The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

[joelr]

Actually, what we're arguing is the following:

1) You have experienced no abnormal money instances
2) I'm claiming hundreds of anecdotal experiences
3) You trust you and distrust me--I've done nothing to earn your trust--and you keep wrongly accusing me of confirmation bias, being ill-informed and ascientific.

I trust me and I know I'm telling the truth.

1) no I did not say either way, I'm just smart enough to know it's not something to be used in a debate
2)yes, you are claiming anecdotal experiences
3) I have not wrongly accused you of confirmation bias, you definitely have confirmation bias and to expect to use anecdotal heresay as evidence is completely non-scientific so you just proved my case right there.

You already said the bible claims to help ALL CHRISTIANS who practice tithing and we have evidence of many people who were harmed. The discussion is over. Stop embarrassing yourself with this ridiculous line of argument.
Try to imagine someone was swearing they have been receiving magic money help from Merlin. It's not going to forward anyone's belief in Merlin.


You trust you and know you are telling the truth? Do you realize you are debating with OTHER PEOPLE? Do you understand that DOES NOT MATTER in a debate with people who are NOT YOU??

Use that degree. Maybe you should meditate on that instead of biblical contradictions for a while?

 

[joelr]

The gospels weren't written in 325 AD, and they describe persecutions. What am I misunderstanding from your post here?

What you are missing (for the 15th time) is that the gospels are not written as histories but as mythic fiction.

If we look at history we see there was some discipline by fellow Jews because it was a new movement. So that was written in to the myth. The long article posted in the thread you replied to explains how much of the "Christian persecution" was a later invention which tried to portray a picture of constant persecution.



"
Early Christianity began as a sect among Second Temple Jews, and according to the New Testament account, Pharisees, including Paul of Tarsus prior to his conversion to Christianity, persecuted early Christians. The early Christians preached the second coming of a Messiah which did not conform to their religious teachings.[1] However, feeling that their beliefs were supported by Jewish scripture, Christians had been hopeful that their countrymen would accept their faith. Despite individual conversions, the vast majority of Judean Jews did not become Christians.[2]

Claudia Setzer asserts that, "Jews did not see Christians as clearly separate from their own community until at least the middle of the second century." Thus, acts of Jewish persecution of Christians fall within the boundaries of synagogue discipline and were so perceived by Jews acting and thinking as the established community. The Christians, on the other hand, saw themselves as persecuted rather than "disciplined."[3]"



But in the 1st 2 centuries there was not as much persecution from Romans as portrayed:

"In the first two centuries Christianity was a relatively small sect which was not a significant concern of the Emperor. The Church was not in a struggle for its existence during its first centuries,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians


But it does not matter. The point was related to writing the gospels and persecution. You had a belief that writing a gospel meant immediate and assured persecution and there is no evidence to support that. The Jews were not killing each other over these groups. The Pharisees, Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots and the Jesus movement were still united by many religious beliefs.
Like I've already said several times, the Romans DID NOT CARE about another version of mystery religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What you are missing (for the 15th time) is that the gospels are not written as histories but as mythic fiction.

If we look at history we see there was some discipline by fellow Jews because it was a new movement. So that was written in to the myth. The long article posted in the thread you replied to explains how much of the "Christian persecution" was a later invention which tried to portray a picture of constant persecution.



"
Early Christianity began as a sect among Second Temple Jews, and according to the New Testament account, Pharisees, including Paul of Tarsus prior to his conversion to Christianity, persecuted early Christians. The early Christians preached the second coming of a Messiah which did not conform to their religious teachings.[1] However, feeling that their beliefs were supported by Jewish scripture, Christians had been hopeful that their countrymen would accept their faith. Despite individual conversions, the vast majority of Judean Jews did not become Christians.[2]

Claudia Setzer asserts that, "Jews did not see Christians as clearly separate from their own community until at least the middle of the second century." Thus, acts of Jewish persecution of Christians fall within the boundaries of synagogue discipline and were so perceived by Jews acting and thinking as the established community. The Christians, on the other hand, saw themselves as persecuted rather than "disciplined."[3]"



But in the 1st 2 centuries there was not as much persecution from Romans as portrayed:

"In the first two centuries Christianity was a relatively small sect which was not a significant concern of the Emperor. The Church was not in a struggle for its existence during its first centuries,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians


But it does not matter. The point was related to writing the gospels and persecution. You had a belief that writing a gospel meant immediate and assured persecution and there is no evidence to support that. The Jews were not killing each other over these groups. The Pharisees, Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots and the Jesus movement were still united by many religious beliefs.
Like I've already said several times, the Romans DID NOT CARE about another version of mystery religion.

