The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

More On

October 3, 2005 | 219 Comments

More on Why Would a Homosexual Want to Join the Church? over at The Dawn Patrol, with analysis by Dawn, Lauren, me and others in the comments.

You can be mean here, but be nice there or she’ll delete your comments and I’ll stop linking to stuff like this anymore.

And don’t pretend you don’t know the difference between mean and nice.

Comments

219 Responses to “More On”

  1. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:32 pm

    I thought I would come visit you RA in your native habitat. I don’t think I will make a practice of commenting though. You have too many really nasty types derailing some rather interesting conversations. I have limited patience for that kind of thing.

    In any case, I think I would like to present your readers with an executive summary of our discussion over at Dawn’s. We are all over the board there, too.

    So why would a homosexual joing a Church? What else would anybody do who comes to believe that Christianity is true? There is no other reason.

    By the way, I noticed, while nosing around, that one Jahrta is among your readers. If he is the same one whose anti-Christianity arguments I demolished over at the Evangelical Atheist, I am waiting for his formal announcement that he is converting!

  2. The Raving Atheist
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:47 pm

    Hi, Colleen! When and if it comes, I’ll post Jahrta’s announcement as the Quote of the Day so you can see it on the main page without dirtying yourself in the comments. And if anyone says anything anti-Christian in a comment thread that you have entered, I will delete it. Just because Christians are [comment deleted by site owner] and harbor beliefs like [comment deleted by site owner], doesn’t mean they can be treated with disrespect.

    Thank you for dropping by and [comment deleted by site owner]. Please feel free to visit any time!

  3. Nick the Dick
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 3:32 pm

    Colleen,

    Nasty is believing Christian nonsense.
    Jesus? Really! Superman is more believable.

  4. The Raving Atheist
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 3:37 pm

    Nick the Dick said:

    Colleen,

    [comment deleted by site owner] is believing Christian [comment deleted by site owner].
    Jesus? Really! [comment deleted by site owner]

  5. leon
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 3:37 pm

    [comment was never typed out because it would be deleted] Christianity! And furthermore I think Christians are [this comment was never typed out either for the same as reason stated above]. So I won’t beat around the bush at how [comment was never typed out because it would be deleted] Christians are.

  6. benjamin
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 4:10 pm

    Colleen, YOU Condemn Unreasonable Nasty Theatrics!
    TRA, how are you going to edit that!?

  7. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 4:31 pm

    Have a heart, y’all, have a heart! I am half Irish and half Italian and I lose my temper easily. I am not going to let a bunch of raving atheistettes cost me untold gazillions of years in purgatory, just for the enjoyment of ticking them off!

    Well, RA, maybe I will stick around despite the very real possibility of losing that immortal thingamabobby that y’all don’t believe in.

  8. benjamin
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

    Colleen, it’s understandable that you are full of Concern Regarding Atheists’ Profanity. But you should show us your Temperance Is Truly Superior, and Be Everything A Valiant Exemplar Requires.

  9. qedpro
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

    you don’t beleive in it either Colleen, you just want to.

  10. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 5:39 pm

    I must be an unmitigated liar. Not only am I commenting profusely but enjoying it!.

    Benjamin, I am not as much concerned with your (corporately speaking) profanity, as with the disrespect too many of you show to anyone with whom you disagree. Worse, some of you don’t read carefully and then go off on tangents, thus derailing a really interesting topic.

    Looking to me for an example of temperance is about as useful as looking for superior examples of chastity at Pandagon– it is just not in the genes! But I promise to read carefully and not go off on tangents.

  11. He Who Hath Many Handles
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

    Unmitigated liar…Christian…whatever. All the same to me.

  12. Erik
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 6:59 pm

    Colleen,

    There has been an uptick in the profanity on this site of late, and I’m going to take a crack at a reason why that may be. I haven’t thought this completely through, and I am going basically off what I experience myself, so I’d welcome other views on this.

    I have been in debates with Christians for years now, most of the time very cordial. Virtually every time it has got personal and insulting, I have not been the instigator, and I say virtually only because I cannot recount every instance; I’m just guessing that my patience has snapped on occasion. Many atheists I know have a hair trigger in this regard for the simple fact that, like it or not, many believers to react very negatively to atheism. The atheist is immediately branded as immoral, or at best amoral. It’s slowly and rather begrudgingly changing, but if you want to try something fun, come on down here to Texas and tell everyone at the next football party that you are an atheist. So that’s one factor.

    The other factor is a little harder to quantify. It basically goes like this: almost every argument by a believer must perforce entail an appeal to (1) faith, (2) the supernatural (whatever that is), (3) the unexplainable, or (4) extreme skepticism about the efficacy of reason. The problem, if it’s not already obvious, is that these cannot reasonably be debated because they deny the fundamentals upon which debate is founded; they are effectively “King’s X”. For example, it has been suggested to me a gajillion times to go read “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. So I did. The number of unsupported statements that provide the foundation for Lewis’s conclusions is simply breathtaking. You hardly know where to begin. If you do start to address things point by point, you are certain you will be wasting your breath, because at some juncture, one of (1) – (4) above will be appealed to, rendering any further debate untenable.

    There have been many posts started here of late by proselytizing Christians. When you read them, as an atheist, your mind goes through this calculation: do I spend the time correcting the astonishing number of misconceptions, which corrections will be ignored, or do I just say “fuck off, you dolt”, or nothing at all? My guess is a lot of atheists here opt for that last option (I do), though plenty have opted for that middle one, too.

  13. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 6:59 pm

    He …Handles: Oh, poor fella! Not able to to categorize, eh? It isn’t fun dealing with impaired cognition. Sort of like not being able to distinguish colors only worse; it really is a bummer.

  14. Eclectic Guru
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 7:01 pm

    Benjamin, you rock!

  15. zaratustra
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 7:23 pm

    This is what I got when posting in Dawn’s blog. And I was really nice, but alas, candid.
    That lady is a Mullah

    Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

  16. UG
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 7:28 pm

    The supernatural…that is one MAJOR reason why I find it pointless to debate religious people. I once was debating something with some religious conservative on a forum when he made a comment that illnesses (as in medical illnesses) are caused by demons (as in horney little creatures with bat wings).

    When you are confronted by that sort of belief, what is the point in continuing? It’s debating with a delusional.

  17. zaratustra
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 7:48 pm

    “The supernatural…that is one MAJOR reason why I find it pointless to debate religious people.”

    The supernatural is what you have to debate with religious people.

  18. St. Teabag
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 8:16 pm

    Colleen, I doubt very much that you demolished Jahrta’s arguments, but being a christian you are probably unable to notice when you have been bested, largely because you cannot understand rational arguments when they conflict with your silly little book of fairy tales. I expect you consider someone giving up trying to get through to you as winning an argument, which is, after all the christian way.

  19. benjamin
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 8:45 pm

    Back on topic, the question is why homosexuals would desire to join a group that maintains ultimate truth is found in a book that condemns them as Foul Amoral Ghastly Sinners? Complete fulfillment of the lifestyle advocated by this book would require them to live in Habitual Evasion of Legitimate Libido, or else adhere to Loathsome Insiduous Editing Styles.

  20. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 9:58 pm

    Wow, what a lot of emotion. Lots of smoke but little fire. The thing that I find most disturbing about the comments here and in most blogs like this one (also lefty political blogs) is the utter lack of humor (besides the anger/hatred).

    So for example, St. Teabag (great handle by the way), when I said that I had demolished Jahrta’s arguments, that was not supposed to be taken literally but it was supposed to get a laugh. In fact, TRA is the only atheist that I have met so far who has a real sense of humor. Maybe it comes in handy for taking the abuse he gets heaped on him, if what I read here today is any indication.

    Erik, yours was a great post. And I think I agree with most of it. I would really like to talk about Lewis with you; you probably know that he is one of the really major figures in medieval studies which is what I did my graduate work in and where I first met him. “Mere Christianity” is a very different beast. The little chapters were originally 15 minute radio talks aimed at a very modestly educated audience. I wouldn’t have expected anyone who is up to a more robust intellectual workout to be very impressed with much of it.

    I am constantly amazed at the way many Christians argue (re the 4 points you enumerated) I would not and don’t. Rather than use up any more of RA’s bandwidth I will refer you to what I wrote at the Evangelical Atheist , if you are interested (11 comments or so up from the bottom) : http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/05/guest-post-by-chad/

    If this gives us any ground for discussion, I am game.

    And finally, re your dissection of the anger and profanity here. I think you are, by and large right, but there is another component that I would posit: most posters here are males as are most posters on political blogs. Most of them are young or adolescents and therefore mostly unmarried (we can throw in an occasional divorced, bitter guy).

    Men, uncivilized by women, are (let’s face it) wind-breaking, uncouth animals. I further posit that your excellent manners and RA’s are virtually certain indicators that you are married. (How am I doing?) What I feel certain of is that if we were all face to face, males and females of various ages, the manners would improve as would the language. But in the grey faceless world of the Internet, we are all free to let out the inner beast. Even me.

    I, of course, am not really a woman; I am a dog.

  21. Viole
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:18 pm

    Colleen;

    I agree with you entirely. Men are, without exception, disgusting, vile, uncouth, sickening bastards. Most people aren’t amenable to line of reasoning for some absurd reason. They have the gall to claim I’m being sexist! Pointing out the obvious isn’t bigoted, it’s eminently rational. Seeing as rationality is supposed to be the epitome of rationality, I find it amazing that so few of the atheists on this site are amenable to my solution, but I feel you’re enough of a kindred spirit to support me.

    What we should do is castrate all male children at birth. That way, they’ll grow up feminine enough to be tolerable in polite society, though I dare say they’ll never be truly acceptable to anyone with discerning taste. For the first time in history, technology has progressed to the point where we can sustain society without the curse of testosterone. The miracle of cloning will allow us to use tissue samples of our favorite male, with the DNA properly extracted, to fertilize our eggs. There will no longer be a need for the disgusting and perverted practice known as ‘sex’, which is the greatest benefit of my solution.

    So what do you say? Should we get together and enact this excellent plan? Or continue to suffer under the incompetence and filthiness of the male scourge?

    Yours in friendship,
    Viole

  22. St. Teabag
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:24 pm

    Viole, show us yer tits love!

  23. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:32 pm

    LOL! Like I said, no sense of humor at all. The good [that person you don’t believe in] love you, you will fall for anything!

  24. St. Teabag
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:34 pm

    Colleen, you’re welcome to do the same. Let’s make a video: theists gone wild! wooo hooo

  25. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:45 pm

    I might have considered it, dear Tea (I may call you Tea, may I not?) were it not for the fact that I am sick of always being the bridesmaid and never the bride. You asked Viole first and that has wounded me to the quick.

  26. Viole
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:50 pm

    I expected Colleen to miss the joke, but not, Teabag.

  27. Colleen
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 10:53 pm

    Actually, I did, Viole, unfortunately only after I answered. It is too close to bed time… Try not to say anything the least bit subtle before 9 a.m. or after 8 p.m. I am to have any chance of getting it.

  28. St. Teabag
    October 3rd, 2005 @ 11:01 pm

    I got it Viole, but for some time now I have suspected that deep down there is a small part of you the really believes that all men are scum. I know I do, and I Should know!

    And no, colleen you may not call me tea. I didn’t spend all those years in Saint school just to be called that.

    However, I still think the theists gone wild video could be a big hit.

  29. Jason Malloy
    October 4th, 2005 @ 12:48 am

    “You can be mean here, but be nice there or she’ll delete your comments and I’ll stop linking to stuff like this anymore.”

    Yeah, I got a warning.

  30. Erik
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:36 am

    Colleen,

    Thank you for your kind reply. I was married once. I’ll try to review your post soon and revert.

  31. Erik
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:24 am

    Colleen,

    As I read your post at the Evangelical Atheist, your position is that you accept the four gospels as literal truth. This is a position that incorporates at least three of the four problems I listed in my first post. There are many problems with accepting the gospels as witness accounts, and I do not intend to go into all of them here, as that would completely hijack this thread.

    But a few points need to be made. First, to accept them as reliable eyewitness accounts, you have to drop the standards by which reliability is judged. For example, there are no extant copies of any gospel until well into the third century, and almost all scholars have concluded that each one of them has undergone serious revision and interpolation. That makes them extremely suspect right away. And one of the problematic side effects of this is that you no longer have any standards by which to judge whether any other such stories are reliable or not. So, for example, you could not seriously challenge the myths set forth in the Book of Mormon, or the fantastic tales of Appolonius.

    The notion that Jesus’s life is one of the best attested lives from ancient times is one of those myths that finds its strength in repetition. The life of Julius Caesar is far better attested, since we have his own writings, and numerous contemporary accounts by colleagues and, most importantly, enemies. Jesus doesn’t come close.

    Indeed, it is clear that Christian copyists tinkered with Josephus’s writings to add a reference to Jesus (perhaps even both references). One has to wonder why anyone would feel the need to do so if that life was already so well-attested.

    Finally, to accept the reliability that the entire set of stories are in fact true, you have to accept that supernatural events occur. Until it can be reliably demonstrated today that accounts of supernatural events should be taken seriously, I think it is eminently reasonable to state that each of the miracles, etc., set forth in the gospels did not occur. To accept them as true is to take us out of the realm of debate.

  32. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:41 am

    Colleen, I asked you to show us your tits and beaver in post 8, before Viole even entered this discussion. So how about it? Perhaps I was too subtle at the wrong time of day, but if you go back and look for it, it’s there, so consider yourself the bride this time and go lose your clothes and grab your camera.

  33. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:01 am

    “…I am sick of always being the bridesmaid and never the bride. ”

    Ah, a spinster then are you, lass? But then who needs a husband when one is the bride of our Lord Jesus?

  34. Viole
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:25 am

    Well, yes, Teabag, but I think that small part of me you’re referring to thinks that all people are scum. I admit, I like to think better of women, but I’ve never been able to sustain that belief for very long. Reality is just too relentless, and I encounter too many women who meet the description RA has conveniently posted as the Quote of the Day. Don’t get me wrong; I meet plenty of men who fit it, too, but just because I don’t want to sleep with them doesn’t mean I have to hate them.

  35. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:41 am

    benjamin: The humor I am most fond of is the kind that delights everyone by its unexpectedness and intelligence. I don’t have much taste for scatalogical humor. It may be a gender thing– a little too much testosterone and not enough wit, for my preferences.

    hermesten: lol! You’d have done better to end the sentence at “husband”.

    Erik: this is agonizing. Maybe RA will open up a thread on the historicity of the Bible books for us. As someone who is trained in history, I can’t accept your objections (as stated so far), as compelling, i.e. I think they can be answered.

    Although why I am shy about hijacking this thread again after doing so right from the very beginning is an interesting question to ponder…

  36. jahrta
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:52 am

    “I don’t have much taste for scatalogical humor” – I find this statement quite odd, colleen, considering you’ve swallowed the double-barrelled bullshit of the bible and organized religion in one hearty gulp.

    care for a tic-tac love? it might get rid of the aftertaste

  37. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:57 am

    Now, don’t make me come over and spank you again, Jahrta. Wasn’t the drubbing I gave you over at the Evangelical Atheist enough?

