John W. Loftus

I said I was gone but since you were the one to respond I'll respond to you. I think it was you who paid Carrier to write that fine book refuting Holding, and for that I'm grateful, if so. Yes, we should refute Holding's arguments if they are good ones. It's just that he is really so far below other Christian apologists that we should go after the big names, and you know them. Holding thrives on the attention he gets. If skeptics give him attention then others sit up and take notice. The main reason we give him attention is because he mischaracterizes us and berates us. His supporters will conclude that if we turn own guns on him he must be doing something right, or that he knows what he's taking about. We are the ones who are raising his status in the Christian world. It's not because of who he is or what he writes, although he's also getting better.


That's what I mean. And if anyone cares to look up the word "hack" in any dictionary there is more than one definition of that word. You chose the definition for me and that's mischaracterizing me too, you see. I'll not belabor the point, but words mean what their authors use them to mean. You should ask, not tell me, what I mean when I use that word and you should be charitable not uncharitable when choosing from the other definitions what I mean by it. Since you didn't I'll not bother further.


As far as I can see some of the skeptics here (only a few I suppose) are mirror images of Holding. There are problems with this. I don't let others define who I am or what I think is important. This site seems to focus on the claim that Jesus was NOT a historical person. Holding's focus (right now anyway) is in arguing that Jesus was a historical person. Have at it. I have a different perspective than you both, one that is the overwhelming dominant position since the time of Schweitzer.


Please don't misunderstand my recommendation of Kris's book. It's a good one. I don't know whether he thinks Jesus existed or not. He doesn't say nor does he have to. What he's doing, as far as I can tell, is granting the Christian for the sake of argument that Jesus existed. I see absolutely nothing wrong with him doing this even if he thinks Jesus existed. In fact, it's the best way to make his case since only after someone leaves the fold will they ever begin to question whether or not Jesus existed. It’s a waste of time and effort to try to convince the Christian that Jesus never existed, so why do it if the goal is to change the religious landscape? That’s my goal for the sake of my children and grandchildren, even if I know that my best efforts are but a drop in the bucket. The fact that attention was drawn to this aspect of his book is an indicator of how myopic people here have become.

My own focus is on debunking Christianity and I think I know what to focus on regardless of what this site or Holding does. Given the number and nature of the recommendations for my book, I think that if the goal is to change the religious landscape then skeptics here should embrace my efforts. Instead I doubt many of them will even read my book or recommend it since it’s well known I believe Jesus existed, and that’s very sad. They demand conformity, but conformity will not do. It reminds me of church all over again. I actually think this is the reason Carrier lost the debate with Bill Craig and why I probably won’t. He was immersed in those arguments from writing his current book on Jesus. If he had stuck to the arguments found in his chapters in The Empty Tomb then things would've been much different.

I think one of the reasons I feel maligned whenever I come here is precisely because skeptics think I am an important voice on their behalf and they want to corral me into their little pen. They think that precisely because I am an important voice I do their cause damage because I don’t toe the party line on this insignificant issue. Well, I’m sorry about this. It’s just the nature of human understanding that we disagree, that’s all. Where’s all of this talk about diversity or freethinking? I don’t see it here with me. Why can’t we value each person’s contributions and agree to disagree about the rest?

Have you seen what people have said about my efforts? Why don't you embrace them? Why are you uncharitable toward me?

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...e-atheist.html

My work has been compared to Tiger Woods and Babe Ruth in sports and to critics like David Friedrich Strauss, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, and even David Hume himself! Don't get me wrong. I don't think that. But others do. If my work is even 1/4 of what they are saying then I think you should embrace it even though I don't agree with you on that one issue. That is, if the goal is to change the religious landscape.

If not, then carry on without me.

Cheers.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to John Loftus: Yes, it was me who paid Richard Carrier to write an article about James Holding's article that is titled "The Impossible Faith."

Although some skeptics give Holding attention because he is rude, I did not debate Holding a lot at the Theology Web because of his rudeness. I debated him because he has influenced thousands of people through his writings, and has a big following.

Regarding the definition that I stated for the word "hack," it was the only definition in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary that applied to how you used the word. There was no need for you to be feisty because of the definition that I posted. I have never attacked you or your writings. If you believe that you have a better definition, you should have posted it in a friendly manner.

Richard Carrier has also replied to some of Holding's arguments that he did not get paid for. So has Robert Price. The fact that those important Bible scholars give attention to Holding is reasonable proof that it is acceptable for skeptics to pay attention to Holding's writings.

May I kindly recommend that you learn to accept criticism without reacting so emotionally? Consider the attacks that national politicians get every day. Compared to them, the criticisms that you get are hardly worth mentioning.

