Tuesday, March 21, 2017

see Metacrock's blog

evolution of god comcnept

An Atheist on Cadre blog linked to a Wiki article (an article flagged as needing work be that as it may) saying:

 Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity.[1][2] There is inconclusive evidence that Homo neanderthalensis may have buried their dead which is evidence of the use of ritual. The use of burial rituals is thought to be evidence of religious activity, and there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.
That is supposed to prove that religion is made up entirely by humans with no
God involved. I suggest that evolutionary nature of religion in and of itself is not enough to rule out God,After all of God users evolution in creation then we should expect God to allow evolutionary nature of religion to shape human development. Here is my article (part 1) showing how the evolutionary nature of religious development is not contrary to God.

the second stupidest thing I' e eve heard



I suppose no one would consider a computer to be a person.
Why not? A sufficiently advanced AI could (and should) absolutely be considered to be a person.


    • Avatar


      no. computers are not self aware have no right, they are manufactured. If they are people you have to stop selling them. It's generic to all person hood that you can't own a person,


        • Avatar


          computers are not self aware have no right,
          The same was said of African people.
          they are manufactured. If they are people you have to stop selling them
          Irrelevant to the discussion.
          It's generic to all person hood that you can't own a person,
          Yet companies are legally people, and they are sometimes wholly owned by a person.


            • Avatar


              do you think black people hatch out of eggs or do you think they are made in plant? Black people are born. they are tehy same species.
              I've never tried to make with computer  but I don't think it's gonna work,. so the comparison to black people's the second stupidest thing I've ever heard,


            • _________________
            • More than just stupid but tonally alarming, apparently these atheists regard being human as no more important meaningful than being a machine and they are prepared to accept computers as people and people as commodities we can buy and sell.





          Friday, March 17, 2017

          Reasoning like Children


          on /sec outpost
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/03/13/soulless/#disqus_thread

          comments

          This begins with a long chain of posts basically  talking about free will and how the choice between haven and hell is not free will because it's a choice between a real good thing and bad thing so you have to choose the good one or you suffer. To them that is coercion and thus not free will. Interspersed in that is a running battle over weather or not God is necessary. They don't understand that issue, I'm trying to get on with argument from final cause they don't want to hear it, and they don't understand it. They don't know the basics.

          btw the other guy is named Joe,He is Joe and I'm Joe Hinman, thename foirist is wrioting to the one named second,

          Avatar
          Joe Hinman => Joe • 2 days ago
          that is irrational,first of all you are misusing the term necessary. Secondly God is necessary in the sense you are using too, because there there is no mechanism for something from nothing.
           • Edit• Reply•Share ›


          Joe => Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          first of all you are misusing the term necessary
          As are you. You are positing it as something that has the power of reification, rather than a philosophical tool.

          because there there is no mechanism for something from nothing.
          Agreed. So how did God do it?


          Joe Hinman=>  Joe • a day ago
          As are you. You are positing it as something that has the power of reification, rather than a philosophical tool.

          No that's wromg. (1) Malcom,Hartshorne and Plantinga all disprove that, (2) It has nothing to do with reification. Following the logical consequences of the concept is not reification its logic.

          (me again)
          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          I don't think it;s a matter of sclae. it thinks a matter different planes of being. the laws of physics vs a chair,m very different things,
           • Edit• Reply•Share ›
          Avatar
          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          Creating a chair out of nothing is pretty impressive.

          It's matter of scale, but nothing supernatural is involved.

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          that doesn't follow. you have no mechanism for something from nothing and no way way to account for being without eternal necessary being,which is God.

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          Something from nothing? Where was the chair before?

          Who says I have to account for an eternal necessary being?

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          logic doesl I didn;'t say a being but being, that is being itself,

          (1) can;t have somethig from noting

          (2) therefore something must have always existed (or been),eternally.

          (3) whatever that was it equals eternal necessary being, not a being per se but being itself.


          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          1) Agreed.

          2) Agreed

          3) Agreed.

          None of that means that God is necessary, just that something was.


          Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
          yes if course it does, But more immortality God is eternaland thus uncased thus not contingent,That is the primary use of the term in God argument not a priori as in the opposite of synthetic statements.

          Hartshorone argues that necessity in 'god argument has two dimensions, that which can not cease or fail to exist and that which is is not dependent upon some prior cause, He shows the two run together and actually embody each other.

          Palantinga argues that necessity is not ordinary logical necessity but what he calls broadly logical necessity which is different,


          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          in the material that makes it, The simple fact you make the chair from material, you ca't assert eternal material there;s no mechanism, science posits energy created in the big bang, It can be created because it's a quantum state so Newtonian law doesn't hold,


          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          No. 'Science' posits nothing of the sort. Stop lying to me.


          Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
          Hey Other Joe, Up to this point I considered you one of the thinkers. But I tell you something you have not heard and don't know about you go ape over it. that means you are not a thinker you are mocker, get your head out of the atheist echo chamber and think for yourself and learn.You are an intelligent person you should not be reacting like a message board troll.

          Sten Odenwalkd NASSA Physicist documented that very point, he said exactly what I said, science does say that.

          no one thinks energy is eternal, if they do it points to god.

          QuentonSmith admits universe cannot be infinite,m uses readiation studies to prove it,
          http://religiousapriori.blo...

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
          Is Quentin Smith a philosopher, or a scientist?

          You're arguing against a straw man position. Your post doesn't even back up the point you're trying to make.

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 4 minutes ago
          of course it does. could it be that you don't understand my point? yes pretty obvious. Clearly it backs it up because it says universe is not eternal and that's my point, Where I differ with smith he argue sit be uncased and I say thesis nonsense,

          Atheist trick of denying evidence from non science sources is irrational and does not fly. Philosophers know stuff, Besides he's quoting scientific sources.

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          So, when the apologist says that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", they're really only talking about one thing? Their sample set is one?

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          right; God = final casue

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          Who said anything about the final cause?

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
          philosophy does. that's the term

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
          But the Kalam argument doesn't argue for causal chains ,which I would agree with, it argues for multiple instances of 'creation' to support it's premise that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

          Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
          Yes it does, use some logic man, whatever would it be? it;s talking abut cause,all cause and effects a chain of causes.

          Beside i did not argue Kalam, do you think it;s a doctrine? It;s not mandatory you know,

          Joe  Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
          it;s talking abut cause,all cause and effects a chain of causes.
          Nowhere in the argument does it say 'chain of causes'. If it did, it would invalidate itself immediately.

          Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 minutes ago
          It doesn't have to say it, do you not understand how cause and effect works? effects become causes in turn it;is a chain It's self evident.



          they are not even trying to think about my arguments, they refuse to consider any other categories of thought but the one;s that support their ideology,. This really marks new atheism as anit- reason because thinking is irrelevant to them, They will not  even consider what a non scientist says, there is no thinking beyond the ideology. ,that is the received truth for them. It is a religion!


          Wednesday, March 15, 2017

          Hate group athieismn still alive and well


          On
          secular Outpost in the last couple of days (3/15/17)  just look at the sheer unreasoning hate, nt in the original post which is reasonable, although I disagree iwth it but in the comment section,


          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/03/12/christian-worldview-part-1-worldviews/#disqus_thread





          •  •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Jim Jones • 2 days ago
            > NOT a relationship with Jesus
            How do you have a relationship with a fictional character who would be long dead if he existed at all?


            2  •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  Jim Jones • 2 days ago
            that is begging the question, your assertion that he's fictional is unsupported.


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            David Lally  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
            Any assertion that he is real is unsupported. Are you actually this stupid?


