Lister
Banned
What are you even talking about?
Did someone say lacking coherence? Hey Torjita, this is the guy you should have tried to shit post, not me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Who is the most famous person in human history?
- Thread starter Arc
- Start date
- Status
What are you even talking about?
Did someone say lacking coherence? Hey Torjita, this is the guy you should have tried to shit post, not me.
LookAtMeGo
Member
As opposed to alien history?
keltickennedy
Member
CHHHRRRRIIISSSTTTT!!!!!!
Lister
Banned
Lol, or a catdog.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
My argument is perfectly coherent.
What is up with people who treat science like this? And they're almost never even scientists?
Is imagine Trump's more famous in Europe even. Not everyone watches sports, but everyone paid attention to this year's election.
Not to mention the world's third largest country doesn't give a shit about soccer and everyone that lives there knows who Trump is.
Lister
Banned
I fervently hope that to be true. But I have my doubts that for most people politics comes before sports.
Lister
Banned
You appeared to be accusing me of claiming Jesus was a myth. Which is definitely not my position.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Come on man, you don't really believe that do you?
Apocryphon
Member
There are only 326 million people in the US. That less than 5% of the global population.
autumnleaf
Member
Why would Trump be more famous than Obama? I doubt he is more famous than Elizabeth II either.
Because there was a lot more visibility last election and Trump was already extremely well known before he ran.
And The US President is far more well known than the queen of England come on man.
ColdLasagna
Member
Chuck Long.
If the question is "who's been most in the news the last month?", but it's not. Of course Elizabeth is more famous.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Dude... we have one guy who was so significant that he divided time in before Him and after Him. I couldnt tell you the exact date of when Julius Caesar was born but I could tell you all about Jesus' and then some. Disputed facts or not the question here is "famous" and Jesus trumps(heh) over everyone.
Apocryphon
Member
Google indexes only a minuscule fraction of the web and this study is based on US search results only. The article says that the study is semi-serious and gives multiple caveats but I have a feeling that you are just trolling now.
Got 'im!
Berserking Guts
Member
Hideo Kojima
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I mean Jesus isn't really established as a FACT by history. He was written about 40 years after his life. That's enough time for legend or rumor to become fact.
But occam's razor is that he lived. That's the simplest answer.
People should just know he isn't known to have interacted in a web of historical events like he were Caesar, Mohommad or Churchill or whoever. If you took a time machine and went back and found he didn't live, it wouldn't be like "how???". It would mean one single source 40 years later wrote about a fiction.
But occam's razor is that he lived. That's the simplest answer.
People should just know he isn't known to have interacted in a web of historical events like he were Caesar, Mohommad or Churchill or whoever. If you took a time machine and went back and found he didn't live, it wouldn't be like "how???". It would mean one single source 40 years later wrote about a fiction.
Swimmer9800
Member
Lisa Ann
Regginator
Member
lol, no. Outside of the US he has very little appeal compared to, especially, football players like Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, and not to mention the classic legends like Maradona and Pele.
Skellig Gra
Member
That's not really accurate. There were many many splinter factions of the Jesus movement with their own traditions. Hence the 4 Gospels (many more were written) and the need for the council of Nicaea to codify the beliefs and remove the blatantly fake shit from the record.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
I'm not saying 100% historical Jesus didn't exist, there could easily have been some cult leader, maybe even named Yeshua at around the time who was maybe even crucified that was the inspiration for biblical Jesus just as there could be a guy (or guys) who was the inspiration for the folklore that makes up the tall tales of Paul Bunyan.
Archeology is not a science. It is a social science, which are not sciences.
Science is our best tool for understanding certain things about the universe. It must be qualified. Do you think science is the best tool to evaluate what caused the Glorious Revolution?
This isn't how history works, especially ancient history. You have to understand the limitations of your sources, not disregard anything they say just because there might be problems with it.
Here's what I don't get. You aren't even engaging with historians or the historical method in claiming things like this. You're just positing your own opinion as if it was equal to that of scholars. Why? You wouldn't walk up to a physicist and tell them that their methodology and thus conclusions are wrong, yet plenty of people feel comfortable doing just that to historians.
Steve Shapin has a really funny acedote about this. A heart surgeon asked his historian friend for advice on how he could pick up being a historian in his retirement. She responded that she'd give him tips, but only if he gave some to her as she was interested in picking up heart surgery in her own retirement.
SugarDaddy
Member
Considering we're all counting the years since Jesus was born, I'm gonna go with Jesus
Airola
Member
Yeah, it's mindboggling that there are people who dismiss the entire Bible as some sort of a fiction book like Lord of the Rings and some even go so far that they say they don't believe anything the Bible says. I'm not saying this thread has had these people but I've personally met people who said that.
But really, The Old Testament even has one awfully long part with just mostly recounting the relations of different people with each other. A long ass list of different people and who they are related with. I once had to read it out loud for a project and it took me over one hour to read. That's like the most boring possible piece of fiction if it's supposed to be merely just someone bullshitting everyone and not a historical account of any sort.
Now to think of it, imagine the people copying the Bible word after word by hand in the old days... Getting through that part must've been quite a battle to endure.
Basketball
Member
Ariana Grande from the Disney Channel
Lister
Banned
LOL! You think the council of Nicaea (and the other sometimes violent meetings between the early Cristian cults) was about removing the blatantly fake shit?
Don't kid yourself.
