-DM-

Nothing like starting off with an insult based on faulty mind-reading. Sheesh!

It is certainly beginning to look as if I was right about you the first time around; you start right off this time with more mind-reading about my alleged motives and a brand new insult (last time it was "crappy" and this time it is "garbage")--the kind of thing that I have come to expect from the arrogant Christians who come here (and no, I'm not saying that you are one of them, only that you act like one of them).

Yes, I did make an assertion. I am not saying that I asserted nothing, but rather that you asserted--not what I asserted--but something else.

See if you can understand this: I did not assert what you asserted that I asserted. [See below for more details.]

Please try to understand so that I can quit wasting my time defending a position which I did not and do not assert: I do not and have never held that these inconsistencies or "conflicting viewpoints" are PROOF of anything.

Didn't you see that I said only that because of them I am not able to take the Resurrection seriously?

Don't you see the difference between your assertion about what I allegedly asserted (i.e., "proof") and what I actually asserted (i.e., unable to take seriously)?

THAT is what I objected to, at least primarily, namely that I had talked about PROOF.

I have a desire to dialogue with anyone who can understand what s/he reads and quote correctly, or barring that, can paraphrase without misrepresenting my position.

I have no desire to dialogue with anyone who repeatedly misinterprets what I post so that I waste my time saying, "no, that is NOT what I think." I don't want to argue straw man arguments; I want to argue what I actually think as evidenced by what I say. I have been stung too many times in the past by people who get off into straw man arguments and then argue with me about what I think as if they knew better than I do what I think.

You are doing it now, at least to some extent, by insisting that it isn't a big leap from what I said to what you said even though what you said is significantly different than what I said and what I actually think (about proof).

More mind-reading. Look, will you please quit telling me what [you think] that I think, what my view of you is about whether you do or don't possess some knowledge?

You need to understand that you have a very poor idea of what I think and I don't appreciate you misrepresenting what I think.

I have no opinion whatsoever about your motivations for being here, so you are wrong about that too.

The opinions of my fellow freethinkers of you are unknown to me, so they have no weight one way or the other.

And once and for all, I wish that you would quit the mind-reading act.

Then quit the mind-reading act.

I don't care how tough your questions are, but I do care about your misrepresentations and your mind-reading.

I'm not interesting in defending straw man positions, misrepresentations of my position, mind-reading (assigning, of course, ulterior motives to what I do such as your latest about my alleged motives in the first paragraph), characterizing what I post as "crappy" and "garbage," etc.

And I'm starting to think that you are one of them, one of those who can't keep straight who said what and what it means, thus you malign your opponents' motives, label their posts "crappy," "garbage," and accuse them of twisting words when it is you who does so.

Your very first post misrepresented my position. And you still haven't even acknowledged that you misrepresented my position. Instead, you argue about it attempting to justify your misrepresentation. As I said, like athlete's foot, it gets old after awhile.

If you want to get along with me, then please get it straight that I have said nothing whatsoever about proof, quit the mind-reading, quit assuming that you know my motives, quit assuming that you know my opinion of you (other than what I have expressed), and address what I actually said.

--Don--

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

Rich

Don-

I have obviously been unable to convince you that I have sincere motives.

I am sorry if you perceive I made a mistake in my paraphrasing your position. I was never trying to create a position that you did not hold to. Language is limiting and more so trying to understand the intent of someone is tough.

you said:
...then listed a number of verses which you thought backed up your assertion, I understood these to be proof of your assertion.

from dictionary.com:
proof (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

My understanding was you were presenting those inconsistencies as proof of your assertion (and I still believe that unless you can provide a different reason). This is why I said you twisted my words simply to avoid the question. I did not intend to misrepresent you, and you really haven't shown how I have. I have presented definitions of words, while you have merely offered your opinion as to what things mean. I think my paraphrase was reasonable in light of the definitions of assertion and proof. If you are more concerned with the wording then that is your choice (I spend a lot of time examining my posts before they are posted and I try to choose words carefully), and as I stated in my previous post I will choose not to engage in conversations with you.

