K / L / M / N




K


Author: Henry K ("Fellowship of the King")


Title: Empty Tomb or Empty Talk?
Location: http://www.fotk.org.uk/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=41 or http://www.fotk.org.uk/media/Sermons/2006-07-23_1Cor15-16_The_Resurrection.ppt
Type: Sermon, powerpoint presentation
Merit: So-so
Target: Craig's Empty Tomb & Habermas on Visions

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Carrier makes a lame argument from silence about the story of the empty tomb not showing up before the gospel of Mark.
  • Content: It's a sermon that lays out the basic rationale for Christian claims, and dovetails into several apologetic cliche's like the trilemma and the fact other famous figures are still dead.
  • Response: K oversimplifies Carrier's case as though Carrier doesn't have any other supporting arguments.


Author: Bill Kesatie ("Christian CADRE")

Updates: (http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Carrier, Moreland and Morality, Part I
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/07/carrier-moreland-and-morality-part-i.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Atheists act moral but have no firm philosophical basis for doing so. Atheist morality is subjective and there is no basis for saying someone else is wrong in not assigning value to other human beings. If the Christian god assigns value to humans, then morality is objective. Carrier quotes Moreland out of context to prove his point.
  • Content: Kesatie sets the stage for his interest in engaging Carrier's essay.
  • Response:

Title: Carrier, Moreland and Morality, Part II
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/07/carrier-moreland-and-morality-part-ii.html and http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Kesatie: "In placing his reliance in the idea that the Christian position suffers the same epistemological defect as the atheist position, the burden lies on Carrier to show that the Christian position is groundless. Thus, if any of the four items listed in the sentence that Carrier attacks supports the idea that we ought to act morally towards our neighbors, his argument falls apart. Since his argument fails to effectively rebut the idea that Christians should act morally toward our neighbors because we should love God, it is my position that his argument fails on the very first point."
  • Content: Kesatie attempts to show that Carrier quoted Moreland out of context, quotes the Bible to show that is says we should love the Christian god first and therefore humanity, and quotes Carrier's response to set up future posts.
  • Response:

Title: Carrier, Moreland and Morality, Part III
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/08/carrier-moreland-and-morality-part-iii.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Christian theism's moral paradigm works if true and Carrier does not address a Christians reason to love their god because of his qualities.
  • Content:
  • Response:

Title: Carrier, Moreland and Morality, Part IV
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/08/carrier-moreland-and-morality-part-iv.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J. P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Christians have a better reason to love their god than humanity b/c he is perfect and they do both good and evil things, humanity is not worth loving unless their god tells us to love them, even if our wives and countries may be worth loving, that doesn't mean that other wives and countries are worth loving (humanity in general), Carrier has provided no philosophical basis for choosing love over hate in regards to humanity, Kesatie says, "Carrier should provide somephilosophical basis for loving humanity, but he really gives no basis for this love beyond his assertion that humanists love humanity," the most significant difference between humanism and Christianity is that humans don't deserve love, Carrier is wrong about Christian morality because their god doesn't always ask for immoral things from humans, Abraham didn't kill Isaac, the Christian god's command was about establishing the relationship only for Abraham and his descendants and should not be applied universally, the ends justified the means and skeptics would agree if the Christian god weren't apart of the story, and Kesatie is unaware of any subsequent exceptions to the rule since Christ.
  • Content:
  • Response:

Title: Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation
Location: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/12/luke-census-and-quirinius-matter-of.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: The Date of the Nativity in Luke



Author: Gert Korthof


Title: Is life an accident?
Location: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho50.htm
Type: Web article
Merit: Lame
Target: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Korthof: "Richard Carrier writes as if the origin of life has been solved and critics like Overman refuse to see it."
  • Content: Uses Carrier's article as a reference in his own review of Dean Overman's position against abiogenesis.
  • Response: Carrier says in the Overman section that, "...bacteria are believed to be the highly advanced outcome of millions of years of evolution from a much simpler beginning that is unknown to us." So, on the contrary, Carrier identifies particular supporting issues that have been understood and criticizes Overman for misrepresenting and/or omitting what we do know.


