Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig (4 of 10)

[heathsawyer]

The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans

[MrSporkster]

Audio is horrendous!

:/

[pumpstations]

There is another debate where Carrier totally PWN'S Craig. It's just a matter of whom is the better man that day. That is what debate is all about. Like baseball for intellectuals.

[GBart]

7:08 - is someone choking to death???

[TrustyJP]

Richard Carrier reminds me of those guys that treated the OT scrolls like crossword puzzles to find prophecies and stuff on the Discovery Channel. If you look for it, you will find what you want if you stretch the evidence far enough, like people showed by doing the same thing to books like Moby Dick. Carrier's "mythology" argument is mere chasing of rabbit holes, and is no different

Carrier = Epic Failure

What a hack.

[tkovrtwrld]

Craig says basically the same thing in the debate, but that in no way deals with the actual conventions of determining the mythic structure that do apply to ancient genres of literature. So you can't just blow it all off like Craig does. You actually have to show how the established criteria doesn't apply.

[KittenButter]

@TrustyJP

I agree 100%.

[btl743]

still waiting for those interuptions...still waiting...

[BoldEvangelism]

Mr. tkovrtwrld,

Where's your full screen sophomoric interuptions for mr. Carrier?

[tkovrtwrld]

Haha. They're on their way. :p I didn't have very nice things to say about Rick's performance if you read my review of the debate linked to in the "more info" section on video 1. I'll probably bring some of that up in the notes when I have the time to sort through his presentation.

[nubbs]

jesus doesn't love you

[agnostaxian]

So because there are mythological elements in the gospels we can't trust anything in them? I gues we better through out Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus and the rest who ALL have mythological elements in them. Is this Carrier guy the best hope for young atheists? guys, better get a new guru, quick.

[adstanra]

No we shouldn't throw them out, but we must understand that history is trying to understand what happened in the past...we are not there, so we rely on sources.If you are going to conclude that the laws of physics were suspended,you better have amazingly reliable sources. Matthew , Mark, Luke and John do not fit the bill. They belonged to an apocalyptic cult in times of great distress who were writing theological polemics about events that occurred decades before the events.

[abrimestome]

Kudos! lol

[agnostaxian]

abr, what is wrong with these utube atheists, why are they so angry at everyone who disagrees with them? All they do is try and shout everyone down who says anything besides their narrow view of reality. Do I smell insecurity or a fear of the hot place?

[abrimestome]

No it's just that they cling to a Godless universe. It allows them to be accountable to no one.

[agnostaxian]

ab, u r probably right. Some atheists are rational and u can talk to them in a reasonable discussion but most (especially here on utube) are just a bunch of ragers who will use any tactic and the most absurd arguments to destroy their opponents. I tell atheists to go to an atheist post and pretend their a xian and watch the f-bombs fly. They also troll and look for xian vids to give them bad ratings then they just rant. And they wonder why no one trusts them.

[adstanra]

It's absurd that people trust the gospel accounts AS HISTORY....3 wise astrologers,casting a legion of demons into swine that get drowned ( can demons drown ?),satan tempting Jesus offering him the world,Faith curing illness,end of days apocalpse that never happened, Matthew and Luke adding stuff to Mark with intent,different resurrections ,genelogies going back to ADAM!, hyperbole (faith of a mustard seed?) RC is correct..this movement began in a strange cult.People can write these stories.

[agnostaxian]

ad, have you ever actually studied historical Jesus scholarship or how oral stories were circulated among 1st century Jews?

[adstanra]

Well, I am more of a scientist, but philosphy and religion are my passions...I have taken a couple of university level courses on the new testament and have read alot of books on the subject...I am very familiar with the theistic arguments..particularily those of WCL.Why do you ask?

[Antisyncretism]

Carriers argument basically comes down to 'theres symbols therefore this is fictitous' this based on the presupposition that life is random so therefore a historical account that can have symbolic significance is an impossibility as it contradicts his worldview that history is indeed random.

But this argument is based ONLY on the idea that life is random, and isnt a good way of critiquing the Gospels for truth but would only be valid if the gospels were known false based on OTHER THINGS.

[secularmike]

....huh??? based on a presupposition that life is "random"?

what the hell are you talking about?

[Antisyncretism]

His criticism that the Gospels have an ordered theme and therefore cant be true is presupposing that there is no underlying purpose or theme that can be given in history for he believes life is random.

[thebahana]

I doubt he thinks life is "random". Natural selection is not a random process. That has nothing to do with arguments for the reliability of the gospels though.

[Antisyncretism]

i never mentioned evolution has nothing to do with what i said.

[migkillertwo]

"So Paul tells us that he recieved the gospel by revelation, not human testimony"

careful there doc. "Gospel" means, in your words "the good news". It does not necessarily mean "all information about Jesus and its implication" just kerygma. What Paul lacked before his visit to Jerusalem was merely information about the words and deeds of Jesus. Furthermore, your interpretation of galatians 1:11-12 flies in the face of the many allusions and appeals to the Jesus tradition in Paul's works.

[migkillertwo]

when all is said and done, Carrier's methodology is deplorably outdated.

[migkillertwo]

"Histories are not made this way"

not modern history anyway, but what about ancient history? Ancient jewish history is full of midrash, and what's keeping people from molding historical stories (history is supposed to be told in the form of a story, as polybius said) after very popular pagan stories?