Gentlemen, please play nice...
this is an interesting thread and I really don't want to have to lock it.
this is an interesting thread and I really don't want to have to lock it.
The Historical Jesus.
- Thread starter arnisador
- Start date
- Status
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
This thread has obviously devolved into some silly attempt to crucify (pun intended) my character. I certainly can't recall when I was "condescending" to Hardheadjarhead but, if thats the way he feels (right or wrong), then I apologize.
But, as a matter of fact, you DID attack me before I ever said anything of a "condescending" light to you.
As for Paul, you are rehashing the same garbage all over again. For all your posturing, you were the first one to attack anyone else in the thread, and you were the one that brought it back up over a month after the "debate" between us had been more or less settled. You obviously have a problem with letting things go.
I'm sorry that your definition of "respect" is limited into treating someone else's viewpoint as if it has equal logical/historical validity as all others. That's not my definition of respect, and I don't expect others to subscribe to it.
As for all the smilies and chuckles, I do that to add humor. This is an internet forum. Don't take it all so seriously.
But, as a matter of fact, you DID attack me before I ever said anything of a "condescending" light to you.
As for Paul, you are rehashing the same garbage all over again. For all your posturing, you were the first one to attack anyone else in the thread, and you were the one that brought it back up over a month after the "debate" between us had been more or less settled. You obviously have a problem with letting things go.
I'm sorry that your definition of "respect" is limited into treating someone else's viewpoint as if it has equal logical/historical validity as all others. That's not my definition of respect, and I don't expect others to subscribe to it.
As for all the smilies and chuckles, I do that to add humor. This is an internet forum. Don't take it all so seriously.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
I know I'll probably regret this later, but here goes...
Wow. If I didn't know better, I'd say Paul almost had a sense of humor. Almost.
I just found it interesting that you are replying to a single line I typed over two pages back and written several days ago. And, moreover, you are rehashing the same "Well, I think you're an ******* and so that disproves your argument!!" line of thinking that we settled months back. Vey interesting, indeed.
Thanks for taking what I said completely out of context. Real nice.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, more or less. It is based on prior experience or observation of some kind. The Deluge researchers, however, lack any sort of empirical experience or observation regarding their claims and the entire basis for their experiment rests solely on the purpose of trying to vindicate their religion to others. Now, not all researchers of the Flood are guilty of this, but a significant portion are.
The point I was trying to make is that these particular individuals already have the conclusion part of the scientific method decided in their minds. Thus, all they are using "science" for is to amass the random "evidence" needed to "prove" their beliefs right to the rest of the world. Like I said before, the conclusion is supposed to be the last thing the scientist comes up with. Not the first. Thus, it is pseudo-science (not unlike scientific creationism).
By already declaring the stories in the Bible are historically and literally true without any empirical evidence to back such a claim up, and using said stories as a basis for conducting a scientific inquiry, is nothing short of a logical folly.
I believe Jay Gould referred to them as "non-overlapping magisteria".
You have a nasty habit, paul, of declaring someone "wrong" or declaring yourself "the winner" for no other reason than your say-so. My point about the conclusion being the final stage of the scientific method (and not the first, as it is with pseudo-scientists like scientific creationists and some of the flood researchers) is still quite valid.
The chip on your shoulder is obvious, paul. You should probably stop taking an internet discussion so seriously.
You know, Paul, for all your claims attempting to assassinate my character in some attempt to vindicate your argument (which is what this all really boils down to), you have yet to provide any concrete examples of this that I have not completely debunked. Your best shots were supposed "allusions" and "tones" in my posts, whereas your posts have been downright (and overtly) hostile and aggressive.
Just look at the track record. You couldn't beat my position with your "evidence", and so you begin to simply ignore and selectivly cut-and-paste the "evidence" I provided. After I repeatedly pointed this out, you then attacked me personally, resorting to some psychobabble about me having "bad experiences" with Christianity when I was younger or about how you were "so much better read" then me on the subject. When I pointed this all out, you flatout denied it. When I pointed out your denial, you got upset because you believed I was calling you a "liar". And then, after all that, you declared yourself the "winner" of the argument by taking a single line I said completely out of context. Repeatedly, I might add.
And, what's worse, after over two months after we had come to an understanding of sorts, you bring up the same inane accusations and arguments all over again!!
And, now.... you have the audacity to say that my behavior is unbearable?! Try looking in the mirror sometime, Paul. You might learn something.
Why?? If someone had said something along the lines of "Christianity is a big crock", I doubt you'd keep quiet about it. So, what possesses you into thinking I should??
If I think something is untrue or, worse, a lie then I will let you know it. Some would appreciate that kind of honesty (instead of pretending you agree with everyone else and massaging their poor wittle egos), and some don't. You are obviously of the latter.
