With all due respect, I personally think that Carrier is wickeder than you are for many reasons - but I refrained from mentioning such a personal opinion because I did not want to discuss his conduct and his behaviour (however reprehensible they may seem to me) and instead focus upon his ideas. You have been unable to meet this standard.karavan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:00 pm Please give up that moralizing of yours dude. You should be condemning both Carrier left and right for being far more "wicked" than I am.
After that giant post of mine, the only things you respond to have nothing to do with the actual relevant evidence but only my characterization of Carrier, who you definitely must 100% defend:
1. Yes dude, Carrier's book was not a self-published booklet. It's not far off, though. It's just a really long rambling that wasn't subjected to any sort of critical standards before publication, hence my characterization of it. I wonder if you're better with that way of phraseology, though: "just another long Carrier rambling not subjected to any critical standards before publication". Are you more comfortable if I worded it this way? LOL.
2. "You admit that in recent years, two books advocating mythicism (one of which did not involve Carrier and was published by Brill) were published."
Sure, one of them was totally and utterly refuted by a number of scholars plus Tim O'Neill, and the other is literally the exact same ideas rehashed that hasn't had many impact whatsoever. I mean, have you read Lataster's book? It's literally the exact same thing as Carrier's ideas, without anything new. You also latch onto Wells, who literally abandoned mythicism because he couldn't take it seriously anymore. The one credible guy who ever advocated the theory dropped it. Amazing.
Yup, mythicism is ABSOLUTELY a clown-show. Nothing needs to be reconciled. You somehow have this idea that clownish ideas can't get peer-reviewed. But they do get peer-reviewed, literally all the time, in tons of journals. The fact that mythicism so often fails to meet even this standard, is a testament that it's a particularly unimpressive clown show. By the way, there actually ARE young earth creationist scienitsts. Actually, there's a solid number of them. At least one member of the National Academy of Sciences was a YEC. That proves that clowns can do particularly well. A tiny handful of peer-reviewed publications by a loud minority of hyper-biased activists does not unmake a clown show.
3. Nah dude, O'Neill didn't make "basic errors". You should scroll up, I completely wiped your repetitive citations of Godfrey against O'Neill. I basically exposed Godfrey's thousands of basic errors in an attempt to show O'Neill making a handful. If you applied your own standards of dismissing O'Neill, you'd have literally zit to do with either Carrier or that Godfrey dude. And by the way, O'Neill's lack of credentials are a red herring. You know why? Because he's not making up his own theories. He's not saying anything new. He's literally pointing out just basic facts known and already published by the experts in the fields and showing just how easily Carrier's theories splinter off.
By the way, you wrote a WHOLE OTHER COMMENT to me and didn't bother responding to ANY of the relevant points concerning the actual facts, i.e. the wishful thinking of interpolations in ALL the texts that just so happen to refute you based on not the slightest hint of actual, relevant evidence which is somehow backed up because Godfrey was able to go back and find one or two credentialed people in the last entire century who held these hyper-fringe views, and then he combines a ton of hyper-fringe views supported by one or two people based on almost zero basis in the last century to make this sort of super-complex of fringe nonsense without the slightest shred of evidence. If you're going to bother responding to my comments, kindly don't waste my time on details like "Carrier is a clown" (he is) and try to actually defend the theory.
"As a final note, when you accuse me of having fallen for Dr. Carrier's claims, you implicitly call me a liar - because I have said that I am not a mythicist."
Yeah freaking right you aren't a mythicist. You know, this is actually really odd and almost kinda funny. All these people who believe in just the right mythicist interpolations, space sperm theory, fans of Carrier's theories (and Godfrey's endless defenses of it read by no one other than Carrier's fanboys) all over the place, just can't bring themselves to being open about their mythicism. I don't know why, but these closet mythicists, even when only surrounded by other mythicists on places like this forum, just can't admit they're mythicists.
As for your assertion that I am a closeted mythicist, have you considered the fact that hostility towards mythicism such as yours (which is not just condemning the ideas but also the people) may explain why mythicists (of whom I am not one) would remain within their closets.
Since you are unwilling to present your arguments without insults (unlike Dr. Carrier in his peer-reviewed book), I am unwilling to read your evidence. This is a pity, because your evidence may be very persuasive.