Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I am glad this matter is being discussed because I was very disturbed by the goings on in this thread (to be honest, and I hope I am allowed to be honest, I had the sinking feeling that the board was being overrun by fundies [hey, dont delete that - Richard Carrier used it and it was not deleted!])

I felt, correctly or incorrectly, that Gibson was being given a free reign and Doherty was being boxed into a corner. And Gibson was taking that inch and making every kilometre out of it. And his, um, buddies, krosero and GDon came alive and weighed in seeing that the door was flung open for them. And I bet he is laughing his a__ off as we poor atheists discuss over how to manage his important presence without offending his delicate habits and ruffling his scholastic demeanour.

For example, Jeffrey writes elsewhere that Doherty lied. And I write here that Gibson is not saying the truth in making that claim, and my post gets edited immediately because I used the word lie. And Jeffrey takes that as a good sign. He even goes as far as protesting when we use his own name to refer to him! I mean, how inane can things get? Someone who uses the moniker jgibson000 complains when he is called Gibson? If "Gibson" is so abrupt as his supervenient sensibilities choose to tell him, why the hell did he even use it in the first place?!!!! Why not call himself j000 if gibson is so offensive?
How inane can things get! It is like Richard Dawkins using RDawkins000 here and getting hysterical when someone refers to him as Dawkins!. I mean, how many Gibsons on the net have an interest in Biblical criticism?

Look at what is happening here: GDon, Roger Pearse and krosero predictably back Jeffrey. These are people who have been vocal in their anti-atheist stances. krosero is more guarded but GDon calls Doherty's arguments "superior nonsense".

I have no problem with Christians or even historicists. In fact, I even have no problem with Jeffrey. He has done nothing out of what I expect from a historicist, self-righteous believer. What riles anyone who has been around is that he can be given some leverage on an atheist board! while the atheists are told to behave themselves.

Jeffrey called Doherty a liar at the list I linked to. That is what Christians do and its perfectly fine with the moderators there. Try calling Jeffrey a liar there and I will pay you $5000 if your post goes through. And he comes here and presents some lame, convoluted excuse for calling Doherty a liar and that is fine?

This is an individual who is arrogant enough to claim that because kata sarka is so important (for whatever reason), the point to be made was so important to Carrier that Carrier's discipline, thoroughness, erudition and integrity were unable to stop Carrier from cooking an argument. And we allow him to make these rude, disrespectful claims yet we have no reason to believe he is even competent enough that he can distinguish cooked from uncooked kata sarka interpretations!

Doherty made a very serious post about re-evaluating evidence and I hope Jeffrey and others take it seriously. All I ask of the mods is to treat Gibson the way they treat other Christians and atheists on board: impartially.
I have no problem with GDon calling Doherty's thesis "superior nonsense". I also have no problem with Jeffrey claiming Carrier cooked whatever he chooses to claim Carrier cooked. That is what Christians and believers do everyday. I would be shocked if he did anything different.
What riles the hell out of me is my not being allowed to do the same thing. Why place this shield around him that enable him to mock us and ridicule us, and yet when we attempt to ridicule him, or even shame him, we are slammed and told to cut the nonsense and stick to the facts?
On our own board! :banghead:

And he is still comparing Doherty's tenor to that of Gardners? Does Jeffrey know what tenor means?

Originally Posted by Amaleq

Oh, how I long for the days (imaginary though they might actually be) when the discussion was about the evidence rather than this "He said/he said" bullshit that serves no useful purpose, has no realistic likelihood of mutual agreement, and tends to self-perpetuate until somebody stomps off in a huff.

IMO and regardless of who started it none of the primary players in this drama have succeeded in avoiding personal attacks and snide comments.

Is there any rational hope that this discussion might move away from this ersatz group therapy session and toward something that might be at least marginally interesting from an academic perspective?

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Furthermore, he has labeled my whole post an “ad hominem� exercise, because I raise (in a very unhostile tone, I might point out) broader issues about progress in the history of ideas and their acceptance, and the resistance which established scholarship often puts up. So now issues like these cannot even be raised—especially on a forum like this, and especially in a field of study like this—without being labeled ‘ad hominem’? Then he comes up with the most extreme example of a crackpot he can think of who put forward a truly insane theory about the interior of the earth, and who happened to appeal to the Ptolemy-Copernicus issue, and associates me with him.

Originally Posted by krosero

You’re right about the tendency of all established scholarship – among atheists as well as theists – to resist new ideas. Carl Sagan wrote about how Velikovsky’s outlandish theory concerning the orbit of Venus was almost certainly wrong. But he added that for him, the worst part of the whole Velikovsky affair was how other scientists tried to ridicule or shut down Velikovsky rather than simply opposing him with facts and good science. We could all stand to take a page from Carl Sagan’s tone, in my opinion. Make your arguments about the ancient texts. If you invoke Copernicus or Galileo, you’re no longer sticking to the facts, but inviting more such comparisons.

Jeffrey was asked to drop his comparison with Gardner. If that is the case, then the comparison with Copernicus and Galileo should be dropped too. Personally I don’t think any of these comparisons get us very far. One comparison proves that people who are wrong can invoke Copernicus, wrongly. Another proves that unconventional knowledge can overturn longstanding paradigms.

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

You understand it from where? What are your sources?

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

In a short while. First, we need to know what you understand by evidence.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Astronomical evidence led all the leading astronomers for millennia to interpret an earth-centered universe. Should we have stayed there, secure in our personal comfort? What is comforting and what reality may actually be are often two different things. What happened for centuries was that fresh observations were always forced into the mold of earth-centricity, though with ever more awkward and precarious results. That is what has been happening in NT scholarship for decades. No matter what we discover, no matter what the new insights, hang on to Jesus-centricity at all costs. Never mind how much we have to jockey and jerry-rig the tottering paradigm to keep it upright. And when anyone comes along to suggest a different solution, dismiss it out of hand, shout it down.