SkepticBoyLee

Skepticdude I think what my fellow infidels mean to say here is................


...........PWNED!


I for one will not sit idly by as the most pompous, deluded, piss scared (of reality and the unknown), wanna be Christian "apologist" is absolutely deficated on from every single angel (his mouth was open, his mouth was open) without making comment.

Kudos to you sir. This was a precise ownage of gargantuan proportions.

We all know that Turkel is wrong and deluded but you know this has to sting the old man. That brings joy to my non Christian heart.

Sheshonq

Actually, that's far more likely to be a fundibot trick. They correspond with scientists to try and get them to:

1. disagree with some other scientist about evolution;
2. contradict Darwin (as if Darwin were sacrosanct or something), or
3. generally sign off on some vague statement about science and religion not conflicting



I suspect that all you actually "know" is that Turkel claims such happened. He's fond of casting himself as a martyr, so you believe his story at your own peril.

jjramsey

This is a grossly misleading response to GakuseiDon's question. At college, there are both open-book and closed-book tests, or in several cases, they will be open-note but not open-book. Usually, the closed-book tests are in lower-level courses dealing with fundamentals, the stuff that you need to know to look other stuff up and get rough ideas on how to solve problems. In higher-level courses, there is usually less emphasis on rote memorization.

renassault

I think you are quite right about a person or two there ( I don't know many), but personally, even though I'm a Christian who adheres to most of the things Holding does (not the derision hehe), I think the insulting, which in many cases is simply derision does not intellectually defeat his opponent.


Personally, I think most of the apologetics out there on the internet is tainted by a deeply flawed methodology, which doesn't cast anything against Christianity, but only means that many of the popular Christian apologists, not just Holding, simply don't apply true scholarship. I wrote something on tweb because Gary Habermas' post on the Gabriel stone was the last straw of a consistency of popular authors, to quote myself from the below link: on-the-surface answers that have no historical or other insight whatsoever, and the poster right after my first reply said that they not only thought that the Dead Sea Stone supported Christianity but would be happy if the translation was proven to be correct (ayayay):


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...41#post2385654

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...41#post2385855

I'm personally surprised Rohrbaugh said that the doctrine of infallibility of Scripture is modern, because I'm pretty sure the ancient Church had it, and also there is John 10:35. Also his statement about the Trinity, in my opinion, rests solely on the seeming weakness that it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible, (though see verses like Philippians 2:5-7, 2 Corinthians 3:17, and Jesus himself quotes Psalm 110:1 in Mark 12:35-40, Matthew 22:41-46, Luke 20:41-47). I would agree with you about Rohrbaugh's rejection of Holding's view regarding insulting, but citing a scholar's personal opinion about a doctrine doesn't prove much (especially if he doesn't seem to be aware of John 10:35, which is certainly proof that inspiration of the Bible isn't a modern invention regardless of whether you think the Gospel is authentic because most scholars date it before 100).

It sounds to me like Rohrbaugh and others there have the syndrome of conformism, and prefer to take as highly skeptical as possible approach to the Bible, in order to seem scholarly.

Zeluvia

I was a regular over at TWEB for years. I have to say, it wasn't skepticdude's points/posts or the email quotes that finally killed most of my interest in TWEB, it was the reaction of the community and of JPH. There have been many threads about riposte, insults, and the Biblical basis for such. But nothing made it so clear about WHY they defend this style of conversation as their reaction to skepticdude.

Well, TWEBS inconsequential loss, me ! is IIDB's questionable gain = P

Toto

I think that this finding from evolutionary biology explains the attraction JP Holding to some religious believers. He exudes certainty, and people crave that sort of certainty in the face of ambiguity:

The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw

SwoleMan

For fuck sake! If a guy on some forum insults you, let him taste his own medicine. If he adds a ROFL smiley, you add two; if he gives you a verbal bitch slap, give him a verbal assfuck... with your words covered in sandpaper and salt! And if you risk getting thrown out from the forum you're interacting on, start a blog where you can be as insulting to your opponent as you want. An eye for an eye!

Or if you can't stand being an asshole yourself, don't debate other assholes. Just ignore them. If their arguments are good you'll probably hear them from some nicer person sooner or later.

Ben C Smith

There is also the Dunning-Kruger effect to consider. One finds it in play all the time on the discussion boards.

Ben.

renassault

That quote kinda applies to your post as well... maybe to this one too

spin

Don't you get tired of stretching the truth??


spin