There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[samtonga43]

Ehrman won't debate Carrier face to face and has been caught in several lies

Two Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory
Two Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory • Richard Carrier
"
A reader pointed something out to me that was a fantastic facepalm moment. It’s another demonstration of how Bart Ehrman doesn’t know how epistemic probability works, and not only hasn’t read On the Historicity of Jesus, he doesn’t even know what it argues. This leads me to two general lessons I hope my audience has already learned, but that he certainly needs to learn. The first is that everything that isn’t logically impossible always has a nonzero epistemic probability of being true. And recognizing this is fundamentally essential to all sciences and knowledge-seeking fields. The second is that if you want to challenge an assigned probability, you have to first understand what the claimant is measuring—what are they saying their assigned probability is a probability of? And recognizing this is fundamentally essential to all sciences and knowledge-seeking fields.

I’ll explain these two general lessons using a recent example of Bart Ehrman failing to do his job as a historian. I’ve noted recently that often enough Ehrman does not read the peer reviewed literature on the subjects he has an emotional investment in—not just mine (which is bad enough, since my book is not only the latest but the only peer reviewed book ever published on the question of the historicity of Jesus in nearly a hundred years), but even articles I cite from the peer reviewed literature that support me (likewise the peer reviewed literature that supports others he is intent on disagreeing with, from Murdock to Doherty to Goodacre). And in result he argues against things I didn’t say, and then he doesn’t argue against established peer reviewed arguments to the contrary of his position. I also noted that he plays fast and loose with the facts, but more bizarrely, he insists that history has to be about probability while declaring probability theory inapplicable to history. I’ve said before that this is because he doesn’t know how probability works. Now we have an example. (And hat tip to Josh for calling my attention to it).......




Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
Bart Ehrman Just Can't Do Truth or Logic • Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman was again asked what evidence there is that Jesus existed this February 18, 2016, at Fresno City College. See the video here (he begins his answer at timestamp 23:18). First he says this:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

This is not a very truthful statement.

• 
  
  
  • There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.”
  • We are not “internet voices.” I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.
  • Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.” Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices” but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.
  • He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines” who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.
  • And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.” We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentials—some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).
  • And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated” among his colleagues is false.

The evidence is not, of course, overwhelming. It’s not even whelming. But you can see that for yourself. IMO, the fact that this is what he thinks, discredits his opinion. Because there is no way in the universe any historian in any other field would call the evidence for the historicity of Jesus “overwhelming.” Maybe Ehrman just doesn’t know what overwhelming evidence looks like. But since he can’t even be honest about how many fully qualified colleagues of his doubt the historicity of Jesus, he can’t even honestly tell an audience that a mainstream peer reviewed academic monograph exists questioning historicity, and he can’t even honestly tell an audience that it is being debated by many of his colleagues, we shouldn’t expect him to honestly use the word “overwhelming” either.......



On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the A@@crankery of Tim O’Neill
On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the Asscrankery of Tim O'Neill • Richard Carrier

Sorry, joel, having compared the opinions of each of these men on each other, and the way these opinions are presented, I am more impressed with Ehrman's scholarly opinion than with that of Carrier.
It is not Ehrman who, in Carrier's words, "certainly needs to learn".

 

[ElishaElijah]

In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.

Jesus is God, Eternal, became a man and dwelled among us, died and rose from the dead to redeem mankind. (He is not a created being)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-5, 14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
There is no dual creation theory, 1Cor. 15 is talking about the resurrection of the dead where believers in Christ put off the corruptible and put on the incorruptible. There is the old man of the flesh and a new man in the Spirit, this is being born again.
“So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭15:42-49‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By your comments sounds like you participated in religious activities but were never born again.

Born again is a meaningless term in the sense you mean. It corresponds to nothing more than believing Christian dogma, which already has a name. It's called being a Christian. I was that, but no longer. Would you say I died again? Probably.

You are just a believer trying to explain how somebody like me could be a Christian and then not - by assuming that he never was. He assumes that if the person were a Christian, some transformation would have occurred such that he never left the religion, and that therefore if somebody found the religion unsatisfying, they were never truly Christian. Nonsense. How many times do you need to be told that you have no authority in such matters except in your own life? Your definitions are not mine, and do not trump mine.

