tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.comments2023-10-18T07:02:06.571-07:00Life Without a NetHambydammithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-73986023882202922972009-07-26T11:10:09.401-07:002009-07-26T11:10:09.401-07:00Quite appreciative of your article. The Romans we...Quite appreciative of your article. The Romans were known for bureaucracy and the lack of any credible documentation, for the existence of Jesus, is troubling at best.<br /><br />I also appreciate your suggested reading list. With my discovery of Richard Dawkins my appetite for scientific discussions is insatiable.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10799613207834483479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-4568460837604429442009-01-25T06:39:00.000-08:002009-01-25T06:39:00.000-08:00If anyone is to contemplate taking your essay seri...If anyone is to contemplate taking your essay seriously,they would need to know your qualifications. We don't need to know who you are, although that would be helpful, but we do need to know that you have the expertise to try to influence our thinking.<BR/><BR/>So, if you don't mind, how about divulging your qualifications?<BR/><BR/>Once we know that you have the appropriate basis from which to draw conclusions, we can discuss the many misrepresentations and fallacies you offer in the current essay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-88844604577103594942009-01-20T16:55:00.000-08:002009-01-20T16:55:00.000-08:00Hey Hamby,It's remarkable how close your position ...Hey Hamby,<BR/><BR/>It's remarkable how close your position is to my own. I'm agnostic about the historical Jesus, and sometimes I lean towards historicity while at others I lean towards mythicism.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I've had some exchanges with Dr. James McGrath, and <A HREF="http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/10/jesus-man-or-myth.html" REL="nofollow">here is one of them</A>. And here is <A HREF="http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/10/continuing-exchange.html" REL="nofollow">yet another one.</A>AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-61546118795255433032009-01-19T10:07:00.000-08:002009-01-19T10:07:00.000-08:00I'm sorry to say, you've misunderstood several thi...I'm sorry to say, you've misunderstood several things about my argument, and you have some real problems with definitions. I'll see if I can break it down for you:<BR/><BR/><I>The biggest flaw with that idea? <BR/>COMPUTERS CANNOT BEHAVE(/think) IRRATIONALLY<BR/><BR/>Yet humans can (and often do). </I><BR/><BR/>Here's a definition problem. What exactly do you mean by irrational? I've seen my computer act very irrationally before. I click the "Print" button and nothing happens. I click it again and nothing happens. I open the print manager and there's the task and it says it's printing. I check the printer. It's on, connected, has paper, and looks as if it ought to be printing.<BR/><BR/>The program I'm using was designed to print things, and yet, when I use the instruction that ought to make it print, it does not, even though the computer was designed to do things for me.<BR/><BR/>Ok, right now, you're thinking, "Yes, it seems irrational to you, but in reality, this or that bit of computer code is doing this or that, and maybe you screwed up this or that, or maybe it was locked up, which is something completely logical when you know this or that about computers." The point is, every good computer person will tell you that computers never do anything they're not programmed to do. They're incapable of it.<BR/><BR/>The "irrationality" of a computer doing something contrary to my best interests isn't really irrationality. It makes perfect sense. It is only irrational within my local framework -- what <I>I want it to do</I> as opposed to what it is doing. In the language of 1s and 0s, it's behaving in the only way it can.<BR/><BR/>Do you see where this is going? Nothing humans do is irrational, either. Sure, we're a lot more complex and dynamic than computers. The computer analogy isn't meant to be perfect. It's meant to facilitate a change of perspective. That's all.<BR/><BR/>Sure, we do irrational things within a local framework. However, from the perspective of genes making proteins making brains, everything we do is part of our programming. What you're doing is trying to impose the framework <I>created by the genes</I> onto the genes themselves. In other words, you're doing it backwards.<BR/><BR/>To put it yet another way, computers most certainly <I>can</I> behave irrationally. All we need to do is program them to do so. I have no doubt that the people who program chess computers can program them to lose every game by making logically inexplicable moves and irrationally passing up obvious avenues to victory. For that matter, they could program them to occasionally and without warning inexplicably lose a game while trying to win most of the time.