@Phillip Brown - On the assumption that you have some sort of learning disability and aren't the massive troll that you appear, let me explain what blogs offer. They're short and topical, in this case barely more than a link. So why do you imagine that each and post should present a comprehensive debunking of Christianity? You should try something called "books". If you ask your parents or nurse, they should be able to find you some, I think you'll be impressed. John wrote one that you may find interesting but it may take you a while before you can grasp the language and concepts. I'd start small.
The comparison to fictional characters, characters designed for entertainment with loose to no intention of dealing with historical characters is quite ad hoq.
It seems to me that the more you float away from the orthodox picture, the more ad hoq you get.
FYI, yes, I kept on reading and see that you weren't exactly in agreement with the post (but nevertheless, it's fun to highlight that much thinking of the skeptics can often parallel that of Christian apologists... I mean, it is possible!
So, I've been thinking more on the link, and it dawned on me that it's time to insert a monkey wrench.
John disagrees with the mythicists, but hey, can't they all be friends since after all, they agree that the gospel portrayal of Jesus is a myth whether there was a real person or not.
But how you arive at your conclusions has to do with whether you are rational or not. And it is the common atheist narrative that they are atheists because they are rational, yet they have significant disagreement on why the gospel portrayal of Jesus is wrong.
Rob - I've re-read all your comments and I really can't tell if you're saying that Mythicists do have a good argument or not. I also see you talking about "the" link - does this mean you're only reading one side of this discussion or have you read anything from opponents?
I was responding to John Loftus' link to what he calls his response to the mythicists.
I admit that I goofed here and treated his quote at his response and not what he really thinks. He doesn't agree with the mythicists.
However, when I said that "it was possible" I was referring to John Loftus' criticism of some of Christian apologetics. In light of some criticism of some sort, perhaps often of some miracle claim, the response might be an explanation of why miracles are possible. But John Loftus points out that just because something is possible doesn't mean it is probably and a comparison is made to Jim Carey's character who lights up when the woman of his dreams tells him that the probability of them working as a couple is 1 in a million to which he lights up and reply's "so you're saying there's a chance!" (on the side as this is a tangent, as far as miracle claims go, I agree with William Lane Craig that to suggest some miracle of God is improbable is baseless without doing some sort of theology to determine whether God would bring such a miracle about)
John did not agree with the mythicists but suggests that they should make nice since they all agree that the Jesus of the gospels is indeed a myth regardless if there was a real Jesus or not.
Alas, if rationality, ie the proper way of ariving at ones conclusions is worth much, then this agreement shouldn't be construed for too much comradery.
Thanks for the response. Thank you for your opinion on blogs. All I'm asking is how does this post do what the title of the blog suggests? Haven't got an answer.
Oh and I have read John's book and dismantled all his arguments. But again you would not know that because you clearly don't know anything about me.
I'm with John - if you're expressing an opinion I don't know what it is but hey, we don't always need to have an opinion especially if it's a new subject!
I don't know of any mythicists who say that Jesus definitely did not exist, merely that they think the evidence tilts towards him being a pure myth. It's much like other Christian apologetics, where alternative ideas are branded as extremists, heretics, and dismissed. Ironically, I think you'll find the historicists who are most likely to make absurd absolutist claims that Jesus definitely existed and they admit no flexibility on this subject. At the same time accuse MJ (mythical Jesus) as being dogmatic. Most difficult to discuss that way.
Anyway, McGrath is much like other HJ (historical Jesus) advocates in that he is forever attacking MJ advocates without dealing with the arguments. I also subscribe to some blogs like Why Evolution Is True and the contrast is as stark as it is telling. Here's a good post where Jerry deals with some opposing views: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/i-get-christian-email/
Instead of attacking and insulting the person, he actually answers the questions, explains the state of knowledge and sketches out why we know what we know and most of all, he doesn't exaggerate or overstate the case. He freely admits where there are gaps or things to learn.
Compare this to any HJ debate - this level of intellectual honesty and openness to new ideas is simply no where to be seen on the HJ side.
If you're interested, Neil Godfrey is an amateur but does a reasonable job highlighting debates and flaws in the HJ arguments, especially from McGrath. Go through the past few months, there are some gems.
McGrath has done nothing to "take on mythicism" as all he has to offer is ridicule and derogatory remarks about mythicists and mythicism. That's all I've ever seen from him and it can be summed up as cowardice. He's afraid to have a sincere, open and honest discussion on the subject and so are many others.