You've posted quite a few scholarly OPINIONS on the myths of the NT. Do you have any EVIDENCE that any NT writer lied about anything in the NT? Other than your anti-supernatural bias?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And yet I'm still schooling you on historicity. Believers generally stay away from history because the field is in consensus that it's a myth. Every topic raises so far you have shown knowledge that does not agree with the historicity field. Shouting accolades doesn't change this fact.
In fact, which one of us is trying to use personal experience as evidence?
You're listing all your college courses and academic credentials and then giving evidence of an invisible friend who shepards you.

You cannot answer all contradictions because no one can. Except with ridiculous apologetics. If you were an expert you would know that.
There are numeric contradictions, Calvinism vs Arminianism, is Jesus god, even if the gospels were copied word for word without contradictions how would this make it true?

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. Source: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've made it clear that I cannot know all the facts in this situation and continuing it is a desperate bid to at least have something unfalsifiable.
It's already been shown that some Christians have gone broke tithing so now you have to believe you are more important than them which is delusional.



And even more unprovable cognitive bias comes out. At least now this sheds more light on your first question - it's confirmation bias.
When you do something "wrong" you look for things you can label as punishment and when you do things "righteous" you find things that you can believe are rewards. Real life throws stuff at as every single hour one could use as confirmation of reward and punishment.
In most sects of Hindu each person has a personal deity (sort of like an Angel in Judaism) who watches over, guides, gives wisdom, they also have compelling stories about how the god came to them in dreams and gave correct advice and so on.
It's only evidence that people believe weird things.

I think either delusional or highly illogical is your it's "been shown that some Christians have gone broke tithing".

You know tithing is 10%, yes?

 

[joelr]

You've posted quite a few scholarly OPINIONS on the myths of the NT. Do you have any EVIDENCE that any NT writer lied about anything in the NT? Other than your anti-supernatural bias?

Well in the sense that we also don't have evidence that the Hindu pantheon are "lies" or any other myth, no.
We do have about the same evidence that all myths have. With the NT we have extreme religious syncretism with the OT and NT, mythic writing, excellent evidence that the gospels were copied from Mark and used older myths as a template, a savior-god craze that ONLY happened in the Mediterranean in a relatively small span of time. We also know that the movement was extremely diverse and 50% of the 40 original gospels were more Gnostic than what we now consider standard beliefs.
The original myths Christianity came from are now almost 100% considered myth. You can't get a real god out of a myth.

"Moses (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/)[2][Note 1] was a prophet according to the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,"

Now as to a supernatural bias, I do not have a supernatural bias. I have no problem with the supernatural. The supernatural did not abuse me as a child, the supernatural did not bully me as a kid.
There is a thing called the scientific method and it seems to have a decent track record. There have been ZERO EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE so far. So assuming one supernatural story must be true because a lot of people believe it is about as wise as using prayer to cure a ruptured appendix. It's not even a unique story? It isn't just believing in a supernatural agent it involves believing there is a king-like being who judges your sex life and send non-believers to eternal fire?


The short answer is just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it true. Do not be fooled by bad apologetics.

 

[joelr]

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. Source: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Now, from the SAME ARTICLE YOU JUST POSTED FROM:

Historical reliability of the Gospels

"The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"


Yes the historicity field is almost entirely in consensus that Jesus was a man who was later mythicized.
Besides a few fundamentalist PhDs it is overwhelming.
The most recent historicity study done since 1926 gives a 1 in 3 odds in favor of there was no actual man. Richard Carrier's book is peer reviewed and has not been debunked but it does not matter either way. Each specialist is in agreement that this is fiction when it comes to the religious aspects.
Mark Goodacre is the expert on the Q gospel (or lack of Q), R Purvoe is the Acts specialist, Thomas Thompson is the authority on Moses, Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic gospels, and all others, Richard Price, Bart Ehrman, as well as several peer reviewed papers I've already posted on the gospel narratives following other literature.



"Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

I think either delusional or highly illogical is your it's "been shown that some Christians have gone broke tithing".

You know tithing is 10%, yes?

Do you realize you are posting unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence................wait for it.................In the SCIENCE and religion forum?!? I am embarrassed for you.

In the real world 10% of a paycheck could be 1-200 dollars/month. Do you have any idea how hard some people scrape? You tell your landlord (when you get one) you can't pay 100 dollars of rent. Here is a hint, it goes onto next months rent if you don't get a notice to quit right then. Then you need a new apartment which requires first, last, security and possible a brokers fee, each one months rent.
You are then in a sh#t storm of bad.

One particular story had a woman trying to decide to tithe or buy the insulin her husband needed. Others had to be reimbursed by their church. Going broke means you have run out of money for food, scripts, gas or rent until the next paycheck which is already spent on other bills. If you don't pay the car insurance your plates get cancelled and you can't drive. Going broke isn't having "zero" money.

This is the science section, I'm not interested in anecdotes. The historicity reference was ok, this is crap.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well in the sense that we also don't have evidence that the Hindu pantheon are "lies" or any other myth, no.
We do have about the same evidence that all myths have. With the NT we have extreme religious syncretism with the OT and NT, mythic writing, excellent evidence that the gospels were copied from Mark and used older myths as a template, a savior-god craze that ONLY happened in the Mediterranean in a relatively small span of time. We also know that the movement was extremely diverse and 50% of the 40 original gospels were more Gnostic than what we now consider standard beliefs.
The original myths Christianity came from are now almost 100% considered myth. You can't get a real god out of a myth.

"Moses (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/)[2][Note 1] was a prophet according to the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,"

Now as to a supernatural bias, I do not have a supernatural bias. I have no problem with the supernatural. The supernatural did not abuse me as a child, the supernatural did not bully me as a kid.
There is a thing called the scientific method and it seems to have a decent track record. There have been ZERO EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE so far. So assuming one supernatural story must be true because a lot of people believe it is about as wise as using prayer to cure a ruptured appendix. It's not even a unique story? It isn't just believing in a supernatural agent it involves believing there is a king-like being who judges your sex life and send non-believers to eternal fire?


The short answer is just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't make it true. Do not be fooled by bad apologetics.

Sorry, but re: other religions, in a decision-theoretic context we are justified in ignoring states which have a remotely small probability of obtaining, like Zeus/Odin. Or do you want to eliminate parachutes on airplanes because we have alternatives to parachutes from 20,000 feet—like jumping from a broken plane to land on a good plane 20 feet below?

Whether the scriptures of other religions are true or false has no bearing upon the Bible's validity or lack thereof. The fact that 10 of 11 contestants failed to win a race could hardly be taken as a plausible argument that therefore no one could have won. Speaking of MONEY, that there is counterfeit money in abundance does not suggest for even a moment that real money doesn't exist. In fact, it argues for its existence, because otherwise counterfeiting would have no purpose. That billions of people are willing to accept the sacred writings of various religions as having been inspired by God shows a deep hunger within mankind for divine revelation that has always existed in all ages, in all races and cultures, and in all places.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now, from the SAME ARTICLE YOU JUST POSTED FROM:

Historical reliability of the Gospels

"The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"


Yes the historicity field is almost entirely in consensus that Jesus was a man who was later mythicized.
Besides a few fundamentalist PhDs it is overwhelming.
The most recent historicity study done since 1926 gives a 1 in 3 odds in favor of there was no actual man. Richard Carrier's book is peer reviewed and has not been debunked but it does not matter either way. Each specialist is in agreement that this is fiction when it comes to the religious aspects.
Mark Goodacre is the expert on the Q gospel (or lack of Q), R Purvoe is the Acts specialist, Thomas Thompson is the authority on Moses, Elaine Pagels on the Gnostic gospels, and all others, Richard Price, Bart Ehrman, as well as several peer reviewed papers I've already posted on the gospel narratives following other literature.



"Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

I was aware that most religion scholars find little history in the gospels. I question anyone's assertion that Jesus wasn't a real person who died on a Roman cross.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you realize you are posting unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence................wait for it.................In the SCIENCE and religion forum?!? I am embarrassed for you.

