AcademicSaucer
Member
Jesus Christ.
.
Jesus Christ.
I mean at a certain point that is true all historical figures. This is a spectrum. You can draw a line, but because it is a spectrum it will ultimately be arbitrary.
What about people we know less about but are more sure they existed? That's the root of the issue. The conception of a person and the person themselves are not the same thing, and I don't believe there is a way out of that problem. We know very few of the things that happened in Ceaser's life, and much of what we do know is filtered through a variety of means.
The other problem this runs into is that it would work against all famous people, since something that comes along with fame is having things misattributed to you. Look at all the fake Einstein quotes for instance.
What does it mean to believe that the "fictional version was the real person". I assume you mean people accepting that the movie was a record of events that happened, which is the sticking point I doubt people would do that, and that the character he played was not a character being played by someone. Without knowing the alternative, i.e. people aware that the character itself was a fabrication, he would have to be taken seriously as a historical figure. That's the nature of our knowledge of the past.
Is he really? is he?
But still, Messi is not even the best known soccer player, is he more famous than any of the Ronaldos, Pelé or Maradona?
Messi getting treated like discount Maradona relating to fameIs he really? is he?
But still, Messi is not even the best known soccer player, is he more famous than any of the Ronaldos, Pelé or Maradona?
First post etc.Jesus Christ.
I feel like Hitler's infamy will wane sooner, rather than later. He's a big deal now because he just happens to be the most recent evil conqueror type, but when comes someone else that evil, he will be replaced by that new person.
Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.What is this Jesus ain't real stuff? He was real right, just not God?
I didn't see it. Does he cover this in some way?
Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.
Messi getting treated like discount Maradona relating to fame
----
Someone posted Elvis?
Human history dude not American history
What about somebody who is widely believed to have existed yet historians largely question if not outright deny the person existed? If enough people believe a person was real does that justify them as an answer? Especially if it's based on religious which inherently asks a person to put faith in their teachings and religious texts.
Because if not, is it not a reasonable next step to view people with scant but existing historical evidence skeptically when the majority of the perception of their lives has little historical evidence to support it if not evidence that refutes many of the beliefs?
We can't say for sure what happened during the life of Alexander the Great, but there's most evidence that backs up the broader events in his life as well as fewer reasons to question the primary sources (at least in comparison to the Bible and how it was written).
I get that we are talking about a grey area where there isn't a great line to draw. I do. It just seems weird to lump in traditional historical figures with religious figures with enough evidence to presumably have existed in some form.
Worldwide? Right now? Yes. He is incredibly popular. There's an entire generation that has no idea who Ali is and most people in Europe, South America and Asia will know who Messi is.
It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.
I guarantee you that messi is better known worldwide than Ali.
It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".
I wouldn't say that they would make a good answer, but that's because I'm a historian and at a certain level the arbitrary line from before must be drawn. For Historians to believe such a person did not exist would probably involve them having evidence that he was fabricated. That's far enough for me to draw my arbitrary line, but I would still acknowledge it as arbitrary. This ends up being a problem with what the point of the question is that won't be settled because it isn't a very useful or interesting question really.
The issue with the line is more the other way around I think. It's the people that we are a little more sure of, and in fundamentally different ways, than these religious figures.
Viewing them skeptically isn't the problem, its the implied not viewing people we have more evidence of skeptically that is. Skepticism should be a spectrum here. The problem I'm seeing is making a stark divide between people we know about and so are okay and people we don't know about and so aren't.
Obviously we know his life better, it certainly was better documented, but this is a question of degrees. Alexander is far close to Jesus on this spectrum than he is to say FDR. That being said I would certainly complicate the idea that there are fewer reasons to question the primary sources involved. That requires a pretty nuanced argument.
Where we seem to be disagreeing is that I'm saying this isn't just one grey area. All of our historical knowledge is different shades of grey.
So what undeniable evidence is there that Jesus is fictional? All these non-edgelords seem pretty convinced it's an accepted fact.It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".
It's weird because I believe Jesus existed and I don't know that I've disagreed with anything you've said; yet for some reason there is this divide in my mind between Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha and other historical figures. I suppose I'm conflating my belief that the majority of these people's lives are fictitious with the entirety of their existence being fictitious subconsciously but it's odd because consciously I'm able to draw that distinction.
It's...frustrating kind of.
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
This is throughout recorded history.
Those naming people currently... just no. This includes Hitler.
It's Jesus. If not that then my vote goes to Christopher Columbus. Go ask a 5-6 year old who Julius Caesar or Hitler is..they won't know. Columbus though, easy.
It's Jesus. If not that then my vote goes to Christopher Columbus. Go ask a 5-6 year old who Julius Caesar or Hitler is..they won't know. Columbus though, easy.
This probably only really applies to Americans.
Central and South America, Spain, and Italy at a minimum tooThis probably only really applies to Americans.
Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.
Central and South America, Spain, and Italy at a minimum too
Lil uzi vert like who the fuck are youLil Uzi Vert.
I would be shocked if even 25% of Americans have even heard of him. Outside of children's leagues and the World Cup, soccer is practically nonexistent over here.
Ps & Qs is the most famous thing is history if we are counting how it fucks with peopleLil uzi vert like who the fuck are you
Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.