As a member of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago, I would like to compliment you on the quality of this video and likewise, your obtaining Dr, Carrier's okay and the Society's permission prior to its recording and dissemination
Nicely done. I would like to point out that Inanna was not crucified, she was hang from the wall on a hook or a nail. Although the outcome is the same, this is not the same than being nailed to a cross member.
At UT-Austin, courses in logic are not even considered valid as elective classes in regards to credit towards a history degree, or at least they weren't when I attended back in the day.
That's because the government didn't want ppl using logic when looking at history they might see thru the lies left by the Victor's who wrote any given part of history after they won whatever war it was that they won.
at 38:11; "We do not have a preposterous omniscience," [Hooker], meaning we cannot know the criteria for embarrassment for first century Christians. The question of the use of Bayes to establish a kind of feel of certitude akin to an omniscience analogously preposterous must sometime be asked.
I didn’t hear anything at the time you put down, but I did 2 other times at the beginning of the video. So creeped out I had to pause it and rip out my earbuds bc it startled and scared me so much. Then I saw your comment. How weird. Bad sound, I presume.
At 15:11 I was glad to see finally Carrier's celebrated use of Baye's Theorem for historical probability but was stunned to see how simplistic and amateurishly its use is conceived !!!!!
The only thing I have evidence of after cutting through history and religions written from political perspectives is this ...... There is a dominant theme that has evolved into a chaotic picture of the past .... each one favoring a particular segment of the human population. The age of information is both a blessing and a curse. Everything we were taught is now in question leaving individuals to either journey further down the rabbit hole taking them to places that further unravel their current beliefs or settle on remaining in a current reality. The rabbit hole deepens but @ least I found A truth - the original Hebrews
HE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED ON HIS USE OF BAYES THEOREM! IT'S BOGUS! AND NO ONE WANTED TO HIRE HIM SO HE BEGGED FELLOW ATHEISTS TO PUBLISH HIS BOOKS
I agree with Carrier about A.D. and B.C. I still use those terms myself. I am not bothered that they named planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. If the Muslims and Jews want to cry over the most popular dating system of A.D. and B.C., they should have done more conquering.
"Jesus Was never Exist " Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples . BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY. The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)-alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire- makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era. The DEAD SEA SCROLLS were all written by Pagan Essenes . None of them have been edited by later Christians, as is the case with some other Jewish literature. All the scrolls (except a treasure map known as the Copper Scroll) can be dated prior to A.D. 68 or 69, when the Qumran settlement was believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish revolt. The oldest of the scrolls probably goes back to the middle of the third century B.C. The people of Qumran belonged to a Pagan religious group known as the Essenes. Pliny the Elder, who died during the volcanic destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 A.D., described a community of pagan Essenes living on the western shore of the Dead Sea, close to where Khirbet Qumran is situated. John the Baptist was an ascetic Essene . He was a vegan and was uncircumcised . Various literary sources like Josephus and Philo tell clearly that Essenes were ascetics. We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification-similar to a dip in the Ganges or the river Pampa or at Thiirunelli. At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification. Josephus writes, "And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising" (Wars, 2.8.5). This testimony accords well with what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prayer and humility was one thing that the Essenes . When they cooked up stories about Jesus they wrote that Jesus Christ ate the Last Supper in the Essene part of town. Jesus is not historical character, The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced increasing evidence to cement the fact that Jesus Christ never existed and the whole story was cooked up at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The FAKE gospels were written after 325 AD after Jesus was cooked up at the first Council of Nicea.. Twelve apostles of Jesus never existed. Jesus Christ names 12 apostles to spread his gospel, and the early Christian church owes its rapid rise to their missionary zeal. Yet, for most of the Twelve, there's scant evidence of their existence outside of the New Testament. The concept of using statistics to prove that 'God authored the Bible' is bullshit. Why was the library of Alexandria burnt ? The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. Englishman Godfrey Higgins studied Greek, Latin and law at Cambridge . His two-volume, 867-page book Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origins of Languages, Nations, and Religions, was published posthumously in 1836. In his treatise, Higgins writes " the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same lifted from the ancient mythos of Hindus ; and ... are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines," and that Christian editors “either from roguery or folly, corrupted them all.” 1900, Scottish MP John Mackinnon Robertson wrote that Jesus never existed but was an FAKE invention by a first-century messianic cult. He wrote about the First Council of Nicea of 325 AD where powerful forces invented a new god to fit the needs of the society of the time .Robertson specifically mentions the Talmudic story of the Yeshu . Thomas says: "Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’" (Thomas 114). AIYOOOOO -even Christians don’t like this When the master of James baby Jesus Christ never existed -- how can his disciple St James exist ? Even since the dead sea scrolls have been discovered CHRISTIANS and JEWS are jumping up and down like demented orangutans claiming that Essenes belong to them. Dead Sea text or Qumran Scrolls have absolutely nothing ZILCH, to do with the Bible of the Torah - never mind the diabolical lies of the Christians and the Jews. For arguments sake -even if messiah Jesus Christ existed , the gospels were written a even a century after Jesus' estimated year of death, by individuals who never met Jesus, and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas.
