5 ms·

> You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priestho

> You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priesthood. It's not something you find among any credible scholar in the field. Carrier is fringe for a reason.

Theodores 8y ago
Credible to whom? After 2000 years of the indoctrination the defenders of the bible have got the art of defending the make-believe that is the bible down to a fine art. I did not say that everything that has ever came out of Richard Carrier's mouth is tantamount to the word of god and definitely to be believed. My point was that he asks the right questions, has done a lot of research that the bible bashers of this world haven't bothered to do and he has ways of discussing things in a non-black-and-white dualist way, going for probability and giving a value to how likely something is likely to be true. Anyone with a serious interest in questioning assumptions long held by them about the bible needs to hear him out, to believe him or not, it is that questioning of faith that matters. There are plenty of atheists that believe that Jesus really did exist but he was an ordinary guy rather than of virgin birth and the son of god, an 'anti-capitalist rebel' of sorts. What Richard Carrier does is to open up the idea that the whole bible is a contrivance, that this Jesus character did not exist and that his story was weaved together by religions that had gone before. Logical fallacies are something we are all capable of. Your 'where there is smoke there must be fire' comment does not stand up to scrutiny. Just twenty years ago it was not possible to talk about climate change in the world of weather forecasting and meteorology. That was actually way to controversial, and I am talking from being in the field twenty years ago. Yet by that point in time the idea had some scientific credibility for twenty years, and a century before that some had wondered what the consequences of pumping ever increasing quantities of carbon dioxide into the air might lead to, positing the 'crazy' global warming idea. With the agreement of the Paris Accords the other week we have moved on from that, the 'fringe' view that was not considered 'credible' has moved on. Yet a mere twenty years ago people were saying 'climate change is fringe for a reason'. There may be much to dislike about Richard Carrier, but to dismiss him without at least a link to a decent review of his work by one of these italicised credible scholars is a poor show.
owens99 8y ago
There was a time where all "credible" scholars believed the earth was flat. Consensus changes.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  No, there definitely wasn't. 'Credible' scholars have known the earth is round since the Greeks. Archimedes even calculated the circumference.
  - owens99 8y ago
    And Galileo? Look, that’s not the point. Consensus undoubtably can change. The majority of historical scholars in this field are religious. I would love it if better evidence could verify the historical Jesus, rather than appeals to authority like you are using. There is compelling lack of evidence to prove Jesus as a historical figure. I never personally questioned it until seeing the lack of evidence.
    - dorchadas 8y ago
      Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus), I hope you don't believe in anything science says. After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. [0] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-reviewed-journal-takes-richard-carriers-jesus-mythicism/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-review...

Theodores 8y ago

Credible to whom? After 2000 years of the indoctrination the defenders of the bible have got the art of defending the make-believe that is the bible down to a fine art. I did not say that everything that has ever came out of Richard Carrier's mouth is tantamount to the word of god and definitely to be believed. My point was that he asks the right questions, has done a lot of research that the bible bashers of this world haven't bothered to do and he has ways of discussing things in a non-black-and-white dualist way, going for probability and giving a value to how likely something is likely to be true. Anyone with a serious interest in questioning assumptions long held by them about the bible needs to hear him out, to believe him or not, it is that questioning of faith that matters. There are plenty of atheists that believe that Jesus really did exist but he was an ordinary guy rather than of virgin birth and the son of god, an 'anti-capitalist rebel' of sorts. What Richard Carrier does is to open up the idea that the whole bible is a contrivance, that this Jesus character did not exist and that his story was weaved together by religions that had gone before. Logical fallacies are something we are all capable of. Your 'where there is smoke there must be fire' comment does not stand up to scrutiny. Just twenty years ago it was not possible to talk about climate change in the world of weather forecasting and meteorology. That was actually way to controversial, and I am talking from being in the field twenty years ago. Yet by that point in time the idea had some scientific credibility for twenty years, and a century before that some had wondered what the consequences of pumping ever increasing quantities of carbon dioxide into the air might lead to, positing the 'crazy' global warming idea. With the agreement of the Paris Accords the other week we have moved on from that, the 'fringe' view that was not considered 'credible' has moved on. Yet a mere twenty years ago people were saying 'climate change is fringe for a reason'. There may be much to dislike about Richard Carrier, but to dismiss him without at least a link to a decent review of his work by one of these italicised credible scholars is a poor show.

owens99 8y ago

There was a time where all "credible" scholars believed the earth was flat. Consensus changes.

dorchadas 8y ago
No, there definitely wasn't. 'Credible' scholars have known the earth is round since the Greeks. Archimedes even calculated the circumference.
- owens99 8y ago
  And Galileo? Look, that’s not the point. Consensus undoubtably can change. The majority of historical scholars in this field are religious. I would love it if better evidence could verify the historical Jesus, rather than appeals to authority like you are using. There is compelling lack of evidence to prove Jesus as a historical figure. I never personally questioned it until seeing the lack of evidence.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    Except there isn't a lack of evidence unless you require more evidence for Jesus than every other historical figure. Are you going to say there's now no evidence for Alexander the Great? What about Socrates? What about Pythagoras? That's the exact point so many people have tried to make -- there's just as much evidence, if not more, for Jesus than for these other people. Furthermore, if it's an appeal to authority to rely on scholars in a given field (many of whom are agnostic or atheist, yet still realize that there probably was a historical Jesus), I hope you don't believe in anything science says. After all, saying you believe in global warming is just an "appeal to authority". And so is trusting Carrier. Speaking of which here's one (of many) sources detailing why Carrier's ideas fail [0] and are basically dogmatically motivated -- which is hilarious since it's exactly what you accuse religious scholars of. Also, Galileo did not believe it was flat, and there's plenty of sources during the Late Middle Ages that basically state they knew the earth was a sphere. [0] https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-reviewed-journal-takes-richard-carriers-jesus-mythicism/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2017/12/peer-review...