Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 09:48 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I especially agree on the self-publishing point, something I touched on earlier in this thread. It's not publishing, it doesn't get vetted or edited, and anyone can do it.

That's not necessarily true. My book has had 4 professional (expensive) edits.

Apart from that, it also costs to self publish.

Apart from that, there's time and money and effort involved in publicity.

So not everyone has the money, or is willing to put in the effort to do it properly.

I was offered a publishing contract, even though I didn't apply for it, and I turned it down. I didn't want to be told what to do when and how.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(19-01-2014 09:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  two hobbyists--as Maklelan calls them-

You have really developed a sweet tooth for makdickless' asshole, haven't you.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(20-01-2014 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-01-2014 09:48 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I especially agree on the self-publishing point, something I touched on earlier in this thread. It's not publishing, it doesn't get vetted or edited, and anyone can do it.

That's not necessarily true. My book has had 4 professional (expensive) edits.

Apart from that, it also costs to self publish.

Apart from that, there's time and money and effort involved in publicity.

So not everyone has the money, or is willing to put in the effort to do it properly.

I was offered a publishing contract, even though I didn't apply for it, and I turned it down. I didn't want to be told what to do when and how.

Not everyone does what you did, Mark, as evidenced by the explosion of self-published tripe on Amazon, et al. All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times. You're talking to an industry publisher right now so you can see my prejudice here.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
20-01-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(20-01-2014 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That's not necessarily true.

It is true ~99.99% of the time. I'm guessing that your implausible hypothesis that Josephus wrote son when he meant stone is just one of many implausible hypotheses in your book. My general objection to you as a person is that you don't appear to have any regard for what is factual and true. The way you do history is as sloppy and amateurish as the way you do medicine and you don't take any measures to check and balance your confirmation bias.

You seem to think that all that matters is that people reject Christianity and beyond that the content of their beliefs is irrelevant. That is the mindset of the propagandist which is to be compared with the mindset of the educator who aspires to impart knowledge and truth. There is a misanthropic aspect to this attitude in that it is manipulative and contemptuous of persons' self-development. You are happy for people to imbibe falsehoods just so long as they reject Christianity. That Christianity is false isn't really the problem--because you are happy to disseminate falsehoods.

Your propagandistic attitude ties in well with your crypto-fascist leanings. You have no commitment to freedom and you have no commitment to truth and knowledge. People like you worry me more than religious people do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
20-01-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(20-01-2014 07:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That's not necessarily true.

It is true ~99.99% of the time. I'm guessing that your implausible hypothesis that Josephus wrote son when he meant stone is just one of many implausible hypotheses in your book. My general objection to you as a person is that you don't appear to have any regard for what is factual and true. The way you do history is as sloppy and amateurish as the way you do medicine and you don't take any measures to check and balance your confirmation bias.

You seem to think that all that matters is that people reject Christianity and beyond that the content of their beliefs is irrelevant. That is the mindset of the propagandist which is to be compared with the mindset of the educator who aspires to impart knowledge and truth. There is a misanthropic aspect to this attitude in that it is manipulative and contemptuous of persons' self-development. You are happy for people to imbibe falsehoods just so long as they reject Christianity. That Christianity is false isn't really the problem--because you are happy to disseminate falsehoods.

Your propagandistic attitude ties in well with your crypto-fascist leanings. You have no commitment to freedom and you have no commitment to truth and knowledge. People like you worry me more than religious people do.

+1

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(20-01-2014 06:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 04:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That's not necessarily true. My book has had 4 professional (expensive) edits.

Apart from that, it also costs to self publish.

Apart from that, there's time and money and effort involved in publicity.

So not everyone has the money, or is willing to put in the effort to do it properly.

I was offered a publishing contract, even though I didn't apply for it, and I turned it down. I didn't want to be told what to do when and how.

Not everyone does what you did, Mark, as evidenced by the explosion of self-published tripe on Amazon, et al. All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times. You're talking to an industry publisher right now so you can see my prejudice here.

Re..."All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times."

That's interesting. I don't know whether my book is up to scratch or not. I "finished it" about two years ago, but it's taken a further two years for me to get it to a point where it "flowed," the grammar was correct, and where I didn't repeat myself. I had no idea that to write something was so hard, although maybe if I had more natural talent it would've been a lot easier. In total it's taken about seven years out of my life.

I'm interested in what sort of books you publish?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 01:26 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 06:20 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Not everyone does what you did, Mark, as evidenced by the explosion of self-published tripe on Amazon, et al. All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times. You're talking to an industry publisher right now so you can see my prejudice here.

Re..."All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times."

That's interesting. I don't know whether my book is up to scratch or not. I "finished it" about two years ago, but it's taken a further two years for me to get it to a point where it "flowed," the grammar was correct, and where I didn't repeat myself. I had no idea that to write something was so hard, although maybe if I had more natural talent it would've been a lot easier. In total it's taken about seven years out of my life.

I'm interested in what sort of books you publish?


I think the point here, is that with the advent of relatively cheap electronic e-publishing, the cost of entry (in time, money, and quality of work) to get your work published is greatly decreased. One way to ensure that a work is up to snuff, especially on a historic or scientific topic, is to seek publishing through traditional academic publishers; which require that the work meet a certain standard and get professionally vetted and critiqued before publication. That there are plenty of pseudo-science/philosophy/history floating around (such as Ralph Ellis' work), and some even becoming popular enough to move out of strictly being e-published (such as Atwill's work), does not speak highly of the avenue for anyone looking for accurate information while wading through the masses of available works.


We defer to the experts, because they are experts. Having experts critique a work related to their field of expertise before publication helps ensure it's accuracy. Those not concerned with accuracy very often eschew this step; and therein lies the problem. Say what you will about Atwill or Carrier, but one has taken the extra effort to ensure the accuracy of their work and the other has not (factual accuracy, to say nothing of the author's interpretation of the facts); and that gives Carrier's work the greater weight at face value before either book has even had their covers opened.


You may very well think you hold yourself to a high standard, higher then other independent or self publishers. But you have to realize that if you want your work to be taken seriously by other experts in your field and to count yourself one among them (especially as a self taught historian), then seeking professional publishing after a peer review process is essential to ensuring the accuracy and legitimacy of your work. Your work may be to a higher standard than Ellis' or Atwill's, but how is a layperson supposed to tell the difference between the two? Between scholarship and crank?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2014, 04:06 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 02:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 01:26 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."All of the reasons you have why people don't do it, is what separates it from the real achievement and worthiness of the book 99 out of 100 times."

That's interesting. I don't know whether my book is up to scratch or not. I "finished it" about two years ago, but it's taken a further two years for me to get it to a point where it "flowed," the grammar was correct, and where I didn't repeat myself. I had no idea that to write something was so hard, although maybe if I had more natural talent it would've been a lot easier. In total it's taken about seven years out of my life.

I'm interested in what sort of books you publish?


I think the point here, is that with the advent of relatively cheap electronic e-publishing, the cost of entry (in time, money, and quality of work) to get your work published is greatly decreased. One way to ensure that a work is up to snuff, especially on a historic or scientific topic, is to seek publishing through traditional academic publishers; which require that the work meet a certain standard and get professionally vetted and critiqued before publication. That there are plenty of pseudo-science/philosophy/history floating around (such as Ralph Ellis' work), and some even becoming popular enough to move out of strictly being e-published (such as Atwill's work), does not speak highly of the avenue for anyone looking for accurate information while wading through the masses of available works.


We defer to the experts, because they are experts. Having experts critique a work related to their field of expertise before publication helps ensure it's accuracy. Those not concerned with accuracy very often eschew this step; and therein lies the problem. Say what you will about Atwill or Carrier, but one has taken the extra effort to ensure the accuracy of their work and the other has not (factual accuracy, to say nothing of the author's interpretation of the facts); and that gives Carrier's work the greater weight at face value before either book has even had their covers opened.


You may very well think you hold yourself to a high standard, higher then other independent or self publishers. But you have to realize that if you want your work to be taken seriously by other experts in your field and to count yourself one among them (especially as a self taught historian), then seeking professional publishing after a peer review process is essential to ensuring the accuracy and legitimacy of your work. Your work may be to a higher standard than Ellis' or Atwill's, but how is a layperson supposed to tell the difference between the two? Between scholarship and crank?

Hi Ek, thanks for your comments.

Permit me to rabbit on about my adventure into writing my book. I know I'm not in Bart Ehrman's or Richard Carriers' league. I can't speak Greek or Hebrew. I have no academic background in religious studies or even in the arts.

