aa5874

If you had a deep knowledge of astrology you would NOT have said those things.

ApostateAbe

I have often observed Christians being more reasonable about Christianity than atheists. It is a common occurance, yet I still find it startling!

tanya

Rubbish. Nonsense. Stupid.

belief systems

End of story. Do not confuse science with "belief systems".

What hogwash.

:constern01:

ApostateAbe

Which statement do you disagree with and why?

dogsgod

Best explanation for what? Christianity? Faith beliefs? Credulity? Jesus didn't have to actually exist in order to explain Christianity. Christianity revolves about a story whether or not any of it is true, it makes no difference.

dogsgod

The problem is that astrology does not get deep, it's really quite shallow and stupid.

ApostateAbe

I meant the best explanation for the early Christian writings, which are presumably the most relevant evidence for the origins of Christianity. We don't trust the early Christian writings, but we infer that early Christianity was a personality cult. In all personality cults that adhere to a reputed human being, the human being actually existed, in all cases that we know about. That is my argument for plausibility, which requires only a brief glance at the evidence. For explanatory power, we examine the evidence more closely. The evidence reflects myths containing unavoidable embarrassing facts that Christians attempted to spin in their own favor, mainly that Jesus was from Nazareth, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus predicted an apocalypse within his own generation, and Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. These reputed events are best explained as the cult leader Jesus being the actual subject of them. It is a plausible, powerful and simple explanation of the origins of Christianity. Other explanations tend to require the sort of phenomena that we don't see much anywhere else in history or they lack the expected evidence.

Sheshbazzar

If that is what one chooses, is persuaded of, or wishes to believe.
Alternatively, others may choose, be persuaded of, or wish to believe a different explanation or theory.

We each of us will weigh the matter with whatever measure of information and knowledge that we have personally accumulated, which in most cases will not be the same measure.
And if the one doing the weighing is honest with himself, and uses balances and scales that are honest and equal, there is a point at which the addition of even one ounce of FACT to either this side or that side, is sufficient to tip the balances from one side to the other.

Good and -ethical- guidelines for all honest men, in all nations everywhere, and in all times.

As a young person my 'scales', heavily loaded with received opinion, were tilted all the way to one side. As I grew older, learned more, added more 'ounces' of FACTS to the opposite side, slowly the scales shifted, first leveling, and then eventually settling solidly upon the opposite side.

I do not weigh with the balances of others, nor with the balances of deceit:
I have no doubt as to what it is that my scale, and weights, and measures are telling me.

Shesh batzar The Hebrew.

Adam

As far as I can tell we're still trashing Ehrman here and praising Carrier. However, over on TWeb, mythicist-supporter and former member here Doug Shaver provided this link to Ehrman's rebuttal to Carrier that seems pretty substantial:
Ehrman finishes with a quote from a book by Carrier, starting as follows:
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

I don't recall seeing here on FRDB a link to Ehrman's self-defence, just repeated vituperation by so many here.
Edited to add:
Now I've found it. But no one commented on Ehrman's (pretty good, and free) defence there:
Bart Ehrman wants you to pay money... Post #26

blastula

That's old news here. Ehrman Responds to Carrier's Critique - FRDB


And Carrier has responded to it. Ehrman’s Dubious Replies (Round Two) » Richard Carrier Blogs