tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post767157346203634274..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Don’t Agree You Know NothingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6342735165083782382012-01-23T02:27:21.488-08:002012-01-23T02:27:21.488-08:00goober projected:
"It's a great way to i...goober projected:<br /><br />"It's a great way to insulate yourself from having your worldview challenged."<br /><br />Self awareness is obviously a foreign concept to goober.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22407222487978860982012-01-23T02:16:29.328-08:002012-01-23T02:16:29.328-08:00goober drooled:
"There is absolutely nothing...goober drooled:<br /><br />"There is absolutely nothing written in any of these accounts that would lead anyone to believe that Jesus was a figurative or an imaginary person. Your attempts at trying to read secret meanings into some of the scriptures were an absolutely horrible exegesis that reeked with desperation."<br /><br />Actually, there is absolutely nothing written in any of those so-called accounts or any other religious hogwash that would lead anyone sane to believe that jesus was a real person. Your attempts at trying to read credibility into any of the so-called scriptures is an absolutely horrible act of lunacy that reeks with desperation.<br /><br />goober also slobbered:<br /><br />"There is a reason why the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus was a real person."<br /><br />For some reason goober thinks that cherry picking a few alleged "scholars" (LOL) of his biased choosing makes a good, evidential argument. goober clearly doesn't understand what evidence is.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78853449246537680492012-01-22T20:09:36.168-08:002012-01-22T20:09:36.168-08:00Well, as you wish. See you around, I'm sure.Well, as you wish. See you around, I'm sure.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64974177183926349052012-01-22T18:28:46.471-08:002012-01-22T18:28:46.471-08:00It is perfectly plausible they were preaching a ve...<i>It is perfectly plausible they were preaching a version of Jesus they knew to be entriely allegorical.</i><br /><br />It is not plausible, not unless you want to completely toss out every single thing written about Jesus in the gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, the writings of the early church fathers, and all the extra-biblical references to Jesus. <br /><br />There is absolutely nothing written in any of these accounts that would lead anyone to believe that Jesus was a figurative or an imaginary person. Your attempts at trying to read secret meanings into some of the scriptures were an absolutely horrible exegesis that reeked with desperation.<br /><br /><i><br />The only actual sources it cites are, as I said, the apocryphal Acts of Peter, and a letter from Clement of Rome, which does not say anything about HOW Peter died.<br /></i><br /><br />You originally tried to imply that we didn't even know if Peter was martyred and the only evidence we had was from the late 2nd century. <br /><br />Now you're apparently trying to pretend that you never took this stance and are trying to argue that just Peter died of a heart attack, I guess, even though Clement of Rome CLEARLY says that both Peter and Paul were martyred:<br /><br /><b>Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.</b><br /><br /><i><br />However, Catholics hold that James, brother of Jesus is in fact James, Son of Alphaeus (or, James the Lesser).<br /></i><br /><br />Which has nothing to do with nothing. Catholics hold this position because they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and thus can't allow for Jesus to have any siblings. The evidence from history and the gospels clearly shows that this is a false doctrine.<br /><br />But that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that we have plenty of historical evidence that the apostles were out getting martyred for their beliefs, to which someone would have to be absolutely insane to think they were going through all this trouble and suffering for an imaginary person.<br /><br />There is a reason why the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus was a real person.<br /><br /><i><br />That's kinda the point of being an atheist.<br /></i><br /><br />And that's kinda the point of denying the historical existence of Jesus. If you can do that, then you don't have to seriously deal with any of the arguments from Christianity. It's a great way to insulate yourself from having your worldview challenged.<br /><br />At any rate, I'm tired of discussing this topic with you, and the blog has moved on to other subjects. You have utterly failed to convince me of your case.<br /><br />But I'd like to thank you for engaging me on this. I've never argued this topic before and as a result of our dialogue I've learned a ton of new information that has reinforced my faith in Christ and will help me when I dialogue with other atheists in the future.<br /><br />I wish you well and I'm sure I'll see around on this blog in the future. I don't expect that I'll be replying to any more of your messages on this thread. Take care.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25354816384159015592012-01-22T13:39:55.647-08:002012-01-22T13:39:55.647-08:00butler the goober said:
"...steadfastly refu...butler the goober said:<br /><br />"...steadfastly refusing to believe the overwhelming consensus of scholarship because of your religious beliefs."<br /><br />Look who's talking! <br /><br />Do you have any idea of how crazy you are? Apparently not.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64537116849898663842012-01-22T05:16:52.440-08:002012-01-22T05:16:52.440-08:00wg (2)