I could copy and paste the short "behavior record" of yours that I explained above... but why bother??
Actually, no, I'm not. There is a difference between something being "non-historical" and something being a "made up story" (thus implying it is nothing more than an amusing fiction at worst and a lie at best).
*chuckles* Its called a joke, Paul. Maybe you should try making one someday??
Even though you have been. Repeatedly. And you are now, too.
Still flirting with hypocrisy, paul.
Thanks for the compliment.
This coming from Mr. "I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!"?? Right.
I guess when you can't bring the "evidence", then you attack the critiquer, saying how no evidence would be "good enough". Not exactly atypical of you, paul.
Key words: "only point I can see".
And this, class, is the kind of personal attacks Paulikus Maximum has been engaging almost from the very beginning. So, what have we learned today??
Good for you. Wanna cookie??
Actually, not that it matters in any way, but two of the admins have sent me PMs with positive feedback. I have received none, however, with negative feedback.
As I said before, Paul, your definition of "respect" is "pretend they're right until proven wrong". That's not the definition I subscribe to.
Heh. Coulda fooled me.
I was unaware you had gained the power of precognition, paul. Mind telling me who will win the next Superbowl??
I re-quote: "Mr. 'I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!'". The mirror, Paul. The mirror.
Well, your pathetic attempt to turn this into some ego "manly" contest aside...
You have already lied on this thread before. Namely, when I called you on it (your personal attacks concerning my "psychological history" concerning Christianity). Then you denied it. That, friends, is called lying.
Sounds like ego from where I'm standing. "Honor" and "respect" are the ego's favorite catchwords, because they basically boil down to making you feel better about yourself. A self-massage, if you will.
Paul, I already "proved" my position. You, using your usual tactics, simply ignored and/or cut-and-paste said evidence. Then you turned it into a mudslinging war.
You, for example, never commented on the geographical and legal incongruities I mentioned, or the "mystery play" form of much of the biblical drama, or the much later dating of *all* extant Biblical texts compared to the earlier dates you had erroneously provided --- you just ignored them all.
You claim I slam on others' "evidence", but at least I give it a fighting chance. You just pretend others' "evidence" doesn't even exist to suit your purposes.
That's obviously not the problem, Paul, because as I've stated before I have never rigidly pronounced there was no Jesus. Only, that it was extremely unlikely. Meaning, I might be wrong. So, there's no problem in accepting I *might* be wrong.
This, begs the question, then, what is the problem??
Well, I'm sure the guy that resorted to mud-slinging, accusations of being "poorly read", a false "psychological history" of the opposition, and bluntly declared himself the "winner" by taking the opposition's quote out of context can enlighten us all on that.
Never mind. You just answered my question. The problem is obviously ego. Again.
Here's a little hint for life, Paul: just because someone calls you something doesn't make it true.
"To thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare
Laterz.
Wow. If I didn't know better, I'd say Paul almost had a sense of humor. Almost.
I just found it interesting that you are replying to a single line I typed over two pages back and written several days ago. And, moreover, you are rehashing the same "Well, I think you're an ******* and so that disproves your argument!!" line of thinking that we settled months back. Vey interesting, indeed.
Thanks for taking what I said completely out of context. Real nice.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, more or less. It is based on prior experience or observation of some kind. The Deluge researchers, however, lack any sort of empirical experience or observation regarding their claims and the entire basis for their experiment rests solely on the purpose of trying to vindicate their religion to others. Now, not all researchers of the Flood are guilty of this, but a significant portion are.
The point I was trying to make is that these particular individuals already have the conclusion part of the scientific method decided in their minds. Thus, all they are using "science" for is to amass the random "evidence" needed to "prove" their beliefs right to the rest of the world. Like I said before, the conclusion is supposed to be the last thing the scientist comes up with. Not the first. Thus, it is pseudo-science (not unlike scientific creationism).
By already declaring the stories in the Bible are historically and literally true without any empirical evidence to back such a claim up, and using said stories as a basis for conducting a scientific inquiry, is nothing short of a logical folly.
I believe Jay Gould referred to them as "non-overlapping magisteria".
You have a nasty habit, paul, of declaring someone "wrong" or declaring yourself "the winner" for no other reason than your say-so. My point about the conclusion being the final stage of the scientific method (and not the first, as it is with pseudo-scientists like scientific creationists and some of the flood researchers) is still quite valid.
The chip on your shoulder is obvious, paul. You should probably stop taking an internet discussion so seriously.
You know, Paul, for all your claims attempting to assassinate my character in some attempt to vindicate your argument (which is what this all really boils down to), you have yet to provide any concrete examples of this that I have not completely debunked. Your best shots were supposed "allusions" and "tones" in my posts, whereas your posts have been downright (and overtly) hostile and aggressive.
Just look at the track record. You couldn't beat my position with your "evidence", and so you begin to simply ignore and selectivly cut-and-paste the "evidence" I provided. After I repeatedly pointed this out, you then attacked me personally, resorting to some psychobabble about me having "bad experiences" with Christianity when I was younger or about how you were "so much better read" then me on the subject. When I pointed this all out, you flatout denied it. When I pointed out your denial, you got upset because you believed I was calling you a "liar". And then, after all that, you declared yourself the "winner" of the argument by taking a single line I said completely out of context. Repeatedly, I might add.
And, what's worse, after over two months after we had come to an understanding of sorts, you bring up the same inane accusations and arguments all over again!!
And, now.... you have the audacity to say that my behavior is unbearable?! Try looking in the mirror sometime, Paul. You might learn something.
Why?? If someone had said something along the lines of "Christianity is a big crock", I doubt you'd keep quiet about it. So, what possesses you into thinking I should??
If I think something is untrue or, worse, a lie then I will let you know it. Some would appreciate that kind of honesty (instead of pretending you agree with everyone else and massaging their poor wittle egos), and some don't. You are obviously of the latter.
I could copy and paste the short "behavior record" of yours that I explained above... but why bother??
Actually, no, I'm not. There is a difference between something being "non-historical" and something being a "made up story" (thus implying it is nothing more than an amusing fiction at worst and a lie at best).
*chuckles* Its called a joke, Paul. Maybe you should try making one someday??
Even though you have been. Repeatedly. And you are now, too.
Still flirting with hypocrisy, paul.
Thanks for the compliment.
This coming from Mr. "I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!"?? Right.
I guess when you can't bring the "evidence", then you attack the critiquer, saying how no evidence would be "good enough". Not exactly atypical of you, paul.
Key words: "only point I can see".
And this, class, is the kind of personal attacks Paulikus Maximum has been engaging almost from the very beginning. So, what have we learned today??
Good for you. Wanna cookie??
Actually, not that it matters in any way, but two of the admins have sent me PMs with positive feedback. I have received none, however, with negative feedback.
As I said before, Paul, your definition of "respect" is "pretend they're right until proven wrong". That's not the definition I subscribe to.
Heh. Coulda fooled me.
I was unaware you had gained the power of precognition, paul. Mind telling me who will win the next Superbowl??
I re-quote: "Mr. 'I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!'". The mirror, Paul. The mirror.
Well, your pathetic attempt to turn this into some ego "manly" contest aside...
You have already lied on this thread before. Namely, when I called you on it (your personal attacks concerning my "psychological history" concerning Christianity). Then you denied it. That, friends, is called lying.
Sounds like ego from where I'm standing. "Honor" and "respect" are the ego's favorite catchwords, because they basically boil down to making you feel better about yourself. A self-massage, if you will.
Paul, I already "proved" my position. You, using your usual tactics, simply ignored and/or cut-and-paste said evidence. Then you turned it into a mudslinging war.
You, for example, never commented on the geographical and legal incongruities I mentioned, or the "mystery play" form of much of the biblical drama, or the much later dating of *all* extant Biblical texts compared to the earlier dates you had erroneously provided --- you just ignored them all.
You claim I slam on others' "evidence", but at least I give it a fighting chance. You just pretend others' "evidence" doesn't even exist to suit your purposes.
That's obviously not the problem, Paul, because as I've stated before I have never rigidly pronounced there was no Jesus. Only, that it was extremely unlikely. Meaning, I might be wrong. So, there's no problem in accepting I *might* be wrong.
This, begs the question, then, what is the problem??
Well, I'm sure the guy that resorted to mud-slinging, accusations of being "poorly read", a false "psychological history" of the opposition, and bluntly declared himself the "winner" by taking the opposition's quote out of context can enlighten us all on that.
Never mind. You just answered my question. The problem is obviously ego. Again.
Here's a little hint for life, Paul: just because someone calls you something doesn't make it true.
"To thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare
Laterz.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
*sigh* More personal attacks.
Why is it the ones that always accuse you of being "condescending" and "demeaning" are always the ones that do the most mud-slinging??
Smoke and mirrors, I guess. Emphasis on the mirrors.
Yup.
Hrmmmm..... I guess you could say "panentheist" or "neo-perennial philosopher", or maybe "nondualist".
I don't recall "condescending" you. Could you please cite the specific example.
Ok, Mr. "You alienate people" and "I can't respect you".
You and I must have a different definition of "personal attack".
Humor, my friend. Humor.
Thanks for the compliment.
- Status