When people are so narrowly focused only on Jesus mythicism it's akin to the narrow spectrum of human vision compared to the full electromagnetic spectrum. The case for mythicism is far bigger than just Jesus and the NT and most aren't even looking. Those only looking at Jesus and the NT will never have a full grasp of the case for mythicism or the mythicist position. It's that simple. Acharya S/Murdock is one of only a few alive today I see examining the full mythicist spectrum as a whole.
Earl Doherty's comments here are spot-on: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16528#p16528
I'd like to see a more broad discussion on the case for mythicism and the mythicist position. Don't expect any of that from McGrath though, or hardly anyone else for that matter. It's really disappointing. McGrath is AFRAID to post the mythicist position video and links for discussion at his own blog.
The Mythicist Position – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w
What is a Mythicist? http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html
For further explanation see, The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2160
Astrotheology of the Ancients http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html
The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition http://stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html
All I'm asking is how does this post do what the title of the blog suggests? Haven't got an answer.
The title of the blog is "James McGrath Takes on Mythicism Again". I admit that if you look at the two sentences you could be very confused as to how it does that however I think you may be missing something. If you look closely you will see that John included a link, deceptively labeled "Link". Look at the top. Do you see it? Good. Do you notice anything different about it? Yes, it's blue and underlined, very good! Your mother must be very proud.
Okay now I want you to take that funny little device near your computer with the buttons (we call it a "mouse". I know, it's a silly name, such kidders these computer people are!). Move the mouse and when you do, the funny arrow on your screen will move. Wow, hey! I know!
Move that arrow (called a "cursor" which sounds like "curse", except your parents won't mind if you use it!) and place it over the "Link" then click it. When you read that article, have a deep think, maybe take a nap and a juice and when you're done I hope you'll see that John's title really does describe the post very well.
Good work Phil, thanks for asking questions and always keep learning!
@Phil - oh dear, have you forgotten my first reply? If you have troubles holding more than one concept in your head at once, perhaps you should find a simpler subject and leave the adults alone for a while.
Sadly you have forgotten my first response, Well its to be expected. You like spending more time making little jokes about parents and nurses and holding things in my head than actually dealing with the issues. *sigh*
@phil - if you raised issues I'd be happy to deal with them but you're just trolling and acting like a bonny bouncing baby, totally unaware of how this shiny computer thing works.
If you have a point, do please raise it. If you keep trolling, you can hardly complain if people set baits.
I might consider reformulating what I said (yes, of course rational people come to differing conclusions, my mistake). But I probably wouldn't and would just involve myself on some new topic. I drop my other claims as it stands.
I have not even been reading your posts for a few day's now. I have no idea what you claims you are dropping. However, if you are actually admiring to changing your mind or being wrong; F.W.E.I.F. I respect you a whole lot more....
I will try reading your posts with more of an open mind now.
John, you've been writing this blog for years and not every post debunks Christianity! What kind of a game are you playing here?
Your long series exposing problematic pieces, your thoughtful books, your work delving into historical, theological and biblical issues all had me fooled. But now I learn that you've posted links to someone else discussing a topic which is interesting to your readers but doesn't totally demolish Christianity. You're a fraud, you've been deceiving us all this time.
28 comments:
Dear John,
Again, How does this debunk Christianity?
Phil
And the tireless Neil Godfrey responds here:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/response-to-james-mcgraths-argument-from-wikipedia
@Phillip Brown - On the assumption that you have some sort of learning disability and aren't the massive troll that you appear, let me explain what blogs offer. They're short and topical, in this case barely more than a link. So why do you imagine that each and post should present a comprehensive debunking of Christianity? You should try something called "books". If you ask your parents or nurse, they should be able to find you some, I think you'll be impressed. John wrote one that you may find interesting but it may take you a while before you can grasp the language and concepts. I'd start small.
Good luck!
I don't know. If I had to attend church with Rev. Phillip and DM...is there a blog site entitled, "Running Screaming for the Church Door"? EFH
"If you ask your parents or nurse, "
LOL.
But that of course is just "bashing" Tyro and Phil's Holy Ghost mechanism don't like the "bashing"
The comparison to fictional characters, characters designed for entertainment with loose to no intention of dealing with historical characters is quite ad hoq.
