argumentum ad populem

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34686993

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34686993

It's populum, and it's not an argumentum ad populum in any case.

Apart from that though...

[Enki]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.
Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

I am concerned at such second hand faith in both the believers of jesus as myth and the believers in a ''literal'' Genesis.
I suppose you as an antitheist are cockahoop that people follow Jesus Myth irrespective of it's truth or otherwise.

[Enki]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

The poll suggests that 40% of people didn't realise that Jesus was a real person(assuming, of course, that he was) so the Christian message doesn't really seem to be very successful, does it? Also, although 57% classified themselves as Christian, fewer than 10% actually go to church. So, I assume from the article, that the CofE at least isn't being particularly successful in holding on to its adherents very well. I see this as a problem for Christianity in this country, unless you think that they are happy with this situation, of course.

The point about history education is a much wider point, and, yes, I think that there could well be problems with both the understanding and knowledge of history as it is taught in schools

I'm not really sure what the relevance of the thread title is to this survey, though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

The poll suggests that 40% of people didn't realise that Jesus was a real person(assuming, of course, that he was) so the Christian message doesn't really seem to be very successful, does it?

Unsurprising in a secular society but it shows that History Education is not getting this across.

This belies the bleating of the NSS and BHS about undue Christian influence in schools.
This is evidence of the success of the control and indoctrination by Secular Humanists.

That people end up ignorant as a result of it is probably celebrated by many here as it shows that their brutal and bastard intellectual fascist programme has succeeded.

[Maeght]

I was surprised by the 'did not realise Jesus was a real person' when that is not certain and it had already said 'Many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man'. It should have been that people 'did not realise that many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man' surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was surprised by the 'did not realise Jesus was a real person' when that is not certain and it had already said 'Many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man'. It should have been that people 'did not realise that many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man' surely.

No what they should have said is that the Jesus myth theory is very probably shite due to crappy methodology.

.........Nothing contentious about that.

[Maeght]

I was surprised by the 'did not realise Jesus was a real person' when that is not certain and it had already said 'Many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man'. It should have been that people 'did not realise that many scholars agree that Jesus was a real man' surely.

No what they should have said is that the Jesus myth theory is very probably shite due to crappy methodology.

.........Nothing contentious about that.

I think it most likely that Jesus was a real person and see nothing in the Jesus myth theory myself but it is not correct to state that he was in the way they did.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladulous,

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.

No, the evidence for a historical Jesus (the man, not the demi-god) is too flimsy for that. That's why his existence isn't taught in history classes. What is widely accepted though is that at that time miracle stories were widely accepted as explanations for all sorts of phenomena, that there were lots of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, street conjurors etc around, and that it's entirely possible that the accounts of one such (or an amalgam of several of them) caught the wind and thrived while others were forgotten.
 

Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

Ignorance of what? You need to establish the fact before it can be ignored.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Wrongly so. "Jesus" isn't taught in history classes because of insufficient evidence. Darwinian evolution is ignored or lied about by some as an active campaign of religious disinformation.

I am concerned at such second hand faith in both the believers of jesus as myth and the believers in a ''literal'' Genesis.

I suppose you as an antitheist are cockahoop that people follow Jesus Myth irrespective of it's truth or otherwise.

Not a bit. All I am is relieved to see that the creeping hand of religious PR has failed to make it into the mainstream teaching of history. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladulous,

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.

No, the evidence for a historical Jesus (the man, not the demi-god) is too flimsy for that. That's why his existence isn't taught in history classes. What is widely accepted though is that at that time miracle stories were widely accepted as explanations for all sorts of phenomena, that there were lots of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, street conjurors etc around, and that it's entirely possible that the accounts of one such (or an amalgam of several of them) caught the wind and thrived while others were forgotten.
 

Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

Ignorance of what? You need to establish the fact before it can be ignored.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Wrongly so. "Jesus" isn't taught in history classes because of insufficient evidence. Darwinian evolution is ignored or lied about by some as an active campaign of religious disinformation.

I am concerned at such second hand faith in both the believers of jesus as myth and the believers in a ''literal'' Genesis.

I suppose you as an antitheist are cockahoop that people follow Jesus Myth irrespective of it's truth or otherwise.

Not a bit. All I am is relieved to see that the creeping hand of religious PR has failed to make it into the mainstream teaching of history.

Well I think we should certainly listen to historians here and most of those seem to accept a Historical Jesus.
On has to wonder why the Jesus Myth movement only really emerges 19 centuries after the event and as you demonstrate here doesn't seem to work without making a kind of no miracles, no Jesus argument.

To think that Jesus is definitely a myth, or even likely to be a myth there has to be a bit of misinformation going about.

You say you are relieved to see that religious PR has failed to make it into the mainstream teaching of history........It seems you are also happy that history has failed to make it into the mainstream teaching of history. 

