over 90% of historians (Christians and non-Christians) believe Jesus existed

[jimbo]

Hi,

A while back Crystal made this claim. For obvious reasons, I found it rather hard to believe so I asked her where she got the statistic from and I received a very unsatisfactory reply. I later created a summation of our discussion of the claim and told her that it was unfortunate that she had to make up a fake statistic to back up her position. Here is my summation of our discussion of the claim:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...stal+statistic

I wrote: "I am curious where you got this statistic..."

You responded this way: "Reading, try it sometime."

I replied: "Seriously, do you have a source for your statement that 90% of ALL historians accept the existence of Jesus (as either a man or a god)? I find this a little hard to believe."

You retorted: "Than by all means Jimbo, prove me wrong. Any source I have ever looked at about Jesus that had a ounce of credibility say Jesus existed. Even the Jesus' siminar admits that much, I can only find a hand full that say he didn't, most are not historians... I also find quite intresting that the first time we really see this absured theory catching on is the French Revolution... kind of strange, don't you think."

I replied: "So am I to understand that your claim that 90% of all historians accept Jesus is your own personal view?"

You responded: "You are more than welcome to prove me wrong. Go ahead and do so."

I wrote back: "So it is simply your own opinion, which you never explained was you(r) own opinion. You presented this statistic as if it was a hard fact in order to support your beliefs. This makes me wary of other claims that you make."

When I posted this to her recently in the Jimbo imitation thread on the Tektonics section of the boards, she attempted to show that the statistic was valid. Here is what she wrote:

You sure are stupid huh dimbo?

Here is what CIA factbook says for religious population of the world:

Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/xx.html

Notice that they used the higher numbers. If we go by the high end of the religion number we end up with:

99.73%

If we go by the low end of the religious population:

85.61%

So if I were to average it out... what do we come to dimbo? Above 90%? So what did I make up? You know how long it took me to look this up? An entire 5 minutes. This is why people call you stupid. How long did it take you to find an example? Hours? How long did it take me to show your example was invalid? About 5 minutes. Try again dimbo...

Crystal

Now, I am not a math whiz or a master logician, but I don't see how she took these numbers regarding world religious populations and derived the percentage of historians who believe that Jesus existed. To me, one does not follow from the other. I mean, as far as I know neither she nor anyone else polled the historians of the world and found out what their religions they are afiiliated with or if they believed that Jesus existed.

I don't particularly like it when people make up fake statistics and then call other people stupid when they don't accept those fake statistics. That is what this looks like to me. What do you think?

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[nickcopernicus]

NICK:

I understand your point Jim; however, your case would be stronger if you could find some statistic that shows the acutal historical view. I would recommend the book "Cambridge guide to Jesus"

Cheers,

Nick

[Minnesota]

Hi,

A while back Crystal made this claim

. . . . .

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Kind of like arguing with a six year-old isn't it. That's why I gave up long ago.

[Carpedm9587]

Hi,

A while back Crystal made this claim. For obvious reasons, I found it rather hard to believe so I asked her where she got the statistic from and I received a very unsatisfactory reply. I later created a summation of our discussion of the claim and told her that it was unfortunate that she had to make up a fake statistic to back up her position. Here is my summation of our discussion of the claim:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...stal+statistic



When I posted this to her recently in the Jimbo imitation thread on the Tektonics section of the boards, she attempted to show that the statistic was valid. Here is what she wrote:



Now, I am not a math whiz or a master logician, but I don't see how she took these numbers regarding world religious populations and derived the percentage of historians who believe that Jesus existed. To me, one does not follow from the other. I mean, as far as I know neither she nor anyone else polled the historians of the world and found out what their religions they are afiiliated with or if they believed that Jesus existed.

I don't particularly like it when people make up fake statistics and then call other people stupid when they don't accept those fake statistics. That is what this looks like to me. What do you think?

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

Jimbo

If someone quotes a statistic - and then cannot provide a source - it is reasonable to conclude they made up the number to support their claim. If they could substantiate the claim, why would they hesitate to do so? And Crystal's defense has nothing to do with historians. It deals with the general population - which may or may not relate to historians.

And the argument "prove me wrong" is a silly one. It simply attempts to shift the burden of proof. If they cannot back up their claim, simply dismiss it and move on.

Michel

[Creationist442]

Yes, most historians agree that Jesus existed. Now why is it that skeptics claim that that is not the case? Only ignorance can be the answer for that.

[Carpedm9587]

Yes, most historians agree that Jesus existed. Now why is it that skeptics claim that that is not the case? Only ignorance can be the answer for that.

The point was the statistic, Crea. When someone quotes a statistic - they should be able to support it. If they can't - there is a good chance they made it up. Even if they didn't, there is no reason for someone to accept a statistic just because someone states it.

Personally, I happen to believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. I just don't believe he was a god.

Michel

[Meh_Gerbil]

Personally, I happen to believe Jesus of Nazareth existed. I just don't believe he was a god.

Michel

85% of historians believe He was God.

[Creationist442]

Yes, Carpe. The same could be said of Jim Eiesele 'arguments.'

[nickcopernicus]

85% of historians believe He was God.

NICK:

That was sarcasm right?

Cheers,

Nick

[Meh_Gerbil]

NICK:

That was sarcasm right?

Cheers,

Nick

Nick, you need to relax a little bit.

[nickcopernicus]

Yes, most historians agree that Jesus existed. Now why is it that skeptics claim that that is not the case? Only ignorance can be the answer for that.

NICK:
you wrote "skepticsBesides John Powell, can you indicate another atheist who claims that probably, there was no historical Jesus?

cheers,

Nick

[Creationist442]

Sorry, nick. Atheists and/or skeptics were what I was thinking, you know.

[nickcopernicus]

Nick, you need to relax a little bit.

NICK:
What do you mean?

creationalist, do you know of any other atheists or skeptics (here) who don't think that Jesus of Nazareth existed?
I would say that most atheists that I know think that probably, there was a Yeshua or whatever. But, the Jesus depticted in the gospels probably never existed. I.e. virgin birth, god/son of god/ human ect..

cheers,

[Creationist442]

Nick, I can name a lot of them, but for now this will do:

Michael Martin
Earl Doherty
Richard Carrier
Robert Funk
and.....
John Crossan

[Carpedm9587]

Yes, Carpe. The same could be said of Jim Eiesele 'arguments.'

No argument here....