Ktotwf

I'm confused why you seem to be holding atheists to this standard, yet what we are accusing Holding of is EXACTLY what you are saying good debaters don't do. Yet that doesn't seem to bother you in the least. :huh:

You seem here to be applying a double standard to sort of stealthily accuse atheists of being close-minded and hateful.

Furthermore, I find your view that someone with a killer argument being "weary and courteously patient" too naive - do you REALLY believe that the good argument always wins out in the end? If that were the case whence politics, or war, or any conflict between educated and intelligent people about any sort of ideology? You can have the right answer and still lose because your opponent seems flashier, or cockier than you, or because he is more popular.


It is unprofessional to be rude.

The point being made by and large is that Turkel is ESPECIALLY odious not only because he is wrong, but because he is a jerk about it.

Nearly all atheists I have ever seen engage gladly in dialogue with apologists, however they expect respect and fair treatment in return. When that isn't there, the obvious reaction is scorn and an effort to ignore. But that is also difficult because so many see silence as a concession of defeat.

Rick Sumner

These kind of generalizations are silly.

Ktotwf

What in the hell are you talking about? The only generalization I made was that many atheists like engaging in dialogues with apologists, which I have found to be true, and in any case I added in the "I have ever seen" to make sure that I wasn't making a huge generalization that others might find to ring hollow.

Nothing else in what you quoted is a generalization as much as an explanation.

Steven Carr

Do you think JP (No Link) Holding should virtually always refuse to ever link to what his opponents say, and try to hide their names as best he can so that it takes a lot of Google searching to find the other half of this 'debate'?

Although Holding has got a lot better over the years. He now spell-checks his articles, and the grammar and syntax have improved considerably.


Holding's 'arguments' include such gems as claims that anybody found in possession of Acts of the Apostles would have been put to death if that person could not prove that everything in the book had happened as described.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

'If Luke lied in his reports, Luke probably would have been jailed and/or executed by Agrippa's son, Herod Agrippa II (who held the same position), because that was the fellow Paul testified to in Acts 25-26 (reported by Luke). '

There is no scholarship, and we can only guess from what part of his anatomy Holding pulled that one from.

'And Agrippa II was alive and in power after Luke wrote and circulated Acts....'

There is, of course, zero scholarship in Holding's article for this claim that Acts was 'circulated' by Luke.

But if you point out that Holding simply makes things up, you will get abused by Holding.

Steven Carr

I should point out that Holding is very often right on the money.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

'You start a religion by linking to obscure and nameless people.'

Not a single Christian in the first century ever put his name to a document stating he had even heard of Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Joanna, Salome, Martha, the other Mary, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, his sons Rufus and Alexander, Barabbas etc etc, let alone seen them.

Paul does mention a Rufus, but never connects him with a Gosepl character.

So Holding is on the money again. You start a fake religion by inventing a whole host of people whose existence cannot be checked.

Sheshbazzar

a nobody

John W. Loftus

This one is a model refutation, Roger. I was very surprised that a scholar of Hector Avalos's stature would take the time to do so, but he did, and it's a slam dunk.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...nds-to-jp.html

But here is how Holding works. Authors put a great deal of time and effort in their books. So Holding throws around bits of information, makes mountains out of molehills, uses non-sequiturs, and in the midst of this personally attacks them. He called Dr. Avalos, Dr. Stupid, ya see. Doing this gets a rise out of us. So we respond. When we do Holding's juvenile followers think he must be doing something right, and he gets more followers. Holding did not admit any of Hector's points even though they were thoroughly refuted and still continued calling him Dr. Stupid.

That's a person who deserves no response, in my opinion, as I said.

Cheers.

John Kesler

When I did a Google search for "celsus jp holding" at TheologyWeb, I got this link in which Holding states that no such debate ever took place.

On page three of the first TWeb thread that comes up on the aforementioned Google search, Holding provides a link to the radio debate.

Steven Carr

Holding put 'debated' in scare quotes, so he can deny any such debating ever took place.

I guess Holding has hardly 'debated' anybody at all, using his flexible definition of the word 'debated'.

Roger Pearse

This is far better than the usual stuff I see. I think we could do with more of this.

Edit: it seems that not merely have I read this before, and forgotten it; I discussed some points of it in the comments at the bottom of that page! Avalos didn't really seem to understand what he was saying, to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse