Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 22
 [ 431 posts ] 
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2946Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up

thenexttodie wrote:A conspiracy argument. It was all a hoax. It's all lies and forgeries. Yawn.

Dragan Glas wrote:It's more a case of there being insufficient evidence for the existence of "Jesus" than an out-and-out lie.
I see. Did you have a nice time celebrating Jesus's Birthday with the rest of the world?

As I'm a humanist, I didn't actually celebrate Christmas - just enjoyed the holiday.

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Handwritten Draft Of King James Bible Discovered: Reveals No ‘Divine Powers’

Way to knock down a straw man.

Dragan Glas wrote:What "straw man"?

Kindest regards,

James

Actually I take that back. It seems that there are some Christians that believe the King James Bible was just handed down to us from heaven by God. I, myself, do not believe this.

Thank you for the acknowledgement of the error.

So, of what do you believe the bible is the result?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:39 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3309Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Image

"Cultural appropriation" anyone!? :lol:

Kindest regards,

James


If one accepts the term, religions have to be one of the largest affenders of it. It is amazing how many Saints Day celebrations go on in my neck of the woods.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:34 am
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

I personally vote that we split this topic to divide the nonsense that thenexttodie keeps bringing up from the actual interesting discussion that was going on before...

Although I would also vote to ban him too as he's the most blatant troll we've had on these forums for a long time.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:26 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3309Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Laurens wrote:I personally vote that we split this topic to divide the nonsense that thenexttodie keeps bringing up from the actual interesting discussion that was going on before...


Seconded.

Laurens wrote:Although I would also vote to ban him too as he's the most blatant troll we've had on these forums for a long time.


Why not quarantine thenexttodie like Elshamah? What is the point of banning the troll, besides feeding the obvious mardar complex? This way thenexttodie cannot fly home and show off its wonderful new ban, also thenexttodie will not be able to derail threads anymore. Than, only people that want to feed the troll can keep it up until they become bored and the troll starves. Thus, completing the internet circle of life.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:24 pm
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Why not quarantine thenexttodie like Elshamah? What is the point of banning the troll, besides feeding the obvious mardar complex? This way thenexttodie cannot fly home and show off its wonderful new ban, also thenexttodie will not be able to derail threads anymore. Than, only people that want to feed the troll can keep it up until they become bored and the troll starves. Thus, completing the internet circle of life.


Well I've never seen thenexttodie contribute anything except deliberately antagonising nonsense. I see no reason to accept that he is that annoying by accident. He's a troll and we should ban him. All we are getting at the moment is the derailing of several adult and interesting discussions, that inevitably descend into childish nonsense when he appears.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:06 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Dragan Glas wrote:Thank you for the acknowledgement of the error.

So, of what do you believe the bible is the result?


A lot of hard work. I think the efforts of scribes back then are somewhat under appreciated today.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:14 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Steelmage99 wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:So, where's SpecialFrog? Normally he replies instantly without thinking. I guess he's probably busy celebrating the birth of Jesus somewhere with his family. I bet he hates that.


Do you mean in the same way that you have spent the last few days being busy celebrating the winter solstice?


I would be surprised if most people even knew what a solstice was.

Everyone knows who Jesus is though. ;)
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:28 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1179Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
I would be surprised if most people even knew what a solstice was.

Everyone knows who Jesus is though. ;)


Yes, you're right about this one. Most of Christians are wilfully ignorant about their religion.

Some of them are even proud of knowing as little as possible.

Since you went offtopic I assume you agree that Jesus is just a myth and never existed, cool that you were able to learn something from this topic.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:05 pm
CollecemallPosts: 338Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

I ran across an article by Raphael Lataster that some of you might enjoy reading. He critiques the sources we have for Jesus as well as discussing Ehrman, Carrier, etc. http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles ... urces.html
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:01 am
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:
The group of people who claim God has spoken to them = (group of people to whom God has spoken) + (group of people to whom God has not spoken though they claim He has). By your own statements, the second group is larger, making the bold statement above something to which you have agreed.


God only ever spoke to a handful of people. These events are recorded in the Bible. Knowing this, I see no reason to give humor to the countless others who have made false claims.

There are people actually alive today who are worshiped as "living Gods" by 100's of millions of people. A Buddist for example might argue that the amount of people God has spoken to is actually greater than the amount of people who falsely make this claim.

As I said, I believe God has only ever spoken to a relatively small amount of people and that a record of the first and last time God has done so exists in the Bible. If my beliefs are correct, then all other outside claims are false. That is the standard I use to determine that Yes, the number of people God has spoken is less than the amount of people falsely claim that He has.

If your beliefs are correct, then God never spoke to anybody because he does not exist.

