= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
juliawise comments on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (399)
Bible scholars have a consensus that this is the case, although whether they are doing any actual scholarship with regard to the issue is questionable. Atheists by and large do not become Bible scholars, and the mind-killing effects of religion mean that theists tend to do notably poor scholarship in this particular area.
However when a rationalist tries to drill down to the actual evidence you find that nothing is there, apart from Bible scholars reading the Bible and saying "this Paul guy seems legit, I don't think he'd have made that up".
No, but many Bible scholars become atheists after they realize how nonsensical their study material is.
It seems likely to me that there was some person who served as the nucleus for a Jesus myth, just as it seems likely there was a real Briton general who served as the nucleus for a King Arthur myth. But we have no way of knowing anything about either, and I don't see that it matters much either way.
Do you have a reference to support your first claim?
I've heard of several. I don't know stats on what proportion of Bible scholars de-convert.
Bart D. Ehrman - author of a book saying lots of the New Testament was forged
Francesca Stavrakopoulou (unclear when she became atheist)
Robert Price - went from Baptist minister to Cthulu mythologist. Not kidding.
Jacques Berlinerblau, who does say he knows few openly atheist biblical scholars.
The second sentence of this response is a non-defense of your thesis, and the rest of it does not help your case, much. I am open to evidence of your claim that "many" have become atheists. For the sake of argument, I would admit that >10% conversion rate would count as "many", as would, say, some absolute number such as 1,000 in the last 100 years.
Perhaps you can find some authority who has researched this question?
Sorry, I intended my above comment to mean: "There are some, I found these four, but apparently (according to Jacques Berlinerblau), there aren't many."