When skeptics disagree, they should do so politely. That makes skepticism look better. Good logic changes people's opinions, not anger.

I am sure that you have made many valuable contributions to skepticism, and that you will make many more.

Diogenes the Cynic

Can we get this thread back on track with the OP, please? Thank you

DtC, moderator, BCH

AtheistGamer

I have to agree here. Mythicism may or may not be true, but even if it was I'd rather stick to whether Jesus was divine since it takes less time than debating whether he existed at all.

Whether or not Jesus existed is a diversion that apologists love to bait skeptics into talking about.

dog-on

I am sorry. I have no doubt that Christianity is bullshit, just like any other religion, as I happen to be an atheist.

The question of Christ's divinity is therefore irrelevant. My position is that, according to the story, Christ is the divine son of God. No argument from me about what the story says.

Of course, the story is just that, a story.

In the end, the only real discussion that is in dispute, as far as Christianity is concerned, is related to the question of origin.

Did Christianity start due to a Jewish guy named Jesus of Nazareth or not.

And Mr. Loftus, your characterization of Spin is both childish and mistaken.

spin

If it's ease that is your governing criterion, the easiest ways to attack christians are:
1) the problem of evil;
2) science; and
3) the lack of morals implied by giving up one's judgment to that of their god.

Bible issues usually have too much apologetic claptrap behind them for amateurs to dismantle in a way that will communicate with your average christian. Whether Jesus existed is a conundrum, because no-one has the evidence (and calling the gospels the primary sources begs the question as to who wrote them, when, where, and why they were written, which terminally compromises their utility as historical sourses). Mythicism is only a further complication, but the issue is too difficult for the likes of the John W.s of the world.

Usually people have already decided, not knowing that they don't actually have sufficient data to make a reasoned decision. Lots of skeptics happily believe that Jesus existed, so there aren't that many takers of the supposed bait, so you don't really seem that aware of the reality of the conflict. You have merely shown your hand as to your regard for evidence.


spin

Steven Carr

In Britain , religious belief is falling and I am pretty sure that one factor is compulsory religious education in schools.

Children see that 'their' religion seems to have exactly the same validity as other religions , and they apply (perhaps unconsciously) the outsider test to other religions and to 'their' own religion.

I haven't got sample data for that hypothesis, but it seems very likely from personal experience to be one factor in the fall of traditional religious belief in the UK

AtheistGamer

I disagree. In fact I think attacking Craig on these issues will get you destroyed. IMO one of the main reasons new atheism has done so well for itself if because it has dropped these criticisms and focused on the idiocy of what the bible actually says.

I think Carrier lost the last debate to Craig due to trying to talk up the mythicism theory too much, and not focusing on more important things. I know that lots of skeptics believe in a historical Jesus but the ones that debate usually do not.

Steven Carr

But the story of Bar-Abbas and this mythical custom of releasing violent murderers at Passover is clearly a myth.

Craig just demanded a free pass for his Gospel resurrection stories, without even attempting to show that the Gospels were reliable - something he point-blank refused to debate.

spin

I don't know Craig from a bar of soap. I don't really care either. If you see the snivelly things that get published trying to come to grips with the problem of evil, you'd know in what sort of state thinking christians are on the issue. The science issue is a great one: the less the christian knows the better it is for them. The more they know involves understanding some of the philosophy of scientific methodology, which is a sure fire problem to the christian exposed. The last of the three is lovely: pulling the legs out form underneath the christian moral argument. How can any christian be moral if they are christian, when they abnegate all their moral responsibility?

Actually, my favorite is that as there is no objective means to verify the existence of (a) god, there is no way to separate the mental behavior of a christian from anyone else whose world view is similarly impared by including entities whose existences can in no way be objectively verified, such as the schizophrenic.

Discussing whether Jesus was divine or not is simply working on the wrong battlefront. If you can't bring yourself to deal with whether Jesus existed or not, you need to find other ranges of issues. You cannot deal with the nature of an entity whose existence you can't establish, except in a dose of ephete theoretical self-stimulation.

The vast majority of people don't know what is entailed in historical methodology, so dealing with such issues as involves history simply opens a discussion up to wasteful dispersion of energy. You talk history with people who know about the stuff of history.

I'm sorry, I really don't care about either Carrier or Craig in this context, so your opinion about a debate they had that I didn't see doesn't communicate anything to me. Debates of the sort are usually partisan affairs in that you usually support the speaker who thinks the way you do.

I'm not a mythicist or am I interested in mythicism. I work from a different framework, one that requires evidence for any substantive position, though neither Jesus mythicism nor historicism has sufficient evidence, so neither are functional. You might believe differently, but I try not to operate on a belief basis: you say what you can basically demonstrate. Beyond that, don't waste your breath.


spin