In the real world 10% of a paycheck could be 1-200 dollars/month. Do you have any idea how hard some people scrape? You tell your landlord (when you get one) you can't pay 100 dollars of rent. Here is a hint, it goes onto next months rent if you don't get a notice to quit right then. Then you need a new apartment which requires first, last, security and possible a brokers fee, each one months rent.
You are then in a sh#t storm of bad.

One particular story had a woman trying to decide to tithe or buy the insulin her husband needed. Others had to be reimbursed by their church. Going broke means you have run out of money for food, scripts, gas or rent until the next paycheck which is already spent on other bills. If you don't pay the car insurance your plates get cancelled and you can't drive. Going broke isn't having "zero" money.

This is the science section, I'm not interested in anecdotes. The historicity reference was ok, this is crap.

Jesus guaranteed food and clothing to his followers. When money is tight, people are not forced or required to tithe. Some may choose to--it's a free country. Do you have an example addressing my original assertion? That no tithing Christian has ever starved to death?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus guaranteed food and clothing to his followers. When money is tight, people are not forced or required to tithe. Some may choose to--it's a free country. Do you have an example addressing my original assertion? That no tithing Christian has ever starved to death?

How are you going to prove that?

 

[joelr]

Sorry, but re: other religions, in a decision-theoretic context we are justified in ignoring states which have a remotely small probability of obtaining, like Zeus/Odin. Or do you want to eliminate parachutes on airplanes because we have alternatives to parachutes from 20,000 feet—like jumping from a broken plane to land on a good plane 20 feet below?

You are responding to some other question in your mind. First the question you posed was regarding literal evidence and we do not have literal evidence that any religion or mythic story is false. It's a fallacy to argue that if something is unfalsifiable then it's probably true.
My bringing up other religions serves to make the example that they are all unfalsifiable and it means nothing.

Whether the scriptures of other religions are true or false has no bearing upon the Bible's validity or lack thereof. The fact that 10 of 11 contestants failed to win a race could hardly be taken as a plausible argument that therefore no one could have won. Speaking of MONEY, that there is counterfeit money in abundance does not suggest for even a moment that real money doesn't exist. In fact, it argues for its existence, because otherwise counterfeiting would have no purpose.

Again, in this sense I never said other religions being false has any bearing on any other religion? Just that they are all unfalsifiable so asking for evidence of them being a lie is a fallacy.

But in this case we know the OT is a myth so that does have a direct bearing on the NT. The fact that the NT is just complete religious syncretism also is a hint but those are different topics.

Your examples of races and money are completely non-related and unfortunately show the bias one needs to believe a religion. With races there actually IS a winner and with money there IS real money. Their are NO REAL MYTHS. While you may claim one is real there is no evidence to support it. I've seen money and races.

Now do fake religious myths argue that one must be true? Do fake psychics mean one is real? NO!
Yes all ghost stories, Big Foot stories, remote viewing and whatever else can all be fiction. Humans are creative like that.
Myth already has a purpose, it teaches wisdom. It also helped people deal with the bronze age/dark ages where little was known about anything and life was hard and short.

That billions of people are willing to accept the sacred writings of various religions as having been inspired by God shows a deep hunger within mankind for divine revelation that has always existed in all ages, in all races and cultures, and in all places.

We already know people like to believe myths as real. That doesn't mean they are real. They are especially not literal. There is definitely a deep hunger people have that allows them to be fooled when some jerk decides to claim he had a revelation. Strangely these revelations always seem to reflect the similar myths of the time and never reveal anything useful in a medical, scientific or even philosophical way.
Again, yes the Sermon has good parts but Rabbi Hillel was already preaching this stuff earlier. Because it's in the OT. Scholarship believe the Sermon was constructed from the Greek OT the The Septuagint.

 

[joelr]

I was aware that most religion scholars find little history in the gospels. I question anyone's assertion that Jesus wasn't a real person who died on a Roman cross.

