Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Very convincing argument./s
Can you provide evidence of a 1st century conspiracy to make such a figure up? What was the purpose of that conspiracy?
The onus is not on them to find you anything. The onus is on you to prove that he's real.
Uhhh… no. Let’s use Occam’s razor here.
We have evidence of a group of followers of Jesus within a few decades of his death. Paul’s letters are probably the earliest written examples, written in the 60’s, where he is writing to groups of early Christians. We have independent confirmation in Josephus of “Jesus, who was called Christ” as well as the existence of John the Baptist.
The idea that a group of people in the mid first century all decided to collectively make up a guy who had supposedly died less than a few decades ago would require some kind of weird conspiracy. Lacking evidence of that conspiracy (or even evidence of a similar conspiracy?) the more reasonable explanation is that the guy existed. It’s not an extraordinary claim. We have about as much evidence for Socrates, who doesn’t automatically generate this kind of response.
The claim that the guy doesn’t exist has a lot more evidence than the claim that the guy does. The null hypothesis is that he existed, because it is the simplest way to explain the evidence we have, and doesn’t require a conspiracy that stretches over several communities and cities in the 1st century Roman Empire.
Again, the methodology of history is not the same as STEM. I want you to consider what you think the standard of evidence for providing someone exists is, and whether a personal dislike of the guy’s followers is coloring your interpretation of historical evidence.
I need you to stop patronizing people. I am well aware of how history works. People in STEM are capable of understanding other things. Wild, I know.
Historians do not agree on this, no matter how much you pretend that it's a fact.
Who? Give me some historians that disagree. The free one I’ll give you is Robert Price, who will even admit that the mainstream historical consensus disagrees with him.
Yeah, people in STEM are capable of understanding other things, just like people in the humanities are capable of understanding other things. But if one’s background is in Asian history, and they start to claim that the mainstream academic consensus on general relativity is wrong, they’re going to need to provide some serious justification.
Have you read a text from before 1400?