FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

View Poll Results: Should Carrier read less Doherty and more Detering?
Yep 5 71.43%
Nope 2 28.57%
Voters: 7. This poll is closed

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-2013, 12:31 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

Lets look at your quote mining, you forgot this part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
However, Walter Kania, a former Pastor and Director of a United Campus Ministry at Michigan State University was highly critical of the study saying "the statistics and conclusions in the book were made of fundamentalist concoctions and cooked statistics".
So that is a big "IF" your trying to mine.
The footnote to that quote from Walter Kania relates to a general criticism of that entire statistical study by Baylor, and is not specifically related to the Jesus Myth hypothesis.

A Credible Christianity: Saving Jesus from the Church (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Walter Kania - p. 60-61 (can be viewed on google books.)

This is not quote mining.
leaving out the import part is factually quote mining what wiki states.

Are footnotes generally direct quotes?
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 12:37 PM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

The footnote to that quote from Walter Kania relates to a general criticism of that entire statistical study by Baylor, and is not specifically related to the Jesus Myth hypothesis.

A Credible Christianity: Saving Jesus from the Church (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Walter Kania - p. 60-61 (can be viewed on google books.)

This is not quote mining.
leaving out the import [sic] part is factually quote mining what wiki states.
Quote mining is taking a quote out of context to imply a meaning that does not exist.

In this case, Bingo said "If wikipedia is correct..." and reported what wikipedia said about a survey in a book by Rodney Stark from Baylor University. He left off a note by a critic that was not specifically related to the question of whether people believed that Jesus was a fictional character.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 01:29 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The footnote to that quote from Walter Kania relates to a general criticism of that entire statistical study by Baylor, and is not specifically related to the Jesus Myth hypothesis.
.
The Footnotes are not part of this debate.


Quote:
"the statistics and conclusions in the book were made of fundamentalist concoctions and cooked statistics".
This however is a direct quote applied exactly too bingos big "IF"


Taking half a quote to promote ones personal opinion is factually quote mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...out_of_context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]


The original meaning here was to show both sides of the coin, not to promote one side
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 02:16 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The footnote to that quote from Walter Kania relates to a general criticism of that entire statistical study by Baylor, and is not specifically related to the Jesus Myth hypothesis..
The Footnotes are not part of this debate.
The footnote gives the source. How can it not be part of the debate?

Quote:
Quote:
"the statistics and conclusions in the book were made of fundamentalist concoctions and cooked statistics".
This however is a direct quote applied exactly too bingos big "IF"
...
The quote can only be understood in context by following the link to the footnote and checking the source. That footnote goes to a polemical book that appears to be more about the belief in god and traditional Christianity than the Jesus myth hypothesis. It gives the author's opinion, without specific criticism of the study methodology, at least from what I can read online.

I don't understand what you are arguing about. Do you think that there are many more US citizens who believe that Jesus was fictional than the study indicates?
Toto is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 05:06 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Do you think that there are many more US citizens who believe that Jesus was fictional than the study indicates?

Possibly, but It is unknown.

Thats the problem here. Do you really think the poll was accurate based on the geographic location the poll took place or other control factors?


Walter is probably correct here.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 05:24 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

The point of the cite was that about 10 times as many Britons think that Jesus was fictional as Americans. I think that is probably roughly accurate.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 08:09 AM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 310
Default

Bump because today is the last day to vote.

And don’t forget – your vote really does count!

- Bingo
Bingo the Clown-O is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 01:46 PM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Should OMG read less WTF and more BBQ?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 02:59 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default The Strange Contingency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
My impression is that Carrier wants to stick as far as possible to credentialed scholars. Doherty relies on mainstream scholarship for the most part. If you can construct a case for mythicism based on mainstream scholarship, why go out on a limb?
We already have a case for mythicism. It’s a slam-dunk. It’s more a matter of social conditioning than it is of providing new/more evidence. We are dealing with a delusional disorder.

It’s like the obesity problem; or cigarette smoking. - It’s an education/ psychological problem.

More new/ convincing evidence might be nice, but it’s not the show-stopper.

- Bingo
This has become my new favorite quote. In his book, The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver quotes Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling on why intelligence failed to predict Pearl Harbor or 9/11:

Quote:
Originally Posted by schelling
There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The contingency we have not considered seriously looks strange; what looks strange is thought improbable; what is improbable need not be considered seriously.
I think this observation says a lot about what is going on in the Mythicist vs. Historicist polemic. Historicists see the idea that Christianity emerged with no actual Jesus figure ever existing as strange, outside what they have ever considered. Since it is strange, it need not be considered seriously. I have yet to observe a "Bible Scholar" or "NT scholar" seriously consider the hypothesis.

Ehrman's book was a joke and really demonstrates my position. He wrote a whole book without seriously engaging the evidence or arguments proffered by the most prominent so-called mythicists (I don't like that term by the way because it carries inherent baggage with, I prefer evolutionists).

Silver discusses at length the fact that the "signal" is much stronger in hindsight. We can see the whole track of events that led to the culminating event. I believe that NT scholars start from the position that there was a Jesus and follow the 2,000 years of tradition in looking for the signal in all the noise.

But how do you distinguish in this case signal from noise? They have no clear ideas on that. What we see is the phenomenon of confirmatory bias. The signal that confirms what they already believe is isolated and emphasized and brought under the umbrella of "Truth" or "Fact."

Is it a FACT that Paul learned about the earthly mission of Jesus of Nazareth from the Peter/Cephas and James in Jerusalem? How many times do we see that dredged up as evidence? Yet, actually, a whole host of questions exists on this. First, Paul doesn't actually say that, we have to read the earthly mission of Jesus into that passage of Galatians. Similarly, 1 Cor 2:8 does not say that Jesus was crucified by Romans or even Jews. Many scholars acknowledge that Paul is referring to elemental powers, spirits, demons. However, they interject Romans as earthly agents of these demons (Romans 13 aside).

In short, the field of NT scholarship seems unable to consider what is thought to be a strange proposition: Jesus never existed. Instead, they, in practice, pursue a signal that confirms their original bias. Our understanding of the origins of Christianity are then stunted due to this failure of scholarship.
Grog is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 04:12 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O View Post
We already have a case for mythicism. It’s a slam-dunk. It’s more a matter of social conditioning than it is of providing new/more evidence. We are dealing with a delusional disorder.

It’s like the obesity problem; or cigarette smoking. - It’s an education/ psychological problem.

More new/ convincing evidence might be nice, but it’s not the show-stopper.

- Bingo
This has become my new favorite quote. In his book, The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver quotes Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling on why intelligence failed to predict Pearl Harbor or 9/11:

Quote:
Originally Posted by schelling
There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The contingency we have not considered seriously looks strange; what looks strange is thought improbable; what is improbable need not be considered seriously.
I think this observation says a lot about what is going on in the Mythicist vs. Historicist polemic. Historicists see the idea that Christianity emerged with no actual Jesus figure ever existing as strange, outside what they have ever considered. Since it is strange, it need not be considered seriously. I have yet to observe a "Bible Scholar" or "NT scholar" seriously consider the hypothesis.

Ehrman's book was a joke and really demonstrates my position. He wrote a whole book without seriously engaging the evidence or arguments proffered by the most prominent so-called mythicists (I don't like that term by the way because it carries inherent baggage with, I prefer evolutionists).

Silver discusses at length the fact that the "signal" is much stronger in hindsight. We can see the whole track of events that led to the culminating event. I believe that NT scholars start from the position that there was a Jesus and follow the 2,000 years of tradition in looking for the signal in all the noise.

But how do you distinguish in this case signal from noise? They have no clear ideas on that. What we see is the phenomenon of confirmatory bias. The signal that confirms what they already believe is isolated and emphasized and brought under the umbrella of "Truth" or "Fact."

Is it a FACT that Paul learned about the earthly mission of Jesus of Nazareth from the Peter/Cephas and James in Jerusalem? How many times do we see that dredged up as evidence? Yet, actually, a whole host of questions exists on this. First, Paul doesn't actually say that, we have to read the earthly mission of Jesus into that passage of Galatians. Similarly, 1 Cor 2:8 does not say that Jesus was crucified by Romans or even Jews. Many scholars acknowledge that Paul is referring to elemental powers, spirits, demons. However, they interject Romans as earthly agents of these demons (Romans 13 aside).

In short, the field of NT scholarship seems unable to consider what is thought to be a strange proposition: Jesus never existed. Instead, they, in practice, pursue a signal that confirms their original bias. Our understanding of the origins of Christianity are then stunted due to this failure of scholarship.
Sometimes, strange things happen in history. Pearl Harbor gets bombed. Somebody wins the lottery twice. And yet we should not be counting the strange propositions as equal to the plausible propositions. Plausible things happen much more frequently than strange things. That doesn't mean propositions of strange things happening in history should be dismissed and ignored. It just means that making a case for its probability is more difficult. The evidence needs to very clearly favor the proposition. The bombing of Pearl Harbor really was improbable until it happened. Most of the other improbable possibilities remained imaginary at best.

Mythicism is strange because it demands belief that there was a personality cult of a human being who never actually existed. As far as we know, whenever there is a personality cult with a myth of a human leader, that person or a person much like him actually existed. Mythicism requires Christianity to be an exceptional religion. That doesn't make mythicism impossible, but the evidence has to very strongly favor the hypothesis. The evidence does not seemingly favor the hypothesis. So, mythicism remains improbable, the same as the conservative Christian theory of Jesus.

Evidence for a strange theory requires more than strange interpretations. As far as we know, there has never been a myth of a crucifixion that claimed to be anywhere but on the Earth. And, in the supposed time of Jesus, they really did happen on Earth all the time, primarily by the Romans. So, when Paul talks about Jesus getting crucified, what reason do we have to think that it was anything but a crucifixion of a human being by human "rulers of this age" on Earth? If anyone wants to propose the hypothesis that the myth put it on Venus or something, then fine, but there needs to be very good evidence before it is accepted as something probable or even seriously possible.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.