While most scholars believe Jesus was a man later mythicized PhD R. Carrier has a peer reviewed book that clearly demonstrates it's more likely he was a myth. He has made a good case.
He goes over a few aspects of the lack of evidence and a few other common arguments in his response to The Guardian article “What Is the Historical Evidence that Jesus Christ Lived and Died?” by Simon Gathercole


The Guardian on Jesus: Dear oh dear... • Richard Carrier

"Jesus actually was invented in the Gospels as a Gentile-friendly, Greek-speaking, Cynic-sounding, Jewish demigod, no different than the invented Egyptian demigod Osiris or the invented Syrian demigod Adonis or anyone else of like kind. While many Gentiles were already converting to or admiring of Judaism, Paul came along and made it even easier to sign up (by eliminating circumcision and the grueling ritual and dietary requirements). The Gospels were made up decades after Paul had died. And they were fabricated in Greek, because they were written for the Gentile and Hellenized Jewish audiences that were already in the market for an exotic salvation cult just like the Christians were selling. Just as “gospels” were invented for every other foreign culture’s savior god that the pagans were popularly flocking to, the Christians did exactly the same with theirs. That makes his invented historicity typical of the exotic foreign savior gods of the era...."


His conclusion summarizes the issues with the consensus of historicity:


Conclusion
This is representative of the bankrupt methods and arguments the so-called “consensus” of Jesus’s historicity is based on. False claims and bad logic are spun into, as Gathercole puts it, “abundant historical references” that “leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.” Somehow no historical references, becomes abundant historical references; and late hagiographic myths become histories; and forgeries become evidence; and texts showing some challenged a historical Jesus, becomes “no one” challenged a historical Jesus; and somehow we magically know what existed in entire lifetimes of missing texts discussing the reality of Jesus. And instead of citing the only peer reviewed academic book on the question of the historicity of Jesus published in almost 100 years, Gathercole cites Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman: neither of whom has ever published any peer reviewed book or article on defending the historicity of Jesus.

 

[joelr]

Jesus guaranteed food and clothing to his followers. When money is tight, people are not forced or required to tithe. Some may choose to--it's a free country. Do you have an example addressing my original assertion? That no tithing Christian has ever starved to death?

Ha, talk about goal-post switching, now tithing is a success as long as one doesn't actually DIE?!? You said it works according to scripture. But has not always worked and is such a problem there are websites dedicated to helping people who have been harmed. I just explained that going broke can result in all kinds of sh$T storms of bad days and serious anxiety and your question is "but did anyone die?"
This slippery apologetics routine is getting old.


Please stop with the anecdotal BS in the science forum.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ha, talk about goal-post switching, now tithing is a success as long as one doesn't actually DIE?!? You said it works according to scripture. But has not always worked and is such a problem there are websites dedicated to helping people who have been harmed. I just explained that going broke can result in all kinds of sh$T storms of bad days and serious anxiety and your question is "but did anyone die?"
This slippery apologetics routine is getting old.


Please stop with the anecdotal BS in the science forum.

You're not following:

1) Jesus guaranteed born agains food and clothing. "Enough". I've never heard of a born again starving to death, ever.

2) Jesus guaranteed tithers abundant food and their needs met. Anecdotes about cultists who do not tithe (give 10% to their local church that is discipling them) but give money to ripoff artists while refusing to buy medicine for real needs isn't addressing the Bible's requirements.

3) You keep saying my anecdotes are meaningless--they have limited application, say, in peer reviewed science--but my testimony to you is that God has come through for me countless times when I've tithed faithfully.

 

[BilliardsBall]

While most scholars believe Jesus was a man later mythicized PhD R. Carrier has a peer reviewed book that clearly demonstrates it's more likely he was a myth. He has made a good case.
He goes over a few aspects of the lack of evidence and a few other common arguments in his response to The Guardian article “What Is the Historical Evidence that Jesus Christ Lived and Died?” by Simon Gathercole


The Guardian on Jesus: Dear oh dear... • Richard Carrier

"Jesus actually was invented in the Gospels as a Gentile-friendly, Greek-speaking, Cynic-sounding, Jewish demigod, no different than the invented Egyptian demigod Osiris or the invented Syrian demigod Adonis or anyone else of like kind. While many Gentiles were already converting to or admiring of Judaism, Paul came along and made it even easier to sign up (by eliminating circumcision and the grueling ritual and dietary requirements). The Gospels were made up decades after Paul had died. And they were fabricated in Greek, because they were written for the Gentile and Hellenized Jewish audiences that were already in the market for an exotic salvation cult just like the Christians were selling. Just as “gospels” were invented for every other foreign culture’s savior god that the pagans were popularly flocking to, the Christians did exactly the same with theirs. That makes his invented historicity typical of the exotic foreign savior gods of the era...."