            1  •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  David Lally • 2 days ago
            Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?,Hey stupid have you noticed all encyclopedias say Jesus existed?is that because they are stupid?
            the vast majority of historians think Carrier is an obscure idiot and they knkow Jesus existed, its considered historical fact that has not changed. You are not a historian. you have stuck your head into a black hole called new atheism it;s an ideological camp. You are looking at the evidence through their ideological lens, you are brain washed,


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            David Lally  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
            "its considered historical fact that has not changed."
            NO idiot, it is NOT, no matte how much you cry and scream otherwise. Lying to yourself won't help you. It's got nothing to do with 'new atheism" you moron, it's got to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE he existed. Your pathetic childish whining and strawman bullshit only makes you look like a whiny 12 year old.
            "Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?'
            Speaking of strawmen. I never said that. Can you not read, or are you just a dishonest bitch? Again, it has NOTHING to do with "disagreeing", it has to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE for this person actually existing. NONE. There are NO first hand accounts, no evidence. None. Trying misdirection with strawman and you just being a dishonest little whiner won't change that fact. Cry all you like, but at least TRY and not be a dishonest bullshit artist to cover your butthurt. You can';t list any evidence, because there ISN'T any. THis is a fact, not an opinion. Even those who "believe" he "probably" existed aren't stupid enough to try claiming his existence is a "fact'. WHat a moron


             •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  David Lally • a day ago
            wow that's so mature. Calling people names man that proves it, you must be right. Most of us outgrew that level of childishness in third grade. I wont bother to make rational arguments to you but if we can't trust the objectivity of religious scholars because they are biased by their beliefs how much less should be trust such a childish Trump-like fool who is passionate about his ignorance.
            Really with your bigoted stupidity and childish behavior you could work as a bouncer at Trump towers. You're mentality fits with Trump's.


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            David Lally  Joe Hinman • a day ago
            FFS, are you actually this stupid? I called out your bullshit and pointed out facts, and all you focus on is me pointing out what an idiot you clearly are? Christ, can you cry like a bitch any more? ALL you do is make claims and whine like a 5 year old girl. I point out facts, and you whine about anything except the points I made. Since, you know, you have NO EVIDENCE for ANY of your idiotic claims. You can cry and whinge as much as you like, the fact remains, you've got NOTHING. :)


             •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  David Lally • a day ago
            you have no facts nor are you intellectually capable of assessing facts,I will not waste my time., you are a dunce.


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            David Lally  Joe Hinman • a day ago
            Child, YOU are the one with "no facts", this is obvious. All you have done is make claim after claim, all while failing to support any of them. You're embarrassing yourself. Constantly WHINING and pretending to be something you are clearly NOT does not impress anyone child. I don't give a shit about "your time", YOU are the idiot who keeps making unsupported claims, and whining more when people point out you have nothing. Instead of supporting your claims, all you do is whine even more, and try to pretend to have any kind of intellectual superiority. You're just SAD child. If anyone is a "dunce", it's the IDIOT constantly making assertions that fly in the face of all evidence, and frankly, acting like a whiny child. Do grow up.


            1  •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Geoff Benson  Joe Hinman • a day ago
            Actually Joe, not wishing to overly interfere in this 'debate', you keep referring to some facts you have, and I think you've mentioned a book from time to time?
            Just give a flavour perhaps of the compelling factual evidence you have, so at least we can test your assertions.


             •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  Geoff Benson • a day ago
            I linked to my book. That was in regard to belief in God not the specific question of historical Jesus,link is up there
            https://www.amazon.com/Trac...


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Geoff Benson  Joe Hinman • a day ago
            At a very non-theological level I would concede that there is, just possibly, some small evidence for an actual person that may form the basis of the Jesus fables. There is, however, no evidence for any kind of god; quite the reverse in fact.


            1  •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  Geoff Benson • 19 hours ago
            sorry that;s wrong,it's also begging the question ,I am saying my book offers unique evidence for God that is not normally known to apologetic. and you ca't assert there's no evidence as a refutation of my claims without having read the book.


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Geoff Benson  Joe Hinman • 15 hours ago
            If I had a pound for every apologist who assures us he has 'new' evidence proving god, I'd be wealthy. Just watch Matt Dillahunty on Atheist Experience to see what I mean.
            As with the foolish creationist claims that they have fantastic evidence to refute evolution, but which never receive a single proper peer review (let alone a Nobel Prize), so I see your book is not changing any minds. However, I'm conscious that I'm treading old ground, and that I'm probably in danger of derailing the thread so I'll leave it there.