Funny I agree with you-Jesus never existed- but so much of what you say is wrong. Paul was proselytising a cosmic revelatory Jesus earlier than 50CE. Mark's gospel invented a historical Jesus c.80CE and Tacitus attests to people believing in Jesus in 116CE.
I have a question. Let's say a cult evolved around "Slenderman", for example. And let's say some of us didn't like that for some reason, and let's say I'm one of those people who want to denigrate Slenderman and his followers, so I decide to pen an anti-Slenderman polemic. It seems to me that one of my main talking points would be the fact that Slenderman is a purely fictional character. So here's my question: Does the fact that the authors of the Babylonian Talmud don't make this argument regarding Jesus (i.e., they don't claim he never existed), imply that they thought he actually existed?
***** Your hand-waving and dismissive rhetoric aren't very convincing; partly because there are just too many references to Jesus. Wouldn't it have been easier and more effective (to damage Christianity) by saying that Jesus simply didn't exist? BTW apparently they didn't exactly "[buy] the Roman version of the fairy-tale", because they seem to differ on some points, IIRC.
***** "You obviously didn't notice the word 'CONTEMPORARY', in spite of my effort to emphasize it... NONE of your 'references' to Jesus are contemporary!" Your "contemporary..." is a strawman; I'm not interested in what "contemporary" "historians" may or may not believe, or claim to believe. Rather, I'm interested to hear why, for example, the authors of the Babylon Talmud would find it easier to believe that Jesus existed and went around performing miracles, than to believe that he didn't exist. (BTW, almost all of generally accepted "history" is a lie, IMO, so forgive me if, in my search for truth I don't necessarily give much weight to people screaming about the "historicity" of Jesus, or the "historicity" of the "holocaust", etc., etc., etc.) Anyway, notwithstanding vague implications to the contrary, it's quite clear to me that the Talmud certainly does refer to Jesus Christ (e.g., Sanhedrin 43a). Lastly, with regard to "damaging" Christianity, of course I wasn't referring to you and/or any agenda you may have, but to that of the authors of the Talmud.
Oh no, he's mentioning Robert Spencer. That's far worse than mentioning Horus, which he hates. Robert Spencer is at the level of Joseph Atwill or J. P. Holding. Someone should give him a decent book discussing Muhammad's historicity.
mPky1 There are many, many, many theories regarding the origins of Islam. The polemics are very similar to those on the origins of Christianity. The same goes for the Historicity of Muhammad when compared to the Historicity of Jesus. There is a lot to be said about these issues. But mentioning Robert Spencer is utterly ridiculous. Just search one of his talks on RUclips. It's bad beyond belief. I'd put it at the level of J. P. Holding. You'd you even dream of using Holding's work to discuss Christianity, or the existence of Jesus? Carrier certainly wouldn't. Someone should educate him a bit on Muhammad historicity, so he could see he should NEVER mention Robert Spencer in regards to that subject. It makes him look stupid.