You continue to throw accusations at me and I will only say this in closing (and I'm sure you will just say this is a straw man). In reading your various posts (and I have probably read 100's along with some of your writings) I don't think I have seen one instance of you having a meaningful, respectful conversation with a theist (especially Christians). I also think you are extremely intolerant of anyone who is a theist for no other reason than they are one. If you can provide proof otherwise (link to a thread) that shows me you have any kind of respect for individual theists then I will retract my words. I think you have treated me in a prejudiced manner and shown very little tolerance for my "ignorance".

Have fun ripping this post apart (hmm...maybe I am omniscient?).

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Rich ]

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Rich ]

Ron Garrett

Rich posts to Mr. Morgan:

You worship a make-believe supernatural malefactor whose childish ego demands servile obeisance and cowed adoration, who will roast alive for all eternity those whom he finds displeasing in any way, whose history makes Hitler and his monstrosities look like rank amateurism. And you want to be respected?

Rich, I am willing to die defending your legal right to embrace and espouse whatever baleful belief and hateful fantasy you care to lend credence. However, given the centuries of evil that Christianity has inflicted and continues to inflict on the world, and the fact that charity toward dissenters, what little Christians show, is a modern phenomenon based entirely on the fact that you can no longer legally burn infidels at the stake, asking that you and your beliefs be treated respectfully.... well, the enormity of such an entreaty beggars the mind.

Granting respect for the Christian cult or an adherent and defender of the same, is an impossible and absurd expectation of anyone that has the least understanding of the theology you propose and the damage it has inflicted.

If you'd like respect, do something worthy of respect and disavow your irrational and pernicious religion.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

Rich

Ron-

you say:
I could care less about any legal right...I was assuming a moral responsiblity for respect for all humanity...you have no idea of what I believe and regardless of your inference, I do not live my life in a hateful manner.

Maybe you too would do well to evaluate your hatred and intolerance for Christians. For whatever moral system you espouse should certainly has room for alternative viewpoints.

Get a grip on some kind of reality...I asked a question, Don thought I misrepresented him, and now you're bringing up the history of Christianity...this is worse than some of the arguments between my 3 year old and 4 year old.

-DM-

Of course you said essentially the same thing in you previous post (but it obviously didn't mean much).

This is a typical "Rich" response, start right off with some mind-reading about what I allegedly believe about your motives. (And as usual, your mind-reading is faulty.)

It is not your motives that I question, it is your inability to understand or to admit how it is that you misrepresented my position. Worse, you have beat around the bush ever since with your mind-reading, alleging that you know what I think about your motives, etc., etc., getting yourself in deeper and deeper with accusations about me twisting words (when that is what you do), about my posts being "crappy" and "garbage," etc., yet failing to rectify your misrepresentation and move on to meaningful discussion.

We all make mistakes but it takes real stubbornness to go on and on with them as you have.

-----------

Here's a straight-out question: Don't you yet see that I was not talking about proof that the Resurrection was false but rather reasons why I personally don't take the Resurrection story seriously?

-----------

I'll take your word for it, but then there was no need to persist in defending your misrepresentation. You could have gotten it squared-away as soon as I objected to it by asking and then understanding what I said instead of continuing to attempt to justify your misunderstanding.

Yes, language is limiting, however it is seldom that I see someone make a mistake and then persist with it, as you have, even after more than one explanation any one of which should have sufficed to make it clear.

Sheesh! Don't you understand that this is not what you originally accused me of and not what I object to? I mean, I have already explained it a sufficient number of times, now.

Don't you understand that you accused me--not of providing evidence of my assertion--but, and I quote, "If we take your assertion on conflicting viewpoints as being proof of the resurrection story being false"? [emphasis mine]

Pulleeezz understand that I did not provide proof of the falsity of the Resurrection (I know of no way of proving it false), rather I provided reasons that I, personally, don't take it seriously.

I don't want to have to answer questions that do not represent my position and I think you should be able to understand and accept that. First we needed to settle on what my position is, then we could have discussed it and I would have been willing to answer questions about it.

Yes, childishly in my opinion, as if providing the dictionary definitions of "assertion" and "proof" would someone make your misrepresentation of my position justifiable.

I have offered my opinion of what I meant. It is not up to you to quibble endlessly about it. If you genuinely seek understanding, as you and your friend David Gould claim that you do, then it is up to you to accept that I know what I think and mean better than you do.

I think your paraphrase was exceedingly unreasonable given that I said nothing and meant nothing about proof of the Resurrection being false.

