|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Dec 19, 2013 16:56:02 GMT
More and more debates I've witnessed and taken part in online seem to involve people defending
Jesus Mythery (Mythisism?) nonsense. Why, on James' Facebook page there is one going on right now.
Is it just me, or is this asinine idea gaining more acceptance?
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 19, 2013 20:39:41 GMT
Why, on James' Facebook page there is one going on right now. There is? Can't see it - where? |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Dec 20, 2013 4:56:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 20, 2013 6:38:07 GMT
After a brief glance, the debate made an unsatisfying impression. The myther stood clearly at the worse end of rationality, but the other person made a number of apologetical serious mistakes or overstatements as well (allegorical reading, status of slaves in early Christianity). It won't convince many non-Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 21, 2013 2:51:13 GMT
Yes, I thought even skimming over the "debate" (mutual deaf harangue might be a better description) was time I'll never get back. The "christian" guy obviously knew something, but it wasn't how to win friends and influence people! And the skeptical dude seemed to know little more than How to repeat anti christian cliches 1.001. Pointless on both sides. But I do think mythicism is increasing. For a certain class of person, making points can be more important than knowing truth (memo to self; make sure you don't fall into that trap!). So having a standard sceptical line which you found in some book is easier in the one-night-stand internet debates than having to deal with what real historians say. I've had discussions (none of which ended well) with a number of people for whom the scholars of choice are Price and Carrier (so often those two), and even one who based their ideas on Freke and Gandy, and was quite upset when I indicated that even other mythicists like Richard Carrier find them beyond believable. But none of these recent mythers were willing to even consider why eminent non christians like Ehrman, Casey, Grant, Vermes, etc, concluded something different. (Sometimes they even call those guys "apologists"!) I truly think the Jesus-mythicist phenomenon is not all that different to creationism, with Price & Carrier the equivalent of Henry Morris and Ken Ham or whoever - perhaps someday the guys at Science on Religion will do a psychological study on the personality types from those two viewpoints. Other people are welcome to debate these people, I think I'd rather wrestle a boa constrictor. |
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Jan 3, 2014 17:20:02 GMT
More and more debates I've witnessed and taken part in online seem to involve people defending Jesus Mythery (Mythisism?) nonsense. Why, on James' Facebook page there is one going on right now. Is it just me, or is this asinine idea gaining more acceptance? I think the lowest common denominators apply to both sides. You will Christian fundies repeating anything they see on a Christian website that suits their fancy and "new atheists" doing the same. Since the atheist blogosphere is abuzz with mythicist nonsense then that is what gets repeated. The internet has lowered the standards on both sides, but mercifully has made exposing the misguided much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jan 30, 2014 5:48:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 30, 2014 19:38:59 GMT
Yes, I thought even skimming over the "debate" (mutual deaf harangue might be a better description) was time I'll never get back. The "christian" guy obviously knew something, but it wasn't how to win friends and influence people! And the skeptical dude seemed to know little more than How to repeat anti christian cliches 1.001. Pointless on both sides. But I do think mythicism is increasing. For a certain class of person, making points can be more important than knowing truth (memo to self; make sure you don't fall into that trap!). So having a standard sceptical line which you found in some book is easier in the one-night-stand internet debates than having to deal with what real historians say. I've had discussions (none of which ended well) with a number of people for whom the scholars of choice are Price and Carrier (so often those two), and even one who based their ideas on Freke and Gandy, and was quite upset when I indicated that even other mythicists like Richard Carrier find them beyond believable. But none of these recent mythers were willing to even consider why eminent non christians like Ehrman, Casey, Grant, Vermes, etc, concluded something different. (Sometimes they even call those guys "apologists"!) I truly think the Jesus-mythicist phenomenon is not all that different to creationism, with Price & Carrier the equivalent of Henry Morris and Ken Ham or whoever - perhaps someday the guys at Science on Religion will do a psychological study on the personality types from those two viewpoints. Other people are welcome to debate these people, I think I'd rather wrestle a boa constrictor. I think it's basically this, though I think the driving mechanism isn't really scoring points but rather wanting something to be true that suits one's agenda, along with the Dunning-Kruger effect for the "cranxperts". So the ideological usefulness of knowledge becomes the prime criterion, rather than probable truth and consistency. For example take the neo-geocentrists. They can't bear the thought their Church was wrong, so they construct a theory that allows them to believe it was right. Ironically, they then overlook that the Roman Catholic Church wasn't only 'wrong', it's decision was also informed and epistemologically justifiable given the context (and in a similar sense, heliocentrism is now 'wrong' but was justifiable). [/armchairpsychology] |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Aug 13, 2014 10:38:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 13, 2014 11:08:14 GMT
He was trolling. I bet he was misrepresenting Allison's case as well (a very safe bet though).
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 18, 2014 5:25:35 GMT
Jesus was based on Horus. True dinks!!But not everyone was impressed with the video. My apologies if it has been posted before. It was published 12 months ago. And Behold! A New Book on Mythicism is out.  Note who contribute to the book. Although Maria Dzielska and Gerd Ludemann look out of place. Have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 18, 2014 6:51:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 18, 2014 9:47:58 GMT
Jesus was based on Horus. True dinks!! That one again! I love that video! Note who contribute to the book. Although Maria Dzielska and Gerd Ludemann look out of place. Have I missed something? Samuelsson is also a bona fide, qualified scholar. But all the others look like a cranky axis of evil.  |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 18, 2014 19:05:55 GMT
I can't see anything about Samuelsson that indicates he might be a Myther. On the contrary, on his own website (http://www.exegetics.org/Q_and_A.html) he claims to be a believer who accepts the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion. He has a PhD equivalent in NT studies; it would be ironic if the most credentialled interviewee in the book is the one that profoundly disagrees with the thesis...
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 22, 2014 1:52:54 GMT
Note who contribute to the book. Some real clangers there. * Earl Doherty (historian): quite the promotion for the academically unqualified Doherty * Kenneth Humphreys (writer and researcher): read 'unqualified crank' * Joseph Atwill (writer and researcher): read 'unqualified crank' * Neil Godfrey (coordinator of the mythicist blog Vridar): poor Neil, not even 'writer and researcher', or 'librarian', just a blogger; he'll be shrieking with rage at the description of Vridar as a 'mythicist blog', since he has always insisted it isn't |
|
.
