Dan Barker's Email
Ever get an email also addressed to several others and the discussion goes on an on between the people involved? Dan and I were tagged in one of them recently. I had written a response earlier that basically said this. After a Christian responded Dan wrote:
Yes, we are all in the same boat. We are all biological organisms with similar brains breathing the same air, looking at the same evidence. There is no evidence for a god, or we would have seen it by now.I liked what he said! So true it is.
Atheism is nothing to be "skeptical of." Atheism makes no claims. It is simply the absence of a claim of theism. Yes, we atheists are skeptical of everything, including our own minds . . . but skepticism is not a conclusion, it is a method. As we apply the method of skepticism to the claims of theism, they all fail .. . no evidence, no good argument, no coherent definition, no possibility of falslfiability, no satisfactory replies to the argument from evil (and other positive arguments against the existence of the traditional god), no agreement among believers as to the nature or moral principles of this "god," and most important: no need for such a belief. Millions of good people lead happy, purposeful, productive, loving, hopeful and moral lives without such a sophomoric belief . . . in things like talking snakes and holy ghosts . . . so what difference does it make? Those who believe will believe (with no evidence or argument) and those who don't believe don't believe. We atheists are not running into churches dragging people of of pews, trying to convert the world to our viewpoint. We simply give answers when asked for our reasons for rejecting gods.
Atheism is intellectually and morally respectable. Until theists provide proof, we are justified in withholding our belief.
57 comments:
John,
Dan really can not be trusted. He has made outrageous claims in his book about the historicity of Jesus Christ and is found to be a fraud...
For more see,
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2010/09/jesus-existed-beyond-tiniest-shadow-of.html
Phil
Rev. Brown, I take it that you mean you cannot trust what Dan says about the evidence. I'll not tolerate any personal slander here.
"but skepticism is not a conclusion, it is a method."
Really wish more people would recognise this.
Dear John,
Slander is only slander if it is false. And I find it funny that you tolerate slander about me all the time on this blog. Hie makes fraudulent claims as I have pointed out. This is not slander.
Phil
@Mr "Rev" Brown:
You claim Dan's arguments are "Fraud", yet your website only argues that he is incorrect. You have shown no evidence that could even remotely show fraud, which is a legal, actionable term. You have a responsibility, when using such a term, to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, which you certainly have not done.
As for your contention that Jesus was a historical figure "beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt", that too is simply not shown by your diatribe. The "Testamentum" is far from a reliable text; you yourself have given part of the evidence for that. And Pliny only shows the existence of people called "Christians", who worship a figure called "Christ", not of Jesus himself. You make assume that Pliny is talking about people who, like you, believe Jesus existed and was the Messiah, but he could just as well be talking about some Jewish-inspired sect with Messianic teachings, which were quite common in those days. In any case, the fact that there are people who worship a thing in no way proves that the thing exists, otherwise you'd have to accept the existence of the Galactic Emperor Xenu.
You simply cannot accuse someone of fraud without proof. And proof of fraud requires evidence of intent to deceive. You haven't done that, and are then under the obligation to retract your baseless accusation. You may disagree with Barker, and that is your right, but an accusation of a crime is beyond the pale.
Phillip,
As Mr. Barker says: There is no evidence for a god, or we would have seen it by now.
If it worked, we would see it. If the Christian claims were true, it would be obvious.
The few words Bible writers put in the mouth of someone called Jesus weren't original. Any notion of morality ascribed to a Jesus came from the culture wherein the New Testament's authors lived. There is nothing there which had not been part of human culture for millenia, even before writing.
It's odd that you get your panties in a bunch about Dan Barker when you should be more concerned with the fact that observed Christian behavior shows they don't believe the malarkey they bleet during their group-think sessions they call "worship." You should give higher priority to those calling themselves "Christian" who would call you a fool for what you believe. The ire you direct at Barker should be unleashed at that large proportion of "Christians" who think Jesus was just an ordinary man, not some miracle-working divine. Your rage might be better spent on the Christians who are certain that you are headed for Hades because you dare to believe something different than they do. Odd that you set your sights on Dan Barker when there are likely more Christians who know you are wrong than there are atheists in the entire world. You need to sort out your priorities and you should start by taking Barker off the list.
Mr. Barker is right: There is no evidence for a god, or we would have seen it by now. You would do well to recognize that.
Phillip, I'm sorry I believe you misunderstand the criterion for an argument being correct. What you have demonstrated here is a form of ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Ideas are never judged on their source, only on the ideas themselves, and I find this email of Dan's to be extremely compelling. I personally disagree with your assessment of Dan, and find him to be accurate (at least to the degree one can be when debating the imaginary), but even if Joseph Mengele was to make a solid logical argument, it would still be a solid logical argument, regardless of his past.
This logical fallacy protects you was well. Even though you continually fall flat in debate in here, your ideas still have the same initial merit as anyone else's, that is to say none, logic doesn't care if you are the worlds most respected scientist or the worlds most hated troll . . . ideas must survive on their own.