So do I, and that is why I highly resent someone twisting my carefully worded personal statement about my reasons for not taking the Resurrection seriously into an alleged assertion of the proof of the falsity of the Resurrection.

What you said was, "I will make sure not to 'bother' you anymore with my 'ignorant' posts." Of course you didn't abide by what you said. And frankly, I wish you wouldn't this time either. I want you to answer that one question that I asked above and repeated here:

-----------

Here's a straight-out question: Don't you yet see that I was not talking about proof that the Resurrection was false but rather reasons why I personally don't take the Resurrection story seriously?

-----------

Let's keep it straight here with regard to accusations. I have yet to label your posts "crappy" or "garbage" nor to tell you what your motivations are or what is going on in your head--all of which you have done. What I have done is to accuse you of misrepresenting, and although I have clarified exactly what that misrepresentation was, you are either unwilling or unable to see it. I have also accused you of asking questions which represent appeals to ignorance. But so far, you are the champion of accusations.

Then you haven't followed my discussions with theists who themselves engage in meaningful, respectful conversation--few and far between, in my experience. (Examples would be HelenSL when she is being respectful, Aza at times, Bede pretty much always, and various others who have come and gone.)

I am intolerant of anyone, theist or otherwise, who misrepresents, makes rude accusations about "crappy" "garbage" posts, engages in mind-reading, maligns my motives--the very kinds of things that you have engaged in. I don't respect those kinds of people and it turns out that I almost always wish that I had never gotten involved in discussions with those kinds of people. But more than that, I wish that they would quit the mind-reading, the distortions of what was said, and engage in meaningful and respectful discussion about what was actually said. Let's face it, UBB makes it pretty easy to respond to direct quotes rather than paraphrasing and taking a chance on misrepresenting what someone said.

I WAS WRONG

Fundamental flaw in "Is God a Criminal?"

I repent - I Hail the real saviour of the Bible !

To Don Morgan

intresting story

heh heh

guilt

There is no God - must read

just a (friendly) note to those who don't like god

Is agnosticism logical?

Want more, or does that suffice as "proof" according to your understanding of the dictionary definition of "proof" that you recently posted.

(I'll be waiting for you retraction.)

-----------

I am and hope that I always remain intolerant of mind-reading, misrepresentation, rude accusations, and those kinds of reprehensible behavior.

I did.

I have no doubt that you think you are at least to the extent that you can divine motives.

--Don--

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

-DM-

WHAT? Ron has no idea what you believe, but you know what is going on in my head, what my motives are? THAT, takes the cake!

And you don't live your life in a hateful manner? I disagree. I think it is hateful to allegedly mind-read another person's motives so as to be able to impugn them, as you have done.

Oh, so now YOU know about HIS alleged hatred. Boy, you are a living example of pot-kettle black hypocrisy.

I didn't just THINK you misrepresented me, you DID misrepresent me. And you were still at it with your last post.

I might agree that the history of Christianity hasn't much bearing on the discussion of our disagreement, but to characterize Ron's use of that as "worse than some of the arguments between my 3 year old and 4 year old" is, well, typical Rich--i.e., insulting.

--Don--

Rich

Your question:

and your original statement:
You're quite right if you would have made the statement- why you don't take it seriously, BUT you said why you doubt it. Why would you doubt if you did not consider it false?

Another one of my childish definitions:
doubt
1) To tend to disbelieve; distrust:
2) To regard as unlikely:

You continue to try and twist words, but I think (my opinion) you are unwilling to admit that my originial question was not really that off-base.

Go forth in your rightness...enjoy trying to piss off theists...I will continue to seek answers from those who can see past my words.

Your proof is sketchy at best since many of the links you provided are one post long (hardly evidence of a meaningful relationship), and some of the people you referred to are hardly representative of widely accepted theist positions. Maybe I should have asked instead if there are any Christians on this board who think you are regularly open-minded to their viewpoints. I will concede that you are at least able to occasionally have respectful dialogue with some theists.

BTW- what you consider stubborness, I consider tenacity...I have been bullied around plenty in my life both physically and by intellectuals...I have matured past that and will not be bullied anymore.

-DM-

I did make the statement. Go back and look. Here it is: "There are far too many inconsistencies in detail between what one biblical author and another tells us about the alleged Resurrection for me to be able take it seriously."