It seems to me that the more you float away from the orthodox picture, the more ad hoq you get.
But John, it's possible... It's possible that this is a fitting comparison (cut to Jim Carey reference).
FYI, yes, I kept on reading and see that you weren't exactly in agreement with the post (but nevertheless, it's fun to highlight that much thinking of the skeptics can often parallel that of Christian apologists... I mean, it is possible!
So, I've been thinking more on the link, and it dawned on me that it's time to insert a monkey wrench.
John disagrees with the mythicists, but hey, can't they all be friends since after all, they agree that the gospel portrayal of Jesus is a myth whether there was a real person or not.
But how you arive at your conclusions has to do with whether you are rational or not. And it is the common atheist narrative that they are atheists because they are rational, yet they have significant disagreement on why the gospel portrayal of Jesus is wrong.
Rob - I've re-read all your comments and I really can't tell if you're saying that Mythicists do have a good argument or not. I also see you talking about "the" link - does this mean you're only reading one side of this discussion or have you read anything from opponents?
Phil is definitely a troll, there is no way anyone could misinterpret peoples arguments that drastically without making a conscious effort to do so.
I was responding to John Loftus' link to what he calls his response to the mythicists.
I admit that I goofed here and treated his quote at his response and not what he really thinks. He doesn't agree with the mythicists.
However, when I said that "it was possible" I was referring to John Loftus' criticism of some of Christian apologetics. In light of some criticism of some sort, perhaps often of some miracle claim, the response might be an explanation of why miracles are possible. But John Loftus points out that just because something is possible doesn't mean it is probably and a comparison is made to Jim Carey's character who lights up when the woman of his dreams tells him that the probability of them working as a couple is 1 in a million to which he lights up and reply's "so you're saying there's a chance!" (on the side as this is a tangent, as far as miracle claims go, I agree with William Lane Craig that to suggest some miracle of God is improbable is baseless without doing some sort of theology to determine whether God would bring such a miracle about)
John did not agree with the mythicists but suggests that they should make nice since they all agree that the Jesus of the gospels is indeed a myth regardless if there was a real Jesus or not.
Alas, if rationality, ie the proper way of ariving at ones conclusions is worth much, then this agreement shouldn't be construed for too much comradery.
Rob, you do not make sense at all to me.
Surely you have a point don't you?
What is it?
Before you make it think about what you're about to say, okay? I may just blast you for it my friend.
Surely you're not suggesting that if we're all rational then we should all agree with each other. THAT'S not being rational.
@ Tyro,
Thanks for the response. Thank you for your opinion on blogs. All I'm asking is how does this post do what the title of the blog suggests? Haven't got an answer.
Oh and I have read John's book and dismantled all his arguments. But again you would not know that because you clearly don't know anything about me.
Phil
@ Rhacodactylus
I love how resort to name calling when it is clear I have out argued you. What other name do you have.
Phil
Rob,
I'm with John - if you're expressing an opinion I don't know what it is but hey, we don't always need to have an opinion especially if it's a new subject!
I don't know of any mythicists who say that Jesus definitely did not exist, merely that they think the evidence tilts towards him being a pure myth. It's much like other Christian apologetics, where alternative ideas are branded as extremists, heretics, and dismissed. Ironically, I think you'll find the historicists who are most likely to make absurd absolutist claims that Jesus definitely existed and they admit no flexibility on this subject. At the same time accuse MJ (mythical Jesus) as being dogmatic. Most difficult to discuss that way.
Anyway, McGrath is much like other HJ (historical Jesus) advocates in that he is forever attacking MJ advocates without dealing with the arguments. I also subscribe to some blogs like Why Evolution Is True and the contrast is as stark as it is telling. Here's a good post where Jerry deals with some opposing views: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/i-get-christian-email/
Instead of attacking and insulting the person, he actually answers the questions, explains the state of knowledge and sketches out why we know what we know and most of all, he doesn't exaggerate or overstate the case. He freely admits where there are gaps or things to learn.
Compare this to any HJ debate - this level of intellectual honesty and openness to new ideas is simply no where to be seen on the HJ side.
If you're interested, Neil Godfrey is an amateur but does a reasonable job highlighting debates and flaws in the HJ arguments, especially from McGrath. Go through the past few months, there are some gems.
http://vridar.wordpress.com/
"James McGrath Takes on Mythicism Again"???