It's not the same as physics, I grant you that, but good archaeology follows the scientific method. Hypotheses are based on empirical data, they can be falsified. Sure, there's probably a lot more interpretation due to the human element in play, but it's not like it's some philosophy, were people sit on their ass making shit up.
I'd agree that's a simplistic reading of early church councils, but I have a feeling you aren't particularly aware of early church, and especially early ecclesiastical, history.
It isn't a science full stop. Social sciences are not sciences.
There's a lot wrong here. First of all it's been accepted for many decades now that there is no the scientific method. There are scientific methods. It's a descriptive not prescriptive term.
Secondly archaeology as a discipline is not experimentational, a core but not sufficient trait of the sciences.
Third of all I have a feeling you know little to nothing about philosophy, which both science and archaeology derive from. This isn't even an argument. You are just asserting philosophy is garbage without really giving a concrete reason, ironically while also praising science which gained and in its self-understanding, which I admit I think is incorrect, maintains legitimacy due to philosophy.
You're pretty clearly not an academic, so I don't understand what your horse in this race is other than just ironically sitting on your "ass making shit up".
I always found funny that one of the pillars of science it's constantly proving itself wrong in the pursue of knowledge.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The Bible is a collection of stories and letters from a variety of people. It wasn't written by one guy.
At some level that is kind of what is happening, certainly falsifiablility is an important element of why science is useful.
On another level this is vastly overestimating science's tendency to actually disprove itself as a body of work. I think despite all the problems people have with Kuhn, his idea of how scientific revolutions actually happen, i.e. different movements within fields becoming the dominate paradigm and displacing work done within the older ones, is a better way to understand what actually is usually happening when science seems to go against its earlier ideas.
More importantly for that poster's thinking there are extra-biblical sources that have been brought up throughout the thread and conveniently hand-waved away.
crisdecuba
Member
I feel like you could have 2 spinoff threads from this. One to clarify what is / isn't science and one to clarify the information around the historiciry of Jesus. Simple version is that social sciences aren't science and that the general consensus among historians is that the man Jesus did exist and was crucified.
Airola
Member
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was probably written in 52 AD.
If Jesus died in 33 AD, then it would make that letter being written 19 years after Jesus' death. That would be more than half less than 40 years.
Also keep in mind that what is written in these letters refer to things already established long ago so they have most certainly talked about the same things way before these letters were written. You can trace the contexts of some of the letters pretty close to the death of Jesus.
It's not as if these letters are the only times Jesus has been mentioned back then. A written piece of a letter is good evidence of something being written whenever it was written, but very often those writings also tell lots of other things about history too. Just because Paul in 52 AD happened to write the letter that ended up being put into the collection with other writings which became to be called as The Bible it doesn't mean that's the only date we can pick up from that and examine. For example sometimes there can be a letter written at some certain date but the text talks about some event that can be traced back to 10 years before the letter was written.
It's like people forget not everyone was able to write during those days and getting hold of something to write on and something to write with wasn't that easy. Also it was common back then to take time to write things down. Sometimes it just wasn't possible to write anything down. And tons of stone tablets and papyrus are destroyed and disappeared forever. It's quite lucky we have even this much of stuff collected in the Bible. I mean, people have found never before seen writings as late as last century.
It's easy for us to say today that the time between some ancient event and the text written about that event is oddly long. That's just how it was back in the day. There weren't people tweeting about things the second they happen.
Forsaken82
Member
You think Einstein is more famous than Darwin?
Prodigal Son
Member
Historical figures? Jesus probably.
Current figures? Trump.
'infamous' might be a more accurate descriptor for the last one.
Internationally? Absolutely. My lower income Caribbean and African peeps didn't know who Darwin was until much later in their life.
Current figures? Trump.
'infamous' might be a more accurate descriptor for the last one.
Internationally? Absolutely. My lower income Caribbean and African peeps didn't know who Darwin was until much later in their life.
ModernBoxes
Banned
I don't think there's historical fact nailing down that Jesus ever existed. So since we aren't talking about fictional figures...
I'll have to go with Einstein. Reasoning: More people exist now than in history. Einstein has to be more famous than Darwin too.
I'll have to go with Einstein. Reasoning: More people exist now than in history. Einstein has to be more famous than Darwin too.
Forsaken82
Member
Fair enough... What about Isaac Newton?
crisdecuba
Member
The strong general consensus of historians, and near east historians in particular, based on all the evidence available, is that Jesus (the man) existed and was crucified. You're incorrect in your understanding.
I think that a lot of people with some science background (say, a high school or undergraduate level background), but no real experience actually taking part in scientific research and publication, have an idealized impression of the scientific process.
Science aims to be objective, but humans are involved. Experimental design is often flawed, results are often talked up, and people with some stature in their fields are in a position to put down theories that go against their own pet ideas.
Theoretically, every experiment can be reproduced and independently verified, but in the modern age of heavily modelled, computer aided brute force number crunching, some of this stuff is really expensive. Who has the extra funding and time to do that? You won't get a splashy publication from verifying someone else's work. In most fields, you won't get published at all for doing that. Similarly, no one bothers to publish negative results in most fields (medicine probably being one of the exceptions, but I have little background in medical research).
Z..
Member
People here like to take the fact that so much about his existence and deeds is unknown/unknowable and/or conjecture built on hearsay and use it as an excuse to disqualify any claims he existed. They're making us atheists look dumb and seem to be proud of their ignorance while mistaking it for intelligence. Weird stuff, to be sure... Oo
Who are you talking about? Ramesses II?
- Status