Ongoing Skeptic Thread

[troutman]

Chiropractic school angers FSU professors

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/12/29/St...school_a.shtml

[Daradon]

I thought chiropractics had gained some legitimacy in recent years? Don't a lot of sports medicine programs use varying degree of chiropractics? There's more emphasis on muscle and tissue massage now isn't there? Not just back snapping.

I don't really have a feeling one way or the other, just wondering out loud.

Funny map though.

[AltaGuy]

I honestly feel like chiropractics are a complete and utter sham. Every single person I know who goes to chiropractors continues to do so time after time, since they apparently need these "adjustments" to aid whatever "mis-alignment" the chiropractor claims exists.

Go to physio. Something with actual science backing it.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I honestly feel like chiropractics are a complete and utter sham. Every single person I know who goes to chiropractors continues to do so time after time, since they apparently need these "adjustments" to aid whatever "mis-alignment" the chiropractor claims exists.

THIS. I always say, it's funny how people who go to chiropractors seem to have chronic back problems, needing them to continue to go back.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I thought chiropractics had gained some legitimacy in recent years? Don't a lot of sports medicine programs use varying degree of chiropractics? There's more emphasis on muscle and tissue massage now isn't there? Not just back snapping.

I don't really have a feeling one way or the other, just wondering out loud.

Funny map though.

Muscle and tissue massage is not chiro, (which was really all about spine manipulations). They should abandon the subluxation theory and the chiro baggage, and do legitimate physical therapy.

[Textcritic]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I have seen a number of posts over the years from members who like to tow Richard Carrier's line and deny the historical existence of Jesus. I have just finished reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. One the one hand, it is somewhat unfortunate that this is the only book on the topic, because while Ehrman is a good scholar and a good writer, I fear that he often has a tendency to repeat himself, and to wander when making his arguments. On the other hand, the reason why this is the only book on the topic is really because the question of the existence of a man named Jesus, around whom a popular religion developed, is one that historians of ALL stripes have accepted without reservation for centuries.

Are you skeptical about the existence of a historical Jesus? You really should read this very accessible book, written by a highly respected expert in the field.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you skeptical about the existence of a historical Jesus?

Nope

1) If there was a dude named Jesus he certainly wasn't born from a virgin and was likely one big fraud.

2) If he never existed then his name and life came from a storyteller.

Either way it just doesn't matter to me.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Nope

1) If there was a dude named Jesus he certainly wasn't born from a virgin and was likely one big fraud.

I guess that depends entirely on what you believe about what he said and did, and more importantly, about his own self-perception. The Jesus of Christianity is generally understood by most experts to be quite different from the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

[troutman]

I thought there were a number of books (and blogs) on the question of a historical Jesus.

To say that a number of historians support the theory is a bit of a logical fallacy - the argument from authority or argument from popularity.

I understand the actual evidence is unsatisfactory (hearsay and out of time) and that the question is probably unanswerable.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I have seen a number of posts over the years from members who like to tow Richard Carrier's line and deny the historical existence of Jesus. I have just finished reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. One the one hand, it is somewhat unfortunate that this is the only book on the topic, because while Ehrman is a good scholar and a good writer, I fear that he often has a tendency to repeat himself, and to wander when making his arguments. On the other hand, the reason why this is the only book on the topic is really because the question of the existence of a man named Jesus, around whom a popular religion developed, is one that historians of ALL stripes have accepted without reservation for centuries.

Are you skeptical about the existence of a historical Jesus? You really should read this very accessible book, written by a highly respected expert in the field.

I haven't read that book yet, but it seems to not be up to Ehrman's usual standards from what I've heard from the usual crowd I read (who include some mythicists but not exclusively).

I have read some of the blog posts from Carrier about the criticisms he has about the book and some of the responses.

I also haven't read Carrier's first book of two (Proving History) where he talks more about the state of Jesus studies in general rather than specifically on the historicity of Jesus. I'm slowly working through a book on the resurrection but haven't given it much time lately.

As you say I think the biggest issue is that it's just been a foregone conclusion for so long maybe the actual scholarship in the area isn't as mature as it could be.

At the end I don't think it matters all that much to me at least if there was a historical origin or not. And even if scholars did come to a consensus that Jesus was mythical rather than historical, I don't think that would actually change things that much.. more liberal denominations would adapt, and others would ignore scholars like they already do.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

I haven't read that book yet, but it seems to not be up to Ehrman's usual standards from what I've heard from the usual crowd I read (who include some mythicists but not exclusively).

