John the Atheist

Haran,

A world without a God and without the ultimate judging of our actions here on earth is a horrible notion. With no accounting of our deeds, where is the incentive not to steal or murder? Well, I could go into it a lot more...

I hope you do on the moral foundations & principles forum because I got a lot to share. Be sure and give me an invite if you do.

John

John the Atheist

Everyone, pardon me and Meta while we exchange pleasantries. I take it you just downed the last beer.

Meta =>I could recomend a team of shrinks from Vienna. looks like you might benifit from their services.

I could recommend a good “Hooked on Phonetics” course for you, it looks like you might benefit from their services.

Meta =>"Weasel words" Are in the ear of the listener. You think that's what they are because you have no intelligence and you are uneducated and unsophisticated in what passes for thought in that void between your ears. IN case you can't get the drfit even yet, I'm saying you are stupid! Too stupid to understand my briliant essay, tu compron? Need a picture?

I may need a picture, but you need a spellchecker.

Meta => This is just gibberish!

No, weasel or vague words will be a source of discussion in any logic class. It really pays to recognize them, otherwise it’s just that: gibberish.


METa =>What an idiot! If you can't participate reasonably and try to discuss ideas like someone past the fifth grade level than I have no time to waste on you! moron!

You promise?

Meta =>Well it's apparent you dont' reside in the part that I go to school in!

It most certainly is!

Normally, I don’t pick on handicaps, but if their disposition is as shitty as Geehovah’s, and they like to dish it out; then, oh well...what the hell, it’s fair game in my book. And if this is any indication of the level that is coming out of apologetic schools these days; it wasn’t money or time well spent. On the bright side Meta, if you believe that the last in this world will be the first in the next; then, cheer up, you have a front row seat reserved in your name.

John

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Yes I could. I have dyslexia. I went to Scottish Rite Chrildrens hopstial for speicialized trianing in dealing with it, but unforturately there is no cure and one must suffer with it all of one's life. But It is made worse by anger and tryping fast which I do when I'm angry, which I get when ignorant people try my patience. You'll just have to sound out the words. You wouldn't get the drift if they were spelled right anyway.

Meta =&gt;"Weasel words" Are in the ear of the listener. You think that's what they are because you have no intelligence and you are uneducated and unsophisticated in what passes for thought in that void between your ears. IN case you can't get the drfit even yet, I'm saying you are stupid! Too stupid to understand my briliant essay, tu compron? Need a picture?

meta =&gt;I know. that's a given. Of course, it's only ignorant people who think that spelling equals intelligence. Spelling, espeicially when it is the result of a learning disability is not corrollated with intellegience. In fact most dyslexics have high IQ's. Not that I think IQ is an adquate maeasure of intelligence, but that is the case.

Meta =&gt; This is just gibberish!

No, weasel or vague words will be a source of discussion in any logic class. It really pays to recognize them, otherwise it’s just that: gibberish.


Meta -&gt;Yea but see the problem is I dont' use any. My terms are well defined and they are standard terms form any theological corriculum worth its tuition. One could discover this from reading that book, of course asking you to read a book is, I'm sure, asking a lot!


METa =&gt;What an idiot! If you can't participate reasonably and try to discuss ideas like someone past the fifth grade level than I have no time to waste on you! moron!

You promise?

meta=&gt;No, but it sounded cool.

Meta =&gt;Well it's apparent you dont' reside in the part that I go to school in!

It most certainly is!

Meta -&gt; O that's the mark of a clever come back, repeat what was said first! We are in tall cotton here!

Normally, I don’t pick on handicaps, but if their disposition is as shitty as Geehovah’s, and they like to dish it out;


You were the one who attacked me. I didn't say anything in the insulting in the first post. you decided to up and attack me for no better reason than, I guess, because I'm a Christian or something equally intelligent.

then, oh well...what the hell, it’s fair game in my book. And if this is any indication of the level that is coming out of apologetic schools these days;

I didn't go to an apologetic school you idiot. liberal don't do apologetics.

it wasn’t money or time well spent. On the bright side Meta, if you believe that the last in this world will be the first in the next; then, cheer up, you have a front row seat reserved in your name.

John

I've heard less lame comebacks at the Republican convention (I was there to protest them) that's going pretty far down to get to an insult. That's on the same par as "get a job,"

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John the Atheist:
[QB][b]

John, my purpose in bringing this post back is to show where I thought I was unfairly attacked. This is in the interest of trying to pull some kind of productive discussion out of this pissing contest. Below is the first post you directed to me on page 2. I will leave the remarks that I thoguht were unfair attacks. I want you to show me what I said that you thought initated those attacks. Then I want a list of the very words that you think are "weasal words."

OK? If you really want to have fair discussion in good will then you should be willing to do this.

Or were you just offended by the remark about the showdown in front of city hall? That was just humar. I should know better, atheists are the most humarless lot I've ever come across, but I'm just perverse enough to keep trying becasue I love wimzical humar.

"Well... Meta, or do you prefer Dr. Freud? While I appreciate all free psychoanalysis along with what I can clearly see someone who is an expert in this field, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you starting with that previous quote and this one as well:

My own views on inerrency and inspirtion are complex, (not "weasel worsds") but what one might call complex. A good basis in understanding my view, if anyone cares, can be found in Avery Dulle's book Models of Revelation

Hell, an articulate man whose views on inerrancy and inspiration are so complex, that you have to refer someone over to read an entire book, so frankly, no I don‘t care if you can‘t answer the question as clearly as Polycarp did.


