FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-08-2001, 02:16 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Quote:
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Let's not forget that this is our site designed for us to discuss secular issues, of which the Christian cult is not the primary one.
</font>
Oh... okay... but I was sure this was the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum? ~sigh~ I must have got it wrong. This must clearly demonstrate my theist inability to read properly...

Seriously, this entire thread is becoming more and more rapidly a joke. Can we dispense with the silliness now Koyaanisqatsi?
Tercel,

If you truly wish to debate/discuss ANYTHING on ANY board in a civil, gentlemanly manner, let me know. All I ask is that you not (and I will not) make snide remarks or use sarcasm. I will meet you halfway on ANY topic. Let me know.

rodahi

 
Old 04-08-2001, 05:16 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Rodahi, quite frankly I do not believe you. As far as I have seen you are not able to discuss things in what I would consider a civil gentlemanly manner.

I see you have a problem with me being sarcastic. (Snide remarks??) I'm not sure whether you are trying to get me back for giving you advice earlier in this thread or really mean it. At anyrate, I use sarcasm in posting very rarely so it is unlikely you'll see any more of it whether you wish to or not.
 
Old 04-08-2001, 05:31 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
Rodahi, quite frankly I do not believe you. As far as I have seen you are not able to discuss things in what I would consider a civil gentlemanly manner.

Should I take this as a "no?"

Tercel: I see you have a problem with me being sarcastic. (Snide remarks??) I'm not sure whether you are trying to get me back for giving you advice earlier in this thread or really mean it. At anyrate, I use sarcasm in posting very rarely so it is unlikely you'll see any more of it whether you wish to or not.

I merely asked that neither of us use snide remarks or sarcasm. It is that simple.

Are you not willing to debate/discuss ANY issue on ANY board of your choosing?

rodahi

 
Old 04-08-2001, 05:47 PM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
I see nothing silly about this, Tercel. Recognizing how cult members evade relevant points and how they give the impression that they are seriously engaged in discovering the "truth" about a subject (i.e., the purpose of debate), when in fact their only goal is to proselytize can be very helpful to newcomers as well as a nice place to blow off a little steam after slamming your head repeatedly against cult members like Nomad and Jim Mitchell.</font>
Well I see lots of things silly, 'Cult members' for starters. Are not atheists members of the atheist cult equally as much as Christians are members of a Christian one?
Of course I am sure you are well aware of the bad meaning generally attached to the word cult, indeed you work on this in the rest of your post. But I hardly think calling Christianity a cult is valid, or if it is then the meaning of cult changes throughout your post.
But I am worried that you might actually be serious in calling Christianity a cult and have not changed the meaning of the word throughout your post. If this is the case, then I do not agree with you at all. It seems to me that this sort of opinion goes well beyond reason and I would seriously wonder if there is some special reason for your dislike of Christianity. If this is the case, I suggest you think about it for a while. Believe it or not I am trying hard to avoid a personal attack here, but it seems clear to me that such a view of Christianity is neither reasonable or justified.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Deconstructing the way cultists hide their circular arguments also exposes their cult indoctrination and illustrates far better than any one argument could how their cult obfuscates discovery in favor of dogma. </font>
Isn't this going a bit far? By all means expose circular arguments where they exist. But suggesting that all cultists have circular arguments and indoctination is a bit steep. And I certainly aren't going to agree with a generalisation that cultists obfuscate discovery in favor of dogma. This may be true for some radical creationists who will do any twisting to make the discoveries fit their predisposition. This may also be equally true for their atheist counterparts who make the discoveries fit their predispostion. But to generalise it to cult members in general I cannot agree with.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I have had many arguments with atheists here where my point was not thought out correctly and my argument was weak and when shown learned something.</font>
I've had many arguments with theists where the same thing happened.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Cultists, on the other hand, never concede and are incapable of conceding, which means that no truly useful dialogue can ever be maintained for its own sake; rather for the sake of anyone "lurking" in the post who may be reading along.</font>
I could say the same thing of you and most other atheist posters here. The only people who are going to be influenced by this discussion are any agnostic lurkers.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If newcomers understand that their argumetns will serve no purpose when directly addressing an individual such as Nomad or Layman, perhaps then they will at least realize that there are others following the exchange who can benefit from their argumentative approach and, in essence, continue the pointlessness with Nomad, for example, only to modify their points for the "choir," as it were.</font>
I don't understand your point here.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for why this post is here (in Biblical Criticism and Arch), these evasive tactics are used across the board, granted, but I have found that most newcomers to our posts come here first. I could be wrong and if you have a better suggestion as to where this post can metaphysically go, by all means suggest it.</font>
I have no problem with this post being where it is. You said 'Let's not forget that this is our site designed for us to discuss secular issues, of which the Christian cult is not the primary one'. This is a silly comment on a forum designated to dissusion of the Bible. From what I've seen of other athiest posters here the Christian cult seems to be a major concern, I don't propose to speak for them though.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Otherwise, shut yer pie hole!</font>
If you wish.

