It’s not exactly tinfoil hattery not to automatically trust the objectivity of people whose deeply held but completely unscientific beliefs rely on a specific conclusion.
Especially not when those beliefs are inherently authoritarian and have been the enforced default for billions of people for over a millennium.
Mythicism takes “source skepticism” to conspiratorial levels. They effectively dismiss all experts and historical scholars views on the topic. It is not far off from being a tinfoil hat level of skepticism.
You’re right about one thing: people have rightfully dismissed poorly sourced claims thousands of times over. Millions, even.
Here’s something else that people have said before: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
To claim that even a non-divine version of Jesus existed is an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary proof just isn’t there. On the contrary.
As for your claim that it’s mysticism to doubt religious authorities, that only applies if you disagree for woo-woo spiritual reasons of thinking you “know God better” or some such bullshit.
Requiring concrete evidence like I am is about as far from the “hidden truth” claims of mysticism as anything gets.
Historical scholars are not religious authorities. It is more or less a field of scientific study. All claims are built on the basis of evidence and logical inferences from the evidence.
I will merely add that your position is not new and in fact it is many decades old. In that timeframe, it has made zero progress at convincing the historical community. And a major stumbling point appears to be the total lack of an alternative explanation and evidence for it.
As I’ve already explained, historical scholars who specialize in that time and that area are almost without exception followers of one Abrahamic religion or the other.
That is an inherent confirmation bias since they’d be showing themselves to be very gullible if they admitted that one of the most important figures in the scriptures that they consider capital T Truth is entirely fictional.
Add the paucity of evidence they base their “Jesus was real” claim on and there’s really no rational, evidence-based reason to believe them.
It is more or less a field of scientific study.
History in general, yes. That specific subsection of the field has always attracted religious hacks with confirmation bias, though, always will.
All claims are built on the basis of evidence and logical inferences from the evidence.
Again, the specific evidence for this specific claim is ridiculously lacking. There’s more reliable evidence of the sexual orientation of Alexander the Great than there’s even sketchy evidrnve of Jesus existing.
I will merely add that your position is not new and in fact it is many decades old
As is the scientific method.
In that timeframe, it has made zero progress at convincing the historical community
Because those specific historians are religious hacks who accept even the most spurious evidence for their preferred result and no arguments against it. Sort of like you.
a major stumbling point appears to be the total lack of an alternative explanation and evidence for it.
First of all, no. A lack of dispositive evidence doesn’t make up for a lack of positive evidence. That’s not how proof works.
Second, there IS an alternative explanation. One agreed upon by everyone who doesn’t believe in bronze age fairy tales:
Jesus was a fictional character based on older mythologies such as that of the Egyptian god Horus as well as other stories and the imaginations of the authors.
No, it’s known as source skepticism.
It’s not exactly tinfoil hattery not to automatically trust the objectivity of people whose deeply held but completely unscientific beliefs rely on a specific conclusion.
Especially not when those beliefs are inherently authoritarian and have been the enforced default for billions of people for over a millennium.
Mythicism takes “source skepticism” to conspiratorial levels. They effectively dismiss all experts and historical scholars views on the topic. It is not far off from being a tinfoil hat level of skepticism.
What I’m saying isn’t mysticism, though. Not even close.
You’re just building a strawman mystic because you don’t have a counterargument to what I’m ACTUALLY saying.
It is exactly mythicism. Everything you said is a repeat of stuff said by mythicists a thousand times over.
Dude, you’re talking absolute nonsense.
Speaking of repeating things, saying " it’s mysticism" again and again doesn’t make you any less wrong.
Again, your argument is just a copy of what other people have said a thousand times over. At least acknowledge that.
You’re right about one thing: people have rightfully dismissed poorly sourced claims thousands of times over. Millions, even.
Here’s something else that people have said before: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
To claim that even a non-divine version of Jesus existed is an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary proof just isn’t there. On the contrary.
As for your claim that it’s mysticism to doubt religious authorities, that only applies if you disagree for woo-woo spiritual reasons of thinking you “know God better” or some such bullshit.
Requiring concrete evidence like I am is about as far from the “hidden truth” claims of mysticism as anything gets.
Historical scholars are not religious authorities. It is more or less a field of scientific study. All claims are built on the basis of evidence and logical inferences from the evidence.
I will merely add that your position is not new and in fact it is many decades old. In that timeframe, it has made zero progress at convincing the historical community. And a major stumbling point appears to be the total lack of an alternative explanation and evidence for it.
As I’ve already explained, historical scholars who specialize in that time and that area are almost without exception followers of one Abrahamic religion or the other.
That is an inherent confirmation bias since they’d be showing themselves to be very gullible if they admitted that one of the most important figures in the scriptures that they consider capital T Truth is entirely fictional.
Add the paucity of evidence they base their “Jesus was real” claim on and there’s really no rational, evidence-based reason to believe them.
History in general, yes. That specific subsection of the field has always attracted religious hacks with confirmation bias, though, always will.
Again, the specific evidence for this specific claim is ridiculously lacking. There’s more reliable evidence of the sexual orientation of Alexander the Great than there’s even sketchy evidrnve of Jesus existing.
As is the scientific method.
Because those specific historians are religious hacks who accept even the most spurious evidence for their preferred result and no arguments against it. Sort of like you.
First of all, no. A lack of dispositive evidence doesn’t make up for a lack of positive evidence. That’s not how proof works.
Second, there IS an alternative explanation. One agreed upon by everyone who doesn’t believe in bronze age fairy tales:
Jesus was a fictional character based on older mythologies such as that of the Egyptian god Horus as well as other stories and the imaginations of the authors.
That’s just not true in this case.
If those experts and scholars are looking at the same dearth of evidence, they don’t magically count as additional evidence, themselves.
… also, Viking_Hippie keeps misreading the word you’re using and bickering about something else entirely.