Interesting. And what is your evidence for...wg (2)<br /><br /><b>Interesting. And what is your evidence for that?</b><br /><br />Well I will admit ignorance may play a big role. I am just not nearly as familiar with the evidence for and against the existence of a real Mohammed as I am with that of Jesus. So I am happier to bend to scholarly consensus which is, as I understand it, that we can be fairly certain he was real. Being an atheist, I don't belive the miraculous claims made about him, so whether he existed as a person or not matters little to me. <br /><br />Of course the same would, in principle, apply to Jesus except for the trivial fact that I am familiar with the evidence for and against Jesus. I used to be a Christian and I started examining the evidence thinking it would reinforce my faith. As it turned out, I found a distressing lack of evidence, which had the opposite effect. Added to which, I grew up in a Christian-dominated society, and most debates I have about religion are with Christians. If I was an ex-Muslim living in an Islamic-dominated society, I suppose I would be far more familiar with the evidence for Mohammed. Whether I would find it compelling or not I can't say with much certainty.<br /><br /><b>You've GOT to be kidding me! Please tell me this is just an off the cuff remark!</b><br /><br />Ummm, no. Why, what do you think marks the 'rise' of early Christianity out as being different to other religions (apart from, presumably, assuming it happens to be true)? What is it about this rise which contradicts the hypothesis that Christianity began as a Jewish mystery cult?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71406835807963006062012-01-22T05:16:27.328-08:002012-01-22T05:16:27.328-08:00wg -
Which is completely ad hoc and also irrelev...wg - <br /><br /><b>Which is completely ad hoc and also irrelevant. He was arrested for practicing Christianity and would have been aware of the dangers of doing so. To say that he willingly put his life at risk for an imaginary person really exceeds the bounds of reason.</b><br /><br />We do not know why he was (allegedly) arrested. Acts does imply it was a deliberate act by Herod to 'vex the church', but that is our only source and it is far from a reliable one.<br /><br />Moreover, you are still assuming that a non-real Jesus means the very first preachers of Christianity (whoever they were) were deliberately preaching lies. This is not necessarily the case. It is perfectly plausible they were preaching a version of Jesus they knew to be entriely allegorical.<br /><br /><b>Ritchie, you're arguments are REALLY awful! It took me 3 seconds to find this on wikipedia:</b><br /><br />I don't know why you think any of that contradicts what I've said. Several points of Peter's death are sourced as 'Tradition says...' which basically means it is a belief with no evidence. The only actual sources it cites are, as I said, the apocryphal Acts of Peter, and a letter from Clement of Rome, which does not say anything about HOW Peter died. Josephus provides evidence that Romans experimented with different methods of crucifying people, so the death given in Acts of Peter is at least plausible. But still, he does not corroborate that Peter himself died in this way.<br /><br /><b>All you've done is provide additional evidence. There were three different James. The two original apostles (James the Greater and James the Lesser) and James the brother of the Lord who converted to Chrsitianity after the crucifixion event.</b><br /><br />The main problem here is identifying the Jameses. Your opinion - that there were three - is advocated by Protestant and East Orthodox churches. However, Catholics hold that James, brother of Jesus is in fact James, Son of Alphaeus (or, James the Lesser). This is outlined in the very link you gave me. Indeed there is also another line of thought that runs that James the Lesser was in fact a fourth James, though I don't believe this is a widely accepted notion.<br /><br /><b>Of course. In much the same way that an atheist debating a young earth creationist can demonstrate the ample scientific evidence for an ancient universe and earth and undermine the credibility of the young earth creationist. This really makes it unnececessary for the atheist to defend atheism. But in this situation you would be the young earth creationist, steadfastly refusing to believe the overwhelming consensus of scholarship because of your religious beliefs.</b><br /><br />For one thing, I don't hold religious beliefs. That's kinda the point of being an atheist. For another, the position that 'Jesus did not exist' is hardly one defined by my (lack of) religious beliefs, since the proposition that Jesus was a real and entirely human man about whom stories just got grossly exaggerated, is just as compatible. Finally, the analogy falls apart when we consider how we would show a YEC that they are wrong - we would show them good, solid, reliable, trustworthy evidence. Facts which contradict their beliefs. This is, it seems to me, exactly what is lacking here. A mere appeal to authority is hollow without the evidence which satisfied the experts.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47529512315071140152012-01-22T02:39:10.114-08:002012-01-22T02:39:10.114-08:00What about James the goober? Wasn't he your gr...What about James the goober? Wasn't he your great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27342610996617666042012-01-21T07:05:03.548-08:002012-01-21T07:05:03.548-08:00Ritchie (cont)
But this is contradicted by other ...Ritchie (cont)<br /><br /><i>But this is contradicted by other sources which say that he was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt, not stoned by the Jews.<br /></i><br /><br />All you've done is provide additional evidence. There were three different James. The two original apostles (James the Greater and James the Lesser) and James the brother of the Lord who converted to Chrsitianity after the crucifixion event. We have evidence from three sources (your source, the book of Acts, and the historical records of Josephus) corroborating that they were all martyred. <br /><br />James the GREATER died at the hands of Herod. James the LESSOR died in Egypt. James the JUST (the brother of Jesus) was brought before the Sanhedrin and stoned. Three different men, three different martyrdoms.<br /><br />All of this completely contradicts your "imaginary apostles" narrative and demonstrates that real historical people were putting their lives at risk and being executed. Again, it requires someone to check their sanity at the door to believe that they were doing this because of an imaginary person.<br /><br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/jamess.htm<br /><br /><br /><i><br />It really undermines your case for atheism...