Massacre of the Innocents

[Amarok]

Yes, Huggy.  And years ago when reading through one of his books I was astonished to learn that he thinks the gospels are "evidence." 

Ehrman is a man who has made an entire career out of shitting on the reliability and authenticity of your fucking holy horseshit..... but then he thinks he can suddenly turn around and say that he can extract certain bits of history from what is, effectively, religious propaganda.

I have more respect for Carrier who began by thinking that there was at least a basic man behind the jesus legend and after studying the matter and all the evidence came to the conclusion that it is all horseshit.  Jesus is no more real than Romulus or Perseus.  Mythic horseshit designed to fool the ignorant.

But neither of them have any fucking use for your miracle bullshit and jesus, if you strip away the miracles, would at best be some shlepper who got himself killed.
Big fucking deal.

*Emphasis mine*

You sure that's the narrative you want to paint?

Your boy Richard Carrier began to receive funding by Atheist groups, hence why his stance changed all of a sudden.

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

Carrier was initially not interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus. Like many others his first thought was that it was a fringe conspiracy topic not worthy of academic inquiry; however a number of different people requested that he investigate the subject and raised money for him to do so. Since then he has become a leading expert on the Jesus ahistoricity theory.

Funny how that works...

His blog appeared on Freethought Blogs and he has frequently been a featured speaker at various skeptic, secular humanist, freethought and atheist conventions, such as the annual Freethought Festival in Madison, Wisconsin, the annual Skepticon convention in Springfield, Missouri and conventions sponsored by American Atheists.

You would accept any "historians" conclusion that had thiest money backing him, so why should any one accept Carrier's conclusions?

More from Carriers own blog.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/...ctors.html

Now I need a job. Even at best there won't be any academic positions available until Fall (and more realistically I might not find a position until 2009), but we've been stuck in debt for several years now and I'd like to clear it sooner rather than later. Our monthly expenses would drop immensely if we did,and this would substantially improve our situation. My wife would be very happy. And so would I. So I have an audacious proposal. It probably won't happen, especially in this present economy. But as Jack Burton said when he took a futile shot at the psychic eye monster in Lo Pan's underground lair, "Well, you never know until you try!"

Here's my proposal. In the past, generous private benefactors, on their own initiative, have paid me substantially to research and write various online works (such as Why I Am Not a Christian and Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False). Could there be anyone else out there willing to fund my work? I'd like to find several benefactors, like those who've approached me before, with similar resources and interests, who would love to pool together to pay me to undertake a serious project over the next four months. That project can be anything, whatever this group most wants to see me complete this year. I'm open to suggestions (from those who really do have a mind to fund a project). But I'll use the following as a prominent example.

Hey, he even has a patron page...

https://www.patreon.com/DrRichardCarrier

So instead of looking at the research and showing it deceptive or wrong you just attack were carrier gets the money for his research? And you calling Carrier a conspiracy theorist .

---

*Emphasis mine*

You sure that's the narrative you want to paint?

Your boy Richard Carrier began to receive funding by Atheist groups, hence why his stance changed all of a sudden.

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

So your argument is that Carrier was paid to look into something  therefore his research must be biased ? Or is it possible that he looked into it and was convinced of the theory ?You do realize historians are hired out by people and groups  to look into things? and that that does not mean the research is biased ?And the fact he started out disinterested actually gives him more credit not less . 

Funny how that works...

Funny that someone being funded to look into something might change their mind and believe the thing their studying ?

You would accept any "historians" conclusion that had thiest money backing him, so why should any one accept Carrier's conclusions?

Because it's not even remotely equivalent

Religious organizations have massive amounts of money to fund phony research and have done so .Atheist organization have no such finical incentive .If Carrier was interested in enriching himself he could have just pretended to be a theist apologist shill and all lucrative funding that goes with it .In fact why would Carrier hijack his own Career on a fringe idea? Because some atheist group gave him some money to write some books and speak ? Does that honestly sound plausible?

That's all i'll say on the matter