~Rhaco
Dan sent me this response to post;
For all this talk about me being a "fraud" due to what I wrote in Losing Faith in Faith and in Godless, let me clear the air. It is true that during a public debate I admitted to James White that my confidence in Barbara Walker's work about Mithra has lowered since the time my book was published, and that is the reason I chose not to include her work in my debate with White, preferring to mention much stronger work . . . for example, MacDonald's comparison of the book of Mark with the Odyssey, and other powerful evidences of the non-uniqueness of Jesus. And that is why I appealed to the moderator to caution White against rebutting an issue that I had not actually raised during that debate. For the record, White barely tried to rebut the actual evidence I brought to the debate, preferring to attack what he (somewhat rightly) perceived as a weak point in my book, as if that should be a knock-out blow to the argument.
When I say "my confidence has lowered," that does not mean I have now renounced Barbara Walker's work. It means I think there is much better evidence, so even if Walker were entirely wrong (she is not), we can do the debate without her. The problem with Walker is not that her facts are wrong; it's that she wasn't clear in connecting the Roman Mithraic religion with Perseus. The excellent facts Walker presents about "Mithra" really apply to Perseus, which is due to the confusion the Roman soldiers had between the word "Perseus" and "Persia," both being far-away, exotic "eastern" religious ideas. (And Perseus, in the constellations, is indeed connected with the bull, so it is easy to see the confusion they must have had.) Most (or many) scholars consider the Roman religion of Mithraism to be really a distorted lens looking at Perseus. So although Walker is wrong about the Persian "Mithra" being parallel to Jesus, she is not wrong about Roman "Mithraism" being parallel to Jesus. I didn't know this at the time of publication of my books, and in future editions I will not remove Walker's work: I can simply add a footnote to clarify the confusion.
But even if I am entirely wrong about all of this, how does that make me a fraud? And even if I were the most base hypocritical fraud, with no redeeming character, how does that make any of the bible contradictions or parallels to Jesus disappear? How does an ad hominem attack on a critic help the truth of Christianity?
I should state for the record that I criticized Rev. Brown for saying Dan could not be trusted. That's a slanderous lie. I said Rev. Brown probably meant instead he can't trust Dan with the evidence, which Rev. Brown doesn't trust me or any atheist with the evidence. I meant no slam on Dan at all.
@ Everyone,
Let me clear the air a little. Firstly Fraud has this definition...
'something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage'
Rebel1 wants me to show it beyond reasonable doubt and he is right that it is a legal actionable term like most terms.
Here is Dan's statements from 'godless'
‘In 112 C.E., Pliny (the younger) said that “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god…” That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians.
Dan obviously thinks that no one will go and check the truth of this statement because a quick reading of Pliny’s letters shows Dan to be entirely wrong. Pliny writes much more about Christ and Christians and anyone that has this work knows it.'
Dan either has made this statement with the correct knowledge about Pliny or he has made this state from naivety, either way to make this statement is fraudulent.
Now this is one example and there are others that Dan himself has commented on my blog about.
And Russ is Dan right about Pliny?
Furthermore @ rhaco,
Please show me where I have 'continually fallen flat in debate in here',
Lastly at John,
Let me draw your attention to my original statement which does not at all slander anyone. Not trusting someone is not slander and cannot be a lie.
P
Lastly,
I have one question. Why is it that you as atheist are happy to slam any Christian/preacher/minister for anything but when one of your own is found to be at best deliberately misleading about the historical facts of Jesus you run to his defence?
Seems like a big double standard? Can anyone clarify?
Phil
@Phil
A statement made from "naivety" (i.e. without the correct knowledge) is not "intended to decieve," and therefore is not fraudulent. Otherwise, every incorrect statement, whether made as a result of ignorance or insufficient information, could be characterized as "fraudulent."
@ Clamat,
Correct but notice the claim Dan makes...
That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians.
So Dan is not saying he might not know? Or he does not even have to work, rather that this is all Pliny has written. So if he failed to check he is lying and if he had checked he is still lying. This is fraud.
Phil
Well, that ellipsis makes it pretty clear that Dan was talking about that snippet of a quote and its context. I can't find any evidence that Pliny said anything about Christians other than what's contained in the one letter. (I, of course, am willing to be corrected on that.)
I will say that Dan's apparent insistence that nothing is being said about Christ when he, himself cites the very line that speaks of Christ is mystifying.
I haven't read Dan's book. It's entirely possible the context would clear up everything.
@Phil
Here I must acknowledge my own ignorance (please don’t brand me a fraud!): I have not read “Godless” and do not know the full context of the excerpt you’ve pulled. Consequently, I’m in no position to say what Mr. Barker is trying to say.
I also haven’t read a whole lot of Pliny the Younger, but I note you haven’t provided any examples that suggest Mr. Barker is wrong. The Wikipedia entries (I know, I know, but time is limited) for “Historicity of Jesus” and “Pliny the Younger on Christ,” and the sources cited there, mostly from the “Tektonics” apologetics website, appear to support Mr. Barker’s statements, in that they speak of a single report from Pliny to Trajan. Mr. Barker’s summary of this letter seems accurate, i.e, there is no suggestion Pliny knew Christ to be a historical figure, but only refers to “Christians.”
