Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-21-2013, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....Like it or not "you" do hold a minority opinion. So you seem to attack those who hold or follow the majority as teachers, claiming they "appeal to authority". Which means your forced to attack their methodology no matter how sound or strong their foundation may be.

Please, atheism is a minority opinion. Atheists do not count people to make an argument.

Atheists do not play the numbers game.

Only the evidence counts.

Don't count people--count the evidence.

The evidence count is zero for Jesus of Nazareth.

It always was. That is precisely why there are so many Jesuses--there is zero evidence so people just guess.

Adam · 04-21-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

That you quoted from my #62 is the only evidence that this is not a second reply to my #51. You completely neglected everything I said in #62. In #62 I referred to my scholarly methodology getting me peer-review acceptance in 1980. By your assertions it would imply that FRDB has corrupted my standards since joining here. So put that aside, start at last dealing with my Significance of John that pre-dates my woeful attempts at scholarship here on FRDB.

I don't care how many times you write numbers with hash signs to point me to some vain nonsense you have written. I have read your stuff and started dealing with it here, including your Noesis stuff. I gave up when I noticed that you did not have even a vague understanding of scholarly methodology or the inclination to deal with the issue. When I return to your stuff from time to time I note that nothing has changed. To tempt me into a discussion about your spurious claims of eye witnesses you have to do better than to entreat me to waste more time.

Yet another post from you that shows no evidence of having read my Post #62. Fortunately you link to a post from a time when in Nov. 2011 you were articulate. Unfortunately, you were not willing even at that time to try to deal with my peer-reviewed scholarship, and you continue to pretend that I never presented anything of that nature as I did with Significance of John (original title presented to Biblical Theology Bulletin was "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John"), even though I started that thread on Oct. 23, 2011.

Your refusal to deal with evidence reminds me of one of my opponents on Theology Web, The Pixie. He lost there, are you trying to avoid looking like you are defeated here?

spin · 04-22-2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't care how many times you write numbers with hash signs to point me to some vain nonsense you have written. I have read your stuff and started dealing with it here, including your Noesis stuff. I gave up when I noticed that you did not have even a vague understanding of scholarly methodology or the inclination to deal with the issue. When I return to your stuff from time to time I note that nothing has changed. To tempt me into a discussion about your spurious claims of eye witnesses you have to do better than to entreat me to waste more time.

Yet another post from you that shows no evidence of having read my Post #62. Fortunately you link to a post from a time when in Nov. 2011 you were articulate. Unfortunately, you were not willing even at that time to try to deal with my peer-reviewed scholarship, and you continue to pretend that I never presented anything of that nature as I did with Significance of John (original title presented to Biblical Theology Bulletin was "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John"), even though I started that thread on Oct. 23, 2011.

Your refusal to deal with evidence reminds me of one of my opponents on Theology Web, The Pixie. He lost there, are you trying to avoid looking like you are defeated here?

This seems to be an amusing argument for de-volution. You did your only competent work in 1980 and it's been downhill ever since, not even able to represent your best work in a reasonable manner. Instead you leave a trail of bread crumbs in the form of a series of to you unacceptible posts linked by hashed numbers, when all you needed to do was to say "I did my best work decades ago and I'm only babbling on now." Do you think anyone would believe you? I would like you to be reasonable here and post responsibly. If you could convincingly put forward an argument today things would be fine. That is what is asked of you, not "see #62", which leads to a #117, which leads to other post. Stop this failure to communicate. Show you know what evidence is. Don't assume your conclusions are without sufficient external feedback. Or the only readers you will get are those who haven't read your stuff before or the odd moderator.

Adam · 04-22-2013, 10:20 AM

Still waiting for you to reply for the first time in all these 18 months to my thread "Significance of John". My threads have substance, I don't need to fling insults at you. This is like Theology Web, where the resident atheists showed no awareness of what "is" is, which is where The Pixie is still at.

At least you have a sense of humor, unless your reply results from total obtuseness to my ironical close to my #68.

Apparently I was wrong to compliment you on how clever your responses in 2011 could be, as this evoked from you some of your old sarcasm, to which I dare not respond in kind.

spin · 04-22-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't need to fling insults at you.

That would at least be an attempt to communicate meaningfully with your intended audience.

Clivedurdle · 04-22-2013, 11:46 AM

Sorry, would someone kindly define the plural of Jesus? The thread title is doing my head in!

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

04-22-2013, 10:20 AM	#74
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Still waiting for you to reply for the first time in all these 18 months to my thread "Significance of John". My threads have substance, I don't need to fling insults at you. This is like Theology Web, where the resident atheists showed no awareness of what "is" is, which is where The Pixie is still at. At least you have a sense of humor, unless your reply results from total obtuseness to my ironical close to my #68. Apparently I was wrong to compliment you on how clever your responses in 2011 could be, as this evoked from you some of your old sarcasm, to which I dare not respond in kind.

04-22-2013, 11:46 AM	#76
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Sorry, would someone kindly define the plural of Jesus? The thread title is doing my head in!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.