What I've done is assimilate the opinions of hundreds of historians, (like them and including them,) to put forward a plausible hypothesis for the origins of Christianity. I have hundreds of interesting conclusions, most of which have already been made by other people.

I have no desire to be considered "right" about everything I conclude. I just put the info out there and hope people can understand it and come to their own conclusions.

I'm not like a Joe Atwill or Ralph Ellis who have highly original ideas. What I've tried to do is put the whole damn thing in context... I.e. who invented the religion, when and why. And, is there any truth in it? And, does it play any legitimate role in today's world? And, does it do any harm? And, therefore, should we be teaching it to children?

So after discussing the history, I talk about churches, schools, psychology, social psychology, power, money, rational thinking, sex, guilt, heaven, hell etc etc. As a general practitioner with 20 years experience I feel I'm reasonably qualified to comment on such matters.

I have no doubt there will be historical issues in my book that many knowledgeable historians will disagree with, and my understanding may well be proven to be deficient. Hell, these guys argue with each other incessantly. What hope have I?

I'm sure some people will find it boring, or too complicated, or maybe not well written (I hope not!) Some Christians will find the history too controversial to try to understand. So be it. I can't appeal to everyone.

I kid myself I'm a "big picture" man....that the average person, who doesn't have the time or inclination to research everything for themselves, will learn a lot from my rambling, and come to their own conclusions. My book is never going to impress the academic world... it's written for the average person who's interested in history and the role of Christianity in today's world.

Also, there are nearly 1000 links in my book to websites, blogs, debates and documentaries that people can learn from. They're easily accessible with the click of a button if someone reads my book on an e reader.

I hear what you say about checking out the facts. It's a minefield! There are just so many different opinions about everything! I've done my best. Most of the book has been rewritten scores of times, often after discussions on TTA forum.

I did send copies of my book to my friend Douglas Lockhart (who has written a number of books on the origins of Christianity) for peer review. He was generally positive, (he may have just been being polite,) and didn't point out any glaring errors. He did say he nearly fell off his kitchen stool when he read that I thought the Roman government had created Christianity, yet accepted the possibility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 04:21 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 04:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I think the point here, is that with the advent of relatively cheap electronic e-publishing, the cost of entry (in time, money, and quality of work) to get your work published is greatly decreased. One way to ensure that a work is up to snuff, especially on a historic or scientific topic, is to seek publishing through traditional academic publishers; which require that the work meet a certain standard and get professionally vetted and critiqued before publication. That there are plenty of pseudo-science/philosophy/history floating around (such as Ralph Ellis' work), and some even becoming popular enough to move out of strictly being e-published (such as Atwill's work), does not speak highly of the avenue for anyone looking for accurate information while wading through the masses of available works.


We defer to the experts, because they are experts. Having experts critique a work related to their field of expertise before publication helps ensure it's accuracy. Those not concerned with accuracy very often eschew this step; and therein lies the problem. Say what you will about Atwill or Carrier, but one has taken the extra effort to ensure the accuracy of their work and the other has not (factual accuracy, to say nothing of the author's interpretation of the facts); and that gives Carrier's work the greater weight at face value before either book has even had their covers opened.


You may very well think you hold yourself to a high standard, higher then other independent or self publishers. But you have to realize that if you want your work to be taken seriously by other experts in your field and to count yourself one among them (especially as a self taught historian), then seeking professional publishing after a peer review process is essential to ensuring the accuracy and legitimacy of your work. Your work may be to a higher standard than Ellis' or Atwill's, but how is a layperson supposed to tell the difference between the two? Between scholarship and crank?

Hi Ek, thanks for your comments.

Permit me to rabbit on about my adventure into writing my book. I know I'm not in Bart Ehrman's or Richard Carriers' league. I can't speak Greek or Hebrew. I have no academic background in religious studies or even in the arts.

What I've done is assimilate the opinions of hundreds of historians, (like them and including them,) to put forward a plausible hypothesis for the origins of Christianity. I have hundreds of interesting conclusions, most of which have already been made by other people.

I have no desire to be considered "right" about everything I conclude. I just put the info out there and hope people can understand it and come to their own conclusions.

