(December 1, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: As far as Richard Carrier goes, you'd be naive to believe that a guy who was basically begging for money on his blog, and asking for patreon donations would be completely objective when being funded by special interest groups, when you cannot find an example of that anywhere else, be it Politics or Religion.

You have the same problem Drich has in that you assume that having a motive to do something necessarily undermines a person's arguments and view of the facts and evidence.  It does not.  That's why appeal to motive is a fallacy.  If I paid someone to say that it is 8 o'clock repeatedly for 24 hours, at some point during that 24 hours, their statement would be correct.  It matters not that he was motivated to say it by my payment, nor that at any other time in that 24 hours he might be wrong.  Right is right, and your complaint about Carrier and my naivety means dick and simply shows that you don't logic so well.

As to your other point, no, Min disagreeing with Ehrman on one thing doesn't forbid him agreeing with him on something else.  Ehrman may be expert on one but not the other.  Or Min might have independent reasons for disagreeing with Ehrman on the one, but accept his conclusions on the other.  This notion that because Min supports Ehrman's conclusions in one thing that he must support his conclusions in all things because Min is appealing to Ehrman as an authority doesn't hold because Ehrman isn't equally an authority on both things.  The subjects in question require different competencies, and even if they didn't, you would simply be assuming that Min's reasons for doubting Ehrman regarding the historicity of Jesus apply equally to Ehrman regarding the reliability of transmission and such, and they plainly don't.

Ehrman is fine when he sticks to historical criticism.  When he tries to make excuses for the jesus bullshit he gets in trouble like every other apologist who simply CANNOT IMAGINE that their jesus bullshit isn't true.  But, Ehrman is an expert in his field as Carrier is in his.

You, Huggy?  You have no field.  You are just an asshole who thinks fairy tales are real.  I don't expect you to ever change.... or grow up.

I can't say I'm an expert on the works of Carrier, but I did take a look at his webpage. I'm sure there are things he does well, but there are inconsistencies with his overall message.

On his page it says he is a "defender of the freethought movement", which includes looking at things through "scientific inquiry" and without "cognitive" or "confirmation bias."

What it disregards is authority, tradition, revelation, and dogma.

That's all fine and dandy I suppose, but his books all demonstrate such bias in that the premise that Christianity isn't adequate, and as such, you should follow his ideology instead and disregard a said number of subjects associated with Christianity. We can't consider him as an "authority" because that is counter to his religion. So why believe him? As soon as I do, then where is the "freethought." It seems like it would be engulfed in his own unique religion. I guess we could call it "Carrierism." As soon as we disregard "authority" we can't say his opinion is greater than anybody else's who claims to be a philosopher and religious historian.

To look at anything through scientific inquiry, something has to be "observable." If not we're just guessing about what may or may not have been true. That doesn't make something right or wrong, but it gives us an idea of how to proceed. Personally, one of my favorite things are extrapolation studies. We look at how something is measured in the present, then we step back with similar assumptions. Still, it doesn't guarantee precision and one event can throw off what we consider a possibility.

I noticed one of his books and the purpose of reading it is so that we'll believe that "...we shouldn't believe...Christianity was responsible for modern science." Huh? What reality is this guy from? Everything contributes to science. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduhism, Islam, and even atheism have contributed to modern science, as well as numerous other ideologies.

I have a duel degree in the sciences, have done peer-reviewed studies, and to this day write and publish scientific material at times. But the thing is, "science" is a generic term. Science means "knowledge", so the "scientific method" would be the device we use to obtain further knowledge. The human "conscience" makes us all contributors to "science" because that's what it means to have a "conscience" con = with science = knowledge. That makes everything in this world capable of skill and logic to be contributors of science. When you try to isolate specific things and disregard others without reason, then you're just grinding your wheels and going nowhere. Progression occurs through collective knowledge and re-purposing that knowledge to gain new knowledge. That is the "science" I believe in.

Quote:So why believe him?

How about because he cites the evidence for his positions?  I'm still waiting for yours.

(December 1, 2018 at 3:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So why believe him?

How about because he cites the evidence for his positions?  I'm still waiting for yours.

His position is counter to his ideology.

Sounds like he's trying to dupe people with the use of "freethought", say disregard authority as a determining factor, that is of course you allow him to be the authority and determine for you what to believe.

"Don't believe what anybody else says, except me."

My response to that = No thanks!

(November 30, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Do you bother to think before you speak? The majority of historians agree that Jesus existed, so why would I have to disprove a fringe theorist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

No credible historian considers that any of the patriarch of the Old Testament existed like Noah and his flood, Adam, Sampson, David, Moses... and yet you often claim to disprove them.

(December 1, 2018 at 5:13 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Do you bother to think before you speak? The majority of historians agree that Jesus existed, so why would I have to disprove a fringe theorist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

No credible historian considers that any of the patriarch of the Old Testament existed like Noah and his flood, Adam, Sampson, David, Moses... and yet you often claim to disprove them.

Always check "facts" when people state something.  If I can find something in under 30 seconds, others can too.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/historians...jerusalem/

(December 1, 2018 at 5:20 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 5:13 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: No credible historian considers that any of the patriarch of the Old Testament existed like Noah and his flood, Adam, Sampson, David, Moses... and yet you often claim to disprove them.

Always check "facts" when people state something.  If I can find something in under 30 seconds, others can too.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/historians...jerusalem/

LOL so they found it few months ago - silly me! But not really. This is was your article says:
“We, of course, did not find any artifacts that said ‘King David’ or ‘King Solomon’ but we discovered site signs of a social transformation in the region which are consistent with a change from Canaanite culture to a Judean culture.”
But historians question the use of the Bible as a historical reference because most events mentioned in the text lack historical evidence.
Inscribed stones have been found containing phrases referencing David, but his existence and story remains disputed among archaeologists.

And indeed there is a lot of tension, pressure and gain in finding historicity of David, but no amount of desire can make a fairy-tale true. Watch this documentary

(December 1, 2018 at 5:46 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(December 1, 2018 at 5:20 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Always check "facts" when people state something.  If I can find something in under 30 seconds, others can too.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/historians...jerusalem/

LOL so they found it few months ago - silly me! But not really. This is was your article says:
“We, of course, did not find any artifacts that said ‘King David’ or ‘King Solomon’ but we discovered site signs of a social transformation in the region which are consistent with a change from Canaanite culture to a Judean culture.”
But historians question the use of the Bible as a historical reference because most events mentioned in the text lack historical evidence.
Inscribed stones have been found containing phrases referencing David, but his existence and story remains disputed among archaeologists.

And indeed there is a lot of tension, pressure and gain in finding historicity of David, but no amount of desire can make a fairy-tale true. Watch this documentary

What you stated was blatantly untrue.  "No credible historians..."  There are credible historians who agree and disagree that there is evidence for certain people and events.  Many historians, on both sides of that fence, also deal in other historical figures and events that people consider to have taken place that have little to do with what is in the Bible.  That doesn't mean everybody agrees on everything, but that's fine. It's not fair (or rational) to assume that certain people lack credibility because they don't share your individual opinion on something.

I got this one! Credible historians are defined as those who do not believe that any of the patriarchs of the old testament existed.

Ha! Checkmate!