<BR/><BR/>From the point of view of winning chess, the computer would play quite irrationally, particularly since it is quite capable of winning virtually every game versus a human -- at least as far as its computational capacity goes.<BR/><BR/>You would be right to point out that the computer would be playing exactly as programmed, and the same goes for humans. When we are irrational, it is local irrationality. We are still performing exactly as programmed, though.<BR/><BR/><I> but, to call the human mind, a 'computer and nothing more'... simply defies logic and every tenant of computer programming.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but I am not saying that the human brain is perfectly analogous to a computer. It is clearly not. An analogy is a useful tool to help people think from a different perspective. It is not meant to be a definition, and that is not the way I'm using it. Didn't I say that in the main article?<BR/><BR/><I>However, until we manage to successfully create AI (Artificial Intelligence) (or prove that such creation is impossible), neither of us have any conclusive proof. <BR/><BR/>If you are correct... then AI should (and will) eventually come about.<BR/>If I am correct... then AI is utterly impossible.</I><BR/><BR/>Nah. This has nothing to do with anything. Whether or not AI is invented in the future is completely irrelevant to the discussion. And what's this nonsense about "conclusive proof"? Didn't you read my article on science?<BR/><BR/><I>I don't buy the 'God' argument any more than you do... and the supernatural is a ridiculous supposition, but, for all we know, sentience could be a parasite inhabiting our brains. <BR/>Ridiculous? You bet. Impossible? Nope.</I><BR/><BR/>Puh-lease.<BR/><BR/>Are you really trying to pull of an argument from ignorance? Really?<BR/><BR/><I>All I'm trying to say... is that your comparison of the human mind to a computer is both logically and fundamentally flawed. <BR/><BR/>A computer cannot say 1+1=3. It's simply not logical, and a computer can only be logical. Whereas a human being can easily be illogical, should that individual chose. </I><BR/><BR/>Sure it can. Just program it to do so.<BR/><BR/>See the point? It's right in front of you. Computers can do anything they're programmed to do, including do things that defy human logic. Quit trying to impose human goals and logic onto genes. By doing so, you're making the same mistake as someone who sees a computer "intentionally" lose a game of chess and thinks the computer is being illogical.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-87538678180958216332009-01-18T00:05:00.000-08:002009-01-18T00:05:00.000-08:00The 'human brain is a computer' analogy really is ...The 'human brain is a computer' analogy really is as tired as it is bullshit. <BR/><BR/>The biggest flaw with that idea? <BR/><B>COMPUTERS CANNOT BEHAVE(/think) IRRATIONALLY</B><BR/><BR/>Yet humans can (and often do). <BR/><BR/>I'm under no illusions here... humans are (to an extent) very complex biological machines with certain pre-conditioned responses (breathing is a very basic example), but, to call the human mind, a 'computer and nothing more'... simply defies logic and every tenant of computer programming. <BR/><BR/>However, until we manage to successfully create AI (Artificial Intelligence) (or prove that such creation is impossible), neither of us have any conclusive proof. <BR/><BR/>If you are correct... then AI should (and will) eventually come about.<BR/>If I am correct... then AI is utterly impossible.<BR/><BR/>I don't buy the 'God' argument any more than you do... and the supernatural is a ridiculous supposition, but, for all we know, sentience could be a parasite inhabiting our brains. <BR/>Ridiculous? You bet. Impossible? Nope.<BR/><BR/>All I'm trying to say... is that your comparison of the human mind to a computer is both logically and fundamentally flawed. <BR/><BR/>A computer cannot say 1+1=3. It's simply not logical, and a computer can only be logical. Whereas a human being can easily be illogical, should that individual chose. <BR/><BR/>AceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05900878264711951934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-22019519395565442062009-01-17T07:58:00.000-08:002009-01-17T07:58:00.000-08:00I agree with your thoughts on why Rick Warren woul...I agree with your thoughts on why Rick Warren would perceive atheists as angry all the time...he says things that gets a person to appear defensive and corners them to fight.