No Robots

Well, there is the small matter of the catechism. It is one thing to self-identify as Christian, another altogether to do so as a sectarian, which implies adhesion to the sect's formal creeds. Spong has explicitly rejected the creeds of traditional Christianity. The Episcopalian Church does not seem interested in imposing any kind of discipline on him. Perhaps Kirby is hoping to achieve something similar in the Catholic Church. Some of his commentary at Uberchristians would lead one to think that is in fact the case.

David Vestal

Ah. Sorry, didn't realize the context of the question.

Layman

From what I have read as to how he defined naturalist, I think so: "Naturalism is consistent adherence to the reliability of sense experience and the validity of induction."

Here is how Peter describes himself at Theology Web:

I have not heard Peter say that he currently rejects all of the supernatural elements of the New Testament.

Sauron

His paper goes into more detail.



I think Peter's point is fairly clear.


I haven't either. However, he did say that he stood behind his paper, and the definitions presented in it.

Ted Hoffman

I never said Carrier is respected in academia. He is not a scientist so bring down your strawman about him being respected by scientists. His area is ancient history and I stated that Carrier is amongst respected atheist figures.
He has been published in Biology and Philosophy journal and Encyclopedia of the Ancient World and Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines amongst several other publications. His publications are of course evidence of his scholarship and cross-disciplinary coverage.

This is silly. First of all, just to prove to you, Gibson, that Carrier is respected by "atheist/philosophical naturalist" writers (as if I GAF), I should get publications by "notable atheist/philosophical naturalist writers" and confirm whether they have appealed to Carrier. What a bunch of crock!
Next I know, I will be comparing my list of "notable" atheist/philosophical naturalist writers with your list then we will argue about who qualifies as notable and who does not then we will argue about whether they actually appeal to Carrier and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
You can forget it right now. Carrier's record speaks for itself. The excellent quality of his scholarship and his attention to detail is evident to anyone who cares to read his works.
Yes. Dan Barker, the Public Relations Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation recently accompanied Carrier to a debate with Muslim Scholars. This debate by the way, was organized by the Humanists of Michigan and other bodies.
He has personally corresponded on issues Philosophical and Scientific with Frank Tipler and Antony Flew and is easily ond of the most brilliant and articulate atheist thinkers. His recorded interviews and debates are available on youtube and DVDs. He is a prolific writer and involved in the making of Brian Flemming's The God Who Wasn't There alongside Robert Price and Earl Doherty.
His eminence and preponderant contributions are in stark contrast to your rather pitiful demands for evidence that he occupies a respectable place amongst atheists and just shows that you are very ill-informed about what goes on in atheistic circles. On a lighter note and on the same topic, Carrier has recently been invited by Las Vegas Freethought Society and the Humanist Association of Las Vegas and Southern Nevada to give a comedy talk on Where the Hell Is Jesus? A Look at the 'Trial Transcripts' of Peter and Paul This will be on May 6.
I daresay that in ten years time, if he maintains his tenor, his stature shall be approaching that of Richard Dawnins, if not greater. He has a great advantage because he combines Philosophy, Linguistics, Ancient History and Science so seamlessly his potential of making a mark in history is greater.
And that is one rason why Kirby's case is rather sad. He has age on his side and has covered so much ground in his early years. But like I said, my guess is that this is just a transitory thing.

Layman

He also says he's a Christian Trinitarian who believes in Theistic Evolution. So I guess I am not as certain as you that he denies all things supernatural.

Peter will be explaining his beliefs in further detail for those interested. He chose not to do so here, I suspect, to avoid just this kind of gamesmanship.

spin

This is getting a bit too much like the buzzards around the corpse.

Ted Hoffman

Be "compassionate" in your choice of metaphors, dear spin.

Chili

Didn't you just write a post on the definition of "real"?

Let me say it this way, if the ego dies that which remains is raised . . . but it's got to die first.

ETA, the above is not exactly true but the difference between life and death must be known before the death can be raised, or don't you see that we cannot voluntarily ascend to heaven without being in the netherworld for 3 days.

Chili

Halleluia. Praise Jesus for leading blind wannebe's.