Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Doesn't really. Just doesn't give me much confidence in you ability to pick the right horse, as it were...

Yes, you are right. I think it takes an unique sort of discipline to be willing to grant probability to some of the legitimate arguments and positions shared by rhetorical opponents. In an us-vs.-them way of thinking, anyone who shares a few key beliefs with them instead of us belongs to them and not us. I see it very often. It really is difficult to get out of that mentality, and I am being serious.

Perhaps, though what that has to do with my contention that you are using lame arguments, I'll never know...

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right. I think it takes an unique sort of discipline to be willing to grant probability to some of the legitimate arguments and positions shared by rhetorical opponents. In an us-vs.-them way of thinking, anyone who shares a few key beliefs with them instead of us belongs to them and not us. I see it very often. It really is difficult to get out of that mentality, and I am being serious.

Perhaps, though what that has to do with my contention that you are using lame arguments, I'll never know...

Yes. I think a valuable thing to keep in mind is that the point of whether or not Christian apologists employ certain arguments is no reflection on the quality of such arguments.

Toto · 05-26-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And then you implied that the last four factors you mentioned, which appeared to include plagiarism or academic dishonesty made Carrier not qualify as a credible expert. Would you like to clarify that?

I am sorry, but there is a misunderstanding. I was actually referring to the four reasons that I listed in post #3. Those are specific to Carrier. It is easy to get the wrong idea if you are not part of the conversation.

It's easy to get the wrong idea if your facts are all wrong. I don't think you've even looked at Carrier's record of publications or his reputation in his field of ancient history.

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps, though what that has to do with my contention that you are using lame arguments, I'll never know...

Yes. I think a valuable thing to keep in mind is that the point of whether or not Christian apologists employ certain arguments is no reflection on the quality of such arguments.

Indeed, but if the arguments are lame, they are lame. That apologists tend to use them as well is just humorous...

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes. I think a valuable thing to keep in mind is that the point of whether or not Christian apologists employ certain arguments is no reflection on the quality of such arguments.

Indeed, but if the arguments are lame, they are lame. That apologists tend to use them as well is just humorous...

OK, we are on the same page.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.