mPky1 As far as I know, Jesus (Yeshua, in Aramaic, Joshua, in Hebrew) was a relatively common name in Galilee, in the early first century AD. It could, however, also be used as a title of someone who was thought of being a new Joshua that was going to lead the Jews in a reconquest of the Holy Land. So, you have a point, but don't overstretch it! Regarding Muhammad, I think it means something like "praiseworthy", but I must admit I don't know for sure. If this is the case, then Muhammad bin Abdullah (Abdullah was supposed to be the name of Muhammad's father) literally meant "the praiseworthy, son of the servant of God". It is a highly suspicious name, for sure. Some Muslim scholars even speculated that Muhammad was not the original name of the Prophet. But Muhammad and Abdullah were also common first names in pre-Islamic Arabia, so it's also perfectly reasonable that the leader and prophet of the invading Arabs was actually named Muhammad. Again, no definite answers in that regard! Sorry for the long answer!
mPky1 Good point. What would we do without Wikipedia... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Nabataeans "The name Allah was used by Nabataeans in compound names, such as "Abd Allah" (The Servant/Slave of Allah) (...)" and "From Nabataean inscriptions, Allah seems to have been regarded as a "High and Main God", while other deities were considered to be mediators before Allah and of a second status, which was the same case of the worshipers at the Kaaba temple at Mecca."
I enjoy Dr. Carrier's work. But, it's almost a completely futile effort to attempt to sway one of the indoctrinated masses to reasonable, critical thinking. This is why I believe that Christopher Hitchens' assessment of religion is completely accurate.
No, this doesn't work at all. It is a horrible method for history. Besides his obvious biases there is also a problem that he/we lack knowledge to say almost anything about the motivation and knowledge behind the authors choices and therefor no ground for any speculation on probabilities. The reliability of the information in the gospels is so low that it is a mistake to build any reasoning on it. He should stick to the few texts that have at least some reliability, Pauls 4 somewhat genuine epistles, and possibly Josephus mention of James and Jesus.
Faith is believing in something without or against evidence, its not a mystical word without a meaning. Interestingly, the definition of the word "Bigot" is: Ignoring the evidence presented against your position or belief. How many religious people claim that faith is all they need while ignoring evidence? I wonder how many of them would accept that they are bigots?
One of the ironies of Dr Carriers presentation is he argues against the historical existence of Jesus Christ based upon a probability model, but atheism is a universal negative which has virtually zero probability of being true. So too, the humanism consequent to atheism is also zero probability of being true. Dr Carrier argues against the truth of Jesus existence but embraces a worldview that has virtually no chance of being true at all. Atheism must assert that God which is existence (Thomas Aquinas), does not exist. As existence, the true and the good are convertible, then atheism must assert existence (true) is not true and existence (the good) is not good.
@@emerickscott Atheists often reduce atheism to agnosticism as Brian has done. Atheism concludes that God does not exist. Agnosticism concludes there is not enough evidence for God's existence. Monotheism of Thomas Aquinas concludes God is existence itself. Atheism must negate the theism of Thomas Aquinas which is to conclude the God which is existence, does not exist.
John Martin I know what atheism is. I am an agnostic atheist as are all atheists. Atheism does not conclude a god does not exist. It concludes that one does not believe in a god. You cannot prove a negative therefore you cannot be a gnostic atheist.
1. What the hell is a "universal negative"? 2. Humanism is a normative worldview. It can't be true or false, unless you accept moral realism, which I do not and would argue is an incoherent idea to begin with. 3. Aquinas, Sophist of All Sophists, could claim whatever he wants, haha. Asserting God is existence does not make it so, but I do not have time to get into the logical problems here, not to mention the way modern physics and cosmology have rendered several of his starting premises false. Suffice it to say, Aquinas is easily one of the most overrated "philosophers" of all time and I am shocked at how seriously people take his cosmological argument, for example, which is just patent question-begging. In fact, question-begging seems to be his primary mode of apologetics. I don't know what else to make of this obsession with Aquinas other than to conclude Christians have been giving out participation trophies to their "thinkers" for centuries now. 4. Even if we accept Aquinas's arguments (I don't), the God he manages to "prove" is one so abstract and removed from any specifically Christian conception of Godhood, that it tells us nothing useful about Him. If God = existence, then what you know about God is what you know about existence, and nothing more. You may as well be a deist and a naturalist.