His conclusion summarizes the issues with the consensus of historicity:


Conclusion
This is representative of the bankrupt methods and arguments the so-called “consensus” of Jesus’s historicity is based on. False claims and bad logic are spun into, as Gathercole puts it, “abundant historical references” that “leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.” Somehow no historical references, becomes abundant historical references; and late hagiographic myths become histories; and forgeries become evidence; and texts showing some challenged a historical Jesus, becomes “no one” challenged a historical Jesus; and somehow we magically know what existed in entire lifetimes of missing texts discussing the reality of Jesus. And instead of citing the only peer reviewed academic book on the question of the historicity of Jesus published in almost 100 years, Gathercole cites Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman: neither of whom has ever published any peer reviewed book or article on defending the historicity of Jesus.

Carrier doesn't make a good case as to why a dozen writers conspired to create a myth--when their contemporaries could have made strong counter claims. I've grown a little tired of asking you to do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Carrier doesn't make a good case as to why a dozen writers conspired to create a myth--when their contemporaries could have made strong counter claims. I've grown a little tired of asking you to do the same.

You do not have a clue as to what contemporary opposition to Christianity said.

 

[joelr]

You're not following:

1) Jesus guaranteed born agains food and clothing. "Enough". I've never heard of a born again starving to death, ever.

2) Jesus guaranteed tithers abundant food and their needs met. Anecdotes about cultists who do not tithe (give 10% to their local church that is discipling them) but give money to ripoff artists while refusing to buy medicine for real needs isn't addressing the Bible's requirements.

3) You keep saying my anecdotes are meaningless--they have limited application, say, in peer reviewed science--but my testimony to you is that God has come through for me countless times when I've tithed faithfully.

1)In just Nigeria the militant Boko Haram Muslims are attacking and starving Nigerian Christians to death. 20 million have died. 184 children die every day of starvation. Now we are actually going in a circle. Whatever it takes to keep that belief from being questioned I guess?

2)Other websites I posted showed instances of people who were tithing properly and all types of disasters happened. Sometimes the church had to step in and give them money back. Many times the people tithing confirmation biased right into a different mindset---"Oh god doesn't want us to tithe he wants us to be generouos minded....?"
Whatever.

3) Your stories about cognative dissonance are humorous but really don't belong in a science thread. Maybe I should start giving money and praying to Thor?

 

[joelr]

Carrier doesn't make a good case as to why a dozen writers conspired to create a myth--when their contemporaries could have made strong counter claims. I've grown a little tired of asking you to do the same.

The reasons for the myth have been established.
First the counterclaims have been erased off the face of the earth. We still have Jews who say it's a false movement (why are you ignoring that?) but in this link this fact is discussed.

In fact, besides the gospels ALL OTHER Evidence from the first 80 years conveniently not preserved. AND - other evidence forged in it's place. scholarship admits of many forgeries from the religion attempting to forward it's agenda.

The myth in question was diverse and many disperate versions existed, some having the resurrection as a metaphor (see the Gnostoc Gospels by Elaine Pagels).
The bishop Ireaneous wanted a strict power-structure where only the supposed bloodline could teach and interpret the scripture, only those could be church leaders and they considered all the other sects heretics.
This version survived but it didn't catch on with the Jews. Being a gentile cult it did attract gentiles and savior god cults were very popular.
Emperor Constantine 200 years later decided to use it to unify Rome then made it law and it took off.

Actually Carrier does explain all that stuff, you clearly haven't read or listened to any of his work. One again you are actually telling straight out lies.

But since you thing you disagree with Carrier here is his lecture on "Why Invent the Jesus?"

So you tell me which points you disagree with and where he doesn't make a "good case". And explain why.

2:15 secquence of evidence
4:53 unusual evidence about pre-Jesus Jewish angelology
5:40 lack of evidence from critics from the times replaced with forgeries
Jesus and Paul is there a brother ? Myth and allegories,