I would agree that, if Mr. Barker deliberately determined to grossly misrepresent the number of Pliny’s references to Christ, he would be vulnerable to charges of fraud.
However, I don’t think you’ve made the case that he’s done anything deliberate. At worst, even if his scholarship is terrible (and I’m not saying it is), this is the most you can justifiably accuse him of, terrible scholarship. Unless you’re also branding Wikipedia -- and Tektoniks -- a fraud?
@ mikespeir,
Well if that's the case then why use the words, all of Pliny's writings?
You said,
I will say that Dan's apparent insistence that nothing is being said about Christ when he, himself cites the very line that speaks of Christ is mystifying.
My Reply,
My point excatly,
P
@ Clamat,
The difference between blogs and wiki is that Dan is making money off sales in his book?
P.
@ Rev. Phil
Um, yes, that is one difference. This doesn’t actually have anything to do with my point, however, nor does it support your original point: How does making money make one a “fraud”?
You accused Mr. Barker of misrepresenting the extent to which Pliny discusses Christ. You agree that “fraud” involves intent, but have provided no reason to think that any misrepresentation Barker made was intentional. Indeed, the sources I’ve seen suggest he made no misrepresentations at all: Even apologetics websites refer only to the single letter from Pliny to Trajan that Mr. Barker accurately described.
This would seem a logical point for you to provide the extensive additional examples from Pliny you insist exist. Instead you talk about the profit motive. I don’t understand.
Let’s circle back: Can you please tell me where to find Pliny’s extensive additional references to Christ? Thanks.
@mikespeir and Rev. Phil
Pliny’s letter to Trajan does not speak of any direct knowledge or observation of Christ or his actions, but rather the actions of people who called themselves Christians some 70 years after Christ’s purported death. It doesn't even contain representation by those followers that they directly observed Christ. It doesn’t even contain hearsay, i.e., statements by followers of things they heard Christ say. Pliny provides only very weak evidence of Christ as a historical figure. This seems to be Mr. Barker’s point.
@ Rev. Phil
If you're willing to take some constructive criticism might I suggest you temper your language more.
You always seem to come out of the gate swinging... as if your faith depended on it. I understand when engaging in polemical debates strong opinions will arise and dissagreements will ensue but it seems to me you are not fully aware of the audience you are criticizing.
And if you are aware then your language seems either entirely crass if not a touch sensationalist.
Indeed the proof is in your own words and your inability (or unwillingness?) to distinguidh between a fraudulant claim (perhaps made unwittingly) and the actual practice of fraud by an insincere double-dealing skulduggery.
And if you need to get the dictionary out to prove your point then why not use it to find a less controversial term? Accusing someone of fraud can come off as an attack of slander. Was Dan lying with the intent to decieve? I for one don't see it.
So unless you deliberately want to provoke atheists by calling one of their own a fraud why not use your dictionary to find a less damaging term? For God's sake man, at least be Christian about it. Temper thy language.
@ Clamat,
You said,
Pliny provides only very weak evidence of Christ as a historical figure. This seems to be Mr. Barker’s point.
My Reply,
Please see my quote, again.
Phil
@Phil
You've posted quite a few things. Which quote, exactly?
@ Tristan,
You said,
For God's sake man, at least be Christian about it. Temper thy language.
My Reply,
Thanks for you advice Tristan. I will take it into consideration. However I feel you are speaking out of turn. You have no idea how long I have been dialoguing on this blog or with John or anything else about previous contact with both Dan Barker and myself. Perhaps you could ask a question before dishing out advice when you don't have any context with which to support it. Furthermore am happy to be Christian but where in the Bible does it say tone down language? Lastly, do you requests atheists to behave in the same way you have requested me? Perhaps you could look at the personal slander about me on previous comments and say the same thing to the atheists on this blog, that would at lest be consistent of you.
;-)
Phil.
@ Clamat,
You said,
This seems to be Mr. Barker’s point.
My Reply,
No, this is Mr. Barker's point. That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians. which as I keep stating is wrong blatantly so. Now we have two options. Either Dan Barker is so sloppy in his research that he quotes from a source he does not fully read but yet claims he does or he has read it and lied about it. Either way Dan is lying, how is this not Fraud?
Phil
@ Tristan
You said,
Was Dan lying with the intent to decieve? I for one don't see it. So unless you deliberately want to provoke atheists by calling one of their own a fraud why not use your dictionary to find a less damaging term?
My Reply,
As I just commented to Clamat...Now we have two options. Either Dan Barker is so sloppy in his research that he quotes from a source he has not read but claims he has or he has read it and lied about it. Either way Dan is lying deliberately. What word would you use for Dan?
Phil.
@Phil
Yes, you keep stating Barker is blatantly wrong and that he is "lying" and making "fraudlent" and "outrageous" claims about Pliny's references to Christ. What you do not do is provide any actual evidence to support your hyperbolic statements.
Barker's assessment is accurate: Pliny's short letter to Trajan contains only tangential references to Christ in the context of a discussion of Christians.
Please provide the other references to Christ in Pliny or admit there are none.
