Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

I would agree. And we won't find objective answers.What we *will* find are numerous arguments both for and against a supernatural Jesus (or *any Jesus*) for that matter which are highly emotional and driven by a need to be right.There is no objective evidence. If that's all that one needs to be convinced, that explains why many of you are already convinced.(or *not* convinced). Bart Ehrman is no more important to me than Peter Zeihan was to Theodoric. Neither is Carrier.Being a mythicist pays well on the lecture circuit.

A lot depends on their motives and your motives. Perhaps a good question to rhetorically ask is"Why Is This Argument Important In The Grand Scheme Of Things?"

I would reword that as saying that people *can* accept things with absolutely no evidence. And we have every right to accept anything that we fancy.Your next question might be:
*Why do you personally accept such an argument given that there is no objective evidence*?

Well, we had some, but you vanquished them with but a thought.You easily erased the evidence in your own mind, but you may have more work cut out for you erasing the subjective evidence from *my* mind, which you regard as rusted shut! Perhaps WD40??

Yes. Odd, isn't it? What type of kool-aid are these "believers" drinking? AZ vanquished #1 with but a thought. Killed the idea. Again, what on earth were those "believers" drinking? Of course not, now that AZ Antitheist has eliminated #1 as a possibility. You have no "abilities" to give. As A Legend in your own mind, you can vanquish anything in your mind but have no power to vanquish beliefs outside of your mind. Exactly! AZ never will. He vanquished any probability. Stopped it dead in its tracks. All that believers have are the same stories. There are not as many suspicions among believers.

Its because you have convinced yourself that ONLY data or evidence will do it for you. You've admitted to never having been a believer and I see you reinforcing the idea that you likely will never be one. At least you don't seem to want it.Did it ever occur to you that Faith/Belief, though offered to everyone, was only received by those who willfully received it?Or will you stubbornly draw the line at objective evidence?And I know I know...this is a science topic so I will take my preaching elsewhere!

What a coincidence! You all are not believers also. In deference to Taq, I wont keep pushing to convert you...at least not today. I shared Dr.RC Sproul because he is among a minority of Christian Pastors/Teachers whom I respect. He was a philosophy major and later became a Theologian. If you cant even stand five minutes of him, there is no hope that you ever will become believers.Barring Divine Intervention!

You know something? I will agree with that!

Why do you always think that I am "attacking" you? Did it ever occur to you that I value your intelligence enough to share something? And what do you do? You google the evidence (implied evidence) through the internet to find the alleged source of the guy's wisdom! That does not impress me. Why not have the guts to listen for ten minutes and make a conclusion based on your intelligence rather than raw data from Google?Wisdom (or intelligence) is measured not merely by data and credentials but through applied learning.If you have a closed mind regarding any possibility of learning anything from a Theologian, I would only "attack" you by labeling you as willfully ignorant much as you do me.I would respect you a lot more if you at least listened to what I find compelling (Note: It's NOT a YOUTUBE video) and then offered constructive criticism based on what was attempted to be taught rather than on a juvenile approach of checkmating me through Google.Or you can dismiss me with a handwave, telling me to crawl back under my rock...much as you did the whole idea of Belief in God. You become the decisions you make, as do I.

Maybe so, but I would show as much caution towards an "atheist activist" scholar (or more so, in my personal case) as I would to any believer.You refuse to listen to a Pastor or believer and yet listen to a scholar with their own biases.Like me, you already have your mind made up beforehand.To your (and Theodoric's) credit, you value "evidence" more than you do belief, but fail to see your bias, as you prejudge any believer as being "brainwashed" and/or uncritical in their examination of Jesus.Since you have written off the possibility of any sort of a supernatural or *unexplained* narrative to the Jesus character, you are in my opinion biased.From a strictly critical thinking paradigm, all you are doing is attempting to falsify in order to critically examine the narrative from an unbiased perspective, so I see both sides of this.

Believers themselves qualify as evidence in my view. And by no means do I mean *all* of them. The guy that I linked you to was not some random internet troll nor a Pastor who was only in it for the money. That much I can assure you.GDR used to be a fan of NT Wright and I have never read him, so I likely will put one of his books on my bucket list.

Depends to an extent on who his peers are and what they personally believe.Otherwise, I'm gonna call bias.As I have said before, personality and character count as much as do evidence and data in my world.You sure were quick to berate ICANT for his "arrogance". Seems as if you are all too ready to pounce on anyone who is unlike you.

If I had my say, then NO.In the interest of human consensus as a basic allowance, we would have to allow it.Science by definition never settles on any one belief. Science by definition tests each belief by and through the scientific method...which is why a minority of scientists are believers. It goes against their method.Believers, OTOH, have been so convinced through the acquisition of belief that they often seek to hold on to it and not let it go. Falsification eliminates certainty, which is a cornerstone of the method.

That would only be true if evidence was the final authority.Since knowledge increases over time, at least for humans, there is no final answer. There is only questions and tentative answers.

Do you ever keep looking for something after you have found it?If that sounds in any way arrogant, let me know.