<BR/> <BR/>Could you imagine working for a boss that constantly picked apart your work and you were left to always defend yourself over and over and at review time the boss claims you are always "angry" LOL<BR/><BR/>I don't know why but I don't get as 'angry' when I read about women not getting paid the same as men for the same job. Not as angry as I get when reading articles like the debate between Warren and Harris. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if this is because the awareness of my atheism is new (I really came to understand it just 7 years ago or so) and being a woman, well I have been aware of this my entire life :-)Reneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813573360426477149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-6139118880185622382009-01-16T16:47:00.000-08:002009-01-16T16:47:00.000-08:00I find myself using the word need quite often: I ...I find myself using the word need quite often: I need to take a shower, I need to buy a new sweater...it is just one of those words that is part of my limited vocabulary. :-)<BR/>I have heard you discuss the death example and when I heard about the "miracle on the hudson" I thought of that word..and I thought of you ! LoLReneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813573360426477149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-88235398580612719852009-01-16T13:22:00.000-08:002009-01-16T13:22:00.000-08:00http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicest...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/7729450.stm<BR/><BR/>At least the report above had the decency to scare-quote "miracle". In this instance God (and his team of highly trained physicians using the vast wealth of knowledge we've acquired using a rigorous methodology not described in his Holy book) was loving enough to prevent death, but not the initial fall and subsequent breaking of an arm, leg, pelvis, jaw and knee.SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-20796434969760261992009-01-14T18:57:00.000-08:002009-01-14T18:57:00.000-08:00Well, actually, the point I'm trying to make here ...Well, actually, the point I'm trying to make here (and it should become more apparent to you after you read Part II) is that science <I>has to be</I> the only way because by it's very definition it is the only way. It would be self-contradictory to assert anything unscientific as a means to gain knowledge. I won't elaborate here because I've already done so in the article... just check in tomorrow or the next day when I post the conclusion.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-66967836828329649672009-01-14T17:27:00.000-08:002009-01-14T17:27:00.000-08:00Science might not be the only way, but I don't kno...Science might not be the only way, but I don't know of any other methods that have the same properties that science does, such as:<BR/><BR/>- Objectivity<BR/>- Consistent results<BR/>- Parsimonious results<BR/>- Useful results<BR/>- Reliability<BR/>- Demonstrable results<BR/><BR/>Whenever I'm told there might be other ways of knowing, I usually say I'm open to them, but you'll have to demonstrate they exist, and that they have or exceed science in what it provides us.SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-29773268553828601062009-01-14T10:52:00.000-08:002009-01-14T10:52:00.000-08:00Hello Hamby,This was a very good read I sort guess...Hello Hamby,<BR/>This was a very good read I sort guess I would fit under Jesus Historian position but do not believe Jesus was God or divine in any event. thanks for the great read and hope you keep it up and have a good day and Happy Late New Year.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LegendKillerJustinLegendKiller_Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18169007637031835945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-74423674724754489102009-01-13T13:59:00.000-08:002009-01-13T13:59:00.000-08:00Another way of looking at this argument, which I c...Another way of looking at this argument, which I can't take credit for*, is to question the properties of God's universe. Clearly, God is sentient in some way, (presumably) has all of our cognitive functions and potentially more, and can perform actions (over time), like creation. Given such depictions of God, clearly there is some other, for lack of a better word, realm where (at least one) sentient being arose, which doesn't have the same cosmological constants our universe has. The theist position is empty on these positions, yet they feel they can get away with the assertion that only this universe could create intelligent life, while simultaneously positing another that does. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>* - http://intelligentuniverse.blogspot.com/SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-82372420948960039732009-01-13T12:16:00.000-08:002009-01-13T12:16:00.000-08:00It seems to me that when it comes to the existence...