unregistered_user_1

At the Iron Chariots page.

Just started, but it could eventually become useful...

jgibson000

Hmm. The description notes that:

"We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for religious claims."

Who is the "we" mentioned here? Are they qualified to judge the adequacy or validity of "religious claims"?

Do they work from the apriori, held by many here on IIDB, not only that all who mount a defense of religious claims, or of the HJ, are "apologists", but that nothing put forward by an "apologist" can be anything but misinformed and logically fallacious?

I wonder if they'll also be as critical of the misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for the "look how stupid believers are" and "Jesus never existed/christianity is warmed up mystery religion" and questionable/linguistically inadequate exegetical claims that "anti apologists" frequently put forth as they intend to be of the claims mooted by "apologists"?

Could be useless except to those who already have their minds made up..


JG

hallq

Sheesh, way to jump to conclusions...

I think the idea is great, even if it's obviously in it's rudimentary stages. Given that it's a wiki, the 'we' is whoever decides to contribute. I've alread written several articles myself:

Outsider test
Miracles in history
Gospels
Resurrection

My general aim is to present controversies within the atheist community the way that Wikipedia presents all controversies. I would encourage anyone concerned about the quality of this project to chip in themselves. It could make a useful encyclopedia-style counterpart to the Internet Infidel's modern library, and I hope the project is sucessful.

Toto

Possibly you have never lost a loved one to a cult operating as a Christian church, and have never had your loved one start quoting Josh McDowell to you.

I hope so. It is important for counter-apologists to avoid logical or historical fallacies that can be easily refuted - it maintains credibility.

Since we have truth and righteousness on our side, we don't need to distort the evidence. It is certainly not necessary to prove that Jesus never existed or that Christianity is a copycat religion, just to keep people out the clutches of fundamentalists.

You may also notice that this board does not tolerate statements such as "believers are stupid." We all know a lot of smart believers (actually, I know and have known a lot of smart believers in an amazing variety of religions, cults, and bizarre political philosophies). And we try to maintain standards - correcting outdated or false statements along the lines of Kersey Graves' crucified saviors.

Just remember that if you want to change people's minds, you don't want to start off by insulting them.

jgibson000

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain to me how asking questionsabout the orientation of, and the (if any) assumptions behind, the Counter Apologetics Wiki -- which, if you'll read my post carefully, is all I did -- is tantamount to "jumping to conclusions" about these things.

If there's any "sheeshing" to be done here, it's over how you accuse me of doing something I did not do.

JG

jgibson000

Then again, perhaps I have. And perhaps I've lost a love one to the "Jesus was a copycat God" cult who started quoting Freke and Gandy to me.

But how this is relevant to (let alone answers) my question of whether the "we" behind the new Wiki "work from the apriori .... not only that all who mount a defense of religious claims, or of the HJ, are "apologists", but that nothing put forward by an "apologist" can be anything but misinformed and logically fallacious" is beyond me.

:huh:

The issue isn't what you do or do not "need" to do, but what in practice you and "your side" actually does.

And as I and Don and Ben Smith and others have shown, members of "your side's" distorting of "the evidence" is often par for the course.

The Wiki's description says nothing about combating the religious clams of "fundamentalists". It speaks of -- and designates as its target" -- "religious claims" in general.

Really? Then why have you allowed Joe (there are no rational Christians) Wallack, Ted (Christians are ignorant fools) Hoffman, the <edit> "A" man, and Earl (the only reason that scholars don't accept my views is that they are blind and biased, have no imagination, and don't dare to think outside the box) ) Doherty to post?

Yes, I've seen how you do this by when you allow and do not challenge people who persistently make claims to knowledge they do not posses to lecture those who question them and to run away from their responsibility to provide relevant evidence in support of what they assert.

I've seen how you do this when you allow and do not challenge people who have no competency in ancient languages to go on to tell us confidently, if not arrogantly, what the wording and the syntax and the grammar of a Greek or Hebrew or Syriac or Latin text has to mean.