            1  •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  Geoff Benson • 14 hours ago
            I'm a Ph.d.d candidate in history of ideas in secular State university, I am quasi Darwinian not a creationist, and i was a communist and an atheist so I've heard the bull shit before,bull shit on both sides.
            the evidence I have that is knew is avast body of quantitative work from peer reviewed journals in psychology dealing with religious experience, You go find me a christian apologist pushing that material and I'll apologize, you can't because i knw all apologists who have and there are only a couple in 50 years,


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            Joe Hinman  David Lally • a day ago
            o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius! Of course I said it's accepted as historical fact. I don't need to prove Jesus existed with any independent evidence about him. All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." Historical facts are those facts regarded as factual by historians, one of them is the existence of Jesus as aman in history.
            How do I know? Because I'm a historian and you are not. that means the historical Jesus has presumption, you have to overturn presumption, that means I don't have to prove he existed ,you have to prove he did not.
            And another thing your little myther idiots have created their false academia because you can't compete with real academics. The standards that real historians work by rule out the myther crap,You have invent your own set of standards. If we did history by myther standards we would know nothing.


             •Edit•Reply•Share ›
            Avatar

            David Lally  Joe Hinman • a day ago
            "o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius!"
            You did that in your last post, you utter moron. Christ, it's like you get dumber with each post. Also, I actually pointed out FACTS, whereas all you did was make CLAIMS. Gee, not hard to tell who has an actual leg to stand on, eh? :)
            "All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." '
            No, it doesn't. , you poor deluded whiny bitch. and whining about 'names" when you went and did the SAME thing just highlights what a hypocritical whiny bitch you are. Again, NO EVIDENCE. His existence is NOT fact, no matter how desperately you pretend. And I laugh at your claim of being a 'historian", when no historian would claim his existence a s "fact". Seriously child, at least TRY to not make a complete embarrassment of yourself. :)
            YOu can whine about "presumption" all you wnt, presuming is NOT EVIDENCE> Love how all you do is whine and cry like a bitch, instead of try and actually defend your claims. Since, you know, you CAN'T. :)


             •Reply•Share ›
            Avatar



          On
          secular Outpost in the last couple of days (3/15/17)  just look at the sheer unreasoning hate, nt in the original post which is reasonable, although I disagree iwth it but in the comment section,


          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/03/12/christian-worldview-part-1-worldviews/#disqus_thread