If you’re saying you were a Christian then you wouldn’t be saying now that there is no God or Jesus Christ.

I was a Christian and I say that the god of that religion didn't appear or keep any other promises made, which is why I left the religion.

You would be more like Judas who sold out Christ for money and knew what he did.

Is that what being born again sounds like? You just compared me with one of the most despised characters in Christianity for the crime of waking up and walking away from it. Perhaps you can see why many don't respect this religion or what it teaches people. It's something I might have said when I was "born again," but I don't think or speak like that any longer. You haven't seen me compare you to anybody contemptible, because why would I? I'm not angry at you or personally offended by you rejecting my belief system.

this is a comment by an unbeliever not someone who was ever a Christian.

As I told you, your behavior here is contemptible. Like many Christian apologists, you diminish the experience of others to feel better about yourself. And once again, your opinion of what a Christian is is meaningless to me, but you seem to be unable to understand it and just keep reasserting it as if it were. Maybe you should consider confining your ugly religious opinions to yourself. I don't care at all what you think of me or my experience, so why keep telling me? You wouldn't like it very much if I shared my opinions about you. I'm sure that you can sense them coming through anyway, but I'm avoiding being explicit. You should try it.

Oh, and my comment about messianic prophecy was correct. Jesus doesn't fit the description.

Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Isaiah 9 are crystal clear. Just 3 of many.

Not in the way you mean. I'd go through the OT prophecies and show you how they don't apply to Jesus, but why bother? You can't make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Born again is a meaningless term in the sense you mean. It corresponds to nothing more than believing Christian dogma, which already has a name. It's called being a Christian. I was that, but no longer. Would you say I died again? Probably.

You are just a believer trying to explain how somebody like me could be a Christian and then not - by assuming that he never was. He assumes that if the person were a Christian, some transformation would have occurred such that he never left the religion, and that therefore if somebody found the religion unsatisfying, they were never truly Christian. Nonsense. How many times do you need to be told that you have no authority in such matters except in your own life? Your definitions are not mine, and do not trump mine.



I was a Christian and I say that the god of that religion didn't appear or keep any other promises made, which is why I left the religion.



Is that what being born again sounds like? You just compared me with one of the most despised characters in Christianity for the crime of waking up and walking away from it. Perhaps you can see why many don't respect this religion or what it teaches people. It's something I might have said when I was "born again," but I don't think or speak like that any longer. You haven't seen me compare you to anybody contemptible, because why would I? I'm not angry at you or personally offended by you rejecting my belief system.



As I told you, your behavior here is contemptible. Like many Christian apologists, you diminish the experience of others to feel better about yourself. And once again, your opinion of what a Christian is is meaningless to me, but you seem to be unable to understand it and just keep reasserting it as if it were. Maybe you should consider confining your ugly religious opinions to yourself. I don't care at all what you think of me or my experience, so why keep telling me? You wouldn't like it very much if I shared my opinions about you. I'm sure that you can sense them coming through anyway, but I'm avoiding being explicit. You should try it.

Oh, and my comment about messianic prophecy was correct. Jesus doesn't fit the description.



Not in the way you mean. I'd go through the OT prophecies and show you how they don't apply to Jesus, but why bother? You can't make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing.

You twist things a bit and seem to have complaint because I tell you the truth. For example Judas wasn’t born again but he did walk with Jesus and knew Him.
So if you were really a person who was born again you too would have known Jesus Christ but seen as you’re saying He doesn’t even exist or you never knew Him then I’m not sure why you take offense to me saying that you weren’t born again and so not a Christian. This should be a good revelation.

 

[Sheldon]

1. Do you think anyone who disagrees with the bible is being influenced by demons? Your post suggested you did.
Answer is yes

2. If you do then you must either agree with the appalling endorsement of slavery in Exodus 21, or by your own rationale are being influenced by demons?
No, I don’t think Exodus 21 rules for servants and bondsman is appalling or evil,

So you think slavery is ok? Well that clears that up, and you have lost your moral compass. This was inevitable when you claimed you either believed in all the nonsense of the bible, or were possessed by demons, talk about a false dichotomy.

However you have again missed the point,

 

[paradox]

So you think it slavery is ok, well that clears that up.

what can a slave do to get rid of his master?

