Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 02-28-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

People who talk any old rubbish here will usually get their toes nailed to the floor.

Though they do not always seem to feel anything.

Ben.

And some have only one foot, which is wooden. The other foot got crushed when the leg got crushed. The leg got crushed when they tried, first time, to erect arguments on top of it.
I don't need to tell you that wooden feet feel no pain. In fact, they are sluts for nails. I daresay they get sexual gratification from having nails being driven into them. No wonder they never stop talking old rubbish.

I think MM's "Eusebius supreme mafia thug" is crackpottery but not because it is in fact crackpotterry: it is because of how MM presents them and how he responds to challenges. He is not clear and precise, sometimes it appears as if English is not his first language. And his empty declarations and disregard of basic concepts has driven me away from what he is propounding. And why hasn't he learnt, after more than a year of posting @IIDB, how to write flowing posts?

KlauSchilling may be the one scaring people out of their wits with his declarations which are never supported. Wait till MichaelHoffman discovers BC&H and you will realize that Klaus and Mountainman are mere choir boys in comparison. You folks will have to run to the hills since your sheltered IIDB experience has afforded some of you the luxury of not knowing him.

schilling.klaus · 02-29-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

KlauSchilling may be the one scaring people out of their wits with his declarations which are never supported.

unsupported are only the declarations of those hucksters who believe in hilarious frauds like authentic Paulines/IClement/Ignatians, a pre-70 Jerusalem church, first century canonical gospels, and other mental diseases of western civilisation.

Klaus Schilling

Roger Pearse · 02-29-2008, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you believe virtually every modern scholar, you will not believe in prophetic literature or the supernatural or inerrancy.

Do we vote as they tell us too? Or is it just our religion on which they are authorities?

The idea that all modern scholars hold these views seems curious to me. Does that include all the French Roman Catholic priests, publishing the Sources Chretiennes?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

reniaa · 02-29-2008, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

It would be nice to see once in a while another skeptic come on a thread and say I'm a skeptic too but what you are saying is a load of crapola :S.

It is quite natural that skeptics, by their very nature of being skeptical, would find ourselves often in a general overall agreement on our respective assessments of many Biblical subjects.
But this certainly is no "mutual admiration society" and we DO quite often give to each other a tough row to hoe.

In regards to your complaint, I would like to remind you of the recent thread
"Did Jephthah kill his daughter? " to which you yourself contributed some 8 posts.
I strongly opposed the position of my fellow skeptics throughout the entire 140 posts in that thread, and yes, at times the rhetoric did become rather strong, as each side thought the other to be in error, and being "full of crap". It now rests, evidently unresolved, with neither side being capable of entirely persuading the other.

Mountainman, the one here who is most often charged with holding a "crank theory" has been challenged daily, and literally thousands of times in these forums by his fellow skeptics. I know that I've "went a round or three" with him myself. And although he certainly has not fully persuaded me into the acceptance of the extremes of his position, he has been quite successful in contributing significantly to my education as to what did actually transpire in the third century AD.
The mountains of quotations and references that Mountainman has here supplied, supplemented with my own store of knowledge, has compelled me to modify a good many of my previous ideas and positions.
Even Chili, one well known here for his "abstract flights of fancy" and "odd interpretations and understandings" of Biblical texts, oft times reveals a gem of original insight that provides a valuable contribution to the life of this forum.
"Experts" who come here with their carefully constructed analysis of the "meaning" and "sequence of events" of various texts, become frustrated when it is pointed out to them that those texts into which they have invested so much, are not even worth the paper that they are written on, and are no more trustworthy for establishing of historical facts, than would be The Book of Mormon.

Actually I would like to take back in your case what I said because it was only towards end of debate that I realised on that thread you were a skeptic as apposed to Christian, I should check peoples profiles more

in my defence I have got very frustrated when having a debate on a particular bible issue making what I think is quite good points till the other skeptic plays one of their "Ace in the hole cards" to shut down arguement which is "the bible is fiction, Jc didn't exist, God doesn't exists so this whole arguement is null and void anyway" lol I then feel like head butting my monitor a few times and suddenly discover a whole new ability to speak fluent Klingon^^.

