|
Post by timoneill on May 27, 2011 23:14:08 GMT
The long-awaited review of David Fitzgerald's self-published opus Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All is now up on Armarium Magnum. Let the squealing commence!
|
|
|
Post by noons on May 28, 2011 3:24:23 GMT
I swear, the name of your blog changes every time I look at it.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 28, 2011 5:10:52 GMT
I swear, the name of your blog changes every time I look at it. Really? It's been "Armarium Magnum" since about a week after I set it up. My initial Latin grammatical error persists in the web address, but the name hasn't changed since March 2009.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on May 28, 2011 6:03:31 GMT
The link in Tim's post doesn't seem to work. Try this one.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 28, 2011 6:18:42 GMT
Tim, thanks for that long and detailed review. It certainly gives me the advantage of having read the book without having to read it. But it makes me wonder - maybe I should self publish a book on Jesus too ?? : )
One minor comment - the link to the article doesn't work for me, though the link to the blog generally (in your signature block) is fine.
And one trivial question. You suggest EP Sanders and JD Crossan "may regard themselves as christians". My impression was that Sanders has never said, and others regard him as an agnostic, while Crossan is (characteristically) very idiosyncratic, and sometimes speaks as a believer, sometimes as an apostate (e.g. in the mock dialogue with God in one of his books, I forget which now). I am just interested since I wish to be accurate when describing these scholars. Do you have any more definite information?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 28, 2011 10:06:24 GMT
One minor comment - the link to the article doesn't work for me, though the link to the blog generally (in your signature block) is fine. Thanks - fixed now. I know Sanders has described himself as a "liberal Protestant", though maybe he means culturally. With Crossan, I'm going on memory there so I could be wrong. I'd gladly claim Sanders as one of ours. You guys can keep Crossan.
|
|
|
Post by noons on May 28, 2011 13:45:52 GMT
I swear, the name of your blog changes every time I look at it. Really? It's been "Armarium Magnum" since about a week after I set it up. My initial Latin grammatical error persists in the web address, but the name hasn't changed since March 2009. I know that, but I keep on remembering it as "arminium", "armanium", "araminum", "amarinum", or "amarium" so everytime I read it I'm surprised.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 28, 2011 14:05:47 GMT
I'd gladly claim Sanders as one of ours. You guys can keep Crossan. Lol! I think you're getting the better of the deal!
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on May 28, 2011 16:51:17 GMT
David Fitzgerald's self-published opus Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All
However trashy, in an age where belief and educational levels seem on a spiraling downward trajectory, this is the kind of nonsense which is a natural extension of Dawkins, Hitchens etc?
If it is self-published, then it is not likely to be a bestseller, even amongst the fans of new atheism?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 28, 2011 20:51:11 GMT
David Fitzgerald's self-published opus Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at AllHowever trashy, in an age where belief and educational levels seem on a spiraling downward trajectory, this is the kind of nonsense which is a natural extension of Dawkins, Hitchens etc? I can't see the logic behind this at all. And Hitchens, who is much more careful about such things than Dawkins, rejects Mytherism. When I first started posting at the former Dawkins forum there was virtually no discussion of Mytherism and only a few proponents of it. Once I started exposing its flaws and examining the evidence, we rapidly saw people openly rejecting it on the grounds it made no sense. On that forum's successor, rationalskepticism.org, we have a long running and vociferous thread on the issue. But it's vociferous mainly because a tiny few fanatical Myther true believers have long since given up trying to convince anyone and are now merely trolling everyone else out of spite. And they are outnumbered about 10 to 1. So no - the fans of "new atheism" know a crock when they see it.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 29, 2011 13:42:55 GMT
David Fitzgerald's self-published opus Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at AllHowever trashy, in an age where belief and educational levels seem on a spiraling downward trajectory, this is the kind of nonsense which is a natural extension of Dawkins, Hitchens etc? I can't see the logic behind this at all. And Hitchens, who is much more careful about such things than Dawkins, rejects Mytherism. Tim, I enjoy your writings and add Karma points to you all the time (or every second time), still there are times I don't quite get you, especially when dealing with Dawkins and his like when they talk about Jesus or philosophy. After what I have read of these guys (most of their books) it seems more to be the opposite. Dawkins says that Jesus "probably lived" (even if refering positively to Wells and The God Who Wasn't There) on page 96 of TGD, while Hitchens seems to deny it, at least in some passages in god is not great. A few Hitchens nuggets, showing just how carefull he is with his statements and research (I wrote a book on the "new atheists" some years ago with pages and pages of such stuff): "However, he fell into the same error as do the Christians, in assuming that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record" (p. 111, first hardcover edition (I collect these books)). Continuing with: "Their multiple authors - none of whom published anything until many decades after the Crucifixion - cannot agree on anything of importance" (p. 111) Of course he may find all they agree on of no importance, being a convinced contrarian... "The book on which all four [gospels] may possible have been based, known speculatively to scholars as "Q" has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have 'inspired' it" (p. 112) Topping it (if possible) by "The best argument I know for the highly questionable existence of Jesus is this. His illiterate living disciples left us no record and in any event could not have been 'Christians', since they were never to read those later books in which Christians must affirm belief, and in any case had no idea that anyone would ever found a church on their master's announcements" (p. 114) He has other passages saying that there may be some "inverse proof" in the gospels that shows Jesus ("or someone of later significance") " was indeed born" (p. 114), but he is so sloppy, ambivalent (sometimes even changing argument in mid sentence as above) and polemic that is is not easy to see what he really means. So I am a bit curious. Where does Hitchens explicitly deny Mytherism? And in case, did he change his mind? And why should anyone listen to him on the issue?
