• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Carrier on Spirituality

#133: Sept. - Nov. 2014 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

I tried finding the source of the consensus, and most hits I found kept tracing back to a book by Mark Allen Powell. This makes me more curious. Is there a way to show an authoritative source here? I've assumed the vast majority of scholars agree that there was a person behind Jesus. I've never tried looking into it until now.
Off the cuff I’d suggest that both are actually positive claims
I think you're right.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Ill just say a last few words on this for it has become a pathetic display of irrational bias with a tone of desperation. The desperation that is nearly always present in the end of conversations by new atheists desperate to argue about a god that "doesnt exist" because of a lack of evidence and faulty logic.

To mearly question the scholarly criteria used to establish the existence of figures from antiquity is not enough. You must present your own criteria and advance your thesis from that point forward.

Scholars who "question" the current criteria are welcomed to this.
The same invitation is extended to the big mouthed layman who buys a book written by a self proclaimed scholar with a BA in who knows, reads it, then says the historical jesus was a myth.

Having said that, kindly post your own criteria here on this thread.
You can compare yours to the professional historians criteria utilized to date.
Google it or search for my post wherein I outlined it for discussion.

While you work on your own criteria, you can occupy yourself by reasoning in the same fallacious manner mythicists do and systematically remove other historical figures from antiquity to be even handed about this.

Not presenting your own criteria while dismissing the consensus in place and expecting to be taken serious is like a weight lifter wanting to be admired for his muscles but not willing to do the heavy lifting required.

This antichrist neurosis is pathetic.

You dont get points for dismissing scholarly criteria without presenting a set of discovery thats superior.
You actually get points subtracted from you if you are just being dumb about the matter.
You get laughed at for saying flowery things like its reasonable to doubt someone's ontological existence when your obviously singling one particular individual from antiquity.

Stop trying to spread subtle hysterical antichrist stupidity by dressing it up as reasoned argument. It's getting criminal.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Ill just say a last few words on this for it has become a pathetic display of irrational bias with a tone of desperation. The desperation that is nearly always present in the end of conversations by new atheists desperate to argue about a god that "doesnt exist" because of a lack of evidence and faulty logic.

To mearly question the scholarly criteria used to establish the existence of figures from antiquity is not enough. You must present your own criteria and advance your thesis from that point forward.

Scholars who "question" the current criteria are welcomed to this.
The same invitation is extended to the big mouthed layman who buys a book written by a self proclaimed scholar with a BA in who knows, reads it, then says the historical jesus was a myth.

Having said that, kindly post your own criteria here on this thread.
You can compare yours to the professional historians criteria utilized to date.
Google it or search for my post wherein I outlined it for discussion.

While you work on your own criteria, you can occupy yourself by reasoning in the same fallacious manner mythicists do and systematically remove other historical figures from antiquity to be even handed about this.

Not presenting your own criteria while dismissing the consensus in place and expecting to be taken serious is like a weight lifter wanting to be admired for his muscles but not willing to do the heavy lifting required.

This antichrist neurosis is pathetic.

You dont get points for dismissing scholarly criteria without presenting a set of discovery thats superior.
You actually get points subtracted from you if you are just being dumb about the matter.
You get laughed at for saying flowery things like its reasonable to doubt someone's ontological existence when your obviously singling one particular individual from antiquity.

Stop trying to spread subtle hysterical antichrist stupidity by dressing it up as reasoned argument. It's getting criminal.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Ps

Its obvious motivated reasoning is a huge part of this groups weak arguments re the historicty of Christ
Considering several of you exist here mainly to debunk religion in general, Christianity in particular, is more than enough evidence to cast doubt on your emotional states while attempting to argue about this.

But of course since you all are green vulcans, you arent capable of emotional motives.

Yes, of course.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Gary Habermas is another source for the consensus. He is referenced often as having done a head count of scholars who agree that Jesus was historical. With confirmation bias going at full steam, I found this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... -habermas/
Considering several of you exist here mainly to debunk religion in general, Christianity in particular, is more than enough evidence to cast doubt on your emotional states while attempting to argue about this.
I think the only one that takes a hard stance on these forums is Robert. Even then, pointing to what motivates him doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong. If recent posts are any measure ant, you're the one in a questionable emotional state.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2718 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Yes I do take a hard stance on the non-existence of Christ, because it is obvious that the early church corruptly used the actual gnostic construction of the myth to construct a false political literalism and suppress the real fictional origins of the story. But that is far from an anti-Christian stance on my part, since I see recognition of this basic historical truth of the depraved political invention of the literal Christ by the orthodox as the only way to rehabilitate Christianity into a coherent and sensible ethical and epistemic doctrine.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