@ Clamat,
You said,
What you do not do is provide any actual evidence to support your hyperbolic statements.
My Reply,
This is tiresome, my original comment listed a link which gives all the information you need. Have you been there or is this a distraction technique?
You said,
Barker's assessment is accurate: Pliny's short letter to Trajan contains only tangential references to Christ in the context of a discussion of Christians.
My Reply,
Clamat if you don't improve with you argument I will be forced to leave it at that. I will reply this last time unless you have something better to say. How does 'all of Pliny's' writings mean one short letter to Trajan as you claim?
You said,
Please provide the other references to Christ in Pliny or admit there are none.
My Reply,
I did in my very first comment, please see that and work harder at the comment stream on blog posts.
Phil.
@Phil
You are making mountains out of molehills.
It doesn't matter who has been here longer... for the record it is I and not you. Personal correspondance is besides the point. I am only capable of commenting on this particular post and not others which I haven't read... but that is besides the point too.
My point was that many seem to find your accusational tone inconsistent with your evidence which makes your claim a weak one at best.
My advice about tempering your language was for your benefit not Dan's. If you turn out to be wrong then you will be spared sounding like a complete hypocrite. And if you are right then you will sound like less of a know-all. Besides, what is the use of being right if you have to be a prick about it? So don't say I didn't warn you.
To answer your question I would use the term "mistaken" but not fraudulent... since I know Dan is not an expert in ancient Greek lit. couldn't blame him for not getting it right and maybe mistakenly misconstrewing the facts. Now if Dan was a professional in the field of Early Christianity and ancient Greek texts and I found him to consistently and deliberately misrepresenting his research then I may call him on it. But by Dan's own account that is not what he was doing.
Therefore no need to correct those who feel you are way out of line here. If you tempered your language in the first place you wouldn't need such a defence to begin with. Now you are only digging your hole deeper by whining about it.
"Wherefore, my bloved bretheren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath..." Jas, 1:19
"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain." Jas, 1:26
So you can ask yourself... might I temper my languae as the Bible teaches so as not to practice a vain sort of faith... or are you gonna keep on whining?
@ Tristan
You said,
My point was that many seem to find your accusational tone inconsistent with your evidence which makes your claim a weak one at best.
My Reply,
True, yet this is as you say beside your point, your concern is my tone not whether I am right?
You said,
My advice about tempering your language was for your benefit not Dan's.
My Reply,
I disagree I think it was for your fellow atheists on this blog but again this is besides the point. If it was truly for my benefit then you could have done it on my blog or in an email. Methinks you like the publicity of this blog instead so your motives do not look so pure.
You said,
If you turn out to be wrong then you will be spared sounding like a complete hypocrite.
My Reply,
Absolutely, please show me where I can possibly be wrong? Again methinks you like the publicity of this stand that is why you comment so.
You said,
And if you are right then you will sound like less of a know-all
My Reply,
No I will sound just like I intended to sound, rather it make you look biased, unprofessional and sadly unfair towards the truth.
You said,
Besides, what is the use of being right if you have to be a prick about it? So don't say I didn't warn you.
My Reply,
Hmmm, how is calling a spade a spade a prick Tristan? You call it tone but as yet you cannot prove my point invalid, this is the sad biased part.
Phil
@ Tristan
You said,
I would use the term "mistaken" but not fraudulent...
My reply,
Ah, a little ambiguous let me push you Tristan, knowingly mistaken or unknowingly? Remember you cannot answer knowingly because that is fraud so prove to me how he unknowingly me he got it wrong?
You said,
since I know Dan is not an expert in ancient Greek lit. couldn't blame him for not getting it right and maybe mistakenly misconstrewing the facts.
My Reply,
I am not an expert and it took me 10 seconds to check his point? So what does expertise have to do with it. Come on Tristan your looking pretty silly now?
You said,
Now if Dan was a professional in the field of Early Christianity and ancient Greek texts and I found him to consistently and deliberately misrepresenting his research then I may call him on it.
My Reply,
Tristan. Look this is so far off being a rebuttal your looking pretty stupid. This has nothing to do with expertise, rather just reading through a book? Why do you have to be an expert to check facts that have been written down and can be checked on line? Id Dan is not an expert why did he make expert claims? Your point makes no sense and you should write to Dan and call him on it like you say.
You said,
But by Dan's own account that is not what he was doing.
My Reply,
Please enlighten me, what was Dan trying to do?
You said,
Therefore no need to correct those who feel you are way out of line here.
My Reply,
You have not shown why I am out line. Rather you have shown your biases and illogical argument. So yes I will continue to correct you and others that make such claims.
You said,
If you tempered your language in the first place you wouldn't need such a defence to begin with.
My Reply,
And if you understood the point you would retract your comment post haste! Notice how no one else has had anything to say, No John, No Dan, No No-one?
You said,
Now you are only digging your hole deeper by whining about it.
My Reply,
Hmmm, truth equals whining? Interesting!
Oh and thanks for the Bible quotes,
Have you read these ones,
Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Matt 15:14 "They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
Matt 23:27-29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Which bible versus should I listen to Tristan?
Phil
@ Tristan
You said,
I would use the term "mistaken" but not fraudulent...
My reply,
Ah, a little ambiguous let me push you Tristan, knowingly mistaken or unknowingly? Remember you cannot answer knowingly because that is fraud so prove to me how he unknowingly me he got it wrong?
You said,
since I know Dan is not an expert in ancient Greek lit. couldn't blame him for not getting it right and maybe mistakenly misconstrewing the facts.
My Reply,
I am not an expert and it took me 10 seconds to check his point? So what does expertise have to do with it. Come on Tristan your looking pretty silly now?
You said,
Now if Dan was a professional in the field of Early Christianity and ancient Greek texts and I found him to consistently and deliberately misrepresenting his research then I may call him on it.
My Reply,
Tristan. Look this is so far off being a rebuttal your looking pretty stupid. This has nothing to do with expertise, rather just reading through a book? Why do you have to be an expert to check facts that have been written down and can be checked on line? Id Dan is not an expert why did he make expert claims? Your point makes no sense and you should write to Dan and call him on it like you say.
Phil
@ Tristan
You said,
But by Dan's own account that is not what he was doing.
My Reply,
Please enlighten me, what was Dan trying to do?
You said,
Therefore no need to correct those who feel you are way out of line here.
My Reply,
You have not shown why I am out line. Rather you have shown your biases and illogical argument. So yes I will continue to correct you and others that make such claims.
You said,
If you tempered your language in the first place you wouldn't need such a defence to begin with.
My Reply,
And if you understood the point you would retract your comment post haste! Notice how no one else has had anything to say, No John, No Dan, No No-one?
You said,
Now you are only digging your hole deeper by whining about it.
My Reply,
Hmmm, truth equals whining? Interesting!
Oh and thanks for the Bible quotes,
Have you read these ones,
Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Matt 15:14 "They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
Matt 23:27-29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Which bible versus should I listen to Tristan?
Phil
@Phillip
"Well if that's the case then why use the words, all of Pliny's writings?"
Pliny wrote a lot of things. Of all the things he wrote only this letter refers to Christianity. (You seem to be trying to squirm out of providing references to the contrary. The link you provided doesn't allude to anything about Christ or Christians in Pliny's other writings.) To me, that's the natural reading of Dan's words as quoted by you. (And your quotation is all I have to go by.)
@ Mikespeir
The confusion is in the wording, all of Pliny's writings. Yes it true as you say that only on letter from Pliny to Trajan records Christianity and Christians. However Trajan did write back which Pliny kept and this also mentions Christians which is attributed to Plinty and what's more this is not 'one small tangential reference,' that Dan claims. There are many references in this one letter.
Phil
From Phillip's link:
Dan takes a very brief look at Pliny the Younger and concludes this the most amazing and untrue statement I have found within his entire book. ‘In 112 C.E., Pliny (the younger) said that “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god…” That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians.
Dan obviously thinks that no one will go and check the truth of this statement because a quick reading of Pliny’s letters shows Dan to be entirely wrong. Pliny writes much more about Christ and Christians and anyone that has this work knows it. Dan’s simple quote shows the fragrant lie that he tries to sell to his readers and like a shoddy second hand car salesman it is easy to see through him.
Pliny writes…
They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.[7]
In other words, Dan is right. You both refer to the same citation. You're calling him a fraud for not elaborating upon their reasons for praying?
Phillip,
You asked: "Why is it that you as atheist are happy to slam any Christian/preacher/minister for anything but when one of your own is found to be at best deliberately misleading about the historical facts of Jesus you run to his defence?"
You have no historical facts about Jesus. Hell, even the gospels conflict with one another. There is no agreement about your man Jesus among the Christianities either. In some Christianities, Jesus is considered nothing more than a nice guy like me or our host here at DebunkingChristianity, John Loftus.
To an objective reader of the Bible - which is, after all, just a book - words put into the mouth of the character, Jesus, mark him as delusional, a psychotic, and a pathological liar. Everyone has the right to read the Bible's words and make of it what they will. No one gets to dictate to me the "true" meaning of what are obviously fables, legends, myths, fairy tales, and outright bullshit, and that includes every member of the Christian clergy having a financial stake in that "true" meaning. It is known that the Bible was pieced together by Christian clergy having a financial stake in that "true" meaning, and they made sure the Bible's words included the size of their cut from everyone's income.
If Yahweh of the Bible was real, it would not need money, and it would most certainly not need fools like you to tell me the meaning of words it intended for me. If the Bible's Yahweh was real, it would talk to me directly, in language I would understand. If the Bible's god was real, there would be no reason for titles like reverend, priest, father, minister or preacher. If the Bible's god was real poor people would put their money to work keeping their families safe and healthy rather than pouring it into churches to support the useless bastards called clergy.
You do not have facts, historical or other, about some Jesus. More than anything you have a tradition of ignoring whatever contradicts or conflicts with your preferred interpretation of the Bible, to make life comfortable for yourself while you take money from those who need it. If we compare what you say about Bible god to what all the other Christian clergy say, we can see that you are a liar, a fraud, and a charlatan, Phil. If we compare what all you clerical types say to the real world, we can see that all of you are liars, frauds, and charlatans, Phil.