Tercel

 
Old 04-08-2001, 06:47 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Originally posted by Tercel:
Rodahi, quite frankly I do not believe you. As far as I have seen you are not able to discuss things in what I would consider a civil gentlemanly manner.


Should I take this as a "no?"</font>
Probably. I'm not sure there was actually a question asked for me to answer no to.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tercel: I see you have a problem with me being sarcastic. (Snide remarks??) I'm not sure whether you are trying to get me back for giving you advice earlier in this thread or really mean it. At anyrate, I use sarcasm in posting very rarely so it is unlikely you'll see any more of it whether you wish to or not.

I merely asked that neither of us use snide remarks or sarcasm. It is that simple.</font>
Is it?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Are you not willing to debate/discuss ANY issue on ANY board of your choosing?</font>
I have nothing currently I want to discuss with you. If a thread which I am interested in discussing comes up I will reply to it and by all means feel free to debate/discuss it with me.
 
Old 04-08-2001, 08:26 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
Yet in the relatively short time I have been posting here I have noticed several detestable posting tactics used continuously by both Rodahi and Turtonm which would probably get them kicked off or warned by the moderators other boards - and they are supposed to be moderators???

What would those be? Would it be one of those objectionable tactics to demand relevant quotes?

These include (but are certainly not limited to): "Where is your evidence/proof?" when the other poster has just stated it.
"Try reading my post" when the other poster has just replied to it and clearly understood it. "Give the dates and names of extant MSS" when it is clearly unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion. And best/worst of all "That is your opinion", without bothering to answer the actual evidence - as if that solves all the problems.


It seems like I've been tarred with a rodahi brush! And a nice shade it is, too.

My advice to you Rodahi and Turtonm:
If you wish to feel that you are doing well/winning in a debate, then you are certainly going the right way about it. I am sure your method makes you personally feel like your position is better. However if you wish to sway readers to your side then it is useful to demonstrate both intelligence and sense. I have no doubt that you are both extremely intelligent people who have a great deal of knowledge about many things religious. I have only posted a little on this board because I realise that many here know a great deal more than me. But most readers will not be impressed by your arguments when they depart from common sense. If you come across as an intelligent person who properly understands all sides of the argument and has chosen your side for the logical reasons which you set forth in the argument then any reader will respect your opinion and listen to you. If you come across as an idiot who makes obviously unreasonable demands of the other side at every turn and who decends quickly to "that is your opinion" then I do not think the reader is going to be fully impressed by your arguments.


Actually, just for the heck of it, I ran a search on is+your+opinion and my username, and whaddya know -- just two posts popped up, and in both cases quoted words from someone else.

Tercel, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Departures from common sense are important, Tercel, because that's what progress is. Your "common sense" might be a mythology to me. It might not be sensible at all. Who knows where a crazy thread will lead? Even Eternal's posts sometimes get somewhere interesting.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 08, 2001).]
 
Old 04-09-2001, 07:15 AM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Well I see lots of things silly, 'Cult members' for starters. Are not atheists members of the atheist cult equally as much as Christians are members of a Christian one?</font>
No.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Of course I am sure you are well aware of the bad meaning generally attached to the word cult, indeed you work on this in the rest of your post. But I hardly think calling Christianity a cult is valid, or if it is then the meaning of cult changes throughout your post.</font>
It is not only valid and unchanging, it is the truth. The Christian cult is one of the largest cults ever to disgrace mankind. Marginallizing that fact through terminology like "religion" and "congregation" and "church" only serves the cult agenda of making it seem as if it isn't a cult.

