SWL: My opinion on the whole Meta/Carrier/Nomad thing? Its madness.

Onto madmax's declaration of faith...

madmax writes: 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.

SWL: LOL, is this just about atheism in GENERAL? Are the facts just generally on your side or were you referring to a specific topic in this thread or elsewhere? Whichever it is, please state it exactly, and please start a new thread - as this one is awful rotten and stinky - and kindly show me these facts and this reasoning.

madmax: The facts and the reasoning is on our side gentlemen.

SWL: I think its your interpretation of the facts that is on your side, madmax. Show me these facts and this reasoning though...

I'll await your thread...

madmax: Let's act like it.

SWL: Well, you're ALREADY acting like it, now let's see you demonstrate it. LOL!

SecWebLurker

I have to say that I, for one, don't like Meta's use of crude language, nor do I particularly like his harsh responses. Joking I understand better with emoticons.

However, I am also disappointed in Carrier telling Meta that Dyslexia is no excuse. Carrier obviously doesn't understand Dyslexia. Meta's spelling may not be the best, but he seems to get his point across anyway. After all, Carrier knew exactly who Meta was talking about (Ignatius & Papyrus Egerton) regardless of the spelling.

Looking past the disability and harsh language, Meta has obvious learning and substantive posts worth responding to. I've seen it before... If you don't look very deep, then he won't, but if you do, so does he.

Ish

Thanks Layman. A prime demonstration of not taking the time to think for yourself, but rather to just copy someone else's post.

The facts however support my version. They don't support yours.

Actually, a demonstration of parody.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The facts however support my version. They don't support yours.

Nah, nah, nah, nah.

It appears that you believe that incorporating "LOL" into your posts gives them some kind of higher significance or import, or makes them more convincing. I can assure you they don't.

My remarks about "acting like it", was meant for my fellow skeptics. Why on earth do you twist it and attempt to apply it to anything else?

In regards to atheism, clearly I believe the atheistic position is a better reasoned and better supported position, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist. In regards to historical studies in general, pure reasoning tells me that some theists put far too much trust in what they come to believe about it.

As far as a thread goes, I start threads where I see fit or join in those where I believe I can contribute something, either in the way of factual knowledge or reasoning. If the thread is outside my area of knowledge, I tread as lightly as possible, if at all. Without the ability to sufficiently critique certain historical claims due to lack of education, many of the claims that are made are interesting but essentially useless to me. They are akin to a black box or void for which agnosticism is highly warranted. The only alternative to this approach is blind acceptance, which of course, is hardly a rational approach.

I can, of course, question the rationality of certain approaches and whether or not they are at least logically valid. For instance, the numerous appeals to authority that go on in these discussions without sufficient discussion as to why such and such a scholar or historian believes such and such. I find appeals to authority extremely weak in the field of historical studies where I am unable or it is impractical for me to verify the evidences for myself.

If you would like to start a thread concerning some subject where I believe I can contribute sufficiently, please do. Please leave your LOL's and any other poor attempts at mocking at the door however. I've no interest in them.

Well, this is humorous at least.

Did you mean to say Nyah, Nyah, ?

Oh. This is substantive, MM. I wasn't aware that it had an official spelling.

Well its not in the dictionary or anything but ya gotta admit is has a better ring to it. Hehe

Hey the strategy was to make me mad,and it worked. I got mad. But Carrier lacked the one thing necessary to have a decent discussion; and this is why his "scholarship" is a mocery of that term. He does not have good will in a discussion with those who disagree with his pet ideology.

I've had good discussions with many atheists on this board that did not end in a name calling match. Earl is one, Totorunm is one, I have respect for many of them, because they have good will toward the other. They are capable of fair minded discussion becasue they don't see disagreement as a threat to their egos. Richard started that debate off with a statment about how I can't know anything and it went down hill form there. In the end he was even denying that it was about Mark making up the empty tomb, which was my understanding of what we were going to debate.

That whole thing just turned into a big mess, everyone shouting and throwing insults around, and harping the most petty triva. I'm sure if he could see my picture he would insult my color coordination in fashion.

a guy just can't be a scholar and wear navy blue and brown.

So it was and is a waste of time. When there is no good will to begin with, there can be no meeting of the minds. I began it with good will. I was not trying to inslut him when I kept refurring to him as "my worthy opponent." I did feel at that stage that he was worthy. But he never intended to have a good discussion, it was always about getting the better of the other guy.

So what's the point? it's not worth it to play these petty games I have real works to get at.

Meta: Hey the strategy was to make me mad,and it worked. I got mad. But Carrier lacked the one thing necessary to have a decent discussion; and this is why his "scholarship" is a mocery of that term. He does not have good will in a discussion with those who disagree with his pet ideology....

I agree Meta that the divisive tone and remarks can only succeed in creating divisiveness. You may have noticed that Layman turned my post around in a "parody" and said the same thing I did, except from a Christian perspective. Naturally I disagree that the facts or the reasoning is on his side, however I can agree with at least the principle that atheists/skeptics should be just as careful of what and how they say things as anyone else.

I don't agree that Carrier's scholarship is moronic, stupid, idiotic, or anything else like that. It just isn't reasonable to take that position. I don't believe your sholarship is any of those things either. It may be that one or the other of you takes an approach that I don't believe is warranted. Its more of a philosophical objection I have to all this than an historical studies one.

Look at it from my position. I am a lay person when it comes to history or biblical studies. I listen to you(Layman and Nomad too), I listen to guys like Richard. I listen to both of you cast aspersions upon the other person. You say this, he says that. You appeal to this authority, he appeals to a different one. You argue back and forth about this detail or that. I'd have to spend enormous amounts of time learning all this stuff for myself so that I could critique it personally. So what am I to do? What are other lay people listening in to do? Naturally Richard Carrier is a fellow skeptic/atheist so I'd be inclined to side with him just because of that. However thats not really a rational approach any more than just blindly accepting your statements is. So my options are to blindly agree with someone, spend untold hours researching this stuff for myself, or remaining agnostic towards the whole lot of it until such time as I am able to critique it. (Which might be never depending on the circumstances)

I do find history and biblical studies sometimes fascinating. But because of this situation I have outlined, because of the choices I am limited too, I also find that it simply doesn't and can't have much influence on my life because of the very nature of it all.

[This message has been edited by madmax2976 (edited June 11, 2001).]