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 04-12-2001, 12:18 AM   #181
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If you are a Christian, why are you so intent on attacking only other Christians? Why don't you spend ANY time defending your supposed faith?
</font>
Gee deLayman, I dunno.

Maybe his commitment to intellectual integrity is stronger than yours.

The little discrepancies that you seem so willing to sweep under the rug, or "discuss privately among the fellowship" are things that he believes should be brought out into the daylight of serious investigation.

 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:47 AM   #182
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
This isn't courtroom procedure, Earl. Jurors aren't allowed to question attorneys but must direct their questions to the presiding judge through the jury foreman. You have clearly been prosecuting your position rigorously as a counsel for the plaintiff.</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">EARL: See my reply to Layman. I used the point about the difference between an attorney and a juror only as an imperfect analogy. Quibbling about the analogy's imperfections doesn't negate the point I did make. I need only have considered myself a juror giving reasons for the rendering of a "Not buried" verdict, not as prosecutor out to change anyone's mind. What I had in mind in the analogy was the way jurors argue amongst themselves in the back room, going over the evidence, poking holes in the cases presented to them, and justifying their opinions. Even here, the analogy is imperfect because there are numerous jurors and they try to convince each other. So imagine only one juror and one attorney (here there's the complication of whether the Christian is a prosecutor or a defense attorney, but this is also beside the point). The Christian attorney presented her case to myself, the skeptical juror, and although I of course questioned the attorney himself, I need only have considered my objections to be the justification for my negative verdict, as if after the trial I were asked by reporters for an explanation of my judgment. The fact that I argued with the attorney is beside the point, but the analogy can to some extent cover this. Deliberating jurors sometimes ask for clarifications of rulings and the evidence, etc. </font>
rw: I understand that Earl and I'm not trying to make your case any less analogous, just remaining consistant to the skeptics otherwise exacting intellectual standards in not allowing any frivilous or nebulous claims to be passed over in the guise of analogy.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And again, what the Christian calls "highly speculative" I call reasonable doubt. This is simply the judgment call that separates the Christian from the skeptic. You claim I have no evidence to support my view, and I claim you have no good evidence to support yours.</font>
rw: That depends on ones standard of what constitutes "good". Once an individual has made up his mind about a particular claim it becomes increasingly more difficult for him to rest in that bed again.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Your points about what sort of evidence would be allowed in a trial made me laugh out loud, by the way. As if the bible would be considered reasonable evidence of anything in a modern trial; as if miracles are taken seriously in a court of law; as if an appeal to "God did it" would be permissible or counted as something better than wild speculation or superstition; as if religious propaganda would count as plain, factual history. You say "if you are making an appeal from a legal standpoint, your case would have been thrown out of court before the jury was even selected." I think you've reversed the situation.</font>
rw: Yes, funny isn't it. Even funnier still is the fact that you would have to utilize the information conveyed in this book to prosecute your case...and if you are successful in securing a verdict in your favor, that the information in this book is inaccurate, then you have no basis to prosecute any further claims against christianity and must cloe up shop, pull down your shingle and go into some other business. You see, Earl, in any attempt to question any biblical claim you must rely, for the most part, on this document. Now if you show this document to be un-reliable you have removed it from the list of exhibits against any further claims, such as claims against the christian God, therefore you basically have little more to contribute to your own cause. Since you would need to take your cue from information contained in this record, convincing yourself that it is in-accurate and unreliable renders any further prosecution of its claims moot. Counsel rarely calls a witness, proven to be false, to the stand on their behalf. So if you wanted to prosecute a charge, for instance, that the christian God is unjust, you would have to recall this witness to even level this charge. After having dishonored the witness you cannot then turn around and take any further action against the figurehead around which this record was written to describe.

So, in the interest of justice, I could grant you your case and say you've successfully demonstrated that there is sufficient doubt as to dis-allow any claims made in this record. But then I could hold your success over your own head like a dagger against any future attempts by you to utilize information contained in this record to further prosecute any other charges based on it.

What you and your cronies are hoping for is to silence the theist. Barring that, you would settle for making him out the fool. But that shoe fits as easily on either foot Earl, as I'm sure you're well aware. No one can make of another the fool without his cooperation. I am trying to prevent you from doing just that Earl in the future when you are tempted to recall some particular bible verse to support some future claim against God. If perchance there happens to be a witness of this trial in the crowd they will surely cry foul the moment you attempt this double standard...see what I mean?

I'm only thinking of your future Earl. You have a bright and promising future as a prosecuting attorney. Don't muck it up by thrashing the source and standard from which almost all current legality derives its jurisprudence. :d
 
Old 04-12-2001, 05:53 AM   #183
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

eh hehehe, hehe......

 
Old 04-12-2001, 06:08 AM   #184
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

.... Don't muck it up by thrashing the source and standard from which almost all current legality derives its jurisprudence.

If he's saying what I think he is, I seldom swear, but to this I have just to say, "You've got to be fucking kidding."
 
Old 04-12-2001, 06:19 AM   #185
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Koy,
Did I hewt your wittle feewings?

You are still doing it, you people seem to try to impress with run on sentenses that describe the minutia of every subject you are referring to in your point much like the one I am writing now.

You want proof?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Sadly, you are among the worst offenders on these boards for not providing proof that a magical fairy god king trifurcated in order to establish a hopelessly convoluted and ultimately pointless mechanism to spiritual salvation the way Nomad asked you all not to assume happened when you were making your assumptions.
</font>
I mean look at that thing, it is one sentense. You may be thorough and all that, but that statement could have been said with
20 words or less.

"sadly you are among the worst at not providing proof that god does not exist as Nomad asked."

51 words trimmed down to 18. The point is much clearer, easier to read, and more efficient at completing your thought. I can understand you rejecting criticism, it is natural. But I stand by my statement.

Whatsmore; I did offer a response to his original post, which I still stand by. It was brief, addressed his original post completely. It is interesting that you didn't seem to have any response to that. Perhaps it was too short. LOL

People appreciate it when you are efficient in communicating. They don't like to struggle to understand you. Your content and meaning may be ingenious, but if you are not able to convey it effectively, nothing is gained.

Boy, your gonna be pissed now I bet....
 
Old 04-12-2001, 06:41 AM   #186
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

Dmv. I was being profoundly facetious.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 06:47 AM   #187
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Well, as Gilda Radner would have said

"Never Mind"
 
Old 04-12-2001, 09:48 AM   #188
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

dmvprof, many posts in this debate don't fit in one page, because Nomad and his buddy theists do: A, nonA, then B, nonB, then C, nonC, then A, etc..., and the debate doesn't progress in knowledge anymore, it's sabotaged.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 09:53 AM   #189
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ion:
dmvprof, many posts in this debate don't fit in one page, because Nomad and his buddy theists do: A, nonA, then B, nonB, then C, nonC, then A, etc..., and the debate doesn't progress in knowledge anymore, it's sabotaged.</font>
"I'm laughing at the superior intellect."

J.T.K.

And how are the Theists supposed to respond to this since it is devoid of any substantive analysis or discussion?
 
Old 04-12-2001, 10:32 AM   #190
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Well, don't respond Layman.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Top

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