If you care, I consider any group who deliberately indoctrinates innocent people into worshipping a myth a cult.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But I am worried that you might actually be serious in calling Christianity a cult and have not changed the meaning of the word throughout your post. If this is the case, then I do not agree with you at all.</font>
You're not the first, nor the last.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> It seems to me that this sort of opinion goes well beyond reason and I would seriously wonder if there is some special reason for your dislike of Christianity.</font>
Yes, there is. See any of my posts on this site for reference.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If this is the case, I suggest you think about it for a while. Believe it or not I am trying hard to avoid a personal attack here, but it seems clear to me that such a view of Christianity is neither reasonable or justified.</font>
I do.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Deconstructing the way cultists hide their circular arguments also exposes their cult indoctrination and illustrates far better than any one argument could how their cult obfuscates discovery in favor of dogma.

YOU: Isn't this going a bit far? By all means expose circular arguments where they exist. But suggesting that all cultists have circular arguments and indoctrination is a bit steep.</font>
Define "steep." If this helps, I'll rephrase it thus: In the several months I have been a regular poster here, I have never seen an argument presented by a cult member that was not a thinly disguised circuitous attempt to establish the validity of their cult. Have you? If so, please provide the url and I'll gladly check it out.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And I certainly aren't going to agree with a generalisation that cultists obfuscate discovery in favor of dogma.</font>
Well, again, if you can provide any example where this is not the case, by all means.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> This may be true for some radical creationists who will do any twisting to make the discoveries fit their predisposition. This may also be equally true for their atheist counterparts who make the discoveries fit their predispostion. </font>
Atheists have no predisposition. That's the main problem and the primary difference. One group here has a specific and irrational agenda (the cultists); one group here has no agenda at all (the secularists). It is only when these two collide that the cultist's agenda triggers a response by the secularists. I know you won't agree with this, but if you were truly honest you would see that this is precisely the case.

We aren't an organization of any kind. The only thing we all have in common is that we do not believe a fairy god king magically blinked us into existence in order to punish us the way cultists do. Contrary to popular cult propaganda, we don't even care what cultists believe so long as they keep it to their goddamned selves. When, however, a cult member posts a ludicrous, cult-serving re-hash of centuries-old propaganda we may indeed present what appears to be a "unified front" on the issue due to the fact that the propaganda is so readily apparent to us and necessarily not so readily apparent to an indoctrinated cultist. Perhaps that's why you're confused on this?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But to generalise it to cult members in general I cannot agree with.</font>
Then don't.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: I have had many arguments with atheists here where my point was not thought out correctly and my argument was weak and when shown learned something.

YOU: I've had many arguments with theists where the same thing happened.</font>
Congratulations. Perhaps you could give a short list of points that you have learned from the theist's arguments. As I mentioned in my original post, this is open to anyone, both theist and atheist.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Cultists, on the other hand, never concede and are incapable of conceding, which means that no truly useful dialogue can ever be maintained for its own sake; rather for the sake of anyone "lurking" in the post who may be reading along.

YOU: I could say the same thing of you and most other atheist posters here. The only people who are going to be influenced by this discussion are any agnostic lurkers.</font>
I disagree (as is my wont). Most theists who post here have only one argument thinly disguised: the Christian God actually exists and all things flow from Him. Other than the occasional awakening, when have you ever read a cultist concede that this is not true? On the other hand, I have personally conceded many ill-thought out points to Singledad and others while posting arguments (just take a look at my first thread, "Christianity: Roman Last Ditch Effort (that worked)?" for a whole slew of concessions on my part!)

The difference is, of course, that our concessions necessarily happen during the formation of arguments, whereas the theist can not concede any aspect of their argument without conceding the whole (since their arguments are like holograms; every slice contains the whole )

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: If newcomers understand that their arguments will serve no purpose when directly addressing an individual such as Nomad or Layman, perhaps then they will at least realize that there are others following the exchange who can benefit from their argumentative approach and, in essence, continue the pointlessness with Nomad, for example, only to modify their points for the "choir," as it were.

