Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 11-13-2011, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It would be if I taunted historicists with the comparison at every opportunity. But I don't.

Ok. It's not an equally dodgy thing to say (on account of lower frequency of saying it) it's just a dodgy thing to say. :]

I only say it in response to people who try to compare mythicists to creationists. In that context, I think it is perfectly fair and on point.

I beg your pardon? What are you on about? You object to one side making an unfair comparison, and then make a similar one yourself. There is no justification in that, unless two wrongs make a right.

archibald · 11-13-2011, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

..

It's not even an accurate statement. It implies that historicists believe the bible is a reliable source of information. Someone is confusing 'historicist' with 'a certain type of Christian apologist'.

All historicists that I have read think that there is something that can be extracted from the gospels, even if they are in general unreliable. .

Toto, that is basically nothing more than a tautology, since they could hardly be historicists otherwize. What it has to do with them resembling creationists, apart from some unusual connection in your mind, I do not know.

Toto · 11-13-2011, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

All historicists that I have read think that there is something that can be extracted from the gospels, even if they are in general unreliable. .

Toto, that is basically nothing more than a tautology, since they could hardly be historicists otherwize. What it has to do with them resembling creationists, apart from some unusual connection in your mind, I do not know.

???

I do not think that historicists are like creationists.

When historicists claim that mythicists are like creationists, I think it is fair to point out that historicists have more points in common with creationists than mythicists.

Does this make sense?

You have pulled a few statements out of context from a controversy that started long before you got on this board.

Steve Weiss · 11-13-2011, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder if anybody would invent 'Incident Two: seventy-five million years ago the emperor of the Galactic Federation, a despot named Xenu, solved overpopulation on his planet by freezing its inhabitants, shipping them to Earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, and dropped them into volcanoes in Hawaii and other places. He then detonated the volcanoes with atomic bombs and captured the suddenly-disembodied Thetans with an electronic device.'

You would never get people to believe that if you invented it. Not in a million years.

Therefore, using all the powerful techniques available to True Historians , it must be true.

Isn't history easy? You hardly need evidence. Just ask yourself 'Would people make it up and would anybody believe something somebody just made up?'

You can then sort out whole periods of history in about an hour of research, without even having to visit a library or looking at one of those artefact-things.

It all sounds so familiar. Who could make something like this up? It must be factual, even scientific. No one would lie about these things; would they? Where do I sign up? If I join do I get to live forever?

judge · 11-13-2011, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I only say it in response to people who try to compare mythicists to creationists. In that context, I think it is perfectly fair and on point.

I beg your pardon? What are you on about? You object to one side making an unfair comparison, and then make a similar one yourself. There is no justification in that, unless two wrongs make a right.

What we see here is the idea that.."what my net doesn't catch isn't a fish"

Toto says the following..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When historicists claim that mythicists are like creationists, I think it is fair to point out that historicists have more points in common with creationists than mythicists.

Why are there more points?
Because Toto says so.

This enables the irrational mythicists to ignore the glaring similarities between mythicism and creationism (such as avoiding peer review) and, just repeat the nonsense that there are more points. Then we just invent how ever many points we need to have more points that have been mentioned by the oposition.

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

Steven Carr · 11-13-2011, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Toto says the following..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When historicists claim that mythicists are like creationists, I think it is fair to point out that historicists have more points in common with creationists than mythicists.

Why are there more points?
Because Toto says so.

This enables the irrational Mthyicists to ignore the glaring similarities between Mythicism and creationism (such as avoiding peer review) and, just repeat the nonsense that there are more points. then we just invent how ever many points we need to have more points that have been mentioned by the oposition.

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

Of course, mythicists could just use fabricated material,no matter how inauthentic the details might be :-)

We seem to be back to McGrath again - the guy whose doctorate is in Apologetic Christianity, who assures his readers he uses fabricated material, and who doesn't seem to have any history courses on his CV (as far as I can see).

archibald · 11-13-2011, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

All historicists that I have read think that there is something that can be extracted from the gospels, even if they are in general unreliable. .

Toto, that is basically nothing more than a tautology, since they could hardly be historicists otherwize. What it has to do with them resembling creationists, apart from some unusual connection in your mind, I do not know.

???

I do not think that historicists are like creationists.

When historicists claim that mythicists are like creationists, I think it is fair to point out that historicists have more points in common with creationists than mythicists.

Does this make sense?

In short, no. You actually said 'many more' by the way. Toto, if you haven't got the sense to back away from a rash comment, that's your problem. Should you wish to pursue the case, I would ask you to do a thorough comparison to demonstrate 'many more'.

Otoh, I have a feeling such a discussion would be just ridiculous.

tanya · 11-13-2011, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This enables the irrational mythicists to ignore the glaring similarities between mythicism and creationism (such as avoiding peer review) and, just repeat the nonsense that there are more points. Then we just invent how ever many points we need to have more points that have been mentioned by the oposition.

Mythicists must of course when making such vague irrational claims make sure that these claims and theories are never ever submitted to any sort of independent scrutiny, ie peer review.

Irrational?

I am irrational?

Independent scrutiny? What in the world are you smoking?

Read it and weep, bubba. You are way out in left field, here.

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

I sure don't require peer review to explain what "son of god" means.

Toto · 11-13-2011, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

???

I do not think that historicists are like creationists.

When historicists claim that mythicists are like creationists, I think it is fair to point out that historicists have more points in common with creationists than mythicists.

Does this make sense?

In short, no. You actually said 'many more' by the way. Toto, if you haven't got the sense to back away from a rash comment, that's your problem. Should you wish to pursue the case, I would ask you to do a thorough comparison to demonstrate 'many more'.

Otoh, I have a feeling such a discussion would be just ridiculous.

This discussion took place back in 2007. The last thread that I can locate in the archives is The Creationist Analogy.

My comment was not rash. I have gone through this issue before in depth. It would drag this thread too far off topic to rehash it, and I don't think there is much more to say than is contained in that thread.

Sheshbazzar · 11-14-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

In what year do you believe this was written?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.