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

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.