• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

PSqueak
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
PSqueak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Santiako

I guarantee you that messi is better known worldwide than Ali.

Is he really? is he?

Originally Posted by Numb

Soccer balls still replacing people's brains

But still, Messi is not even the best known soccer player, is he more famous than any of the Ronaldos, Pelé or Maradona?
AcademicSaucer
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
AcademicSaucer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Makonero

Jesus Christ.

.
ForsakenLotus
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:43 AM)
ForsakenLotus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cocaloch

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.

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.
Golden Slumbers
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:44 AM)
Golden Slumbers's Avatar
The first three to pop into my mind were Hitler, Michael Jackson, and Gandhi.
NYCrooner
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:45 AM)
NYCrooner's Avatar
According to Donald Trump...
Santiako
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:46 AM)
Santiako's Avatar

Originally Posted by PSqueak

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?

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.
Numb
(04-21-2017, 01:46 AM)
Numb's Avatar

Originally Posted by PSqueak

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 fame


----

Someone posted Elvis?
Human history dude not American history
tapedeck
Do I win a prize for talking about my penis on the Internet???
(04-21-2017, 01:46 AM)
tapedeck's Avatar

Originally Posted by Makonero

Jesus Christ.

First post etc.

I mean it's JC by a landslide.

In the immortal words of Louis CK...what year is it? 2017AD...and the entire Earth (except China kind of) regardless of religion goes by that.
SyenceLabb
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:46 AM)
SyenceLabb's Avatar
Jesus Christ, if religious figures are included. Otherwise, Michael Jackson.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:47 AM)
Knuckle Sandwich's Avatar
Jesus even if he didn't actually exist or was just based on various other dudes. Louis has that bit about the fact that we measure time based on his life and death. That's pretty famous.
CrocMother
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:47 AM)
CrocMother's Avatar
John the Baptist.
Tyaren
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:48 AM)
Tyaren's Avatar

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

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.

If Hitler 2.0 comes to power today, there will be soon no one left on earth to remember him.
Goose_Se7en
Banned
(04-21-2017, 01:48 AM)
Without a doubt it is Jesus Christ. Kanye would say it's him but that mofo is crazy.
Numb
(04-21-2017, 01:49 AM)
Numb's Avatar

Originally Posted by CrocMother

John the Baptist.

Jon Batiste?



Yes
Obliterator
cousin investments
(04-21-2017, 01:49 AM)
Obliterator's Avatar
It's Jesus. Easily
Aselith
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 AM)
Aselith's Avatar
Tom Cruise
Hollywood Duo
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 AM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar

Originally Posted by OG Shaka Zulu

What is this Jesus ain't real stuff? He was real right, just not God?

Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.
Mimosa97
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 AM)
Mimosa97's Avatar

Originally Posted by Soapbox Killer

I didn't see it. Does he cover this in some way?

yup lol

He talks about how Christianity won because of how we count the years

You should watch it there's a whole skit about it (didn't find it very funny but it's worth a look)
rekameohs
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 AM)
rekameohs's Avatar
Jesus and Muhammad body this category
Obliterator
cousin investments
(04-21-2017, 01:50 AM)
Obliterator's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hollywood Duo

Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.

Indeed we are pretty positive Jesus Christ was a real man
crisdecuba
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:51 AM)
JC by a notable margin.
JABEE
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:52 AM)
JABEE's Avatar

Originally Posted by Numb

Messi getting treated like discount Maradona relating to fame


----

Someone posted Elvis?
Human history dude not American history

Elvis was a worldwide film and music star.
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:52 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by ForsakenLotus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ForsakenLotus

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?

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.

Originally Posted by ForsakenLotus

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).

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.

Originally Posted by ForsakenLotus

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.

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.
Last edited by Cocaloch; 04-21-2017 at 01:56 AM.
PSqueak
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:53 AM)
PSqueak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Santiako

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.

Hmmm, it's hard to judge, i think people who don't have an understanding or following of Soccer would be familiar with figures like Ronaldo or Pelé even if they're not current, while there would be a bigger degree of knowledge to know who Messi is.

While i think more people have the nebulous idea of who Ali is even if there is a complete disconnect of them with Boxing history.

Then again, im completely disconnected from both sports but i know who both Ali and Messi are.

Unrelated: im suprised by all these "Jesus isn't real" drive by posts, i mean, come on guys, no one is asking you to convert to cristianity or accept the guy as your lord, just accept the fact there was at one point in history a man called "Yesua of Nazareth" who happened to have a religion formed around him.
Last edited by PSqueak; 04-21-2017 at 01:58 AM.
JABEE
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:57 AM)
JABEE's Avatar
The must be over 50 thousand...
Morrigan Stark
Banned
(04-21-2017, 02:00 AM)

Originally Posted by Hollywood Duo

Just some edgelord fuckery. Most historians agree he existed.