  38. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:09 am

    Colleen, what should we strangers make of you from your various comments, quoted below?

    “You have too many really nasty types derailing some rather interesting conversations. I have limited patience for that kind of thing.”

    A certain sense of moral and intellectual superiority here? Shall we call it “pride?”

    “I am half Irish and half Italian and I lose my temper easily.”

    A priori excuse and self-justification? A sort of special pleading perhaps? Should we conclude from this remark that a full blooded Italian deserves less or more indulgence?

    “The thing that I find most disturbing about the comments here and in most blogs like this one (also lefty political blogs) is the utter lack of humor (besides the anger/hatred).”

    I find plenty of humor here. I found Viole’s comments about males, subsequent to yours, very humorous. On the other hand, I don’t find your comments to be particularly amusing. So what conclusions can one draw from your remark? That only what you find funny is humorous? That your sense of humor, your taste, is superior to that of atheists and lefties?

    And what if, on a political blog, or a blog such as this one, there was no humor whatsoever: why would that be “disturbing?” I can see where it might be dreary, but “disturbing?” “Disturbing” seems a peculiar descriptive choice, unless you perceive yourself as looking down at the rest of us from your lofty intellectual perch. Can we sense more than a little self-satisfaction in your remarks?

    Also, why do you link anger and hatred, if not to dismiss legitimate, and often justified, angry and passionate rhetoric as being “hateful.” Can you not be angry at someone you love without hating them? So tell us then, if one speaks plainly, and says George Dubya Bush is a liar, is one being hateful, or just humorless?

    “TRA is the only atheist that I have met so far who has a real sense of humor.”

    Could you give us some perspective for this claim? How many atheists have you met? Under what circumstances have you met them? I’m always on the lookout for atheists myself, and outside my family, I don’t think I’ve met more than two or three people whom I actually know to be atheists. And what consititutes a “real” sense of humor? Are you asserting a claim to an exclusive and “superior” sense of humor, or are you merely saying that only those who laugh at what makes you laugh have a “real” sense of humor?

    “I would really like to talk about Lewis with you; you probably know that he is one of the really major figures in medieval studies which is what I did my graduate work in and where I first met him.”

    In the old days they used to call this “blowing your own horn” and “name dropping” Whoo hoo! Colleen has a graduate degree and met C.S. Lewis. Funny, I’ve been posting here a long time, and I don’t know what the academic credentials are of most of the long-term posters here who are worthy of respect –TRA, Erik, Viole, Frank, Jean-Paul F, etc. But you just dropped in and I already know you did graduate work in medieval studies. Mmmmmm. It tells us more about you than you might think.

    “…most posters here are males as are most posters on political blogs. Most of them are young or adolescents and therefore mostly unmarried (we can throw in an occasional divorced, bitter guy).”

    I think we can all probably agree on the first point, since nicknames often confer the sex of the poster (at least on non-sex sites). It seems like quite a leap though to then conclude that “most” of them are “young” (whatever that is supposed to mean) or “adolescents” and “therefore mostly unmarried.” This sounds like some real special pleading.

    “What I feel certain of is that if we were all face to face, males and females of various ages, the manners would improve as would the language.”

    And what, pray tell, makes you so certain? Personally, I’ve found the religious Christian to be amiable for only about as long as you don’t question his beliefs. The majority of those I have spoken to frankly about religion get rattled very quickly, and either get mad if they continue to talk, or they get uncomfortable and leave. Having talked to numerous such Christians over the years, perhaps fifty or so, I’ve only found about three or four capable of sustaining an intelligent and civil conversation –and two of these were really more like deists, and the other two were Catholic (not a single one has been a fundamentalist). By contrast , I’ve had such discussions with a handful of Muslims, and one Jew, and all of them could deal with any challenge and remain civil.

  39. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:13 am

    Colleen, you are the one lacking wit. You didn’t manage to perceive the offensive nature of my posts until it was blatantly pointed out to you. You also spelled “scatological” wrong. I don’t have any use for you except as the butt of my jokes. If you think you deserve more respect, you’ll have to prove your worth, be more on top of things, and not blame your failures on the time of day. You came here with a pretentious attitude, and that is why you have received the ridicule you deserve.

  40. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:35 am

    Colleen,

    As someone who is also trained in history, let me assure you that Erik’s points are well-founded. Jesus has no comtemporaries in historical literature who discuss him.

    The synoptic gospels are self-contradictory, and many of their authors cannot be confirmed. Apocryphal gospels that tend to pre-date them contradict them further, and paint a picture of a figure almost entirely different from the one displayed by any mainstream Christian sect for hundreds of years. Moreover, as these documents are based more on allegory, the actual evidence provided by them is weaker still.

    The strongest Christian documentary evidence is supposedly based on the letters of the so-called Saint Paul, another Christian figure that has no independent stature to be relied upon as a witness.

    Much is made of hypothetical core documents such as the “Q Document”; as this document does not exist, speculation about it for proving Jesus’ existence is pointless.

    No non-Christian figure mentions Jesus during his lifetime; the often-cited Roman sources always refer to Christianity, but not Jesus himself. The Jewish scholar Josephus did discuss Jesus extensively, but:

    — Josephus did not live at the same time as Jesus
    — Much of Josephus’ writings, including those about Jesus, show the clear marks of forgery by other hands

  41. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:51 am

    Colleen,

    I just read your so-called smackdown over on Evangelical Atheist, and I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the standard by which Classicists judge ancient accounts and their reliability, particularly if you call Jesus “the best attested ancient life we have” while making an unreasonable comparison to the age of Caesar’s conquests of Gaul.

    As has already been demonstrated to you, no one that can be reliably authenticated can be shown to have actually interacted with and documented interacting with Jesus during his supposed life. He never wrote down anything in his own hand.

    By contrast, Gaius Julius Caesar not only wrote his own accounts of his adventures in Gaul, but was backed up by other contemporary accounts of his life and death. By this standard alone, Jesus falls falls below Caesar, at the very least, in terms of “attested ancient figures”.

    I haven’t even gotten into the equally likely postulate that Jesus is a totally mythical amalgam of Mithraic and other pagan godheads, subsumed by messianic figures to form a new religion around the gnostic, communal beliefs espoused in the Gospel of Thomas, later warped into what you see today as modern-day Christianity.

  42. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:58 am

    Colleen is a Woman Hiding Obscene Raunchy Enthusiasm!

  43. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

    Wow! what a lot of vitriol. I don’t have the energy to deal with most of it, so I will respond just to those parts that I found interesting:

    Bennie: I didn’t perceive the offensiveness of your post because I wasn’t looking to be offended. I just assumed you were a poor typist. The business about the time of day was just a bit of self-deprecating humor. You know. That quality that most of you completely lack. Now that you have pointed it out to me, I find my assumption that many of you are adolescents confirmed.

    Hermie: Where to begin? Lets start with the ridiculous. I never claimed to have met CS Lewis! He died in 1963. When I said I met him in my studies, I meant “in print”. So sorry, that is the way us educated people talk.

    Then there is this: And what if, on a political blog, or a blog such as this one, there was no humor whatsoever: why would that be “disturbing?” I can see where it might be dreary, but “disturbing?” “Disturbing” seems a peculiar descriptive choice, unless you perceive yourself as looking down at the rest of us from your lofty intellectual perch. Can we sense more than a little self-satisfaction in your remarks?

    You can sense whatever you like. But a lack of humor is dangerous. People who take themselves too seriously are dangerous. They are the fascists in this world. It doesn’t matter where you fall on the spectrum from zealous atheist to zealous theist. To lack humor, to be always angry, to admit to no doubts, is to be the sort who can send people to the gulag or to the gas ovens with a clear conscience. Disturbing.

    This was interesting too: “What I feel certain of is that if we were all face to face, males and females of various ages, the manners would improve as would the language.” And what, pray tell, makes you so certain?

    LOL! I was giving you the benefit of the doubt!

    But frankly, if you have addressed all the Christians you have claimed to have addressed with the same bile with which you have addressed me here, I am surprised they haven’t decked you. Well, ok, we follow a different example.

    Still, if I continue to post here, I shall learn the lesson you wanted to teach me. I will treat you like poisonous snakes; like enemies. I will be as angry, as insulting and unwilling to listen as you.

    Nah. That isn’t the sort of person I want to be. Too bad it is the kind of person you want to be.

  44. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 12:22 pm

    Hey Colleen!
    Good to see you here and as sharp as ever! I’ve been here a few weeks now, and with a few notable exceptions (you know who you are), the amount of pious, humorless, pontificating that goes on at this place makes the worst theist blog pale in comparison. Whatever you do, don’t wander into the forums. The level of humor over there barely ever rises above such nuggets as…

    ‘You are making baby Jesus cry.’

    ….my fascination with this place (like that of a train wreck) has just about run it’s course. My advice to you….don’t waste your time.

  45. Xianghong
    October 4th, 2005 @ 12:23 pm

    To add on to Erik’s point on debating theists:
    I’ve never really understood the point of debating with theists, since it’s by definition a RATIONAL discussion of idea whereas religion is again, by definition a system of beliefs based on FAITH (i.e. not based on reason). Hence arguing till we’re all blue in the face will achieve absolutely nothing more than holding a prayer competition.
    What I propose is a compromise to (somewhat) level the playing field: the evil atheist will attempt to kick the shit out of the theist while the latter prays for God to smite the former.
    I know it’s unfair but hey we atheists are used to getting the short end of the stick.

  46. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 12:44 pm

    Hi Steve G,

    Is Colleen being as “sharp as ever” when she boasts constantly of “taking apart” Jharta’s arguments when, in fact, she evidences very little knowlege of Classical historiography?

  47. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:01 pm

    Jim,
    Shall we discuss what the consensus regarding the existence of Jesus is amongst serious historians? Is there anyone of substance other than Doherty who makes even a moderately compelling case that Jesus didn’t exist? Since you claim you are a historian as well, can you tell me, what is the consensus?

    Further your suggestion that the gnostic gospels predate the synoptics make me question if this is your area of expertise. The consensus amongst even secular scholars is that the gospels were written at the lates between 70 and 110 AD. We have fragments of John dating to 130, and we have citations from the gospels themselves in the letters of writers from as early as 110. The Earliest date for Thomas is given as 120-130, but range as late as 250. The other gnostic can’t even come close to being dated as contemporary to the ‘traditional’ gospels.

  48. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:03 pm

    Jim: See comment #20. While you are welcome to think that I know little of classical historiography, that is a proposition, and, as you know, propositions are either true or false. If I can find the energy after I finish bleaching my eyeballs (too much muck here for my taste), I may try to flesh out my opinions in a way that is more satisfying to you.

  49. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:15 pm

    So let me get this straight, you take the probability that Jesus existed without writing anything of his own, without being mentioned by Roman records, etc, and multiply that by the probability that the outlandish stories about him are true (virgin birth, miracles performed, rebirth) even though they appear to be allusions to existing myths, and take into account that no one marked the site of the single most important supposedly historical event that ever occured (crucifiction), and you come up with a probability that is high enough to devote your life to? Would you like to buy some lottery tickets?

  50. Viole
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:27 pm

    It can be much more pleasurable to prove the arrogant right, and mock them in the process, than to exert the effort to prove them wrong.

  51. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

    Steve G!!

    Great to see you and thanks for responding to Jim and better than I could. I am also not able to oblige right now. My employer actually expects some work out of me today!

    I know what you mean about the fascination of a train wreck… I think my curiosity is pretty much satisfied, too.

    While there will always be blog weeds, so to speak, I did rather expect that some people here would be interested in having a real coversation about religion, current events, etc. from our different perspectives. Unfortunately, even if that is true, it looks like there are too many who won’t let it happen.

    Ah well, they let anyone on the Internet, don’t they?

  52. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

    Jim,
    A little snippet from wikipedia….

    F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has said: “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar.”

    …so despite your claim that the historicity of Julius Caesar is somehow of a different nature, it seems that your historian brothers who are experts in this particular area are in disagreement.

    I think that answers the first part of your screed as well Benjamin.

  53. a different tim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:33 pm

    Er…as far as I am aware the myth isn’t that someone called Jesus or possibly Joshua preached at around that time (exact dates of birth etc hard to fix as I seem to recall Herod died in 4BC, there are few records of the “great census” etc – or maybe the census was 4BC. You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve just moved house and my reference library is in cardboard boxes). The myth is that he was the son of God who died for our sins, performed miracles etc. Noone doubts Elvis existed but not everyone believes he came back after his death to work in Burger King.

    Steve – we’ll be sorry to see you go (if you do) but on the other hand you did put a stop order on my robot.

  54. Erik
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:38 pm

    Well, then, F.F. Bruce is an idiot. We have actual writing by Julius Caesar, multiple mentions of him by contemporary Roman historians, statutes of him, including one from his lifetime, and Roman coins with his likeness printed on them.

    Jesus has exactly zero of these things. The only thing even remotely contemporary is an obscure reference of dubious reliability. The supposed eyewitness accounts are decades after the purported events, clearly rely on each other (such that they cannot be said to be four independent acounts), consititute translations of dialogue and maybe of the entire set of stories (unless you’re going to argue that illiterate Galilean fishermen were raised speaking Greek), clearly have been subject to revision and interpolation, and are so full of holes it’s hard to take any of it seriously. Further, you have the curious problem that the earlier written works, such as the epistles, are remarkably silent on the actual supposed life of a recent human being. Maybe if you can find a series of Roman histories from the last few decades of the BC period that leave no room for Julius Caesar, I’ll pay attention. I may not be 100% convinced that no Jesus ever existed, but to say that it is as axiomatic that Jesus is to simply ignore the problems with the evidence.

  55. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:47 pm

    adt:
    Quoting from Jim’s post above (#41)….

    I haven’t even gotten into the equally likely postulate that Jesus is a totally mythical amalgam of Mithraic and other pagan godheads, subsumed by messianic figures to form a new religion around the gnostic, communal beliefs espoused in the Gospel of Thomas, later warped into what you see today as modern-day Christianity.

    ….and in another comment thread Viole (sorry to drag you in) said…

    I happen to be a part of the crowd that isn’t convinced Jesus even existed.

    … are but a few examples. I have heard this time and again since hanging out here. It’s much worse yet in the forums. If the claim was what you are suggesting, I think that might be more reasonable. But the claims seem to me to go much further in many cases.

    Not sure I am leaving yet, but for sure I need to stay out of the forums. It’s just flat out ugly in there. I am afraid my experience there has left a bad taste in my mouth, and it’s what’s causing me to be a bit more snarky than usual. Apoligies for that (one can only take so much Christ-psychosis nonsense before wanting to deck someone).

  56. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:49 pm

    Steve, perhaps, like me, you can learn to completely ignore any of calpurnpiso’s posts; I think they constitute about 2000 identical posts.

  57. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:50 pm

    Sigh. I see that when pressed, our debaters will now deal in tried-and-true logical fallcies. I’ll address them, and the points, in detail here.