Phil,
You asked me if Dan was right about Pliny?
Well, there is no way to know, is there? There are lots of Jesuses today and there have been lots of them in the past. I once read a book, The Three Christs of Ypsilanti about three persons in a psyche ward, each unswayably convinced that he was the Bible Jesus. We can't say with any certainty what Pliny might have been referring to.
In addition to the indeterminacy of the word Jesus or the word Christ or the word Savior - there are always plenty of those around - we have the meaninglessness of the word "Christian." None can say precisely what Pliny meant by the word "Christian," and still today none can say what is meant by the word today. The word "Christian" has no specific meaning and it never has. Today there are lots of atheists who are Christians. There are many Christian clergy who are atheists. There are lots of Christians who do not associate Jesus with miracles.
So, Phil, none of us now looking back can say what exactly Pliny was referring to with the word "Christian." Were they the kind inspired by the angel Moroni? Did Pliny's Christians see Jesus as one kick-ass stage magician? If Pliny mentioned a god, which one did he refer to? There was no Bible to serve as the one true authoritative source for all thoughts Christian as there is today. Oh, that's right! there is no authoritative source for all thoughts Christian; never has been; never will be.
In reference to Pliny's letter, no one is disputing that Christians existed in the late 1st, early second century.
More importantly though, Pliny shows us that Roman Governors were not exactly sure what to do with Christians that recanted. This undercuts the argument that Christianity is true because the early followers were martyred.
"...and what's more this is not 'one small tangential reference,' that Dan claims. "
I'd say that's a matter of interpretation, and hardly fraud. (And, per your quote, Dan was only referring to Pliny's letter, not Trajan's. But Trajan's meager reply is virtually inconsequential except, perhaps, as additional evidence that there were Christians at the time, a fact that's hardly in dispute.) In fact, it is rather tangential. Neither Pliny nor Trajan were Christians. Neither knew Christian beliefs or practices firsthand. What they wrote could only be tangential. Which is not to say it is not of some evidentiary worth. It just has to be taken with a grain of salt. If that's the case Dan was making, he's right.
Rev Brown.
I have not read Dans book I have only watched some of his debates. And I have not read anything in regard to Pliny!
But Dan has made one fundamental point which cannot be reconciled away or reasoned away without intellectual dishonesty....that is the gospels are contradictory and inconsistent with eachother regarding alot of events and issues!
I know I bring this point up alot on here but I think it is probably one of the most relevent.
How can you accuse Dan about being a fraud yet ignore all the descrepencies with the source of your claims?....
If you want to say these descrepencies are not evidence of the bible authors own fraudulent claims then prove it!....because I (aswell as most people here) can show they exist.
No doubt I'll probably get a bunch of unsound and unlikely apologetic answers from believers on here
@Phil
You: “Clamat if you don't improve with you [sic] argument I will be forced to leave it at that.”
That’s rich, coming from one who apparently is incapable of making any argument at all. Simply yelling “I’ve already told you, it’s obvious!” over and over does not constitute an argument.
In any event, despite the “tiresome” weakness of my argument and failure to “work hard at the comment stream,” I see you have finally been forced to concede (in your post to mikespeir) that Pliny wrote of Christians in only a single letter.
Your link provides nothing new, it is simply a different translation of the same excerpt cited by Barker. Which a man of your profound erudition obviously knew. So your statements that the link would provide different examples from Pliny were knowingly false. So you knowingly made false statements.
Hmmm, this puts me in mind of a certain legal concept…
Your discussion of the response from Trajan is a transparent attempt to change the subject. The subject being your accusation that Barker fraudulently misrepresented Pliny (not Trajan). Your attempt to somehow “attribute” Trajan’s letter to Pliny is simply ridiculous.
Unless you’re actually arguing that the letter to Trajan contains the word “Christ” three times, not one, and that counts as three references to Christ, and that this is Barker’s fraud? Good luck with that one.
@ Clamat
So your whole point that Dan argument is fine is based on the fact in one letter not others he mentions Christ and Christians many times.
You say,
So your statements that the link would provide different examples from Pliny were knowingly false. So you knowingly made false statements.
My Reply,
No Clamat. Pliny makes many references to Christians and to Christ in his letter and Trajan responds. You are trying to defend the indefensible here. If it was one small reference then the would be one reference not many. If it was one letter then that would be different.
You said,
Trajan is a transparent attempt to change the subject.
My Reply,
Again not at all. The response from Trajan is attributed in Pliny's writings. So this fits in with Dan's mistake and you squirming.
Phil
@ Ryan,
Just because there is no official policy from rome about killing Christians does not mean they were not martyred.
Phil
No Phil, it's safe to assume they were martyred (it's hard to believe you actually know how to read, but I guess you must), what you don't know is if they were given the chance to recant. A big part of the apologist's classic "cumulative case" depends on you knowing that they chose not to recant because they witnessed the resurrected christ. You don't know this and Pliny highlights that you aren't warrented to believe it.
