Given that this thread is now so hopelessly off topic, and the chances of a recovery now appear to be lost, I have moved my own discussion of the issues raised to the Feedback Discussion Forum here.

Any comments or questions are welcome.

Good night.

Nomad

madmax2976:
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.

SWL: LOL! Are you guys all such bitter robots? I thought "LOL" meant that I found something humorous? You wrote:

So I responded "Well, you're ALREADY acting like it, now let's see you demonstrate it. LOL!" I thought that was funny so I wrote "LOL". Hope that doesn't offend you.

madmax: 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?

SWL: Nowhere do I twist anything. You claimed that you and your fellow skeptics have the facts and reasoning on your side, and you asked that they act as if they do. I simply pointed out that YOU are already acting as if you do, and I challenged you and still challenge you to demonstrate this.

madmax: 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.

SWL: Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us, madmax. But I was asking specifically for the "facts and reasoning" and also the "logic" that you think are on your "side".

madmax: 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.

SWL: What one feels is "too little" or "too much" trust is a very subjective thing. Since you yourself admit to having little knowledge as concerns historical matters, I'm not sure that I need be concerned with your "pure reasoning" (untainted with experience/education? LOL) on this issue. Your opinion is noted, but I'm looking for the specific "facts and reasoning" and "logic" that SUPPORT your case.

madmax: 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.

SWL: That's funny! The thread I was responding to didn't contain any facts or reasoning. It looked more like cheerleading for atheists...Anytime you want to put down the pom-poms and present all of the facts/reasoning/logic that better supports atheism, just start a new thread. Address it right to me so I'll notice it.

(might take a few days for me to respond - gotta go away for the next two days and I'll be busy for a bit rebutting several of Richard Carrier's "arguments" when I get back )

SecWebLurker

madmax2976:
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.

SWL: LOL! Are you guys all such bitter robots? I thought "LOL" meant that I found something humorous? You wrote:


Ask yourself honestly if its humor or an attempt at ridicule/mocking? The answer is yours to keep.

So I responded "Well, you're ALREADY acting like it, now let's see you demonstrate it. LOL!" I thought that was funny so I wrote "LOL". Hope that doesn't offend you.

The only problem is that you take my statement completely out of context. Why? By making the statement "Lets act like it", I'm suggesting to my fellow skeptics/atheists, that they not sink down to the level of name calling and such. Its not necessary. THAT was the context of the statement. I'm suprised you don't see this.

SWL: Nowhere do I twist anything. You claimed that you and your fellow skeptics have the facts and reasoning on your side, and you asked that they act as if they do.

This part is partially correct, though I suspect your still twisting your understanding of it. Acting liking it in this sense remains being secure in one's position and not having any need to resort to name calling or spite (or mocking laughter).

I simply pointed out that YOU are already acting as if you do, and I challenged you and still challenge you to demonstrate this.

Your "challenge" is totally out of context. It doesn't take a very careful reading to see this. However, I HAVE demonstrated my point and continue to demonstrate it to the best of my ability by not resorting to the tactics I'm talking about. Sometimes I slip up, but I do the best I can.

madmax: 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.

SWL: Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us, madmax. But I was asking specifically for the "facts and reasoning" and also the "logic" that you think are on your "side".

So your asking me to put on a complete defense of my atheism in this thread? Wow. That would no doubt take a lot of discussion. And of course I'd have to have sufficient motivation to do so. I'm not very evangelistic towards my atheism at this point. I'm more secure in the knowledge that my atheism is completely defensible against theistic claims. I've yet to cultivate an attitude with the need to stamp out religious belief. Perhaps some day.

SWL: What one feels is "too little" or "too much" trust is a very subjective thing.

Quite right. Which is a problem when it comes to historical claims. What am I to believe and how much am I to believe it?

Since you yourself admit to having little knowledge as concerns historical matters, I'm not sure that I need be concerned with your "pure reasoning" (untainted with experience/education? LOL) on this issue.

And likewise I have no need to be concerned with any claims you might make that I do not have sufficient knowledge with which to properly critique them. I have listed the alternatives (see my post to Meta) and the only practical alternative for me is to remain agnostic towards many theistic claims. My reasoning is sound and thus my position is secure.

