Do atheists believe that Jesus existed?

Guybrush · 06-08-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I guess you can say they use "negative confirmation bias."

Negative confirmation bias would simply be a confirmation bias. It would be the equivalent of a preconcieved notion that a hypothesis is false rather than the hypothesis being true.

I think what you are thinking of is better called something like "truth criteria". People who think like me want things about our universe that they believe to be "true" to fulfill certain criteria, for example that it is proven through hypothesis testing. I like the principle of parsimony which is often called occam's razor although most people who use that word don't fully understand or appreciate what it is. It is a criteria by which you can evaluate hypotheses. If you have two hypotheses explaining a phenomenon, the one which requires you to make fewer new assumptions about our universe is the preferred one.

If you don't know how to put this philosophy to daily use, here's an example I've used before. Imagine you are in a dark house at night - a door closes behind you, but there is noone there. You have two hypotheses to explain the door closing - either it was a draft or it was closed with intent by a ghost. Accepting that it was a draft only requires the assumption that a draft could get into the building - we already know moving wind can close doors, something that can be explained by physics and observed through daily experience .. Accepting that the door was closed by a ghost, however, may require you to accept assumptions like there is a "life" after death, dead people are able to interact with our environment by closing doors, will and intent can exist without a hard physical body etc. etc.

Every time you make a new assumption, there is a chance that the assumption is, in fact, wrong. So, when piecing how the world functions together by testing hypothesis after hypothesis, parsimony as a criteria helps us find the truth by reducing the risk that we will accept a lie as being true. People who want their beliefs to match how the universe actually is should try to follow it I think. Broadly speaking, that's what sceptics do.

There's a lack of Jesus evidence so if you believe he really existed, there is a fair chance you're believing in a lie. Sceptics don't like to take that risk.

Freebase Dali · 06-09-2011, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Negative confirmation bias would simply be a confirmation bias. It would be the equivalent of a preconcieved notion that a hypothesis is false rather than the hypothesis being true.

I think what you are thinking of is better called something like "truth criteria". People who think like me want things about our universe that they believe to be "true" to fulfill certain criteria, for example that it is proven through hypothesis testing. I like the principle of parsimony which is often called occam's razor although most people who use that word don't fully understand or appreciate what it is. It is a criteria by which you can evaluate hypotheses. If you have two hypotheses explaining a phenomenon, the one which requires you to make fewer new assumptions about our universe is the preferred one.

If you don't know how to put this philosophy to daily use, here's an example I've used before. Imagine you are in a dark house at night - a door closes behind you, but there is noone there. You have two hypotheses to explain the door closing - either it was a draft or it was closed with intent by a ghost. Accepting that it was a draft only requires the assumption that a draft could get into the building - we already know moving wind can close doors, something that can be explained by physics and observed through daily experience .. Accepting that the door was closed by a ghost, however, may require you to accept assumptions like there is a "life" after death, dead people are able to interact with our environment by closing doors, will and intent can exist without a hard physical body etc. etc.

Every time you make a new assumption, there is a chance that the assumption is, in fact, wrong. So, when piecing how the world functions together by testing hypothesis after hypothesis, parsimony as a criteria helps us find the truth by reducing the risk that we will accept a lie as being true. People who want their beliefs to match how the universe actually is should try to follow it I think. Broadly speaking, that's what sceptics do.

There's a lack of Jesus evidence so if you believe he really existed, there is a fair chance you're believing in a lie. Sceptics don't like to take that risk.

I love this post.
I am actually sexually attracted to it.

djchameleon · 06-09-2011, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I love this post.
I am actually sexually attracted to it.

Make sure you wrap it up

The Batlord · 06-08-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

"It is a habit of mankind ... to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy." - Thucydides

I think this is true about Jesus Christ too, those who deny or denounce Him claim they use "sovereign reason" to do so. "Fancy" in this instance means "to believe without being absolutely sure or certain." I truly feel both people who believe and don't believe both do so without being absolutely sure or certain. Some atheist argue against the Historicity of Jesus Christ because there isn't sufficient evidence to their liking (and also use a type confirmation bias to get their point across), and similarly most Christians understand there isn't that definitive physical evidence that would satisfy the most ardent skeptic to prove His existence once and for all.

Since archaeologist use things dug up from the dirt like weapons, jewelry, clothing, bones and other other artifacts to confirm a person existence from the past so I guess the Jesus deniers uses that lack of evidence (that Jesus Christ had no archaeological artifact attribute to Him) as basis for their argument against the historicity of Jesus. While the person who believes Jesus lived uses Confirmation bias ["Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true."] The Jesus denier does the opposite they use the lack of information to confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether their particular stance is true or not. I guess you can say they use "negative confirmation bias."

It is not the lack of evidence that makes me not believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, or his divinity, or the existence of a god at all. It is just one more nail in the coffin for me.

Howard the Duck · 06-07-2011, 08:47 AM

you just have to "believe" he did

Zer0 · 06-07-2011, 09:42 AM

I believe that Jesus existed but I don't really believe that he was the son of god. It's impossible to know who Jesus really was as the records of him in the bible have been altered and covered-up by the church throughout the centuries. In my mind he could have been either some crazy street-preacher that led the fickle people into believing he was the son of god or a really intelligent philosopher who had a genuinely good vision of how mankind should live their life.
The early Christians could have taken his philosophy as a way of life and portrayed Jesus as the son of god and the messiah just to win more converts.

FETCHER. · 06-07-2011, 10:33 AM

I think he could've existed, I don't know though. If he did I think he existed as just a normal person.

djchameleon · 06-07-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i don't think Atheists refute his existence much

the most hardline people I've encountered against his divinity were Muslims and Jews

really? Muslims that I have talked to put his divinity on equal grounds as Muhammad

They consider Jesus as much as a prophet as Muhammad.

SATCHMO · 06-07-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

really? Muslims that I have talked to put his divinity on equal grounds as Muhammad

They consider Jesus as much as a prophet as Muhammad.

What you've said is only true from a particular standpoint. Muslims believe that Jesus was equally as divine as Muhammed, because they don't believe that Muhammed was inherently divine. As revered as he is, Muhammed to Muslims is a prophet, not the incarnation of Allah. On the other hand, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the physical incarnation of god, or god's only begotten son, to quote the book of John. Muslims believe that it is impossible for god (Allah) to be incarnated in human form.

djchameleon · 06-07-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

What you've said is only true from a particular standpoint. Muslims believe that Jesus was equally as divine as Muhammed, because they don't believe that Muhammed was inherently divine. As revered as he is, Muhammed to Muslims is a prophet, not the incarnation of Allah. On the other hand, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the physical incarnation of god, or god's only begotten son, to quote the book of John. Muslims believe that it is impossible for god (Allah) to be incarnated in human form.

Oh okay, I see where I got a little mixed up.

06-07-2011, 09:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
Zer0 ∞ Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 3,792	I believe that Jesus existed but I don't really believe that he was the son of god. It's impossible to know who Jesus really was as the records of him in the bible have been altered and covered-up by the church throughout the centuries. In my mind he could have been either some crazy street-preacher that led the fickle people into believing he was the son of god or a really intelligent philosopher who had a genuinely good vision of how mankind should live their life. The early Christians could have taken his philosophy as a way of life and portrayed Jesus as the son of god and the messiah just to win more converts. __________________ Last FM \| RYM \| The Final Sound