I've seen how you do this when you allow and do not challenge people who never use anything but the internet for their research, and who are absolutely unfamiliar with even a minimal amount of the scholarly literature on the topic they are making claims about, to continually make global and apodictic pronouncements that we are supposed to take not only as extremely well informed and authoritative, but as "the truth".

I've seen how you do this when you allow and do not challenge those who make text critical claims about the Greek text to do so solely on the basis of English translations of that text.

So, pray tell, what are the standards -- and particularly, what are the specific standards of academic discourse -- that you think you are maintaining?

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Would you like some Jesus with your wine? I tell you the Truth though, I Am always honored to be Protes on any list. By The Way, I never said there are no rational Christians (I just think it).

I think Ben (more than you) has clearly demonstrated a few times that Mr. Doherty is more of an Advocate than a Judge on certain points. Maybe if you created a Poll for Skeptics to measure the effectiveness of your Dissing of Doherty the results would make you feel better.

Your attitude is Annoying because even though most Posts here have no or little scholarly value the level of scholarship here is still exponentially better than say Tweeb where you could do a lot more good. That being said though your questioning, criticism and Mainstream Christian viewpoints are a valuable Asset here and very welcome. I would guess that most Skeptics here feel the same way.

These General categorizations are secondary to a Direct analysis of the evidence anyway. Supposed "authority" is as well. Does the fact that you have no idea who "Spin" is significantly effect the value of his/His/her/its evidence?

In:

WhoSonfirst? Anti-Separationist Corruption In The First Gospel

and

Mark 16--who's studied this?

I Am in the process of ripping France and Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship New Testaments. Now, are you going to keep wasting time making General complaints or point out how my Specific claims are overstated, selective proof-texting similar to the Christian Bible's claims about Jesus in the Jewish Bible?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Thank you for showing once again that you don't know the difference between a Greek adverb (PROTES) and a Greek adjective (PROTOS) and that you haven't a clue when their use is grammatically appropriate and when it isn't, what a predicate nominative is, and what case the adjective should be in given the syntax of your assertion above.

And what's with the capitalizations of "truth" and "am"?

Thanks for proving my point. But you indeed did "say" that there are no rational Christians as well that being a Christian entails abandonmet of rationality, albeit somewhat indirectly, in a recent comment you made about Dan Wallace.

:huh: What on earth does this mean?

And why the capitalizations of "advocate" and "judge"?

Maybe you'd feel better if you ceased engaging in amateur psychology and attempts at mind reading.

Again, :huh:

"affect"

Don't you mean his "arguments"? And did I ever say that knowing who he is did or would have any bearing on my estimate of the validity of his arguments?

And why the capitalizations of "general", "direct", "poll", and "dissing"?

You are in the process of something, that's for certain. But geeze, Jospeh. How can you "rip" someone, even assuming you have the capabilities of doing so, when there's not a shred of evidence that you've ever grasped what he has said or understood what the issues are that he's raised?

Perhaps you should create a "Poll for Skeptics" to measure the effectiveness of your "ripping" France, not to mention whether the ripping you claim to have done is more apparent than real and actually exists anywhere except in your own mind.

And why the capitalization of "am" and "mainstream"?

Leaving aside both the fact that I have pointed out on more than one occasion how your "Specific" claims are overstated, not to mention generally uninformed, and that it's question begging that my "complaints" (if this is what I've been doing") are either "general" or "a waste of time" (didn't you just say otherwise with respect to my "complaints" about "Mainstream (sic) Christian Viewpoints (sic)", may I ask if have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And why the capitalization of "general" and "specific" and "viewpoints"?

yasaptz

JG

speaknoevil

What's wrong with calling defenders of religous claims "apologists"?

Amaleq13

Jeffrey,

You appear to confused about what is prohibited by the rules and what must be demonstrated through discussion and debate.

It is up to forum members to call into question the strength of a given claim and up to the individual members to reach their own judgment about the competency of the claimant based on their defense.

It is up to the moderators to ensure that the discussion described above is conducted civilly according to IIDB rules.

You were supposed to read the rules prior to joining. You'll find prohibited none of the alleged offenses you describe being unchallenged. The "standards of academic discourse" are upheld by the participation of the members.