<br /><br />Pardon?<br /></i><br /><br />Of course. In much the same way that an atheist debating a young earth creationist can demonstrate the ample scientific evidence for an ancient universe and earth and undermine the credibility of the young earth creationist. This really makes it unnececessary for the atheist to defend atheism. But in this situation you would be the young earth creationist, steadfastly refusing to believe the overwhelming consensus of scholarship because of your religious beliefs.<br /><br /><i><br />No, I am happy that Mohammed really lived.<br /></i><br /><br />Interesting. And what is your evidence for that?<br /><br /><i><br />What DO you think is the strongest piece of evidence?<br /></i><br /><br />I think they are all strong. But from the perspective of historical ancient writings its probably the epistles of Paul. As Ehrman said in the interview, he doesn't know of one single scholar (amongst thousands) who disputes that Paul wrote Galatians and visited with James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem.<br /><br /><i><br />Christianity was just another small, mostly insignificant cult until it caught the eye of Emporer Constantine in the 4th century<br /></i><br /><br />You've GOT to be kidding me! Please tell me this is just an off the cuff remark!<br /><br />OK, I'm going to check out for now. Till next time.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54221503621626093752012-01-21T06:50:07.375-08:002012-01-21T06:50:07.375-08:00Ritchie,
It does not say he could have saved him...Ritchie,<br /><br /><i><br />It does not say he could have saved himself by recanting. It's just as logical that Herod did not give him that choice and just had him executed.<br /></i><br /><br />Which is completely ad hoc and also irrelevant. He was arrested for practicing Christianity and would have been aware of the dangers of doing so. To say that he willingly put his life at risk for an imaginary person really exceeds the bounds of reason.<br /><br /><i><br />Peter's and Andrew's deaths are noted respectively in the Acts of Peter and Acts of Andrew, which are late second century books, <br /></i><br /><br />Ritchie, you're arguments are REALLY awful! It took me 3 seconds to find this on wikipedia:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter<br /><br /><i>The mention in the New Testament of the death of Peter says that Jesus indicated its form by saying: "You will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."[35] Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter’s tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the “dies imperii” of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor wished to blame the Christians. This “dies imperii” (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was ‘as usual’ accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.<br /><b>Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."</b><br />The apocryphal Acts of Peter is also thought to be the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (or "Pou Hupageis, Kurie?" which means, "Whither goest Thou, Master?"). According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked the question of a vision of Jesus, to which Jesus allegedly responded that he was "going to Rome to be crucified again." On hearing this, Peter decided to return to the city to accept martyrdom. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St Sebastian.<br />The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions, and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual cause of death in ordinary crucifixion[citation needed].<br />A medieval tradition[citation needed] was that the Mamertine Prison in Rome is the place where Peter was imprisoned before his execution.</i>wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4195056844540210742012-01-21T05:04:40.689-08:002012-01-21T05:04:40.689-08:00wg (2)
You have me at a disadvantage here. I don&...wg (2)<br /><br /><b>You have me at a disadvantage here. I don't know much about scientology.</b><br /><br />Then you are fortunate. The link with Christianity here is, I admit, more abstract. Scientology doctrine mandates that 75 million years ago an intergalactic warlord lured billions of aliens to Earth and killed them with hydrogen bombs inside volcanoes. Their dead souls were then captured, brainwashed, and placed inside the bodies of then-primative humans, causing all manner of ills. But fear not, scientology can exorcise those demons - for a price.<br /><br />What we can learn here is a lesson in the psychology of religion and cult thinking. How do you get otherwise intelligent people to swallow such inane and demonstrably false garbage?<br /><br />Part of it is probably due to its cult mentality of conspiracy theorising - 'this is the truth everyone is trying to keep from you. I am giving you special, secret knowledge'. And part of it is probably down to the system of initiation - new converts are only told a little, and incouraged to invest money and dedication to progress further within Scientology's ranks. It is only when you get to the inner circles that you are told the full extent of the barmy truth, by which time you have probably invested too much time, money and self-identity to just walk away. As an outsider, I of course shouldn't know anything about their beliefs. But then this is the age of the internet, after all.<br /><br />My point being that if you are spreading a cult, particularly a new one, rational analysis of the claims rarely come into play. The spread (and rapid spread at that) of Christianity should not be considered solid evidence of the veracity of its claims. The converts were likely to be as vulnerable (if not more so) to cult thinking as they are today.<br /><br /><b>I said that Tacitus was my favorite piece of (extra-biblical) evidence because it corroborates the New Testament and verifies the attitude of the Roman Empire towards the Christians, an attitude that we see reflected in the world to this day.</b><br /><br />DO you think there is a more reliable source which verifies the existence of a real Jesus then? What DO you think is the strongest piece of evidence?