Toto

I did not realize that Doherty's response referred to other articles, although it should have been obvious.

Layman's other articles can be accessed from this page.

Layman

Thank you Toto.

Hey JA, who has the "reading problem"?

And I'm going to assume that Doherty did not include this part of his response in his email to you. Pease confirm:

It would appear I have come to the wrong place to try and discuss such issues in depth.

Toto

Layman, it would help if you toned down the sarcasm a bit. It did take me a little bit of detective work to locate the articles.

If you want a serious discussion, please don't start out by heaping scorn on those who disagree with you.

Layman

It might help if you did something about attacks on me, such as a personal one accusing me of having a "reading problem" instead of chastising me for daring to respond to such personal attacks. Afterall, Doherty himself talks about their being more than one article.

And I'm not sure what your moderator duties involve, but I cannot imagine that it would have taken much "detective work" to notice the thread I initiated titled, "A Thorough Review of Doherty's Analysis of Hebrews" that links to one of the articles.

So it might help more if you tried to be a fair moderator for a change.

Bede

Toto, you are SUCH a hypocrite. I've just trudged through this thread and there are four posters all attacking Layman, including you. Mods should fascilitate discussion but you just make it more difficult.

The only think the mythers have decided is that scholarly concensus counts for nothing to them. This is helpful to know but really just underlines their monumental arrogance. At least when I come up with controversial matters I have the backing of a sizable number od real scholars (but clearly that doesn't matter anyway).

Robbins thesis is dead. After Peter's paper is is irrational to continue to believe it. Not just wrong, but utterly unjustifiable. At least Jacob admits that Peter is using logic and reasoning. I also thought freethinkers approved of these things but clearly not when they produce results they don't like.

Layman, you are wasting your time here. Half the mods have left, presumably because they got sick of the atmosphere here. If intelligent infidels can't stand it, what chance have theists got?

B

Amaleq13

A scholarly consensus is only as meaningful as the basis of the agreement. Simply referring to the fact that more scholars accept a given theory than reject it does not constitute an actual argument for that theory. Unless the basis of the consensus is referenced, an appeal to the majority continues to be a error in logic.

What is arrogant about asking for the basis of the consensus rather than a simple head count?

In support of your argument, do you only offer the number of scholars or do you offer the argument those scholars tend to accept? Do you quote specific rebuttals/arguments from scholars or do you quote their unsubstantiated dismissals of the opposing view?

I have absolutely no problem with the possibility that there exists a sound, rational, and coherent response to Doherty that could serve to utterly destroy it as a credible thesis. I haven't seen it here or in any linked articles but I don't deny it is possible. However, I also have standards for a critical consideration of the evidence that do not include reliance upon logical errors and/or false information. I'm interested in substantive arguments directly addressing specific claims made by specific theories. When I find examples, I try to offer my own understanding of, for example, Doherty's thesis or just my own understanding of the evidence in response. So far, when the original "HJ" poster has bothered to reply, all I've gotten are unsubstantiated dismissals and, lately, ad hominem attacks.

I try not to take arrogant dismissals, avoidance behavior, and ad hominem jibes personally but I do take them as an indication that a truly substantive argument does not exist.

Layman

Until you do something other than grasp at every straw you can imagine or find on the internet, I doubt anyone is going to take you more seriously. You honestly do not seem to know that much about the topic overall. You repeatedly offer your own unsupported opinion as if it should carry some weight or is deserving of a response. You seem to have no knowledge of the secondary literature on these topics--giving me little reason to think you know how they are lacking. The sum total of your knowledge appears to be what you can dream up or find at Kirby or Dohety's websites (Not that I put them on the same level by any means). That you think there is not much expertise relevant to the inquiry only adds to the little weight I give your posts. Put simply, you have no proved yourself to be a player.

In any event, you are not going to get much sympathy from me. I just waded through attack after attack based on the obviously fault premise that the only thing I have ever writte on the subjct was one aricle about the state of the Jesus Myth in the scholarly community. Nevermind that I'm just about the only poster here--on either side--who has substantively discussed any portion of Doherty's theory.

Amaleq13

Layman,


Thank you for the enormously arrogant and condescending comments. That you choose not to take my comments seriously only reinforces the impression that you cannot substantively respond.

For somebody who is always whining about there being no substantive discussions available, you sure are shy about backing up your claims or responding to specific questions/criticisms.

I agree that you are not always treated fairly in this forum but it hasn't been by me. It is entirely hypocritical for you to apply the same unfair tactics that you complain about used against you.

Layman

When you can type out 30 coherent pages about a Jesus Myth you barely seem to compherend, then complain to me about a lack of substantive discussion.

Toto

I only agreed to mod this forum because there was a dire shortage of moderators. I would have preferred not to, since I am involved in the discussions.

And we have now devolved into an argument about who is more arrogant and condescending.

Since the comments on this thread are an extension of ongoing disputes than may be lost in history, let's just stop mentioning all prior instances of alleged bad behavior. Layman has done his share of initiating attacks, and I have lost count of who started it.

I originally split this thread off from the Fredriksen thread to remove some of the contentious off-topic material and keep that thread in shape. I half expected to delete or close this entire thread.

But the thread took a focus on a link to one of Layman's articles on Bede's site, but somehow morphed into references to all of them. I don't know exactly when this happened, but I don't think Layman should be blaming anyone who didn't catch on that other articles were involved, especially since he did not provide links or any clear indication.

When Layman says I don't think that most of the "attacks" on him (which were actually mostly attacks on his ideas) were based on this premise.

I'm sorry I didn't catch the "reading problem" comment, but this is a common jibe around here (that should probably be banned.) You could have reported the post instead of escalating the vitriol.

Bede - you can take any complaints about moderation to the Bugs forum. If you have any suggestion about facilitating the discussion, you can let me know. It is not true that half the mods have left for the reasons you stated. Celsus resigned because he wanted a different sort of forum. Peter left for his own reasons. And while you can find four posters attacking Layman's ideas, I think that most of the heat has focused on the ideas and not on Layman's person.

Now - would anyone like to have their prior comments deleted?

There is some discussion in here of the meaning of one of Layman's essays, which Layman has rejected and has not rebutted. Is this how it is going to stand?