spin

How evasive of you, still. (My statements did not include the word "fiction" and unless you are using the term in some extremely general sense, it is inappropriate here.) This is what I said.

So if someone said that none of it is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree.

Admit it: you wouldn't be able to disagree.

Would you care to be still evasive? Or will you admit or contradict?

With regard to infidels I do try. With regard to apologists I don't. (With regard to others, it'll probably depend on the weather.) If an infidel site is meaningful to you, you should be less overscrupulous and more sympathetic to infidels. You can see in this thread people do not take you to be so. Playing the "take the log out of your eye" routine doesn't work.

I can be nice to you, Amaleq13. Now give them a little breathing space. Just say "po".


spin

Amaleq13

I was trying to restate the assertion as an affirmative rather than a negative since the latter is inherently logically problematic. I've already stated that I can and have opposed the affirmative claim.

I won't play favorites like that. Even if I wasn't a mod. I would consider it intellectually dishonest. Bad arguments are bad arguments even when I might favor the conclusion. Good arguments are good arguments even when I disagree with the conclusion.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em regardless of my personal preferences.

po

spin

Stop being silly. There is nothing inherently logically problematic in the following at all.

if someone said that none of [the gospel story] is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree.

Your evasiveness is an admission of its accuracy.

This is the usual cowardly excuse not to allow thoughts to deal with issues that have been dealt with in a biased manner for a long time. We are all the children of 1600 years of christian apologetics, when there was no-one to play the role that you take upon yourself, for those who may have had the inkling to try were labeled heretical and tortured, drowned, beheaded, etc. You are playing favorites.

You just may be being intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps you should have your eyes checked. I'm asking you to step back a little.

At the right time. You know, when you are chaping at the bit to shoot some poor soul down for not dotting your intellectual "i". And if you can't hold out any longer, put them on ignore, as I have with aa5874 and mountainman... (thinks)... (thinks some more)... well, I guess you can't quite do that, but the moderator can do his/her work and the ordinary forum member in you can shut up.


spin

neilgodfrey

Trying to be nice is condescension in my books. Speaking for myself, if my arguments are illogical or foolish I want to know why and to have a chance to see if they are defensible without any of the bull.

Amaleq13

How about "less mean"?

I wasn't referring to you or your arguments this time either, Neil. I will make a point of being very explicit if I am referring to you or something you have claimed.

And you may rest assured the individual to whom I was referring has had this pointed out several times in the past. In fact, you appear to me to be having the same wonderful experience with him.

Amaleq13

No, what is inherently logically problematic is requiring the burden of proof be fulfilled for a negative assertion. It is inherently logically problematic to prove a negative.

neilgodfrey

I wasn't presuming the focus was on me, only allowing for the possibility I might be among the included, but also speaking from generalized principles that I have come to think I might like to follow when I'm feeling good.

Everyone here is such a lovey-dovey bunch. I think we need a few jerks to force us to rethink from time to time too.

spin

I take this as yet further evasion hiding the agreement to the following statement which you won't admit.

if someone said that none of [the gospel story] is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree.

You've only been asked to admit that you cannot disagree with a statement. You haven't been asked to provide proof against any negative assertion contained therein.


spin

Solitary Man

Take it from me, being a jerk doesn't help people rethink their positions. It is gratifying, however.

Glad to see you're following in the polemicist's footsteps by labeling Amaleq13 a fundy Christian when the last time I checked he was not only an atheist, he wasn't even fully within the HJ camp.

Cheers,

Solitary Man

neilgodfrey

My "jerk" reference was as flippantly ironical as my "lovey dovey" statement. I would not have used "jerk" without having contextualized it thus.

Few people enjoy having their grand ideas, their own babies, exposed as less worthy than they like, and they'll normally attempt to defend them to the hilt and quite rightly. But my experience has also been that anyone genuinely interested in exploring for deeper understanding will eventually take time to revise and rethink nonetheless. And even when one's dialogue partner really is not attempting to engage in serious debate, there are times when one does learn something useful and new even if indirectly and unintended from his point of view. (Sometimes the biggest "jerk" is total "silence" or being totally ignored.)

I came in cold and broke all the rules that tell me I should wait to see where and what everyone is all about etc, but since I tend to be a fly-by-nighter here I didn't think it worth the trouble to take that time, and got bitten as a result. As I explained, I've had my gross misunderstandings patiently pointed out to me, which I have appreciated. (I used to keep all the rules years ago. Must be getting older and less patient nowadays.)

As for your labeling me a "polemicist", it is clear to me that you have done so entirely on the basis of that one statement and your knowledge of Alameq13, without regard to the broader context of my statement. You sound as impatient and reluctant to read the history of our exchanges and to understand the development of my (mis)perception as I was impatient to check the archives to come up to speed with your knowledge in the first place.