I said both why I doubt it and why I don't take it seriously. In any case, I generally try to avoid either/or, black/white positions and statements on matters that don't lend themselves to a solid, concrete position or statement; in other words, I tend to remain agnostic about such matters even though I may lean--sometimes fairly strongly--to one side or the other.

Keep in mind that doubt that something is true does not necessarily entail believing that it is false; more correctly, doubt that something is true may mean that one believes that it may be or likely is false. Similarly, doubt that something is false does not necessarily entail believing that it is true but rather that it may be true or is likely true.

Your original question was way off base considering my actual words, words which you could have more easily quoted than paraphrasing them into a question which essentially created a what amounted to a straw man argument in the form of a question.

Another one of your typical rude remarks. FYI, I don't enjoy trying to piss off anyone, theist or otherwise. More likely you are projecting.

No one can see past your words unless they are mind-readers like you seem to think you are.

At last, a substantive comment, one that could have served as a point of discussion.

Did it occur to you that maybe you shouldn't have made such an accusation to begin with? One that you more or less repeat now in a watered-down form with your "Maybe I should have asked ...." question.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. You wouldn't be bullied by me had you not tried to bully me with your misrepresentation, your mind-reading, and your maligning of my motives.

--Don--

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

Rich

I will limit my comments to the following since I had no desire to debate who is the bigger jackass with you Don.

I understand what doubt means...and I never intended to state that you are 100% sure the resurrection account are false. The evidence you provided for the inconistencies supports a belief that they are false, not true, which was all I was trying to say

My original question was not a straw man.

from: Straw Man
This implies intent to 1) misrepresent you 2) argue against/attack that position.

I was not intending to do either one so this is a false assertion.

The basis of my question remains and whether you feel it accurately represents you or not, I still wonder (not because I have an argument against it but because it seems logically inconsistent) what the answer is. Hopefully, somebody, someday can provide an answer for me to explore.

-DM-

That is, so far as I am concerned, a misrepresentation of what you were allegedly only trying to say given that you actually said this: "If we take your assertion on conflicting viewpoints as being proof of the resurrection story being false, then why were they not fixed?" "Proof" is a far cry from the intent of my statements.

Whether intentional or not, your question represents a form of straw man in that I, myself, do not take what I provided as "proof that the Resurrection story being false." They are reasons why I doubt it, why I do not take it seriously.

I'll take your word for it, but it seems to me that the effect was the same as if you had intended to do exactly that.

Your question was: "If we take your assertion on conflicting viewpoints as being proof of the resurrection story being false, then why were they not fixed?"

At this late date, no one can provide a definitive answer to that question. If the story is false, why the inconsistencies were not "fixed" is anybody's guess. You could probably answer that question as well as the next person. Myself, I don't like to provide speculative answers to such questions.

-----------

turtonm provided a speculative answer, namely, "Differing groups had differing theologies, politics, and viewpoints. They also prized the different gospels for different reasons. Finally, you don't know that they weren't fixed, fixed as well as they could be."

You then responded: "On one hand you imply that these men had little intelligence (or at least not enough to fix the accounts of- let's say the resurrection appearances to all say the same thing) and on the other (and this may or may not reflect your view but it does many) that they concocted this vast conspiracy to control people and get their money."

... and I take your response to be a misrepresentation of turtonm's position.

-----------

You then continue: "I am stuck with this dilema...how did a bunch of poor, uneducated fisherman concoct a grand scheme which somehow survived (flourished actually while various other weird sects were quickly lost) for 2000 years through various cultures with a book that is obviously inconsistent?"

Now that we seem to be actually engaged in discussion, let me ask you some questions:

1.) What makes you think that all of the Gospel authors were "poor, uneducated fisherman"?
2.) What has the survival of beliefs based on a book which is inconsistent to do with anything? (Or rather, what has it to do with?)
3.) Do you think that the literally billions of dollars and billions of man-hours spent promoting, evangelizing, and proselytizing Christianity, in general, and the truth of the Resurrection, specifically, has anything to do with the reason that the story has survived and been believed?

--Don--

P.S. I find it much more enjoyable engaging in discussion with you (or anyone else) when a post is devoid of mind-reading and those things which I have mentioned that I find objectionable. This most recent post of yours encourages me to think that perhaps we can engage in meaningful discussion after all.