+Eve Again Hell, the way Carrier does it, he wouldn't really need to study Islam to "refute" it. Let's see here... His argument would go something like this: "Muhammad was a myth. His name is kind of like 'My ham mad' which is a parallel to Greek mythology where someone pissed off their pet pig" :P
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Richard Carrier is easily the most clear and well informed speakers that I've ever heard.
You must not listen to much then.
@@gabepearson6104 I could never listen too much, so you're right, troll.
@@JohnMichaelStrubhart2022 yeah I know, sorry for the troll comment, but seriously carrier is not that informed.
@@gabepearson6104 Well, rather than insult me, why don't you suggest someone who you think is more informed? That's what I would do in a comment.
@@JohnMichaelStrubhart2022 yes, Bart Ehrman, Dale C Allison, and David Bentley Hart.
Never get enough of Dr. Carrier!
U poor bastard
A very interesting lecture! Dr. Richard Carrier is a very good teacher.
Carrier is awesome. It's no wonder christians try to discredit him.
@Pete Kondolios his embarrassing behavior has zero to do with his arguments
@@melissacurtis7455 Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Easy to point out.
In terms of raw knowledge, you can't get much better than Dr. Carrier, he's of the elite.
Hahahahaha, no he’s been rekt by scholars for years. Literally he brings the atheist IQ down to almost zero.
@@gabepearson6104
Lol, Carrier owns those scholars! You need to brush up on critical thinking, haha
@@mrovin11 yeah no you’re wrong, carrier is a fringe theorist and should be treated as such.
@@mrovin11 that’s why he’s an unemployed blogger
As a member of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago, I would like to compliment you on the quality of this video and likewise, your obtaining Dr, Carrier's okay and the Society's permission prior to its recording and dissemination
I attended this event.
The rockstar of ancient history!!
Nicely done. I would like to point out that Inanna was not crucified, she was hang from the wall on a hook or a nail. Although the outcome is the same, this is not the same than being nailed to a cross member.
very interesting how methodical they are in analysing history.
I wish I had Richard Carrier's brain.
But Andy Dick wants his hair and voice back.
robzrob Don't be too impressed. May be he is just a big mouth.
nah man
top man
At UT-Austin, courses in logic are not even considered valid as elective classes in regards to credit towards a history degree, or at least they weren't when I attended back in the day.
That's because the government didn't want ppl using logic when looking at history they might see thru the lies left by the Victor's who wrote any given part of history after they won whatever war it was that they won.
at 38:11; "We do not have a preposterous omniscience," [Hooker], meaning we cannot know the criteria for embarrassment for first century Christians. The question of the use of Bayes to establish a kind of feel of certitude akin to an omniscience analogously preposterous must sometime be asked.
47:31 That seriously creeped me out, did anyone else hear that?
I didn’t hear anything at the time you put down, but I did 2 other times at the beginning of the video. So creeped out I had to pause it and rip out my earbuds bc it startled and scared me so much. Then I saw your comment. How weird. Bad sound, I presume.
I'd be interested to know what ***** thinks of this?
I suspect, with a healthy dollop of skepticism
Hey Brian. How's it going? remember me?
Hi there - doing well thanks. Sorry, I'm not sure, how would I know you? It's probably been awhile.
@@emerickscott Were you the guy who stole my bike?
@@timhallas4275 I think you have me confused with someone else.
@@emerickscott No. Your the guy. I never forget a face. Where is my bike, you fucking thief?
@@timhallas4275 Just curious if you ever found your bike. Or a life, for that matter.
At 15:11 I was glad to see finally Carrier's celebrated use of Baye's Theorem for historical probability but was stunned to see how simplistic and amateurishly its use is conceived !!!!!
I took a graduate level course in Bayes Method. In social science, it's considered to be the gold standard of natural inquiry.