    Colleen: In comment 20, as with many of your comments, I’ve been able to discern little relevant to this particular part of the thread, other than a mention of your background as a medievalist, which would (hopefully) provide some knowledge of historiography but not necessarily arm you with any expertise as to the historicity of Jesus Christ. You’ve displayed a great deal of wit (when you’re not attacking straw men), so I do hope you’ll stop evading this discussion and actually return to debate it on the relevant issues.

    Steve G: Where to begin? I’m a Classicist, but not a Biblicist, so this is *not* directly my area of expertise. But since I interact and study with them, and am very familiar with the literature, I’m more than capable of discussing the issues without relying on wikipedia.

    As you mention, the consensus among Biblical scholars is that there was a historical figure that formed the basis for the religious Jesus, but whom did not perform miracles or supernatural acts.

    This is a consensus that I disagree with because of the preponderance of Classical and logical evidence, which I and others, including other scholars, have directly laid out, and you have not even begun to address. When will you begin to address it?

    Instead, you have engaged in ad hominem attacks on me (“is this really your area of expertise?”) and appeals to higher authority “Biblical scholars disagree with you, you must be wrong!”, both of which are logical fallacies, and both of which completely evade a reasonable debate. This makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you.

    When will you begin to address the textual and historical problems with the existence of Jesus, rather than attacking my authority and appealing to others?

    Two more quick-points:
    — The pagan Christ-Myth theory is just a theory, but it is supported by some scholarship, such as Doherty’s that you’ve already mentioend. And it is at least as well documented as the existence of Christ as an actual person, in my opinion. Please discuss this further on the facts and evidence, rather than attacking myself or Doherty and appealing to higher authorities.
    — And as to the order of the gospels, we only have dated apocrypha of such late dates because of a concerted effort by later churches to aggressively purge them from existence; this does not eliminate the possibility of an earlier creation date, any more than the existence of Caesar’s commentaries from Gaul at 1000AD means that Julius Caesar lived 1000 years after the death of your supposed Christ-figure.

  58. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:55 pm

    Steve G:

    It’s interesting that you want to deck people who bring up points of view that challenge either your religious beliefs, or even commonly held academic ones. Have you considered anger management?

    Perhaps engaging in genuine debate on facts rather than logical fallacy would help channel this aggression more positively.

    Or, even, some of that “prayer” stuff I’ve heard you guys talk about.

  59. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 2:57 pm

    LOL… I’ve tried, I really have, but temperance has never been one of my strong suits.

    Beyond that, the forums have another problem. I don

  60. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:00 pm

    Jim: this is the relevant bit from #20 So for example, St. Teabag (great handle by the way), when I said that I had demolished Jahrta’s arguments, that was not supposed to be taken literally but it was supposed to get a laugh.

    Jim: I am not evading the issue. I am at work (trying to work but it has been a hellish day) and I don’t have the uninterrupted leisure to compose a thoughtful answer. I will try to do better tonight, I promise.

    What do you mean by attacking straw men?

  61. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:01 pm

    I’m an atheist, and I find that sort of thing disgusting.

    I don’t mind porn, but tricking people into viewing it (particularly if they might be at work, or might be offended by it) is, frankly, bullshit.

  62. benjamin
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:07 pm

    Steve, Eva to the resue:

    If you don’t want to see the images that other poster add to their postings, go to profile>display>untick images in post.

    this way all you will see in a posting are the links to the image, not the actual image.
    you will be able to see the uploaded image if you click on it.

    thanks,

    eva, your goddess-like mod.

  63. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:07 pm

    Colleen:

    I didn’t think you were evading the issue when you said you had to work. It did, however, seem that you had plenty of time to go off on how badly people treat you here, rather than respond to the cordial points Erik and I have been making.

    I literally didn’t see the thing about Jahrta’s arguments being a joke; I apologize for that. It seemed like one hell of an overly repeated boast for what, to me, was a weak argument ;)

    As to straw men, I meant specifically that it seemed like you were more interested in diatribes about how rude people are on weblogs (duh, get anonymous people, especially men, online, and watch what happens) rather than engaging in the informed debates you seemed to crave.

    I’ll cut you some slack and see if you put your money where your mouth is on that one, though.

  64. jahrta
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:20 pm

    sheesh – i’m gone for a day and suddenly everyone’s talking about me. Colleen – I never bothered to return to the evangelical atheist because this site is just WAY more active. TEA seemed as if people were only posting once a day or so and I prefer to post here instead. Don’t take my lack of a comeback argument as a priori proof of your own immutable truth shining through the cracks of my hitherto-impenertable atheistic armor. My point remains as it was originally stated. I’d get more into it but I see Jim (and others) beat me to the punch. I also enjoyed Viole’s comment #50.

  65. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:24 pm

    Colleen:

    Finally, vis a vis comment #51, if ad hominem, appealing to higher authority, and other logical fallacies are “responding better than [you] ever could”, then you may find yourself at a serious disadvantage when you finally get around to responding after work.

    Just something to think about :)

  66. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:25 pm

    Colleen:

    Finally, vis a vis comment #51, if ad hominem, appealing to higher authority, and other logical fallacies are “responding better than [you] ever could”, then you may find yourself at a serious disadvantage when you finally get around to responding after work.

    Just something to think about :)

  67. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:26 pm

    ADT:
    I submit Erik and Jim

  68. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

    Steve G, I don’t think I’m the only one who plain doesn’t give a shit whether you post here or not. I stopped reading your posts after it became obvious that you have absolutely nothing new to say. Any atheist who has been around awhile has heard your arguments many times. If there is a Christian with a new act, we haven’t seen it yet.

    Steve G to Colleen: “….my fascination with this place (like that of a train wreck) has just about run it’s course. My advice to you….don’t waste your time.”

    Why don’t you go ahead and take your own advice and go find another freak show? You won’t have to waste your time with humorless pontificators and other inferiors, and us inferiors who are bored with your bullshit won’t have to skp over your posts. Win/win.

    “I don

  69. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

    Jim
    It’s interesting that you want to deck people who bring up points of view that challenge either your religious beliefs, or even commonly held academic ones. Have you considered anger management?

    I didn

  70. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:41 pm

    Benjamin, thanks for the tip!

  71. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:53 pm

    Steve G:

    Around and around we go… where you’ll stop, who knows?

    I already conceded that the consensus among Biblical scholars is that there was a non-miraculous, non-supernatural person who was the basis for the religious Christ, and the basis for your quote. Why do you continue to dispute this?

    Actually, *Colleen* brought up the issue of credentials, claiming to know something about history. I retorted with having no small knowledge of it myself. When pressed, I revealed my credentials as a Classicist.

    You, on the other hand, have now admitted that you have no direct knowledge of the subject matter, but can only appeal to the experts in the field. And you have also continued to avoid debating any of the specific points brought up by anyone, instead engaging in classic logical fallacy. This makes you, by definition unequipped to continue in the discussion of the historical evidence of Jesus’ existence.

    I’m not having this debate with Bruce. I’m having it with you.

    Your point about intelligent design is another logical fallacy, and it’s specious. If you brought up intelligent design, I would not only lay out the evidence *against* intelligent design, I would lay out the evidence *for* evolution, and debate you on those points, rather than simply saying “Dawkins says intelligent design is dumb, so you’re wrong!” (Not that you’ve called me names, mind you… )

    And, “we can only work with what we have” on the Gnostics? First off, there is strong evidence that Thomas predates the Synoptic texts, and is closer to the supposed “Q Document” syntactically than any of them, giving a distinct possibility that this particular Gnostic document predates the contradictory “words of god”.

    Second, why don’t we apply the same level of “we can only work with what we have” to the rest of the evidence of Jesus?

    — No works in his name
    — No gospels written by eye-witnesses
    — No contemporary mentions by any non-Christians
    — No Roman contemporary historical discussions
    — No historical evidence of birth or death location

    … I mean, really, it goes on and on, for the single most famous human being in history?

    In the end, it sounds as though you’ve already conceded that you’re not able to debate these points, which is truly a shame.

  72. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 3:56 pm

    Steve G:

    How can you even discuss “burden of proof” when we’re laying out evidence and you won’t debate us on it?

  73. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

    Colleen: “So sorry, that is the way us educated people talk.”

    Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a Cross. Get over yourself.

    Colleen: “But frankly, if you have addressed all the Christians you have claimed to have addressed with the same bile with which you have addressed me here, I am surprised they haven’t decked you. ”

    Don’t be. For one thing, most Chrisitians are pussies when they have nowhere to hide. All you Bible Beaters are far more comfortable making threats and talking up violence than you are dealing it –especially one-on-one. But you are all quick to suggest violence, I’ll give you that. It seems to be your first reaction to every challenge.

    Colleen: “While there will always be blog weeds, so to speak, I did rather expect that some people here would be interested in having a real coversation about religion, current events, etc. from our different perspectives. Unfortunately, even if that is true, it looks like there are too many who won’t let it happen.”

    To quote Steve Martin: “How can you be so fuckin’ funny?” Give me a fuckin’ break. The very first sentence of your first post of this page was: “I thought I would come visit you RA in your native habitat. I don’t think I will make a practice of commenting though. You have too many really nasty types derailing some rather interesting conversations. I have limited patience for that kind of thing.” Just how were you intending to have “real” conversations about “religion,” “current events,” and “etc.” without making “a practice of commenting?” If you’re going to spout bullshit at least keep your story straight.

    In this same first post you’re insulting, smug, arrogant, condescending, and you gratuitiously dis Jahrta. By your fourth post you were giving us your academic credentials and highlighting your intellectual superiority to other Christians.

    I know you Bible Beaters like to play the vicitm, but get off your high-horse.

  74. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:35 pm

    And btw, I can’t let this nonsense pass:

    Colleen: “… a lack of humor is dangerous. People who take themselves too seriously are dangerous. They are the fascists in this world. It doesn’t matter where you fall on the spectrum from zealous atheist to zealous theist. To lack humor, to be always angry, to admit to no doubts, is to be the sort who can send people to the gulag or to the gas ovens with a clear conscience. Disturbing.”

    You need to do a sanity check and get a grip. You don’t know a fuckin’ thing about the people posting here except by what they post on this blog. Because some person posting on a blog is “humorless” (meaning he doesn’t find the same things funny that Colleen does) and “serious,” he’s a dangerous and conscienceless fascist capable of committing genocide? If you’re not just seriously lacking in perspective then you’re, well, nuts. It’s the kind of people who make broad and sweeping generalizations about the morality of others based upon the smug sense of their own superiorty, and some subjective personalilty trait conjured out of anonymous blog postings, that are really dangerous. They’re the kind of nutters who believe the Bible is God’s word and vote for George Bush.

  75. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:40 pm

    Jim:
    I have read the answers to your evidence, and I know you have as well. Tell me what it would serve for me to go pull them from somewhere on the web and regurgitate them here? You already don’t accept them as satisfactory refutations of you points. That’s it. You have an opinion based on your understanding; I have an opinion of it based on mine, and based on my deference to the consensus of those far more qualified than I to make such assesments. YOU are trying to convince me that the consesnus is wrong. That’s why the burden is on you. If you want to pretend that you don’t know the responses to these points fine, but I suspect that you indeed do know the answers but simply don’t find them compelling. In the unlikely event you really have never heard the answers, I’ll refer you back to the link I provided above. They are already answered there, and I see no need to recreate the wheel here…..

    http://bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm

  76. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:42 pm

    Steve G is right. I just looked in the forums (curious) and it was truly disgusting. The language is mostly filth, there is blasphemy in almost every post and there is porn all over th eplace. I honestly do not see what a graphic picture of two men having sex, or a woman with semen all over her face and a label saying “the second coming of christ” have to do with rational debate. I feel sick after looking at this stuff.
    The people who post there should be ashamed of themselves.

    sorry, I posted this in the wrong place

  77. Borgia
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:46 pm

    Colleen,

    your postings have been unconvincing and unamusing although they did help me find my Muse:

    There once was a theist named Colleen
    Believer in the unproved and unseen
    Who had all the erudtion
    Of a salon beautician
    Non-subtly, an I.Q. of 14

  78. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:49 pm

    Steve G:

    It’s interesting how you assume what I do and don’t accept as “satisfactory”. And I’m not looking for you to regurgitate anything off the web. I’m looking for you to engage in intelligent debate.

    But you’re clearly not interested in that. All you want to do is appeal to higher authority.

    Please come back when you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

  79. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:51 pm

    JCLOVE:

    “Blasphemy?” Heavens to murgatroid!

  80. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 4:56 pm

    JCLOVE: “Steve G is right. I just looked in the forums (curious) and it was truly disgusting. The language is mostly filth, there is blasphemy in almost every post and there is porn all over th eplace.”

    Jesus ass-fucking Christ! Sounds pretty goddamm good. I’ve never visited the forums before but I will now. Was that really Jesus’s cum in that picture you mentioned? You didn’t wank to it now did you LOVE? Any really cool pictures of Jesus layin’ pipe or teabagging, or God boning Mary?

  81. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:07 pm

    well, one guy posted pics (graphic ones) of him having sex with a girl. What has that got to do with anything? He wasn’t making some obscure point, he was simply boasting about his sexual exploits.

  82. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

    JCLOVE, where are those pictures? I want to study them for their theololgical implications without looking through a lot of posts on arcane philosophical matters.

  83. Viole
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

    Try here Herm: to the rest of you, that’s the Second Coming of Christ thread, and you might want to avoid it if you don’t appreciate the pornographic. Beyond that, look up a thread called, “Who Jerks Off the Most.” I understand there’s naked pictures of Ghoulslime in there somewhere.

    If you’re just looking for blasphemy, try any thread by Ghoulslime or Choobus. They’re definitely the two most blasphemous individuals on the forum.

    For the rest of you: if you can’t stand dissenting opinions, blasphemy, or naked humans, I suggest you crawl back under whatever rock you came from, and stay there. I prefer theists who aren’t afraid of their humanity.

  84. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:44 pm

    Come on JCLOVE, help me out. I’ve looked through almost every forum and a shitload of threads and all I’ve found is one picture of some boobs. I guess I’ll just have to stick with the porn sites if I want to see some fucking and sucking. Or maybe you Beater’s just have some kind of intrinsic porn detector.

  85. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:48 pm

    “I prefer theists who aren’t afraid of their humanity.”

    Viole, to quote Tyler Durden: “How’s that workin’ out for ya?” Isn’t that kinda like saying you prefer dogs who won’t smell another dog’s ass? Thanks for the link.

  86. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:49 pm

    Surely one can have a *bit* of a sense of humor about that thread… seeing “second coming of JESUS” and then the photo… tee hee

  87. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 5:56 pm

    Well, I still can’t find the jerking off thread. I guess since I’m not a Christian I don’t have a built in porno detector. I should get a Christian to help me look for porno on the internet; I bet I could find some really good stuff.

  88. Jim
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:00 pm

    hemesten,

    Christians usually find the best porno, just like Republican girls in college were *always* the wildest lays.