Ok I thought was an unfair attack becasue in my world (doctoral program at UT) people deal in books. Recomending a book is not a weakness where I come from it is a strength, it offers a wealth of information and shows that I know the discipline. Being recomended to is not an insult, it is merely an offer of information.


It’s a simple question of what I asked, and all I get is three vague pages of horseshit.


Obviously an insult. Show me why its horseshit. analyze the actual words on the page (or some of them) and show me what the problem is with it?

We’ve already discussed variations of inerrancy on this, and thus far only I’ve found a couple of theists that admit the Bible having errors.


Since my page makes clear that I have no trouble with "errors" in the Bible why would that matter anyway?

Nomad has put the weasel words in, you wrote three pages of nothing,


Obviously an unwarranted attack. I offered the link because you were making cracks about my views. I wanted to be sure you understood (which apparently you don't) so I am having trouble seeing why that is unreasonable.

so I doubt any answers will not be as direct and forthcoming as Bede’s and Polycarp’s, which is why I asked the question. But since in all of your expert theological training, you are not grasping the concept of “weasel words,” and maybe they just skipped Logic 101 altogether with you or maybe it skipped you, I‘m going to give you a primer for this board because you’re seriously misguided if you don’t think they have a place in logic.


Clearly an uncalled for attack. I said nothing in my original posts that would question your intelligence or your education level (that came in response to this post) so here the list of words that you find weasly would be value. Why are they "weasel words?"

Weasel words are ways of making statements vague (see your sidekicks statements as well)


What side kick? Robin? Is he here? I thought he was killed by the Joker, Thank God Robin is alive! So who is my side kick?


and thereby cause them to destroy any empirical meaning.


What empirical meaning? You think words have empirical meaning? I don't understand that.

I’ve given some examples already such as may, could, perhaps, etc. Now when a direct question is asked, if it includes one of many of those weasel words, it loses the importance of falsifiablity.


What exactly are you claiming needs to be falsified? The meaing of a text? How do you do that?


Any statement that lacks falsifiability will lack verfiability as well.


Where did you get that idea? I don't seem to recall that in any lectures on the historical critical method. I think are extrapoloting from disiciplines that dont' apply. Moreover, I really have trouble seeing how it applies to statments of my own belief. What must one do to falsify what one believes about Biblical insiration? Also, you think that might take some time? Maybe it would require like a whole book? Which might be why I recomeneded one? You think?

And if one can’t answer the Ezra and the Nehemiah pericopes direct as to why they are still not contradictions and errors, and I suppose claim they are not from the inerrancy camp; then, that's what I'm trying to address. Comprehende?

I don't claim that they aren't contradictions. I only calim that it doesnt' matter that they are. Because my view of inspirtation is not based upon inerrency and doesnt' matter if there are contradictions as long as they are not of a certain kind, ie theolgoical ones.


It’s really straightforward. Polycarp didn’t have any trouble, nor did the quotes he provided from Bede leave any doubt on his position either on inerrancy.

I wasn't concerned with any of that. I was concerned with the fack that you seemed to be mocking my views and I doubt that you know what they are (sure enough you have demonstrated that you aren't capable of understanding them anyway).

OK whatever give me that list.

Muad'Dib

Cool it, MC; I realize that you try to write these off as warped humor later, but surely you realize that it does not come across in that way in writing. We can do without the abuse in this forum.

And for everyone else: please remain (or become) calm, and please leave Metacrock's spelling out of this discussion. In the past he has promised to be careful not to make too many errors; I trust that he is still making efforts toward this end.

Photocrat

Mmm. I could pick out several names among those which were bolded which actually matched up rather well. I mean, using more modern names, "John" and "Johnathan" aren't necessarily two different people...

But frankly, what would anyone care if we didn't know the exact name of the descendants of someone in the OT? Does ANYONE really care how many kids such and so had way back when? Why? How is it theologically important? In the NT, you might remember being told not to worry about genologies, contentions & strivings about the law and such... This seems to be right up that alley... You might've done far better to at least mention the geneologies in Matthew & Luke, claim that they're inconsistant [not hard] & then claim that they were totally fabricated to make sure that Jesus had the proper ancestry; then go on to wonder at why that would even matter, given the Virgin Birth...

Instead, you gave us some old typos from the OT which few people likely care about. *yawn* Wake me when you move on to something interesting, okay? :] Even the Bible where they had the typo "thou shalt commit adultery" is more interesting than this...

If you wanted to go somewhere with this, why didn't you pick a harder contradiction than this? *shrug* A few typos & a few wrong names and numbers. So, my faith is in jeopardy from this how? I think it might interest you to know that there is more than one model of divine inspiration & most Christians wouldn't care if they found out there were some unimportant tidbits like that wrong in the OT.

Vorkosigan

This thread has become entirely too acrimonious for my taste and I am locking it down. Substantive issues as raised by Brighid, Haran and others, may be dealt with in new threads.

John, the use of "weasel words" that triggered this whole mess was unjustified.

The moderators have asked in several threads now that comments about Metacrock's spelling stop. It is long past time for that. To his credit, Metacrock's posts are rich in substance and there is much that could profitably be addressed. There is no need, and no call, for snide comments.

Personally, I would like to see the level of discussion in the BC&A forum rise to the point where personalities are dispensed with.

Michael Turton
Administrator