FatherMithras

What both of you have done is make incorrect statements and assertions about fields you've apparently not studied. You're on the same side, arguing the same position in different, yet equally illogical ways.

buckshot23

If you are not using the absolutist language of absolute objective fact then disregard these criticisms. If you use this type of language then the criticism melts away.

Do not say "the gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses".
Say "the gospels were probably NOT written by eyewitnesses".

Don't say because the consensus agrees with this conclusion that that means something about the claim.

Angrillori

I should have said:

"Everything bucky labels an opinion is not necessarily an opinion."
And, since you're doing it again, trying to intimate that the connotation of the word somehow weakens it, we'll be more specific:

The conclusion, drawn from the evidence, by the consensus of the people who most study, who most access, who most analyze the items and issues in question is that traditional authorship is incorrect.

What's next bucky...."evolution is just a theory?" Since, this is "just a belief..."

To all others: What's up with apologists/creationists and the phrase "just a?" Whether it's implied or explicit, what is their fascination by trying to condemn something by equivocation and the words "just a?"

And that's your reason to dismiss the conclusions, drawn from the evidence, of the consensus of the people who have most studied, most researched, who have had best access to, these items and issues?

Welcome to the grassy knoll!

Which is, as I have shown, in itself hogwash, inconsistent, and just plain irrational.
See! "Consensus has been wrong, so it is worthless." We get it bucky. It's just that that is a preposterous, irrational, and inconsistent position.

Until and unless there's a good reason to dismiss them, it is rational to accept the conclusions drawn from the evidence of the consensus of the people most studied, most involved, and with best access to the evidence concerning the issue or item in question.

"Consensus has been wrong before" and "did you ever overthink a question on a test" are not particularly good reasons.

buckshot23

The accusation of a tag-team effort is ironic considering the level of tag-teaming I have to endure in every thread I come into. This forum is not a 1 theist per thread forum so skeptics can attack that one theist until he relents.

edit: I think I may start addressing one posters replies in each thread that way I can avoid the tag teaming that you all seem to take issue with. What's fair is fair right?

TomboyMom

Perhaps you are confused about what the word "consensus" means?
Is the consensus argument equally worthless when the consensus supports your views? If so, why did you not raise it against the OP?

Kosh

"You keep using that word, I think you do not know what it means..."

is it possible that you are confusing "concesus" with Argumentum ad Numerum ?

Angrillori

And there it is. We're par for the course.

We have:

Out of hand dismissal of experts.
Conspiracy theory.
Accusations of persecution.
Retreat.

The cycle continues.

The Bishop

Just thought I'd pop by with this post by Earl Doherty on the fallacious nature of "the majority view". I know it doesn't necessarily apply here, I just thought it was nicely ironic.

Llyricist

I might have thought about it had I not witnessed you doing the exact same thing in other threads, namely in E/C. e.g.:

creationist: X could not have evolved
numerous posters: sure it could have, here's how
buckshot jumps in: But you don't know for sure that's how it happened!
me: Doesn't matter, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the argument was that it couldn't have happened.

Not only did you shift the argument from the original discussion, you are even using the same lack of 100% certainty argument, which unless you admit to being a global agnostic, is not a particularly consistent argument to make.

Sven

Well, if you can only think in black and white categories, "just black" certainly sounds good, don't you think?