  89. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:09 pm

    Steve G, thanks to Viole, I checked out “the second coming of JESUS” thread. I just looked at the forums for the first time this afternoon, but unless that was the very first forum thread you ever looked at: COME ON, PALEEEESE! What did you expect to find under this title on an atheist website posted by someone irreverent like “choobus?” Are you really that naive? The implications should have been obvious even without knowing anything about choobus. You guys need to spend a little more time out of the womb. And btw, as far as cum shots go, that one wasn’t half bad.

  90. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:14 pm

    If you can tell me what ghoulslime showing himself having sex has to do with atheism I’m all ears. And this choobus is a disgusting pervert. He is fixated on anal sex and has posted some sick fantasies involving Jesus mary and many others doing foul things to each other. The entire place makes me want to take a shower. I have a sense of humor, but I know where the line between funny and disgusting is. What possible discussion value os ther ein that gross “second coming” thread? Choobus and Ghoulslime are sick individuals.

  91. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:15 pm

    Jim, funny you should mention that. My oldest son recently attended a large, very conservative, predominately Christian college, and the most showy Christians were the nastiest girls there. My son was raised in an uncensored, liberal, and very permissive environment, and even he was shocked at the promoscuity of all these self-righteous Bible beaters. The lesson: wanna fuck, find a fundie Christian girl; wanna talk, find an athiest girl (easier said than done), or a girl who thinks organized religion is bullshit (a little easier than easier said than done).

  92. Steve G.
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:17 pm

    Jim,
    Yes, I see. Very intelligent discussion. I do think I’ll move along then.

  93. Choobus
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

    I say my name and had to check it out. Fuck you JCLOVE you stuck up godidiot. You are the kind of shitsucker that makes me want to fuck Jesus deep in his ass, just the way he likes it.

    Herm, I have brought the jac koff thread to the top just for you!

    again, fuck you JCLOVE

    all the best, sorry to interrupt your debates,

    Choobus

  94. Colleen
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:36 pm

    Steve G. You are a saint! I am not. I thought I was joking when I said at the outset that it would probably cost me a gazillion years in purgatory to stay here because I would lose my temper. Little did I know. Between dodging the stuff that the alt.sex.dirtydiaperbrigade is slinging and trying not to respond to the real psychotics, this has stopped being someplace I want to spend any more precious minutes of my life.

    Jim you and Erik were fun and I am sorry that I won’t be tussling with you (intellectually, I hasten to add). But I am unwilling to wade through the slime here to find your posts. More importantly, I can’t do a better job than Steve G has done, although if I were willing to keep visiting, I would propose that we all define our terms a little better and lay out, as Steve suggested, I think, our criteria for what we can accept as evidence or proof. I don’t know that we would any of us have changed our minds but I think we would have clarified the issues and had a good discussion.

    But yet again we see that a blog is not the best venue for serious discussion of hot button issues.

  95. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm

    “I know where the line between funny and disgusting is.”

    That’s what scares us about you Christians. You purport to know things that can’t be known, and then you want to impose your personal tastes on the rest of us. Please JC, tell us where the line is so we’ll all know.

  96. Choobus
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm

    While I’m at it, fuck you too colleen you sanctimonius cow. You are so judgemental that your godidiot status is unbearably obvious. You probably won’t be missed here because holier than thou arrogance is very common indeed.

    You are full of the christlove, NOT

  97. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:45 pm

    “Between dodging the stuff that the alt.sex.dirtydiaperbrigade is slinging and trying not to respond to the real psychotics, this has stopped being someplace I want to spend any more precious minutes of my life.”

    Oh damm, there goes most of the jerking-off on this thread.

  98. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 6:47 pm

    Btw Colleen, I don’t think you should dodge that stuff; I hear it really helps the complexion.

  99. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 7:19 pm

    That’s what scares us about you Christians. You purport to know things that can’t be known, and then you want to impose your personal tastes on the rest of us. Please JC, tell us where the line is so we’ll all know.

    Well, decide for yourself. This is a post from Choobus:

    “I don’t want to enter the gates of heaven. Instead I will stand outside the gates wanking and spilling my demon seed onto the faces of hot holy babes whom I will lure over to the gate with chocolate cake (but in reality it will be made of my own excrement). The devil has already agreed to this plan, which he said was a “fuckin’ top shelf plan mate”.”

    This is not at all funny, it is rude and disgusting and I really don’t see what it has to do with any kind of rational debate about Atheism. If you cannot see this then perhaps you have become immune to common decency, perhaps by visiting too many pornographic web sites.

  100. Jennifer
    October 4th, 2005 @ 7:42 pm

    It turns out that Crudity is a fairly effective form of theist repellent. We get a lot of theists here and some Atheists come here for the debate, but others come here for the community.

    I’m sure JCLOVE that you can appreciate how offensive it would be if during church one of our crowd showed up and started spouting off about sky fairies….

  101. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 7:47 pm

    Ok, I decided for myself: irreverent humor from the land down under. More contemptuous than funny. Perahps slightly amusing –not in and of itself, but by virtue of the reaction it is intended to provoke, and apparently does, in people like you.

    It’s “indecent” to drop bombs on cities full of people you are supposedly making “free,” to shoot families at road blocks in the name of democracy, and to rain depleted uranium on a country based on lies about WMD’s. I’m guessing, Mr. “LOVE,” that you don’t have a problem with any of those things. I’ve never heard a single fucking word of concern or disgust from good Christians like yourself about any of this actual indecency.

    The Choobus post is just words on a page. It isn’t intended to be part of a rational debate. It’s a reaction against having your religion rammed down our throats on a daily basis, and the irrationality of people like you who want to tell us what is “disgusting,” and control what we can read and say, or watch in a movie, make our kids pray in school, and teach Christian mythology as science.

    If this post had been made to a Chrisitian website, it would indeed be rude, but it was made on an atheist blog, so it’s not. What is rude is for you to come to an atheist website and tell us what is appropriate and disgusting. It’s like someone visiting my house and telling me they don’t like the photographs on my wall, and telling me I should take them down if I expect them to come back. My reaction is: don’t fucking come back if you don’t like the pictures.

  102. Jennifer
    October 4th, 2005 @ 7:54 pm

    Colleen has been promising to leave from her very first comment.

    How much longer til the rapture? Please!

  103. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 8:09 pm

    Actually Herm, it would be Ms Love, but that is unimportant (although as a woman I did not enjoy seeing the “second coming” pic, which was both degrading and offensive. Would you like to see a picture of your mother beiing treated in this way?).

    I am against the war, but I support our president and our troops. Again though, I fail to see what this has to do atheism. I merely pointed out that the forums are far from places of debate and discussion. It is a playground for incredibly rude and perverted children. I will not be going back so I don’t care what you do there, but don’t try to pretend that this site is anything other than a hotbed of disgusting filth. there is no debate here. When someone comes along who challenges you (like Colleen or Steve G) and you have no answers for them you resort to name calling and pornography.

    I don’t think that it is unreasonable to object to a website that purports to be a place of intellectual conversation but is in fact full of porn. I came here hoping to learn, and instead have merely been disgusted. There is a picture of a mans penis entering anoter mans bottom under the thread “how gay are you?”. What is this supposed to mean? I do not want to see images like that. I know better now and won’t be looking in the forums again, but why should this sort of filth be sprung on people when they least expect it?

    If you honestly can’t tell that this is wrong then I think you must be like the perverts in the forum.

  104. Jennifer
    October 4th, 2005 @ 8:11 pm

    Colleen is little more than another theist Troll. And what porn is there in the Steve G thread.

  105. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:34 pm

    “Would you like to see a picture of your mother beiing treated in this way?”

    Completely irrelevant. My mother is an adult. What she does is HER business, not mine. If she wants to pose for pornographic photos it’s up to her, not ME. If I don’t like it, I don’t have to look at the photos. People like you are why many of us are concerned about Christians. You seem to be obsessed with controlling the behavior of other people.

    “….I support our president.”

    Then you support a liar who is responsible for destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis. You support a man that heads what is probably the most corrupt administration in US history, and in what is perhaps his ultimate act of cronyism, just named his personal lawyer to the supreme court. That’s some impressive moral sense you have. If you’re concerned about “indecency,” why don’t you go look at the photos on nowthatsfuckedup.com that show what your tax dollars are financing for the people in Iraq, and what this amoral president of yours is doing to our country and our youth, instead of whining about pictures and words on an atheist website?

    And for your information, I don’t come here to debate Christians. I’ve already had enough of “Christianity” and “Christians” to last a lifetime. I am confronted by people like you and their religious bullshit almost every day of my life. I come here to talk to other atheists.

  106. JCLOVE
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:41 pm

    apparantly you come here to look at porno and blasphemy as well. Depite what you say, I expect you would be very upset if you were surfing the web looking for intelligent conversation and you came across a picture of your mother in that condition.

    If you are so worried about people in Iraq, just what are YOU doing about it?

  107. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:50 pm

    “apparantly you come here to look at porno and blasphemy as well.”

    It’s funny, very funny, because I didn’t even know there was any porno on this site under the good Christians like you and Steve told us about it. Today was my first trip to the forums, and all due to you.

    As far a blasphemy goes, I can’t believe it’s the 21st century, I’m living in a constitutional republic that guarantees freedom of religion, and there are actually people around that are still using this term as if it means something. Fuck, if we ever let this country slip into the hands of people like you we’ll be back to burning witches.

    “If you are so worried about people in Iraq, just what are YOU doing about it?”

    Wouldn’t you like to know?

  108. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:54 pm

    Oh, and by the way, my mother plays the organ in a church, but I’m so ashamed I tell everyone she’s a prostitute. And I’m not kidding when I say that I’d rather have a mother that is a prostitute than a Bible Beater. At least prostitutes provide mankind with a valuable service. No one ever went to war over prostitution. And prostitutes are flying planes into buildings.

  109. Choobus
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:55 pm

    JCLOVE, fuck off you godidiot skag bitch! If you don’t stop making Hermesten froth at the mouth with your inane drivel I will find out what christian forums you like and post there under a new name every day. They will ban me, of course, but not before they read some top quality blasphemy and see many more pictures of cunts like you getting bukkakke face, dudes taking cocks deep in their asses, and loving it, and possibly some scat work as well.

    You have been warned you utterly stupid crone.

    all the best,

    your pal

    Choobus.

  110. hermesten
    October 4th, 2005 @ 9:55 pm

    oops….are should be “aren’t”

  111. Jennifer
    October 4th, 2005 @ 10:28 pm

    Oh, and by the way, my mother plays the organ in a church, but I’m so ashamed I tell everyone she’s a prostitute. And I’m not kidding when I say that I’d rather have a mother that is a prostitute than a Bible Beater. At least prostitutes provide mankind with a valuable service. No one ever went to war over prostitution. And prostitutes are flying planes into buildings.

    Herm, that is my all time favorite of your posts.

  112. Viole
    October 4th, 2005 @ 11:53 pm

    It’s good to have you back, Herm. I’m afraid the theists were starting to get comfortable.

  113. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 12:43 am

    JCLOVE,

    It’s funny that you mention “debating Christians like Colleen and Steve G”. I tried to engage both of them in reasonable debate today and they backed out, throwing up barrages of reasons why they couldn’t or wouldn’t.

    First it was because we were so “crude”; then when I offered friendly debate, it was because they “couldn’t debate the issues, cause they didn’t have the knowledge”, then they were “too busy”, then it was “we were so crude” again… in the end, it’s all a smoke-screen for being unequipped.

    I went out of my way today to be accomodating, and as is usually the case with imaginary-friend-lovers, look where it got me.

  114. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 12:46 am

    Steve G:

    You’re hee-LAR-ious. I’ve debated your childish ass into the ground all day, and you’ve done nothing but dodge and offer logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Then, I make one crude (and quite funny, and based in reality) joke to another atheist, and you get back up on your high-horse about “intelligent conversation”?

    Here’s intelligent conversation for you: go fuck yourself, and the son of “god” while you’re at it.

  115. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 12:49 am

    Colleen:

    You’ve pretended to have the ability to debate these issues for some time now, but when finally confronted by people who know what they’re talking about and who have time to do it, you mysteriously have issues with time conflicts and “being unwilling to pick through the minefield”.

    You’ve also made multiple comments, since your arrival here, about not staying, but you keep coming back for more.

    This is the same inconsistency that we see from theists time and time again, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but since I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am disappointed.

    Don’t let the door hit you.

  116. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 12:54 am

    Herm:

    You nailed it (heh). I lost my virginity fifteen years ago to an older girl who was the “elder” (whatever that means) of her fundamentalist church’s singles group. She was one of the wildest, most uninhibited, most amazing fucks I’ve ever had to this day (as well as being a bleeding psychopath).

    Ever since, all of the nastiest, freakiest girls were ones who were either self-professed fundies or ones who had experienced backgrounds in either Catholicism or fundie-Protestantism. I’m not sure what levels of depraved fucking and sucking they’re teaching these kids in their church retreats, but I clearly missed out by being an atheist as a tot.

  117. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 1:04 am

    JCLOVE is really a fascinating creature… she keeps talking about how this site disgusts her, makes her want to take a shower, is “full” of porn (even though most of us never knew it was there until she and Steve pointed it out), is filthy and nasty and blasphemic, and even brought up the idea of mothers being sexually degraded, all on her own…

    I’m almost starting to think it reveals something about her mindset. For instance, *I* usually don’t think of my mom when I’m checking out some anal porn, or feeling nasty. Does anyone else here?

  118. Rocketman
    October 5th, 2005 @ 9:35 am

    Fundie sex pots? Doesn’t surprise me. It’s like abortion–I wonder how many young women sought out a back alley butcher because of the stigma and social ostrasicm that results from theist society. But thats okay–rather have them dead and bleeding than admit that people will have sex-with each other, with their cell mates–with sheep–you can’t ignore it and have it go away. Sex-like life—finds a way to happen.

    That is why your religion will inevitably fail. But not before it messes up a great number of individuals.

  119. Rocketman
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:17 am

    Just had a homosexual perform my secular marriage service on the weekend.

    It was at least partially in response to the disturbing trend of ministers mouthing off during their church services about marriage being between a man and a woman only–

    Well in my country-It is completely legal to have men marryingmen and women marrying women–and you know what? I couldn’t be prouder to be Canadian than I am right now because of that.

  120. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:27 am

    Jim,
    You haven

  121. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:50 am

    Viole:
    ..if you can’t stand dissenting opinions, blasphemy, or naked humans, I suggest you crawl back under whatever rock you came from, and stay there. I prefer theists who aren’t afraid of their humanity.

    I just couldn

  122. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    The links I provided in Post 120 seem to be hosed. here they are….
    Jesus Outside the NT
    Myth Refuted

  123. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:58 am

    Steve G:

    You’re so cute! You keep offering to leave, but like some kind of mixture of an imaginary-friend-worshipping puppy dog and a Coreleone family member, you keep getting drawn back in. Unfortunately, your logical reasoning isn’t improving between visits.

    To suggest that some type of debate hasn’t taken place is ludicrous; in comments 47, 52, 67, and 75 you specifically addressed points made by myself and others regarding this topic in an attempt to refute or at least comment on their validity (although by the later ones, you stopped bringing up concepts of your own and were simply posting to external websites). I offered you further debate, which you responded to, and continue to respond to, with weaselling, ad hominem attacks about “nonsense” theories, and continued barrages of logical fallacies, including putting words in my mouth.