L




M



Author: Paul Manata ("Triablogue")

Updates: (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)


Title: The Infidel Delusion, chapter 15 (PDF pages 206-210)myownthoughts.jpg
Location: http://www.calvindude.com/ebooks/InfidelDelusion.pdf
Type: Online book
Merit: Lame
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, chapter 15

  • Argument/Response: Manata redundently derides Carrier's chapter like he (and Patrick Chan) did to Valerie Tarico's chapter with a slew of unrelated arguments neither chapter was designed to confront. Christians still have to deal with the psychological gimmicks and the independence of science from their worldview regardless of whether thoughts are ultimately magic or not. Any number of magical non-Christian worldviews might be true and there are definitely still Christians who put a lot of stock in their arbitrary experiences and who want to assume that all of the findings of science must conform to Christian theology (since they would like to erroneously imagine it is the only way that science could develop in the first place). As I've pointed out before, Manata starts our philosophical journey where no one can possibly start and doesn't seem to appreciate that to even go on this journey of exploring the possibilities of whether our minds are reliable or not unavoidably presupposes that our ability to do so is "good enough." Hence, not knowing the origin of them doesn't really weigh very heavily since we'd have to retroactively assume that whatever process produced our brains (whether this is a god, aliens, evolution, or something else) must have generated what we find in our actual experience. Of course, Manata will never tell us why the magic mind theory better explains why our minds are not completely reliable given that we'd expect the evolution to only be able to do so well (aka, exactly what we find). Manata lays down Alvin Plantinga's "evolutionary argument against naturalism" as though we're supposed to think there is something special about evolution's ability to produce functional brains versus any other kind of specified organ in the body. Zoolander might be able to turn right three times to make a left, but the next ridiculously good looking supermodel who can just turn left is going to have an advantage. If a type of brain had to do absolutely everything via the scenic route of accomplishing things, it is not hard to imagine another type of brain using the actual straight forward truth as being a much more efficient competitor over the long term. Manata also doesn't seem to compute that truth-finding machines by analogy would have to have files with actual contents in them to actually be actionable and he presupposes (via a fallacy of composition) that our label "belief" can't possibly directly correlate with this mechanical process. At best Manata has only managed to pass along an unimpressive iota of "defeaterness" (i.e. some hint of doubt, like that doesn't apply to anything) based on metaphysical speculation, backwards reasoning, apparent ignorance, and by conveniently ignoring the information we *do* have at our disposal.

Title: On Assessing Loftus's Assessment of Triablogue's Review of "The Christian Delusion"
Location: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-assessing-loftuss-assessment-of.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

  • Consult:
  • Argument:
  • Content:
  • Response:

Title: Carrier's Argument for Miracles
Location: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/carriers-argument-for-miracles.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Manata: "However, if logical laws are species of physical laws, and "the only difference" between the two is that laws of physics describe physics and laws of logic describe how logic works, then since we see hundreds of thousands of violations of logical laws during our life, what is the big deal with believing the paltry few violations of physical laws called 'miracles'?"
  • Content: Talks tough and thinks this is a huge impasse for criticism of miracles as violations of natural law.
  • Response: Presumably it is true that we could have a one hundred percent truth finding machine that never violates logical laws in its thinking. And it could be true that our universe was not as uniform as our experience of it has led many of us to believe. Manata's okay analogy only serves to rebut rigid naturalists who make the case that they know laws of nature cannot be "violated." Carrier isn't one of them.


Author: David Marshall ("Christ the Tao")

Updates: (http://christthetao.homestead.com/debates.html)

Title: How easy was the first life?
Location: http://christthetao.homestead.com/debates/MarshallCarrierPt1.pdf
Type: Online PDF
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

Title: Did Christianity spread by the sword?
Location: http://christthetao.homestead.com/debates/MarshallCarrierPt2.pdf
Type: Online PDF
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

Title: Were early Christians gullible dweebs?
Location: http://christthetao. homestead.com/debates/ MarshallHedrick.pdf
Type: Online PDF
Merit: So-so
Target: Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)


Title: Was Christianity responsible for Nazism or science?
Location: http://christthetao. homestead.com/debates/ ContraAvalosdebate.pdf
Type: Online PDF
Merit: So-so
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, chapter 15