I have read some of the blog posts from Carrier about the criticisms he has about the book and some of the responses.

I also haven't read Carrier's first book of two (Proving History) where he talks more about the state of Jesus studies in general rather than specifically on the historicity of Jesus. I'm slowly working through a book on the resurrection but haven't given it much time lately.

As you say I think the biggest issue is that it's just been a foregone conclusion for so long maybe the actual scholarship in the area isn't as mature as it could be.

At the end I don't think it matters all that much to me at least if there was a historical origin or not. And even if scholars did come to a consensus that Jesus was mythical rather than historical, I don't think that would actually change things that much.. more liberal denominations would adapt, and others would ignore scholars like they already do.

This is how I approach the question. I strip away the virgin birth, the resurrection and any other supposed miracles and look at Jesus' teachings. They either have meaning to me or they don't. I'm not a Christian in the usual sense but mostly they do have meaning.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This is how I approach the question. I strip away the virgin birth, the resurrection and any other supposed miracles and look at Jesus' teachings. They either have meaning to me or they don't. I'm not a Christian in the usual sense but mostly they do have meaning.

"IF" Jesus was mythical he wouldn't have any teachings. They would be called parables or fables.
Jesus did not exist because people "say so" and there is very little (none) historicity surrounding the life of Jesus. It is quite likely that he did not exist at all.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

"IF" Jesus was mythical he wouldn't have any teachings. They would be called parables or fables.

This is where I disagree. The teachings whether they came from Jesus or someone else are relevant to me and can stand on their own. I could probably say the same about Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad and some others. When I look at these various religious masters I believe they are all giving the same message just varied by personality, and the time and circumstances.

[Cheese]

well then lets call them fables and not religions...we dont bestow Aesop the same favor.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

well then lets call them fables and not religions...we dont bestow Aesop the same favor.

Could Aesop show you how to experience god?

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Could Aesop show you how to experience god?

No. But I bet Aesop could have a rabbit show you how to experience god.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

No. But I bet Aesop could have a rabbit show you how to experience god.

What's this nonsense?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

I thought there were a number of books (and blogs) on the question of a historical Jesus.

To say that a number of historians support the theory is a bit of a logical fallacy - the argument from authority or argument from popularity.

As far as I know, there has not been a single book written on the topic by an expert or at the scholarly level.

It is analogously no more so than saying the same thing for global warming doubters and creationists. Is appealing to the overwhelming number of historians who affirm the holocaust against holocaust deniers also an argument from authority? Technically, yes, but when professionals working in the field are so overwhelmingly of the same opinion on a matter, then that should tell you something of its strength.

Originally Posted by troutman

I understand the actual evidence is unsatisfactory (hearsay and out of time) and that the question is probably unanswerable.

Yes, that is probably true, given that because of his social standing and the circumstances of his death, there will be no physical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. On the other hand, there are many things from history that we accept reasonably to have occurred without much good evidence. There is a legitimate question with regards to Socrates' existence, and yet I doubt there are many who seriously object to the idea that he did in fact exist. Certainly not to the vitriolic degree that mythicists argue against the existence of Jesus.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I guess that depends entirely on what you believe about what he said and did, and more importantly, about his own self-perception. The Jesus of Christianity is generally understood by most experts to be quite different from the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes I understand this, it's just personally I believe there is no evidence of a "GOD" therefore Christianity (or any other religion) means nothing to me. If a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago,great! he was possibly very smart and "moving"...but non-the-less just a human being.

In the 2000 odd years since he possibly lived there have been no miracles,everything in the great "book" has been debunked as fairy-tales,huge wars and crimes against humanity all in the name of Jesus or Mohammad.

There's a new comet coming this fall,will 39 more idiots commit suicide hoping to jump aboard and be saved by Jesus?

Religion is a huge pile of reserved for the uneducated or just plain stupid...sorry to be blunt!

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is analogously no more so than saying the same thing for global warming doubters and creationists. Is appealing to the overwhelming number of historians who affirm the holocaust against holocaust deniers also an argument from authority? Technically, yes, but when professionals working in the field are so overwhelmingly of the same opinion on a matter, then that should tell you something of its strength.

For the record, "appeal to authority" is not a logical fallacy. "Appeal to unqualified authority" is the fallacy.

For example, appealing to the views/beliefs of a theologian on a question of science. Or the other way around.