Will the real atheist please stand up?

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.

Moderator: JoeWallack

theomise
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 4:20 pm

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by theomise »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:omg, i feel we are in bible code and dan brown territory.
You appear to mention the "nomina sacra" only once in all your blog posts.
I think they deserve some analysis since the earliest Greek bibles use them universally and there is no consensus on their appearance.
i was so looking forward to serious discussions here.
Sorry .... please feel free to continue bashing James McGrath's intellect.
First off, James McGrath's so-called "intellect" is obviously too diminutive to be considered a legit target for "bashing".

:mrgreen:


In any case, I do find it odd that EW posters who adhere to an eccentric yet naturalistic worldview (Leucius Charinus, ghost, et. al.), are shunned and shat upon... WHEREAS: complete and utter "psychic friends hotline" nutjobs who literally embrace the supernatural (e.g., John T. - no offense dude) are treated with kid gloves. On a common sense level, shouldn't explanations that do not require 'supernatural woo-woo' automatically trump transparently mystical horseshit?
theomise
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 4:20 pm

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by theomise »

John T wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
John T wrote:I would never call Carrier an atheist, a pseudo-atheist perhaps but he is not a real atheist.
Your opinion above is of no value.
Then I shall assign value by stating what my opinion is based on.

Gary Habermas has worked with a clinical psychologist for over 20 years trying to understand why skeptics (atheist/agnostics) doubt the empty tomb theory. They found out that about 85% of doubters do so not out of factual reasons but for emotional reasons. They are God haters. They hate God for not answering their prayers the way they wanted, e.g. God did not spare the life of a sick parent. Gary Habermas says that 19% of self-proclaimed atheists fit into that category. You can watch Habermas explain this around the 1:16 minute mark during a question and answer portion. However, I would highly recommend watching the video from beginning to end, especially for those who want to learn what types of evidence even skeptics in academia now accept for proving a historical Jesus.

But anyway, in my opinion, real (strong) atheists based their religious belief out of scientific or intellectual grounds but pseudo-atheists (weak) do it based on emotions.
My opinion is that Carrier fits into that 19% category based on his hateful labels he used for Christians during the Craig vs. Carrier debate.

http://youtu.be/ay_Db4RwZ_M

So, my opinion is based on clinical studies and I leave it up to you what value you place on those.

Respectfully,

John T
:wtf: You have to be fucking kidding.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by MrMacSon »

John T wrote:.
@MrMacSon,
I'm sorry if my writing was not clear enough for you. Forgive me, for I barely made it through English 101.
What I was trying to say, and it would be clear to you if you actually watched the debate is that, Craig uses the standard 6 point test that historians use in determining what is the best explanation for given historical facts.
  • 1. It has great explanatory scope.
    2. It has great explanatory power.
    3. It is plausible.
    4. It is not ad-hoc.
    5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
    6. It out strips rival theories of 1-5.
Craig stated up front he was not trying to prove to Carrier the existence of God, but to show that using the tools and standards of historians like Carrier that the theory of the empty tomb passes the 6 point test.
These are outside the widely-accepted "Historical Method" - I suggest you internet-search it and read a few different sources.

Wikipedia gives a good overview first line

Please note what I concluded with -
The current absence of contemporary 1st C information* about Jesus makes [irrefutable] proof of his existence virtually impossible.

* ie. primary source information, which is lacking for Jesus/Iesous of Nazareth or Bethlehem - no texts; no archaeology; no artifacts

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by maryhelena »

theomise wrote: In any case, I do find it odd that EW posters who adhere to an eccentric yet naturalistic worldview (Leucius Charinus, ghost, et. al.), are shunned and shat upon... WHEREAS: complete and utter "psychic friends hotline" nutjobs who literally embrace the supernatural (e.g., John T. - no offense dude) are treated with kid gloves. On a common sense level, shouldn't explanations that do not require 'supernatural woo-woo' automatically trump transparently mystical horseshit?
Indeed......"on a common sense level" explanations that involve "supernatural woo-woo" should get short-shift in any discussion seeking to search for early christian origins. History must be primary. So, whether it's 'explanations' about what the Devil did in the "region of the heavens ruled by Devil" or 'explanations' about an "historical encounter with an angel", such 'explanation' should be called out for what they are: Irrational speculation. David Hindley said it well:
DCH:I think that explanations that posit a human Jesus who promoted royal ideas (whether an earthly one he was to lead or a heavenly one god would establish supernaturally), went afoul of the Roman authorities, was executed for those ideas, and around whom the salvation myth arose in consequence of the rationalizations of his followers, are more likely than those which figure the "Christ myth" magically popped up like a mushroom from spores in the air.
Thus, it is theories with a naturalistic focus that should be trumping the Devil and angel theories. That there are many such theories out there demonstrates where the interest lies. People seek a naturalistic explanation of the gospel story. Reza Aslan' Zealot is hitting upon a need for a naturalistic approach to the gospel story. A simple book telling a simple story. That one can find fault with some of the naturalistic explanations does not mean this approach is misguided and one should run to either the Devil or the angels. It means that the naturalistic approach is fertile ground. In contrast, the supernatural explanations that involve the Devil or angels, does not sit well with a 21 st century mind.

Focusing on theories involving the Devil or the angels short-circuits any search for early christian origins. It leads nowhere. That people living 2 thousand years ago believed such things is only of interest if one is researching early christian beliefs. Such beliefs being subject both to their world view and their lack of the knowledge we have today in psychology, i.e. how the mind works. Thus, it would be irrational to base a search for early christian origins on the 'mental furniture' of people living 2 thousand years ago. Intellectual evolution, the continuing progress in how we understand human nature - requires that we, intellectual, move on. The only method by which a search for early christian origins can proceed is a historical method - which is a naturalistic approach to the gospel story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by Blood »

John T wrote: Gary Habermas has worked with a clinical psychologist for over 20 years trying to understand why skeptics (atheist/agnostics) doubt the empty tomb theory.
:facepalm:

I hate to think how much time Mormons have spent with clinical psychologists trying to understand why skeptics doubt the golden plates theory. But I suspect the conclusion is the same: skeptics hate God. That's the most logical explanation for why anyone would doubt supernatural ghost stories.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Polemic re Carrier Craig etc

Post by John T »

You can mock/hate clinical psychology all you want but it doesn't invalid the truth of Habermas studies.

As Gary Habermas would put it. Since I don't believe in invisible unicorns, I don't hate them because how can I hate something that doesn't exist? Yet, some [so-called] atheists spend a lot of time hating a God they say doesn't exist. How does that make sense?

To me (John T) that kind of hate is a mental disorder and psychotherapy can be of help.

Carrier seems to spend a lot of time hating God and mocking those that believe in God. Purely irrational. If Carrier was a real atheist he would approach it from scientific/intellectual level and not an emotional one.

Outside of DCH, I see very little rational reasoning on this thread but a lot of hate disguised as belittling humor.

Can't we just stick to the facts?

Respectfully,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by Stephan Huller »

Psychology was my first major in university, in Canada not this place. I am not sure how a meaningful diagnosis has been established. But the fact that Carrier may have presumptions about the value of Christianity doesn't have an effect on the greater question addressed in the debate. I mean Craig is biased in the opposite direction. A lot of this feels a lot like the use of "body language experts" on the O'Reilly Factor.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by John T »

If we stick to the facts then we can understand how Carrier's latest attempt to disprove the historical Jesus using Baye's Theorem also fails.

"The most common objection [to Baye's Theorem] is usually to insist that historical reasoning isn’t mathematical. But it obviously is."...Carrier
*************

No, it obviously isn't.
Baye's theorem assigns probability using statics. Do you believe in unicorns? What are the statistics on unicorns? Don't laugh, Julius Caesar wrote about unicorns in the Gallic Wars. So, if unicorns were statically 100% real to Julius Caesar in 52 B.C. then why shouldn't they be statically added to the formula to determine if there was a historical Julius Caesar? Furthermore, what will be the standard for assigning a number value to unicorns, yours or Caesar's?

Take two panels of experts, the first made up of nothing but atheists and the other panel nothing but theologians. Using Baye's theorem what is the probability that they will come up with the same numerical value given for miracles in determining the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?

Don't laugh, plenty of Greco-Roman biographies contain miracles and the Gospels have all the ear marks of a traditional Greco-Roman biography.

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4839

I sense the real reason Carrier wants you to use Baye's Theorem for invalidating the historical Jesus is because figures lie and liars figure.
Carrier has fallen for the fallacy of, "Argument from Ignorance". He presupposes that God does not exist, which naturally/logically means divine miracles cannot exist therefore, God did not rise Jesus from the dead. But the problem with that is he refuses to investigate claims of historical miracles let alone modern day miracles to see if they did/do exist. As long as Carrier deliberately rejects out of hand the statistics of miracles then his argument can't be invalidated.

Still, I don't fault Carrier for trying, I only fault him for not being honest about his motives for wanting to use Baye's theorem as the new gold standard for determining if there was a historical Jesus.

Respectfully,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by perseusomega9 »

Can't discount the miracle of resurrection, therefore unicorns.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Carrier: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jes

Post by John T »

perseusomega9 wrote:Can't discount the miracle of resurrection, therefore unicorns.
Thanks for the laugh.

Actually the argument goes something like this: If you can't explain away miracles using science then the miracle probably didn't happen.

Which leads to: Miracles are supernatural and science can not validate the supernatural. However, since the origin of the natural universe (big bang) was caused by supernatural forces, that means by definition the universe came about via a 'miracle' and since science can't explain away the miracle nor validate the supernatural, therefore the universe probably didn't happen and you and the historical Jesus along with it.

Ain't the logic of modern science hilarious?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply