Richard Carrier

Childish taunts do not move a mature man. You clearly did not read or understand a thing I wrote. That example proved this hands down. Arguing with a wall like you is a waste of time. Why should I debate someone who never pays attention? Go off and cry all you want and pull out these desperate school-yard-bully style boasts. It is really only making you guys look even more pathetic still.

And here I thought you said good-bye Richard.

You did not address any of my points, and merely reading the thread demonstrates that fact.

My next task will be to examine why you believe something about history (like the sacking of a library) based on extremely weak evidence. Like I said, stay tuned.

Brian (Nomad)

KOSH: Meta - the tribe has spoken, it's time for you to leave.

EARL: I don't agree with this at all. There should be no Secular Web guidelines that demand that each participant must debate WELL. A personal attack that substitutes for a substantive point is indeed a sign of a poor quality post, but that doesn't mean the author should be banned. Personally I recoil whenever a skeptic starts to sound like a medieval Catholic priest threatening "banning." "Free thought" isn't the same as "intelligent thought" or "skilled, substantive presentation of thought." There is or at least should be no crime of heresy for the skeptic. I don't think Metacrock has crossed any line requiring that he be banned. The very notion of a ban for posts involving questionable subject matter or style (as opposed to illegal posts such as those containing a death threat) is antithetical to skepticism and free thought, and is altogether too Christian.

I didn't lose, I kicked his ass. The people I resect think so. The one's i don't respect are slaves of the phonies like you at the Secualr WEb. Neither of you desreve your academic credentials. Neither of you understand what scholarship is. Neither of you understand anything aboutt debate or fairneess. And the term "free thinker" is the biggest joke on the internet.

WE'll see still. We shall see. You dont' me but I know you. And watch the journals sucker.

Meta =>I didn't say you said he had to make it up. So typical of you to change some slight aspect of a quote and than calaim that you were misunderstood (o you so misunderstood aren't you!?) that is your main tactic. funny how this has nothing to do with the issues now. You are just debating personalities. YOu are a fake. This is just childish character assasingation..


meta =>No you are shifting your argument. But more important, I said I was going to bebate that Mark made it up. I'm sorry you weren't in on that. But I guess you just think what other peple say is so unimportant you don't have to pay attention. So if you were't debating that than we had two unrelated debates going because that's what I was arguing against and I told you that. I said I will argue agianst the likeihood that mark made up the empty tomb. And that is exactly what my arguments were about.

Meta =>OK you are a child, but that's not exactly the reason. I said quite clearly that that's what I would argue about. I thought you were listenting. Should have known better.

Now, I also quote Michael White who says that the curcifiction was a Roman gig, completley. Now why would the Romans crucify someone for blasphemy in Judaism?

Again, you miss my words "as well" -- showing your incompetence and unwillingless to pay attention yet again. I could multiply examples a hundredfold. Any objective reader who follows this thread will know who the real "idiot" here is (and I use this word because I'm only quoting you!).


Meta =>I already know that's not ture because the people I've showen it to, non christians, say you are totally without any honesty and your atttiude was comletely uncalled for and that I won most of the issues.


No difference in criminal charges and sedition that is where you are totally wrong. You want to pretend that I dont' do the digging, but I know you have read the Brown book and yet you miss the explicit argument, backed up with Talmudic statments that there was a distinction between one charged with sedition by a foreign occupational army and one found guilty of criminal charges under Jewish law.

Meta=>You are not a Talmudic scholar. you do not have the authority to pull that off. I quoted the Talmudic reference. Think for a change you moron, if that were the case than the Macabean martyrs would be condmened to dishonorable burial, but they were not. Sedition against Rome was not a violation under the Beth Din. It doesnt' matter that it was Criminal according to Rome! They didn't care about Roman law. Sedition was a crimainal charge in HEberw law, but not sedieition against other powers! Of course not. Only sedition agianst Israel. Why would they care about other powers? And that's just what Brown says, and that is better documentaiton than just insisting upon your own opinion. That's really stupid not to see that distinction.

On page 1210 he says point blank a noble law biding Jew could be crucified for sedition agianst Rome and burried honorably by the Jews,and if that is not the case than how do you explain the Macabean martyrs?

I'll stop here. I submit Metacrock is a fantastical "idiot" (to quote him again). He actually thinks the Maccabees fought Rome!!!


MEta =>This just shows how dishonest you really are. That is the quote form Brown. If you think that's what it means that you must think that Borwn is stupid enough to think the Macabees fought Rome! I never said that dummie. It is still an example of people concivted of sedition against a foreign powerbeing gvien an honorable burial. And guess what, the greeks did Crucify at times!


I rest my case. He spells Ignatius 'Ignites' (sorry--claiming dyslexia doesn't get anyone off that hook)

Meta =>He can't run and not having legs doens't get him off the hook. You have no ethics. You are totally dishonest and all you can do is speiciaze in character assasingtion. That's your only stock in trade. You will never amount to anything in academia. Totally dishonest, not a scrap of concern for truth, and to exploit someone's handicap is jsut beneith contempt.


and Egerton 'Egatron'. Given your demonstrated ignorance on so many matters (such as thinking the Maccabeean martyrs had anything to do with the disposition of executed bodies under Roman rule, or that a pre-Markan miracle narrative was the same thing as a pre-Markan passion narrative, much less anything to do with an empty tomb narrative), I don't think dyslexia is at fault here (a disorder that has not affected any of your other spelling--even you claim I misspelled more words than you, yet only you are getting key words wrong, repeatedly, like Egatron and Ignites). This is really all so very sad.


