Bede

...back his protected JesusMyserties board where anyone who seriously challenges him is banned. He was even asking that the moderator be changed the other day because he dared question Doherty's grasp of Greek.

Actually, I have some sympathy for Doherty for reasons some of you will know. The problem with the debate was Nomad wanted to prove Jesus existed while Doherty wanted to talk about what Paul thought. Both sides wanted the debate to be on their own strongest ground. I would have respected Doherty more if he had taken the hits rather than run, but that was his right.

I would suggest Doherty applies for a research fellowship at Duke where Price and Doughty both work. As these are the only academics in the country even willing to give him the time of day, they might let him in. With a respected university behind him other scholars would at least have to look at his ideas and that, more than anything, is what he wants.

Anyway, it was fun while it lasted...

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

And, of course, E.D. knew that the theists of this board would consider his departure a sign of victory for them... how predictable of you to prove him right.

What I also doubt is that any of the theists here will consider seriously his reasons for leaving the debate. That he was legitimately frustrated with Nomad, not because of Nomad's debating prowess, but by his lacking. That he was under the impression that he was being invited here to defend his work, not to critique the work of someone else. He was given expectations of exactly what kind of debate he was agreeing to, but never got it.

Can we blame that on Nomad? I dunno. Probably PhysicsGuy for not moderating the debate in such a way that was agreeable to both participants. I am hesitant to immediately jump to the conclusion that Nomad deliberately tried to frustrate E.D. That would entail assuming things about Nomad's motives and mental state... something no skeptic should ever be caught doing.

What is evident, though, is that Nomad did frustrate E.D. to the point of his departure. I feel that I do understand E.D.'s objections to the manner in which Nomad debated... it just remains to be seen if any of the apologists on this board will also.

Bede

Gotta ask, but where did I say this?

Earl's leaving was an act of mercy. IMHO Earl thoroughly and professionally dismembered Brian's arguments and demonstrated the intellectual shortcomings of his "debating" style. Subjecting Brian to further humiliation served no purpose.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited May 25, 2001).]

The Soap Opera continues...

Iconoclast

Well, no wonder Earl left. I'm surprised he didn't terminate it sooner. He has more patience with childish tactics than I do.

That shit about declaring all the evidence already settled and in Nomad's corner right off the bat was especially laughable.

That said, Earl left plenty of info and assertions that Nomad didn't actually bother to refute or even try to address other than to simply declare it wrong. Nomad should go back and work on actually answering all that in a mature and honorable manner before any crowing is to take place.

Myabe Earl will come back if Nomad can demonstrate he knows what a real, intelligent, formal debate entails, promises to engag in one with him, and apologizes for his shameful behavior.

Nomad is just lucky he wasn't trying to pull this shit in a formal debate in the real world.

I was afraid you were going to be vague and consclusory.

I didn't see Nomad declare that all the evidence was "in his corner" before the debate began. Of course, its really not even clear what you mean by this.

Oh, and the profanity was a nice touch.

But most importantly, I'm curious how many formal debates Earl D. has engaged in to defend his theory. And, in those debates, who were the moderators and opponents. Seriously, do you know?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 25, 2001).]

I think Nomad, to his credit, brought up a few good points. In his favor I think there is nothing unreasonable about assuming the existence of a person even if that person is cloaked in layers of legend.

I think Earl is more knowledgable about how formal debates are carried out. He was able to succintly point out flaws in Nomads (Brians) debating abilities.

As for the mythicist position itself, it remains a curiosity if nothing else. Perhaps someday I'll take the time to go to Doherty's site a read about it more in depth. Perhaps not. Ancient history doesn't provide us with the evidence required for firm conclusions, so the issue will never be "settled" conclusively.

As I mentioned in the "How much will you bet" thread, I'd put down about $600,000 that Jesus did exist. (But handing over that much money would make me nervous - no question about it. )

Toto

I don't think that Nomad had a strong ground. His arguments were pretty pathetic - embarrassment in the Baptism by John? proof of the crucifixion? Doherty was just refusing to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Nomad would have a stronger case if he admitted its weaknesses. When he tries to pretend that there is a strong case for the historical Jesus (which at least some of the authorities he likes to rely on do not actually think is very strong), he just makes himself look ridiculous.

I have emailed Doherty and asked him to reconsider. I really enjoyed how he sliced Nomad up.

Three comments and a request:

1. The failure of the debate, IMHO, rests almost entirely with Nomad.

2. Through it all, I could understand Doherty on the first read. Nomad generally took three. In that sense, ED is the clear winner.

3. All things considered, I felt Nomad was more guilty than ED of selective use of authority to establish a proposition he is impelled to reach by other considerations. In other words, I sometimes saw ED massaging the evidence to suit his thesis, in which he no doubt has a vested psychological interest, but Nomad did it constantly.

4. Before turning out the lights on the debate, if there are any proponents of ED's thesis who would care to comment on a nontheistic-but-historical-Jesus counterscenario I posited in another thread, I sure would appreciate it.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 25, 2001).]