Well again, it doesn’t actually matter to me. I’m not trying to have a debate, I’m just saying that’s what I’ve heard and I tend to trust experts on their own fields. You can make up your own mind about what you believe, makes no difference to me.
I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal if he was a real person or not, it doesn’t say anything about the validity of religion one way or the other. Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion. It still happens in the modern world.
Edit: I read how you’ve responded to everyone else. Take a break friend, people are just having a discussion with you, disagreing isn’t an attack.
It’s fine if you personally think the evidence isn’t reliable, but calling everyone delusional and shouting down frankly well supported arguments as fake with no way to back it up all while refusing to read and engage with them isn’t a good look. If you can legitimately explain why people are wrong, I’m sure they would appreciate the discussion and potentially learning something.
If you can’t, then I’d suggest reflecting on why this is so upsetting to you. Believe me I absolutely understand what it’s like to hate religion and to be filled with an intense desire to want it to all be wrong and evil, but that shouldn’t affect how you treat people.
I do too, but most historians throughout time that have studied Christian historicity have been Christians themselves, meaning these are not unbiased scientists, but more likely to be Christian fanatics desperately seeking evidence for their belief.
Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion.
I agree it’s not far fetched, there is just no evidence of it, which is weird, since shortly after it becomes the official religion of the Roman empire!
A movement that big with such a charismatic leader and no evidence?
Again Occam’s razor indicate the story was made up by followers of Jesus Christ, an idealized concept that existed before they personified him in stories that are now included in the bible. Christianity did not start with the writings of the scripture in the bible.
This is something widely accepted by secular historians, it’s widely accepted by atheists too.
Occam’s razor does not work like that. It would actually suggest that Jesus did exist, given that it requires a single person to have existed instead of requiring a mountain of very valid evidence to be a conspiracy while a whole group people, who’s entire profession revolves around determining the trustworthiness of such evidence, to suddenly all be very bad at their job on this one specific issue etc.
Well again, it doesn’t actually matter to me. I’m not trying to have a debate, I’m just saying that’s what I’ve heard and I tend to trust experts on their own fields. You can make up your own mind about what you believe, makes no difference to me.
I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal if he was a real person or not, it doesn’t say anything about the validity of religion one way or the other. Plus I don’t think it’s really that far fetched that someone could have amassed a bunch of followers and birthed a new religion. It still happens in the modern world.
Edit: I read how you’ve responded to everyone else. Take a break friend, people are just having a discussion with you, disagreing isn’t an attack.
It’s fine if you personally think the evidence isn’t reliable, but calling everyone delusional and shouting down frankly well supported arguments as fake with no way to back it up all while refusing to read and engage with them isn’t a good look. If you can legitimately explain why people are wrong, I’m sure they would appreciate the discussion and potentially learning something.
If you can’t, then I’d suggest reflecting on why this is so upsetting to you. Believe me I absolutely understand what it’s like to hate religion and to be filled with an intense desire to want it to all be wrong and evil, but that shouldn’t affect how you treat people.
I do too, but most historians throughout time that have studied Christian historicity have been Christians themselves, meaning these are not unbiased scientists, but more likely to be Christian fanatics desperately seeking evidence for their belief.
I agree it’s not far fetched, there is just no evidence of it, which is weird, since shortly after it becomes the official religion of the Roman empire!
A movement that big with such a charismatic leader and no evidence?
Again Occam’s razor indicate the story was made up by followers of Jesus Christ, an idealized concept that existed before they personified him in stories that are now included in the bible. Christianity did not start with the writings of the scripture in the bible.
This is something widely accepted by secular historians, it’s widely accepted by atheists too.
Occam’s razor does not work like that. It would actually suggest that Jesus did exist, given that it requires a single person to have existed instead of requiring a mountain of very valid evidence to be a conspiracy while a whole group people, who’s entire profession revolves around determining the trustworthiness of such evidence, to suddenly all be very bad at their job on this one specific issue etc.