Title: The Loftrino: New Meme Isolated
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/02/loftrino-new-meme-discovered-fort-wayne.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, chapter 15

  • Content: Marshall attempts to use parts of Carrier's chapter against some claims made by atheist, John Loftus and attempts to make excuses for why Christianity dropped the ball on science for a thousand years.
  • Argument: Marshall: "Carrier describes Christianity as one of the "mystical and fantastic" worldviews into which Roman society fled while (supposedly) abandoning science. Yet he also admits that one key element in Christianity, faith in a good and rational Creator God, was in fact intimately associated with the rise of science BOTH in ancient Greece AND in modern Europe." "Why did Christians fail to revive the full-scale era of scientific inquiry..." "'Christendom' was on the defensive from 400 AD for most of the next millennia. Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Arabs, Vikings, Moors, Turks, wave after wave came crashing against European civilization. Whenever the tide slowed for a few years, civilizations popped up like crocuses in the spring. These civilizations and new institutions -- Irish monasteries, universities, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great -- had four things in common: Christian origins, unboundered curiosity, a fundamental sense of human equality that allowed social mobility, and a creativity that met and far surpassed even that of those few ancient Greeks who dabbled in science."
  • Response: Ultimately Marshall is arguing for the idea that within genuine Christianity lies the necessary values for making science work. However, Carrier's ultimate point is that these values are ubiquitous, that Christianity was originally hostile to scientific values, that the ability to make Christianity "compatible" with scientific values is underwhelming, and that regardless of whatever excuses you want to make for it, there is just no necessary connection between Christianity and science as modern Christians would readily like to suppose. Carrier explains that Marshall's "thesis fails to explain (a) why they also forgot almost all the science that was sitting on their bookshelves left over by the pagans, (b) why they nevertheless had plenty of time and personnel to write and copy vast quantities of Christian devotional literature (it's not as if science is keeps you any busier), or (c) how Galen could do so much good scientific research despite being a full time medical professional, even serving in wartime, or how Archimedes could do so much good scientific research, despite Sicily having been fighting defensive wars the whole of his life, etc. (i.e. wars didn't hinder ancient science; so were Christians especially feeble minded? - e.g. any look at the material and intellectual culture of the Byzantine empire refutes any notion that the whole society was so busy baling water they couldn't do anything else; and even the West wasn't that preoccupied)."

Title: The End of Christianity? Richard Carrier: "Christianity's Success was not Incredible" (Part III)
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/09/end-of-christianity-part-iii-response.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target:

Title: Richard Carrier, the One True Philosopher, takes on God, again
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-carrier-one-true-philosopher.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: "Why I am not a Christian"


Title: Carrier vs. Ehrman: Epic Drama Queen Smackdown!
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/03/carrier-vs-ehrman-epic-drama-queen.html
Type: Blog
Merit:
Target: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism

Title: Richard Carrier Proves the Gospel, by Accident
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/03/richard-carrier-proves-gospel-by.html
Type: Blog
Merit:
Target: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism


Title: 6th Most Unpopular Review: Richard Carrier, Sense & Goodness Without God
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/06/6th-most-unpopular-review-richard.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God


Author: Matt ("Digest of Worms")

Updates: (http://digestofworms.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Critic or Theologian: the Fine Line
Location: http://digestofworms.blogspot.com/2010/05/critic-or-theologian-fine-line.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Craig Debate Wrap

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Matt: "...in watching this debate I found that I agreed with the basics of a lot of what Dr. Carrier said in his opening statement. Am I a closet skeptic? I believe there are recurring themes in the gospels. I believe these things are not mere coincidence. I believe that the evangelists were inspired heavily by the Old Testament." "Setting their conclusions aside, is there a fundamental difference between what Dr. Carrier does and what the average theologian does?"
  • Content:
  • Response: The mythic structure of the gospels is also juxtaposed against other things like impossibly historical circumstances. The collective case of all the elements makes a very solid naturalistic case (accounting for all the improbabilities very easily), whereas the theological argument amounts to, "Maybe God wanted it all that way," regardless of the preposterous implications. If Craig wants to be making a historical argument rather than a theological one, Carrier clearly wins.