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on May 29, 2011 17:45:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 30, 2011 0:14:39 GMT
I can't see the logic behind this at all. And Hitchens, who is much more careful about such things than Dawkins, rejects Mytherism. Tim, I enjoy your writings and add Karma points to you all the time (or every second time), still there are times I don't quite get you, especially when dealing with Dawkins and his like when they talk about Jesus or philosophy. After what I have read of these guys (most of their books) it seems more to be the opposite. Dawkins says that Jesus "probably lived" (even if refering positively to Wells and The God Who Wasn't There) on page 96 of TGD, while Hitchens seems to deny it, at least in some passages in god is not great. I simply said I couldn’t see how the silliness of Mytherism is somehow “a natural extension of Dawkins, Hitchens etc” It seems you meant “a natural extension of some of the things Dawkins, Hitchens etc have said about Jesus”, which was the clarification I was looking for. You seemed to be saying it was a natural extension of not believing in God which, as an atheist who totally rejects Mytherism as pseudo history, would have been a statement I would dispute with some vigor. Yes, Dawkins has made some nods towards Mytherism, though has not thrown his hat in the Myther ring. Hitchens, however, has been more circumspect. None of those statements say anything about him believing Jesus didn’t exist. They are simply statements highlighting that the gospels are not as reliable as many people think they are. You (or I) may disagree with him regarding the extent this is true, but only a Biblical literalist could deny that he is right to at least some extent. But he is very much on the record as noting a flaw in the idea that Jesus never existed at all, using an argument that I use against Mythers myself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBEThat doesn’t not sound like a Myther to me. I suspect most here wouldn’t listen to him on any issue. I used to hold a very low opinion of him, largely because of his cheerleading of Bush and Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq. But I have since found him wry, eloquent and amusing even when I don’t agree with what he says.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 30, 2011 6:53:11 GMT
Tim, I enjoy your writings and add Karma points to you all the time (or every second time), still there are times I don't quite get you, especially when dealing with Dawkins and his like when they talk about Jesus or philosophy. After what I have read of these guys (most of their books) it seems more to be the opposite. Dawkins says that Jesus "probably lived" (even if refering positively to Wells and The God Who Wasn't There) on page 96 of TGD, while Hitchens seems to deny it, at least in some passages in god is not great. I simply said I couldn’t see how the silliness of Mytherism is somehow “a natural extension of Dawkins, Hitchens etc” It seems you meant “a natural extension of some of the things Dawkins, Hitchens etc have said about Jesus”, which was the clarification I was looking for. You seemed to be saying it was a natural extension of not believing in God which, as an atheist who totally rejects Mytherism as pseudo history, would have been a statement I would dispute with some vigor. I think you here mix me up Sandwiches who was the one who talked about "natural extension"... Still, I think I would agree with him as he simply continues with "of Dawkins, Hitchens etc" and not of "not believing in God". I (and I guess he) have met far too many intelligent and carefull atheists to make that kind of assertion. If it is a "natural extension" of anything but the mytherists own incompetence and antitheism it may be of the silliness and sloppy research of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. when talking about Jesus or philosophy or history. Maybe others think they are correct - or can get away with it - as D/H/H rarely get arrested in these areas by atheists, they are even vigorously defended by some... None of those statements say anything about him believing Jesus didn’t exist. They are simply statements highlighting that the gospels are not as reliable as many people think they are. You (or I) may disagree with him regarding the extent this is true, but only a Biblical literalist could deny that he is right to at least some extent. Well, you're not among literalists here so I would have agreed with him if what he said simply was that the gospels are not as reliable as many people think they are. But that is far from what he is saying. He is making some very strong statements about the gospels (and not just the parts where he shows he doesn't do his homework (e.g. the Q-stuff). So strong in fact that I wonder how else one should interpret them than with him (here) not really believing in a historical Jesus, or at least opening the floodgates wide for mytherists when he insists that - The gospels are "not in any sense a historical record" - The gospels "cannot agree on anything of importance" - "The highly questionable existence of Jesus" (My italicisations). But he is very much on the record as noting a flaw in the idea that Jesus never existed at all, using an argument that I use against Mythers myself: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBEThat doesn’t not sound like a Myther to me. No, not quite, but that seems to be from two years after god is not great, he may have learned something from his debates with people who know history. Still, even here he comes out saying that Socrates is better attested historically than Jesus (if I understood his point in the beginning correctly). I suspect most here wouldn’t listen to him on any issue. I used to hold a very low opinion of him, largely because of his cheerleading of Bush and Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq. But I have since found him wry, eloquent and amusing even when I don’t agree with what he says. And I used to have a very high opinion of him, until actually reading god is not great. Still have actually, for his courage and wit (as I also state in my book), though not for his wisdom or knowledge. This is not in any way about "agreeing" or not, it is about simply checking if he knows what he is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 4, 2011 11:22:43 GMT
[quote author=merkavah12 board=history thread=265 post=9724 time=1306691139 ]Some interesting...er, "rebuttals" from Carrier's defenders here: [/size] www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/2011/05/27/missing-your-daily-dose-of-mythicism/#disqus_threadOh, and bonus points for a random appearance by someone representing the fruitcakes of the "Zeitgeist Movement".[/quote] I half expected this sort of rebuttal and I was not disappointed. Neil says: It seems, if you think that the Christ Myth position is wrong and argue against it, then you are engaging in orthodox ("religious", I take it) apologetics. Even if you are an atheist. I just don't get it!
|
|