SpecialFrog wrote:And do you agree that the claim "God spoke to Moses" can only be true if Moses actually existed?

thenexttodie wrote:Yes. And now I expect you will make a failing effort to prove Moses never existed.

To some extent, I don't have to. It is the overwhelming scholarly consensus at this point. That link has a brief summary of the evidence if you are actually interested.[/quote]
I am familiar enough with this subject to discuss this with you without clicking on your wiki link.[/quote]
thenexttodie wrote:We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God. I believe they do. Lots of other people do not.

SpecialFrog wrote:How does studying the Bible tell us if Paul's teaching came from God? How can we tell if any of the Bible really came from a god?

thenexttodie wrote:Because it makes perfect sense.

SpecialFrog wrote:You can construct a narrative that is perfectly consistent with all known evidence without it actually being true. That's how conspiracy theorists and pseudo-historians operate.


That's a good point. There are also weak and strong evidences. There is some evidence that my wife is going to cook a meatloaf for dinner tonight. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Because the evidence is weak. And a person might be convinced of something by a lesser evidence when actually the stronger evidence shows it isn't so.
But I havent really answered your question.

SpecialFrog wrote: Without evidence that "the Bible comes from a god" is the most probable hypothesis it doesn't matter how pleasing you find the claim.

Both of our hypothesis could be true, but the evidence required to establish mine is much, much lower.


SpecialFrog, if God wanted to, he could have wrote the 10 commandments on the face of the moon and signed his name underneath so that everyone could see it. If He did that, would you believe that "God wrote it on the moon" was the most probable hypotheis?

SpecialFrog wrote:Here is another hypothesis: the biblical texts were written by humans who had no knowledge not available to humans of the time and place in which the text originated.
I agree. Obviously this must be true.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:53 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2950Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Can I just stop to point at the title of this topic, and ask why we are talking about something totally different?

Mods? Split?
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:14 am
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
I would be surprised if most people even knew what a solstice was.

Everyone knows who Jesus is though. ;)


WarK wrote:Yes, you're right about this one. Most of Christians are wilfully ignorant about their religion.

Some of them are even proud of knowing as little as possible.

Since you went offtopic I assume you agree that Jesus is just a myth and never existed, cool that you were able to learn something from this topic.


No, I just thought I should point out that what the World is actually celebrating on Dec 25 is the birth of Jesus Christ. Not the winter solstice. Dates on which the longest and shortest days of the year can vary quit a bit around the globe and there is no perceivable difference between length of day a night near the equator at all on Dec 25. In fact for those living near the equator the shortest day of the year is actually July 2nd. And on this day there is still more than 12 hours of sunlight. For most of the southern hemisphere the shortest day of the year is in June.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:06 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:The group of people who claim God has spoken to them = (group of people to whom God has spoken) + (group of people to whom God has not spoken though they claim He has). By your own statements, the second group is larger, making the bold statement above something to which you have agreed.

thenexttodie wrote:As I said, I believe God has only ever spoken to a relatively small amount of people and that a record of the first and last time God has done so exists in the Bible. If my beliefs are correct, then all other outside claims are false. That is the standard I use to determine that Yes, the number of people God has spoken is less than the amount of people falsely claim that He has.

So therefore you agree that based on this ratio that even if we accept -- if only for the sake of argument -- that God has spoken to some people, we should treat each such claim as being more likely false than true and require evidence otherwise.

Unless you don't care about evidence at all, in which case why do you care whether or not there is evidence for Jesus?

SpecialFrog wrote:And do you agree that the claim "God spoke to Moses" can only be true if Moses actually existed?

thenexttodie wrote:Yes. And now I expect you will make a failing effort to prove Moses never existed.

SpecialFrog wrote:To some extent, I don't have to. It is the overwhelming scholarly consensus at this point. That link has a brief summary of the evidence if you are actually interested.

thenexttodie wrote:I am familiar enough with this subject to discuss this with you without clicking on your wiki link.

I accept that given the scholarly consensus on Jesus I take on the greater burden of evidence if I am arguing against it. Do you accept the same with regards to Moses? If so, what is the evidence that Moses existed?

thenexttodie wrote:We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God. I believe they do. Lots of other people do not.

SpecialFrog wrote:How does studying the Bible tell us if Paul's teaching came from God? How can we tell if any of the Bible really came from a god?

thenexttodie wrote:Because it makes perfect sense.

SpecialFrog wrote:You can construct a narrative that is perfectly consistent with all known evidence without it actually being true. That's how conspiracy theorists and pseudo-historians operate.

thenexttodie wrote:That's a good point.
...
But I havent really answered your question.

