(September 24, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: OFC they're not wrong because they're absurd....no one said they were.   Your misapplication of the criterion of embarassment gives you the same reason to believe, for the same reasons...

The "same reasons"...? ...As what? ...the IDers?... That makes no sense.

(September 24, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: however, that ther was a "historical creation event" by reference to all these threads on AF where atheists criticize it;s absurdity as the roman critic example does for a historical crucifixion.

Lol... I don't think I'm "smart enough" to follow your "logic." I might just leave it at Wittgenstein, who said in the context of the question, "How do I know I have hands?" "What we can ask is whether it can make sense to doubt it." Learning to separate the myth from the historical narrative, the answer that I've arrived at is no. When I see reason and evidence for the alternative theories, i.e. that there was no man born of a woman just as there was no god born of a virgin, but simply some other dude(s?) -- or was he/were they made up by made-up dudes of further dudes? -- whom conspired to start a new religion based on this irrelevant character, perhaps I'll be persuaded of the grounds for mythicism. Thus far, as it would seem to share with ID some incredible and in my view preposterously unsupportable and improbable suggestions, I'm not.

(September 24, 2016 at 11:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Applying equal methods to all "historical reports" such as Tacitus' account (above) of how the Hellenistic god Serapis told a blind man to approach Vespasian so he could see again, and, as Tacitus reports, how the man did see again, I was wondering if you were going to now worship Serapis because his miracle stories have even better documentary proof than jesus'.  After all, at least we know who Tacitus was.

Your assumption is that applying equal methods would imply that Tacitus' report is factually correct.... er, why?

The criteria of embarrassment works best...if at all...if you take the time to understand who is using it and why.

(September 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This is a bit long but the point is compelling.... to all but theists I imagine.

---

Quote:Hero Savior of Vietnam
 
Suppose I told you there was a soldier in the Vietnam War named “Hero Savior” who miraculously calmed storms, healed wounds, conjured food and water out of thin air, and then was blown up by artillery, but appeared again whole and alive three days later, giving instructions to his buddies before flying up into outer space right before their very eyes. Would you believe me? Certainly not. You would ask me to prove it. 
 
So I would give you all the evidence I have. But all I have are some vague war letters by a guy who never really met Hero Savior in person, and a handful of stories written over thirty years later by some guys named Bill, Bob, Carl, and Joe. I don’t know for sure who these guys are. I don’t even know their last names. There are only unconfirmed rumors that they were or knew some of the war buddies of Hero Savior. They might have written earlier than we think, or later, but no one really knows. No one can find any earlier documentation to confirm their stories, either, or their service during the war, or even find these guys to interview them. So we don’t know if they really are who others claim, and we’re not even sure these are the guys who actually wrote the stories. You see, the undated pamphlets circulating under their names don’t say “by Bill” or “by Bob,” but “as told by Bill” and “as told by Bob.” Besides all that, we also can’t find any record of a Hero Savior serving in the war. He might have been a native guide whose name never made it into official records, but still, none of the historians of the war ever mention him, or his amazing deeds, or even the reports of them that surely would have spread far and wide.
 
Besides the dubious evidence of these late, uncorroborated, unsourced, and suspicious stories, the best thing I can give you is that war correspondence I mentioned, some letters by an army sergeant actually from the war, who claims he was a skeptic who changed his mind. But he never met or saw Hero in life, and never mentions any of the miracles that Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe talk about. In fact, the only thing this sergeant ever mentions is “seeing” Hero after his death, though not “in flesh and blood,” but in a “revelation.” That’s it.
 
This sergeant also claims the spirit of Hero Savior now enables him and some others to “speak in tongues” and “prophecy” and heal some illnesses, but none of this has been confirmed or observed by anyone else on record, and none of it sounds any different than what thousands of other cults and gurus have claimed. So, too, for some unconfirmed reports that some of these believers, even this army sergeant, endured persecution or even died for believing they “saw Hero in a revelation”—a fact no more incredible than the Buddhists who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War, certain they would be reincarnated, or the hundreds of people who voluntarily killed themselves at Jonestown, certain their leader (Jim Jones) was an agent of God.

Okay. I’ve given you all that evidence. Would you believe me then? Certainly not. No one trusts documents that come decades after the fact by unknown authors, and hardly anyone believes the hundreds of gurus today who claim to see and speak to the spirits of the dead, heal illnesses, and predict the future. Every reasonable person expects and requires extensive corroboration by contemporary documents and confirmed eyewitness accounts. Everyone would expect here at least as much evidence as I’d need to prove I owned a nuclear missile, yet the standard required is actually that of proving I own an interstellar spacecraft—for these are clearly very extraordinary claims, and as we saw above, such claims require extraordinary evidence, as much as would be needed, for example, to convince the United Nations that I had an interstellar spacecraft on my lawn. Yet what we have for this Hero Savior doesn’t even count as ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence we really need.
 
