John T wrote:Wrapping it up.
************************
Proposition: Mythicists are only interested in promoting their own religious agendas, not in doing historical research....cienfuegos
Answer: Yes. And if (that is a big if) cienfuegos can provide any examples otherwise, please due so. But to default to the childish tactic of dismissing all evidence that does not agree with your ideology as: mere assertions with no evidence, doesn't cut it with rational reasoning adults.
Examples of mythicists not promoting their own religious agendas? Or mythicists doing historical research?
Perhaps you should try it on Carrier and his fellow-travelers?
"I [Richard Carrier] do not endorse nor will defend most mythicist arguments, many of which are amateur and often illogical or factually incorrect"...Carrier @the 32 minute mark in the debate against Zeba Crook.
Carrier claims he is a professional and can be trusted on the subject and he claims the most plausible mythicist theory in a nut-shell is: Jesus is a myth and never exisisted. The Jesus myth was made-up by Paul. That if you take a closer look at Paul (actually you must ignore all contrary sources) you get a Jesus; "incarnation, death and burial taking place in outer space just below the moon."...Carrier
Now talk about mere assertions with no evidence.
Well, he wrote a 600 page book filled with evidence. You might disagree with his interpretation of that evidence, but he allows in several places in the book that he could be wrong and invites criticisms of his opinion. He has responded on his blog to some criticism already.
You may not believe me when I say Carrier's real motive is to promote atheism but what else could it be, because it sure ain't about doing historical/Biblical research.
How do you know that? Can you read his mind? Or is this your own personal bias? How do you know that this isn't just your own personal bias?
The mythisict canard is getting real old.
Time for me to look at other things more productive.
John T
Ok. I don't doubt that there are more productive things for you to do. Me, too, though I do learn an awful lot here.
cienfuegos wrote:
You might disagree with his interpretation of that evidence, but he allows in several places in the book that he could be wrong and invites criticisms of his opinion.
.
And he knows real scholars don't give him the time of day. No one with credibility will stoop to that level of perversion of text and evidence.
He knows and admits most of his target audience is less then educated on these topics.
"I [Richard Carrier] do not endorse nor will defend most mythicist arguments, many of which are amateur and often illogical or factually incorrect"...Carrier @the 32 minute mark in the debate against Zeba Crook.
John T wrote:Not to muddle the waters but the typical mythicist is indeed promoting a religious agenda.
Man is his own god.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."..Protagoras
Which of course makes atheism a religion, whether they like the term 'religion' or not.
I can not remember exactly how Ehrman wrote it but he basically said most mythicists are really atheists hiding in scholarly clothing and they have an agenda. They hate the Christian God and the influence Christianity has over the western world so much that they are willing to ignore/lie about the historical evidence about Jesus in hopes of promoting among the ignorant the canard that Jesus is a myth.
It might help to have the exact quote from Ehrman.
Be well,
LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
I posted in my conclusion: "You may not believe me when I say Carrier's real motive is to promote atheism but what else could it be, because it sure ain't about doing historical/Biblical research."...JT
cienfuegos responded with: "How do you know that? Can you read his mind? Or is this your own personal bias? How do you know that this isn't just your own personal bias?"
No. I just simply take Carrier's word for it. Carrier has done many lectures on evangelizing for atheism. He explains how fellow atheists can boldly preach atheism and show how Christians are delusional. If atheists (read anti-Christians) are not brave enough to publicly evangelize their faith, they should at least give money to those who have no ethical qualm in doing so, .i.e. Richard Carrier.
Go to the 42 minute mark to see the hypocrisy of his explaining what a delusion is without applying the same standard to himself. Carrier should practice what he preaches. Then go to the 47 mark where he begs for money to keep his religious movement alive.
I'm sorry if atheists don't believe atheism is a religion but that is simply a delusion.
JT
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John T wrote:
I'm sorry if atheists don't believe atheism is a religion but that is simply a delusion.
JT
unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Your no true Scotsman fallacy is noted.
Not believing in mythology does not make one religious.
I'm sorry you missed the irony with my play on words.
Carrier was giving a lecture he titled: "Are Christians Delusional?". Yet, it was he who was the deluded one, using his own criteria. Do you see the irony now?
1. Actually, you incorrectly used the term: 'no true Scotsman fallacy'. That is a fallacy of presumption. For self-correction on what 'no true Scotsman' really means, please see:
2. Also, you made a similar mistake under fallacy of ambiguity with; "Not believing in mythology does not make one religious". That is to say, you made a 'straw-man' argument. See also:
I never said "all" atheists are like Carrier. There are indeed plenty of honest atheists out there that would never stoop to such dishonest tactics.
I think I provided enough evidence that proves Carrier is using 'mythicism' as a stalking horse to promote his religious agenda, i.e. atheism. Of course he is motivated to make money for his effort as well.
If we expect honest Christians to denounce dishonest Christian televangelists, so should honest atheists denounce dishonest evangelatheists.
Fair enough?
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
