Radorth

He is a fellow skeptic as well, and one should be skeptical of his bias, don't you think? Anyway, I used the phrase "all but said" for I recognize that motives are rather hard to pin down.

Radorth

Radorth

Gee Toto. Give me, Layman, Bede, and 40 Phd's an hour and we'll see what we can scrape up.

That is not a sincere question IMO. Speaking of tactics, you notice I don't just paste things off my list of web sites, tell you to go read them, say you are dishonest and close-minded if you disagree and then ask rhetorical questions. But hey, we can do all that if you like.

Radorth

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Toto

You were the one who claimed, with no evidence, that Doherty was dishonest. I would not claim that you are dishonest or close-minded (never said that) just for disagreeing, but for distorting Doherty's position.

You said that Doherty swept previous research "under the rug", and I asked you what research. I still ask that question, and it's not rhetorical. Doherty has not swept any previous research under any rug that I know of. Where he disagrees with others' conclusions, he gives you a reason. You don't have to agree with him or his analysis, but there is no call to distort his position.

(I mean, it's not like someone actually found some evidence of Jesus, and Doherty is ignoring it.)

You were the one who came in here and claimed that anyone who thought Jesus was a myth was crazy. All I am showing you is that there are sane reasonable people who believe that.

Peter Kirby

Radorth writes: He is a fellow skeptic as well, and one should be skeptical of his bias, don't you think?

Would you evaluate Carrier's review differently if he called himself a Christian?

Radorth writes: Anyway, I used the phrase "all but said" for I recognize that motives are rather hard to pin down.

Why don't you just e-mail Carrier to find out his motives? His e-mail address is published on the Internet Infidels web site: <a href="http://mailto:rcarrier@infidels.org" target="_blank">rcarrier@infidels.org</a>.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ernest Sparks

Once again, this potentially-interesting topic just derails.

Radorth

I'd say he was being kind but otherwise, no. Would you? I find Carrier very honest, and he even allows that a better argument for historicity than he has see could tip the scales the other way. Bede, any ideas? One wonders though if Carrier would notice if one came along.

Re Toto

Not any research you or he would acknowledge as research, no. He fails to address some very basic arguments, and bases his own conclusions on the most questionable "facts" while sweeping even Schonfield under the rug. He says Paul and Peter "never" made to reference to the trial or crucifixion, or their experiences with Jesus. (At least 4 references pointed out)

Never said it. Don't believe it either. I do think manyare dishonest in their thinking, but I don't believe I said that either. Now you are using hyperbole.

Radorth

Radorth

Uh huh. And whatever he tells me I should just believe? How old are you, and what kind of self-respecting skeptic would do that? If you don't trust Billy Graham's motives, do you just e-mail him to find out?

Sheesh.

Radorth

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Radorth writes: I'd say he was being kind but otherwise, no. Would you?

You had written that "one should be skeptical of his bias," so it seemed that you might have evaluated the article differently if Carrier were not a skeptic. With the statement above, I would attempt to harmonize your position as saying that you would evaluate the review on its own merit but question an appeal to Carrier's authority because Carrier has biases (being a skeptic).

Radorth writes: Uh huh. And whatever he tells me I should just believe? How old are you, and what kind of self-respecting skeptic would do that? If you don't trust Billy Graham's motives, do you just e-mail him to find out?

I thought that the word "motives" was poor diction and we were talking about the meaning of Carrier's article (what he "said"). Also, I didn't know that you thought Carrier was or would be dishonest. Indeed, you write elsewhere in this thread, "I find Carrier very honest," which is a puzzle in itself. If you suspect dishonesty, yes, it would not decide the case to ask him about his motives.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

No, I would be more skeptical of Christian's criticism and less skeptical of a Christian's praise. That is why (I think) we ought to quote members of the opposition to make the best arguments. I seldom, if ever, quote Christians. Skeptics, agnostics and those of unknown beliefs provide enough ammo.

Radorth

lpetrich

This argument can be turned around; resorting to fideism ("it is unknowable, but one must have Faith") or Pascal's Wager ("convert to the religion with the hottest hell just in case it's true") can be interpreted as a fundamental weakness in one's position.