<I>It seems to me that when it comes to the existence of Jesus double standards are employed. </I><BR/><BR/>It's almost as if they're lowering the bar to make the desired conclusion seem more plausible. Funny, that...<BR/><BR/><I>For example, some scholars utilize the criterion of embarrassment to establish Jesus' existence, but I can't find its use outside of Biblical Scholarship.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you read my other blog about this? http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-jesus-historicity.html<BR/><BR/>Have you noticed that Jesus historians seem to get really defensive when you question their methodology? If they don't get defensive, they avoid the question (see my debate with James McGrath). In what I've seen and read of Richard Carrier's research, he's happy -- nay... ecstatic -- to explain his methodology and to point out the need for consistent objectivity through solid methods.<BR/><BR/>Epistemologically speaking, this doesn't "prove" anything, but it sure does cast a lot of doubt on historians.<BR/><BR/>What a lot of people like John Loftus fail to recognize is that people like me are not interested in promoting a particular position. I don't care if Jesus existed or not. What I care about is that the research is done objectively and that the conclusion is justified. I hate that history is given a free pass with certain subjects because of their cultural impact. I really hate that.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-28766559126209291402009-01-12T14:23:00.000-08:002009-01-12T14:23:00.000-08:00I'm not an expert on historical methodology, but I...I'm not an expert on historical methodology, but I think I'm capable of recognizing bad methodology, which really is a question about epistemology. I'm eager to see Richard Carrier's book, as he is proposing a consistent methodology for establishing the probabilistic existence of historical figures. It seems to me that when it comes to the existence of Jesus double standards are employed. For example, some scholars utilize the criterion of embarrassment to establish Jesus' existence, but I can't find its use outside of Biblical Scholarship.SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-39307884678875718262009-01-12T14:14:00.000-08:002009-01-12T14:14:00.000-08:00This is depressing display from Mr. Loftus. I too ...<I>This is depressing display from Mr. Loftus. I too am a student of knowledge, knowledge representation and reasoning. Just letting you know that you aren't talking to yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>I appreciate your support. For what it's worth, everyone I've asked (both online and off) who has ever studied epistemology agrees with you (and me). Either John simply doesn't understand epistemological justification or he's ignoring it because he really wants people to know his opinion.<BR/><BR/>Either, in my humble opinion, is inexcusable.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-59237058760946523462009-01-11T19:15:00.000-08:002009-01-11T19:15:00.000-08:00This is depressing display from Mr. Loftus. I too ...This is depressing display from Mr. Loftus. I too am a student of knowledge, knowledge representation and reasoning. Just letting you know that you aren't talking to yourself.SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-84666026195687788962009-01-11T19:05:00.000-08:002009-01-11T19:05:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.SirMoogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561739412799889781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-18437885494308295212009-01-09T01:32:00.000-08:002009-01-09T01:32:00.000-08:00Thank you for your "commitment".Ahem... "thanks."I...<I>Thank you for your "commitment".</I><BR/><BR/>Ahem... "thanks."<BR/><BR/><I>I am interested in all of the dialogue, but because I believe in "free discourse", I "blog" and don't even know I don't know (enough) to have or not have an opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>Free discourse is different than informed discourse. I believe in both. I also believe in identifying each honestly.<BR/><BR/><I>I am with you where it concerns the bible. I find that whenever there is anyghing considered "holy", it is dangerous territory to tread, but then I like to be iconoclastic...so what do I do?</I><BR/><BR/>Identify your opinions as such, and when you have something informed to add, back it up. Don't pretend to authority you don't have. It's pretty simple.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-88532159093551347342009-01-08T19:42:00.000-08:002009-01-08T19:42:00.000-08:00Thank you for your "commitment". I am interested i...Thank you for your "commitment". I am interested in all of the dialogue, but because I believe in "free discourse", I "blog" and don't even know I don't know (enough) to have or not have an opinion.