In general I think the consensus is that Jesus, Buddha, and Socrates definitely existed. There is some debate about the historical Jesus, but it's mostly about whether what the bible says is accurate. There are some fringe historians that believe that Jesus never existed, but these are only a minority. Most believe that he did exist but that he was just some sort of philosopher, possible a buddhist. Of course there is no DNA evidence but that's true for most historical figures.

In most buddhist philosophies Buddha is not considered a God, but rather a very enlightened philosopher. Also you have to keep in mind that the distinction between natural/supernatural is very Western, Buddhists generally don't make this distinction. Most buddhists also do not believe in gods but do believe in higher planes of existence which for them is simply part of nature.

With Socrates it is very probable that our perception is different from how he really was. Most of what we know about him comes from Plato but he completely idolized him to the point where it gets a bit creepy.

But so your point is that these people never really existed, which is a very bold claim and you would have to procure some pretty convincing evidence. However, I do agree that it is the ideas of these people that live on, not so much the actual people themselves. But this can be said about many others as well such as Nietzsche who in reality was actually a very friendly person, especially to women.

I challenged my (ex-pastor) father to show me secular confirmation that jesus existed, two months later my brother sent me this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
"The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed[10][11][12][13][14] and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John th
e Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[8][15][16] Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.[17][18][19][20] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[3][5][21][22]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historical_views
"The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[132][133][359] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[360] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[357]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus


fucking wiki, goddamnit it took my brubes like 4minutes, and my dad was just disappointed in me ugh.. god damn, argh.

>>298

Urgh, I've seen the evidence of the historicity of Jesus and it's some severely weak sauce. Bible scholars say that Jesus probably existed, but if you let the evidence speak for itself, all you can say is that there might've been a real guy who was referred to as Christ, but it doesn't mean that the description of Jesus in the Bible was a real guy. There's no historical evidence of Jesus actually performing miracles, so there's no reason to think that the 'Bible version Jesus' was a real guy, but some evidence to suggest that there might've been a real guy called Christ, but it doesn't say much about him.

>>299

This is true, but I don't think it really matters. The shit Socrates said and the stuff that was written that happened to him is way more important than if he was real or not. Same goes for the others. To think otherwise is to think that Animal Farm is a terrible novel because animal's can't talk.

Also my understanding is that there is actually some credible evidence for Pontius Pilate's historical existence, but for Jesus.. not so much.

>>361

In the case of the New Testament, the message is conflicted at best. Loving thy neighbor is all well and good, but the reasons given why we should and how we should execute them are given in a way that is fundementally distasteful and misguided. I could trick people into doing the right thing if I wanted to through lies, but it'd be all for naught. You can control people with deception and rhetoric, and although it might be used to get people to behave in ways that approximate good behaviour, in the long run it leaves them more vulnerable to ignorance and the problems that causes. It is only by making people wise that we can safely ensure that evil is not done.

I know that sounds naive and possibly a little weird, but I'm just stating what I know to be true without explaining how I know it.