The only thing I have evidence of after cutting through history and religions written from political perspectives is this ...... There is a dominant theme that has evolved into a chaotic picture of the past .... each one favoring a particular segment of the human population. The age of information is both a blessing and a curse. Everything we were taught is now in question leaving individuals to either journey further down the rabbit hole taking them to places that further unravel their current beliefs or settle on remaining in a current reality. The rabbit hole deepens but @ least I found A truth - the original Hebrews
Crappy sound. I have to give a pass to so many videos of lectures just for crappy sound!!!!
it's listenable. It's just not plugged into the sound system.
HE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED ON HIS USE OF BAYES THEOREM!
IT'S BOGUS!
AND NO ONE WANTED TO HIRE HIM SO HE BEGGED FELLOW ATHEISTS TO PUBLISH HIS BOOKS
I agree with Carrier about A.D. and B.C. I still use those terms myself. I am not bothered that they named planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. If the Muslims and Jews want to cry over the most popular dating system of A.D. and B.C., they should have done more conquering.
"Jesus Was never Exist "
Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples .
BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY.
The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles.
Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)-alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire- makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era.
The DEAD SEA SCROLLS were all written by Pagan Essenes . None of them have been edited by later Christians, as is the case with some other Jewish literature.
All the scrolls (except a treasure map known as the Copper Scroll) can be dated prior to A.D. 68 or 69, when the Qumran settlement was believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish revolt.
The oldest of the scrolls probably goes back to the middle of the third century B.C. The people of Qumran belonged to a Pagan religious group known as the Essenes.
Pliny the Elder, who died during the volcanic destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 A.D., described a community of pagan Essenes living on the western shore of the Dead Sea, close to where Khirbet Qumran is situated.
John the Baptist was an ascetic Essene . He was a vegan and was uncircumcised . Various literary sources like Josephus and Philo tell clearly that Essenes were ascetics.
We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification-similar to a dip in the Ganges or the river Pampa or at Thiirunelli. At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification.
Josephus writes, "And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising" (Wars, 2.8.5). This testimony accords well with what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Prayer and humility was one thing that the Essenes . When they cooked up stories about Jesus they wrote that Jesus Christ ate the Last Supper in the Essene part of town.
Jesus is not historical character, The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced increasing evidence to cement the fact that Jesus Christ never existed and the whole story was cooked up at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
The FAKE gospels were written after 325 AD after Jesus was cooked up at the first Council of Nicea..
Twelve apostles of Jesus never existed.
Jesus Christ names 12 apostles to spread his gospel, and the early Christian church owes its rapid rise to their missionary zeal. Yet, for most of the Twelve, there's scant evidence of their existence outside of the New Testament.
The concept of using statistics to prove that 'God authored the Bible' is bullshit.
Why was the library of Alexandria burnt ?
The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas.
Englishman Godfrey Higgins studied Greek, Latin and law at Cambridge . His two-volume, 867-page book Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origins of Languages, Nations, and Religions, was published posthumously in 1836.
In his treatise, Higgins writes " the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same lifted from the ancient mythos of Hindus ; and ... are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines," and that Christian editors “either from roguery or folly, corrupted them all.”
1900, Scottish MP John Mackinnon Robertson wrote that Jesus never existed but was an FAKE invention by a first-century messianic cult. He wrote about the First Council of Nicea of 325 AD where powerful forces invented a new god to fit the needs of the society of the time .Robertson specifically mentions the Talmudic story of the Yeshu .
Thomas says: "Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’" (Thomas 114).
AIYOOOOO -even Christians don’t like this
When the master of James baby Jesus Christ never existed -- how can his disciple St James exist ?
Even since the dead sea scrolls have been discovered CHRISTIANS and JEWS are jumping up and down like demented orangutans claiming that Essenes belong to them.
Dead Sea text or Qumran Scrolls have absolutely nothing ZILCH, to do with the Bible of the Torah - never mind the diabolical lies of the Christians and the Jews.
For arguments sake -even if messiah Jesus Christ existed , the gospels were written a even a century after Jesus' estimated year of death, by individuals who never met Jesus, and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas.
Funny I agree with you-Jesus never existed- but so much of what you say is wrong. Paul was proselytising a cosmic revelatory Jesus earlier than 50CE. Mark's gospel invented a historical Jesus c.80CE and Tacitus attests to people believing in Jesus in 116CE.
