Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 06-23-2008, 06:23 AM

sschlichter,

Go ahead and meet the Barker challenge, and a discussion will follow.

Or, please present your counter to the DH as was previously requested of you.

dr lazer blast · 06-23-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The fear came with the joy but your attempt to change the explicitly described "fear" into "doubt" has already been recognized as an equivocation. As I also already pointed out, your argument requires one to pretend the text says something it does not.

incorrect. My narrative states that fear came after joy which goes along with the gospel of Mark saying the last emotion they felt was fear.

Quote:

My logically sound appeal to an expert continues to establish the plain reading of John 20:2 over your apparently unique, unsupported and implausible reading. Your consistent failure to accurately grasp my arguments does not constitute a contradiction on my part.

A logically sound argument is not an arugument from authority, once again you have no point.

and since it seems no other person will criticize my narrative I am going to keep it the way it is.

Amaleq13 · 06-23-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

My narrative states that fear came after joy which goes along with the gospel of Mark saying the last emotion they felt was fear.

Mark only describes fear as they left the angels. Matthew describes fear and joy as they left the angels.

Neither supports the notion that fear followed joy and negated it.

Neither supports your fallacious attempt to change the explicitly described fear into doubt about what the angels said.

Therefore, your narrative continues to fail to meet the requirements of the challenge.

Quote:

A logically sound argument is not an arugument from authority...

Your own source (actually all sources on logical errors), as well as common sense, say otherwise. It is simply idiotic to suggest that all appeals to authority on a subject qualify as fallacious reasoning. Have you never read a single scholarly work? Have you never heard of a bibliography or citations? That is the only way you could remain ignorant of the legitimacy and ubiquity of citing authorities on a subject as support. :banghead:

Keith&Co. · 06-23-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is simply idiotic to suggest that all appeals to authority on a subject qualify as fallacious reasoning.

DLB fails to see the difference in an argument from authority (which works, it's why we have authorities, to reference their work) and argument from RESPECT FOR authority (which is pretty much namedropping or quote mining).

One's a fallacy, one's the way the world works. DLB doesn't seem to know enough to detect or use the difference.

Sheshbazzar · 06-23-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

and since it seems no other person will criticize my narrative I am going to keep it the way it is.

Yet other persons have already criticized your narrative, and have called the basis of your reasoning into question, you have thus far chosen only to ignore and deflect those questions that reveal the fallacy of of your reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Quote:

wrong you're assuming it's their reactions to the angels, and the text does not support that, the text states they DEPARTED with fear and joy, which is stating the fear and joy was during the departure and nothing else, so if there are reactions (i am saying If for the sake of argument here), one should note that the reactions are based upon the departure.

your contradicting assumptions are just that, assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It seems everyone reading these passages (including dr lazer blast) agrees that the text states that "they departed with fear and joy"
The dividing point is over the reason(s) for the existence of that recorded state of "fear and joy".
Every interpretation and commentary that I have ever encountered has followed a plain reading that the cause and the reason generating that "fear and joy" was their experience of those sights and statements that they had seen and heard prior to their departure.
Reading this protracted argument, one cannot help but wonder, to what factors does dr lazar attribute that "fear and joy" if it was not a result and reaction to those things they had just previously seen and heard?

Dr lazer,
We are told that on departure they experienced "fear", omitting the causes related in the preceding narrative, WHY would they be experiencing any "fear" (or "doubt") on their departure?
We are told that on departure they experienced "joy", omitting the details of the preceding narrative, WHY would they be experiencing any "joy" on their departure?

I am not trying to continue an argument, just attempting to understand the logic that you (alone) seem to be employing to arrive at your opinion regarding these verses.
I have read a lot over the years, but have never before encountered the peculiar interpretation that you have been arguing for within these posts.

Which of course makes me to wonder, if there is there any identifiable church, denomination, or sect that regularly employs, teaches or shares this unusual and peculiar textual interpretation with you?
In other words, can you supply us with names of those authorities within your church who have produced writings showing clear support for your unusual interpretation of these verses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

you're missing the point, I am showing amaleq how he's contradicting himself. He can make assumptions that aren't based upon the text, but he is telling me I can't. Thats absurd. I am just using his logic to show him his own mistakes

You previously dodged the answering of these four specific questions by the diversion of a claim of my "missing the point", and the substituting of your complaints about Amaleq.
You dont just get off the hook by making up a (false) claim that other persons here have not criticised your faulty narrative, while you have as of yet failed or refused to answer any such questions as would cause you to review and to change those faults and errors that are presently in your fabricated narrative and faulty reasoning, and which are so readily apparent to others here.

dr lazer blast · 06-23-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is simply idiotic to suggest that all appeals to authority on a subject qualify as fallacious reasoning.

