Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[Minimalist]

That's the challenge that historians face when approaching more or less any ancient figure.

But with most it doesn't matter.  Only with religious figures do modern followers insist that everyone follow the supposed dictates of these dusty old figures.  That forces the question of whether or not there ever was a jesus, a moses, a mohammed, a zoroaster, a zeus.  It doesn't really matter if Imhotep built the Step Pyramid.  It still exists whoever built it.

[Mudhammam]

But with most it doesn't matter.  Only with religious figures do modern followers insist that everyone follow the supposed dictates of these dusty old figures.  That forces the question of whether or not there ever was a jesus, a moses, a mohammed, a zoroaster, a zeus.  It doesn't really matter if Imhotep built the Step Pyramid.  It still exists whoever built it.

I agree, but unlike the religious who arbitrarily hold their sacred texts and figures to some bizarre standard, the historical questions surrounding ordinary aspects of their biographies should not be treated differently than when examining secular figures whose lives are shrouded in controversy, mystery, or by the pious exultation of a sect or party.

[Mudhammam]

You don't know what would have embarrassed the author.  You're attempting to buttress fiction by way of fiction.

Sure, I do. No pagan critic of Christianity that I'm aware of failed to point out the absurdity of worshiping a crucified criminal. It was an embarrassing fact. Hence, the need for a resurrection.

[Minimalist]

I agree, but unlike the religious who arbitrarily hold their sacred texts and figures to some bizarre standard, the historical questions surrounding ordinary aspects of their biographies should not be treated differently than when examining secular figures whose lives are shrouded in controversy, mystery, or by the pious exultation of a sect or party.

You don't see a difference between "biographies" and "religious propaganda?"

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't know what would have embarrassed the author.  You're attempting to buttress fiction by way of fiction.

Sure, I do.  No pagan critic of Christianity that I'm aware of failed to point out the absurdity of worshiping a crucified criminal.  It was an embarrassing fact.  Hence, the need for a resurrection.

It would have been embarrassing - to the pagan author of said criticism. If you're going to appeal to that criterion, at least do it right.  Christians don't seem to be embarrassed by that - then or now. What's the relevance, in any case? The roman pagan critic is discussing what christians then believed, not the historicity of the event. No one doubts the historicity of christians who believe absurd things.

Consider the implications of your argument here, though. Wouldn't the existence of every ID criticizing thread on this boards by atheists.....who always take the time to point out the absurdity of this belief, lend weight to the "historical creation" moment by means of the criterion of embarrassment, as you've misapplied it???

I'm not impressed with the criterion when it's properly used.....you can see why I find it even less impressive in this particular form, yes?

[Mudhammam]

You don't see a difference between "biographies" and "religious propaganda?"

Of course I do.  Applying the same criteria to both doesn't alter that.

It would have been embarrassing - to the pagan author of said criticism.

To the pagans, the Jews, the two cultures in which Christian beliefs arose.

Christians don't seem to be embarrassed by that - then or now.  What's the relevance, in any case?

It was a stumbling block to those whom the Christians sought to make converts, both then and now.  The relevance should be easy to see, but to spell it out for you, I certainly can't think of a good explanation as to why any Jew or pagan one would want to start a religion in which their Savior is supposed to usher in God's kingdom on earth and is put to death before the revolution hardly even gets off the ground.

 The roman pagan critic is discussing what christians then believed, not the historicity of the event.  No one doubts the historicity of christians who believe absurd things.

...What?  Every second and third hand account is a statement of belief.  The concern here is which beliefs are probably rooted in historical anecdote.  The element of awkward or embarrassing details within those beliefs lends credibility to their having a historical core, as the likelihood of such claims being among those one would make up, especially when attempting to persuade others of their veracity, decreases.  This is especially true in honor cultures.