<BR/>I am with you where it concerns the bible. I find that whenever there is anyghing considered "holy", it is dangerous territory to tread, but then I like to be iconoclastic...so what do I do?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-11761448205755436602009-01-08T14:01:00.000-08:002009-01-08T14:01:00.000-08:00*Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning*In keeping ...<I>*Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning*<BR/><BR/>In keeping with what you said let me say as a disclaimer that I admit I don't have the authority to be an authority on Jesus mythicism and so I'll not pretend like I am one.</I><BR/><BR/>I propose that you put that warning on blogs in which you talk about mythicism.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-36788930468162001812009-01-08T13:21:00.000-08:002009-01-08T13:21:00.000-08:00*Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning*In keeping ...*Warning* *Warning* *Warning* *Warning*<BR/><BR/>In keeping with what you said let me say as a disclaimer that <I>I admit I don't have the authority to be an authority on Jesus mythicism and so I'll not pretend like I am one.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's right. I'm pretending to be an authority whenever I speak on an issue. But I'm really not one, right?<BR/><BR/>What's an authority?<BR/><BR/>And what is it like to pretend?<BR/><BR/>Sheesh.<BR/><BR/>I bid you well. But you have not proposed anything that I can or should do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-71573057323270062652009-01-08T12:52:00.000-08:002009-01-08T12:52:00.000-08:00I just don't understand you. No, Dawkins does not ...<I>I just don't understand you. No, Dawkins does not speak for me (he is abrasive and doesn't understand philosophy), nor does Sam Harris (he seems to be interested in some sort of spirituality). And neither Dawkins nor Harris recommeds my book, so the feelings about our roles as skeptics are mutual, I think. </I><BR/><BR/>And here I thought we were getting to a breakthrough. Look, dude. I don't agree with everything Dawkins says either. He has been stubborn in his refusal to admit that parts of the Selfish Gene theory have been revised to the point that people will get the wrong idea if they trust Dawkins' rendition of it. I don't agree with Harris in his use of what seem to me to be scare tactics similar to what sold America on the current war. Religion is not, in my opinion, going to end humanity, and I don't like him saying that it will. That seems reactionary.<BR/><BR/>Look, the point isn't that I agree with all of them. The point is that each of them is doing great things for atheism, and we, as fellow atheists, owe it to them not to <I>unduly</I> malign what they're doing. I'll get back to this in a minute.<BR/><BR/><I>And I do present my arguments sincerely and honestly. Why in hell would you think I don't? Because I disagree? Balderdash!</I><BR/><BR/>Christ, John. How many ways can I say this? I AM NOT A MYTHICIST. I DON'T CARE IF YOU BELIEVE JESUS WAS HISTORICAL. I believe you are sincere in your arguments.<BR/><BR/>My problem with you is that you admit you don't have the authority to be an authority on Jesus mythicism and then you pretend like you are.<BR/><BR/><I>How can you say that? You are ignorant to assume you're correct and so therefore I should shut up. I am part of the consensus. I have no axe to grind. I have no dog in this fight. This is what I think. I have a right to help make the consensus. I think I'm right, too. I honestly do.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm doing my best to be polite with you, John. I really am. And you keep insulting me. AND... you don't seem to read, or perhaps comprehend, what I am writing to you.<BR/><BR/>Let me put this the same way... again... and see if you'll read and understand this time.<BR/><BR/>I AM NOT A MYTHICIST. I am a skeptic, and that is ALL the epistemological justification YOU have, yet you overstep your epistemological bounds.<BR/><BR/>Please, John. This isn't hard to understand. You're playing with the big boys and you've still got your Jesus Mythicist tinker toys. You can build stuff that looks like what they do, but it doesn't have the same structure or solidity or function. The problem is, people mistake your tinker toy set for the real thing because they, like you, HAVEN'T DONE THE RESEARCH.<BR/><BR/>(Do I need to quote you again to prove that you've said you haven't done the research, or can we take it as read?)<BR/><BR/><I> If mythicists are correct then they will win the day, someday. I have never suggested they should shut up and there are many ignorant ones out there, as you would have to admit, so once again I bristle at your suggestions.