Are you likely to do so?

SpecialFrog wrote: Without evidence that "the Bible comes from a god" is the most probable hypothesis it doesn't matter how pleasing you find the claim.

Both of our hypothesis could be true, but the evidence required to establish mine is much, much lower.

thenexttodie wrote:SpecialFrog, if God wanted to, he could have wrote the 10 commandments on the face of the moon and signed his name underneath so that everyone could see it. If He did that, would you believe that "God wrote it on the moon" was the most probable hypotheis?

It depends, though since this is clearly not the case this seems to be a pointless tangent. As I've said before, if you want a new thread to talk about evidence for a god or what evidence would be compelling feel free.

SpecialFrog wrote:Here is another hypothesis: the biblical texts were written by humans who had no knowledge not available to humans of the time and place in which the text originated.

thenexttodie wrote:I agree. Obviously this must be true.

So you seem to agree that the Bible could have been written by humans with no divine involvement. Surely if this is the case then we should prefer that hypothesis without evidence otherwise, which would require evidence that a god existed and had spoken to the Biblical authors.

So the statement that started this tangent:
thenexttodie wrote:We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God.

is meaningless. If the Bible itself doesn't have any properties that require divine involvement then Paul's writings being consistent with it don't require divine involvement either.

Incidentally, this post has some more conversation threads that might usefully be revived.

For instance, do you agree that Jesus meets most of the criteria on this list?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:31 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:The group of people who claim God has spoken to them = (group of people to whom God has spoken) + (group of people to whom God has not spoken though they claim He has). By your own statements, the second group is larger, making the bold statement above something to which you have agreed.

thenexttodie wrote:God only ever spoke to a handful of people. These events are recorded in the Bible. Knowing this, I see no reason to give humor to the countless others who have made false claims.

There are people actually alive today who are worshiped as "living Gods" by 100's of millions of people. A Buddist for example might argue that the amount of people God has spoken to is actually greater than the amount of people who falsely make this claim.

As I said, I believe God has only ever spoken to a relatively small amount of people and that a record of the first and last time God has done so exists in the Bible. If my beliefs are correct, then all other outside claims are false. That is the standard I use to determine that Yes, the number of people God has spoken is less than the amount of people falsely claim that He has.

If your beliefs are correct, then God never spoke to anybody because he does not exist.

SpecialFrog wrote:So therefore you agree that based on this ratio that even if we accept -- if only for the sake of argument -- that God has spoken to some people, we should treat each such claim as being more likely false than true and require evidence otherwise.

Unless you don't care about evidence at all, in which case why do you care whether or not there is evidence for Jesus?


If you have taken the position in your life or on this forum, that God does not exist and that you are correct and atheism is true, then no. You should not treat such claims as being "more than likely false". What you should say is that all of them are false, because that is your position. You can't have it both ways.

SpecialFrog wrote:And do you agree that the claim "God spoke to Moses" can only be true if Moses actually existed?

thenexttodie wrote:Yes. And now I expect you will make a failing effort to prove Moses never existed.

SpecialFrog wrote:To some extent, I don't have to. It is the overwhelming scholarly consensus at this point. That link has a brief summary of the evidence if you are actually interested.

thenexttodie wrote:I am familiar enough with this subject to discuss this with you without clicking on your wiki link.

SpecialFrog wrote:I accept that given the scholarly consensus on Jesus I take on the greater burden of evidence if I am arguing against it. Do you accept the same with regards to Moses? If so, what is the evidence that Moses existed?
That the Jews recorded things that Moses did which would have been of no significance until after Jesus was born, seems to me to be evidence that Moses actually existed. Why would the Jews make a story about Moses putting a serpent on a staff?

thenexttodie wrote:We have 60 some other books of the Bible, which you could to study in order to determine whether or not Pauls teachings really came from God. I believe they do. Lots of other people do not.

SpecialFrog wrote:How does studying the Bible tell us if Paul's teaching came from God? How can we tell if any of the Bible really came from a god?

thenexttodie wrote:Because it makes perfect sense.

SpecialFrog wrote:You can construct a narrative that is perfectly consistent with all known evidence without it actually being true. That's how conspiracy theorists and pseudo-historians operate.

thenexttodie wrote:That's a good point. There are also weak and strong evidences. There is some evidence that my wife is going to cook a meatloaf for dinner tonight. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Because the evidence is weak. And a person might be convinced of something by a lesser evidence when actually the stronger evidence shows it isn't so.
But I havent really answered your question.

SpecialFrog wrote:Are you likely to do so?


How can we tell if the Bible came from "a God?" Are you now positing that there could be more than one God?