Consider the implications of your argument here, though.  Wouldn't the existence of every ID criticizing thread on this boards by atheists.....who always take the time to point out the absurdity of this belief, lend weight to the "historical creation" moment by means of the criterion of embarrassment, as you've misapplied it???  

You've lost me. ID claims are not wrong because they're "absurd," as you say, they're wrong because they're redundant and do not logically follow from the evidence. That's not at all relevant to historians finding greater value in embarrassing claims which are in-of-themselves very probable.

[The Grand Nudger]

To the pagans, the Jews, the two cultures in which Christian beliefs arose.

Obviouisly, the things that embarass a pagan and a jew don;t embarass a christian.  I don't know where you hope to get from here.  

It was a stumbling block to those whom the Christians sought to make converts, both then and now.  The relevance should be easy to see, but to spell it out for you, I certainly can't think of a good explanation as to why any Jew or pagan one would want to start a religion in which their Savior is supposed to usher in God's kingdom on earth and is put to death before the revolution hardly even gets off the ground.

That's what they believed.  It's not difficult to understand at all.  Besides, it's not as if they left it at a crucified animal, now did they?  He came back, like a cat...lol.  

...What?  Every second and third hand account is a statement of belief.  The concern here is which beliefs are probably rooted in historical anecdote.  The element of awkward or embarrassing details within those beliefs lends credibility to their having a historical core, as the likelihood of such claims being among those one would make up, especially when attempting to persuade others of their veracity, decreases.  This is especially true in honor cultures.

Again, referencing roman critics isn't how the criterion of embarrassment is applied....and you don't know what embarassed early christians.  

You've lost me.   ID claims are not wrong because they're "absurd," as you say, they're wrong because they're redundant and do not logically follow from the evidence.  That's not at all relevant to historians finding greater value in embarrassing claims which are in-of-themselves very probable.

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...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.

-That-...is the problem. Obviously, something is wrong with this tool.

[Minimalist]

Of course I do.  Applying the same criteria to both doesn't alter that.

So shall we apply the same criteria to this excerpt from Tacitus' History?

81. In the course of the months which Vespasian spent at Alexandria, waiting for the regular season of summer winds when the sea could be relied upon, (1) many miracles occurred. These seemed to be indications that Vespasian enjoyed heaven's blessing and that the gods showed a certain leaning towards him. Among the lower classes at Alexandria was a blind man whom everybody knew as such. One day this fellow threw himself at Vespasian's feet, imploring him with groans to heal his blindness. He had been told to make this request by Serapis, the favourite god of a nation much addicted to strange beliefs. He asked that it might please the emperor to anoint his cheeks and eyeballs with the water of his mouth. A second petitioner, who suffered from a withered hand, pleaded his case too, also on the advice of Serapis: would Caesar tread upon him with the imperial foot? At first Vespasian laughed at them and refused. When the two insisted, he hesitated. At one moment he was alarmed by the thought that he would be accused of vanity if he failed. At the next, the urgent appeals of the two victims and the flatteries of his entourage made him sanguine of success. Finally he asked the doctors for an opinion whether blindness and atrophy of this sort were curable by human means. The doctors were eloquent on the various possibilities. The blind man's vision was not completely destroyed, and if certain impediments were removed his sight would return. The other victim's limb had been dislocated, but could be put right by correct treatment. Perhaps this was the will of the gods, they added; perhaps the emperor had been chosen to perform a miracle. Anyhow, if a cure were effected, the credit would go to the ruler; if it failed, the poor wretches would have to bear the ridicule. So Vespasian felt that his destiny gave him the key to every door and that nothing now defied belief. With a smiling expression and surrounded by an expectant crowd of bystanders, he did what was asked. Instantly the cripple recovered the use of his hand and the light of day dawned again upon his blind companion. Both these incidents are still vouched for by eye-witnesses, though there is now nothing to be gained by lying. (2)

Will you now worship Serapis?

[Mudhammam]

Will you now worship Serapis?

...Huh?

[Minimalist]

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.