@Rev. Phil
You clearly claimed that there are “letters,” plural, and that you linked to them. There are not, and you did not. My charge of knowingly making false statements stands. Unless you’d like to admit that you were just sloppy in your own research? Just admit you were wrong, there’s no shame in it. I’ll reduce the charge to negligent misrepresentation.
You charged Barker with fraud for misrepresenting Pliny. Trajan is not Pliny. Trajan’s response cannot be attributed to Pliny. Trajan’s response does not constitute a separate reference to Christians by Pliny. Not even if Pliny says “Trajan responded to my letter about Christians.” Trajan’s response is irrelevant to your charge of fraud.
It is one letter. Again, why can’t you just admit it?
The question then becomes whether Barker misrepresented this lone letter.
Holy moly. Your argument actually is that Pliny uses the word “Christ” and “Christian” more than once in the letter, and this constitutes multiple references. Lord, give me strength!
Apparently, your “outrage” stems from Barker’s usage of the word “reference.” Ahh, semantics, the favorite refuge of theists and recalcitrant children.
The greater issue Barker tackles is the historicity of Christ. The letter is a single historicalreference.
And a single historical reference to Christians, not Christ. (So we’re on the same page: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html) It does not say “Christ said” or “Christ did” or even “Joe said Christ said” or “Joe said Christ did.” Rather, it says “Christians say, Christians do, Christians believe [x].”
The letter only uses the word “Christ” three times. Twice to say accused Christians cursed. So, there is a single affirmative use of the word “Christ” in the letter.
Hypothetical: In my life, I author hundreds of letters. In one of them I detail my encounter with people who believe in Bigfoot – “Bigfootians.” In this letter I use the word Bigfoot 1000 times, and refer to Bigfootians another 1000.
Query: Would it be your position that my “writings” constitute 2000 historical references to Bigfoot”?
To the greater issue: Do you think this constitutes anything other than extraordinarily weak evidence for Bigfoot?
Barker is right. You accusation of fraud is completely unfounded. The honorable thing to do would be to say “My bad. I take it back.”
But I predict you will further dig in your heels. Call it a hunch.
*edit
Previous post should read:
"Twice to say accused Christians cursed Christ."
@ Ryan,
so what do you make of this quote?
After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.
Phil
@ Clamat,
You said,
My charge of knowingly making false statements stands. Unless you’d like to admit that you were just sloppy in your own research?
My reply,
And I responded bout the letter from Trajan attributed to Pliny, are you really trying to win this with this tactic?
You said,
Trajan’s response cannot be attributed to Pliny.
My Reply,
You need to do your homework here. Pliny arranged all of this writing and it is safe to assume that this letter back from Trajan is edited at the very least by Pliny if not authored in some part. Is does constitute part of his writing and is arranged by him for this purpose. You are trying to squirm here and it is making you look bad.
You said,
It is one letter. Again, why can’t you just admit it?
My Reply,
Because it is not.
You said,
Ahh, semantics, the favorite refuge of theists and recalcitrant children.
My Reply,
which you are employing here.
P
@Rev. Phil
You’re the one who’s advancing a semantic argument to justify calling Barker a fraud, you can hardly object that I’ve agreed to play your silly game.
I’ll take your continued insistence that there are two letters (and your silence on my Bigfoot / 2000 references hypothetical) to mean you concede that “historical reference” is what Barker meant.
The question thus becomes: Does Barker misrepresent the number of historical references? You maintain he does, because “it’s not just one letter.”
In other words: “Barker is an outrageous fraud! He says there’s only one reference in Pliny – there are two!!. (An aside: Even assuming you’re right, I’m not sure in what world two references constitutes the multitude you promised earlier, but no matter.)
So let me get this straight: Pliny wrote the response to his own letter? And this constitutes an independent historical reference?
Another hypothetical: I write my “Bigfootians” letter. And then I respond to myself. And then I respond to my own response. And so on, until I have authored a series of 1000 letters.
Another query: To your mind, this constitutes 1000 historical references to Bigfoot?
@ Clamat,
Thanks for agreeing about Pliny, it did take some time.
Of course there are other problems with Dan's book but this was just one example. I take your point that reference might mean 1 letter, but I think that is a tiny thread to hang a argument on, semantics as you say.
Now to your Bigfoot's letter, I did not say the Pliny wrote the response entirely rather he edited and arranged them, that's why they are attributed to him. Just like anyone publishing and writing the letters of some one else. The diary of David Brainard By Jonathan Edwards is both the work of Brainard and Edwards and the entire book is AUTHORED by Edwards. Dan knows this and therefore his statement is deliberately out to deceive? What would you call what he has said?
Dan responded:
Pliny the Younger wrote many things during his lifetime, but only one
reference to Christ, a small letter he wrote to Trajan. It is true
that he uses "Christians" a number of times, and "Christ" twice, in
that letter, but my comment is that "in all of Pliny's writings," this
little letter is the only place he talks about that religion. If
someone can find more than this, I would like to see it.