What I find strange here, is that Carrier can't see the absurdity of the things he is asserting from his academic soapbox.
This is, that Paul and the early Christians hallucinated an incorporeal spiritual being who was crucified,buried and resurrected in outer space!
Later, mysterious hacks then "euhemerised" the fictional accounts of an alleged historical person complete with (diligently googled) historical data. These shadowy figures freely borrowed a potpourri from pagan religious myths,and epics from Homer et al and whatever you're having yourself.
Carrier also references a work by one Dennis Ronald Mac Donald, not to be confused with his more famous namesake from the culinary world, who proposes heavy drawings and parallels from Homer's epics.The said Mac Donald I have learned from an informed source, derived his name from a popular ballad about a mythical boy named Sue.
This author wrote a weighty tome titled "Does the new testament imitate Homer?" which Richard found felicitous to his marvelous thesis.
Richard cites examples from this but the question that is mildly troubling, is whether Richard imitates Homer Simpson,Ronald Mac Donald or a happy amalgam of both?
In the interests of scholarship,truth and rigorous thinking,I feel it my duty to alert a deceived public to a learned treatise by the scholar Richard Whately,titled; "Historic doubts related to Napoleon Buonaparte."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18087/18 ... 8087-h.htm
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

ant wrote:Ill just say a last few words on this for it has become a pathetic display of irrational bias with a tone of desperation. The desperation that is nearly always present in the end of conversations by new atheists desperate to argue about a god that "doesnt exist" because of a lack of evidence and faulty logic.

To mearly question the scholarly criteria used to establish the existence of figures from antiquity is not enough. You must present your own criteria and advance your thesis from that point forward.

Scholars who "question" the current criteria are welcomed to this.
The same invitation is extended to the big mouthed layman who buys a book written by a self proclaimed scholar with a BA in who knows, reads it, then says the historical jesus was a myth.

Having said that, kindly post your own criteria here on this thread.
You can compare yours to the professional historians criteria utilized to date.
Google it or search for my post wherein I outlined it for discussion.

While you work on your own criteria, you can occupy yourself by reasoning in the same fallacious manner mythicists do and systematically remove other historical figures from antiquity to be even handed about this.

Not presenting your own criteria while dismissing the consensus in place and expecting to be taken serious is like a weight lifter wanting to be admired for his muscles but not willing to do the heavy lifting required.

This antichrist neurosis is pathetic.

You dont get points for dismissing scholarly criteria without presenting a set of discovery thats superior.
You actually get points subtracted from you if you are just being dumb about the matter.
You get laughed at for saying flowery things like its reasonable to doubt someone's ontological existence when your obviously singling one particular individual from antiquity.

Stop trying to spread subtle hysterical antichrist stupidity by dressing it up as reasoned argument. It's getting criminal.
Who are you talking to here?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:What I find strange here, is that Carrier can't see the absurdity of the things he is asserting from his academic soapbox.
This is, that Paul and the early Christians hallucinated an incorporeal spiritual being who was crucified,buried and resurrected in outer space!
Later, mysterious hacks then "euhemerised" the fictional accounts of an alleged historical person complete with (diligently googled) historical data. These shadowy figures freely borrowed a potpourri from pagan religious myths,and epics from Homer et al and whatever you're having yourself.
Carrier also references a work by one Dennis Ronald Mac Donald, not to be confused with his more famous namesake from the culinary world, who proposes heavy drawings and parallels from Homer's epics.The said Mac Donald I have learned from an informed source, derived his name from a popular ballad about a mythical boy named Sue.
This author wrote a weighty tome titled "Does the new testament imitate Homer?" which Richard found felicitous to his marvelous thesis.
Richard cites examples from this but the question that is mildly troubling, is whether Richard imitates Homer Simpson,Ronald Mac Donald or a happy amalgam of both?
In the interests of scholarship,truth and rigorous thinking,I feel it my duty to alert a deceived public to a learned treatise by the scholar Richard Whately,titled; "Historic doubts related to Napoleon Buonaparte."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18087/18 ... 8087-h.htm
I'm a little confused. Are we talking about Carrier's book here? If not, I would suggest starting a new thread that includes the source material which you are attempting to debunk.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Carrier on Spirituality

Unread post

geo wrote: I'm a little confused. Are we talking about Carrier's book here? If not, I would suggest starting a new thread that includes the source material which you are attempting to debunk.
s
No problem Geo,
I think I'm finished with his Jesus myth stuff anyway.
If he can't see that the writings of Paul don't jive with his theory,that's his problem.I indulged in a bit of satire in my last post.I just don't think it's worth the effort since it would be obvious to anyone from Mars who read the texts that the meaning is clear and plain.
He has a couple of talks on youtube,one on I think titled;Why Jesus never existed? Another on the book of Acts but I forget the title.
As I say,I don't have much more to say about this really.
Post Reply

Return to “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - by Richard Carrier”