRAG that he did not get any of his information from the disciples who supposedly walked with Jesus, studied under him, witnessed his wonderful works for the better part of a year (if not three)? If someone claimed to have learned everything about me from God, and you believed that person over my best friends and co-workers, who actually knew me, people would be justified in thinking something was wrong with you.
But Paul claimed to have learned everything about Jesus from Jesus and God himself (themselves). The people who actually walked with Jesus? Paul swears he never learned a thing about Jesus from them. Who would brag about that?
Someone who believed the story of Jesus was a spiritual one and not a historical one would brag about that. Someone who never mentioned Pontius Pilate or the Jews or the Romans but that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world" (which did not happen).
Someone who knew there was a group called "the Twelve" but did not know they were only 11 after Judas betrayed Jesus [because the story that they were physical witnesses and that Judas betrayed Jesus had literally not been invented yet].
There's a LOT about Paul that makes more sense when you remove a historical Jesus from the framework and make it a spiritual revelation instead.
But in my view, there are still things that make no sense (yet?) if Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Like James being the brother of Jesus. Why distinguish the 12 and the Brothers of the Lord? Makes little sense.
I'm condensing a lot of arguments into one tiny post, but it's an interesting subject.
P.S. A couple of days ago Carrier and I became friends on Facebook. Not that he has time to answer my personal questions, but I can always ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, one of the major arguments of the mythicists is that the authentic epistles never refer to the "return" of Christ or the "second coming." Always the parouisia(?) or "presence."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.