Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 06-25-2008, 05:30 PM

Besides the insults (and Toto's favoritism) Doherty retorted with vile speech and no substance. No surprise there.

patcleaver · 06-25-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

An argument from authority that isn't even accurate, just isn't very interesting.
If you don't get the basic facts correct this is just a waste of time.

You are aware that an accusation of argument from authority carries little or no weight to a collective intelligence?

Read the argument to authority accusation closely. It applies to a singular authority, and not so much as to a collective of authorities. Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument.

But when you go against a collective of authorities, the arguments against will in fact require another collective of authorities to be in any way substantiative.

Since you have not provided a collective of authorities, then your argument is without credulity.

The "appeal to authority fallacy" applies to collective authorities just as well as individual authorities because:
ultimately only evidence is an authority. :thumbs:

The only people or groups who should be recognized as authorities are those that we trust (based on evidence) to show us the evidence and reliably base their opinions only on the evidence. :thumbs:

The reason that we recognize respected scientists and fields of science as authorities is that we have evidence that they are willing to show us the evidence and they usually base their opinions only on the evidence. :thumbs:

The reason that we don't recognize insane crackpot theologians, and insane crackpot Bible scholars, and insane crackpot Bible historians, and insane crackpot Bible archeologists as authorities is that we have evidence that they base their opinions on insane delusions and crazy wishful thinking.

FathomFFI · 06-25-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Well, “Solitary Man” (no wonder!) did not come back with anything one couldn’t have expected. Most of it was scorn, and of a pretty juvenile kind. <edit>

<edit>

mens_sana · 06-25-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Besides the insults (and Toto's favoritism) Doherty retorted with vile speech and no substance. No surprise there.

I noticed that (as far as Doherty is concerned). I also got the impression of bruised amour propre, as when "orthodoxy" is questioned by someone whose proper position should be obsequious obeisance.

mens_sana · 06-25-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

The only people or groups who should be recognized as authorities are those that we trust (based on evidence) to show us the evidence and reliably base their opinions only on the evidence. :thumbs:

The reason that we recognize respected scientists and fields of science as authorities is that we have evidence that they are willing to show us the evidence and they usually base their opinions only on the evidence. :thumbs:

The reason that we don't recognize insane crackpot theologians, and insane crackpot Bible scholars, and insane crackpot Bible historians, and insane crackpot Bible archeologists as authorities is that we have evidence that they base their opinions on insane delusions and crazy wishful thinking.

But that would require demonstrating that these people are insane crackpots. Have you any expertise in this kind of clinical assessment?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

FathomFFI · 06-25-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This thread is a mess, and we are short on mods.

I have split off some posts that did not seem helpful here.

Oh I see.

<edit>

Since his post is still here, any objections to me responding to it? Or should you not remove it also?

<edit>

Toto · 06-25-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This thread is a mess, and we are short on mods.

I have split off some posts that did not seem helpful here.

Oh I see.

You left Earl's insulting post to me here, while taking my reply off here and locked the thread?

...

Substantive responses are welcome. One liners are discouraged.

If you feel you were insulted, you can report the post.

I may be splitting off some more of this thread.

FathomFFI · 06-25-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

...
Who said you agreed with his stance on Tacitus, since the context is about whether or not he had a valid argument regarding his usage of Jesus the carpenter? Don't even try shifting the goalposts here.

Mr argument isn't baseless whatsoever, for my argument was that since he considered Tacitus "worthless" he would then attempt tp spend more time on discrediting it than he did attempting to discredit any other evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus, and that includes the TF and the James entries in Antiquities combined.

If you were familiar with McKinsey's arguments you would know this. The only reason he made 32 bogus arguments against Tacitus is because he had not a shred of evidence to make even one good argument.

McKinsey is a joke.

What does any of this have to do with my point?

Who cares about what someone argued in 1985? Any I don't think you countered my point.

You are confused about how historical arguments work.

There are many historical inaccuracies besides Christian interpolations. If you think that historians just accept what they read in ancient documents, you are misguided.

But you refuse to read the most relevant scholarship on the issue. . .

Which numbers in Acts? Acts describes the community of believers at 120 at one point.

Correction: one parapgraph in a letter says that Christianity was spreading. But I don't think we have defined major or minor cult, so I'm not sure exactly what the argument is here

Do you think I haven't read that letter before? Are you aware of the totality of the evidence?

Show me that you understand what those words mean and we might discuss how far off you are.

Quote:

Now that is what we call "unscholarly and irresponsible." You try to cast doubt with unsupported assertion in some desperate attempt to hang onto a ridiculous and totally unproven notion that Jesus Christ was a myth. You deny every last speck of evidence with cheap skepticism, making a mockery out of honest skeptics everywhere.

....

I am not arguing for mythicism here. I am just trying to get you to realize what the debate is about and why your dogmatism and combativeness are not an asset to your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Oh I see.

<edit>

...

Substantive responses are welcome. One liners are discouraged.

If you feel you were insulted, you can report the post.

I may be splitting off some more of this thread.

<edit>

Toto · 06-25-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Substantive responses are welcome. One liners are discouraged.

If you feel you were insulted, you can report the post.

I may be splitting off some more of this thread.

<edit>

I repeat: if you think you were insulted, use the report post button. Don't assume that the mods read everything, or read everything the same way.

Expect more splits.

Toto · 06-25-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FathomFFI

...

Well perhaps if you didn't attack me with ad hominems I wouldn't appear so combative? Insulting my knowledge is not going to get you any friends over here.

Think about it.

OK I thought about it.

I don't think I engaged in any ad hominems. You can point one out if you disagree.

You have been combative since about your first post here, and you arrived here after being banned from two other boards.

06-25-2008, 05:30 PM	#1
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	over the line posts split from Tacitus Besides the insults (and Toto's favoritism) Doherty retorted with vile speech and no substance. No surprise there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.