I found you refreshing and different than what i'm used to and wonder if you could look at this debate for me with your eye, its the end were Philosopherjay has put a lot of conclusions over the wine and water miracle which I felt was a little trying to blind me with science

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...=237326&page=4

Ted Hoffman · 02-29-2008, 01:55 AM

Enough about the cranks. We have several well-informed and balanced people posting here and just for a change, I would like to appreciate spin, whose posts are ever well-informed and balanced. His clear thinking and expression of ideas has been very helpful and educational.
Ben has equally been very, very useful and helpful and so has been Andrewcriddle. Zeichman too has been very very useful and sensible. So has Gakuseidon though sometimes he leans too much to the right - just like Roger Pearse.
Gibson is useful but I think he is angry about something [oops, did I just break a forum rule?] and often his putdowns overshadow his useful contributions.
Vork and Doherty seldom post anymore but Malachi and spandaman and Philosopher Jay. Stephen Carr and Iasion soldom post but they are also very useful contributors. Toto always guiding and giving a helping hand and Amaleq zeroing in on those who spew too much nonsense. I am not too happy about the moderation myself but these guys are volunteers and for whatever its worth, I appreciate what they are doing. Keep it up.
Ultimately, I think we need everyone here, including the crackpots. They enrich this forum and I love them all with their differences.

GakuseiDon · 02-29-2008, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Ultimately, I think we need everyone here, including the crackpots. They enrich this forum and I love them all with their differences.

Sure, but isn't the problem to do with the people pushing their ideas into threads that have nothing to do with them? Whatever the worth of posts by Doherty, Acharya, you and me, none of us do that. We tend to respect the OP. It is those posters who post the same damn rubbish in thread after thread -- regardless of the OP -- whose posts should be quarantined IMHO, much as Chili's posts have been.

arnoldo · 02-29-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

KlauSchilling may be the one scaring people out of their wits with his declarations which are never supported.

unsupported are only the declarations of those hucksters who believe in hilarious frauds like authentic Paulines/IClement/Ignatians, a pre-70 Jerusalem church, first century canonical gospels, and other mental diseases of western civilisation.

Klaus Schilling

I support Klaus in his right to exercise free speech but I agree that posting the same arguments over and over in different posts can be irritating (apologies to Johnny

)

dog-on · 02-29-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

unsupported are only the declarations of those hucksters who believe in hilarious frauds like authentic Paulines/IClement/Ignatians, a pre-70 Jerusalem church, first century canonical gospels, and other mental diseases of western civilisation.

Klaus Schilling

I support Klaus in his right to exercise free speech but I agree that posting the same arguments over and over in different posts can be irritating (apologies to Johnny

)

except that, Mr. Schilling is, for the most part, correct...

Amaleq13 · 02-29-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

unsupported are only the declarations of those hucksters who believe in hilarious frauds like authentic Paulines/IClement/Ignatians, a pre-70 Jerusalem church, first century canonical gospels, and other mental diseases of western civilisation.

Klaus Schilling

That is simply untrue and you know it. There is a significant difference between "unsupported" and "support you don't consider convincing or credible". There is ample support offered for those stated views and it is because it has been stated that discussions can be had about the credibility of the conclusions.

That is what I wish might happen with your repeated assertions for which you have rarely, if ever, given any support or elaboration. Rather than toss out uninformed aspersions against the abilities of our membership to comprehend, I ask you to test that assumption by starting a thread stating and explaining your position. If that is too large a project, I would ask that you choose some individual piece of the larger puzzle to engage the curious and interested.

Amaleq13 · 02-29-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Sure, but isn't the problem to do with the people pushing their ideas into threads that have nothing to do with them?

We do a lot of splits here but, generally, only if a single post like you describe obtains responses to derail the thread.

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

02-29-2008, 01:55 AM	#95
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Enough about the cranks. We have several well-informed and balanced people posting here and just for a change, I would like to appreciate spin, whose posts are ever well-informed and balanced. His clear thinking and expression of ideas has been very helpful and educational. Ben has equally been very, very useful and helpful and so has been Andrewcriddle. Zeichman too has been very very useful and sensible. So has Gakuseidon though sometimes he leans too much to the right - just like Roger Pearse. Gibson is useful but I think he is angry about something [oops, did I just break a forum rule?] and often his putdowns overshadow his useful contributions. Vork and Doherty seldom post anymore but Malachi and spandaman and Philosopher Jay. Stephen Carr and Iasion soldom post but they are also very useful contributors. Toto always guiding and giving a helping hand and Amaleq zeroing in on those who spew too much nonsense. I am not too happy about the moderation myself but these guys are volunteers and for whatever its worth, I appreciate what they are doing. Keep it up. Ultimately, I think we need everyone here, including the crackpots. They enrich this forum and I love them all with their differences.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.