<br /><br /><b>the fact that you refuse to accept the historical consensus really highlights to any readers of this blog just how much on radical fringe you are and what a prejudice you (and the other atheists) have against Christianity.</b><br /><br />Again, I am not committed to the position of Jesus' non-existence. I am sceptical of it merely because, as I see it, there very little in the way of evidence FOR it, and most of that is thoroughly unreliable.<br /><br /><b>It really undermines your case for atheism...</b><br /><br />Pardon?<br /><br /><b>Which would explain none of the historical facts nor the rise of Christianity.</b><br /><br />On the contrary. The hypothesis that Christianity started merely as a quasi-Jewish cult is perfectly compatible with all the evidence. What evidence contradicts it?<br /><br />Surely not Christianity's 'rise'? Christianity was just another small, mostly insignificant cult until it caught the eye of Emporer Constantine in the 4th century, which catapulted it into Empire-wide respectability. That was just a fluke of history.<br /><br /><b>I find your reaction to his email quite interesting. Richard Carrier basically sent you the same email and you found that intriguing, maybe even a little exciting, but you seem to be highly annoyed at Ehrman for saying pretty much the same thing.</b><br /><br />Not because it's Ehrman rather than Carrier. More because I sent two emails and neither gave me a direct response.<br /><br />Still, a couple of months is not a long wait in the grand scheme of things.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41773413146985840732012-01-21T05:04:13.603-08:002012-01-21T05:04:13.603-08:00wg -
We have evidence from the book of Acts and ...wg - <br /><br /><b>We have evidence from the book of Acts and the epistles.</b><br /><br />Acts of the Apostles meantions the deaths of only two disciples - Judas Iscariot who did not, by anyone's version of events, die a Christian martyr, and James, son of Zebedee, who was merely killed by Herod. It does not say he could have saved himself by recanting. It's just as logical that Herod did not give him that choice and just had him executed.<br /><br />Peter's and Andrew's deaths are noted respectively in the Acts of Peter and Acts of Andrew, which are late second century books, while Philip's death, recorded in the Acts of Philip, written probably in the fourth century, is so fantastical even The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia calls it "purely legendary and a tissue of fables".<br /><br /><b>You don't get to dismiss evidence just because it comes from a Christian source.</b><br /><br />Well, yes and no. On one hand, coming from a Christian source doesn't immediately make a reference false. On the other, it does vastly undermine it's credibility.<br /><br />The problem is that in the first few centuries AD a lot of Christian scholars were writing a lot of fantastical things, making a lot of miraculous claims, for purely religious reasons. It is precisely these miraculous claims we want to verify. And to do that, we have to check them against, as far as we can find, impartial, historically reliable sources. To just check them against OTHER miracle-laden, religiously-motivated, Christian sources is an exercise in circular logic.<br /><br /><b>You pulled the same stunt earlier today when I referenced the paper that criticized Darwinism. "Oh but this comes from a Christian university", you said, as though that settled the matter.</b><br /><br />Again, it's true that that does not automatically make it false. That only comes from a detailed and thorough investigation of the paper. However it does fatally undermine the claim that this is an authentic, scientific paper which has gone through the rigours of peer review. These are not real scientists - they are preachers in lab coats trying to invent ways of making their faith sound scientifically plausible.<br /><br />And let me be clear: my beef is purely with the ID movement here. There are plently of perfectly professional, respectable, credible scientists who are also Christians. It is the ID movement specifically which is a cynical ploy to get religion into the science classroom. No real scientist would have taken Behe, Wells and Meyer as credible sources. They have proven on many occassions they are nothing of the sort.<br /><br /><b>We also have corroborating historical evidence that confirms the New Testament accounts, like this.</b><br /><br />But this is contradicted by other sources which say that he was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt, not stoned by the Jews.<br /><br />http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/jamesle.htm<br /><br /><b>Except that your argument would make no sense unless you were trying to suggest that the Muslims were conquering their neighbors and spreading Islam around the world because someone invented an imaginary Mohammed. Do you think Mohammed was a fictitious person too?</b><br /><br />No, I am happy that Mohammed really lived. However I don't believe all the fantastical stories about him. I do not believe, in short, the version of Mohammed they spread was true. That didn't stop it spreading, and very quickly.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86828320102621744622012-01-21T01:22:28.935-08:002012-01-21T01:22:28.935-08:00the goober said:
"We have evidence from the ...the goober said:<br /><br />"We have evidence from the book of Acts and the epistles." <br /><br />Actually, "we" have no such thing.<br /><br />"There's one thing you have to understand."<br /><br />There are a LOT of things you don't understand. <br /><br />"You don't get to dismiss evidence just because it comes from a Christian source."<br /><br />You haven't provided any "evidence". Anything from a christian or other religious source is a crock.<br /><br />"You have me at a disadvantage here. I don't know much about scientology."<br /><br />Reality has you at a disadvantage. You don't know much about anything, except how to be a typical, delusional, parroting god zombie. <br /><br />"...just how much on radical fringe you are and what a prejudice you (and the other atheists) have against Christianity."<br /><br />Says the prejudiced, extremely radical fringe, goose stepping godbot. <br /><br />By the way, there's nothing prejudiced in pointing out just how insane you fairy tale believing and promoting, science attacking, dishonest agenda pushing, sanctimonious, bigoted, two-faced, lying, uneducated, ignorant IDiots are.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52572036391286220602012-01-20T21:56:14.733-08:002012-01-20T21:56:14.733-08:00wgbutler777