SPECIALFROG. Do you believe that God or many Gods could exist? If so, then I ask; what evidence do you have to support this belief? If the answer is No, then I have to wonder why is it your position is so inconsistent.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:38 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Laurens wrote:Can I just stop to point at the title of this topic, and ask why we are talking about something totally different?

Mods? Split?


The historical account of Jesus, as presented in the Bible, which is reflected in the beliefs of over 2 billion people in the world today, is directly related to existence of God.

If the God of the Bible exists, then it is more than plausible that he would have preserved an accurate historical account of his son.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:01 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie, are you familiar with the concept of an "a fortiori" argument? It appears not.

An "a fortiori" argument is when you argue from a deliberately proposition than what you think is justified in order to remove objections to your propositions. Clearly if the weaker proposition justifies your argument then a stronger version of it would also do so.

If we both agree with the proposition "most claims that God has spoken to someone are false" and that proposition is sufficient to make my argument then I have no need to push for a stronger proposition with which you will not agree anyway.

Conversely, the claim "a god was involved with writing the Bible" is a weaker proposition than "my God was involved with writing the Bible". If there is no evidence for the first proposition then by definition there is no evidence for the second. But I can stop trying to lower your burden of proof if you prefer.

Now that you understand this, feel free to reply to my last message again without the pointless tangents.

As for your evidence for Moses, is your evidence that the made up stories about Jesus make references to the made up stories about Moses? Is that really the most plausible explanation for an ancient myth talking about putting a snake on a stick? Particularly since even if Moses did exist the text is far, far newer than the period in which he would have lived.

And is this evidence sufficiently strong to overcome the evidence that he didn't exist (with which you have declared yourself to be familiar)?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:22 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2946Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Greetings,

How can we tell if the Bible came from "a God?" Are you now positing that there could be more than one God?

The point being, we can't use any religious book to "back-engineer" the god to which that book refers: in other words, we can't use the bible to infer God's existence.

If a supernatural creator-entity, whether a individual or group, is responsible for the bible, then that opens up all sorts of possible ones - for example, it might be Satan, or more simply, an evil god rather than a good one.

Either is possible - we can't use the book to decide.

You have to work "top-down":

1) Prove a creator-entity exists (the religious texts don't count);
2) Given 1), prove said creator-entity is the one in which you believe;
3) Given 1) and 2), prove that said creator-entity has anything to do with any religious text, nevermind the one you claim.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:25 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3309Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:No, I just thought I should point out that what the World is actually celebrating on Dec 25 is the birth of Jesus Christ. Not the winter solstice. Dates on which the longest and shortest days of the year can vary quit a bit around the globe and there is no perceivable difference between length of day a night near the equator at all on Dec 25. In fact for those living near the equator the shortest day of the year is actually July 2nd. And on this day there is still more than 12 hours of sunlight. For most of the southern hemisphere the shortest day of the year is in June.


Image


In fear of annoying Laurens even more, I do not celebrate the birth of Jesus. I celebrate Santa, gift giving, and spending time with friends and family. Sure, Christmas means something different for Christians, but so what. That does not mean I cannot celebrate it how I want to celebrate it. After all, the Christians took that date from other, older traditions.

thenexttodie wrote:That the Jews recorded things that Moses did which would have been of no significance until after Jesus was born, seems to me to be evidence that Moses actually existed. Why would the Jews make a story about Moses putting a serpent on a staff?


Image


Much like I said above. It would be the Hebrews incorporating a much older story into their traditions and myths. You know that that symbol and myth are not unique to Judaism right?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:39 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:thenexttodie, are you familiar with the concept of an "a fortiori" argument? It appears not.

An "a fortiori" argument is when you argue from a deliberately proposition than what you think is justified in order to remove objections to your propositions. Clearly if the weaker proposition justifies your argument then a stronger version of it would also do so.


If we both agree with the proposition "most claims that God has spoken to someone are false" and that proposition is sufficient to make my argument then I have no need to push for a stronger proposition with which you will not agree anyway.

You seem to be suggesting a proposition which you yourself don't even agree with.

SPECIALFROG. Do you believe that God or many Gods could exist? If so, then I ask; what evidence do you have to support this belief? If the answer is No, then I have to wonder why is it your position is so inconsistent.

If the answer is No, then your "fortion" argument does not accurately represent your views.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:02 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 762Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Image


Much like I said above. It would be the Hebrews incorporating a much older story into their traditions and myths. You know that that symbol and myth are not unique to Judaism right?


I am not sure why you would be posting this since the torah predates the greek myth of Asclepius by 1000 years.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:19 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 22
 [ 431 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HfikolCek and 2 guests