DLB fails to see the difference in an argument from authority (which works, it's why we have authorities, to reference their work) and argument from RESPECT FOR authority (which is pretty much namedropping or quote mining).

One's a fallacy, one's the way the world works. DLB doesn't seem to know enough to detect or use the difference.

I don't think you realize thats what he did.

Amaleq: Scripture X means this
DLB: why?
Amaleq: Because this pastor says so.

That is an argument from authority.

dr lazer blast · 06-23-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yet other persons have already criticized your narrative, and have called the basis of your reasoning into question, you have thus far chosen only to ignore and deflect those questions that reveal the fallacy of of your reasoning.

2 people have criticized it so far, 1 is amaleq and he had valid criticsms all the way up until i pointed out that fear came after joy, thats when he resorted to using fallacious reasoning. Christmyth criticized my narrative, I answered his questions, and he responded with "Talking to dlb is like talking to a brick wall" which isn't a criticsm on my narrative, so I'd say you're wrong on this one.

Quote:

You previously dodged the answering of these four specific questions by the diversion of a claim of my "missing the point", and the substituting of your complaints about Amaleq.
You dont just get off the hook by making up a (false) claim that other persons here have not criticised your faulty narrative, while you have as of yet failed or refused to answer any such questions as would cause you to review and to change those faults and errors that are presently in your fabricated narrative and faulty reasoning, and which are so readily apparent to others here.

your point about the churches is not valid. There are thousands of interpretations of the bible, not to mention that your the authoritative figures you're appealing to aren't involved in the baker challenge. I am sure, no i am 100% positive(because I've already asked different 'authoritative figures') that the narrative I layed out is entirely plausible. Mary not believing what the angels said is entirely plausible.

There is a difference between criticizing the narrative with VALID criticsms, and criticizing it with fallacious logic, so I don't know where youre getting these false claims from.

dr lazer blast · 06-23-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Mark only describes fear as they left the angels. Matthew describes fear and joy as they left the angels.

this is why I continue to say you are wrong, look at the text, I posted it once before, but looks like you didn't read it.

Quote:

Mark 16
8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Quote:

Matthew 28
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Quote:

8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre

8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre

Both accounts state they departed from the tomb.

Quote:

for they trembled and were amazed:

with fear and great joy

Both accounts state that they had fear and joy.

Quote:

neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Mark says that the last thing they had was fear, so it is entirely plausible that they had fear joy and fear.

Quote:

A logically sound argument is not an arugument from authority...

Quote:

Your own source (actually all sources on logical errors), as well as common sense, say otherwise. It is simply idiotic to suggest that all appeals to authority on a subject qualify as fallacious reasoning. Have you never read a single scholarly work? Have you never heard of a bibliography or citations? That is the only way you could remain ignorant of the legitimacy and ubiquity of citing authorities on a subject as support. :banghead:

thats the problem now isn't it?, is the pastor invovled in the baker challenge? no he isn't, so his opinion isn't valid.

thentian · 06-23-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

I am wondering if there are any other criticisms about my narrative?

I'm back! (After a week of forced labor. Or work; whatever you choose to call it.)

Umm... I had kinda expected a version with what was said by whom, where and when, by now. I did point out that your narrative needs to have that according to the rules.

Amaleq13 · 06-23-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Both accounts state that they had fear and joy.

No, you introduce a new equivocation here since "amazed" and "joy" are not synonymous. The definition is actually much closer to "fear". Mark has fear and amazement. Matthew has fear and joy. Neither have doubt and your imported doubt subsequent to Matthew's joy continues to be as implausible as it is non-existent in the texts.

Quote:

Mark says that the last thing they had was fear, so it is entirely plausible that they had fear joy and fear.

But not doubt. You can play word games trying to shift the described fear around as much as you want but none of it is relevant to the absence of doubt in the texts you are supposed to be summarizing.

Quote:

...is the pastor invovled in the baker challenge?

The fact that his opinion is entirely independent of the challenge is to my advantage. You haven't correctly understood a goddamn thing in this whole exchange. :banghead:

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

06-23-2008, 06:23 AM	#341
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	sschlichter, Go ahead and meet the Barker challenge, and a discussion will follow. Or, please present your counter to the DH as was previously requested of you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.