Your opinion is noted, but I'm looking for the specific "facts and reasoning" and "logic" that SUPPORT your case.

I just given you some of the logic. Its quite sound.

As for some of the facts, I can only assume you mean in regards to historical studies as it relates to the bible. (Is this what you meant?)

Here are some facts in this regard:

- a dearth of extra-biblical records to support specific biblical claims. (Such as the miracles of Jesus and the supposed events after his death)

- a detectable pattern of "legend-growing" as the writings of Paul, then Mark, then Mathew and Luke and then John are examined. (You may disagree with the dating implied here of course.)

- the anonymity of the writers, the lack of mention until relatively late by other figures (like Ignatius)

- the lack of evidence that miracles can or do actually occur at all or that any deity exists. (Or even more specifically that the Christian deity exists. Of course, if this could be proven, all the historical stuff would be a bit moot anyhow.)

- the lack of common sense. Given a deity that supposedly has some desire for all mankind to be "saved", the rationality of this purported plan (as given by the bible) is highly dubius.

SWL: That's funny! The thread I was responding to didn't contain any facts or reasoning. It looked more like cheerleading for atheists...Anytime you want to put down the pom-poms and present all of the facts/reasoning/logic that better supports atheism, just start a new thread. Address it right to me so I'll notice it.

And I highly suspect SWL, that your purpose here was not to even try to understand what I was attempting to say to my fellow atheists, but to try to mock me or in some way embarass me.

There was no "cheerleading" here, but rather a plea for calmness.

As for any challenges you wish to partake in, please feel free to do so. My "challenge" was to my fellow atheists. I challenged you to nothing. However, I will be more than happy to defend my atheism against whatever arguments you would like to bring.

As for me, you can remain a theist till the day you die and it will not bother me in the least.

SWL (old): LOL! Are you guys all such bitter robots? I thought "LOL" meant that I found something humorous? You wrote:

madmax: Ask yourself honestly if its humor or an attempt at ridicule/mocking? The answer is yours to keep.

SWL: Actually I think I'll share it with you. It was solely a humorous jab at your extreme confidence in the correctness of your position.

madmax: The only problem is that you take my statement completely out of context. Why? By making the statement "Lets act like it", I'm suggesting to my fellow skeptics/atheists, that they not sink down to the level of name calling and such. Its not necessary. THAT was the context of the statement. I'm suprised you don't see this.

SWL: That's pretty funny, max. First of all, I'm telling a joke, not doing exegesis. Secondly, you wrote: "The facts and the reasoning is on our side gentlemen. Let's act like it."

Let's act like WHAT, madmax? Like the facts and reasoning is on your side! How do you propose to act like that? By "Not only by not sinking to their level, but by remaining numerous stories above it. - Sometimes difficult to be sure, but worthwhile nonetheless."

That's great and all, but there's nothing "out of context" about me humorously observing that you ALREADY are acting like the facts and reasoning are on your side (implicitly referring to all of the bold/confident declarations in your post that they are). This is the very point of my statement - as if to say - "Despite your suggestions on how to act like X is true, YOU'RE ALREADY ACTING as if X is true." If I notice that you are acting as if you believe a certain thing, I can point to any behavior on your part that is indicative of that belief (especially when telling a joke). Are you going to tell me that IN that very post you are NOT acting as if the facts and reasoning and logic are on your side madmax?

SWL: Nowhere do I twist anything. You claimed that you and your fellow skeptics have the facts and reasoning on your side, and you asked that they act as if they do.

madmax: This part is partially correct, though I suspect your still twisting your understanding of it. Acting liking it in this sense remains being secure in one's position and not having any need to resort to name calling or spite (or mocking laughter).

SWL: And acting like it in the way I NOTICED - unsubstantiated confident assertions.

SWL (old): I simply pointed out that YOU are already acting as if you do, and I challenged you and still challenge you to demonstrate this.

madmax: Your "challenge" is totally out of context.

SWL: You are completely out of your mind if you think that. You claimed that facts and reasoning are on your side. Now I ask you to demonstrate that.There's nothing out of context about me challenging you to support your claims.