We have evidence from the book of...<i>wgbutler777<br /><br /> We have evidence from the book of Acts and the epistles. There's one thing you have to understand. You don't get to dismiss evidence just because it comes from a Christian source. I've noticed you do this pretty much all the time. </i><br /><br />Simple minded Creationist still doesn't understand that "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" isn't evidence.<br /><br /><i>We also have corroborating historical evidence that confirms the New Testament accounts, like this.</i><br /><br />Simple minded Creationist still doesn't understand that having some parts of a book be true doesn't make everything in a book be true.<br /><br /><i>You have me at a disadvantage here. I don't know much about scientology.</i><br /><br />Simple minded Creationist doesn't know much about any real sciences either but that doesn't stop him from blithering about them.<br /><br /><i>Besides, the fact that you refuse to accept the historical consensus really highlights to any readers of this blog just how much on radical fringe you are and what a prejudice you (and the other atheists) have against Christianity. It really undermines your case for atheism and your entire credibility. Fair minded people can see this and easily ascertain what is going on.</i><br /><br />It was only a matter of time before simple minded Creationist would once again start whining about being the <b>poor persecuted Christian martyr</b> :( being criticized solely for his religion and not for his dumb claims and obnoxious behavior.<br /><br />As someone already noted, the lack of self-awareness this goober exhibits is staggering.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9600360456787199832012-01-20T20:15:57.946-08:002012-01-20T20:15:57.946-08:00Ritchie,
But in any case, the bottom line is tha...Ritchie,<br /><br /><i><br />But in any case, the bottom line is that if you want to use the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence, then you need to give good, solid evidence for their deaths. <br /></i><br /><br />We have evidence from the book of Acts and the epistles. There's one thing you have to understand. You don't get to dismiss evidence just because it comes from a Christian source. I've noticed you do this pretty much all the time. <br /><br />It's your main line of defense. You pulled the same stunt earlier today when I referenced the paper that criticized Darwinism. "Oh but this comes from a Christian university", you said, as though that settled the matter. You can't just dismiss evidence without considering the arguments (at least not unless you want to be a close minded fool).<br /><br />We also have corroborating historical evidence that confirms the New Testament accounts, like <a href="http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/james.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br /><i><br />I was just making the point that the speed with which a story spreads hardly attests to its veracity<br /></i><br /><br />Except that your argument would make no sense unless you were trying to suggest that the Muslims were conquering their neighbors and spreading Islam around the world because someone invented an imaginary Mohammed. Do you think Mohammed was a fictitious person too?<br /><br /><i><br />How ridiculous does Scientology sound? How much evidence can we provide that it is an entirely invented fabrication? <br /></i><br /><br />You have me at a disadvantage here. I don't know much about scientology.<br /><br />Do the scientologists claim that some imaginary person existed 60 years ago that we know for a fact did not actually exist? Also, are the original scientologists dying and getting martyred for their beliefs? How exactly does this correlate with the historicity of Christ?<br /><br /><i><br />But these 'other sources' are even less reliable than he is. You said yourself that you thought Tacitus' was the most trustworthy evidence. And I agree.<br /></i><br /><br />No I never said that. I said that Tacitus was my favorite piece of (extra-biblical) evidence because it corroborates the New Testament and verifies the attitude of the Roman Empire towards the Christians, an attitude that we see reflected in the world to this day.<br /><br /><i><br />The vast mainstream of historical scholarship does not accept the divine, miracle-performing version of Jesus presented by the Bible.<br /></i><br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. It's irrelevant. I'm not here arguing that Jesus was the Messiah or that Christianity is true. I've just been arguing for the historicity of Jesus. If you don't even accept that, there is no point in discussing anything else. <br /><br />Besides, the fact that you refuse to accept the historical consensus really highlights to any readers of this blog just how much on radical fringe you are and what a prejudice you (and the other atheists) have against Christianity. It really undermines your case for atheism and your entire credibility. Fair minded people can see this and easily ascertain what is going on.<br /><br /><i><br />I could do so: Jesus was a mythical figure dreamed up by a quasi-Jewish cult. <br /></i><br /><br />Which would explain none of the historical facts nor the rise of Christianity. In other words, its an awful hypothesis that just shows that you are a person with ideological blinders.<br /><br /><i><br />Also, I have received a reply from Bart Erhman. Hilariously it says:<br /><br />Thanks for your email. I have a book coming out in March that deals at length with the question. It will be called Did Jesus Exist? And it will be published by HarperOne. Hope it gives you all the evidence you're looking for!<br /><br />I kid you not.<br /></i><br /><br />I find your reaction to his email quite interesting. Richard Carrier basically sent you the same email and you found that intriguing, maybe even a little exciting, but you seem to be highly annoyed at Ehrman for saying pretty much the same thing.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70307510181531051452012-01-20T10:11:32.192-08:002012-01-20T10:11:32.192-08:00wg -(2)
OK. The vast mainstream of historical sch...wg -(2)<br /><br /><b>OK. The vast mainstream of historical scholarship accepts that Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified.</b><br /><br />Okay, let's not get carried away. The vast mainstream of historical scholarship does not accept the divine, miracle-performing version of Jesus presented by the Bible. THAT interpretation IS far more hotly contested.<br /><br />And the position of Jesus as a normal man about whom myths grew is largely backed by the conspicuous lack of (or merely contradictory) historical evidence for the divine, miracle-performing Jesus. The thing is, stories of the divine miracle-worker are all we have. Strip this away and there's virtually nothing left.<br /><br /><b>You haven't really presented me with a plausible hypothesis that would explain the historical evidence and rise of Christianity but by all means feel free to believe whatever fanciful notions you wish.</b><br /><br />I could do so: Jesus was a mythical figure dreamed up by a quasi-Jewish cult. At some point an official solidifying church developed which declared a literal interpretation of Christ official dogma, drawing up documents and rewriting history in light of this new interpretation.<br /><br />I know you could accuse this hypothesis as being as unevidenced as the Jesus-really-was-Christ one. But the advantage I have is plausibility. Mine is an entirely naturalistic hypothesis, requiring no magic, miracles, gods, demons, spells or visions. It is therefore rationally to be preferred.<br /><br />Also, I have received a reply from Bart Erhman. Hilariously it says:<br /><br /><i>Thanks for your email. I have a book coming out in March that deals at length with the question. It will be called Did Jesus Exist? And it will be published by HarperOne. Hope it gives you all the evidence you're looking for!</i><br /><br />I kid you not.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6603504643466911052012-01-20T10:10:59.719-08:002012-01-20T10:10:59.719-08:00wg -
Nevertheless, it's completely counter-i...wg - <br /><br /><b>Nevertheless, it's completely counter-intuitive that people who would absolutely know if Jesus really existed or not (like the original apostles) and had nothing whatsoever to gain would allow themselves to be tortured and executed for a myth.</b><br /><br />But how do we know what happened to the apostles? We only have a few references in Acts of what happened to a couple of them. Then the occasional mention by a Christian scribe or apocryphal source centuries later (which are mostly uncorroborated and contradictory) and tradition stemming even as recently as the medieval era fills in the rest. <br /><br />If the solid evidence for Jesus is rare and weak, then it is even worse for the apostles. Which is in itself odd, considering they were given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons as they preached. Shouldn't a veritable paper trail have followed them? Yet even the gospels themselves say nothing other than a name for almost half of them - indeed they can't even always agree on the names!<br /><br />If Jesus was indeed an entirely fictional figure, then it is hardly much more of a stretch that his disciples were fictional too. But in any case, the bottom line is that if you want to use the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence, then you need to give good, solid evidence for their deaths. Which, again, is almost entirely absent.<br /><br /><b>What does this have to do with anything? I've never insinuated that Muhammed was a mythical character.</b><br /><br />I was just making the point that the speed with which a story spreads hardly attests to its veracity (re. the 'Christianity spread quickly' argument').<br /><br /><b>What exactly does this argument have to do with the historicity of Jesus?</b><br /><br />A similar point really. How ridiculous does Scientology sound? How much evidence can we provide that it is an entirely invented fabrication? And yet how many people are willing to believe it anyway? Again, popularity is no indicator of veracity (re. the Christianity spread quickly' argument).<br /><br /><b>What you can't seem to understand is that the entire argument for the existence of Jesus doesn't rest entirely on Tacitus. Everything that Tacitus writes completely corroborates what other multiple independent historical sources tell us.</b><br /><br />But these 'other sources' are even less reliable than he is. You said yourself that you thought Tacitus' was the most trustworthy evidence. And I agree. But it still isn't very trustworthy. How can you claim Tacitus' passage is reliable on the basis that it is backed up by even less reliable sources?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71037878271237674042012-01-20T07:24:32.894-08:002012-01-20T07:24:32.894-08:00Ritchie,
I don't see why religious tales wou...Ritchie,<br /><br /><i><br />I don't see why religious tales would spread faster if they happened to be true than if they were false.<br /></i><br /><br />Nevertheless, it's completely counter-intuitive that people who would absolutely know if Jesus really existed or not (like the original apostles) and had nothing whatsoever to gain would allow themselves to be tortured and executed for a myth.<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Consider Muslim apologists make this exact same argument in defence of Islam. That spread with remarkable speed too. Within 50 years Islam had a solid foothold in 3 continents.<br /></i><br /><br />What does this have to do with anything? I've never insinuated that Muhammed was a mythical character. I believe that he was a real historical person. So if anything this bizarre argument you made proves my point.<br /><br /><i><br />Or Scientology. That's only 60 years old.<br /></i><br /><br />Is scientology claiming that some mythical person existed that didn't really exist? (I'm not very familiar with scientology). What exactly does this argument have to do with the historicity of Jesus?