Will the real atheist please stand up?

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

Moderator: JoeWallack

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Will the real atheist please stand up?

Post by John T »

The problem Richard Carrier has is the same problem William Lane Craig, exposed back in 2009, during a debate on the resurrection of Jesus.

Carrier as an atheist, presupposes there is no real God therefore, there could not have been a real historical Jesus either, which is a non-sequitur argument. Sadly, historical facts are not something Carrier will allow to stand in the way of his own religious/atheist dogma and therefore he looses the debate in an epic fail.

Time and time again during the debate, Craig corrects Carrier on historical facts and customs during the time of Jesus. One can argue whether or not Jesus was resurrected from the dead but to argue against the actual historical/physical existence of Jesus due to historical ignorance is simply foolish.

The debate starts 7 minutes into the video and that is where Craig immediately goes into laying out the 4 historical facts that not only proves Jesus was real but was resurrected.

http://youtu.be/BaUd234Q3GU
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

John T wrote:Carrier as an atheist, presupposes there is no real God therefore, there could not have been a real historical Jesus either, which is a non-sequitur argument.
That is not, in fact, Carrier's argument.

It is what we in the business of using fancy terms out of formal logic like to call a "straw man argument."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote:
John T wrote:Carrier as an atheist, presupposes there is no real God therefore, there could not have been a real historical Jesus either, which is a non-sequitur argument.
That is not, in fact, Carrier's argument.

It is what we in the business of using fancy terms out of formal logic like to call a "straw man argument."
For a sampling of Carrier's "straw man" arguments please see-

http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com/FAQ

By the way, Carrier admitted he 'lost' the debate with William Lang Craig.
However, 'lost', is an euphemism for "epic fail".

Carrier claimed the gospels are a myth and have no relative value as a historic source (27:30) and then later on in the same debate he claims that the first Christians as recorded in the gospels may have simply been suffering from mass hallucinations.

Craig was correct for pointing out the fallacy of Carrier's logic and postulating the source of his unforced errors can be found in the dogma of Carrier's religious beliefs.

Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Honestly I would most likely lose a debate to Craig also. He is highly practiced and well-prepared. I've never been in an oral debate since high school, some 15 years ago.

None of that excuses you for the statement, "Carrier as an atheist, presupposes there is no real God therefore, there could not have been a real historical Jesus either, which is a non-sequitur argument."

If your position is strong, you needn't resort to this sort of thing. Doesn't fool anybody anyhow.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote:Honestly I would most likely lose a debate to Craig also. He is highly practiced and well-prepared. I've never been in an oral debate since high school, some 15 years ago.

None of that excuses you for the statement, "Carrier as an atheist, presupposes there is no real God therefore, there could not have been a real historical Jesus either, which is a non-sequitur argument."

If your position is strong, you needn't resort to this sort of thing. Doesn't fool anybody anyhow.
I did not try to fool anyone.

Craig made that statement (minus of course my non-sequitur assessment) and you can find it at the 7 minute mark in the debate.
Also, you can find this cut&paste from Carrier's own comments in the O.P. link: "There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them."...Carrier

So, who is trying to fool who? Of course I may be mistaken and not heard/read things correctly, so please help me out with the truth.
Did Carrier ever claim there was a real Jesus?
Did Carrier ever claim to change his religious belief from atheist to agnostic?

I certainly don't want to hold Carrier to something he once believed but no longer does or never did.

Sincerely,
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 »

Right but what does a debate prove about whether or not Jesus was an angel or a man? Just make your points and perhaps you'll convince someone. This isn't supposed to be a spectator sport. We don't rely upon 'experts' to decide issues.
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 »

Stephan Huller wrote:Right but what does a debate prove about whether or not Jesus was an angel or a man? Just make your points and perhaps you'll convince someone. This isn't supposed to be a spectator sport. We don't rely upon 'experts' to decide issues.
Which debate?

What was the title of the Original Post?
"Should We Still Be looking for a Historical Jesus?" or was it; "Was Jesus an Angel or a Man?"
I thought it was the former and responded accordingly.

I quoted Carrier saying he doubts that Jesus ever existed. I then provided a source where Craig debated Carrier using Carrier's own criteria for historical evidence and not only proved Jesus was real (using Carrier's criteria) but that Jesus rose from the tomb. Finally, Carrier admitted he lost the debate to Craig. Those are all strong points that you can't refute.

Now I understand there are some fanatic fans of Carrier on this forum and he likely visits this site from time to time, so it is only natural that they want to spare him from being reminded of the embarrassment and/or pretend the spanking didn't happen but it did.

All I did was provide some verifiable background to the topic, it is still up to you to believe or not believe if Carrier is being honest when it comes to the 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
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 »

I am the furthest thing from a Carrier fan. I don't like partisans. But there is a tendency on all sides to twist the meanings of words. My point was only that Jesus could - like the apparition at Lourdes or some other site (I am not an expert on these things) - be both strictly speaking supernatural and historical. These debates are filled with intellectual charlatans trying to make a name for themselves
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 »

Stephan Huller wrote:I am the furthest thing from a Carrier fan. I don't like partisans....These debates are filled with intellectual charlatans trying to make a name for themselves
Are you calling Richard Carrier an intellectual charlatan?
Are you saying he is not an avowed atheist?

I wouldn't be surprised because I never met a real atheist, plenty of pseudo-atheists but not a real atheist. At least, not one that could defend their religious beliefs on a purely intellectual level.

Carrier likely fits your label as an 'intellectual charlatan' because he has said before that he doesn't believe in God based not on intellectual grounds but simply because God hasn't appeared/spoken before him in person.

Is that what you mean by an 'intellectual charlatan' trying to make a name for themselves?

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 »

I am sure that Richard Carrier is an atheist. What I mean by intellectual charlatan is that anyone who is not earnestly seeking after the truth should be so labeled. First and foremost on this list are people whose research isn't being led by the evidence. These sorts come in all shapes, sizes and affiliations.
Post Reply