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I'm happy to admit that there are ignorant mythicists out there. I'll give you a fantastic example. Achyara (or however you spell her name... I don't feel like looking it up) has hoards of followers who see Jesus as some kind of conspiracy theory. That's baloney, and is easily refuted by someone who has the requisite knowledge. In fact, John, this has direct bearing on my conversation with you.<BR/><BR/>I used to be a quasi-supporter of Achyara, even though I knew she was something of a crackpot mythicist. I believed that if she convinced people that Jesus was a myth, she was contributing to the mythicist cause, even if her explanation turned out wrong. A friend spent quite a long time discussing this with me, and I subsequently decided that I was wrong. Achyara is in the wrong even if she is on the right side because she's doing bad science. Period.<BR/><BR/>Bad science includes making pronouncements without the experimental data to do so, and you, John, are doing the historical equivalent. You're announcing your conclusions when you haven't done your research. That's bad history, and you're doing it from the pulpit.<BR/><BR/><I>Do not tell me to shut up! You have given me no reason to do so and every reason to think you lack critical thinking skills. With skills like that no wonder you think the way you do.</I><BR/><BR/>I've come to agree with the blogger you fought with. You don't read, apparently. You either skim, or you don't retain, or something. I'm not going to guess because I don't know which, but you certainly don't display a knowledge of what I've written to you.<BR/><BR/>I'll put it in big print too, so you won't accuse me of it, again, after I've explained it at least twice before.<BR/><BR/>I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO SHUT UP. I'm telling you that you owe it to the community to say only what you have the justification to say. You do not have the justification to say that the historical Jesus -- and particularly your favorite version, which I gather to be a doomsday prophet -- is the most likely scenario.<BR/><BR/>John, again, I am not telling you to shut up. I'm politely asking you to <I>refine your position to accurately reflect the weight of your opinion.</I> Please, keep saying that you find historical arguments more compelling than mythicist arguments, but say it within the context of what you are -- an observer of the ongoing debate, not a scholar who's adding anything new to the debate. You don't have a book about it, and you don't have anything new to add. Watch the debate with the rest of us, and tell us who you think is winning, but don't make yourself out to be anything more than a fan. <BR/><BR/>Let me explain it another way (again). I comment on Jesus mythicism or historicity from time to time. As I mentioned above, I've commented on Achyara before, and now I'm commenting on you. The reason is both of you are committing the same sin. You're reading books that summarize a position and then acting like you're an authority. You're not. You're a well read guy who likes Jesus history. You're not a Jesus historian.<BR/><BR/>I have comments on this very blog about Jesus historicity, and I'll be honest with you, John, after I've chided you about your stance, I went back and looked at them to see if I am overstepping my bounds in any of them. The truth is, some of them probably should be reworded a little, although I think a learned reader ought to see my intention. I do my best never to say, "Jesus didn't exist" or "There almost certainly wasn't a Jesus." I can't say that. I don't have the authority. What I say is, "This is what virtually all scholars agree on, and this is how I view the debate, and which side seems to me to have more logical justification."<BR/><BR/>It probably seems like an insignificant quibble to you, John, and I suppose I can understand that. I know the world you came from because I lived in it for nearly two decades. I was an amateur apologist in those days, and I remember how many times I glossed over details and fudged wording slightly because I knew in my heart that if the end worked out ok, God would justify the means.<BR/><BR/>That's religion.<BR/><BR/>This is science, and now that you're on this side, you owe it to scientists to play on their field, and not bring it down to the level of rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>You have every right to say that in your unscholarly opinion, the historical Jesus arguments seem to be more sound and give your reasons why. You do not have the epistemological right to say that you understand both sides enough to pronounce that there was probably a historical Jesus.