Ted Hoffman

Could we at least have the names of these MJers - or it it a secret? Do they surf the net? I know almost all MJers on the net. Or are your MJ friends hermits? Can they come here and corroborate your wild claims?
I bet they cannot. Your anecdote is worthless.

The Bishop

I hate American spelling, too. Except here, where it is my "language puritanism" which is raising its ugly head. In English pronunciation, "sceptic" should be pronounced either "septic" or "sheptic". That is why "scheme" and "schematic" have 'h's in them. But an 'h' wouldn't work in 'scheptic', which as you can see just looks like a Germanic "sh" sound. The American spelling of "skeptic" is the more correct one. Incidentally I once excoriated Matthew D'Ancona in the Daily Telegraph. He criticised Americanisms but, unfortunately for him, highlighted the wrong word as an example: "gotten". Not an American neologism, but a British English usage of the 16th Century and before, (and quite a pretty one at that, I always think) that d'Ancona had evidently forgotten.

Well, I pointed out one example of Creationist-type argument (God of Gaps), and on another thread I highlighted the dismissal of one part of scholarship (palaeography) as being similar to arguments I've seen used by Creationists. What have been the rationalist HJ arguments (ie not including explicitly Christian ones) that utilised Creationist-type reasoning? Never mind, I think I answered my question - you weren't necessarily excluding Christians. I am a member of what appears to be quite a small community here, the atheist-HJ-er. Are there any others?

I actually missed reading a whole page of this thread when replying before, so apologies. I have a comment.
Isaac Asimov is my life mentor, the reason I'm an atheist, a skeptic, a rationalist, and also why I'm interested in the Bible. I never read anything that made me so angry as what McDuffie's "friend" said. It's utterly slanderous nonsense. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. (And, incidentally, Asimov published the Guide to the Bible in the late sixties, not eighties, but this may have been the single-volume reprint.) At any rate, Asimov never kissed up to any religion in his life.

rlogan

You don't say.

Although all of the HJers I've ever met are queers, I can't say I've met enough of them to say they're all fudge-packers.

I can tell that fear of perky tits lurks underneath their HJ beliefs.

I hold no such fear. Bring on the perky tits.


No sense in addressing what the multitude of posters here have to say. I have secret HJers, fags to a man, to base my opinions on.

The Bishop

I've an idea this is the kind of think McDuffie was actually referring to. As was this::huh:

EDIT: Wow, another one. McDuffie describes his experience - only describing people he's actually personally met and talked to, by the way - and people in whom he's evidently touched a nerve, hit back with insults and offensive language! Go figure.

Toto

Because it's an indication of lazy thinking, just accepting Eusebius' Church History.

It sounds to me like you have not read Doherty, with his careful list of the sounds of silence. Why don't you do that before you go all ballistic on us? Are you assuming that all MJ'ers follow Acharya S?

The Virgin Birth thread is here. What exactly are you talking about?

OK, so give us a rational argument for the existence of Jesus, after you have defined your terms. (Who would qualify as a Historical Jesus?) We're still waiting. A lot of posters on this forum waited for Richard Carrier to go trhough Doherty's book with a fine tooth comb, using his professional training, and he ended up endorsing it. I think that was a turning point for many of us. Tell us where he went wrong.

Feel free to start a new thread.

Oh, I see, you went off on this tirade without having even read Doherty?

Toto

Yes, McDuffie describes people he's met and implies that they are typical, and then backs off and says he doesn't actually know a lot of MJ'ers, and has only a small sample size and HJ'ers are equally ill=informed BUT he still tries to say that the MJ'er in the street has x characteristic. . .

I think it's time to drop this. McDuffie has no scientifically valid data on the psychological make up of those who think that Jesus was a myth.

RPS

It's possible that when Lincoln said yes he really meant no. God could have created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearance of age. Brother of the Lord might mean something else entirely. But without evidence for it I'd be irrational to think so, no? Besides, your idea has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. If correct, all translation and interpretation would be rendered meaningless because the author could have meant anything.

blastula

Yeah right, that was after I was called dumb twice, but of course it must be the "fear" thing that hit my nerve. Another psychic here. And I'm an HJer anyway.

Still waiting on any MJer to confirm that they are afraid they would have to let Jesus into their hearts.

McD

No I didn't. <edit>

There was nothing to back off from

Another <falsehood>

This is the first correct thing you have said. I am tired of people who are so anxious to be offended that they look for attack where attacks don't exist.
Isn't that strange? McDuffie never claimed to have any scientifically valid data on the psychological make up of those who think that Jesus was a myth.

Toto, I think it's time you put your mod hat on and apply it to your own posts.

McD

No, you can't have their names.

They are people I knew two decades ago. I only remember the first and last names of two of them, and I remember the first name of another one of them. The others, I can't remember their names at all.

Even if I remembered the first and last names of all of them, if they surfed the net and what forums they perused, the answer would still be 'no'. Fuck you.

Let's not lose sight of how this started. What are some of the reasons I decided to start looking into HJism? Among those reasons: The first few atheists I met were Mjers and they were nutters.

It is your problem if you don't believe me, not mine.