Wikipedia disagrees with Jesus mythicist view
Offline The 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth hypothesis' articles both have sections attempting to show that the myth hypothesis is effectively refuted and not accepted in academia period. For example:
"The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians. In 2004, Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today. Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the thesis as "effectively refuted".
Of course "Biblical Scholars" seem unreliable from an Atheist viewpoint, but there has to be some way to address their arguments. Some of the writings on this site (A silence that screams, etc) are linked to at the bottom of the discussion page, but apparently editors don't see any merit for these arguments in the Wiki article either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis
- Login to post comments
That is because I didn't publish my book yet...and its wikipedia.
I'm going to try to find a link to this but I recall a study which concluded that the only really reliable Wikipedia articles are their science articles, probably because the contributions to said articles are overwhelmingly from people who actually study or work in the sciences.
As for the proposed Jesus Myth, my atheism is hardly contingent on whether or not a person named Jesus Christ actually existed, and is the sole subject of the biblical records. "Biblical scholars" doesn't necessarily mean "theist scholars." I know many agnostics and atheists who are Biblical scholars without belonging to one of the Abrahamic religions. Some of them are Jesus Mythicists, others believe that Jesus was a real person, but reject the claim of his divinity. Biblical Archaeology, too, has produced some of the strongest evidence against the veracity of the Bible. While it's a strong possibility that Jesus Christ was a composite figure, IMO, or that most of the Biblical accounts of his life are fictional, I don't really have a stake in it. A historical Jesus does not imply the existence of god anymore than a historical Buddha implies that reincarnation is real.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Wikipedia sucks the cum out of a dead donkey's dick.
Im just going to assume you have a picture of "that" hidden away on your hard drive... where one day, you shall catch us all by suprise.
What Would Kharn Do?
Anything to do with jesus, christianity, or the bible on wikipedia is going to be biased in their favor. That's obvious. Wikipedia is great for non-controversal topics though.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia you can edit. So go and edit it!
Wikipedia is good for science and math articles (because they are factual) and pop culture articles (because real encyclopedias don't have them); but if you pick a subject that anybody and everybody has an opinion on, then it is likely to have to go through this type of bias.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
ummm, now which j e s u s would that be ??? So many to chose.
Your edits won't last long. It will be reverted within minutes by a christian toady.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I suppose the chritians that write articles are hardly going to tell the the world jesus doesn't exist. But what would they write in the Atheist article..
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
My initial post made some hasty generalizations as I was a bit defensive from the talk page response to these links:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts
The response to whether these have any citations or quotes that could be used:
Review the articles from this link. They are more for academia, and the sources are credible.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/rookhawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Also, sites such as infidel.org are automatically labeled as being a biased, unreliable source regardless of what sources are actually used on that site. Same goes for this site, any original writings seem to be lumped into "biased POV source, unreliable" regardless of content.
They take the whole "rationalresponders" URL as biased. You need to get these topics published in a journal or book before they'll consider content.
There are plenty of academic studies on this subject. Infidels.org is a peer reviewed online journal, so anything by Carrier or Price there is going to be reviewed by academia. Also there are several theists who publish on the secular web, such as Peter Kirby.
My book is being peer reviewed, and so is the content on my blog, by the Copenhagen International Seminar. Thomas L. Thompson has published a book called the Messiah Myth, it has been peer reviewed. The people you're talking to do not even have a clue what "peer review" means...so don't worry about what they have to say.
Second, you should remind them that if it is so easy to refute, surely they can do so without resorting to ad hom attacks. The arguments are important.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Rook,
You'll just get a bunch of 'That's not enough proof!'
I've beat my head against the wall with these kind of arguments on Wikipedia over and over again. Effectively, the site policy is that anything not accepted in the mainstream (and published as such) is 'original research'.
And doing one's own research is bad.
Yes, it's a load of crap - but that's how the double standards tend to work over there. Wikipedia is great for finding sources; just not being used as a source.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
No teacher I know accepts Wikipedia as a credible source on anything. So effectively.....fuck Wikipedia.