May I ask you if you feel the facts and reasoning are on your side for reasons that are too personal? You just don't care to share them with us in a new thread? You'd rather quibble all day about why I shouldn't be asking you to support your assertions?

madmax: It doesn't take a very careful reading to see this.

SWL: No, it doesn't at all. madmax writes:

Now, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT believe that these above statements are true madmax? And if you DO, are you willing to, or able, demonstrate their truth or is there some personal reason why you wish to refrain from doing so?

Its quite simple. You made some claims. I'm asking you to support them. Can you or can't you?

madmax: However, I HAVE demonstrated my point and continue to demonstrate it to the best of my ability by not resorting to the tactics I'm talking about. Sometimes I slip up, but I do the best I can.

SWL: Well, I'm sure you're a great guy, madmax. But I'm mainly interested in your assertions, not your demeanor. If you feel that having a calm demeanor demonstrates the truth of your assertions, than I'll have to inform you that, at least in that assertion, the "reasoning" is not on your side.

madmax: 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.

SWL: Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us, madmax. But I was asking specifically for the "facts and reasoning" and also the "logic" that you think are on your "side".

madmax: So your asking me to put on a complete defense of my atheism in this thread? Wow.

SWL: Not at all. It doesn't have to be complete in any way. Just show me one aspect where the facts and evidence and reasoning and logic is on the side of atheism.

madmax: That would no doubt take a lot of discussion. And of course I'd have to have sufficient motivation to do so. I'm not very evangelistic towards my atheism at this point. I'm more secure in the knowledge that my atheism is completely defensible against theistic claims. I've yet to cultivate an attitude with the need to stamp out religious belief. Perhaps some day.

SWL: Ok, I understand completely.

SWL (old): What one feels is "too little" or "too much" trust is a very subjective thing.

Quite right. Which is a problem when it comes to historical claims. What am I to believe and how much am I to believe it?

SWL: That'll ultimately be something you have to decide for yourself.

SWL (old): Since you yourself admit to having little knowledge as concerns historical matters, I'm not sure that I need be concerned with your "pure reasoning" (untainted with experience/education? LOL) on this issue.

max: And likewise I have no need to be concerned with any claims you might make that I do not have sufficient knowledge with which to properly critique them.

SWL: Now, when you read a paper by Richard "the dyslexic-hater" Carrier, do you say to yourself "That's interesting, but I have no need to be concerned with any claims that he has made because I do not have sufficient knowledge with which to properly critique them."

max: I have listed the alternatives (see my post to Meta) and the only practical alternative for me is to remain agnostic towards many theistic claims. My reasoning is sound and thus my position is secure.

SWL: That doesn't entail that the facts and reasoning support atheism.

SWL (old): Your opinion is noted, but I'm looking for the specific "facts and reasoning" and "logic" that SUPPORT your case.

mad: I just given you some of the logic. Its quite sound.

SWL: I'm referring to your case for 'atheism'. The one you were implying that you shared with the other atheists in your post - the one that the facts support - NOT your personal "I ain't listenin' to no darn theists cuz I ain't yet ready to wrastle with arguments that challenge my worldview" stance.

Would you say that its possible that your tendency to disregard the arguments of theists is a buffer-zone for your atheism? Do you think, in your journey as an atheist, that you'll tend more towards atheistic/skeptical literature that supports your own beliefs or theistic/conservative literature that challenges them? Just curious...

max: As for some of the facts, I can only assume you mean in regards to historical studies as it relates to the bible. (Is this what you meant?)

Here are some facts in this regard:

- a dearth of extra-biblical records to support specific biblical claims. (Such as the miracles of Jesus and the supposed events after his death)

SWL: First, Josephus refers to Jesus as a miracle worker. Secondly, where would we expect to find reports of Jesus' miracles? Amongst those traditions that were collected concerning his life. Where else would we expect to see Jesus' miracles reported and why?

- a detectable pattern of "legend-growing" as the writings of Paul, then Mark, then Mathew and Luke and then John are examined. (You may disagree with the dating implied here of course.)

SWL: Ok, there's one. Let's see support for this claim.