Author: Marcus McElhaney ("What had happen' was.....")

Updates: (http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Location: http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/03/richard-carrier-vs-william-lane-craig.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Craig Debate Wrap

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 1/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 2/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to_10.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian
Consult:
Response:

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 3/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to_12.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian
Consult:
Response:

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 4/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to_14.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian
Consult:
Response:

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 5/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to_16.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian

Title: Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 6/6
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-you-should-be-christian-response-to_18.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Why I Am Not a Christian

Title: Mike Licona vs Richard Carrier Debate: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/10/mike-licona-vs-richard-carrier-debate.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Debate with Mike Licona part 1 and part 2

  • Consult:
  • Argument: McElhaney: 1) "I was particularly upset when Carrier tried to argue that Paul did not believe in a bodily resurrection while 1 Corinthians 15 plainly and says he did believe in bodily resurrection." 2) "Another argument Carrier advanced was that the Bible says that Jesus appeared post resurrection to only a hand full of people. However, this is not true. In the same passage, Paul tells us that 500 people saw Jesus at once and many of them were still alive while he was writing 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8"
  • Content: Brief debate review.
  • Response: 1) Carrier's contention is that Paul did believe in a bodily resurrection. However it's a second body made of extraordinary materials as 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 plainly says. 2) Even taking for granted the passage in the most orthodox Christian conception possible "a handful of people" is a hyperbolic assessment pointing out that Jesus appeared only to 0.00000003% of the human race since 33 A.D.

Title: Common Sense Atheism » CPBD 045: Richard Carrier – Is Christianity Responsible for Science?
Location:http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/06/common-sense-atheism-cpbd-045-richard.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: CPBD 045: Richard Carrier – Is Christianity Responsible for Science?

  • Consult:
  • Argument: McElhaney: "It's amazing that some atheists are more than willing to argue that the ancients were knowledgeable about a great much of science and engineering, yet when it comes to believing that they the can correctly record historical events they are inept."
  • Content: McElhaney claims Carrier is overreaching with his conclusions, that he's never heard of any Christian claiming that science could never be done without Christianity, says Christians have enough grace from God to learn to be moral and about how the universe works, and then quotes Romans 1:18-20 to show that atheists secretly know that God exists.
  • Response: There's nothing stopping ancients from correctly recording historical events and sometimes we can tell when they do a critical job. Carrier does elaborate on criteria for differentiating the categories of good ancient historians vs. bad ones. That can't be ignored with shallow stabs. Incidentally when an ancient records scientific discoveries, these can be confirmed by just doing the same experiment based on what was written down. When they record tales of magic and miracle, we have no reliable analog for that. But we do have analogies for people making stuff up, or believing things other people made up or were mistaken about.

Title: Debate: The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection - Holding vs Carrier
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/07/debate-rubicon-crossing-and.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Richard Carrier - The Rubicon Analogy

  • Consult: JP Holding - The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection
  • Argument: McElhaney: 1. "Jesus however does claim to know what was going to happen to him well before his crucifixion and Resurrection." 2. "...the earliest attestation of Julius Caesar moving a huge army across the Rubicon is well over 100 years after it happened. [...]Why accept Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch because all four talk of the Rubicon crossing, yet discount Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who all talk of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and Resurrection? Rejecting one means rejecting both."
  • Content:
  • Response: 1. Quoting from one part of a gospel to show that a character could see the future that happens at the end of that gospel is not good evidence that Jesus was God. 2. Carrier: "Lateness is a problem, but not in itself grounds for dismissing a source. The quality and reliability of a source requires an assessment of all the relevant factors. The Gospels fail to count as reliable histories because they fail on every criterion, not because they fail on only one or two.[15] I address this issue at greater length elsewhere, including the problems with the best of them (Luke-Acts) by comparing its features with good ancient historians.[16] But to make a long story short, Luke exhibits none of the markers of a careful, critical historian, but instead preaches and propagandizes, and implicitly serves an ideological agenda, not an objective inquiry into the truth."

Title: Richard Carrier Blogs: Is Obama a War Criminal?
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/03/richard-carrier-blogs-is-obama-war.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Is Obama a War Criminal?