To complete the analogy, many other things would rightly bother us. Little is remarkable about the stories told of Hero Savior, for similar stories apparently have been told of numerous Vietnamese sorcerers and heroes throughout history—and no one believes them, so why should we make an exception for Hero? The documents we have from Bob, Bill, Carl, and Joe have also been tampered with—we’ve found some cases of forgery and editing in each of their stories by parties unknown, and we aren’t sure we’ve caught it all. Apparently, their stories were used by several different cults to support their causes, and these cults all squabble over the exact details of the right cause, and so tell different stories or interpret the stories differently to serve their own particular agenda. And the earliest version, the one told by Bob, which both Bill and Joe clearly copied, and just added to and edited (and even Carl seems to have done the same, just far more loosely), appears to have been almost entirely constructed out of passages from ancient Vietnamese poems, arranged and altered to tell a story full of symbolic and moral meaning. These and many other problems plague the evidence, leaving it even more suspect than normal.
 
This Hero Savior analogy entirely parallels the situation for Jesus. Jesus even has the same name: “Christ Jesus” in Hebrew literally means “the messiah and savior.” In other words, “Hero Savior.” The shady state of the evidence is likewise the same, as documented by Bart Ehrmann in Jesus Interrupted (2009) a book I strongly recommend.† And the way the Gospels just emulate and adapt prior stories is discussed by many scholars, including myself in Not the Impossible Faith (2009), and I will soon publish a book more directly On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.†
 
Every reason we would have not to believe these Hero Savior stories applies to the stories of Jesus, with all the same force. All we have attesting his miracles are letters by a guy (Paul) who never saw Jesus except in private “revelations,” and Gospels by unknown authors of unknown date using unknown sources and methods to document wildly unbelievable claims we wouldn’t trust from any other religion. So if you agree there would be no good reason to believe these Hero Savior stories, you must also agree there is insufficient reason to believe the Jesus Christ stories. Hence I am not a Christian because the evidence is not good enough. For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.

---

Curious to see if any of our resident believers jump in to try to prove that their boy is different.

I think that the problem with the conspiracy theory line of reasoning, such as here, is that there really is no support for it. I find some of the claims here inaccurate or distorted, and some things in the analogy are just incomplete (Carrier often mischaracterizes Paul's account). For instance, the history of the early Church. These stories didn't just pop out of nowhere thirty years later, and I would look at the history in that area of where the stories took place. I would stick to making actual arguments about the actual facts, rather than making a straw man. I think that if you where to do so, this analogy nor the arguments are nearly as strong. And frankly, some of the principles being proposed here, seem rather strange to me, from someone who claims to be a historian.

Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn? How would that differ from someone claiming that their country had a lunar spacecraft sitting in a warehouse or museum?

Quote:I think that the problem with the conspiracy theory line of reasoning, such as here, is that there really is no support for it

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

(September 25, 2016 at 12:06 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.   I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn?

Um, ET aliens?

Quote:Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn? How would that differ from someone claiming that their country had a lunar spacecraft sitting in a warehouse or museum?

There is a link above to the whole essay.  Why don't you read it and your question will be answered.

(September 25, 2016 at 12:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Also, to your claim, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would be curious, what type of evidence, you would require, for someone having an interstellar space craft sitting in their front lawn? How would that differ from someone claiming that their country had a lunar spacecraft sitting in a warehouse or museum?

There is a link above to the whole essay.  Why don't you read it and your question will be answered.

I asked you, for your opinion.

(September 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I think that the problem with the conspiracy theory line of reasoning, such as here, is that there really is no support for it

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

What exactly are you proposing then?

(September 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This is a bit long but the point is compelling.... to all but theists I imagine.

Quote:Hero Savior of Vietnam
 <snip>
For it is no better than the evidence proposed for Hero Savior, and that falls far short of the burden that would have to be met to confirm the very extraordinary claims surrounding him.

There are a number of key differences:

Carrier is an ancient historian, and is failing to apply the same sorts of process he used to make historical claims in his doctorate, to Jesus history. He knows well that good history can be extracted from even bad documents, and that statements can be made that are near certainly correct about historical people and events from the ancient time period, using evidence no better than the Xian documents he is dismissing. He's done that process himself.

Furthermore, he uses the argument from silence in a modern context where it would be effective, to an ancient one where it is not.

He is also failing to understand that working with history of religion cannot be divorced from working with theology, and the nature of worldview. If the hero saviour claimed to do very unusual things, what was his worldview on how it worked?

In particular, he fails to deal with the question of how the Early Church arose from within Judaism with the belief set that it had. What caused the earliest Xians to radically change their mind on essential core beliefs?

Carrier's hero saviour has no explanation for his abilities, no context within which they operate, appears from nowhere and goes nowhere.

I've read Carrier's booklet on the rise of early Xianity, and found it totally unconvincing. Carrier has no evidence at all for his claims, contradicts the evidence we have, and fails to answer basic questions about worldview and context.

He would do well to continue to point people to Bart Ehrmann, who does make good arguments.