            • Avatar
              > NOT a relationship with Jesus
              How do you have a relationship with a fictional character who would be long dead if he existed at all?
                • Avatar
                  that is begging the question, your assertion that he's fictional is unsupported.
                    • Avatar
                      Any assertion that he is real is unsupported. Are you actually this stupid?
                        • Avatar
                          Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?,Hey stupid have you noticed all encyclopedias say Jesus existed?is that because they are stupid?
                          the vast majority of historians think Carrier is an obscure idiot and they knkow Jesus existed, its considered historical fact that has not changed. You are not a historian. you have stuck your head into a black hole called new atheism it;s an ideological camp. You are looking at the evidence through their ideological lens, you are brain washed,
                            • Avatar
                              "its considered historical fact that has not changed."
                              NO idiot, it is NOT, no matte how much you cry and scream otherwise. Lying to yourself won't help you. It's got nothing to do with 'new atheism" you moron, it's got to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE he existed. Your pathetic childish whining and strawman bullshit only makes you look like a whiny 12 year old.
                              "Is that your big evidence telling people who disagree they are stupid?'
                              Speaking of strawmen. I never said that. Can you not read, or are you just a dishonest bitch? Again, it has NOTHING to do with "disagreeing", it has to do with the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE for this person actually existing. NONE. There are NO first hand accounts, no evidence. None. Trying misdirection with strawman and you just being a dishonest little whiner won't change that fact. Cry all you like, but at least TRY and not be a dishonest bullshit artist to cover your butthurt. You can';t list any evidence, because there ISN'T any. THis is a fact, not an opinion. Even those who "believe" he "probably" existed aren't stupid enough to try claiming his existence is a "fact'. WHat a moron
                                • Avatar
                                  wow that's so mature. Calling people names man that proves it, you must be right. Most of us outgrew that level of childishness in third grade. I wont bother to make rational arguments to you but if we can't trust the objectivity of religious scholars because they are biased by their beliefs how much less should be trust such a childish Trump-like fool who is passionate about his ignorance.
                                  Really with your bigoted stupidity and childish behavior you could work as a bouncer at Trump towers. You're mentality fits with Trump's.
                                    • Avatar
                                      FFS, are you actually this stupid? I called out your bullshit and pointed out facts, and all you focus on is me pointing out what an idiot you clearly are? Christ, can you cry like a bitch any more? ALL you do is make claims and whine like a 5 year old girl. I point out facts, and you whine about anything except the points I made. Since, you know, you have NO EVIDENCE for ANY of your idiotic claims. You can cry and whinge as much as you like, the fact remains, you've got NOTHING. :)
                                        • Avatar
                                          you have no facts nor are you intellectually capable of assessing facts,I will not waste my time., you are a dunce.
                                            • Avatar
                                              Child, YOU are the one with "no facts", this is obvious. All you have done is make claim after claim, all while failing to support any of them. You're embarrassing yourself. Constantly WHINING and pretending to be something you are clearly NOT does not impress anyone child. I don't give a shit about "your time", YOU are the idiot who keeps making unsupported claims, and whining more when people point out you have nothing. Instead of supporting your claims, all you do is whine even more, and try to pretend to have any kind of intellectual superiority. You're just SAD child. If anyone is a "dunce", it's the IDIOT constantly making assertions that fly in the face of all evidence, and frankly, acting like a whiny child. Do grow up.
                                                • Avatar
                                                  Actually Joe, not wishing to overly interfere in this 'debate', you keep referring to some facts you have, and I think you've mentioned a book from time to time?
                                                  Just give a flavour perhaps of the compelling factual evidence you have, so at least we can test your assertions.
                                                    • Avatar
                                                      I linked to my book. That was in regard to belief in God not the specific question of historical Jesus,link is up there
                                                        • Avatar
                                                          At a very non-theological level I would concede that there is, just possibly, some small evidence for an actual person that may form the basis of the Jesus fables. There is, however, no evidence for any kind of god; quite the reverse in fact.
                                                            • Avatar
                                                              sorry that;s wrong,it's also begging the question ,I am saying my book offers unique evidence for God that is not normally known to apologetic. and you ca't assert there's no evidence as a refutation of my claims without having read the book.
                                                                • Avatar
                                                                  If I had a pound for every apologist who assures us he has 'new' evidence proving god, I'd be wealthy. Just watch Matt Dillahunty on Atheist Experience to see what I mean.
                                                                  As with the foolish creationist claims that they have fantastic evidence to refute evolution, but which never receive a single proper peer review (let alone a Nobel Prize), so I see your book is not changing any minds. However, I'm conscious that I'm treading old ground, and that I'm probably in danger of derailing the thread so I'll leave it there.
                                                                    • Avatar
                                                                      I'm a Ph.d.d candidate in history of ideas in secular State university, I am quasi Darwinian not a creationist, and i was a communist and an atheist so I've heard the bull shit before,bull shit on both sides.
                                                                      the evidence I have that is knew is avast body of quantitative work from peer reviewed journals in psychology dealing with religious experience, You go find me a christian apologist pushing that material and I'll apologize, you can't because i knw all apologists who have and there are only a couple in 50 years,
