neilgodfrey wrote:.
Is this an attempt to wheedle out of applying Carrier's approach to your own pet theories?
No. I need to better understand Bayes' Theorem & Carrier's approach & use of it rather than play with it superficially (& thus meaninglessly)
neilgodfrey wrote:What Carrier's method comes down to is the assurance that alternative arguments are also given due weight and consideration alongside your own theory. The equation ensures you don't forget to take proper and due account of alternative explanations when you are evangelizing your own.
Sure, but your next sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur with respect to the application of Baye's; especially at the moment when it's application to this is relatively new.
This is why the Caesar = Jesus, the Antigonus, and the astrotheology of Robert Tulip -- all of them so convince their devotees but not others: devotees only look at their own arguments and forget to evaluate the alternatives.
Speculating or theorizing doesn't have to initially or primarily take in to account other theories.
I agree with this -
neilgodfrey wrote:The maths just helps remind you to be sure you are honestly giving at least some reasonable attention to the alternatives and making a proper, balanced assessment.
The math helps quantify and therefore, to a certain extent, to qualify.
Typical of MrMacSon. Admits he doesn't really understand it but is confident that my use of it showing his own theories are hogwash is superficial and even justifies a scenario where other theories don't have to be considered!
MrMacSon -- when you do understand it (I won't be holding my breath) then you are most welcome to enter all the more variables in the tables. I do understand it and my work with such examples as I have provided here has been cited by Carrier and a PhD candidate at the University of Sydney.
The only way you can dispute what I have posted here is to enter more variables that are for and against your theories or demonstrate why my own points are false or flat wrong or not at all an exaggerated attempt to favour (not fight against!) your thesis.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
neilgodfrey wrote:.
Typical of MrMacSon. Admits he doesn't really understand it but is confident that my use of it showing his own theories are hogwash is superficial and even justifies a scenario where other theories don't have to be considered!
That's a complete misrepresentation of what I said - a classic strawman fallacy. I said I only have a superficial understanding of the application of Bayes' theorem, so I won't be using it until I do. I am aware of the points you have explained in recent posts, and have appreciated that so, your recent posts are unnecessary.
neilgodfrey wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:especially at the moment when it's application to this is relatively new.
Carrier is not the discoverer of Bayes' and its application to historical reasoning. It is not as new as you are ignorantly assuming.
I am well aware of that, Neil.
You really have some significant issues, Neil, in terms of poor argument and nastiness in attacking someone's mild position.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I do take exception to Neil Godfrey accusing me of evangelism. My approach to religion is purely scientific, and is compatible with Carrier's core argument in On The Historicity of Jesus that the Christ Myth originated as celestial.
Neil's tirades against the basis of Christianity in older religious traditions and Gnostic cosmology are hardly the last word on the subject. If Godfrey and Carrier could swallow their pride, they might see that Acharya S's work on the celestial origins of the Christ Myth is based in a strong understanding and coherent explanation of the available evidence.
Bullshit. It has a cult like quality to outsiders. It doesn't appear to be 'scientific research' because the basic premise that astrotheology is true, has validity etc is never challenged. It might have seemed 'scientific' at the time of the theosophic societies of the previous century. But science has moved on (and so has most people's interest in astrology and such nonsense).
I don't dislike you, Robert. But your attachment to these ideas seems to crossover to the irrational. As a side note have you seen the new Woody Allen movie Magic in the Moonlight?
It is well worth watching. I'd think you might like it ... and learn something about the way people see your friends.
I do take exception to Neil Godfrey accusing me of evangelism. My approach to religion is purely scientific, and is compatible with Carrier's core argument in On The Historicity of Jesus that the Christ Myth originated as celestial.
Neil's tirades against the basis of Christianity in older religious traditions and Gnostic cosmology are hardly the last word on the subject. If Godfrey and Carrier could swallow their pride, they might see that Acharya S's work on the celestial origins of the Christ Myth is based in a strong understanding and coherent explanation of the available evidence.
Hi Robert.
Neil's tirades against the basis of Christianity in older religious traditions and Gnostic cosmology are hardly the last word on the subject.
Let me turn the tables here and offer this bit of my own two cents here. I have three of her books and I like the idea of celestial beings as a basis not only in Christianity but all religions. But in all fairness Acharya S's work is not the last word on it either. Quite frankly, and this is my own personal observation I do not see where any of her fans or cultic followers are really helping her cause any. Have you compared Acharya's work on Astro-Theology to some others in the field such as Jordan Maxwell , Michael Tsarion and others? I like the idea of where Astro-Theology is going I just don't believe it has enough academic credibility to withstand serious scrutiny. And for those here who would like another view out side of the Acharya S cult here is a link:
I do take exception to Neil Godfrey accusing me of evangelism. My approach to religion is purely scientific, and is compatible with Carrier's core argument in On The Historicity of Jesus that the Christ Myth originated as celestial.
A classic non sequitur, Robert. Our approach to our beliefs can be scientific or faith-based but when it comes to popularizing them aren't we in effect attempting to spread the "good news"? Is "evangelism" per se the bete noir? The point I was singling out for fault was the failure of an evangelist to present both sides of the question honestly. That's what gives much common evangelism (in the religious sense) a bad name -- It's all about indoctrination as opposed to education.
By the way, I might also suggest that Dawkins, Coyne, (even me) are "evangelists" in a sense. One can "evangelize" for science, for reason, etc. It's a good idea, I think, to spread "good news". I'm sure you agree.
The reason you don't persuade me is because you have never addressed the clear demonstrations that I have pointed out to you that you are ignoring the scientific method, failing to follow the four steps of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and simply engaging in nothing more profound than ongoing exercises in confirmation bias.
Astrotheology is at no point compatible with a single one of Carrier's arguments. They are as compatible as belief the Greek goddesses Selene and Artemis traveling between the earth and moon is compatible with the Apollo Space Program.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
