Vorkosigan

I think a major problem is that we no longer have the FPF, which had another function nobody really realized: venting. We could go and vent "Can you believe that (@#*$&@(#*$& [insert idiot's name]?" Now that stuff tends to creep out into the threads rather than being suppressed for venting later in the FPF. Also the crowing and chest beating too, took place in the FPF.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

I am still on the editorial committee, and I still think that the articles of recent times have been quite poor in general. However, that's beside the point--when does BC&H become an extension of the library as it should be?
Understood.
Perhaps, then we should note also that almost all of what atheists post here is Jesus Mythicism, so counter-mythicism is a necessity. Establishing an HJ case is hardly "apologetics" and I disagree with you that "almost all" the Christians here post is apologetics. The reason everything is so frustrating is that no one is introducing any new material here, nor seriously making an attempt to clarify epistemological standards. Vork is right that methodology needs to be clarified. Bede and others are also right that the claim "Jesus existed" is hardly an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary amounts of attestation to be convincing. Too much conflation of terms goes on as well that makes communication impossible. HJ gets mixed up with the Gospel Jesus, or people are not prepared enough to be charitable in taking others' statements without some hidden agenda being read into it.
Not that my opinion matters very much, but my opinion (or what I would have done as a moderator) is that you should have edited CJD, issued a warning telling him to knock it off, and perhaps threatened to close the thread. Or used Hugo's split-and-lock technique. I can understand frustration at the superficiality of such an interpretation to Chronicles, however, but it is not excusable by any stretch of the rules.

What became of the proposed BC&H guidelines that I suggested before I left?

Joel

Doctor X

I would disagree with that, frankly. While there are a few dedicated "mythicists" most are, frankly, "agnostic"--assuming you imply Jesus Mythicism means no historical Junior ever existed.

--J.D.

Celsus

I agree, actually. It's just that there's no point in whitewashing either side of the debate. If one is going to assert that almost all Christians post apologetics, then the reverse assertion can be made with equally dubious merit. Apologetics are what the likes of JP Holding and Jonathan Sarfati write. I would of course, like to see more of the intelligent Christians here distancing themselves from literalist apologetics (as several sometimes do in distancing themselves from YECs and assorted literalists), but I suppose the opportunity doesn't arise all that often.

Joel

Toto

Why is counter-mythicism necessary? If it is necessary, why can't it be done dispassionately with facts, and not with invalid arguments such as appeals to authorities and insults to non-believers? Why has Vinnie been reduced to mockery and insults after failing to persuade people? My experience here was that mythicism was raised by the theists before any atheists made a point of it. Theists are more interested in bashing mythicism than most of the atheists are at supporting it.

I've just done a quick survey of recent posts, and atheists are debating various OT issues, have questions on Biblical errancy, homosexuality and the Bible, and a variety of topics besides mythicism. There are a clump of recent threads on mythicism, a few started by atheists and some by theists, and some split off from those theads. The whole HJ vs MJ issue has heated up lately, after I thought that it was hashed out to the point where most people had taken a position and realized that they would not convert anyone else. It does seem that there is nothing new here.

I disagree with that. I cannot think of anything posted by a Christian here (with the possible exception of Vinnie) that did not have some purpose in promoting Christianity or countering perceived anti-Christian material.

To be fair, the claim that Jesus existed is not extraordinary etc. is due to Jeff Lowder. The secular HJ proponents who think that Jesus was just an ordinary person have not been part of the heated discussion, because they don't really care that much about the issue, or at least they don't care enough to distort historical standards the way the religionists feel compelled to.

I have in the past argued that there is not even an ordinary amount of evidence that supports Jesus' existence. Bede cannot seem to discuss this, he can only rant about how gJohn is clearly based on eyewitness testimony, a position that seems to me to be far beyond what history can support, and then announce that he will not discuss it any more.

I do not think that there is a hidden agenda among the most vociferous debaters here - the agendas are all out in the open.

I have not looked into the issue enough to even know if the interpretation was superficial or not. But I did start this thread to find out if that sort of activist moderation is what people expect here. I did not think it was called for there because the thread did not seem to be about to explode. diana was not responding in kind to CJD, but was using his bad behavior to make herself look better.

I thought about posting them, then decided to start this thread instead to get more of a feel for what people actually want.

Celsus

I think it simply stems from the fact that everyone likes their easy targets from time to time. I've gone after J.P. Holding and Jonathan Sarfati just for fun, but realised that Holding has more stamina and so dropped out. I dislike mockery from either side of course, and so we should speak in general rather than calling individuals out repeatedly.
It's also because he and other Secular Web contributors banked initially on the statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which started primarily as a counter-apologetic argument. Most scholars hardly give any time of day to apologists, so it's barely worth mentioning the ordinariness of such a claim.
Well I can think of a few who got sick of the mythic rehashing of old arguments, and I can also think of a number of theists who have decided to take on Doherty's challenge yet are labeled as apologists for doing so. We have had the same few theists here since as long as I can remember, and the long-time posters have seen most of this before, and are bored of it. If the theists have an agenda, they have been completely unsuccessful, and you'd think they'd have given up by now considering how weighted this board is. As we've already agreed, more graciousness is needed in this debate.
The debate badly needs the introduction of new information or perspective. Either side of the debate simply points out the same things over and over again, and it's not surprising if either is sick of it every time a new apologist comes along. You don't even see Iasion posting here regularly anymore--it's just that mythers who have not seen new information keep arriving and going on about it, without bearing in mind the history of this debate.
And I suspect it will help you both as a moderator and poster to question the assumption of an apologetic agenda on the part of theists. People change over time, and the agendas of the past do as well.
II is not a democracy. You need to do what you feel is needed to improve the quality of discussion, and thus make your job easier. People enjoyed the bickering in PD, but that didn't stop tight rules from being implemented. I say the same needs to be applied to BC&H, and then you can sort out the apologists and polemicists from the seekers.

Joel

Vinnie

:notworthy LMAo! :notworthy

Vinnie

LOLOLOLOLOL

And you wonder why I laugh and mock.....

Toto

I think it is because you think that you have proven something, but others do not agree, and you have run out of further logical arguments. You have been reduced to mockery because you can't reformulate your argument to get through to people and you don't want to admit that it might indicate there is something wrong with your argument or with your ability to articulate it.

This is always a dilemma. I recall trying to explain to people - people I agreed with and who considered themselves rationalists - in 2000 that the election of George Bush would be a disaster, and Nader should not risk that outcome. I though I had all of the rational arguments, but they wouldn't agree, and the subject is still a sore one on all sides.

No one is completely rational in this. Have some charity towards your fellow seekers.

Doctor X

See? Who ever said a moderator could not admit when he was wrong!

--J.D.