tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post4158509799244343552..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: The Christian DelusionRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-39922511117140342162010-11-17T08:15:54.704-08:002010-11-17T08:15:54.704-08:00Buster said... You judge by the few so why can'...<b>Buster said...</b> <i>You judge by the few so why can't they do the same?</i><br /><br />Because that would be a reverse fallacy ad populum, which we can call the fallacy ad minoritatem: agreeing with the few merely because they are the few. Numbers are a red herring. We side with those who have rational, evidentially well-founded arguments, <i>regardless</i> of how many there are. That Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-54368242883855695302010-10-19T08:24:00.487-07:002010-10-19T08:24:00.487-07:00" Richard Carrier said...
Winston Smith s..." Richard Carrier said...<br /> Winston Smith said... I mean, can you tell me where you EVER see atheist using mockery and ridicule as a substitute for argument?"<br /><br />Don't think all are like you. Look at my previous comment. You will find more than plenty of that on the mentioned site.<br /><br />There are some good guys there (Atheists and Christians). When people Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06441786292705149220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-2577747670468339582010-10-19T08:03:00.165-07:002010-10-19T08:03:00.165-07:00This really tickles me.
"We've outpaced e...This really tickles me.<br />"We've outpaced every other religion in net growth in America. Every single one."<br /> Even Atheists now appear to have become religious.<br /><br />Go have another look at the Agnostic/Atheism Forum and weep at their circular arguments, even giving advice to a young man who is having problems with His FANATICAL Christian parents, by telling him to - Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06441786292705149220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53408933151037173762010-08-01T05:43:42.095-07:002010-08-01T05:43:42.095-07:00the book is great thanks richard and john, i had t...the book is great thanks richard and john, i had to get it mail order to australia but well worth it. would lie to be able to use some quotable bits in the forums around the traps.. <br /><br />well done thanksretephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00940426843455194661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-45731446022035392462010-07-28T11:56:24.238-07:002010-07-28T11:56:24.238-07:00Winston Smith said... You say each chapter covers ...<b>Winston Smith said...</b> <i>You say each chapter covers each subject THOROUGHLY, your emphasis, and yet the chapters only average 20 or so pages, meaning a lot is going to have to be left out and the discussion will be of necessity be one sided.</i><br /><br />Let's test that hypothesis. <br /><br />Pick a chapter. What was left out?Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-88657171317391149582010-07-28T11:56:01.670-07:002010-07-28T11:56:01.670-07:00Winston Smith said... I mean, can you tell me wher...<b>Winston Smith said...</b> <i>I mean, can you tell me where you EVER see atheist using mockery and ridicule as a substitute for argument?</i><br /><br />There's a difference between using mockery and ridicule <i>as a substitute</i> for argument, and using mockery and ridicule to emphasize a logically valid and sound argument. Matthew called you out on a fallacious, vacuous argument you madeRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-84282856560559107552010-07-28T11:53:58.788-07:002010-07-28T11:53:58.788-07:00Polls don't seem to show mass conversion to at...<i>Polls don't seem to show mass conversion to atheism. </i><br /><br />Yes they do. The recent national religion survey (sample size over a hundred thousand) shows we've doubled our numbers in less than twenty years. We've outpaced every other religion in net growth in America. Every single one. Our gains are particularly increasing among youth, i.e. those converts more recently Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-37569496843060998772010-07-28T11:50:26.694-07:002010-07-28T11:50:26.694-07:00War on Error I challenged PZ Myers at Skepticon 2 ...