I have a question. Let's say a cult evolved around "Slenderman", for example. And let's say some of us didn't like that for some reason, and let's say I'm one of those people who want to denigrate Slenderman and his followers, so I decide to pen an anti-Slenderman polemic. It seems to me that one of my main talking points would be the fact that Slenderman is a purely fictional character. So here's my question: Does the fact that the authors of the Babylonian Talmud don't make this argument regarding Jesus (i.e., they don't claim he never existed), imply that they thought he actually existed?
***** Your hand-waving and dismissive rhetoric aren't very convincing; partly because there are just too many references to Jesus.
Wouldn't it have been easier and more effective (to damage Christianity) by saying that Jesus simply didn't exist?
BTW apparently they didn't exactly "[buy] the Roman version of the fairy-tale", because they seem to differ on some points, IIRC.
*****
"You obviously didn't notice the word 'CONTEMPORARY', in spite of my effort to emphasize it... NONE of your 'references' to Jesus are contemporary!"
Your "contemporary..." is a strawman; I'm not interested in what "contemporary" "historians" may or may not believe, or claim to believe. Rather, I'm interested to hear why, for example, the authors of the Babylon Talmud would find it easier to believe that Jesus existed and went around performing miracles, than to believe that he didn't exist. (BTW, almost all of generally accepted "history" is a lie, IMO, so forgive me if, in my search for truth I don't necessarily give much weight to people screaming about the "historicity" of Jesus, or the "historicity" of the "holocaust", etc., etc., etc.)
Anyway, notwithstanding vague implications to the contrary, it's quite clear to me that the Talmud certainly does refer to Jesus Christ (e.g., Sanhedrin 43a).
Lastly, with regard to "damaging" Christianity, of course I wasn't referring to you and/or any agenda you may have, but to that of the authors of the Talmud.
***** Huh?
Oh no, he's mentioning Robert Spencer. That's far worse than mentioning Horus, which he hates. Robert Spencer is at the level of Joseph Atwill or J. P. Holding. Someone should give him a decent book discussing Muhammad's historicity.
mPky1 There are many, many, many theories regarding the origins of Islam. The polemics are very similar to those on the origins of Christianity. The same goes for the Historicity of Muhammad when compared to the Historicity of Jesus. There is a lot to be said about these issues.
But mentioning Robert Spencer is utterly ridiculous. Just search one of his talks on RUclips. It's bad beyond belief. I'd put it at the level of J. P. Holding. You'd you even dream of using Holding's work to discuss Christianity, or the existence of Jesus? Carrier certainly wouldn't. Someone should educate him a bit on Muhammad historicity, so he could see he should NEVER mention Robert Spencer in regards to that subject. It makes him look stupid.
mPky1 As far as I know, Jesus (Yeshua, in Aramaic, Joshua, in Hebrew) was a relatively common name in Galilee, in the early first century AD. It could, however, also be used as a title of someone who was thought of being a new Joshua that was going to lead the Jews in a reconquest of the Holy Land. So, you have a point, but don't overstretch it!
Regarding Muhammad, I think it means something like "praiseworthy", but I must admit I don't know for sure. If this is the case, then Muhammad bin Abdullah (Abdullah was supposed to be the name of Muhammad's father) literally meant "the praiseworthy, son of the servant of God". It is a highly suspicious name, for sure. Some Muslim scholars even speculated that Muhammad was not the original name of the Prophet. But Muhammad and Abdullah were also common first names in pre-Islamic Arabia, so it's also perfectly reasonable that the leader and prophet of the invading Arabs was actually named Muhammad. Again, no definite answers in that regard!
Sorry for the long answer!
mPky1 Good point. What would we do without Wikipedia...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Nabataeans
"The name Allah was used by Nabataeans in compound names, such as "Abd Allah" (The Servant/Slave of Allah) (...)"
and
"From Nabataean inscriptions, Allah seems to have been regarded as a "High and Main God", while other deities were considered to be mediators before Allah and of a second status, which was the same case of the worshipers at the Kaaba temple at Mecca."
mPky1 The truth hurts... :D
I believe Nietzsche on this matter. Not Carrier.