  • Argument: McElhaney: "The one point I have a problem with is that Carrier said that there was nothing we could have done in Rwanda or Bahrain. What about Darfar?"
  • Response: Carrier: "All the same problems as Rwanda (he means I think Darfur, i.e. the Sudanese civil war). In fact, worse, because that was a gorilla war, so we wouldn't even have columns of infantry to mow down--we'd have to go in and find them. That's Viet Nam all over again. A full invasion and occupation is simply not affordable, nor would anyone praise it after the fact, but likely condemn it as soon as it got messy, as a ground war always will. In short, when people call for" intervention" in wars like that, they simply don't know what they are asking for. They are asking for Viet Nam and Iraq. If they knew that, they [wouldn't speak up so readily]. Because cognitive dissonance would kick in. They condemn those wars. So how can they not condemn any other similar war, even in Sudan? They can't praise one and condemn the other. It's all or nothing. Because it's the same war. It's just plaid out on different geography."

Title: The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/06/end-of-pascals-wager-only-nontheists-go.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven (2002)


Title: Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day on Hitler, by Richard Carrier
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-christianity-quote-of-day-on.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Quote of the Day on Hitler, by Richard Carrier

  • Argument: If Hitler was an atheist, Christianity could not have been responsible for the holocaust.
  • Response: If Hitler was a Christian and used atheist ideas to inspire the holocaust, we could blame the atheist ideas. As Carrier pointed out, in any event Hitler used Christian ideas.

Title: Is There A Connection Between Jesus and Inanna?
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-there-connection-between-jesus-and.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target:

Title: FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/02/facepalm-of-day-debunking-christianity_06.html
Type: Blog
Merit:
Target:

Title: Debunking Christianity: An Interview With Richard Carrier About His Book, "Proving History"
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/02/debunking-christianity-interview-with.html
Type: Blog
Merit:
Target:

Title: FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!
Location: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/02/facepalm-of-day-debunking-christianity_13.html
Type: Blog
Merit:
Target:


Author: Mark McFall

Updates: (custom google search)

Title: A Look at Carrier’s Godless Comments in Review
Location: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/on_jesus_commentary.html
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: Some Godless Comments on McFall's Review of //On Jesus//



Author: James McGrath ("Exploring Our Matrix")

Updates: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, Richard Carrier tag, RSS)

Title: Mythicism and Inerrancy
Location: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/01/mythicism-and-inerrancy.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: How Not to Argue the Mythicist Position

  • Consult:
  • Argument: McGrath: "Why do Roman sources (Tacitus or the letters of Pliny) not mention that this movement is seeking to historicize a mythical figure? How is it that, in all the history of Roman opposition to Christianity, the non-existence of Jesus never gets a mention?"
  • Contents:
  • Response: It is unclear why Tacitus or Pliny would know about the facts of a historical Jesus versus simply being complacent with the random claims various cults would make at face value.

Title: Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem, Historical Probability, and the Existence of Jesus
Location: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2011/01/richard-carrier-on-bayes-theorem.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: CPBD 083: Richard Carrier – Historical Method and Jesus of Nazareth

  • Consult: The Last, Best Hope for Mythicism?
  • Argument: McGrath: "Carrier seems to me to be too willing to take what is a cosmology that seems to be distinctive of the Ascension of Isaiah [...] and assume it could provide the background to early Christian thought, and provide a setting for the Jesus myth in the sky rather than on earth. To take a work that is only attested in a Christian redaction in a later time, and trust it to provide information about thought in an earlier time, is something that Carrier in this very same interview is unwilling to do with Josephus."
  • Response:

Title: Responding to Richard Carrier’s Response to Bart Ehrman
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/03/responding-to-richard-carriers-response-to-bart-ehrman.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism


Title: Mythicism and James the Brother of the Lord (A Reply to Richard Carrier)
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/03/mythicism-and-james-the-brother-of-the-lord-a-reply-to-richard-carrier.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman

Title: Review of Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Part One
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/04/review-of-bart-ehrman-did-jesus-exist-part-one.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Ehrman's arguments against a part of Carrier's case.