<b>War on Error</b> <i>I challenged PZ Myers at Skepticon 2 with the question, "If it could be demonstrated empirically that the diplomatic approach was more successful than the in-your-face approach, would you stick to your strategy?" He managed to avoid answering my question. I was not amused. </i><br /><br />Since he already went on public record agreeing the strategy works and he Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24260307173616822882010-07-28T11:41:17.174-07:002010-07-28T11:41:17.174-07:00P.S. The additional utility of TCD is as a resourc...P.S. The additional utility of TCD is as a resource for atheists active in the public debate, e.g. they need the references and facts Avalos and I catalogue regarding the claims being made in various media about Hitler's supposed godlessness and Christianity's supposed invention of science; they will find very useful all the facts and resources I provide on the resurrection issue, that Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-82702574616458023632010-07-28T11:36:26.513-07:002010-07-28T11:36:26.513-07:00Macroman said... I think the title word "delu...<b>Macroman said...</b> <i>I think the title word "delusion" is going to stop most people from even reading it. Maybe they weren't going to read it anyway, but I can't help thinking that agressive sounding title is going to restrict this to an exercise in preaching to the choir.</i><br /><br />Tested marketing theory proves the contrary: more people will read it precisely <i>Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-84255603668901206022010-07-28T11:33:52.205-07:002010-07-28T11:33:52.205-07:00Pikemann Urge said... It isn't your business ...<b>Pikemann Urge said... </b> <i>It isn't your business if others have faith.</i><br /><br />When that faith controls their vote and how they treat their neighbors, it becomes my business.<br /><br />(After all, there's a reason no one bothers writing <i>The Amish Delusion</i>. Although even they have caused remarkable and shocking harm to their own, and if you have compassion for the Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-41465955566000343432010-07-28T11:31:48.401-07:002010-07-28T11:31:48.401-07:00JD Curtis said... "Christianity Was Not Respo...<b>JD Curtis said...</b> <i>"Christianity Was Not Responsible for Modern Science, which is another tour de force, conclusively taking down once and for all the claim that Christianity gave us modern science" <br /><br />Let's see here, I can only name the following.... </i><br /><br />Did you even read my chapter?<br /><br />Evidently not.<br /><br />Because you clearly don't Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-38442547021772162842010-07-28T11:27:07.435-07:002010-07-28T11:27:07.435-07:00Earl said... I wonder that the new book does not h...<b>Earl said...</b> <i>I wonder that the new book does not have a chapter on the greatest delusion of them all, that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed (can’t tell from your description whether Price addresses that).</i><br /><br />Price's chapter in TCD addresses the presence of myth-making in the Gospels (which, as you know, is a confirmed, uncontroversial fact accepted by all mainstream Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-37407103310246963392010-07-28T11:26:21.092-07:002010-07-28T11:26:21.092-07:00Lenny said... I have a question about one of the c...<b>Lenny said...</b> <i>I have a question about one of the contributors: Is Dr. David Eller the same one listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eller. If so do you guys worry about being associated with someone with his "record"?</i><br /><br />Good grief, no! Different guy. Our Dr. Eller is much younger, and an anthropologist, not a religious studies professor (our Eller is theRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-39730423759211070102010-07-28T11:23:12.527-07:002010-07-28T11:23:12.527-07:00Joe said... Did you include a chapter where Dr. Cr...<b>Joe said...</b> <i>Did you include a chapter where Dr. Craig soundly defeated (or shall I say "owned") you in your debate with him? He made you look very silly.</i><br /><br />I don't see how. He didn't address half my arguments, and spent most of his time rebutting arguments I didn't make in that debate. I didn't have time to rebut every claim he made, but one does Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-29915175942652298492010-07-28T11:22:17.619-07:002010-07-28T11:22:17.619-07:00Stylo said... Don't you get it yet? You cannot...<b>Stylo said...</b> <i>Don't you get it yet? You cannot preach any derivative of Christian morality without the Christian god.</i><br /><br />You didn't read Eller's chapter in TCD refuting exactly that statement, apparently. But even apart from that claim being false, you are failing to grasp the actual argument: Christianity is <i>internally incoherent</i>. I do not need to believeRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24977474478167846522010-07-28T11:19:14.537-07:002010-07-28T11:19:14.537-07:00Matthew said... ...your future book On the Histori...<b>Matthew said...