René Salm on AFA to discuss Nazareth

[Secret Alias]

In fact I think we find that most people on both sides of the historicity of Jesus debate readily concede that the existence or nonexistence of Nazareth in the early first century ce makes no difference to the question of the historicity of Jesus per se

In theory maybe but in practice- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's not just mythicists. The humanities are an unideal, imperfect science to say the least. Oh if only we were arguing over the mating habits of fleas! But wait a minute we would even have a forum debating that in the first place ...

[Jax]

So by your reasoning, a PhD in theology from Jerkwater USA should have the same standing as a PhD in ancient history from Cambridge. Right?

I am arguing for a standardized measure of deserving to be taken seriously, deserving to be heard, deserving to be heard.

Then by your metric; you and I do not exist.

[neilgodfrey]

In fact I think we find that most people on both sides of the historicity of Jesus debate readily concede that the existence or nonexistence of Nazareth in the early first century ce makes no difference to the question of the historicity of Jesus per se

In theory maybe but in practice- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's not just mythicists. The humanities are an unideal, imperfect science to say the least. Oh if only we were arguing over the mating habits of fleas! But wait a minute we would even have a forum debating that in the first place ...

I have just "returned" from an atheist forum debating Nazareth. Not a single person arguing against Salm's book had read Salm's book, though some said they had read a few web articles by him. The arguments against Salm consisted solely of repeating the very texts that Salm was analysing and critiquing in his books. Ability to quote the conventional wisdom was all that was required to "rebut" Salm. No, that's not quite right. Along with ignoring his analysis and arguments it also appeared obligatory to be able to spit personal abuse at Salm and anyone who indicated a partially favourable interest in his arguments.

There was a persistent accusation that ran though the anti-Salm camp: Salm and his supporters, it was alleged, were so stupid as to think that disproving Nazareth also disproved Jesus. On the other side, Salm and his supporter insisted that the Nazareth question did nothing more than cast doubts on the more conservative interpretation of Christian origins but also it did open the door to the historicity question (not conclusion) more generically, too. It was enough for Salm's opponents to simply ignore or ridicule such statements.

I found the debate tiresome because I have experienced it before on theist sites. The experience in both camps was the same. Ignore Salm's arguments and claims; insult him personally; repeat the claims that Salm questions as if his questions did not exist and had never been raised.

[MrMacSon]

Regarding "atheist" forums, they usually attract a certain subset of people, at least as far as the regulars are concerned. I think it's quite understandable if people who just start out to come to terms with losing their faith seek out places like that, as a kind of way station. It's the psychological equivalent of a hug I guess. After a short while, they will move on ...

Agreed. This was also my first thought.

That AFA Forum is dominated by a long-term hard core of narrow-minded, sub-normal idiots.

[Secret Alias]

I just hate "snowflake" argument "it's unfair!" Then use the roadblocks to hone your arguments/your approach.