dr lazer blast

Ad hominem fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are not answering the question, instead you are just going off and attacking my beliefs. Now, answer the question.

If scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc. can get things wrong the first time, why can't I? are you biased against me? do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?

Toto

Dr LB: Sure, you are allowed to get things wrong the first time. But you did that, and we've gone beyond it. You are still wrong on the Nth try.

dr lazer blast

I havn't even made a real 2nd narrative yet. I made the first narrative and atheos pointed out that I did it wrong (in post #53 he said it can't be in the form of question and answer), So I made the first official narrative in post #55 and haven't made a 2nd one since. So once again, whats you're point? there is no Nth time (as you put it) there hasen't even been a SECONED time. So you asserting that it has been on the 'Nth' try is either you not paying attention, or just being intenionlly dishonest, all I am doing now is just clarifying a couple details with amequee13.

temporalillusion

It's not about getting it right or wrong and on what try, it's about accepting something as valid or invalid based on the results.

A scientists has a hypothesis and does things to try and validate it. He gets it wrong 1000 times, but he totally understands that the hypothesis isn't supported UNTIL he gets it right. Then he can say his hypothesis has support and maybe deserves to be widely accepted.

The Barker Challenge is targeted at those who hold that the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction, because typically that works in the opposite direction; the perfectness of the Bible is assumed as true and then one works backwards to support that, going through whatever twists and turns are necessary to reconcile the problems. How many attempts do you think is reasonable to make and getting it wrong before you'd admit that there are discrepancies that can't be reconciled?

It's not a bias against an individual, it's holding everything to the same standards of logic and reason.

Once I started to look at scripture objectively rather than as a perfect source of everything (the Bible is almost an idol to some Christians nowadays) and reading it directly rather than through the filter of others, it quickly became apparent that it isn't inerrant and self consistent.

And many many Christians accept that the Bible is a record of some people's quest to understand God, so these discrepancies don't threaten them.

Stephen T-B

""scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc' are concerned with activities which do not involve all-powerful supernatural entities like the Biblical god." (ST-B)

Question to DLB - true or false?

Another question: Is it true or false that the account of the resurrection does involve the all-powerful, supernatural Biblical god?

And a last question: if the answer to both questions is "true", why am I guilty of an ad hominem fallacy when stating that I have a rational reason for expecting you to get the resurrection story all nicely sorted out first time, but allow "scientists, logicians, mathemeticians" a greater leeway?

dr lazer blast

Stop with your ad hominen attacks and answer the question. All you're doing is avoiding my question the way it was proposed to you. answer the question for the 4th time.

If scientists, logicians, mathemeticians, etc. etc. can get things wrong the first time, why can't I? are you biased against me? do you have a rational reason why I cannot get it wrong on the first try? or the 2nd? or the 3rd? but its ok for others to do so?

this is the 4th time you have no answered my question and tried to change the subject. Answer it.

Toto

Dr LB: I think your question has been answered. It would be OK for you to get things wrong on the first try if you got them right on some later try. But you haven't done this yet.

You are in danger of winning the coveted position of runner up to the Broken Record Award. Please stop asking that question and deal with the problems in your reconstruction.

dr lazer blast

Until someone can show me a contradiction in my narrative, or an inconsistency that I cannot correct, then I will concede, atheos was not able to show any contradictions or inconsistencies I could not correct (and I am not degrading him in anyway) and so far neither has ameqee. Until someone can show me a valid reason why I am wrong according to the rules of the challenge I will continue to assert that my narrative is coherent, consistent, and does not leave out any details. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide the necessary evidence of why you think my narrative is not coherent, consistent, or leaves out details.

So your personal experiences from reading the bible are appreciated, but they aren't doing anything to prove my narrative is not coherent, consistent, or leaving out any details.

This goes to anyone else that wants to drag me off topic, I am going to do my best to not go off on tangents anymore, and if you have a problem with that PM me, In closing toto has no point, and stephon T has not answered the question as I phrased it for the 4th time. To prevent myself from going off topic I am only going to respond people that have read the narrative, and have criticisms about my narrative regarding the ruels to the challenge. Thanks, if you have a problem and it isn't in regards to the challenge either wait till this is over, set a thread, or PM me.

Kharakov

Hey atheists, God (operation Lord Conspiracy) did us a favor today on iGoogle. I have this regular art link to religious paintings (as you know, I am entertained by fiction, love it, absolutely enamored with deceit, including the deceit of Christinsanity). So, anyone care to guess what the topic of the painting of the day is?

http://www.artbible.info/art/large/48.html

Amaleq13

Wrong again. You've never taken a class in logic, have you?

I deny your assertion because 1) you offered no evidence to support it and 2) nothing I have read on traumatic experiences repeats your assertion and 3) I have not found it to be true in my professional experience.

You and I both know you are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable because you and I both know you were doing nothing but asserting your unsubstantiated opinion.

As I've already noted, it doesn't matter even if true. All I need is an understanding that he was alive and we've already seen the passage that gives me this. Understanding (and being joyful) that he was alive is incompatible with subsequently expressing concern about the unknown location of his dead body.

I don't think you've correctly identified a single logical fallacy yet. At least you are consistent.

I am not, contrary to your faulty identification, suggesting I am correct because Pastor Guzik agrees with me. I am presenting him as supportive evidence for my reading. I've got a Christian clergyman who agrees that John 20:2 depicts Mary expressing concern about the location of Jesus' dead body.

You claimed she is referring to the location of his living body.

If you can produce a single atheist (with some sort of similar academic pedigree) who agrees with your reading, I will happily concede that your position is just as reasonable and just as supported. Good luck. :thumbs:

It makes your position weaker in comparison if only for lack of support and demonstrates conclusively that my reading does not result from any bias on my part. Can you do the same?

What the hell are you babbling about? I'm referring to the chronological order of the joyful reaction/understanding as compared to the concerns about the dead body expressed to Peter. The former precedes the latter in your attempted harmonization so the former should precede the latter in an analogy. Understand? In your harmony the "doubt" is followed by the "joy". In your analogy the doubt preceded the joy.

You had it backwards. The analogy is not analogous.

So it is my fault you keep saying things that are not true? :rolling:

That must be why you haven't done the honorable thing and apologized for any of your demonstrated false accusations. I was wondering if it simply reflected a character flaw. Good to know.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you not understand it? If not reactions to something, what are the joy and fear? Random emotions that just popped into their heads?

If the joy was not a reaction, why did you repeat that it was earlier today?

Let me guess. It is my fault. :rolling:

Save your energy and focus on obtaining support for your reading of John 20:2. I'm getting tired of shooting the same fish over and over. :wave: