Podcast Why Jesus Most Likely Existed, Tim O'Neill

[GakuseiDon]

Just listened to the History Valley podcast "Why Jesus Most Likely Existed | Tim O'Neill (History for Atheists)" where the host discusses historicity and mythicism with Tim O'Neill, of the excellent History for Atheists.

O'Neill was also on the Reason for Doubt channel in a video "Mythicism Dismantled by Tim O'Neil of History for Atheists | Response to David Fitzgerald"

Dr Carrier had posted a response to the latter podcast on his website, here: "A Primer on Successful vs. Bogus Methodology: Tim O’Neill Edition"

I saw the first podcast. It's an interesting interview where O'Neill went over some of the issues with mythicism, on what Paul was on about with Jesus, the writings of Josephus.

[rgprice]

Yeah, I saw this, but couldn't bring myself to listen to O'Neill.

[Sinouhe]

Tim O’neill is not interesting.
He is dogmatic and repeats the same arguments all the time.
I would rather listen to a Christian apologist on this subject.

[lclapshaw]

This Tim O'Neill? https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23000

[neilgodfrey]

Anyone who has read or listened to Tim O'Neill over the years will readily identify nearly all of the following "attributes" coming through his talk and writing:

• Have an unreasonably high sense of self-importance and require constant, excessive admiration.
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements.
• Make achievements and talents seem bigger than they are.
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
• Believe they are superior to others and can only spend time with or be understood by equally special people.
• Be critical of and look down on people they feel are not important.
• Take advantage of others to get what they want.
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
• Behave in an arrogant way, brag a lot and come across as conceited.
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office.

At the same time, O'Neill as a rule has trouble handling anything he views as criticism. He can

• Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special recognition or treatment.
• React with rage or contempt and try to belittle other people to make themselves appear superior.
• Have difficulty managing their emotions and behavior.
  
  One wonders....
• Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, humiliation and fear of being exposed as a failure.

It's the same with Trump --- O'Neill is a Trump for certain kind atheists who want to feel they are recognized as smart --

The above items are taken from: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20366662

[ABuddhist]

Leaving aside speculation about O'Neill's mental health and motivations, which I find to be tiresome and distracting gossip, I think that the fact that O'Neill is williing to state publically that he can only argue that Jesus most likely existed rather than certainly existed is a major victory for advocates of auternative models of Christian orgins. If the evidence for Jesus's existence were stronger, then O'Neill would not need to hedge his words and could say "Why Jesus DEFINITELY Existed."

[Irish1975]

Carrier vs O'Neill, UFC fight.

Guys. It's the only way to settle this.

[lclapshaw]

Carrier vs O'Neill, UFC fight.

Guys. It's the only way to settle this.

Octagon!

[GakuseiDon]

This Tim O'Neill? https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23000

Yes, that's right. That's the one I linked to in my OP: "A Primer on Successful vs. Bogus Methodology: Tim O’Neill Edition"

[Paul the Uncertain]

Leaving aside speculation about O'Neill's mental health and motivations, which I find to be tiresome and distracting gossip, I think that the fact that O'Neill is williing to state publically that he can only argue that Jesus most likely existed rather than certainly existed is a major victory for advocates of auternative models of Christian orgins. If the evidence for Jesus's existence were stronger, then O'Neill would not need to hedge his words and could say "Why Jesus DEFINITELY Existed."

Maybe. "P most likely is true" doesn't contradict "P certainly is true." Choosing the weaker "most likely" is not necessarily a hedge against "certainly," and performance (what someone actually argues) need not equal capability (what someone could argue) or self-estimated capability (what someone thinks they could argue successfully).

Putting aside that I don't think it matters all that much what any individual's personal opinion might be on the question, I'd be looking for some explicit acknowledgment from O'Neill (or whomever) that the contrary opinion is rationally tenable before declaring victory.