O yes I'm so bad. I'm evil because I dared to disagree with the Great Geat Carrier. ONly your little troop think you are great. in academia you are nothing you will ramain nothing because you do not understand what scholarhsip is. You think its spelling and foot notes and that's it. It has something to do with something called "truth" which are totally unfamilar with and unconcerned about. this is the most dishonest nest of vipers I've ever seen.

play your stupid little games, You little pond is such a huge pond if you want to pretendd that it is. A real scholar wouldnt give you the time of day.

I see what real theologians dont' debate idiots with brain damange who call themselves atheists.

I want to make a point about this business of claiming a priori that a debater has left the debate because he (a) considers the discussion a waste of time due to the opponent's poor quality posts or (b) is afraid of losing even more. Carrier claims that he left because continuing would be a waste of his time, and that he's not at all afraid of losing to Nomad or Metacrock. The theists, of course, claim the opposite, that Carrier is afraid to debate and fails to continue because he knows or fears that he would lose badly by doing so.

My point is that we can't know which explanation is true a priori. The only way to tell is to read the posts and judge for yourself. Claiming (a) or (b) without reference to the points that were made in the actual debate is just a short-cut bully tactic, whether this is done by the skeptics or the theists. I've debated Nomad many times, and I can say without hesitation that in my view regardless of whether he does this intentionally he tends to misrepresent his opponent's posts numerous times. That said, there is enough material in the debate between Carrier and Nomad to make a judgment as to who provided the stronger case. No one has an obligation to continue a debate indefinitely. And there are more than enough posts between Carrier and Metacrock for the reader to make up his or her own mind. Only by going back to the substantive points that were made can anyone judge whether Carrier stopped because he was appalled by the prospect of wasting more of his time on a lower level opponent or because he was afraid of losing.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited June 11, 2001).]

Neither does a mature man taunt another poster because of his disability. I'm sure you are frustrated, but you have no right to claim the moral highground in this debate.

When exchanges become this heated and divisive, meaningful communication can almost never occur.

On the Metacrock/Nomad side of things, I don't understand how people can be so dogmatic about what we believe may or may not have happened in history. There are too many things about all this that we simply do not and cannot know with great confidence.

On the Carrier/Still side of things, the frustration is perhaps undersandable, however, as James alluded to, overreaction does give the impresssion of "sinking" to their level.

Let them fling about the accusations of "idiot", "cowards", or "he's nothing". Let them inflate their own ego's with self-aggrandizing speech. Let them claim victory to bolster up their own positions. Let them do all these things, since it will ultimately only help to completely destroy any credibility they seek to obtain.

Meanwhile, we skeptics can relax in the realization that the logic and the facts support our case much better than it does theirs. We can calmly point out all the poor approaches and poor reasoning they utilize to support their beliefs. When presented with arguments that we believe are "stupid", we can become even more calm and quickly point out just how bad their reasoning is.

The facts and the reasoning is on our side gentlemen. Let's act like it. Not only by not sinking to their level, but by remaining numerous stories above it. - Sometimes difficult to be sure, but worthwhile nonetheless.

When exchanges become this heated and divisive, meaningful communication can almost never occur.

On the skeptic side of things, I don't understand how people can be so dogmatic about what we cannot know to have happened in history. There are too many things about all this that can be learned.

On the Christian side of things, the frustration is perhaps understandable, however, overreaction does give the impresssion of "sinking" to their level.

Let them fling about the accusations of "idiot", "cowards", or "he's nothing". Let them inflate their own ego's with self-aggrandizing speech. Let them claim victory to bolster up their own positions. Let them do all these things, since it will ultimately only help to completely destroy any credibility they seek to obtain.

Meanwhile, we Christians can relax in the realization that the logic and the facts support our case much better than it does theirs. We can calmly point out all the poor approaches and poor reasoning they utilize to support their beliefs. When presented with arguments that we believe are "stupid", we can become even more calm and quickly point out just how bad their reasoning is.

The facts and the reasoning is on our side gentlemen. Let's act like it. Not only by not sinking to their level, but by remaining numerous stories above it. - Sometimes difficult to be sure, but worthwhile nonetheless.

James Still

Well, I can only speak for myself but to me scholarship is primarily about nurturing within yourself the "thirst" for knowledge. Credentials are sufficient, but not necessary conditions for being a scholar. Good scholarship requires the enormously difficult task of keeping one's thoughts as open and free as possible in order to prevent prejudices from creeping in and tainting one's judgment. This requires humility, caution, and respect for differing views. I also think a scholar has the duty to seek out those with whom he disagrees, to assign proper weight to the evidence, to qualify conclusions drawn, and to examine everything critically, especially one's own cherished beliefs.

Now don't get me wrong, I do not want to say that you are none of these things Metacrock. I'm sure that you are a very competent and careful scholar. I do think that the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians sheds light on the differences between you and Richard:

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law ... that I might win.... To those outside the law I became as one outside the law ... that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men ... Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize?"

It seems to me (and this is just my impression; I could very well be wrong) that you are motivated by the same thing as Paul, namely, to win. But just as Paul became all things to all people in order to receive first prize, his practice of justifying the means for the sake of the ends compromised his intellectual integrity along the way. He was so convinced that his opinions and beliefs were absolutely right that it became impossible for him to consider any other point of view. You were either with him or against him, part of the solution or part of the problem, serving the Lord or serving the world. But these false dichotomies are unnecessary in modern academia and (understandably) alien to Richard's study of history. I am not saying Richard does not have biases or a healthy ego of course since we all do. But I will say that his judgment is clouded by one less thing: the intense desire to "kick ass" and win against all comers. Cultivating that attitude within yourself will hurt you in your professional life.

As I said, this is just my impression from reading this thread. Your friends have come away with a very different impression and that's fine.