Title: Carrier and other Mythicists Reacting to Ehrman
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/04/carrier-and-other-mythicists-reacting-to-ehrman.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic

Title: Richard Carrier Illustrates Historical Jesus Methodology
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/06/richard-carrier-illustrates-historical-jesus-methodology.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: The Dying Messiah Redux

Title: Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History
Location: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/review-of-richard-c-carrier-proving-history.html
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Proving History


Author: Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew ("Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology")

Updates: (http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Philosophicalwork.htm, http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/mt/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=3&search=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: 11. The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
Location: http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf
Type: Online Book Chapter
Merit: Important
Target: The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, chapter 9

  • Consult: Plausibility of Theft FAQ
  • Argument: Carrier has to blow off gospel details to make his theories work.
  • Content:
  • Response: The McGrews have to take too many details seriously in historical documents of questionable integrity to rebut skeptical explanations.

Title: Tim McGrew on Carrier's treatment of Luke and Josephus
Location: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2010/08/tim-mcgrew-on-carriers-treatment-of.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Luke and Josephus (2000)

Title: The odds form of Bayes's Theorem
Location: http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2011/01/odds-form-of-bayess-theorem.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: CPBD 083: Richard Carrier – Historical Method and Jesus of Nazareth


Title: The "Carrier Myth" Debate
Location: http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2012/04/carrier-myth-debate.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Lame
Target: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism

  • See also: Glenn People's reposting: Does Richard Carrier Exist?
  • Response: There's the same orgy of evidence that there is for any modern person for Carrier obviously completely missing for Jesus or any historical character. Even more so, since Carrier is at least somewhat famous and more evidential media exist of him than for an average modern person. Even the unlikely things about Carrier pale in comparison to the extremely unlikely magical character of Jesus. If our best evidence for Carrier were a fan of his hallucinating his writings in a different historical context 2,000 years ago and Carrier's traits happened to predominately fit the mold of other previous fictional characters, then perhaps the comparison could be made. The reason Christians continually and implausibly reverse the frame of argument here is because their prior probability part of their brain is filled up with Christian truthiness and the evidence part of their brain is filled up with excuses for why there is none. Hence stupidity ensues.


Author: Mike McKay (atheist, "Inquiring Infidel")

Updates: (http://inquiringinfidel.blogspot.com/search?q=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: Morality- Desirism vs. Goal Theory
Location: http://inquiringinfidel.blogspot.com/2011/05/morality-desirism-vs-goal-theory.html
Type: Blog
Merit: Important
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God and Carrier vs. McKay debate



Author: Glenn Miller ("Christian Thinktank")

Updates: (custom google search, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/revise.html)

Title: Good question--did the NT author's invent the miracle stories in the gospels
Location: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html
Type: Web article
Merit: Important
Target: Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels

Title: Good Question: Was the burial of Jesus a temporary one, because of time constraints
Location: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/shellgame.html
Type: Web article
Merit: Important
Target: Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day


Title: The bottom line is that 'rolled' does NOT imply a disc-like slab of rock
Location: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rocknroll.html
Type: Web article
Merit: Important
Target: Craig's Empty Tomb & Habermas on Visions


Title: Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d. --Thallus (c. 50-75ad)
Location: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html
Type: Web article
Merit: Important
Target: Thallus: An Analysis



Author: Mriana (non-Christian)

Updates: (...)

Title: Skepticon 4 Summary Part II
Location: http://www.goddiscussion.com/85288/skepticon-4-summary-part-ii/
Type: Web article
Merit: Lame
Target:

  • Argument: Mriana: [Carrier] said the formula disproved God and Jesus, using one resurrection. [...] I do not need a math formula to show it is a myth, but maybe some people do.
  • Response: 1. Since Christians believe Jesus is god and that his resurrection confirms this, disproving the resurrection would disprove that particular god. 2. "I don't need no math" doesn't mean math cannot confirm the logical validity of your impression of a mythical sounding claim.