Isn't suffering slavery the only option for a slave?

 

[ElishaElijah]

So you think it slavery is ok, well that clears that up. You have lost your moral compass. This was inevitable when you claimed you either believed in all the nonsense of the bible, or were possessed by demons, talk about a false dichotomy.


However you have again missed the point,

You don’t have a moral compass,‘it’s whatever society tells you. Think what you want about my moral compass, are you the judge now?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So you think it slavery is ok, well that clears that up.

what can a slave do to get rid of his master?

Isn't suffering slavery the only option for a slave?

So you're saying slavery is acceptable, and anyone who finds themselves enslaved should simply accept it, sorry but I cannot agree.

 

[Sheldon]

You don’t have a moral compass,‘it’s whatever society tells you. Think what you want about my moral compass, are you the judge now?

So you think slavery as described in Exodus 21 is moral? Well then you have no moral compass, clearly.
However given your earlier claim, you also have to accept that you are possessed by demons, if you don't think slavery as described in Exodus 21 is moral. it's almost like you have not even considered the implications of your claim, well not almost, it's exactly like that.

 

[paradox]

So you're saying slavery is acceptable, and anyone who finds themselves enslaved should simply accept it, sorry but I cannot agree.

I'm not saying anything, I asked you a question which has only one possible answer right?

Therefore complaining why Jesus gave such answer doesn't make a valid point.
If you're unable or unwilling to give an answer then why do you complain?

Similarly, why didn't Jesus tell solders to stop fighting? instead of telling them "be happy with your salary".

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not saying anything, I asked you a question which has only one possible answer right?

Yes you asked a question, no it does not have "only one possible answer, that's absurd."

Isn't suffering slavery the only option for a slave?

No, obviously.

Now I have answered both your questions again, any chance you will answer mine, is slavery ever morally justifiable as described in Exodus 21?

 

[paradox]

No, obviously.

what can then a slave do? kill his master and suffer even grater consequences?

Now I have answered both your questions again, any chance you will answer mine, is slavery ever morally justifiable as described in Exodus 21?

Not today, but in the historical context of that time slavery was perfectly acceptable.

You judge scriptures morally based on how people live today, but what matters is how people lived then, and what was morally acceptable then, not now.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So you think slavery as described in Exodus 21 is moral? Well then you have no moral compass, clearly.
However given your earlier claim, you also have to accept that you are possessed by demons, if you don't think slavery as described in Exodus 21 is moral. it's almost like you have not even considered the implications of your claim, well not almost, it's exactly like that.

I think everything God does is right and moral. How many ways do I have to tell you that, 25-30?

 

[Sheldon]

Not today, but in the historical context of that time slavery was perfectly acceptable.

So the biblical deity doesn't know what is moral? Or are you saying the bible is unreliable? Or both?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So you think slavery as described in Exodus 21 is moral?

I think everything God does is right and moral.

Wow, so slavery is ok, that says it all about your beliefs really, you've just lost all moral credibility.

 

[paradox]

So the biblical deity doesn't know what is moral? Or are you saying the bible is unreliable? Or both?

similarly according to your logic God doesn't know what's moral because today women have equal rights but Genesis shows that women were made helpers of men.

What makes you think that 2022 is morally superior to 3500 B.C?

 

[ElishaElijah]

However given your earlier claim, you also have to accept that you are possessed by demons

I also didn’t say possessed and since I agree with everything God has done you have no point or argument just more twisting scripture which is a tactic of the devil.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Wow, so slavery is ok, that says it all about your beliefs really, you've just lost all moral credibility.

So since God will judge you and I, I think since I agree with God and walk in Spirit according to Galatians 5 and you disagree with God, reject Jesus Christ and walk according to your own way we will see who made the wise choice.
I know I’m a moral person and live a moral life so can you say the same?
Again I don’t have a problem with Exodus 21.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Occam's razor says don't multiply entities unnecessarily. You multiplied entitles unnecessarily. The most parsimonious reason for no evidence for your god is that your god does not exist.

parsimonious - using a minimal number of assumptions, steps, or conjectures

Angel, man, and beast take pride in their form, and all have things of their own when we eliminate evil.

 

[ppp]

Angel, man, and beast take pride in their form, and all have things of their own when we eliminate evil.

Cool story, bro.