- the anonymity of the writers, the lack of mention until relatively late by other figures (like Ignatius)

SWL: Let's see support for the "fact" of the anonymity of the writers. Of course, pointing out that their names are only MENTIONED later does not in the LEAST make this a fact. And why exactly is this relevant? It certainly doesn't make them less likely to be authentic accounts of what Jesus did/said.

- the lack of evidence that miracles can or do actually occur at all or that any deity exists. (Or even more specifically that the Christian deity exists. Of course, if this could be proven, all the historical stuff would be a bit moot anyhow.)

SWL: It is not a "fact" that there is no evidence for a deity, in any neutral sense - its just your opinion. What is and isn't evidence can also be a very subjective notion. As regards miracles in ancient times, all we could expect, since the camcorder wasn't invented yet, would be written reports.

- the lack of common sense. Given a deity that supposedly has some desire for all mankind to be "saved", the rationality of this purported plan (as given by the bible) is highly dubius.

SWL: This is a "fact"? LOL, "madmax dunt think that the Bahble God makes much sense, therefore its a fact that He dunt. Fact aganst Kirschens!"

SWL: That's funny! The thread I was responding to didn't contain any facts or reasoning. It looked more like cheerleading for atheists...Anytime you want to put down the pom-poms and present all of the facts/reasoning/logic that better supports atheism, just start a new thread. Address it right to me so I'll notice it.

And I highly suspect SWL, that your purpose here was not to even try to understand what I was attempting to say to my fellow atheists, but to try to mock me or in some way embarass me.

SWL: Nah, just saw you making some bold claims. I wanted to make sure you couldn't support them. After all, if you could, I'd be in trouble, wouldn't I?

max: There was no "cheerleading" here, but rather a plea for calmness.

SWL: Nah dude, that's not the way I see it. You could've just made a plea for calmness and avoided all the "we've got reason and logic and facts on our side, fellas...Relax and enjoy yourselves...Rah Rah!"

As for any challenges you wish to partake in, please feel free to do so. My "challenge" was to my fellow atheists. I challenged you to nothing. However, I will be more than happy to defend my atheism against whatever arguments you would like to bring.

SWL: Well, let's start by seeing if you can support some of the claims you made. That'll be a good indicator to me as to whether or not you're a worthy discussion partner.

max: As for me, you can remain a theist till the day you die and it will not bother me in the least.

SWL: Thanks, max. I appreciate that.

SecWebLurker

P.S.- I *might* not be able to post within the next few days, so hold your horsemen. I'd prefer it if you started a new thread for this convo. but its up to you.

I'd prefer it if you just killed the quibbling, presented the "facts" that support your case, and supported the "facts" you've presented.

Ernest Sparks

Someone said something to the effect that nothing is accomplished when debates turn into donnybrooks. I disagree. Metacrock revealed clearly how he feels about the club:

I think that is sincere and I'm glad it came out. I also think this came here with him from the first, and that is what he has been telling us separately with each explosion of invective.

God love him! (Somebody should)

Ernie

Richard Carrier

I've reviewed the entire debate again and I want to apologize for having let Metacrock's insults and mockery anger me into getting personal and returning the disservice. It is against my ideals to stoop to that level and I always seek to correct myself when I slip like that. As a matter of fact, Metacrock may be ill-informed, he may be immature, he may be confused, I don't know, but he is not an idiot and it was wrong of me to call him one. I apologize sincerely for that behavior. It was not necessary to do that to show that Metacrock never addressed my actual position, introduced no rebutting facts, and never made clear that he even understood my statement of method, made in the very first post.

Richard, once again you have shown yourself to be the man of character and amicability that readers on this board have come to know you to be, regardless of which side of the fence we may sit on.

[This message has been edited by MOJO-JOJO (edited June 13, 2001).]

Richard, is this really inteneded to be an apology to me? for what exactly?

Toto

It looks to me like he's saying that you may have acted like an idiot, but he should have been more diplomatic in pointing that out.

I think he's right.

If i'm so ignorant than why is it that you had no konlwede of the Two excavations that linked t he CHS with the 4th century site upon Which Constaintine built his chruch over the tomb of Christ?

your definition of being ignorant is merely to disagree with you. you can't even apologize honestly without making it a disgussed insult. You turely have no honor.