It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".
Tangled Up in Blue
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:03 AM)
Tangled Up in Blue's Avatar

Originally Posted by Santiako

I guarantee you that messi is better known worldwide than Ali.

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.
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:03 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by Morrigan Stark

It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".

There is definitely a degree of contrarian edge to it, it's also a fairly ahistorical way of thinking about the past at that. People already know what they are looking for in the past, otherwise the strongest statement anyone can make is that the evidence we have simply isn't sufficient to convince people he exists instead of he was fictional, for which no evidence exists.
ForsakenLotus
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:06 AM)
ForsakenLotus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cocaloch

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.

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.
MGrant
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:07 AM)
MGrant's Avatar
Garth Brooks
Gaminar
Banned
(04-21-2017, 02:07 AM)
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

This is throughout recorded history.

Those naming people currently... just no. This includes Hitler.
Garrett Hawke
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:07 AM)
Garrett Hawke's Avatar
Mariah Carey obvs.

Who else returns once a year at christmas to remind everyone of how relevant she used to be?
Hollywood Duo
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:08 AM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Morrigan Stark

It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".

So what undeniable evidence is there that Jesus is fictional? All these non-edgelords seem pretty convinced it's an accepted fact.
PSqueak
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:10 AM)
PSqueak's Avatar

Originally Posted by ForsakenLotus

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.


Just gotta remind yourself, acknowledging these people existed to some capacity doesn't equal to you having to believe what the religious texts says about them.
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:11 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gaminar

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

This is throughout recorded history.

Those naming people currently... just no. This includes Hitler.

The key element you're missing is that we need to weight the modern era much more heavily due to demographic reasons as well as the availability of information. There are simply far more people, in addition to people being more likely to know more people from outside of their locality.

That being said Jesus and Muhammad are probably the top two anyway.
supernormal
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:13 AM)
supernormal's Avatar
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.
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:13 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by supernormal

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.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 02:16 AM)
andthebeatgoeson's Avatar
Oh my Julius.
PSqueak
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:17 AM)
PSqueak's Avatar

Originally Posted by supernormal

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.

Christopher Columbus only is relevant in the Americas, doubt even europe cares much about him, and all countries in the Americas, with the sole exception of the USA, have been working hard to minimize Columbus' notoriety.
supernormal
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:17 AM)
supernormal's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cocaloch

This probably only really applies to Americans.

Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
(04-21-2017, 02:18 AM)
Emerson's Avatar
Jesus is the obvious, pretty much inarguable answer.

Whether he was actually historical or not, he's perceived to have been a real person and that character is indisputably the most famous in history. Even if you allowed other "fictional" characters, he'd still win.

All that aside, the majority of historians agree he existed as a man.
Hollywood Duo
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:18 AM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cocaloch

This probably only really applies to Americans.

Central and South America, Spain, and Italy at a minimum too
Carn82
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:19 AM)
Carn82's Avatar
If including religious figures: Eve. If not.. Ceasar, or Djengis Khan.
Station42
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:21 AM)
Station42's Avatar
Did anyone say "Leonardo"?
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:22 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by supernormal

Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.

Based on? I mean with your logic I could extrapolate from France and suggest that everyone knows who Vercingetorix is. That would be silly though wouldn't it.

Originally Posted by Hollywood Duo

Central and South America, Spain, and Italy at a minimum too

In my own experience Italian Americans are far more concerned with Columbus than Italians in Italy are. This makes sense as Italians in Italy don't need to prove that they are important to Italian history.
Last edited by Cocaloch; 04-21-2017 at 02:24 AM.
Thewonandonly
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 02:22 AM)
Thewonandonly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lamel

Lil Uzi Vert.

Lil uzi vert like who the fuck are you
Velikost
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:23 AM)
Velikost's Avatar
Reading Jesus ain't real like

Last edited by Velikost; 04-21-2017 at 05:55 AM. Reason: hilariously large image
Crayolan
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:25 AM)
Crayolan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tangled Up in Blue

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.

Americans knowing something is not exactly a good indicator of how well known something or someone is worldwide. Out of the ~7b people on earth only ~300m are Americans.
Numb
(04-21-2017, 02:25 AM)
Numb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Thewonandonly

Lil uzi vert like who the fuck are you

Ps & Qs is the most famous thing is history if we are counting how it fucks with people
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
(04-21-2017, 02:26 AM)
Switch Back 9's Avatar

Originally Posted by supernormal

Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.

I've taught 13-year-olds who didn't know what 9/11 was. Columbus is a stretch.

Thread Tools