    Clearly you weren’t able to read any of the earlier posts where I was more subtle and cordial (I guess you were too busy browsing the small portions of porn on this site), so let me be more blunt in the hopes of getting it through to your pea-brain:

    — I am a Classicist. I am extremely familiar with the literature of this topic. Did you hear me this time?
    — I have already conceded the consensus among Biblical scholars. Did you hear me this time? Is your helmet on too tight? Are you done throwing up this red-herring? Would you like a link to a list of logical fallacies so you can stufy up?
    — I am not here debating any of those scholars, Steve, I am talking to you. Or are you channeling one of them, as well as the Holy Trinity? Can you hear me, Steve?
    — My opinions as to the consensus of Biblical scholars are not relevant, Steve, and that is a red herring. Would you like a list of logical fallacies, Steve? Anyway, I have already listed in multiple posts a set of refutations of the classic evidence for the existence of Jesus… I don’t think these people are all stupid, but I do I think they are wrong.
    — It is incumbent on people proving the existence of something to provide evidence and defend it, Steve. Would you like a list of logical fallacies, Steve? There is more evidence for Alexander the Great than there is for Jesus, Steve. There is more evidence for *me* than there is for Jesus, Steve.
    — I’m not saying there is *no* chance there was a Jesus figure; I’m saying I believe he was a myth, and I have not seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise, Steve.
    — Please stop cutting and pasting from websites and address the comments in my posts, Steve.

    The way you dismiss my objections show that you know nothing of historiography, and confirm your point that you are not capable of participating in this debate. Don’t you have some pornography to go be chaste while viewing?

  124. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:04 am

    Steve G:

    So let me get this straight: pornography makes you engage in exciting, hot, nasty, liberating sex, so it’s bad?

    What a fantastic religion you find yourself in. No wonder we can’t resist it.

  125. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:22 am

    Can you define for me what you mean by classicist?

  126. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:27 am

    On further reflection, I’ll let my last two post stand. I was going to respond again, but with you it seems pointless. Your last post illustrated that for me quite clearly. You seem to only see what you want in the words other people write. It’s probably why you’ve bought into a foolish Jesus myth theory that the NT scholarly community rejected 70 years ago.

  127. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:35 am

    Steve G:

    Will you actually stay gone this time, or will you whimper back in here the next time you’re feeling like a beating?

    If you re-read your last posts, you’ll actually find that you provided your own evidence against the existence of Jesus. That is, if you’re not too busy trolling the forums for porn.

  128. jahrta
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:44 am

    JCLOVE: “I am against the war, but I support our president and our troops.”

    When I see fundie flag-waving drivel like this I realize that it speaks from a stupidity so deeply seated that rehabilitiation is all but impossible. Herm did a fantastic job of pointing out exactly what your beloved president stands for, and that’s not just one atheist reaffirming the views of another – we don’t always see eye to eye, to put things gently (although my eyes have been opened quite a bit since I first got here).

    JCLOVE, if you need to see further evidence that the neocon agenda is obliterating America to pave way for Amerika, here’s an article I received today that demonstrates just that:

    Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin fellow at the Institute for Political Economy,
    research fellow at the Independent Institute and senior research
    fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. A former editor
    and columnist for The Wall Street Journal, he writes a political
    commentary & column for Creators Syndicate. He also writes a monthly
    economics column for Investors Business Daily . In 1992, he received
    the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993, he was
    ranked as one of the top seven journalists by the Forbes Media Guide.

    The raisond’tre of the Bush administration is war in the
    Middle East in order to protect America from terrorism and to insure
    America’s oil supply. On both counts the Bush administration has
    failed catastrophically.

    Bush’s single-minded focus on the “war against terrorism” has
    compounded a natural disaster and turned it into the greatest calamity
    in American history. The US has lost its largest and most strategic
    port, thousands of lives, and 80% of one of America’s most historic
    cities is under water.

    If terrorists had achieved this result, it would rank as the
    greatest terrorist success in history. Prior to 911, the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency warned that New Orleans was a disaster
    waiting to happen. Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban
    Flood Control Project (SELA) in order to protect the strategic port,
    the refineries, and the large population.

    However, after 2003 the flow of funds to SELA were diverted to
    the war in Iraq. During 2004 and 2005 the New Orleans Times-Picayune
    published nine articles citing New Orleans’ loss of hurricane
    protection to the war in Iraq.

    Every expert and newspapers as distant as Texas saw the New
    Orleans catastrophe coming. But President Bush and his insane
    government preferred war in Iraq to protecting Americans at home.

    Bush’s war left the Corps of Engineers only 20% of the funding
    to protect New Orleans from flooding from Lake Pontchartrain. On June
    18, 2004, the Corps’ project manager, Al Naomi, told the
    Times-Picayune: “the levees are sinking. If we don’t get the money to
    raise them, we can’t stay ahead of the settlement.”

    Despite the dire warnings delivered by the 2004 hurricane
    season, the Bush administration made deep budget cuts for flood
    control and hurricane funding for New Orleans. The US Senate, alarmed
    at the Bush administration’s insanity, was planning to restore the
    funding for 2006. But now it is too late. Many multiples of the
    funding that would have saved the city now have to be spent to rescue
    it.

    Not content with leaving New Orleans unprotected, it took the
    Bush administration five days to get the remnants of the National
    Guard not serving in Iraq, along with desperately needed food and
    water, to devastated New Orleans. This is the slowest emergency
    response by the US government in modern times. By the time the Bush
    administration could organize any resources for New Orleans, many
    more people had died and the city was in total chaos.

    Despite the most dismal performance on record, Bush’s Homeland
    Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, said on Thursday that the Bush
    administration has done a “magnificent job.”

    The on-the-scene mayor of New Orleans sees it differently:
    “They’re feeding the people a line of bull, and they are spinning and
    people are dying.” “They’re thinking small man, and this is a major,
    major deal.”

    It is a major deal, one that will affect Americans far beyond
    New Orleans. According to reports, 25% of our oil and gasoline comes
    through the New Orleans port and refineries, all out of commission.
    Needed goods cannot be imported, and exports will plummet, worsening
    an already disastrous deficit in the balance of trade.

    The increased cost of gasoline will soak up consumers’
    disposable incomes, with dire effects on consumer spending. US
    economic growth will be siphoned off into higher energy costs.
    American lives far from New Orleans will be adversely affected.

    The destruction of New Orleans is the responsibility of the
    most incompetent government in American history and perhaps in all
    history. Americans are rapidly learning that they were deceived by the
    superpower hubris. The powerful US military cannot successfully occupy
    Baghdad or control the road to the airport – and this against an
    insurgency based in only 20% of the Iraqi population. Bush’s pointless
    war has left Washington so pressed for money that the federal
    government abandoned New Orleans to catastrophe.

    The Bush administration is damned by its gross incompetence.
    Bush has squandered the lives and health of thousands of people. He
    has run through hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. He has lost
    America’s reputation and its allies. With barbaric torture and
    destruction of our civil liberty, he has stripped America of its
    inherent goodness and morality. And now Bush has lost America’s
    largest port and 25 percent of its oil supply. Why? Because Bush
    started a gratuitous war egged on by a claque of crazy
    neoconservatives who have sacrificed America’s interests to their
    insane agenda.

    The neoconservatives have brought these disasters to all
    Americans, Democrat and Republican alike. Now they must he held
    accountable. Bush and his neoconservatives are guilty of criminal
    negligence and must be prosecuted.

    What will it take for Americans to reestablish accountability
    in their government? Bush has got away with lies and an illegal war of
    aggression, with outing CIA agents, with war crimes against Iraqi
    civilians, with the horrors of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture
    centers, and now with the destruction of New Orleans.

    What disaster will next spring from Bush’s incompetence?

    -Paul Craig Roberts

    So I have to ask you, do you still stand behind this great visionary of the modern era?

  129. benjamin
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:56 am

    Steve, your posts seem to say that there isn’t enough evidence to support the assertion that jesus was a myth. That is true. But there isn’t enough evidence to support the assertion that jesus was a real man either, and therein lies the problem. For a large percentage of the population, the default position is that jesus lived, and they will believe that until proven wrong, which is impossible. Remember, there was a time when all the authorities agreed that the earth was flat, which didn’t make it true, and they clung to that belief until proven wrong. Would it bother you if I believed there was a real man named Ishmael who follwed a crazy captain on unbelievable adventures?

  130. Viole
    October 5th, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

    I just couldn

  131. Steve G.
    October 5th, 2005 @ 3:14 pm

    Viole,
    IViole
    No, I’m suggesting that someone who can’t stand a little random porn is afraid of their humanity.

    In a sense I really can

  132. Jim
    October 5th, 2005 @ 3:19 pm

    Steve G:

    You keep coming back! Good to see you, buddy! Is this that compulsive behavior you talk about when referring to your wank problem?

  133. Lurker
    October 5th, 2005 @ 4:09 pm

    benjamin said:
    Remember, there was a time when all the authorities agreed that the earth was flat, which didn’t make it true, and they clung to that belief until proven wrong. Would it bother you if I believed there was a real man named Ishmael who follwed a crazy captain on unbelievable adventures?

    You’re making the mistake of assuming the ‘jesus is a real person’ claim will be proven wrong just as the flat-earth claim was proven wrong. Until it gets proven wrong you have no argument.

    Actually, the whole flat-earth myth is a myth itself. The majority of leaders/thinkers (christian or secular) back in the day didn’t believe in it. Check out this article

  134. benjamin
    October 5th, 2005 @ 5:27 pm

    Lurker: “You’re making the mistake of assuming the ‘jesus is a real person’ claim will be proven wrong”

    benjamin: “For a large percentage of the population, the default position is that jesus lived, and they will believe that until proven wrong, which is impossible.”

    I.E. Nothing can be done to change the minds of most people regarding the historicity of jeebus. However, you shouldn’t have to be proven absolutely wrong in order to do away with beliefs that aren’t supported by evidence. Where’s the proof you didn’t agree to give me e a million dollars? I have an unsupported claim for your m oney, but my claim can’t be proven false. My claim should be denied because it can’t be sufficiently supported, just as there is no reason to believe in a historical jeebus. Thus NOT believing in a historical jeebus is the more logical option; not to be confused with an absolute denial of a historical jeebus.

    The point of the flat-earth post was that authorities can be wrong, which is why appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Using and understanding the logic used by authorities is usually a good idea, however.

  135. Lurker
    October 5th, 2005 @ 5:47 pm

    Of course authorities can be wrong. But that doesn’t mean appealing to authority is a logical fallacy because (I dare say)most authorities regularly demonstrate good understanding and good logic.

    The point is the majority of secular and religious historians say they believe he was a real figure – based on the evidence – not based on lack of evidence. You can NOT believe in a historical jesus if you want, just don’t expect most historians to agree with you.

    If you’ve got evidence for your million dollar claim then let’s see it. I could have been talking in my sleep.

  136. benjamin
    October 5th, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

    It’s a mistake to feel certain of your beliefs because they coincide with that of authorities. I’ll gladly disagree with most historians about the historicity of jeebus, and his cruciFICTION.

  137. daphne's mom
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:43 pm

    Well, Lurker, you can’t argue with Benjamin’s logic. I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!

    And that pesky consensus that the Holocaust took place? Don’t be a fool, you can’t trust historians! Do you know anyone who died in a CONcentration camp? Do you know anyone who actually saw an oven? You’ve been brainwashed.

    And what about Napoleon? Did you ever meet him? Did you ever see him? Know anyone who did? What good are all those books, newspaper accounts, etc. They were all made up to explain away the chaos of 19th century Europe. They came up with an evil figure and well the rest is not history …

  138. daphne's mom
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:43 pm

    Well, Lurker, you can’t argue with Benjamin’s logic. I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!

    And that pesky consensus that the Holocaust took place? Don’t be a fool, you can’t trust historians! Do you know anyone who died in a CONcentration camp? Do you know anyone who actually saw an oven? You’ve been brainwashed.

    And what about Napoleon? Did you ever meet him? Did you ever see him? Know anyone who did? What good are all those books, newspaper accounts, etc. They were all made up to explain away the chaos of 19th century Europe. They came up with an evil figure and well the rest is not history …

  139. daphne's mom
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:43 pm

    Well, Lurker, you can’t argue with Benjamin’s logic. I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!

    And that pesky consensus that the Holocaust took place? Don’t be a fool, you can’t trust historians! Do you know anyone who died in a CONcentration camp? Do you know anyone who actually saw an oven? You’ve been brainwashed.

    And what about Napoleon? Did you ever meet him? Did you ever see him? Know anyone who did? What good are all those books, newspaper accounts, etc. They were all made up to explain away the chaos of 19th century Europe. They came up with an evil figure and well the rest is not history …

  140. daphne's mom
    October 5th, 2005 @ 10:43 pm

    Well, Lurker, you can’t argue with Benjamin’s logic. I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!

    And that pesky consensus that the Holocaust took place? Don’t be a fool, you can’t trust historians! Do you know anyone who died in a CONcentration camp? Do you know anyone who actually saw an oven? You’ve been brainwashed.

    And what about Napoleon? Did you ever meet him? Did you ever see him? Know anyone who did? What good are all those books, newspaper accounts, etc. They were all made up to explain away the chaos of 19th century Europe. They came up with an evil figure and well the rest is not history …

  141. Rob
    October 5th, 2005 @ 11:45 pm

    Daphne’s Mom, there’s a lot more evidence for Napoleon or the Holocaust than for Jesus, so thats not really a good analogy. A better analogy would be William Tell, who was believed to be a real figure up into the 19th century, but is now thought to be possibly fictional. However, even now, 60% of the Swiss think he was a real person. Whether Buddha and Laozi were real people, have also been debated.

  142. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    Rob: your points are very good. I confess I was less concerned about the analogies than mocking the mindset. There isn’t a whole lot one can claim with absolute certainty about the distant past. But there are pretty good, tried and true methods for weighing evidence that can lead to consensus and they don’t depend on the historian’s ideology.

    The fact that so many people here dismiss serious, scholarly consensus, for the weirdest mix of reasons I have ever heard makes me wonder about their sanity. I mean, when does an ignorant obsession with a position, even if it is a correct one, become a mental illness? My alarm clock is broken but it is right about the time twice a day. But that doesn’t mean it works.

    What I do know is that conceding the historicity of Jesus and the basic reliability of the accounts that have come down does not invalidate atheism, though, of course, it makes it harder to defend and makes knowing some history necessary. But it is not impossible.

    I read on anther thread today a rather confused post that claimed that the books of the Bible were originally written in Latin and translated by the Borgias! Where do people get this stuff?!? This is ignorance so profound that it is breath-taking and painful to read.

  143. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    Rob: your points are very good. I confess I was less concerned about the analogies than mocking the mindset. There isn’t a whole lot one can claim with absolute certainty about the distant past. But there are pretty good, tried and true methods for weighing evidence that can lead to consensus and they don’t depend on the historian’s ideology.