On its face, that might seem to strengthen the evidence, since Pliny
was obviously not a cheerleader for Christianity. But here is what is
important:
He did not mention "Jesus." There were many other "Christs" in the
first and second century. There was a Theudas the Christ, a Judas the
Christ, and others, as I point out in my book. Christian apologists
don't seem to consider that a "hymn to Christ" may have been a "hymn
to Judas."
These people could not have known Jesus, since (if he existed) he had
died almost a century earlier.
The hymn they were singing was just words. It would be like proving
the existence of the Angel Moroni because Mormons a century later were
singing about him, or proving the historical existence of the Virgin
of Guadalupe because Mexicans a century later were writing poems about
her. Such a hymn does not count as historical evidence, otherwise Paul
Bunyan really existed.
Even if those Christians actually thought their Messiah (Christ) truly
had existed, and even if they thought it was Jesus of Nazareth (we
have no way to know this), their worth for historical testimony is
second or third or fourth hand, by that time. In other words, it is
hearsay. In a court of law, hearsay is inadmissible as evidence. I
know that history allows for much lower standards of "evidence" than a
court of law, but this is not saying much -- it is saying that some
historical hypotheses are stronger than others, and since all
historical claims are a matter of probability, a "hymn to Christ" is
allowed only as a very unlikely evidence for historicity.
@Rev. Phil
So by “Pliny writes much more” you meant “Pliny writes once more.” Tip: In the future it may save time if you don’t lead with equivocation.
Your original fraud claim against Barker was that he misrepresents the number of references to Christ in “Pliny’s writings.” The plain meaning of “Pliny’s writings” is “things written by Pliny.” Your claim that “Pliny’s writings” means “Pliny’s editings” is simply more equivocation and semantic games.
As is your novel understanding of the word “attribute”:
You express your argument thus: “Trajan did write back which Pliny kept and this also mentions Christians which is attributed to Plinty [sic].” Even after wading through the atrocious syntax, punctuation, grammar, and spelling, this is absurd.
From Merriam-Webster online:
attribute (transitive verb)
2.b: to reckon as made or originated in an indicated fashion <attributed the invention to a Russian>
From the Cambridge dictionary online:
attribute sth to sb/sth phrasal verb: to say or think that something is the result or work of something or someone else: Most experts have attributed the drawing to Michaelangelo
Letters written by one person are most certainly not attributed to the editor who compiles and publishes them. Trajan’s letter is not reckoned as “made by” or “originating” with Pliny. “Trajan’s” letter is not thought to be the “work of” Pliny. Trajan’s letter is not “attributed” to Pliny.
If it is attributed to Pliny, i.e., Pliny actually wrote it, then my Bigfoot example applies.
As to your allusions of “other problems with Dan’s book”:
You led with and have spent numerous posts arguing the “Pliny point,” so I assume this is your strongest case against Barker. You’ve conceded Barker’s reference “might mean 1 letter.” Your argument that this is “fraudulent” because Trajan’s letter is “attributed” to Pliny is shown to be absurd.
I will not engage you further, or subject myself to a discussion of the unspecified “other problems,” until you expressly withdraw your charge of fraud against Mr. Barker.
@ Clamat & John,
You said,
In the future it may save time if you don’t lead with equivocation.
My Reply,
Let us have a look at you logic. You accuse me of Equivocation however, your Defending Dan who agrees with you of this statement...(how could he not?) That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference.
Now you have defended Dan here on reference of course Dan meant letter that's what you argue. Isn't this equivocation? But the kicker is Dans use of word before this tangential.
Tangential means...
• diverging from a previous course or line; erratic : tangential thoughts
• hardly touching a matter; peripheral:
Now Clamat and John and Dan do you honestly argue that Dan does mean, 'Hardly touching a matter, peripheral' actually equals his statement 'It is true that he uses "Christians" a number of times, and "Christ" twice, in that letter, but my comment is that "in all of Pliny's writings," this little letter is the only place he talks about that religion.
So Pliny writes 1 letter [amongst many] with an extensive exploration into the religion requiring assistance from Trajan and this is hardly touching the matter as you argue? Come on this is either equivocation as you accuse me of or Fraud, Which one is it.
Phil
@ Clamat and John
Furthermore is Dan's quote is so reliable and honest why does he state...
and not even to Christ, but to Christians.
and now clarifies this distortion with...
He did not mention "Jesus." There were many other "Christs" in the first and second century. There was a Theudas the Christ, a Judas the Christ, and others, as I point out in my book. Christian apologists don't seem to consider that a "hymn to Christ" may have been a "hymn to Judas."
To which we I have responded,
The Christians that Pliny encounters follow directly the exact teachings of Jesus Christ. No fraud, theft, adultery, lying, but praying and sharing communion together. If this was another Christ as Dan wants us to possible consider then he is an exact carbon copy of Jesus Christ that we read about in the gospel. Clearly the more reasonable conclusions is that these Christians were following the Jesus Christ of the Gospel accounts, not s second rate Christ that might of appeared.
Again What do you make of this and what would you call it? I'll wait eagerly for your response.
I'm still waiting to see references to the multiple times that Pliny mentions Christians ...
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I need to go smash my head against a brick wall a few times after reading every comment on this post.
Why, because of Browns week defense and outrageous charges.
Post a Comment