Author: Luke Muehlhauser ("Common Sense Atheism")

Updates: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?s=richard+carrier&x=0&y=0, S&G book review index, RSS)

Title: Do Not Be Quickly Persuaded
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1030
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "Had I been Carrier, I would not have felt pleased that I had persuaded so many people so quickly. Instead, I would have quickly scolded them: “Wait, about half of you just changed your minds on the basis of my single talk, without checking any of my sources or reading other scholarship on the issue? Do you think that’s wise? Is that how you come to the rest of your conclusions? Don’t you worry that’s a bit… gullible? I appreciate you listening to my arguments and finding them compelling, but please don’t take my word for it. You’ve got to figure this stuff out for yourself. Nobody can be trusted. I could be full of shit. You have to look into it yourself to see if I’m full of shit, or if I’m being honest."
  • Response: Muehlhauser is blowing this out of proportion, though I'm sure Carrier could tweak his presentation to have a softer pitch.

Title: Carrier’s Theory of Knowledge
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=711
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "How do the axioms of math or logic make predictions? They don’t! Does this mean they are not propositions? Doesn’t this undermine Carrier’s philosophy?" "...Carrier seems to use uncommon definitions for words like “prediction” and “empirical” that include conceptual manipulations. By changing their meaning he remains consistent, but it is confusing for him to do so." "But what if someone is illogical, or uses Zen logic? I suppose Carrier would reply that the axioms of logic make predictions that come out correct if our cognitive faculties are working correctly. But doesn’t this beg the question? How are we to say our thinking is “correct” before we demonstrate that logic is correct?" "Carrier seems heavily influenced by logical positivism..."
  • Response: It is impossible to know that we know apart from our own knowledge base. Carrier is describing a process of epistemology at its best that is already in progress. He's not giving a recipe for inerrancy.

Title: How to Debate William Lane Craig
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Craig Debate Wrap

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Carrier is not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.
  • Response: Craig may be technically a more skilled debater, but Carrier made a number of preparation mistakes that he didn't get wrong in the Mike Licona debate. If corrected, Carrier's performance would have significantly improved, imo.

Title: Types of Propositions
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=797
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "Through some unnecessary mental gymnastics, Carrier also asserts that wishes and commands are propositions, but I don’t think it’s useful to think of them as such."
  • Response: Muehlhauser misses the overall theme of grounding all true meaning in experience. Just because not all normative rhetoric is ratified in that way does not make the break down of it "unnecessary mental gymnastics."

Title: Plantinga and Warranted Belief
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=803
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "Carrier’s response confusingly combines two different arguments made by Plantinga, one in 1981 and the other in 2000." "Plantinga then says that for Christians, belief in God can be properly basic, and thus it’s okay for Christians to believe in God without any evidence. Carrier thinks this conflicts with his own view, 'that one cannot properly believe anything without evidence.' But so far, Carrier has said no such thing! In fact, he has said that experience is the only knowledge we have, and that thoughts, emotions, and direct impressions count as experiences. And Carrier does seem to think experiences count as evidence"
  • Response: Muehlhauser's coverage of the confusion (if there is any) is also confusing.

Title: First Cause
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=835
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "So we don’t know if time had a beginning. So Carrier claims, anyway. I don’t know enough cosmology to fact-check this. If Big Bang theory no longer entails a singularity, then Wikipedia has not been updated, though one other fine resource supports Carrier’s assertion. I’d like to see a poll of cosmologists." "Carrier thinks that “most scientists” see time as “eternal and fixed” rather than flowing unstoppably from the past into the future. I’d like to see a source for that."
  • Response: A. I thought this was common knowledge, but I'm sure Carrier's suggested reading list further supports the contention. This should be self evident already since singularities by definition don't exist. The definition robs it of any attribute that could even be said to "exist." B. And it should also be obvious that for there to be a literal "flowing" from the past to the future would require the past to be continually changing after it is has already happened. I guess historians like Carrier must be quite biased in that regard that they'd like a set timeline. :D

Title: Determinism and Free Will
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=899
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "Since we always do what we want, can’t we call that free will? I suppose. But that might be confusing, since 'free will' has traditionally meant that our decisions are not caused or determined by physical processes – that we have a special ability to choose in the moment to go one way or the other." "Carrier is not a desire utilitarian, and I have lots of criticism waiting for his upcoming chapter on naturalistic morality."
  • Response: "Traditional" definitions are often incoherent and don't accurately map onto what people actually do or mean. Muehlhauser would rather negate a whole bunch of ordinary language in favor of the superstition side of the spectrum of meaning rather than co-opting and leaning towards the more practical accurate side of common rhetoric. The desire for happiness is synonymous with a well orchestrated economy of desires, so one would think Muehlhauser wouldn't find so much to disagree with.