<br /><br /><i><br />As long as the hypothesis that Tacitus is using a Christian source remains likely (arguably the most likely one), this passage remains weak evidence for an historical Jesus.<br /></i><br /><br />What you can't seem to understand is that the entire argument for the existence of Jesus doesn't rest entirely on Tacitus. Everything that Tacitus writes completely corroborates what other multiple independent historical sources tell us.<br /><br />Historians typically accept something as valid if it has two independent sources corroborating the person or the event. And in the case of the historical Jesus, we have many more sources than that! <br /><br /><i><br />I am just unimpressed by the arguments supporting his existence.<br /></i><br /><br />OK. The vast mainstream of historical scholarship accepts that Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified. If don't think that means anything than more power to you.<br /><br />You haven't really presented me with a plausible hypothesis that would explain the historical evidence and rise of Christianity but by all means feel free to believe whatever fanciful notions you wish.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60242039012684158402012-01-19T17:18:02.489-08:002012-01-19T17:18:02.489-08:00Not at all. You secular 'fundies' live by ...Not at all. You secular 'fundies' live by fairy tales. And die the death by them intellectually. We can live with your expiring curses.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23913152221880630282012-01-19T17:12:24.783-08:002012-01-19T17:12:24.783-08:00Rather like Hawkins conjecturing that the Prime Mo...Rather like Hawkins conjecturing that the Prime Mover might be a principle or law.... an abstract concept! <br /><br />Not too swift outside of their chosen 'turf' some of these people. But where else can they go, while physics keeps building up its wall of paradoxes, imponderable by definition. <br /><br />A pound to a pinch of snuff, the weirdness of quantum physics, physics at all extremes, signifies they have reached the interface of matter and spirit.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36341958900571857682012-01-19T08:27:52.650-08:002012-01-19T08:27:52.650-08:00wgbutler (2)
He engaged in a debate with William ...wgbutler (2)<br /><br /><b>He engaged in a debate with William Lane Craig in 2009</b><br /><br />Interesting. I'll give the whole thing a watch when I have the time. I must say I do find Craig a gifted speaker. That's not to say I don't find his arguments flawed - I certainly do. But he does put them across well.<br /><br /><b>I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that he sort of dangles out the possibility that Jesus didn't really exist in order to appeal to the rabid atheist fringe and get them to buy his books, in much the same way that Intelligent Design advocates try to appear to sympathetic to young earth creationists.</b><br /><br />Perhaps. I guess we'll know for sure in April.<br /><br />For the record, I'm aware I've given the impression here that I think Jesus definitely did not exist. Which isn't quite the case. It's more that I don't find the evidence that he DID exist very compelling. I am not committed to a belief in his non-existence, I am just unimpressed by the arguments supporting his existence.<br /><br />I think the most compelling case to be made for a real Jesus may in fact be found in his mythology. Christopher Hitchens, of all people, actually puts this argument forward very eloquently:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE&feature=endscreen&NR=1<br /><br />The bare bones is: the stories about Jesus are clumsily cobbled together. For example, the prochecy required the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem. So if the Jesus story was a complete fabrication, why not just have him born in Bethlehem? Hitchens' answer is that there was a real Jesus, who was known to be from Nazareth. The nativity is therefore an attempt to make the known facts about him fit the prophecies (and a clumsy one since is contradicted by historical facts).<br /><br />This argument does at least make sense to me. However, it is, after all, based on interpretation of legend, so as evidence it will never be very solid.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67208845769728086622012-01-19T08:27:18.623-08:002012-01-19T08:27:18.623-08:00wgbutler -
So you admit that Christianity had spr...wgbutler -<br /><br /><b>So you admit that Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by the AD 60s despite massive government efforts to stamp it out, including public executions?</b><br /><br />I don't know how much oppression they faced (initially), but yes I am happy that Christianity had spread to Rome by this time. Paul's epistle to the Romans suggests there was some Christian presence in Rome in 57 AD at the latest.<br /><br /><b>You do realize that is less than 30 years after the crucifixion? This fact lends much credence to both the existence and the resurrection.</b><br /><br />I don't make that connection. I don't see why religious tales would spread faster if they happened to be true than if they were false.<br /><br />Consider Muslim apologists make this exact same argument in defence of Islam. That spread with remarkable speed too. Within 50 years Islam had a solid foothold in 3 continents.<br /><br />Or Scientology. That's only 60 years old. Okay we do live in the age of information, but we also live in a far more sceptical age where superstition is far less well regarded in the public sphere.<br /><br /><b>Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that: "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine</b><br /><br />I see little reason to challenge this conclusion either. The most relevant paragraphs you quoted are the last two,<br /><br /><b>However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.</b><br /><br />I do agree a good historian would have preferred official Roman documents. The problem is whether they ever existed the first place. The Romans did make note of exceptionally large-scale executions or those of particularly (in)famous people. Lawyers' speeches were sometimes published (usually for admiration and critique of form, rather than content). But no sign of an organised, meticulous record system for every trial or execution in every province.