</b> <i>...your future book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ... Will this book contain a chapter on the resurrection that is anything like what you have contributed for this book?</i><br /><br />No.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-67186493587438052042010-07-28T11:18:34.894-07:002010-07-28T11:18:34.894-07:00Andrew G. said... One thing that strikes me in dis...<b>Andrew G. said...</b> <i>One thing that strikes me in discussion of Bayes' theorem is that it's quite a lot easier, for me at least, to do eyeball estimates of the numerical properties if you use the odds-likelihood formulation</i><br /><br />Laymen don't know any of that, or how to see ratios so simply (hardly anyone is actually an experienced gambler). Your approach is also not Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-14239651889910465642010-07-28T11:02:05.681-07:002010-07-28T11:02:05.681-07:00Anders Branderud said... I recommend you to read ...<b>Anders Branderud said... </b> <i>I recommend you to read an article in my blog (http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-of-existence-of-intelligent-and.html). It contains a formal logical proof, based on scientific premises, that proves the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator of this universe</i><br /><br />Thanks for proving how delusional believers can be. None of the Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-12932650561455210142010-06-16T05:11:37.943-07:002010-06-16T05:11:37.943-07:00Anders, I've read your main proof and I've...Anders, I've read your main proof and I've been reading your replies to counter-arguements. Very briefly:<br /><br />1. I'm sure you could filter out 'human mistakes' from any religious text and get a core document which is 'perfect'.<br /><br />2. Your arguement, or proof, is no better or worse than the other ones (ontological, teleological, cosmological). They are Pikemann Urgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587558012877707537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-71305391668995871002010-06-15T02:32:52.070-07:002010-06-15T02:32:52.070-07:00Anders, I look forward to reading your article. An...Anders, I look forward to reading your article. Any comments I have will be on your blog, not here, unless Richard is okay with it.Pikemann Urgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587558012877707537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-46507154401871343862010-06-14T07:03:42.379-07:002010-06-14T07:03:42.379-07:00I recommend you to read an article in my blog (htt...I recommend you to read an article in my blog (http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-of-existence-of-intelligent-and.html). It contains a formal logical proof, based on scientific premises, that proves the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator of this universe (i.e. the Prime Cause of this universe (the cause of Big Bang)); and it also proves that His instructions are found in Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08418091459248577266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-6830985939224920452010-06-02T11:38:19.304-07:002010-06-02T11:38:19.304-07:00Another problem with the hypothesis of the super s...Another problem with the hypothesis of the super scientific medieval Church: what did they say about the supernova of 1054? Some Irish monks may or may not have recorded it, but Chinese and Japanese very recognizably recorded this "guest star". Chinese and Japanese astronomers/astrologers also recorded in detail some other supernovae that medieval Europeans barely mentioned.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-35246566702520288332010-05-07T01:28:04.471-07:002010-05-07T01:28:04.471-07:00I recently got that book, and I must say that it&#...I recently got that book, and I must say that it's excellent, even if some of it is rather familiar territory to me. I particularly like Richard Carrier's contribution, and how he debunks the Xianity-caused-science delusion. It was around for over a millennium before the Scientific Revolution, so why didn't it happen after Constantine or Theodosius or Justinian?Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-681254786477847932010-05-03T20:59:27.784-07:002010-05-03T20:59:27.784-07:00My copy finally arrived and was duly enjoyed.
One...My copy finally arrived and was duly enjoyed.<br /><br />One thing that strikes me in discussion of Bayes' theorem is that it's quite a lot easier, for me at least, to do eyeball estimates of the numerical properties if you use the odds-likelihood formulation:<br /><br />O(H|E.B) / O(H|B) = P(E|H.B) / P(E|~H.B)<br /><br />where O(X) is the betting odds on event X, i.e. P(X)/(1-P(X)).<br /Andrew G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12284971176688746388noreply@blogger.com