Title: The Meaning of Life
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2621
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "Now, it is very unclear to me what kind of “meaning” Carrier defends, and why his specific list is superior to other imaginable lists. Does he argue that these things have intrinsic meaning, and that other things (that might appear on other people’s lists) do not? Or does he mean that whatever is meaningful to you is meaningful to you, and that’s all the meaning there is in the world? Does he think the universe is somehow goal-directed toward a healthy society, knowledge, beauty, and so on? I will confess I don’t know what Carrier tried to argue in this section."
  • Response: Carrier: "On close analysis, I believe there is only one core value: in agreement with Aristotle and Richard Taylor, I find this to be a desire for happiness. I believe that all other values are derived from this, in conjunction with other facts of the universe, and that all normative values are what they are because they must be held and acted upon in order for any human being to have the best chance of achieving a genuine, enduring happiness."

Title: Mike Licona vs. Richard Carrier debate review
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=9593
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Mike Licona vs. Richard Carrier Debate 2010

  • Consult:
  • Argument: Carrier trusts eyewitness testimony too much in regards to extraordinary claims.
  • Content:
  • Response: (Carrier's response is included in the original link) Though I'd add, I agree that plausibly if you had three trusted friends with whom you could seriously interrogate independently and ascertain to your satisfaction everything was kosher, and that they maintained their story over time, I would also juxtapose what they might be asking of me based on this story. Am I being told to give them lots of money for some reason? Do they want me to help them break an alien out of a military base and risk my life? Etc. No one can yet solve the Drake equation, or what the exact probability is of a year long friendly hoax with a trio of really good friends who have the remarkable ability to lie to you consistently is. I'd be more inclined to believe my friends (or at least not disown them as friends or continually shame them for insanity) if they weren't asking anything of me. It would also greatly depend on the exact kind of story they told and if their reasons for having this personal evidence between them was plausible and if their reason for not having any further evidence didn't sound like a scam. But good friends probably wouldn't ask anything of you unless they could provide some Terminator-cutting-his-flesh-off-his-mechanical-arm level evidence. I always ask myself: What would Miles Bennett Dyson do?

Title: The Politics of Metaphysical Naturalism
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10614
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target: Sense and Goodness Without God

  • Argument: Muehlhauser: "[Carrier] defines liberals and conservatives not in terms of their positions, but in terms of their unthinking allegiance to differing ideologies. Then, he defines moderates as those who encourage disagreements, avoid extreme allegiances, and appeal to evidence in making political decisions. One might ask: But what about all the conservatives and liberals who encourage disagreements, avoid extreme allegiances, and appeal to evidence in making political decisions?"
  • Response: Those conservatives and liberals are probably holding hands across the fence in moderate-ville.

Title: In Defense of Radical Value Pluralism
Location: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12106
Type: Blog
Merit: So-so
Target:


Author: Dorothy M. Murdock ("Acharya S")

Updates: (http://freethoughtworld.wordpress.com/?s=richard+carrier, RSS)

Title: The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
Location: http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html
Type: Web article
Merit: So-so
Target: Luxor Inscription


Author: Jimmy Myers ("St. Joe News")


Title: Did Jesus rise from the dead?
Location: http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/mar/19/did-jesus-rise-dead/
Type: News
Merit: So-so
Target: W.L. Craig Debate

  • Consult:
  • Argument: The article ends with, "Dr. Craig said during a rebuttal that Dr. Carrier “needs to learn to read the lines before he can read between the lines,” which got big laughs from the polite crowd, which seemed to side with Dr. Craig throughout the night."
  • Content: Overall, it's a decent intro and summary of the exchange, minus the ending.
  • Response: Insulting Carrier's reading comprehension isn't exactly the best way to show that a book filled with fantastic magical claims isn't quite possibly myth. The author of the article probably should have included the content of Carrier's response to Craig rather than the ad hominem.


N