<br /><br /><b>Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[44] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[45] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.</b><br /><br />I am inclined to side with Guignebert and France. As long as the hypothesis that Tacitus is using a Christian source remains likely (arguably the most likely one), this passage remains weak evidence for an historical Jesus.<br /><br />Eddy seems to be relying entirely on Tacitus being inerrant. He was a great historian, certainly, but consider this - even if Tacitus wanted to check the Christian account of Jesus - how exactly could he? What was he to do? This was 80 years after the event. The Christians themselves would have told him they worshipped a man Pilate had executed - indeed I imagine this would have been public knowledge about them. How could he have verified this? And why would he even doubt it?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16376247622914749712012-01-18T20:52:10.142-08:002012-01-18T20:52:10.142-08:00Richie (cont)
I wrote to Richard Carrier asking ...Richie (cont)<br /><br /><i><br />I wrote to Richard Carrier asking him to elaborate on exactly what evidence satisfied him, and indeed apparently most historians, on the topic of Jesus' existence. Was it true Jesus' existence was pretty much a foregone conclusion among scholars, theist and sceptic alike?<br /><br />He responded thus:<br /></i><br /><br />Props to you for contacting these scholars! You are officially back on my "cool" list.<br /><br />Carrier's reply to you made me look into this further and I think I've found a definitive source for his official position on the historicity of Christ.<br /><br />He engaged in a debate with William Lane Craig in 2009 (a debate that he admits that he lost, btw - http://www.myspace.com/fanofdrcraig/blog/478098935 ) on the resurrection which you can view here:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd6qzFYzX8<br /><br />At the 46:30 mark he gives his position on the historicity of Jesus. He says he finds the hypothesis that Jesus was a mythical figure persuasive but agrees that the consensus position among historians is that Jesus lived and was crucified, and thus he always debates from the consensus position that Jesus was a real person).<br /><br />I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that he sort of dangles out the possibility that Jesus didn't really exist in order to appeal to the rabid atheist fringe and get them to buy his books, in much the same way that Intelligent Design advocates try to appear to sympathetic to young earth creationists. The fact that he never defends such an assertion in debates with other scholars when it comes to brass tax should tell you something.<br /><br />At any rate, I do wish to make one thing very clear. I'm NOT a fan of either him or Ehrman. I was using them as examples of ideological atheists agreeing with the historicity of Jesus (Carrier tepidly, Ehrman brazenly).<br /><br />Please let me us know if you hear from Ehrman or anything more from Carrier.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2692050988557853102012-01-18T20:36:41.073-08:002012-01-18T20:36:41.073-08:00Hello Ritchie,
That was a mistake - I was thinki...Hello Ritchie,<br /><br /><i><br />That was a mistake - I was thinking of the late first century! It was the fire in Rome I specifically had in mind.<br /></i><br /><br />Ok - thank you for clarifying this. Perhaps my recent assessment of you as a rabid ideologue who blatantly makes facts up and stretches the truth was incorrect. <br /><br />So you admit that Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by the AD 60s despite massive government efforts to stamp it out, including public executions? <br /><br />You do realize that is less than 30 years after the crucifixion? This fact lends much credence to both the existence and the resurrection.<br /><br /><i><br />We have no evidence that a Roman one was even available to him, so the most likely source is a surely contemporary Christian one!<br /></i><br /><br />From Wikipedia:<br /><br /><b>Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus, the majority of scholars consider it genuine....<br /><br />William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts....<br /><br />Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians....<br />Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that: "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine....<br /><br />Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference not only to be genuine, and of historical value an independent Roman source about early Christianity which is in unison with other historical records....<br /><br />Robert E. Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ".[26] John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."<br /><br /><i>Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator. Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.<br /><br />Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[44] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[45] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[19] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."</i></b>wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41942925814346938512012-01-18T14:53:05.521-08:002012-01-18T14:53:05.521-08:00For anyone still taking note:
I wrote to Richard ...For anyone still taking note:<br /><br />I wrote to Richard Carrier asking him to elaborate on exactly what evidence satisfied him, and indeed apparently most historians, on the topic of Jesus' existence. Was it true Jesus' existence was pretty much a foregone conclusion among scholars, theist and sceptic alike?<br /><br />He responded thus:<br /><br /><br /><i>Read my book <b>Proving History</b> which will be out this April. It answers your question. Though not in the way that will make the Ehrman's of the world happy.</i><br /><br /><br />Intriguing, though not immediately satisfying.<br /><br />No word from Erhman as yet.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com