Richard Carrier trashes Bart Ehrman's book on the Historical Jesus.

[Ryft]

"Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of 0.9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person.

"We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another.

"So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist.

"And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred."

Read more... http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/...ier-exist/

[Minimalist]

A silly argument there.

[Cinjin]

"Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of 0.9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person.

"We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another.

"So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist.

"And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred."

Read more... http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/...ier-exist/

uummmm ....... what???

---

prove that your godboy is anything more than a bathtub fart released one day to bubble to the surface

awe - you slay me Min.

[Minimalist]

You know, Cinj, I'm traveling right now...in NY visiting family and while I have internet access on this Xoom I don't have a usable mouse which makes cutting and pasting problematical. So do me a favor and find one of G-C's stupider posts ... you won't have to look far...and remind him for me that
He's an idiot Jesus freak

Thanks for the backup..

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks Ryft. That reminds me of an equally silly argument.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

"Putting these factors together, we have to weigh odds of 100 to 1 for Carrier’s reality against the combination of other factors, which tip the scales at 40,000 to 1 against. These considerations alone leave us with odds of 400 to 1 against, or a probability just a bit in excess of 0.9975 that Richard Carrier is not a real person.

"We might go on in this vein for quite some time, noting further incongruities in the Carrier myth. How many trained historians would misread Plutarch’s “On Isis and Osiris” 19.358b as declaring Osiris’s physical resurrection from the dead here on earth? How many mathematicians would bungle basic probability calculations? How many philosophers, world-renowned or otherwise, would endorse the position that the laws of logic “obviously” derive from the laws of physics? Yet such blunders are what we might well expect to crop up as the community feigning Carrier’s existence attempted to demonstrate his expertise in one field after another.

"So the calculation given above seriously underestimates the probabilities in the case. Almost certainly, by strict Bayesian reasoning, Richard Carrier does not exist.

"And yet, I venture to predict that the vast majority of Carrier-believers will pay no attention whatsoever to Bayesian reasoning when it is applied rigorously to conclusions that they hold sacred."

Read more... http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/...ier-exist/

I'm not familiar with Carrier's Bayesian reasoning. But my initial reaction is that this seems like a very weak analogy. We have plenty of evidence of Carrier's existence: photographs, videos, birth certificates. You can even go meet the guy in person. It's not at all like that with Jesus. This use of Bayesian reasoning reminds me of Creationist's misuse of carbon dating (but perhaps I myself am making a weak analogy but I can't see how).

[Angrboda]

I'm looking forward to reading this falderal, and perhaps even Ehrman's book. What amazes me, however, is the alarming frequency with which Agnostics, Deists, and other pseudo-atheists forget which side of the line they've chosen to sit on. People who repeatedly jump forth to tell us what we know about a god that they claim is unknowable. And just as suddenly when asked to defend some other bit of silliness, suddenly, "God is mysterious and unknowable."

[Angrboda]

I'm not familiar with Carrier's Bayesian reasoning. But my initial reaction is that this seems like a very weak analogy. We have plenty of evidence of Carrier's existence: photographs, videos, birth certificates. You can even go meet the guy in person. It's not at all like that with Jesus. This use of Bayesian reasoning reminds me of Creationist's misuse of carbon dating (but perhaps I myself am making a weak analogy but I can't see how).

Just in passing, you also neglect that the prior probability of a Richard Carrier is many times higher than that of a god incarnate.

[Ryft]

I'm not familiar with Carrier's Bayesian reasoning. But my initial reaction is that this seems like a very weak analogy. . . . [snip rest]

It's called humor. I'm still waiting for atheists to get that simple fact. The sense of humor atheists have is finely tuned for jokes that target Christian leaders, institutions, beliefs, etc., but when jokes target atheists or atheism in any way, the humor completely escapes them.

Like you here, for instance. Weak analogy? It was a joke, son; it wasn't supposed to be a strong and compelling analogy. It's rather like that satirical post at one Christian blog about how the SOPA blackout protests could seriously damage atheism (with the loss of Reddit and Wikipedia); the comments section was replete with atheists taking the stupid thing seriously and going on a rant. I mean, really?

Get a functioning sense of humor, people. They sell them cheap at Walmart.

[DeistPaladin]

Forgive us, Ryft. We're so accustomed to weak arguments from you and other apologists that it's hard to tell when you didn't intend something to be taken seriously.