YOU: I don't understand your point here.</font>
Trying to explain that we should try not to get too frustrated at the thumpers for singing one note over and over again since they aren't the ones your argument will reach.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: As for why this post is here (in Biblical Criticism and Arch), these evasive tactics are used across the board, granted, but I have found that most newcomers to our posts come here first. I could be wrong and if you have a better suggestion as to where this post can metaphysically go, by all means suggest it.

YOU: I have no problem with this post being where it is. You said 'Let's not forget that this is our site designed for us to discuss secular issues, of which the Christian cult is not the primary one'. This is a silly comment on a forum designated to dissusion of the Bible. From what I've seen of other athiest posters here the Christian cult seems to be a major concern, I don't propose to speak for them though.</font>
Excellent point! You're right, then, this post should be moved to a more appropriate forum. I just figured this would be the best place to help out newcomers gauge what can be expected when they leap into the fray.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: Otherwise, shut yer pie hole!

YOU: If you wish.

Tercel </font>
I don't; it was just fun to "say."

 
Old 04-11-2001, 08:00 AM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

I forgot to post the number one all time worst evasion tactic out there! My bad.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Accuse others of what you are most guilty.</font>
Jon Curry and Nomad shine at this oldie but goodie.

This is a favorite of the cultists, because, once again, they're not here to honestly argue a point; they're here to, at best, confuse the arguments so much that no one can discern what the argument was in the first place.

So long as the argument can be thoroughly convoluted, they know that their sheep will remain in the pen as they were trained to do since birth. Stating things like, "You have not made any arguments, just assertions. You must prove your assertions and you have not done so," is a perfect example. It means nothing and can be stated over and over and over again, regardless of whether or not the original poster listed the goddamned Library of Congress as a bibliography.

This also ties in nicely with the misuse of logical terminology ploy (though "ploy" is too strong a word and implies deliberate deceit, when in these instances, it is most likely bald-faced pig ignorance; a "monkey-see/monkey-do" approach to deconstruction).

Regardless, it can get incredibly annoying so make sure you avoid it at all costs.

Here's a paraphrased example from one of Nomad's duplicate threads:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">ME: There's no need to "assume" the Resurrection was a fraud, Nomad, since the miracle stories chronicled in the gospel accounts are two thousand year old myths written by anonymous authors to begin with.

THUMPER: What you have made is an assertion. Assertions require proof, Koy. Where is your evidence?

ME: Umm...The gospels?

THUMPER: You see why I can't take you seriously? You have no evidence, just assumptions, assertions, and invalid constructs of epistemological fallacies. If you are going to construct a logical proof, then you can't just assert a major and minor premise in order to infer a valid conclusion!That's merely the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning!

We believe the gospel stories are literal truths purely out of our own personal whim, so it is your burden to prove that our delusions do not constitute extant facts! Where is your evidence that our fantasies are not actual facts of literal existence? So far, you have not provided any and I do not hold my breath for you to do so anytime soon.

ME: Oh...ok...</font>
This, of course, is designed to simply enrage us and send us off into ad hominem land so that they can take their preferred position of martyr once again.

Unfortunately, I often take that bait, but what the hell. As I stated before, no "debate" with a cult member like Nomad will have any direct effect anyway, so why not have some fun?


(edited for formatting - Koy)



[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 11, 2001).]
 
Old 04-11-2001, 06:00 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Yes! This is exactly how Mike argues in Hindu children in Hell thread, driving me bats.
 
Old 04-11-2001, 06:10 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Koy, I'm curious.

You refer to Nomad as a cult member. Since Christianity is the religion on the planet with the most adherents, I was wondering why you classify him as a cult member? Of course, if you consider every member of every religion to be a cult member then I can understand. Of course, then the label really does not mean anything. In which case it would be nothing more than an ad hominen.

Of course, on second thought, even if it had definitional value it would be nothing more than an ad hominen.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.