ambushed:
Hello again, Christian apologist Sage Rat . You may not remember me, but I’m one of the many who have debated this topic with you here at the Dope in the past. (see: here , for example).
I’d like to re-present myself as an increasingly cautious & forensically restrained advocate of the ahistoricist/mythicist position; one who utterly rejects all the sloppy and poorly-evidenced bulldada (not a synonym of “bullshit”) of the crackpot mythicists…
No, as I explained above in my first reply to the OP here
And this is from ambushed in 2009:
I understand, Sage Rat , that the ahistoricist position seems quite preposterous and needlessly extreme to you, as it does to nearly everyone else. You, like most, probably see it as some kind of zealously rabid atheism or perhaps just an argument taken to fanatical extremes.
That’s healthy skepticism, and far from denigrating it, I praise such understandable reluctance quite highly. The initial reaction should be considerable skepticism! And the truth about myself is that I utterly condemn and despise extremism among atheists as well as among anyone else, including myself (and have taken a lot of heat my from my fellow atheists for my harsh criticism of atheist extremism, which they claim is an attempt to silence atheists).
We’ve discussed Doherty’s hypothesis before. Can we all agree that it is, at best, a minority opinion? That’s not to dismiss it. Indeed, I’ve come to concede that the Christian mythicist hypothesis is not crackpottery and it is not grounded in ignorance about historical methods and ancient sourcing. Or at least Doherty’s version isn’t.