McGrath has done nothing to "take on mythicism" as all he has to offer is ridicule and derogatory remarks about mythicists and mythicism. That's all I've ever seen from him and it can be summed up as cowardice. He's afraid to have a sincere, open and honest discussion on the subject and so are many others.
When people are so narrowly focused only on Jesus mythicism it's akin to the narrow spectrum of human vision compared to the full electromagnetic spectrum. The case for mythicism is far bigger than just Jesus and the NT and most aren't even looking. Those only looking at Jesus and the NT will never have a full grasp of the case for mythicism or the mythicist position. It's that simple. Acharya S/Murdock is one of only a few alive today I see examining the full mythicist spectrum as a whole.
Earl Doherty's comments here are spot-on:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16528#p16528
I'd like to see a more broad discussion on the case for mythicism and the mythicist position. Don't expect any of that from McGrath though, or hardly anyone else for that matter. It's really disappointing. McGrath is AFRAID to post the mythicist position video and links for discussion at his own blog.
The Mythicist Position – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w
What is a Mythicist?
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html
For further explanation see, The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2160
Astrotheology of the Ancients
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html
The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html
@Phil
All I'm asking is how does this post do what the title of the blog suggests? Haven't got an answer.
The title of the blog is "James McGrath Takes on Mythicism Again". I admit that if you look at the two sentences you could be very confused as to how it does that however I think you may be missing something. If you look closely you will see that John included a link, deceptively labeled "Link". Look at the top. Do you see it? Good. Do you notice anything different about it? Yes, it's blue and underlined, very good! Your mother must be very proud.
Okay now I want you to take that funny little device near your computer with the buttons (we call it a "mouse". I know, it's a silly name, such kidders these computer people are!). Move the mouse and when you do, the funny arrow on your screen will move. Wow, hey! I know!
Move that arrow (called a "cursor" which sounds like "curse", except your parents won't mind if you use it!) and place it over the "Link" then click it. When you read that article, have a deep think, maybe take a nap and a juice and when you're done I hope you'll see that John's title really does describe the post very well.
Good work Phil, thanks for asking questions and always keep learning!
@ tyro,
Hmmmm
Lot of effort for just asking me to open the link, but hey some people have the time.
So can you tell what is has to do with debunking Christianity.
Oh and my computer does not have a mouse, another assumption you guys always seem to make.
Phil
@Phil - oh dear, have you forgotten my first reply? If you have troubles holding more than one concept in your head at once, perhaps you should find a simpler subject and leave the adults alone for a while.
@ tyro,
Sadly you have forgotten my first response, Well its to be expected. You like spending more time making little jokes about parents and nurses and holding things in my head than actually dealing with the issues. *sigh*
Phil.
@phil - if you raised issues I'd be happy to deal with them but you're just trolling and acting like a bonny bouncing baby, totally unaware of how this shiny computer thing works.
If you have a point, do please raise it. If you keep trolling, you can hardly complain if people set baits.
hmmm, perhaps, John. I take it back for now.
@ tyro
Let me repeat my original question.
Again, How does this debunk Christianity?
You said,
If you have a point, do please raise it. If you keep trolling, you can hardly complain if people set baits.
My Reply,
I do not troll this is a way for you to misdirect my question.
Phil
reposted for edit
I might consider reformulating what I said (yes, of course rational people come to differing conclusions, my mistake). But I probably wouldn't and would just involve myself on some new topic. I drop my other claims as it stands.
Rob
I have not even been reading your posts for a few day's now. I have no idea what you claims you are dropping. However, if you are actually admiring to changing your mind or being wrong; F.W.E.I.F. I respect you a whole lot more....
I will try reading your posts with more of an open mind now.
How does it Debunk Christianity?
OMG, I suddenly realized that you're right!
John, you've been writing this blog for years and not every post debunks Christianity! What kind of a game are you playing here?
Your long series exposing problematic pieces, your thoughtful books, your work delving into historical, theological and biblical issues all had me fooled. But now I learn that you've posted links to someone else discussing a topic which is interesting to your readers but doesn't totally demolish Christianity. You're a fraud, you've been deceiving us all this time.
The Rev is right, oh God, he's riiiiiiight!
In other news, badger badger badger.
@ Tyro,
As I thought couldn't answer ;-)
It was fun though.
P.
Post a Comment