Richard Carrier: Merry Christmas, God Is Still a Delusion

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I was mildly surprised to read the following:

Craig’s fourth item of “evidence” is the claim that “historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact.”

And the crushing, totally convincing reply?

(Snip "Jesus didn't heal every single person alive of everything everywhere")

Jesus, we’re told, was also ignorant of basic facts of the world (despite it supposedly being his own or his father’s creation), like that washing your hands before eating or preparing food is a good practice and to be recommended (etc)

Christianity isn't true (?) because ... Jesus did not say, "Now wash your hands"?

Wow.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives. Why would a loving god want to do that? Does the Christian god loves his diseases above people? If he had just skipped the sermon on the mount and gone straight to the germ theory of disease there would be evidence.

[outhouse]

I don't know why it is so difficult for people on both sides to say "maybe."

Because the evidence doesn't point that way.


I would love to be convince by a good replacement hypothesis, but too date, there is no good replacement hypothesis.

[Andrew]

Roger Pearse wrote:
I was mildly surprised to read the following:

RichardCarrier wrote:
Craig’s fourth item of “evidence” is the claim that “historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact.”


And the crushing, totally convincing reply?

RichardCarrier wrote:
(Snip "Jesus didn't heal every single person alive of everything everywhere")

Jesus, we’re told, was also ignorant of basic facts of the world (despite it supposedly being his own or his father’s creation), like that washing your hands before eating or preparing food is a good practice and to be recommended (etc)


Christianity isn't true (?) because ... Jesus did not say, "Now wash your hands"?

Wow.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives. Why would a loving god want to do that? Does the Christian god loves his diseases above people? If he had just skipped the sermon on the mount and gone straight to the germ theory of disease there would be evidence.

Perhaps because he was a spiritual leader and thus cared more about the spiritual well-being of people than their physical well-being, since he taught that there was an afterlife in heaven. If one assumes that Jesus was who he claimed to be, then why the heck would he be more concerned with improving people's quality of life on earth if they would end up going to hell as a result of focusing on the physical rather than the spiritual side of life? That would be illogical.

[Roger Pearse]

Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives.

Indeed Carrier does; after which, frankly, we need not pay any attention to anything he says ever again.

To the best of my knowledge nobody has *ever* supposed that passage to have that meaning; and I don't know of anybody who thinks that it does. It is a question of whether to follow the Jewish ritual, not a matter of hygiene. And C. must know this. But C. states his own interpretation as if it was the only possible meaning, and the meaning universally acknowledged. This would be a dishonest thing to do; except that I am quite sure C. is now in a mental state in which he really thinks that it is true. It's still a pretty hateful allegation to make; except, again, I am certain that C. thinks he says no more than the facts.

Carrier was once a reasonably sensible man. We all know that he has spent a great deal of time, studying why the Christians are wrong. And the outcome? Has it made him a man of wide sympathies and genial desire to think the best of people? Or has it made him a drooling idiot spitting slanders? Of the two, there can be no doubt which is closer to the truth.

It is a dreadful warning, of which we should all take heed. It is REALLY important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. To do the latter, as I said at more length earlier, destroys us. Intelligence and learning will not save us from something that affects everyone who spends too much time on their dislikes, whoever the target, however well-deserved the condemnation.

Note that this is not intended as a personal attack on Richard Carrier, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for drawing my attention to the unsolved problem of ancient chapter titles. Rather I am drawing attention, rather, to a pitfall that lies in wait for all of us, but particularly for atheists, and pointing out that this thread shows the damage that he is taking here.

Nor is this to say that we should not investigate things, which prove to be untrue. But we must never spend more than a small part of our time on them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[spin]

Or has it made him a drooling idiot spitting slanders?

I don't know about Carrier, Roger, but I'm sure you'd agree this question would assure an affirmative response regarding its writer. Edit is your friend.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Roger Pearse wrote:
I was mildly surprised to read the following:

RichardCarrier wrote:
Craig’s fourth item of “evidence” is the claim that “historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact.”


And the crushing, totally convincing reply?