I'm not like a Joe Atwill or Ralph Ellis who have highly original ideas. What I've tried to do is put the whole damn thing in context... I.e. who invented the religion, when and why. And, is there any truth in it? And, does it play any legitimate role in today's world? And, does it do any harm? And, therefore, should we be teaching it to children?

So after discussing the history, I talk about churches, schools, psychology, social psychology, power, money, rational thinking, sex, guilt, heaven, hell etc etc. As a general practitioner with 20 years experience I feel I'm reasonably qualified to comment on such matters.

I have no doubt there will be historical issues in my book that many knowledgeable historians will disagree with, and my understanding may well be proven to be deficient. Hell, these guys argue with each other incessantly. What hope have I?

I'm sure some people will find it boring, or too complicated, or maybe not well written (I hope not!) Some Christians will find the history too controversial to try to understand. So be it. I can't appeal to everyone.

I kid myself I'm a "big picture" man....that the average person, who doesn't have the time or inclination to research everything for themselves, will learn a lot from my rambling, and come to their own conclusions. My book is never going to impress the academic world... it's written for the average person who's interested in history and the role of Christianity in today's world.

Also, there are nearly 1000 links in my book to websites, blogs, debates and documentaries that people can learn from. They're easily accessible with the click of a button if someone reads my book on an e reader.

I hear what you say about checking out the facts. It's a minefield! There are just so many different opinions about everything! I've done my best. Most of the book has been rewritten scores of times, often after discussions on TTA forum.

I did send copies of my book to my friend Douglas Lockhart (who has written a number of books on the origins of Christianity) for peer review. He was generally positive, (he may have just been being polite,) and didn't point out any glaring errors. He did say he nearly fell off his kitchen stool when he read that I thought the Roman government had created Christianity, yet accepted the possibility.


I might not always agree with you Mark, but I'd be lying if I said you were anything but cordial in your responses and defense of your work.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2014, 05:13 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(21-01-2014 04:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 04:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Ek, thanks for your comments.

Permit me to rabbit on about my adventure into writing my book. I know I'm not in Bart Ehrman's or Richard Carriers' league. I can't speak Greek or Hebrew. I have no academic background in religious studies or even in the arts.

What I've done is assimilate the opinions of hundreds of historians, (like them and including them,) to put forward a plausible hypothesis for the origins of Christianity. I have hundreds of interesting conclusions, most of which have already been made by other people.

I have no desire to be considered "right" about everything I conclude. I just put the info out there and hope people can understand it and come to their own conclusions.

I'm not like a Joe Atwill or Ralph Ellis who have highly original ideas. What I've tried to do is put the whole damn thing in context... I.e. who invented the religion, when and why. And, is there any truth in it? And, does it play any legitimate role in today's world? And, does it do any harm? And, therefore, should we be teaching it to children?

So after discussing the history, I talk about churches, schools, psychology, social psychology, power, money, rational thinking, sex, guilt, heaven, hell etc etc. As a general practitioner with 20 years experience I feel I'm reasonably qualified to comment on such matters.

I have no doubt there will be historical issues in my book that many knowledgeable historians will disagree with, and my understanding may well be proven to be deficient. Hell, these guys argue with each other incessantly. What hope have I?

I'm sure some people will find it boring, or too complicated, or maybe not well written (I hope not!) Some Christians will find the history too controversial to try to understand. So be it. I can't appeal to everyone.

I kid myself I'm a "big picture" man....that the average person, who doesn't have the time or inclination to research everything for themselves, will learn a lot from my rambling, and come to their own conclusions. My book is never going to impress the academic world... it's written for the average person who's interested in history and the role of Christianity in today's world.

Also, there are nearly 1000 links in my book to websites, blogs, debates and documentaries that people can learn from. They're easily accessible with the click of a button if someone reads my book on an e reader.

I hear what you say about checking out the facts. It's a minefield! There are just so many different opinions about everything! I've done my best. Most of the book has been rewritten scores of times, often after discussions on TTA forum.

I did send copies of my book to my friend Douglas Lockhart (who has written a number of books on the origins of Christianity) for peer review. He was generally positive, (he may have just been being polite,) and didn't point out any glaring errors. He did say he nearly fell off his kitchen stool when he read that I thought the Roman government had created Christianity, yet accepted the possibility.


I might not always agree with you Mark, but I'd be lying if I said you were anything but cordial in your responses and defense of your work.

Thanks mate. Your constructive criticism is great...and I mean it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: