Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity?

[Randall]

From Wikipedia. It would seem there was more to it than just simple accusations.

In June 2016 Carrier was accused of sexual harassment by Amy Frank, the former president of the Arizona State Universitychapter of the Secular Student Alliance. As a result, the SSA removed Carrier from its speakers list and Skepticon prohibited Carrier from attending any of its future conferences. Skepticon had previously stopped inviting him to speak after he displayed a pattern of inappropriate behavior at previous conferences.

So what's this "inappropriate behavior" and who are the "inappropriate behavior" police? And what does it have to do with the lecture he gives in the video? From what I can tell, he was attracted to some guy's wife and allegedly made some suggestions: Click here to support Amy Frank Fund organized by Cara Zelaya I don't see anyplace where she says she told him "no". Personally, I wouldn't get involved with married people on a sexual basis just because I wouldn't want to be some bolt-on to an otherwise boring relationship between two hypocrites. But rest assured, there are lots of married people out there who are into that sort of thing. So the grown-up thing to do is just say "Sorry I'm not into that", wake-up your sleeping hubby, and hit the road. Why hang around and then lodge a formal complaint? How does that in any way advance respect for women or support women's rights?

 

[DaveM]

So what's this "inappropriate behavior" and who are the "inappropriate behavior" police? And what does it have to do with the lecture he gives in the video?

Sorry, I didn't write those comments. You want to look aside from what others have said about this guy. More power to you. This is one reason why a number of former posters no longer come here. You love to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you. That is what a few have told me privately.

Believe what you want. You seem to rule here anyway.

 

[Randall]

Sorry, I didn't write those comments. You want to look aside from what others have said about this guy. More power to you. This is one reason why a number of former posters no longer come here. You love to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you. That is what a few have told me privately. Believe what you want. You seem to rule here anyway.

So posting an honest opinion that conflicts with someone else's is now "browbeating"? Honestly. I don't "love to browbeat" anyone, and I resent the accusation. I can imagine who the complainers are as well. They're the one's who want to be right, but can't defend their position, won't consider valid counterpoint in the spirit of a healthy debate, and take everything personally, so they attack me personally and complain to Gene. If that's your tack, then go ahead and complain and attack me too. I'm sure it won't help the discussion, but maybe it will make you feel better. Have at it . Personally, I think that instead of turning the discussion into a debate about Carrier's social behavior, or forum decorum, I'd like to see it carry on with the subject of the thread.

 

[DaveM]

Sorry, I didn't write those comments. You want to look aside from what others have said about this guy. More power to you. This is one reason why a number of former posters no longer come here. You love to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you. That is what a few have told me privately.

Believe what you want. You seem to rule here anyway.

So posting an honest opinion that conflicts with someone else's is now "browbeating"? Honestly. I don't "love to browbeat" anyone, and I resent the accusation. I can imagine who the complainers are as well. They're the one's who can't defend their position and take everything personally, so they attack me personally and complain to Gene. If that's your tack, then go ahead and complain and attack me too. I'm sure it won't help the discussion, but maybe it will make you feel better. Have at it .

First, I didn't complain to Gene. I told you to your face, so to speak. I don't feel any different, one way or the other. My opinion on your comments still stands. You think very highly of your 'opinions' and try to rip others who don't agree with you. I think that is fairly evident.

 

[Randall]

First, I didn't complain to Gene. I told you to your face, so to speak. I don't feel any different, one way or the other. My opinion on your comments still stands. You think very highly of your 'opinions' and try to rip others who don't agree with you. I think that is fairly evident.

I didn't say you complained to Gene. That was a reference to whoever the private messages came from. The only time I "rip" someone is when they use a personal attack as counterpoint in a debate. And even then the first thing I do is point out that personal attacks don't qualify as valid counterpoint. If you call that "ripping" someone. Then I'm guilty as charged. So again, how about contributing something to the topic of the thread or addressing the actual issues rather than my personality. Alternately, start a private conversation with me, dig up examples where you think I've been unfair, and we'll discuss them. Maybe I can learn from the examples how to communicate better.

 

[marduk]

First, I didn't complain to Gene. I told you to your face, so to speak. I don't feel any different, one way or the other. My opinion on your comments still stands. You think very highly of your 'opinions' and try to rip others who don't agree with you. I think that is fairly evident.

Have you ever talked to Randall?

I have. We disagreed on some stuff. Agreed on some stuff. Never felt brow beat about anything.

Intellectual honesty is what it is, man.

 

[Trajanus]

The Synoptic Gospels were written 40-60 years after the historical Jesus would have lived. The idea that any of his words were remembered that long afterwards doesn’t seem very likely. It’s a romanticized version, much like Jesus was a six foot, white man with long flowing hair. It goes against the historical facts of that era.

Well, if you read the works of Ehrman, who has done a lot to make scholarly views on jesus accessible to the layman, he indicates at least some of what is attributed to jesus was actually said by him. He explains the methodological criteria used to separate what is historically probable from the pure inventions, intended to make jesus look better, to win coverts.
Btw even John Dominic Crossan, who rejects nearly everything in the NT as "not history remembered but prophecy historicized" considers the existence of jesus virtually certain.

 

[Trajanus]

Have you ever talked to Randall?

Randle?

 

[Trajanus]

If you check out the Richard Carrier videos, he makes an almost airtight case that the whole Jesus story is pure mythology.

Far from airtight in the view of mainstream scholars. They reject a lot of the NT but don't accept this view. See e.g. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

 

[Randall]

Far from airtight in the view of mainstream scholars. They reject a lot of the NT but don't accept this view. See e.g. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Thanks for that. I'll check it out. In the meantime however, I'd ask what qualifies a "mainstream scholar". Carrier has a doctorate ancient history from Columbia University, is a published author, and done numerous lectures. What more does one need to qualify as "mainstream" ? Do they need to be pro-Jesus?

 

[Randall]

Far from airtight in the view of mainstream scholars. They reject a lot of the NT but don't accept this view. See e.g. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Okay, so far I've listened to this rebuttal of Carrier here and his counterpoint to Carrier is extremely weak, consisting mostly of proclamation, supposition, and incoherent logic e.g. well we don't have much information about anyone in the ancient world existed, but we believe they existed, therefore Jesus existed too. We could of course use the same logic to suppose unicorns and centaurs and Zeus were real too.

 

[Trajanus]

Thanks for that. I'll check it out. In the meantime however, I'd ask what qualifies a "mainstream scholar". Carrier has a doctorate ancient history from Columbia University, is a published author, and done numerous lectures. What more does one need to qualify as "mainstream" ? Do they need to be pro-Jesus?

Lol, hell no; in one book Ehrman characterized himself as "an agnostic with atheist leanings." I don't doubt some deniers have the requisite credentials. But they're still a minority in the field.

 

[Trajanus]

Okay, so far I've listened to this rebuttal of Carrier here and his counterpoint to Carrier is extremely weak, consisting mostly of proclamation, supposition, and incoherent logic e.g. well we don't have much information about anyone in the ancient world existed,

Lol, a great deal is known about some people in the ancient world and not only because of literary evidence. There is some archeological evidence which corroborates a little NT info for example the existence of Pilate, besides Nazareth etc.

but we believe they existed, therefore Jesus existed too. We could of course use the same logic to suppose unicorns and centaurs and Zeus were real too.

The jesus story may consist mostly of inventions but there is still a core of historically plausible material, which distinguishes it from the pure myths. Crossan for example considered the crucifixion as certain as anything could be. It's very hard to believe anyone eager to "sell' a belief system, in that time period, would make that up.

 

[Randall]

Randle?

Marduk has it right. "Randle" is how Kevin D. Randle spells his last name. Mine's like Randall the evil lizard from Monster's Inc.

 

[Randall]

lol, a great deal is known about some people in the ancient world and not only because of literary evidence. There is some archeological evidence which corroborates a little NT info for example the existence of Pilate, besides Nazareth etc.

I tend to agree, but that's part of Ehrman's argument. Carrier's is more reasonable ( so far ).

The jesus story may consist mostly of inventions but there is still a core of historically plausible material, which distinguishes it from the pure myths. Crossan for example considered the crucifixion as certain as anything could be. It's very hard to believe anyone eager to "sell' a belief system, in that time period, would make that up.

Yes that's another one of Ehrman's arguments, but Carrier counters that rather effectively.

 

[Trajanus]

Yes that's another one of Ehrman's arguments, but Carrier counters that rather effectively.

How does he do that?

 

[Randall]

How does he do that?

Watch the video. Or if you prefer for me to give you a time stamp, start just before 14:30 ( Precedents )..

 

[Erno86]

In reference to contact with the otherworlders: The biblical story of Jonah and the Whale...seems to have a lot going for it with ET, because the story is easily translatable to a majority of religions on Earth; so as to facilitate a basic form of communication contact, with the possible use of laser holographic technology combined with geoglyphic carvings by ET in an isolated area.

 

[Randall]

In reference to contact with the otherworlders: The biblical story of Jonah and the Whale...seems to have a lot going for it with ET, because the story is easily translatable to a majority of religions on Earth; so as to facilitate a basic form of communication contact, with the possible use of laser holographic technology combined with geoglyphic carvings by ET in an isolated area.

Yes. It seems that given what we know is technologically possible, there's not much mythology that couldn't be made to appear to be real to ancient people. Of course that doesn't mean such stories are actually firsthand eyewitness reports. I think it's very likely that the majority of the stories are pure myth set against the backdrop of ancient times with some recognizable historical figures thrown in, just like the way we create much fiction these days.

 

[Erno86]

Yes. It seems that given what we know is technologically possible, there's not much mythology that couldn't be made to appear to be real to ancient people. Of course that doesn't mean such stories are actually firsthand eyewitness reports. I think it's very likely that the majority of the stories are pure myth set against the backdrop of ancient times with some recognizable historical figures thrown in, just like the way we create much fiction these days.

The correlation between the story of Jonah and the Whale and ET: Is that Jonah was temporally taken aboard an ET starship, instead of being swallowed by a whale; though the whale myth was easier for people to accept.