[Outrider]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Probably because this:

"But, the Church of England survey found that four in 10 people did not realise Jesus was a real person, with a quarter of 18 to 34 year olds believing he was a mythical or fictional character."

 - is highly misleading.

Jesus may have been a real person, but the real person bears as much relation to the Jesus myth as the real Robin Hood does to Kevin Costner's depiction. It's not, primarily, a problem of history teaching because a) there's not enough evidence to teach anything reliable as history and b) the impact of it as an origin myth for a religion is far more important then its impact as an historical event.

O.

[Outrider]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.
Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

The article says that 40% did not believe Jesus was a real person - that's not a majority. I wonder if the question might have elicited a different result if they'd asked if Jesus was based on a real person, rather than was one.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Except for the whole 'denial of the overwhelming body of evidence' thing, you mean?

I am concerned at such second hand faith in both the believers of jesus as myth and the believers in a ''literal'' Genesis. I suppose you as an antitheist are cockahoop that people follow Jesus Myth irrespective of it's truth or otherwise.

Personally, I'd much rather people didn't give a toss at all and just focussed on being good people.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Jesus may have been a real person, but the real person bears as much relation to the Jesus myth as the real Robin Hood does to Kevin Costner's depiction. It's not, primarily, a problem of history teaching because a) there's not enough evidence to teach anything reliable as history and b) the impact of it as an origin myth for a religion is far more important then its impact as an historical event.

O.

If historians as a collective are satisfied that there is a historical Jesus most of the above is spin on your part.

b) Misses the point. As it is important to teach why ID is not science there is also mileage in history teaching to teach the strange case of the jesus mythers, and why they are rejected.

You seem to be claiming ignorance and confirmation bias is the result of sound academic reasoning.

What a rotter! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.
Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

The article says that 40% did not believe Jesus was a real person - that's not a majority. I wonder if the question might have elicited a different result if they'd asked if Jesus was based on a real person, rather than was one.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Except for the whole 'denial of the overwhelming body of evidence' thing, you mean?

Are you saying that Jesus Mythers (40%) accept ''an overwhelming body of evidence'' ?

 

[Outrider]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Jesus may have been a real person, but the real person bears as much relation to the Jesus myth as the real Robin Hood does to Kevin Costner's depiction. It's not, primarily, a problem of history teaching because a) there's not enough evidence to teach anything reliable as history and b) the impact of it as an origin myth for a religion is far more important then its impact as an historical event.

O.

If historians are satisfied that there is a historical Jesus most of the above is spin on your part.

b) Misses the point. As it is important to teach why ID is not science there is also mileage in history teaching to teach the strange case of the jesus mythers, and why they are rejected.

You seem to be claiming ignorance and confirmation bias is the result of sound academic reasoning.

What a rotter!

Historians concede that the myth of Jesus is probably partially based on a real figure - exactly who that was, how extensive his reach and everything else is pretty much unknown, which suggests that it's fairly minimal. I accept the probability of an historical basis, but the scope of it is highly questionable - that's my point, to watch out for the liberties taken by 'historians concede a probable historical basis for the idea of Jesus' becoming 'therefore God'.

It's not that important to teach why ID is not science, it's just important to teach that it isn't. It's not important to teach why the 'Jesus mythers' aren't right so much as it's important to point out that there's no evidence for any of the mythic guff.

No, I'm pointing out - as Dr Goldacre so succinctly put it - 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'.

O.

[Outrider]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.
Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

The article says that 40% did not believe Jesus was a real person - that's not a majority. I wonder if the question might have elicited a different result if they'd asked if Jesus was based on a real person, rather than was one.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Except for the whole 'denial of the overwhelming body of evidence' thing, you mean?

Are you saying that Jesus Mythers (40%) accept ''an overwhelming body of evidence'' ?

Are you suggesting the patchy evidence for a real basis for the Jesus myth are of the same quality, quantity, breadth and depth as the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution's capacity to explain the well-documented phenomenon of evolution?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I saw that. It simply emphasises to me the problems that Christianity faces, and what a confusing state of flux Christianity seems to be in, at least in this country.

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Jesus may have been a real person, but the real person bears as much relation to the Jesus myth as the real Robin Hood does to Kevin Costner's depiction. It's not, primarily, a problem of history teaching because a) there's not enough evidence to teach anything reliable as history and b) the impact of it as an origin myth for a religion is far more important then its impact as an historical event.

O.

If historians are satisfied that there is a historical Jesus most of the above is spin on your part.

b) Misses the point. As it is important to teach why ID is not science there is also mileage in history teaching to teach the strange case of the jesus mythers, and why they are rejected.

You seem to be claiming ignorance and confirmation bias is the result of sound academic reasoning.

What a rotter!

Historians concede that the myth of Jesus is probably partially based on a real figure - exactly who that was, how extensive his reach and everything else is pretty much unknown, which suggests that it's fairly minimal. I accept the probability of an historical basis, but the scope of it is highly questionable - that's my point, to watch out for the liberties taken by 'historians concede a probable historical basis for the idea of Jesus' becoming 'therefore God'.

It's not that important to teach why ID is not science, it's just important to teach that it isn't. It's not important to teach why the 'Jesus mythers' aren't right so much as it's important to point out that there's no evidence for any of the mythic guff.

No, I'm pointing out - as Dr Goldacre so succinctly put it - 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'.

O.

1:Not teaching why is just indoctrination Outrider.
2: If it has got about that Jesus Mythers are right then something is going wrong.
Happiness with the situation gives lie to so called Skeptiks guffing on about ''Critical thinking''.
3: You are effectively calling for the suspension of ''critical thinking'' in areas of history you don't like.

[Outrider]

1:Not teaching why is just indoctrination Outrider.

If you've taught people what science is, you don't need to explain why ID isn't science.

2: If it has got about that Jesus Mythers are right then something is going wrong.

A balance of probabilities does not make something definitively 'right'. In the particulars of the idea of Jesus and the myths that surround whomever is the basis for the story, it's a bit more complicated than 'all myth' or 'all true'.

3: You are effectively calling for the suspension of ''critical thinking'' in areas of history you don't like.

On the contrary, I'm calling for there to be more than a binary 'all or nothing' depiction.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is this a problem for Christianity yet not a problem of history education?

Because it's faith, not history.

No, I think you'll find most historians are happy that there is a historical Jesus.
To promote a line that there wasn't one is to advocate the minority view.
Also we have to also think of the possibility that the majority hold this view out of ignorance.

The article says that 40% did not believe Jesus was a real person - that's not a majority. I wonder if the question might have elicited a different result if they'd asked if Jesus was based on a real person, rather than was one.

It looks to me that the same will or preference to believe that Jesus does not exist is very similar to the position in the states where so many do not believe in historical Darwinian evolution.

Except for the whole 'denial of the overwhelming body of evidence' thing, you mean?

Are you saying that Jesus Mythers (40%) accept ''an overwhelming body of evidence'' ?

Are you suggesting the patchy evidence for a real basis for the Jesus myth are of the same quality, quantity, breadth and depth as the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution's capacity to explain the well-documented phenomenon of evolution?

O.

Irrelevent. We have to ask why 40% are wrong and what's more appaling, why people like thee sen find this acceptable........I'm worried about antitheism getting a reputation for hypocrisy when it comes to obvious and widespread ignorance.....Not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1:Not teaching why is just indoctrination Outrider.

If you've taught people what science is, you don't need to explain why ID isn't science.

2: If it has got about that Jesus Mythers are right then something is going wrong.

A balance of probabilities does not make something definitively 'right'. In the particulars of the idea of Jesus and the myths that surround whomever is the basis for the story, it's a bit more complicated than 'all myth' or 'all true'.

3: You are effectively calling for the suspension of ''critical thinking'' in areas of history you don't like.

On the contrary, I'm calling for there to be more than a binary 'all or nothing' depiction.

O.

Failed theories are or should be part of science teaching ......or do you want that distorted as well?
I think there are also some horrors in the public understanding of science......unsurprising if you've got people charged with the job using their watch to guff on about antitheism instead.

[Outrider]

Irrelevent.

No it's not irrelevant, you are directly comparing the two as equivalent, and they manifestly aren't.

We have to ask why 40% are wrong and what's more appaling, why people like thee sen find this acceptable........

They aren't definitively wrong, they are on the other side of a probably assessent by professional historians. Given the potential confusion I highlighted in the concept of the idea of the 'existence of an historical Jesus' I think it's more complicated than just that idea that 40% of people hold a definitively, demonstrable idea to be wrong. Sure I'd like for people in general to be better educated in the main, but I don't think the historicity of Jesus is high on the list of things that it's important to know any more than the historicity of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

I'm worried about antitheism getting a reputation for hypocrisy when it comes to obvious and widespread  ignorance.....Not.

Why bring anti-theism into it? Or is this your failure to comprehend the difference between atheism and anti-theism at the same time as you complain about the populace at large being potentially confused at the subtleties of the idea of the mythos around Jesus and the Jesus Myth?

O.

[Outrider]

Failed theories are or should be part of science teaching ......or do you want that distorted as well?

In some instances it's beneficial to teach theories which were shown to be untrue - Newton's law of gravitation, for instance. ID, though, is not a failed theory, it was never a scientifically formulated theory in the first place.

I think there are also some horrors in the public understanding of science......unsurprising if you've got people charged with the job using their watch to guff on about antitheism instead.

I'm sure you have a raft of evidence to back up that idea of why the state of science education is so parlous, right...

O.