    The fact that so many people here dismiss serious, scholarly consensus, for the weirdest mix of reasons I have ever heard makes me wonder about their sanity. I mean, when does an ignorant obsession with a position, even if it is a correct one, become a mental illness? My alarm clock is broken but it is right about the time twice a day. But that doesn’t mean it works.

    What I do know is that conceding the historicity of Jesus and the basic reliability of the accounts that have come down does not invalidate atheism, though, of course, it makes it harder to defend and makes knowing some history necessary. But it is not impossible.

    I read on anther thread today a rather confused post that claimed that the books of the Bible were originally written in Latin and translated by the Borgias! Where do people get this stuff?!? This is ignorance so profound that it is breath-taking and painful to read.

  144. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    Rob: your points are very good. I confess I was less concerned about the analogies than mocking the mindset. There isn’t a whole lot one can claim with absolute certainty about the distant past. But there are pretty good, tried and true methods for weighing evidence that can lead to consensus and they don’t depend on the historian’s ideology.

    The fact that so many people here dismiss serious, scholarly consensus, for the weirdest mix of reasons I have ever heard makes me wonder about their sanity. I mean, when does an ignorant obsession with a position, even if it is a correct one, become a mental illness? My alarm clock is broken but it is right about the time twice a day. But that doesn’t mean it works.

    What I do know is that conceding the historicity of Jesus and the basic reliability of the accounts that have come down does not invalidate atheism, though, of course, it makes it harder to defend and makes knowing some history necessary. But it is not impossible.

    I read on anther thread today a rather confused post that claimed that the books of the Bible were originally written in Latin and translated by the Borgias! Where do people get this stuff?!? This is ignorance so profound that it is breath-taking and painful to read.

  145. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:15 am

    Rob: your points are very good. I confess I was less concerned about the analogies than mocking the mindset. There isn’t a whole lot one can claim with absolute certainty about the distant past. But there are pretty good, tried and true methods for weighing evidence that can lead to consensus and they don’t depend on the historian’s ideology.

    The fact that so many people here dismiss serious, scholarly consensus, for the weirdest mix of reasons I have ever heard makes me wonder about their sanity. I mean, when does an ignorant obsession with a position, even if it is a correct one, become a mental illness? My alarm clock is broken but it is right about the time twice a day. But that doesn’t mean it works.

    What I do know is that conceding the historicity of Jesus and the basic reliability of the accounts that have come down does not invalidate atheism, though, of course, it makes it harder to defend and makes knowing some history necessary. But it is not impossible.

    I read on anther thread today a rather confused post that claimed that the books of the Bible were originally written in Latin and translated by the Borgias! Where do people get this stuff?!? This is ignorance so profound that it is breath-taking and painful to read.

  146. Lurker
    October 6th, 2005 @ 1:42 am

    daphne’s mom said:
    And that pesky consensus that the Holocaust took place? Don’t be a fool, you can’t trust historians! Do you know anyone who died in a CONcentration camp?

    I love the CONcentration emphasis. Very funny. Thanks for illustrating the absurdity of benjamin’s sloppy logic.

    As you said, admitting that jesus was a real person doesn’t prove atheism false or theism true.

  147. benjamin
    October 6th, 2005 @ 9:52 am

    Lurker, I have never, ever read in a two column proof a line that read “so and so said so” where “so and so” wasn’t a witness and was 2000 years late for the controversy at hand. Appealing to the opinions of people alive today about a man that supposedly lived 2000 years ago IS NOT logical. It’s an easy way out for a lazy person to feel convinced of an opinion they want to hold.

  148. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:00 am

    benjamin:

    Like I said above, your position is lunacy. Insanity. Stark raving mad. Bonkers.

    Arguing with someone with your mindset is equally insane. So I won’t.

  149. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:00 am

    benjamin:

    Like I said above, your position is lunacy. Insanity. Stark raving mad. Bonkers.

    Arguing with someone with your mindset is equally insane. So I won’t.

  150. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:00 am

    benjamin:

    Like I said above, your position is lunacy. Insanity. Stark raving mad. Bonkers.

    Arguing with someone with your mindset is equally insane. So I won’t.

  151. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:00 am

    benjamin:

    Like I said above, your position is lunacy. Insanity. Stark raving mad. Bonkers.

    Arguing with someone with your mindset is equally insane. So I won’t.

  152. benjamin
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:07 am

    Daphne’s retarded Mom, wow, now I see, my opinions are illogical and insane. I am glad you cleared that up with such undeniable rationality. No one can argue with a completely unsupported claim like the ones you made. To do so would be to ignore the consensus you just created on the issue in favor of evidence. We both know that to you, evidence is meaningless and people’s opinions are all that matter. But to be fair, I think we should let someone alive 2000 years from now have the ultimate say on my sanity.

  153. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:21 am

    Daphne’s mom:

    No one here has dismissed the scholarly consensus; we’ve laid out some reasons why we disagree with it.

    The reply, from a slowly growing set of mental midgets such as yourself, is to say, “Wow! You guys disagree with the existence of Jeebus and some scholars think he existed too! I can’t possibly argue with your evidence so I’ll just point out some smart guys disagree with you! Nanny nanny googleberries!” You also throw in some cute ad hominem attacks about mental illness and other fun stuff like that.

    I won’t suggest you’re mentally ill; I’ll simply point out you’re too much of a coward and a pea-brain to discuss the data in public, as you’ve already clearly demonstrated.

  154. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:22 am

    “But that doesn’t mean appealing to authority is a logical fallacy because (I dare say)most authorities regularly demonstrate good understanding and good logic.”

    Wrong. Look up “appeal to authority.”

  155. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:25 am

    hermesten:

    It’s not fair to ask these people to look anything up.

    Evidence means nothing to them, unless it comes from the Holy Book of Claptrap, or a select set of Bibilical scholars whose works they have not read, and whose arguments they are not capable of understanding.

  156. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:14 am

    “Well, Lurker, you can’t argue with Benjamin’s logic. I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!”

    Yeah, wouldn’t want anyone to be a “free thinker.” I actually heard a Christian in a meeting at work accuse someone of being a “free thinker” as if the term was intended to be an insult.

    There are certainly times when a rational consideration and subsequent acceptance of “expert” opinion is warranted, but the rather axiomatic acceptance of “authority” suggested by your several comments on this thread is downright stupid and ultimately self-destructive.

  157. Lurker
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:21 am

    hermesten said:
    There are certainly times when a rational consideration and subsequent acceptance of “expert” opinion is warranted, but the rather axiomatic acceptance of “authority” suggested by your several comments on this thread is downright stupid and ultimately self-destructive.

    So it’s OK to appeal to authority on occasion? I thought you said it’s was “wrong”. I never said axiomatic acceptance, in fact I encourage the opposite. But to say one should never appeal to authority is just plain dumb.

    In this case, why is it “wrong” to appeal to authority in the case of jesus being a real person?

  158. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:38 am

    Lurker, my comment about axiomatic acceptance was really intended for Daphne’s mom. My comment to you was about your remark that “appeal to authority” is not a logical fallacy. It is. Wikipedia discusses the logic behind this and the conditions under which an appeal to authority has legitimacy.

    Though I do have my doubts, I am willing to accept the consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I am happy to accept your embrace of expert consensus as well, since it obviously means another theist who accepts evolution theory.

  159. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:39 am

    Lurker, my comment about axiomatic acceptance was really intended for Daphne’s mom. My comment to you was about your remark that “appeal to authority” is not a logical fallacy. It is. Wikipedia discusses the logic behind this and the conditions under which an appeal to authority has legitimacy.

    Though I do have my doubts, I am willing to accept the consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I am happy to accept your embrace of expert consensus as well, since it obviously means another theist who accepts evolution theory.

  160. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:43 am

    Lurker, my comment about axiomatic acceptance was really intended for Daphne’s mom. My comment to you was about your remark that “appeal to authority” is not a logical fallacy. It is. Wikipedia discusses the logic behind this and the conditions under which an appeal to authority has legitimacy.

    Though I do have my doubts, I am willing to accept the consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I am happy to accept your embrace of expert consensus as well, since it obviously means another theist who accepts evolution theory.

  161. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:44 am

    Lurker:

    I don’t think anyone has made a moral judgment about people who choose, based on the consensus of scholarly opinion, to determine that there was a guy 2000 years ago who was the historical basis for Jesus.

    The point about using the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy was brought up specifically for those people who, in pretending to engage in a debate about evidence brought up to dispute that scholarly opinion, either could not or would not debate that actual evidence, and instead simply appealed to authority. That is the fallacy, and that is, at the very least, intellectual laziness.

  162. Lurker
    October 6th, 2005 @ 11:56 am

    Though I do have my doubts, I am willing to accept the consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I am happy to accept your embrace of expert consensus as well, since it obviously means another theist who accepts evolution theory.

    There are several ‘flavors’ of evolutionary theory and I accept one of them as fact. I’d be crazy to ignore the evidence.

    I think we all agree that appealing to authority is OK within limits. That’s all I’m saying. If you reject scholarly opinion you should present a valid reason for doing so. The validity of the reason is often subect to further bias and interpretation – yet another challenge we all have to overcome.

    With regard to jesus being a real man, the arguments I keep hearing are primarily arguments from silence. I don’t buy into that and neither should you. There are some reasonable arguments against, but (in my opinion) they are not enough to overturn the scholarly opinion.

  163. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:05 pm

    I also agree that Jesus was a real “man.”

  164. St. Teabag
    October 6th, 2005 @ 12:16 pm

    Herm, do you mean that Jesus was a “real man” (and if so, do tell us all the details….)

  165. Lurker
    October 6th, 2005 @ 3:46 pm

    hermesten said:
    I also agree that Jesus was a real “man.”

    Fine. Maybe you can help benjamin understand the flaw in his logic.

  166. benjamin
    October 6th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm

    Lurker, there isn’t a flaw in my logic, you deluded sap! An authority’s position is NOT evidence. When I first began to doubt that jeebus was a real man, I didn’t take a poll of the opinions of historians, I read their explanations about how they came to hold their opinions. What struck me was that those who believed in a historical jeebus were always coming up with reasons for why evidence didn’t exist. I wasn’t looking for someone to explain away the lack of evidence, I was looking for someone to put forth enough evidence to convince me, and no one did. There might be a logical theory for why no evidene of Santa Claus exists, but that doesn’t make him real.

  167. Lurker
    October 6th, 2005 @ 4:04 pm

    So the lack of evidence speaks louder than the evidence we have. Believe it if you must.

  168. benjamin
    October 6th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm

    There is nothing I “must” believe. It would cause me no pain to be convinced of a historical Jesus. I suppose I would feel somewhat relieved, as it would mean the lies that many in my family hold to be true wouldn’t be quite as basic as I now believe them to be.

  169. DamnRight
    October 6th, 2005 @ 4:54 pm

    Santa is historical & evidential. He demonstrates omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence on a regular basis. There are books, letters & songs written about him & to him. There are ceremonies & rites observed. He

  170. Reluctant Atheist
    October 6th, 2005 @ 4:57 pm

    benjamin:
    I agree w/you completely.
    “Absence of evidence doesn’t mean the evidence is absent”.
    Use that 1 in a court of law.
    1 would assume that so many ‘witnesses’, the crowds that followed JC around, so many they occasionally trampled 1 another, would attract the attention of at least one external historian.
    It would cost me little to admit there was an historical Jesus. Sadly, the lack of evidence indicates otherwise. An argument from popularity is best restricted to the dynamics of high school.
    An argument from silence fits w/the empiricism of science. The facts aren’t there?
    It doesn’t stand.

  171. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

    Lurker: I congratulate you. You actually managed to get someone to grudgingly acknowledge that it just might be possible to sometimes accept the scholar consensus on a question. Maybe we should point out that if somebody finds fresh evidence or can review the old and come up with a persuasive new/revised interpretation, the consensus can and will change.

    But then, alas, someone had a relapse: The point about using the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy was brought up specifically for those people who, in pretending to engage in a debate about evidence brought up to dispute that scholarly opinion, either could not or would not debate that actual evidence, and instead simply appealed to authority. That is the fallacy, and that is, at the very least, intellectual laziness.

    This is, at best, confused and, at worst, nonsense. To debate the same set of facts over and over again makes no sense. How would any progress be made in any discipline, if first principles, steps, whatevers had to be endless debated, for fear of appearing intellectually lazy? Certainly no progress has been made here. You shout down everyone who actually falls for the “invitation” to actually talk about the evidence which informs the virtually universal agreement on the historicity of Christ.

    If you disagree with the scholarly consensus (assuming you actually know what it is), fine. Give us your reasons. But why do we have to repeat the arguments that led to the consensus? If you know what they are, let’s save time and move into to another area. If we are at an impasse, let’s agree to disagree and move on.

  172. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

    Lurker: I congratulate you. You actually managed to get someone to grudgingly acknowledge that it just might be possible to sometimes accept the scholar consensus on a question. Maybe we should point out that if somebody finds fresh evidence or can review the old and come up with a persuasive new/revised interpretation, the consensus can and will change.

    But then, alas, someone had a relapse: The point about using the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy was brought up specifically for those people who, in pretending to engage in a debate about evidence brought up to dispute that scholarly opinion, either could not or would not debate that actual evidence, and instead simply appealed to authority. That is the fallacy, and that is, at the very least, intellectual laziness.

    This is, at best, confused and, at worst, nonsense. To debate the same set of facts over and over again makes no sense. How would any progress be made in any discipline, if first principles, steps, whatevers had to be endless debated, for fear of appearing intellectually lazy? Certainly no progress has been made here. You shout down everyone who actually falls for the “invitation” to actually talk about the evidence which informs the virtually universal agreement on the historicity of Christ.

    If you disagree with the scholarly consensus (assuming you actually know what it is), fine. Give us your reasons. But why do we have to repeat the arguments that led to the consensus? If you know what they are, let’s save time and move into to another area. If we are at an impasse, let’s agree to disagree and move on.

  173. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

    Lurker: I congratulate you. You actually managed to get someone to grudgingly acknowledge that it just might be possible to sometimes accept the scholar consensus on a question. Maybe we should point out that if somebody finds fresh evidence or can review the old and come up with a persuasive new/revised interpretation, the consensus can and will change.

    But then, alas, someone had a relapse: The point about using the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy was brought up specifically for those people who, in pretending to engage in a debate about evidence brought up to dispute that scholarly opinion, either could not or would not debate that actual evidence, and instead simply appealed to authority. That is the fallacy, and that is, at the very least, intellectual laziness.

    This is, at best, confused and, at worst, nonsense. To debate the same set of facts over and over again makes no sense. How would any progress be made in any discipline, if first principles, steps, whatevers had to be endless debated, for fear of appearing intellectually lazy? Certainly no progress has been made here. You shout down everyone who actually falls for the “invitation” to actually talk about the evidence which informs the virtually universal agreement on the historicity of Christ.

    If you disagree with the scholarly consensus (assuming you actually know what it is), fine. Give us your reasons. But why do we have to repeat the arguments that led to the consensus? If you know what they are, let’s save time and move into to another area. If we are at an impasse, let’s agree to disagree and move on.