RichardCarrier wrote:
(Snip "Jesus didn't heal every single person alive of everything everywhere")

Jesus, we’re told, was also ignorant of basic facts of the world (despite it supposedly being his own or his father’s creation), like that washing your hands before eating or preparing food is a good practice and to be recommended (etc)


Christianity isn't true (?) because ... Jesus did not say, "Now wash your hands"?

Wow.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives. Why would a loving god want to do that? Does the Christian god loves his diseases above people? If he had just skipped the sermon on the mount and gone straight to the germ theory of disease there would be evidence.

Perhaps because he was a spiritual leader and thus cared more about the spiritual well-being of people than their physical well-being, since he taught that there was an afterlife in heaven. If one assumes that Jesus was who he claimed to be, then why the heck would he be more concerned with improving people's quality of life on earth if they would end up going to hell as a result of focusing on the physical rather than the spiritual side of life? That would be illogical.

The implications of making that ASSUMPTION in the form of IF he were a spiritual leader opens more issues than it answers.
1) Unless one also throws in the assumption he is the (rather simple minded) son of God or some other special relationship to some god or other anything he said which can be construed as spiritual no more than gibbering. It is not original nor expressed in an innovative manner. If one includes some sort of god relationship then this is far from its first messenger and not its best.
2) If one throws in the god relationship and looks at just how little he did by the gospel accounts -- it could barely fill the one year of Mark and indicates at best a part time job if spread over three years -- there was plenty of time to throw in the germ theory of disease and the zero and maybe some drawings for a steam engine. These would have been provers for his assumed spiritual message. Instead his only provers and cheap street entertainer magic tricks we can watch on GOD-TV today.
3) Teaching an afterlife would put him in the majority of the world religions. In fact the absence of an afterlife as a belief was likely even rarer than it is today. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, just to mention the major influences on the region from his past and present all have an afterlife. As above teaching an afterlife is nothing new and does not contain a novel presentation of the concept. Far from novel it is remarkably sparse and superficial in comparison to the others. Of course I am referring to the gospel statements not later inventions like Dante's. The Egyptians were quite clear on the consequences of the scale not being at least slightly in favor of good deeds, the Jewish concept still today.

[beowulf]

Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives.

Indeed Carrier does; after which, frankly, we need not pay any attention to anything he says ever again.

To the best of my knowledge nobody has *ever* supposed that passage to have that meaning; and I don't know of anybody who thinks that it does. It is a question of whether to follow the Jewish ritual, not a matter of hygiene. And C. must know this. But C. states his own interpretation as if it was the only possible meaning, and the meaning universally acknowledged. This would be a dishonest thing to do; except that I am quite sure C. is now in a mental state in which he really thinks that it is true. It's still a pretty hateful allegation to make; except, again, I am certain that C. thinks he says no more than the facts.

Carrier was once a reasonably sensible man. We all know that he has spent a great deal of time, studying why the Christians are wrong. And the outcome? Has it made him a man of wide sympathies and genial desire to think the best of people? Or has it made him a drooling idiot spitting slanders? Of the two, there can be no doubt which is closer to the truth.

It is a dreadful warning, of which we should all take heed. It is REALLY important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. To do the latter, as I said at more length earlier, destroys us. Intelligence and learning will not save us from something that affects everyone who spends too much time on their dislikes, whoever the target, however well-deserved the condemnation.

Note that this is not intended as a personal attack on Richard Carrier, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for drawing my attention to the unsolved problem of ancient chapter titles. Rather I am drawing attention, rather, to a pitfall that lies in wait for all of us, but particularly for atheists, and pointing out that this thread shows the damage that he is taking here.

Nor is this to say that we should not investigate things, which prove to be untrue. But we must never spend more than a small part of our time on them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hand washing in Mark 7 is only about ritual cleansing.
m.eduyyot 5-6

MISHNAH 3. R. ISHMAEL42 CITES THREE INSTANCES OF LENIENT RULINGS BY BETH
SHAMMAI AND RIGOROUS RULINGS BY BETH HILLEL. THE BOOK43 OF ECCLESIASTES
DOES NOT DEFILE THE HANDS44 ACCORDING TO THE OPINION OF BETH SHAMMAI;
BUT BETH HILLEL SAY: IT DEFILES THE HANDS. WATER OF PURIFICATION WHICH
HAS DONE ITS DUTY,45
(45) After it has been sprinkled upon the unclean; cf. Num. XIX, 9, 18 f.

BUT WHOM DID THEY EXCOMMUNICATE? ELIEZER THE SON OF ENOCH WHO DEMURRED
AGAINST THE LAWS CONCERNING THE PURIFYING OF THE HANDS.77 AND WHEN HE
DIED THE COURT SENT AND LAID A STONE ON HIS COFFIN. THIS TEACHES THAT
WHOEVER IS EXCOMMUNICATED AND DIES WHILE UNDER EXCOMMUNICATION, HIS
COFFIN IS STONED.

(77) Cf. Yad. III, 2.

The use of water for spiritual cleansing is a feature of many religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Carrier goes on to say he prohibited a hygenic activity which cost millions of lives.

Indeed Carrier does; after which, frankly, we need not pay any attention to anything he says ever again.

To be clear I have no brief for Carrier and note my sig.

To the best of my knowledge nobody has *ever* supposed that passage to have that meaning; and I don't know of anybody who thinks that it does. It is a question of whether to follow the Jewish ritual, not a matter of hygiene. And C. must know this. But C. states his own interpretation as if it was the only possible meaning, and the meaning universally acknowledged. This would be a dishonest thing to do; except that I am quite sure C. is now in a mental state in which he really thinks that it is true. It's still a pretty hateful allegation to make; except, again, I am certain that C. thinks he says no more than the facts.

It would seem regardless of any alternate interpretation the one you are suggesting leads to unhygienic consequences regardless of intent. In fact the admonition was adopted by the Christian world until Pasteur if I remember correctly. As to hate, considering his position it is impossible to hate a person which did not exist. In opposition to this we have the believer position which holds this Jesus character was fully aware of all future consequences of his words. One would assume that person could have chosen a non-damaging example like mixing types of fibers in the same clothing or any of the hundreds of patently absurd rules in the Law.

Carrier was once a reasonably sensible man. We all know that he has spent a great deal of time, studying why the Christians are wrong. And the outcome? Has it made him a man of wide sympathies and genial desire to think the best of people? Or has it made him a drooling idiot spitting slanders? Of the two, there can be no doubt which is closer to the truth.

Unless directly relevant personal attacks are worthless and demeaning to those who make them.

It is a dreadful warning, of which we should all take heed. It is REALLY important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. To do the latter, as I said at more length earlier, destroys us. Intelligence and learning will not save us from something that affects everyone who spends too much time on their dislikes, whoever the target, however well-deserved the condemnation.

Your personal philosophy of life which would be interesting were I interested in you personally but otherwise it is inapplicable to this discussion. If you intended to give a sermon it is difficult to imagine who here would be interested in it.

Note that this is not intended as a personal attack on Richard Carrier, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for drawing my attention to the unsolved problem of ancient chapter titles. Rather I am drawing attention, rather, to a pitfall that lies in wait for all of us, but particularly for atheists, and pointing out that this thread shows the damage that he is taking here.

Discussion of the person rather than the person's ideas, regardless of intent, is a personal attack and has been identified as a logical fallacy for some 2500 years.

Nor is this to say that we should not investigate things, which prove to be untrue. But we must never spend more than a small part of our time on them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

A small part here and a small part there and pretty soon you are talking about a big part.

Attempting to stop discussions of all the small parts which make up the whole is an old tactic.

[Roger Pearse]

Discussion of the person rather than the person's ideas, regardless of intent, is a personal attack and has been identified as a logical fallacy for some 2500 years. (etc)

You certainly need not listen if you don't want to.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Discussion of the person rather than the person's ideas, regardless of intent, is a personal attack and has been identified as a logical fallacy for some 2500 years. (etc)

You certainly need not listen if you don't want to.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

But I do read such things for the exercise of responding.