Explain.
I enjoy Dr. Carrier's work. But, it's almost a completely futile effort to attempt to sway one of the indoctrinated masses to reasonable, critical thinking. This is why I believe that Christopher Hitchens' assessment of religion is completely accurate.
The more we can do to fight indoctrination and false rhetoric, the better off we will be. The old die and young learn anew.
"Of course historians are already using Bayes theorem. They're just not aware of it." 😄 childishly dishonest.
Carrier is a "tabloid journalist" 99.9 % of real scholars just laugh at him.
No, this doesn't work at all. It is a horrible method for history. Besides his obvious biases there is also a problem that he/we lack knowledge to say almost anything about the motivation and knowledge behind the authors choices and therefor no ground for any speculation on probabilities.
The reliability of the information in the gospels is so low that it is a mistake to build any reasoning on it. He should stick to the few texts that have at least some reliability, Pauls 4 somewhat genuine epistles, and possibly Josephus mention of James and Jesus.
Richard, if one cannot comprehend infinity how can one comprehend faith. The mind is not enough.
phillip chiappe
wut
Faith is believing in something without or against evidence, its not a mystical word without a meaning.
Interestingly, the definition of the word "Bigot" is:
Ignoring the evidence presented against your position or belief.
How many religious people claim that faith is all they need while ignoring evidence?
I wonder how many of them would accept that they are bigots?
Can you comprehend infinity?
More preaching to the choir.....tiresome hawking of books.
you mean like christianity?
Oh no a scholar is trying to make money from a book he wrote 😱 scandalous
One of the ironies of Dr Carriers presentation is he argues against the historical existence of Jesus Christ based upon a probability model, but atheism is a universal negative which has virtually zero probability of being true. So too, the humanism consequent to atheism is also zero probability of being true. Dr Carrier argues against the truth of Jesus existence but embraces a worldview that has virtually no chance of being true at all.
Atheism must assert that God which is existence (Thomas Aquinas), does not exist. As existence, the true and the good are convertible, then atheism must assert existence (true) is not true and existence (the good) is not good.
Atheism asserts nothing. It is only the statement that one does not see evidence for a God’s existence. Nothing more.
@@emerickscott Atheists often reduce atheism to agnosticism as Brian has done. Atheism concludes that God does not exist. Agnosticism concludes there is not enough evidence for God's existence.
Monotheism of Thomas Aquinas concludes God is existence itself. Atheism must negate the theism of Thomas Aquinas which is to conclude the God which is existence, does not exist.
John Martin I know what atheism is. I am an agnostic atheist as are all atheists. Atheism does not conclude a god does not exist. It concludes that one does not believe in a god. You cannot prove a negative therefore you cannot be a gnostic atheist.
1. What the hell is a "universal negative"?
2. Humanism is a normative worldview. It can't be true or false, unless you accept moral realism, which I do not and would argue is an incoherent idea to begin with.
3. Aquinas, Sophist of All Sophists, could claim whatever he wants, haha. Asserting God is existence does not make it so, but I do not have time to get into the logical problems here, not to mention the way modern physics and cosmology have rendered several of his starting premises false. Suffice it to say, Aquinas is easily one of the most overrated "philosophers" of all time and I am shocked at how seriously people take his cosmological argument, for example, which is just patent question-begging. In fact, question-begging seems to be his primary mode of apologetics. I don't know what else to make of this obsession with Aquinas other than to conclude Christians have been giving out participation trophies to their "thinkers" for centuries now.
4. Even if we accept Aquinas's arguments (I don't), the God he manages to "prove" is one so abstract and removed from any specifically Christian conception of Godhood, that it tells us nothing useful about Him. If God = existence, then what you know about God is what you know about existence, and nothing more. You may as well be a deist and a naturalist.
Gibberish. Strawman
+Eve Again Hell, the way Carrier does it, he wouldn't really need to study Islam to "refute" it. Let's see here... His argument would go something like this: "Muhammad was a myth. His name is kind of like 'My ham mad' which is a parallel to Greek mythology where someone pissed off their pet pig" :P
Nobody needs to study Islam to refute it lol. It’s self refuting.