Hmm... what would you have called it?

I know all of that. My question is why do you ignore the preponderance of evidence, and at the same time lie about what I have and have not done?

Just because there are disputes does not mean that we cannot evaluate the evidence and reach conclusions about what is the most probable. This is what we do in virtually every area of life that we live.

As you have seen fit to call me a liar, I am not surprised that you would believe this without evidence. At the same time, I would recommend that you aquaint yourself with the possibility that people can actually hold sincerely to a belief, accepting that the weight of the evidence in support of their view is actually quite conclusive. At the same time, when you meet such an individual that is prepared not only to give his or her opinion, but is willing to defend it, please be willing to debate the evidence with this individual rather than accusing them of being a liar.

What is your dispute fG? What evidence do you have that argues against my statement of fact? After all, just because someone disputes something does not make it less of a fact. If you were to make such an argument, then evolution and the Holocaust would not be facts either. So, offer evidence to support your claim, and do so without resorting to mere appeals to authority, and we can evalute the strength of your claim.

Give me the "uncertainties" that you are familiar with in this matter fG.

I do not squirm when I am called a liar by one who has lied about me. I am, however, disappointed that you have sunk to this level, but I cannot prevent you for doing this.

As I said previously, I am disappointed in you fG. Best of luck in your journies.

Nomad

Herein that "buy the pot" tactic I've mentioned a couple times. Nomad just keeps posting and posting until everyone gives up. Then, later, he'll post something like what he said above about the redating-Mark thread:
Of course, that's absurd. That people accepted his position is the very least plausible inference of all. There's a word for this sort of argument, but Nomad gets upset when people use it, so I won't. Instead, I'll settle for poppycock.

Hello Jubal

The field is open, so take your best shot. If you think that my arguments for dating the Gospels is implausible, demonstrate that you can actually argue for your position instead of merely carping from the sidelines.

In other words, say something interesting for a change, and let's see what comes of it.

Nomad

Are you denying that you posited a disingenuous (or worse) inference? Or are you just trying to distract attention? Regardless, I think pointing out what you attempted was interesting. You're not required to agree.

Anyway, I did a pretty good job helping to scuttle your canoe on this thread. And by raising legitimate substantive issues, not just carping. Or didn't you notice?

Substantive issues? Not hardly. This has been an informative thread, but no thanks are due to you.

In fact, you've brought a renewed vigor to the ankle-biting chorus of skeptical affirmers that had died down of late. I used to classify Toto among the chorus' members, but he's come out swinging in this thread and on the dating of Acts.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 07, 2001).]

Hello again Jubal

I invited you to participate in a meaningful way on this, or another thread, and once again you declined this opportunity. Such is your right of course, but I should caution you that your behaviour is that of a troll, and unfortunately I do not have time to respond to trolls.

If, in the future you should wish to offer something substantive, then I welcome it.

Until then, I must bid you adieu.

Peace,

Nomad

I see, Nomad. It's perfectly fair for you to be critical of Doherty, Carrier, et al. But when I'm critical of you, it's trolling? Sure, whatever you say. I also notice, though, how you keep evading that disingenuous inference.

Anyway, just for the record (as Layman might say), by my count I had six substantive posts on this thread. Defined as relating directly to the use and interpretation of the embarrassment criterion. As against five "carping" posts (including one directed at Layman), defined as relating to your (or his) debating style. Plus the last three, including this one, on the poppycock inference.

As for not replying to me in the future, that's not news. You only replied to one of my substantive posts on this thread. Not that I'm all broken up over that or anything. (Never complained, did I?) As I explained on another thread, I'm talking to the audience. Answer or not as you please.

Interesting thread Nomad/Brian. Now that I have some time, I’m doing my homework. I see that you are a biblically well-versed individual, and a smooth operator, with a lot of time on your hands. Thanks for the quote, it may come in handy in our next exchange. (Good luck figuring out which one you gave me, this is a long thread.) I won’t be coming back here by the way, I’ve gotten what I need from this thread, so there is no reason for you to reply to me here. Well, on to your next thread.
PS, I think you confuse volume with content, catch you later.