  174. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

    Lurker: I congratulate you. You actually managed to get someone to grudgingly acknowledge that it just might be possible to sometimes accept the scholar consensus on a question. Maybe we should point out that if somebody finds fresh evidence or can review the old and come up with a persuasive new/revised interpretation, the consensus can and will change.

    But then, alas, someone had a relapse: The point about using the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy was brought up specifically for those people who, in pretending to engage in a debate about evidence brought up to dispute that scholarly opinion, either could not or would not debate that actual evidence, and instead simply appealed to authority. That is the fallacy, and that is, at the very least, intellectual laziness.

    This is, at best, confused and, at worst, nonsense. To debate the same set of facts over and over again makes no sense. How would any progress be made in any discipline, if first principles, steps, whatevers had to be endless debated, for fear of appearing intellectually lazy? Certainly no progress has been made here. You shout down everyone who actually falls for the “invitation” to actually talk about the evidence which informs the virtually universal agreement on the historicity of Christ.

    If you disagree with the scholarly consensus (assuming you actually know what it is), fine. Give us your reasons. But why do we have to repeat the arguments that led to the consensus? If you know what they are, let’s save time and move into to another area. If we are at an impasse, let’s agree to disagree and move on.

  175. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:33 pm

    Daphne’s mom:

    Please scroll up to where to where Erik and I (among others) listed precisely the reasons why we disagreed with the scholarly consensus, and the fact that we were quite familiar with it.

    Pretending to be exasperated about an argument that you’re not actually familiar with simply further reveals your ignorance.

  176. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    In my last message I forgot to correct a mistake I have seen over and over here– your [mis]understanding of the fallacy of the “appeal to authority”. In logic (the scholarly study of logic) an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unnamed or assumed (e.g. Everyone knows that Republicans are evil.)

    When the authority is real, can be named and is acknowledged by others in the field, there is no fallacy.

  177. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    In my last message I forgot to correct a mistake I have seen over and over here– your [mis]understanding of the fallacy of the “appeal to authority”. In logic (the scholarly study of logic) an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unnamed or assumed (e.g. Everyone knows that Republicans are evil.)

    When the authority is real, can be named and is acknowledged by others in the field, there is no fallacy.

  178. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    In my last message I forgot to correct a mistake I have seen over and over here– your [mis]understanding of the fallacy of the “appeal to authority”. In logic (the scholarly study of logic) an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unnamed or assumed (e.g. Everyone knows that Republicans are evil.)

    When the authority is real, can be named and is acknowledged by others in the field, there is no fallacy.

  179. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    In my last message I forgot to correct a mistake I have seen over and over here– your [mis]understanding of the fallacy of the “appeal to authority”. In logic (the scholarly study of logic) an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is unnamed or assumed (e.g. Everyone knows that Republicans are evil.)

    When the authority is real, can be named and is acknowledged by others in the field, there is no fallacy.

  180. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm

    Jim: Nope. I don’t agree with your reasons. For all the reasons that have been offered for the last umpteen million years, leading to the current consensus. We are at an impasse and debate is useless.

  181. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm

    Jim: Nope. I don’t agree with your reasons. For all the reasons that have been offered for the last umpteen million years, leading to the current consensus. We are at an impasse and debate is useless.

  182. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm

    Jim: Nope. I don’t agree with your reasons. For all the reasons that have been offered for the last umpteen million years, leading to the current consensus. We are at an impasse and debate is useless.

  183. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:45 pm

    Jim: Nope. I don’t agree with your reasons. For all the reasons that have been offered for the last umpteen million years, leading to the current consensus. We are at an impasse and debate is useless.

  184. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 5:50 pm

    Daphne’s mom:

    At last! Actual reason, rather than simply circling around the issue.

    It’s perfectly okay not to agree with my reasons, and if so, then yes, the discussion is at an impasse.

    The arguments are not persuasive to theists primarily because people hold much lower standards for convincing themselves of the existence of Jeebus (or any other godhead) than they do for any other historical figure.

    By the way, an appeal to authority is still a fallacy if direct evidence to back that authority is lacking or weak. In the case of the existence of Jeebus, that evidence is clearly weak. But you won’t be discussing that.

  185. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

    Yippee! I am so happy we found something we could agree on. Unfortunately we immediately found something else to disagree on.

    How can an authority be lacking or weak and be an authority? You can’t mean that seriously can you?

    Do you have sufficient knowledge of all of the subject areas, e.g. history, archaeology, geography, Semitic languages, Greek, lit crit, etc, to judge them lacking? In other words, are you yourself an Ueberauthority? Unless you are, you cannot judge they entire body of them weak or lacking. Are you an authority in one or more areas? If so, you would have a case for going against the consensus but you should and would be arguing it in in the scholarly literature, not here. .

  186. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

    Yippee! I am so happy we found something we could agree on. Unfortunately we immediately found something else to disagree on.

    How can an authority be lacking or weak and be an authority? You can’t mean that seriously can you?

    Do you have sufficient knowledge of all of the subject areas, e.g. history, archaeology, geography, Semitic languages, Greek, lit crit, etc, to judge them lacking? In other words, are you yourself an Ueberauthority? Unless you are, you cannot judge they entire body of them weak or lacking. Are you an authority in one or more areas? If so, you would have a case for going against the consensus but you should and would be arguing it in in the scholarly literature, not here. .

  187. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

    Yippee! I am so happy we found something we could agree on. Unfortunately we immediately found something else to disagree on.

    How can an authority be lacking or weak and be an authority? You can’t mean that seriously can you?

    Do you have sufficient knowledge of all of the subject areas, e.g. history, archaeology, geography, Semitic languages, Greek, lit crit, etc, to judge them lacking? In other words, are you yourself an Ueberauthority? Unless you are, you cannot judge they entire body of them weak or lacking. Are you an authority in one or more areas? If so, you would have a case for going against the consensus but you should and would be arguing it in in the scholarly literature, not here. .

  188. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

    Yippee! I am so happy we found something we could agree on. Unfortunately we immediately found something else to disagree on.

    How can an authority be lacking or weak and be an authority? You can’t mean that seriously can you?

    Do you have sufficient knowledge of all of the subject areas, e.g. history, archaeology, geography, Semitic languages, Greek, lit crit, etc, to judge them lacking? In other words, are you yourself an Ueberauthority? Unless you are, you cannot judge they entire body of them weak or lacking. Are you an authority in one or more areas? If so, you would have a case for going against the consensus but you should and would be arguing it in in the scholarly literature, not here. .

  189. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:31 pm

    “How can an authority be lacking or weak and be an authority? You can’t mean that seriously can you?”

    Geez, usually you guys are a little more subtle with your strawmen. Jim talks about weak or lacking evidence and you talk about week or lacking authorities, then go into a paragraph about “uberauthority. ” Wow.

  190. hermesten
    October 6th, 2005 @ 6:35 pm

    Teabag, I placed my emphaisis on “man.” But yes, Jesus was a “real man” in every sense of the word, and judging by the number of Christians I see driving around with M2M bumper stickers (man to man –try explaining this one to your kids), they obviously know it, even if they only talk about it at the bath house.

  191. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:02 pm

    Daphne’s mom:

    There are so many holes in your last post that I can nearly see your keyboard.

    As herm pointed out, I said the historical evidence that the authorities rely on is weak, not the authorities themselves. We’re going to have trouble having any kind of discussion if you don’t read what I write. Or stop throwing up strawmen.

    Next, and I hate to keep repeating this ad nauseum, if you actually read what I posted above, I am a Classicist. Does that satisfy you?

    Third, we are on a bloody weblog having a discussion. I’m sorry if you feel I have no right to do that, and should instead focus all my efforts solely on the scholarly literature.

    By your own standards, you are not equipped to discuss anything here, and should keep your bloody theist mouth shut, yes?

  192. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:30 pm

    Jim: Yes, you ask? No, I respond. I do publish in the scholarly literature in my area of expertise (which is related to one of the disciplines I named, sufficiently closely for me to evaluate the evidence, too). I know that you claim to be a classicist but there is no evidence for that in anything that you write.

    Must I really spell out for you that the historical evidence is only weak in your own mind? That is why people with Ph.Ds from recognized programs at recognized universities hold the views they do and publish them for other educated people to critique.

    We are not going to have a discussion of any kind. You are too intemperate and thoughtless and I have no taste for arguing with undergraduates who think they are intellectually superior to us dreadful theists. Besides which, if I keep my bloody theist mouth shut, that must, necessarily, preclude further discussion.

  193. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:30 pm

    Jim: Yes, you ask? No, I respond. I do publish in the scholarly literature in my area of expertise (which is related to one of the disciplines I named, sufficiently closely for me to evaluate the evidence, too). I know that you claim to be a classicist but there is no evidence for that in anything that you write.

    Must I really spell out for you that the historical evidence is only weak in your own mind? That is why people with Ph.Ds from recognized programs at recognized universities hold the views they do and publish them for other educated people to critique.

    We are not going to have a discussion of any kind. You are too intemperate and thoughtless and I have no taste for arguing with undergraduates who think they are intellectually superior to us dreadful theists. Besides which, if I keep my bloody theist mouth shut, that must, necessarily, preclude further discussion.

  194. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:30 pm

    Jim: Yes, you ask? No, I respond. I do publish in the scholarly literature in my area of expertise (which is related to one of the disciplines I named, sufficiently closely for me to evaluate the evidence, too). I know that you claim to be a classicist but there is no evidence for that in anything that you write.

    Must I really spell out for you that the historical evidence is only weak in your own mind? That is why people with Ph.Ds from recognized programs at recognized universities hold the views they do and publish them for other educated people to critique.

    We are not going to have a discussion of any kind. You are too intemperate and thoughtless and I have no taste for arguing with undergraduates who think they are intellectually superior to us dreadful theists. Besides which, if I keep my bloody theist mouth shut, that must, necessarily, preclude further discussion.

  195. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:30 pm

    Jim: Yes, you ask? No, I respond. I do publish in the scholarly literature in my area of expertise (which is related to one of the disciplines I named, sufficiently closely for me to evaluate the evidence, too). I know that you claim to be a classicist but there is no evidence for that in anything that you write.

    Must I really spell out for you that the historical evidence is only weak in your own mind? That is why people with Ph.Ds from recognized programs at recognized universities hold the views they do and publish them for other educated people to critique.

    We are not going to have a discussion of any kind. You are too intemperate and thoughtless and I have no taste for arguing with undergraduates who think they are intellectually superior to us dreadful theists. Besides which, if I keep my bloody theist mouth shut, that must, necessarily, preclude further discussion.

  196. Steve G.
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:46 pm

    Benjamin
    When I first began to doubt that jeebus was a real man, I didn’t take a poll of the opinions of historians, I read their explanations about how they came to hold their opinions.

    Can you accept that we likely did the same, but honestly came to differing conclusions? I never meant to suggest that we should accept the consensus just ‘because’. If I seemed to do that, I apologize. I’ve read both sides of the debate in great detail (and did so before I ever became Christian as it was a rather fundamental question), and found the consensus arguments quite compelling, not because they were the consesus, but because I thought they by far had the better of the argument. I tried to say this to Jim at several points, but by then things had deteriorated. I didn’t want to debate the details further because I knew I had reviewed the literature in great detail and heard all the arguments he was bringing up, and I knew that he had likely done the same from his side (as you clearly have).

  197. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:46 pm

    Daphne’s mom:

    Your comment about evidence, in addition to showing another example of the theists’ continued tactic of attacking the other rather than engaging in debate, applies to yourself as well. You’ve shown not one whit of evidence that you know anything about any field in question, nor have you demonstrated any ability to logically debate. In fact, you can’t even read the posts people present here, which makes me seriously doubt your ability to pass your quals, let alone withstand scholarly review.

    I’m not convinced I’m intellectually superior to all theists; just ones that won’t, or can’t, read.

    PS: “nonsense” is not an argument.

  198. Steve G.
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:53 pm

    This is, at best, confused and, at worst, nonsense. To debate the same set of facts over and over again makes no sense.

    Well said DM. This is exactly what I was trying to say, but obviously very poorly. Jim, I freely admit that we were debating at the beginning and my claims to the contrary were disengenuous. But as I said, it became quickly obvious that we were going nowhere and I tried to withdraw, albeit ungracefully. I should have said what DM said and left it at that. To the extent I failed to do so, but drew things out with additional posts, I was in the wrong. I regret that things spun out of control after that.

  199. Steve G.
    October 6th, 2005 @ 7:57 pm

    am a Classicist. Does that satisfy you?

    I mean this respectfully, but no. I know what the word Classicist means generically, but can you tell me what it means in regards to you? Can you define what this means as it applies to you in some detail. I am not trying to be a smart aleck, I am honestly unclear on what this claim means as it applies to you and this discussion.

  200. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

    How many times must I tell you, Jim, that I will not debate you because there is no debate possible? You wrote:
    You’ve shown not one whit of evidence that you know anything about any field in question, nor have you demonstrated any ability to logically debate. In fact, you can’t even read the posts people present here, which makes me seriously doubt your ability to pass your quals, let alone withstand scholarly review.

    Apart from the obvious mish mash of garbage you are spewing, I now believe that you might have some scholarly training. You know the terms “quals” and “scholarly review”. As for the rest: tiresome rehash of the same failing arguments you have made all along.

    Let me repeat myself as clearly as possible: if you do not submit your views to peer-reviewed journals and/or present them at professional conferences (with responders), you remain a crank on the outside. Publishing on unscholarly web sites, self publishing or being published by nutty presses doesn’t cut it.

    Now good ideas, even mold breaking ideas have come from seeming cranks. But not if they keep standing on the fringes frothing at the mouth everytime they are crossed. Go ahead and keep company with the flat-earthers. You will persuade no one that way.

    If you wish to avoid that fate, then let’s be honest. You are as much of an educated amateur as I am. We are educated people but not biblicists. We can read what they have to say, weigh the evidence with some skill and reasonably differ as to whether or not we are entirely persuaded, pretty well persuaded or not at all.

    But you have not demonstrated so thorough a grasp of the evidence nor offered a believable alternative explanation, sufficient to refute the (OH NO! HERE IT COMES) scholarly consensus of those who do possess the requisite scholarly training.

  201. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

    How many times must I tell you, Jim, that I will not debate you because there is no debate possible? You wrote:
    You’ve shown not one whit of evidence that you know anything about any field in question, nor have you demonstrated any ability to logically debate. In fact, you can’t even read the posts people present here, which makes me seriously doubt your ability to pass your quals, let alone withstand scholarly review.

    Apart from the obvious mish mash of garbage you are spewing, I now believe that you might have some scholarly training. You know the terms “quals” and “scholarly review”. As for the rest: tiresome rehash of the same failing arguments you have made all along.

    Let me repeat myself as clearly as possible: if you do not submit your views to peer-reviewed journals and/or present them at professional conferences (with responders), you remain a crank on the outside. Publishing on unscholarly web sites, self publishing or being published by nutty presses doesn’t cut it.

