“Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American author and activist, whose work focuses on empiricism, atheism, and the historicity of Jesus. A long-time contributor to self-published philosophical web sites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs, Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[2] Carrier’s methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists,[3][4][5] and he and his theories are often identified as “fringe“.[6][7]“
I had some exchange of posts with him in 2014 and he very kindly responded them:
PAARSURREYAPRIL 23, 2014, 5:04 P @Bruce @Richard CarrierI think it is OK for you to concentrate on Christianity; but then don’t generalize your experience with Christianity and Judaism to Islam.Without studying Quran it will be quite unreasonable to comment on Quran/Islam/Muhammad.One could criticize Muslims though; they could make mistakes, blunders and wrongs for not following teachings of Quran and for that they are accountable.Thanks and regards
RICHARD CARRIERAPRIL 28, 2014, 9:36 AMYou could say the same of Taoism. Why aren’t you a Taoist? You haven’t studied it! It could be the one true religion!Your reasoning is fallacious. There are thousands of false beliefs. We cannot read all their holy books nor should we. If they were true, we would know it by now: they would have produced unique knowledge that could be independently verified thus confirming they are true in a way the thousands of others are not. Islam has consistently failed to meet that burden for over a thousand years. I have no reason to believe anything is going to change about that in the next ten. It had its shot. It failed. Just like astrology, alchemy, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Scientology, and every other system of superstition you yourself have rightly rejected without reading their literature.
PAARSURREYAPRIL 29, 2014, 4:09 AM@Richard Carrier:April 28, 2014 at 9:36 amI understand that you were born a Methodist Christian and decided to convert to Taoism at a very tender age of 15 years and then converted to Atheism at the age of 21 years. Under what principled approach you did that on both occasions?Regards
RICHARD CARRIERAPRIL 30, 2014, 8:45 AMTaoism, I was converted the same irrational way all religious people are. Leaving Taoism? Reading, study, experience, and application of scientific knowledge and logical reasoning.One of those actually works. I’ll let you try to guess which.REPLY
PAARSURREYAPRIL 30, 2014, 2:36 PM@Richard Carrier : April 30, 2014 at 8:45 amI don’t agree with you that everybody gets converted to another religion without a proper principled approach, irrationally.I understand your observation, “There are thousands of false beliefs. We cannot read all their holy books nor should we.”One could be born in any religion or even without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey towards truth.The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one, at a given period of time, is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.I give here one such principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in the beginning of an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world.I give below the principle in precisely his words:“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”. “I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.”Since one changed one’s religion two times without a principled approach; I think one should check again the truthfulness of one’s worldview from the start.Regards
RICHARD CARRIERMAY 1, 2014, 9:25 AMHuh? I have only ever had one religion (being in a Methodist family did not make me a Methodist; as I wrote, I was never a believer). And I abandoned it by the only principles approach there is.You, however, don’t seem to be endorsing anything like a principled approach, nor does it appear that you have properly investigated competing religious claims even as much as I have.REPLY
PAARSURREYMAY 1, 2014, 10:13 AM@Richard Carrier :May 1, 2014 at 9:25“nor does it appear that you have properly investigated competing religious claims even as much as I have”How do you know that?Please elaborate.Regards
PAARSURREYMAY 1, 2014, 10:31 AM@Richard Carrier : May 1, 2014 at 9:25 am “I have only ever had one religion (being in a Methodist family did not make me a Methodist; as I wrote, I was never a believer). And I abandoned it by the only principles approach there is.”The information that your parents were Methodists and you used to go to that Church and then became a Taoist at the age of 15 and then became an Atheist at the age of 21 is available on your site.Please correct it if it is not true.You are a renowned scholar while I am only an ordinary man. I want to know as to why did you get converted two times; must be some principled approach in your mind. You cannot do it haphazardly.Please write on this topic in detail. Without comparative study of religions and or no-religion under a principled tool one cannot get to the truth.The tool given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is simple and reasonable; you will agree.Regards
RICHARD CARRIERMAY 7, 2014, 10:40 AMI did not have any belief or faith in Methodism. I have only ever had belief or faith in one religion: Taoism. That is compatible with all the data you cite. You seem to be confusing cultural behaviors with faith-beliefs.The only conversions I have undergone were to Taoism and then to scientific naturalism.I explain why I underwent both in Sense and Goodness without God. If you really want to understand that, read it.The tool given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is simple and reasonable; you will agree.The only principled tools are these. Everything else is bullshit.
PAARSURREYMAY 10, 2014, 12:05 PM@Richard Carrier : May 7, 2014 at 10:40 amYou were in Taoism. What was in Taoism that you were a Taoist? For what positive arguments in Atheism you converted to it from Taoism? PleaseRegards
There is no compulsion in Quran/Islam/Muhammad, so why should one become a Muslim? Please remain with Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism till one realizes that Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism are totally wrong . Right, please?
Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards
William wrote:
Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.
It is not used to show the fact of existence, but to examine the fact of existence.
In this, science can be used to provide some evidence as to how things on earth came to be but cannot be used to determine whether these things happened through a mindless process or a mindful process.
Thus it cannot support theism or atheism because it cannot show conclusively that the process was or was not a mindful one.
The evidence which comes to light through the process of science can be interpreted either way. The atheist can interpret the evidence as being a mindless process… because the implication of an intelligent creator behind the process = “GOD” and atheism by default is not having any belief in “GODs” … and the theist can interpret the same evidence as being a mindful process, because the theist by default has belief in “GOD(s)” – an intelligent designer or for that matter, a group of intelligent designers.
Science itself is just a process and thus is not something that has an opinion either way. Opinions either way derive from those who interpret the same evidence in a different way.
Science also is not capable of being used to determine what is or isn’t ‘the truthful religion’, even if there actually was one.
Quote:
Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.
Paarsurrey wrote:
Thanks for poising believers and non-believers equally.
As one agrees science does not provide a refuge to Atheism, and the like. Atheism is just a position of indecision having roots neither in Science nor in Religion. All the basics of the truthful Religion, the six Articles of faith* together with five pillars of observance are beyond the observable material science. The truthful founders of all revealed religions and particularly the founder of the Truthful Religion never spoke anything against Science, as a branch of knowledge, or the scientists. They did not want to hamper its progress so they left it open to be dealt with on material observation (belonging to the “seen” realm/s). Religions’ stress is on the “unseen realm/s”:
[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:4] Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
[2:5] And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come
[2:6] It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2
Regards
__________
*Six Articles of Faith
• Unity of God
• His Angels
• His Books
• His Prophets
• The Last Day
• Divine Decree
**Five Pillars of Islam (for its observance)
• Kalima
• Prayer
• Fasting
• Zakaat
• Hajj https://www.alislam.org/
Cxxxx said: I cannot discus atheism with you, tried before and got fed up of bang my head on the wall.
But FYI, atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby
Magenta ^ isn’t it a dogmatic/apologetic/oft-repeated response of the Atheism people , please? The next time, will one be seeing a flying kettle in the sky, perhaps, please? Right friend, please/
Vxxxx said: What does atheism proclaim? What is its position?
Atheism, per se, is a default, not a position. We’re born atheist. Subsequent theological beliefs are enculturated. Theology is learned. A blank slate proclaims nothing.
PureX said: ↑Then you are clearly quite confused. Being confused does not make you an atheist. It just makes you undetermined. None of this is about what anyone can prove. Proof is not a requirement for theism, atheism, or agnosticism.
Only magenta ^.
For Atheism just being ignorant is more than enough, I understand, please. Right?
mxxxx said: Do all atheists use reason, logic and evidence?
Only magenta ^.
They don’t have it so they cannot stop a bigfoot or an elephant entering their garages else the kettles in their kitchens start flying in the sky and some of them having leisure time may start not-collecting stamps as their hobbies, they are afraid of , I figure. Right?
Pxxx said: To hold and express a position logically calls for justification. Atheism expressed, is a position. And so calls for justification.
Reason bade them goodbye long time ago , their recent “Pope Dawkins” and one recent “Bishop Hitchens” told them in their congregational “Atheist-Church” service only to deride and ridicule and they are following it very “religiously” rather than “Atheistically”, I understand, so they can’t justify, please. Right?
lxxxx said: Atheism means without theism, so no distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. Right?
Then just say “Athe”, I figure, as adding ism to it has to be as per post #225, if it makes it meaningless, then, when there was meaning in it since inception, please? Right?
Willamena said: ↑Technically, you are discussing etymology. So, from “one’s above expressions,” all that can be concluded is that one understands a word (or fails to) the same way another does.
They always start like that so this time I thought I should go deep into it. If I am right then one may support it or else correct where I am wrong.
Kxxx said: What do you understand by revelations? I am referring to the people claiming to be prophets that were able get a message from God. As long as the prophet is alive it is not a subjective matter since there is a living central authority over how to interpret the message.
But what we have is purported prophets contradicting each other and no way to ascertain who is speaking the truth.
One could do it with the Religious Method and Atheism have no Methodology of their own, I understand.
paarsurrey said: ↑And they had always been an (unreasonable) minority perspective with no methodology.
Regards
It’s entirely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it’s not required by theists either–just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
Willamena said: ↑It’s enitrely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it’s not required by theists either–just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
I had to take on them, don’t they bully all the time the believers on such petty points as if they are champions, please? Right?
Mxxxxx said: The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.
It is the Pauline-Christianity who are the breeding ground of the Atheism and the like , I understand. Right? _________________ The six countries in the world with the most ‘convinced atheists’ The six countries in the world that believe in God the least
AtheistEnglishman on May 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm said:
Care to provide any proof of your assertion? Given the fact that believes are predominantly likely to believe the religion of their parents (or a subtle variant of the same) it is abundantly clear that we are not born with a religion, but that our parents surrender us to a religion, their religion.
I think there would be only few or a negligible minority of people in the world who would have Atheism as a default position or the original position reasonably. Only those of them could claim Atheism as their default position whose parents were Atheists and hence they need to be helped by the Theists to provide reasonable arguments.
The majority of the Atheists, I think cannot claim Atheism as their default or original position. They belonged to a position of one of the religions in the world; and then they thought it to be convenient to get converted to Atheism (Skepticism, Agnosticism etc) without being convinced with evidences or proofs which they demand from the believers so often.
Atheism is a position of doubt and ignorance, not of certainty. Had they got converted to Atheism with evidences and proofs; they would have them ready to present them to believers?
They just demand evidences and proofs from the believers.
@ anaivethinker
“. . I would have to try to make evolution and religion work together. . .
. . .
. . .
Do you have a similar experience? Do you know someone with a similar experience? Feel free to comment or question about anything.” Unquote
The observation was correct that evolution/science work together; but the decision was incorrect to become Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic.
If Bible/Christianity was wrong on occasions; it does not prove Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism automatically correct. Truth of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism must be proved correct on its own merit.
Truth must be proved of every religions or non-religion on some common criteria.
So your search for truth is incomplete. You went from one extreme to another extreme.
@ Sabio Lantz
“Religion is a term used to package very complicated socio-political movements while also capitalizing on internal psychological states.”
There seems to be some error in your concept of religion as given above.
Do you think Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/”Humanism”/secularism etc are also covered in your concept of religion?
• PAARSURREY • A FEW SECONDS AGO
@KAREN STOLLZNOW
@CHRIS STEDMAN
“NONTHEISM IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH BUDDHISM”
MAYBE THE BUDDHISM IN AMERICA HAS SOME CONNECTION WITH NON-THEISM OR ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM/SKEPTICISM; BUT BUDDHA HAS DEFINITELY NO CONNECTION WITH THEM (NON-THEISM OR ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM/SKEPTICISM).
PAARSURREY • 12 MINUTES AGO
@KAREN STOLLZNOW:
“THE BEST WAY TO BE SENSITIVE TO THESE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IS TO GET TO KNOW THEIR MEMBERS PERSONALLY AND TO SEE THEM AS PEOPLE, NOT AS STEREOTYPES PERPETUATED IN MOVIES, BOOKS AND ONLINE. FOR EACH RELIGION PROFILED I HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH MEMBERS OF THESE GROUPS. IT WAS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR ME TO WORK WITH EX-MEMBERS OF THESE GROUPS, TO GAIN INSIGHT FROM THOSE WHO ARE NOW OUTSIDERS, AND HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE AS FORMER INSIDERS.”
I AM AN AHMADI PEACEFUL MUSLIM. I LIKE THE APPROACH OF KAREN STOLLZNOW. ONE MUST HAVE A PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITIES TO WHOM ONE WANTS A MEANINGFUL DIALOGUES. I APPRECIATE IT. IT IS ETHICALLY GOOD.
This is a “default” position for me. I have not found sufficient evidence to encourage belief in a deity.”
I don’t get you. Were you an Atheist when you gained consciousness as a child, as far as you remember?
Please
18/2/14 9:19 AM
Calladus said…
My earliest memories were full of magic, wonder and fear.
I was scared to death of the “Bumble”, from the Christmas animation, “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer”.
I was also pretty scared of monsters and ghosts – I’d read about them in “Tales from the Crypt” comics that my older teenage neighbor liked to read.
And, I thought that butterflies were magical – we were in the middle of the Monarch butterfly migration path, and our yard would be filled with them every year.
I don’t remember much about Church at this age, because I’d go to the Pre-kindergarten child care when Mom and Dad went to church. I played with the blocks there and built things with them.
As a child, I’d have my father check under my bed and in my closet for monsters, and I’d have my mom leave the hallway light on.
So if you are claiming that my “default position” is whatever I believed as a child, then it would be about Bumbles, ghosts and monsters.
But no deities. I just didn’t think about them.
18/2/14 10:54 AM
Calladus said…
I think I see a pattern here. People think that “Belief” is some sort of binary logic. Sort of like computer logic, that is either 1 or 0, or “True” or “False”.
And what is funny, is that binary logic isn’t even true with computers. There is a Third State, known as “Tri-state” or “Hi-Z”, which are both fancy ways of saying, “Disconnected”.
I don’t have a belief that a deity exists. I don’t have a belief that a deity does NOT exist. I don’t bother with believing, or disbelieving.
Instead, I’m disconnected from belief in a deity.
As are you, dear reader, about a great many things.
For example you are disconnected from belief in Trugs. You don’t believe in a Trug, you don’t disbelieve in a Trug.
And if I informed you that a Trug was a supernatural creature, you might still not form a belief stance on Trugs. After all, why bother? It doesn’t affect you one way or another.
No matter what I say about a Trug, you are unaffected unless I can bring some sort of convincing evidence.
18/2/14 11:04 AM
paarsurrey said…
@Calladus :18/2/14 10:54 AM
“So if you are claiming that my ‘default position’ is whatever I believed as a child, then it would be about Bumbles, ghosts and monsters.”
I wanted to know the original position or the original default position since you got consciousness of existence of life.I don’t think you would have described your position as Atheism at that time.
Calladus said…
No, I would not have described my “position” as atheism at the age of 4 or 5.
Who would?
Please, tell me what child would describe ANYTHING as their life philosophy at the age of 4 or 5?
Maybe you know of a child prodigy?
18/2/14 1:30 PM
Paarsurrey said: ( paarsurrey sent these comments but these are still awaited to be published after moderation; not yet exhibited on the Calladus blog):
@ Calladus:18/2/14 1:30 PM
“No, I would not have described my “position” as atheism at the age of 4 or 5″
May be I could not express my thoughts properly.
There must be a first stage at which you would have been able to name it as Atheism.
At what age this happened?
Before it; it was not Atheism.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Paarsurrey adds further to the above discussion:
I think there would be only few or a negligible minority of people in the world who would have Atheism as a default position or the original position reasonably. Only those of them could claim Atheism as their default position whose parents were Atheists and hence they need to be helped by the Theists to provide reasonable arguments.
The majority of the Atheists, I think cannot claim Atheism as their default or original position. They belonged to a position of one of the religions in the world; and then they thought it to be convenient to get converted to Atheism (Skepticism, Agnosticism etc) without being convinced with evidences or proofs which they demand from the believers so often.
Atheism is a position of doubt and ignorance, not of certainty. Had they got converted to Atheism with evidences and proofs; they would have them ready to present them to believers?
They just demand evidences and proofs from the believers and are hesitant even to define as to what they mean from “evidence” or “proof”; a dictionary cannot be much useful in this connection; as everyone of them differs with others.
Buddha did not Support Atheism/Skepticism in any concrete terms; if one differs with me then one should quote from Buddha where he supported Atheism/Skepticism specifically and unequivocally.
I re-blogged the following post in my blog one could view it at the following link:
“The Garden of Eden was in Congo ”
So , please don’t mind it; you don’t have anything concrete from Buddha supporting Atheism/Skepticism.
It is just your impression that Buddha discussed here about the Truthful Revealed Religions; he has discussed here the corrupted version of the religions and of those who don’t believe in any altogether.
If one finds after observation and analysis that Atheism/Skepticism don’t agrees with reason and it is conducive to the good and benefit of the humanity not to accept them; then one is doing this within the scope of the general teaching of Buddha for not accepting Atheism/Skepticism.
Kindly give some concrete quotation from Buddha in support of Atheism/Skepticism. Please
Reply
RICHARD CARRIER APRIL 28, 2014, 9:36 AMYou could say the same of Taoism. Why aren’t you a Taoist? You haven’t studied it! It could be the one true religion!Your reasoning is fallacious. There are thousands of false beliefs. We cannot read all their holy books nor should we. If they were true, we would know it by now: they would have produced unique knowledge that could be independently verified thus confirming they are true in a way the thousands of others are not. Islam has consistently failed to meet that burden for over a thousand years. I have no reason to believe anything is going to change about that in the next ten. It had its shot. It failed. Just like astrology, alchemy, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Scientology, and every other system of superstition you yourself have rightly rejected without reading their literature.
PAARSURREY APRIL 29, 2014, 4:09 AM@Richard Carrier:April 28, 2014 at 9:36 amI understand that you were born a Methodist Christian and decided to convert to Taoism at a very tender age of 15 years and then converted to Atheism at the age of 21 years.
PAARSURREY APRIL 30, 2014, 2:36 PM@Richard Carrier : April 30, 2014 at 8:45 amI don’t agree with you that everybody gets converted to another religion without a proper principled approach, irrationally.I understand your observation, “There are thousands of false beliefs. We cannot read all their holy books nor should we.”One could be born in any religion or even without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey towards truth.The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one, at a given period of time, is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.I give here one such principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in the beginning of an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world.I give below the principle in precisely his words:“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”.
![[IMG]](https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi328.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl348%2Fluis_o_m_dantas%2Fpaar4_zpsnto2ictv.png&hash=b034a4e428dc6f4c48e07c888321b47b)
paarsurrey 