<BR/><BR/>In the scholarly world, the question is not settled. It does not fall to you, lowly autodidact, to make pronouncements for historians. You owe it to them to report accurately the state of affairs and not add your own <I>opinion</I> as if it is meaningful <I>content</I> to be added to the scholarly debate.<BR/><BR/>Does that explain what I mean when I say you're adding consensus without content? Let me try one other way. You are a reporter. You're not a researcher. Researchers present <I>new material.</I> You're just rehashing what historians have said, which would be fine if you were doing it with the right disclaimers and caveats -- namely that you don't know enough about mythicist arguments to refute them, and that you would need to study more to make any firm pronouncements -- but you're skipping that and making it sound as if you have an authoritative opinion. You do not. <BR/><BR/><I>Do not tell me to shut up! You have given me no reason to do so and every reason to think you lack critical thinking skills. With skills like that no wonder you think the way you do.</I><BR/><BR/>Jesus Christ, man, but you do end with insults a lot. In the scholarly world, that's viewed... dimly.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-85156348589349019072009-01-08T04:38:00.000-08:002009-01-08T04:38:00.000-08:00J-esus existed, no. Ribi Yehoshua existed, yes. ...J-esus existed, no. Ribi Yehoshua existed, yes. www.netzarim.co.ilEliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-61102346489178185922009-01-08T03:56:00.000-08:002009-01-08T03:56:00.000-08:00I just don't understand you. No, Dawkins does not ...I just don't understand you. No, Dawkins does not speak for me (he is abrasive and doesn't understand philosophy), nor does Sam Harris (he seems to be interested in some sort of spirituality). And neither Dawkins nor Harris recommeds my book, so the feelings about our roles as skeptics are mutual, I think. <BR/><BR/>And I do present my arguments sincerely and honestly. Why in hell would you think I don't? Because I disagree? Balderdash!<BR/><BR/><I>You are adding to the consensus without adding content.<BR/><BR/>You are adding to the consensus without refuting the minority.</I><BR/><BR/>How can you say that? You are ignorant to assume you're correct and so therefore I should shut up. I am part of the consensus. I have no axe to grind. I have no dog in this fight. This is what I think. I have a right to help make the consensus. I think I'm right, too. I honestly do.<BR/><BR/>So, let me turn what you said around on you: "We all, regardless of our relative weight in the blogosphere, do a disservice to those who work so hard when we proclaim our unsupported opinions as being anything more than that." <BR/><BR/>If mythicists are correct then they will win the day, someday. I have never suggested they should shut up and there are many ignorant ones out there, as you would have to admit, so once again I bristle at your suggestions.<BR/><BR/>Just look at what Christian scholars think of mythicists by reading what William Lane Craig wrote on my blog today (see my blog). <BR/><BR/>Do not tell me to shut up! You have given me no reason to do so and every reason to think you lack critical thinking skills. With skills like that no wonder you think the way you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769709787862555273.post-61776783846331766382009-01-07T21:15:00.000-08:002009-01-07T21:15:00.000-08:00You are refering to me here? Wow! Somehow this jus...<I>You are refering to me here? Wow! Somehow this just hit me. Is it really true? Really? I just don't think of myself like that at all. I'm one guy who wrote a book and maintains a blog. But a "leading spokesman?" That's a horse of a different color. Do skeptics have spokesmen? How are they determined? What responsibilities do they have? </I><BR/><BR/>There are two things going on here. I'm really not sure if I've managed to convey my real gripe to you, and I'm going to try again in a second, but I want to address the idea of skeptical spokesmen for a minute.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you'd have any problem seeing someone like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Margaret Downey as a spokesperson for atheism, right? I mean, they pretty much identify themselves as such. I realize you don't know anything about me, unless you've really looked into my site and clicked a lot of links. I'm a student of human nature, and specifically evolutionary psychology and sociology. We all have different roles to play if we're going to turn America into a more secular nation. That's your goal, right? It certainly is my goal. If it happens, it will be because all of us played our parts.<BR/><BR/>John, when I type in "Why I Became an Atheist" on Google, I get your name first. That's not exactly a crazy-ingenious title you've got there. I am pretty sure I wrote an article by the exact same name about a decade ago and published it on the internet. Even so, I have to go to the third page of Google before your name isn't the most common one. You have some influence, my friend, and not just a little. You're no Dawkins with regard to evolution, and you're no Dennett with regard to philosophy, and (forgive me) you're no Robert Price with regard to Jesus. What you are is a shining example of someone who came from as far into Christianity as most people will ever go, and you have an amazing story to tell people about your journey out. You are a poster child for atheism, John. You are exactly what I, and Dawkins, and Harris, and everyone else hope for. You're someone who made it out.<BR/><BR/>With that comes great responsibility. You have an obligation to represent not only yourself, but everyone else around you, and to do it honestly.<BR/><BR/>Now... here's where I need to address one other point specifically:<BR/><BR/><I>If I was just another person making an argument you might not be so upset. </I><BR/><BR/>No. If you were just another person, I would not have been as persistent in trying to convince you of the error of your ways, but I would be just as upset by the mistake. This is what I want you to understand.<BR/><BR/>We as atheists, skeptics, and rational thinkers owe it to each other and the world to be epistemologically honest. I owe it to Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley not to misrepresent their arguments. They spent years of their lives for each book they wrote, and they have mountains of data and research going into what they have written. I owe it to them, even though I'm fascinated by their subject, and even though I am probably better versed in it than most laymen, to not go out on limbs which will not support me. As you have (rather crudely) pointed out, I'm not the most popular blogger on the internet, but I'm doing my part, and I'm doing my best to do it with integrity and honesty. I try very, very hard not to say anything even within my own field that I'm not completely comfortable with. As you know, John, theists will pick up on any mistake at all and use it to dismiss our arguments. You've seen this. You were just griping about it on your blog.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter if I'm a "spokesman" for atheism. By putting my thoughts on the internet, I am committing them to the collective knowledge base, and they will have an impact. I have no idea what the 100 plus people who have viewed my site will do with what I've written. I must assume that they will believe me and take me as an authority, for that is how I write -- as one with knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Ok, so back to Jesus for a minute. Like I said, I don't care that you come down on the Jesus historicity side. What I care about is that you do it with cavalier disregard for the impact that careless opinions have on the internet. Several of my friends are working in the field of ancient literature and I know how incredibly difficult their work is. You speak often of your fear for Richard Carrier's career. Have you read some of the hateful misinformation and flat out lies that have been told about Thomas L. Thompson? Do you realize how horribly these people are maligned -- by other scholars?<BR/><BR/>Ok... here's the crux of why I'm upset with you. Consensus is not the measure of an idea's worth. Factual accuracy is. Jesus either existed or he didn't, and the question is far from resolved. People are citing you as a source, though. They are saying, "See... this guy's a former pastor turned atheist, and he's read all those guys, and he says Jesus really existed."<BR/><BR/>You are adding to the consensus without adding content.<BR/><BR/>You are adding to the consensus without refuting the minority.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the relative weight of your opinion, you are getting in the way of real Jesus scholars who are doing their best to have academic integrity. It makes it worse that your opinion carries the weight it does, but it would be bad form in any case.<BR/><BR/>Trusting the consensus and forming opinions based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge is what lets theism, UFOism, New Ageism, Conspiracy Theory-ism, and a thousand other isms flourish. Science is hard, and it takes a lot of work to be able to say something definitively and with authority.<BR/><BR/>We all, regardless of our relative weight in the blogosphere, do a disservice to those who work so hard when we proclaim our unsupported opinions as being anything more than that.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.com