    Now good ideas, even mold breaking ideas have come from seeming cranks. But not if they keep standing on the fringes frothing at the mouth everytime they are crossed. Go ahead and keep company with the flat-earthers. You will persuade no one that way.

    If you wish to avoid that fate, then let’s be honest. You are as much of an educated amateur as I am. We are educated people but not biblicists. We can read what they have to say, weigh the evidence with some skill and reasonably differ as to whether or not we are entirely persuaded, pretty well persuaded or not at all.

    But you have not demonstrated so thorough a grasp of the evidence nor offered a believable alternative explanation, sufficient to refute the (OH NO! HERE IT COMES) scholarly consensus of those who do possess the requisite scholarly training.

  202. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

    How many times must I tell you, Jim, that I will not debate you because there is no debate possible? You wrote:
    You’ve shown not one whit of evidence that you know anything about any field in question, nor have you demonstrated any ability to logically debate. In fact, you can’t even read the posts people present here, which makes me seriously doubt your ability to pass your quals, let alone withstand scholarly review.

    Apart from the obvious mish mash of garbage you are spewing, I now believe that you might have some scholarly training. You know the terms “quals” and “scholarly review”. As for the rest: tiresome rehash of the same failing arguments you have made all along.

    Let me repeat myself as clearly as possible: if you do not submit your views to peer-reviewed journals and/or present them at professional conferences (with responders), you remain a crank on the outside. Publishing on unscholarly web sites, self publishing or being published by nutty presses doesn’t cut it.

    Now good ideas, even mold breaking ideas have come from seeming cranks. But not if they keep standing on the fringes frothing at the mouth everytime they are crossed. Go ahead and keep company with the flat-earthers. You will persuade no one that way.

    If you wish to avoid that fate, then let’s be honest. You are as much of an educated amateur as I am. We are educated people but not biblicists. We can read what they have to say, weigh the evidence with some skill and reasonably differ as to whether or not we are entirely persuaded, pretty well persuaded or not at all.

    But you have not demonstrated so thorough a grasp of the evidence nor offered a believable alternative explanation, sufficient to refute the (OH NO! HERE IT COMES) scholarly consensus of those who do possess the requisite scholarly training.

  203. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

    How many times must I tell you, Jim, that I will not debate you because there is no debate possible? You wrote:
    You’ve shown not one whit of evidence that you know anything about any field in question, nor have you demonstrated any ability to logically debate. In fact, you can’t even read the posts people present here, which makes me seriously doubt your ability to pass your quals, let alone withstand scholarly review.

    Apart from the obvious mish mash of garbage you are spewing, I now believe that you might have some scholarly training. You know the terms “quals” and “scholarly review”. As for the rest: tiresome rehash of the same failing arguments you have made all along.

    Let me repeat myself as clearly as possible: if you do not submit your views to peer-reviewed journals and/or present them at professional conferences (with responders), you remain a crank on the outside. Publishing on unscholarly web sites, self publishing or being published by nutty presses doesn’t cut it.

    Now good ideas, even mold breaking ideas have come from seeming cranks. But not if they keep standing on the fringes frothing at the mouth everytime they are crossed. Go ahead and keep company with the flat-earthers. You will persuade no one that way.

    If you wish to avoid that fate, then let’s be honest. You are as much of an educated amateur as I am. We are educated people but not biblicists. We can read what they have to say, weigh the evidence with some skill and reasonably differ as to whether or not we are entirely persuaded, pretty well persuaded or not at all.

    But you have not demonstrated so thorough a grasp of the evidence nor offered a believable alternative explanation, sufficient to refute the (OH NO! HERE IT COMES) scholarly consensus of those who do possess the requisite scholarly training.

  204. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:51 pm

    Daphne’s mom:

    You keep saying you won’t debate me, but we keep going around and around… what do you call this, then? Foreplay? Are you going to ask for my phone number next?

    Let me repeat this one more time, since apparently your field doesn’t require reading skills:

    By your standards, all of us are cranks on the outside. We should never, ever engage in debate on a weblog, because that is completely pointless if we’re not submitting our views to peer-reviewed journals and presenting them at professional conferences. No one should ever comment on anything in a field in which they are not a proven expert.

    Thus, by those standards, there is a wide, broad field in which both you and I should never, ever open our fucking mouths anywhere outside of our academic fields. We should certainly not be on this weblog. Sound pretty boring, doesn’t it?

    Now, please scroll up (if you have that much skill) and read (if you’re capable) to where I ALREADY SAID I AM NOT A BIBLICIST. For fuck’s sake. And that I am not here to debate the eminent scholars in the field; I am having a conversation on the fucking Internet.

    And I have already demonstrated a much more thorough grasp of the evidence than you have (which is to say: you have not discussed any evidence. You have thrown up straw man after straw man, ad hominem after ad hominem, continued to claim an end to debate while prattling endlessly)

  205. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:54 pm

    Frothing, frothing. No further talk with you, kleiner Mann.

  206. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:54 pm

    Frothing, frothing. No further talk with you, kleiner Mann.

  207. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:54 pm

    Frothing, frothing. No further talk with you, kleiner Mann.

  208. Daphne's mom
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:54 pm

    Frothing, frothing. No further talk with you, kleiner Mann.

  209. Jim
    October 6th, 2005 @ 10:57 pm

    Only if you promise.

  210. Jim
    October 7th, 2005 @ 3:09 am

    Steve G:

    I regret if things between us spun out of control as well. I would hope you would hold yourself to a higher standard of withdrawal than does Daphne’s mom, however (the “I won’t debate you, but I will insult you, ad nauseum” withdrawal).

    I’m not saying this to be a prick, but simply because I continue to repeat myself over and over: I already explained the relevance of my Classics background higher in the thread. I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads, but suffiice it to say that I encountered the literature of this field not by reading references to it on wikipedia, but as part of coursework in my field and independent study of interest.

    For further questions, please see the posts I’ve already written.

  211. Daphne's mom
    October 7th, 2005 @ 4:26 am

    Strangely, I am actually moved by that last comment. So before I move on to more profitable discussions, I will prattle about a few things in these last couple of comments:

    1. I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads… If that is true, I regret that you have had such an experience. But do you think there is any possiblity that it is your vulgar language and explosive temper that might have something to do with that? You display little self control in these discussions and are wildly insulting and combative.

    2. (from 178) Thus, by those standards, there is a wide, broad field in which both you and I should never, ever open our fucking mouths anywhere outside of our academic fields. We should certainly not be on this weblog. Sound pretty boring, doesn’t it?

    Actually, it doesn’t sound boring. The world and the state of your digestion would all be improved if we did only speak to those things which we can stay calm and talk rationally about, even when we disagree with someone vehemently. This can, of course, include a wide range of interests outside our disciplines

    3. Now, please scroll up (if you have that much skill) and read (if you’re capable) to where I ALREADY SAID I AM NOT A BIBLICIST. For fuck’s sake. And that I am not here to debate the eminent scholars in the field; I am having a conversation on the fucking Internet

    No, a conversation is exactly what you are not having. Conversation involves give and take. You insist on defining the terms of debate, heap abuse on those of us who find it pointless to endlessly rehash the same tired stuff and would like to find a fresh angle to discuss various issues. Then you go into a frenzy when you don’t get what you want.

    4. From 181 again: . I would hope you would hold yourself to a higher standard of withdrawal than does Daphne’s mom, however (the “I won’t debate you, but I will insult you, ad nauseum” withdrawal).

    This is, soberly speaking, hilarious. You have heaped abuse on me and other “theists” from the outset. You can dish it out (see the bit I just quoted in #3!!! lol) but you sure cannot take it, although I will say that I have not intentionally insulted you. Would that you could say the same. I have heaped scorn on ideas or demands that I thought preposterous.

    But if I did insult you, given the culture of this blog, so what? You and your cronies here do it non-stop to everyone with whom you disagree, i.e all us “theists”. Why is it surprising that some of us have teeth and bite back?

  212. Daphne's mom
    October 7th, 2005 @ 4:26 am

    Strangely, I am actually moved by that last comment. So before I move on to more profitable discussions, I will prattle about a few things in these last couple of comments:

    1. I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads… If that is true, I regret that you have had such an experience. But do you think there is any possiblity that it is your vulgar language and explosive temper that might have something to do with that? You display little self control in these discussions and are wildly insulting and combative.

    2. (from 178) Thus, by those standards, there is a wide, broad field in which both you and I should never, ever open our fucking mouths anywhere outside of our academic fields. We should certainly not be on this weblog. Sound pretty boring, doesn’t it?

    Actually, it doesn’t sound boring. The world and the state of your digestion would all be improved if we did only speak to those things which we can stay calm and talk rationally about, even when we disagree with someone vehemently. This can, of course, include a wide range of interests outside our disciplines

    3. Now, please scroll up (if you have that much skill) and read (if you’re capable) to where I ALREADY SAID I AM NOT A BIBLICIST. For fuck’s sake. And that I am not here to debate the eminent scholars in the field; I am having a conversation on the fucking Internet

    No, a conversation is exactly what you are not having. Conversation involves give and take. You insist on defining the terms of debate, heap abuse on those of us who find it pointless to endlessly rehash the same tired stuff and would like to find a fresh angle to discuss various issues. Then you go into a frenzy when you don’t get what you want.

    4. From 181 again: . I would hope you would hold yourself to a higher standard of withdrawal than does Daphne’s mom, however (the “I won’t debate you, but I will insult you, ad nauseum” withdrawal).

    This is, soberly speaking, hilarious. You have heaped abuse on me and other “theists” from the outset. You can dish it out (see the bit I just quoted in #3!!! lol) but you sure cannot take it, although I will say that I have not intentionally insulted you. Would that you could say the same. I have heaped scorn on ideas or demands that I thought preposterous.

    But if I did insult you, given the culture of this blog, so what? You and your cronies here do it non-stop to everyone with whom you disagree, i.e all us “theists”. Why is it surprising that some of us have teeth and bite back?

  213. Daphne's mom
    October 7th, 2005 @ 4:26 am

    Strangely, I am actually moved by that last comment. So before I move on to more profitable discussions, I will prattle about a few things in these last couple of comments:

    1. I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads… If that is true, I regret that you have had such an experience. But do you think there is any possiblity that it is your vulgar language and explosive temper that might have something to do with that? You display little self control in these discussions and are wildly insulting and combative.

    2. (from 178) Thus, by those standards, there is a wide, broad field in which both you and I should never, ever open our fucking mouths anywhere outside of our academic fields. We should certainly not be on this weblog. Sound pretty boring, doesn’t it?

    Actually, it doesn’t sound boring. The world and the state of your digestion would all be improved if we did only speak to those things which we can stay calm and talk rationally about, even when we disagree with someone vehemently. This can, of course, include a wide range of interests outside our disciplines

    3. Now, please scroll up (if you have that much skill) and read (if you’re capable) to where I ALREADY SAID I AM NOT A BIBLICIST. For fuck’s sake. And that I am not here to debate the eminent scholars in the field; I am having a conversation on the fucking Internet

    No, a conversation is exactly what you are not having. Conversation involves give and take. You insist on defining the terms of debate, heap abuse on those of us who find it pointless to endlessly rehash the same tired stuff and would like to find a fresh angle to discuss various issues. Then you go into a frenzy when you don’t get what you want.

    4. From 181 again: . I would hope you would hold yourself to a higher standard of withdrawal than does Daphne’s mom, however (the “I won’t debate you, but I will insult you, ad nauseum” withdrawal).

    This is, soberly speaking, hilarious. You have heaped abuse on me and other “theists” from the outset. You can dish it out (see the bit I just quoted in #3!!! lol) but you sure cannot take it, although I will say that I have not intentionally insulted you. Would that you could say the same. I have heaped scorn on ideas or demands that I thought preposterous.

    But if I did insult you, given the culture of this blog, so what? You and your cronies here do it non-stop to everyone with whom you disagree, i.e all us “theists”. Why is it surprising that some of us have teeth and bite back?

  214. Daphne's mom
    October 7th, 2005 @ 4:26 am

    Strangely, I am actually moved by that last comment. So before I move on to more profitable discussions, I will prattle about a few things in these last couple of comments:

    1. I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads… If that is true, I regret that you have had such an experience. But do you think there is any possiblity that it is your vulgar language and explosive temper that might have something to do with that? You display little self control in these discussions and are wildly insulting and combative.

    2. (from 178) Thus, by those standards, there is a wide, broad field in which both you and I should never, ever open our fucking mouths anywhere outside of our academic fields. We should certainly not be on this weblog. Sound pretty boring, doesn’t it?

    Actually, it doesn’t sound boring. The world and the state of your digestion would all be improved if we did only speak to those things which we can stay calm and talk rationally about, even when we disagree with someone vehemently. This can, of course, include a wide range of interests outside our disciplines

    3. Now, please scroll up (if you have that much skill) and read (if you’re capable) to where I ALREADY SAID I AM NOT A BIBLICIST. For fuck’s sake. And that I am not here to debate the eminent scholars in the field; I am having a conversation on the fucking Internet

    No, a conversation is exactly what you are not having. Conversation involves give and take. You insist on defining the terms of debate, heap abuse on those of us who find it pointless to endlessly rehash the same tired stuff and would like to find a fresh angle to discuss various issues. Then you go into a frenzy when you don’t get what you want.

    4. From 181 again: . I would hope you would hold yourself to a higher standard of withdrawal than does Daphne’s mom, however (the “I won’t debate you, but I will insult you, ad nauseum” withdrawal).

    This is, soberly speaking, hilarious. You have heaped abuse on me and other “theists” from the outset. You can dish it out (see the bit I just quoted in #3!!! lol) but you sure cannot take it, although I will say that I have not intentionally insulted you. Would that you could say the same. I have heaped scorn on ideas or demands that I thought preposterous.

    But if I did insult you, given the culture of this blog, so what? You and your cronies here do it non-stop to everyone with whom you disagree, i.e all us “theists”. Why is it surprising that some of us have teeth and bite back?

  215. Steve G.
    October 7th, 2005 @ 8:32 am

    I’m now loathe to delve deeply into my background due to the real-life harassment I received due to my participation in these threads,

    I am truly sorry to hear that this happened.

    but suffiice it to say that I encountered the literature of this field not by reading references to it on wikipedia, but as part of coursework in my field and independent study of interest.

    And here

  216. hermesten
    October 7th, 2005 @ 10:27 am

    DM to Jim:

  217. DM
    October 7th, 2005 @ 11:13 am

    hermesten: visit the response to this paean to me that you went to the trouble of composing over at the other thread you posted it on.

  218. hermesten
    October 7th, 2005 @ 11:49 am

    I have. Not much trouble though, really, to post it in two threads –just two additional keystrokes. What good is a standard if everyone it is relevant to isn’t aware of it?

  219. Jim
    October 7th, 2005 @ 1:48 pm

    Steve G:

    I would like to wrap this up amicably as well. I definitely made a swipe at you much earlier in the thread where I implied that your only applicable knowledge of the subject came from Internet searches — this was crude, unfair, and apparently false. I retract it and apologize for it.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links