                                                        • Avatar
                                                          o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius! Of course I said it's accepted as historical fact. I don't need to prove Jesus existed with any independent evidence about him. All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." Historical facts are those facts regarded as factual by historians, one of them is the existence of Jesus as aman in history.
                                                          How do I know? Because I'm a historian and you are not. that means the historical Jesus has presumption, you have to overturn presumption, that means I don't have to prove he existed ,you have to prove he did not.
                                                          And another thing your little myther idiots have created their false academia because you can't compete with real academics. The standards that real historians work by rule out the myther crap,You have invent your own set of standards. If we did history by myther standards we would know nothing.
                                                            • Avatar
                                                              "o wow that proves it. you called me names so you must be right! I never thought of calling the other guys names before. what a genius!"
                                                              You did that in your last post, you utter moron. Christ, it's like you get dumber with each post. Also, I actually pointed out FACTS, whereas all you did was make CLAIMS. Gee, not hard to tell who has an actual leg to stand on, eh? :)
                                                              "All need to prove is that history records him as existing that's what we mean by "fact." '
                                                              No, it doesn't. , you poor deluded whiny bitch. and whining about 'names" when you went and did the SAME thing just highlights what a hypocritical whiny bitch you are. Again, NO EVIDENCE. His existence is NOT fact, no matter how desperately you pretend. And I laugh at your claim of being a 'historian", when no historian would claim his existence a s "fact". Seriously child, at least TRY to not make a complete embarrassment of yourself. :)
                                                              YOu can whine about "presumption" all you wnt, presuming is NOT EVIDENCE> Love how all you do is whine and cry like a bitch, instead of try and actually defend your claims. Since, you know, you CAN'T. :)
                                                          • Avatar
                                                            > the vast majority of historians think Carrier is an obscure idiot
                                                            The vast majority of historians that even care about such myths work in religious 'schools' where they have to agree to bullshit like this to continue working. That is proof of the falsity of their claims.
                                                              • Avatar
                                                                that's bull shit. A lot of people who teach in religious schools are not believers or don't agree with the school,. To dogmatically reject their view just because of that mere affiliation means that we should be less willing to listen to atheists not more. If Being employed by a religious school means we can 't accept their objectivity then being an ideologue in an atheist movement is just the sane as being an extremist hot head and not to be trusted.
                                                                then to make these bigoted statements calling people names that proves my point. you are just a bigot who hates religion so you are not objective.
                                                          • Avatar
                                                            Unsupported except by the evidence. But feel free to do what no one has done for 2,000 years - come up with evidence he existed.
                                                              • Avatar
                                                                Jim so is it your claim that for 2000 years no historian anywhere has provided evidence Jesus existed?
                                                                Care to site the "evidence" which shows Jesus did not exist.
                                                                  • Avatar
                                                                    There is strong academic support for both a mythological Jesus, for example Richard Carrier, and there is support for there being a real, underlying, individual on which the person we now refer to as Jesus is based (for example, Bart Ehrman). Neither side is regarded as being seriously cranky in their views.
                                                                    Personally I don't think it matters. It's highly unlikely that the myth vs real is ever going to be settled to a high level of probability, but nor does it matter. There is little doubt in the minds of most that pretty well none of the events ascribed to Jesus took place, that there were never any miracles, and no divinity attaching.
                                                                      • Avatar
                                                                        I am sorry that you are taken in by Carrier's petulant childish act. He has nothing,his arguments are crap. you are going by the view in the new atheist movement, real historians think carrier is an idiot, New atheism has it's own academia.
                                                                          • Avatar
                                                                            There's a cultural tradition in western society that has lulled us into the almost immutable belief that Jesus existed. I think there's been an almost propaganda type desire to perpetuate it, led by Christians but fuelled by non-believers who don't want to overly offend; accommodationism if you like.
                                                                            The possibility of Jesus being entirely mythical is finally being viewed seriously. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to offer an opinion, but I can say absolutely that Carrier is a serious academic, (he does sometimes appear petulant and childish in his social networking, I'd agree), who is peer reviewed, and cannot be dismissed lightly.
                                                                              • Avatar
                                                                                that is nonsense. When I tried to get the chair of my doctoral committee and the pro I TAed for to comment on 
                                                                                Doherty they called him an idiot and said you can't do history that way. They were atheists and it was a secular program University of Texas.
                                                                                If you study the 19th century figures like Bauer you might see why real historians have soured on mytherism. Essentially all myther argument require conspiracy theories to work.