Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2014, 11:36 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 09:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I'm sorry if that was insulting. I for one take WLC to be a very smart person who has to twist more than the average apologist to make sense of his claims.

What I meant to say is that you seem very defensive of Atwillism (for a lack of a better term) though it's understandable as this is your thread and you seem enthused about the video.

My other issue is that if you throw assertions left and right and avoid dealing with the objections, it's really hard to meaningfully and thoroughly deal with each point. I've lost count of the points I was going to address to be honest.

Especially as a father of three I only get half an hour tops everyday to browse the forum before calling it a night.

I'll try to deal with your points tomorrow. In the mean time in would be interested in a response (or explanation that fits your theory) to Paul's self debasing and almost suicidal comments in the quotes I mentioned earlier.

For the time being the only thing that I agree with you on is that Paul had mental problems.

"What I meant to say is that you seem very defensive of Atwillism"

Allow me to make my position a little clearer. I think that Christianity was originally created by the Roman government to control the masses, and particularly to undermine trouble causing Jews. That to me is big news. I'd worked that out for myself long before I'd ever even heard of Joseph Atwill.

This fellow Atwill happens to agree, and he has a very clever, interesting hypothesis as to how the Gospels were created. I think there is a lot of merit in it, yet I'm not 100% sure that it is the truth. I say that mainly because it hasn't been accepted by the vast majority of scholars, and I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the vast majority of scholars. I will say that for me his arguments ring true and I'm yet to hear any really good arguments as to why he is wrong. I'm really going out on a limb and putting my credibility on the line by saying this, but… what the hell. I'm just calling it like I see it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 04:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  An argument is a series of propositions, one built on top of the previous, leading from premises to a conclusion.

Those premises may or may not be based on evidence.


That is not evidence, that is the argument.


I am interested in calling out bogus ideas.


Ellis's ideas were rejected because they made no sense. His methodology was absurd. He drew inferences from vague similarities and connections only he could see, and he insisted they were fact.

You Googled him? You couldn't have read much of his. He's a total nut job.


I am intolerant of bad ideas, I am intolerant of calling a hypothesis a fact, and I am intolerant of calling supposition evidence.


And the sobriquet of 'terse and deadly' was bestowed by another credulous forum member too ready to spout nutty theories in response to my criticisms.
He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of evidence.

So, what is your response?

Let's look at it. You again repeat, it's not evidence, Ellis is a nut job, you are interested in calling people nut jobs.

Atwill uses a method. Richard Dawkins read his book and he didn't call him a nutjob. He publicized his works by personally Tweeting about it.

I've read his book and so has Mark. You haven't. Mark is a doctor. I have a doctorate. You seem to think you are cleverer than us, Atwill, Ellis and Dawkins and it is just ok for you to smear anyone who has actually read the book and understands Atwill's method.

Face it Chas, you can't even explain what Atwill's method is because you don't understand it.

You think we are all gullible and naive. Sorry, but it's you who has the problem because your just rigid in your beliefs and can't think for yourself.

If you use text in separate pieces of literature as evidence to show a pattern then the text is the "evidence" you are using. That is what universities now do to detect plagiarism. They don't hunt around for someone who saw the student writing his paper and copying passages. The systems are accurate and can be used in a court if the student challenges them because people who have made a life's study of what "evidence" means understand the concepts of "probabilities" that different people writing independently don't come up with identical passages by mistake and they use statistical probabilities, just as Atwill did.

So, you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, you have a doctorate Biblical Studies or History of the ANE? If not, then your argument from authority fails before it gets off the ground.

Of course I understand Atwill's method, it's the same as Carrier's or Ehrman's or Mark's.

I simply do not agree with his conclusions as his argument in unconvincing, as is Mark's. (I don't agree with Carrier, either.) Many of the claims are simply too forced and contrived.

When someone digs up some correspondence between conspirators, then there would be evidence.


N.B. Ellis is demonstrably a nut job. Just Google him and read his writings. Or just read his posts here on TTA.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-06-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  When someone digs up some correspondence between conspirators, then there would be evidence.

I'd settle for a good explanation of why the Romans started persecuting the religion they purportedly invented, just for doing what they invented it to do.

"lol conspiracy" is a wonderful explanation, in that once you've latched on to it, you needn't actually explain anything else.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
07-06-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, what is your response?

Let's look at it. You again repeat, it's not evidence, Ellis is a nut job, you are interested in calling people nut jobs.

Atwill uses a method. Richard Dawkins read his book and he didn't call him a nutjob. He publicized his works by personally Tweeting about it.

I've read his book and so has Mark. You haven't. Mark is a doctor. I have a doctorate. You seem to think you are cleverer than us, Atwill, Ellis and Dawkins and it is just ok for you to smear anyone who has actually read the book and understands Atwill's method.

Face it Chas, you can't even explain what Atwill's method is because you don't understand it.

You think we are all gullible and naive. Sorry, but it's you who has the problem because your just rigid in your beliefs and can't think for yourself.

If you use text in separate pieces of literature as evidence to show a pattern then the text is the "evidence" you are using. That is what universities now do to detect plagiarism. They don't hunt around for someone who saw the student writing his paper and copying passages. The systems are accurate and can be used in a court if the student challenges them because people who have made a life's study of what "evidence" means understand the concepts of "probabilities" that different people writing independently don't come up with identical passages by mistake and they use statistical probabilities, just as Atwill did.

So, you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, you have a doctorate Biblical Studies or History of the ANE? If not, then your argument from authority fails before it gets off the ground.

Of course I understand Atwill's method, it's the same as Carrier's or Ehrman's or Mark's.

I simply do not agree with his conclusions as his argument in unconvincing, as is Mark's. (I don't agree with Carrier, either.) Many of the claims are simply too forced and contrived.

When someone digs up some correspondence between conspirators, then there would be evidence.


N.B. Ellis is demonstrably a nut job. Just Google him and read his writings. Or just read his posts here on TTA.


I'm mot making and "argument from authority". That is your problem, not mine. You seem to only accept something from an "authority". Everyone else you shit on. I was only pointing out that I am able to consider views, like Atwill's and Ellis' and be sceptical of them without you alerting me to the need to be sceptical by constantly using foul language and calling it "crap" and them "nut jobs".

You haven't read Atwill. He doesn't use Bayes Theorem. He uses a comparison method like a fingerprint or DNA expert.

I don't agree with you at all about Ellis. I have no problem discerning which parts of what he says are theory and what he sees as "fact" and where those "facts" come from, for instance, the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Nor do I have a problem with someone who finds it interesting to compare "myths" and finds that there are similarities which raise interesting questions. You seem to want to put words into people's mouths, or, indeed, stuff words into people's mouths and accuse them of asserting something as a fact when they are only putting forward an hypothesis. And that, you think, then justifies using inappropriate language which is insulting and juvenile. You remind me of one of the Lost Boys in the film "Hook" calling Robin Williams silly names because they thought it was funny. It just shows a lack of linguistic capacity that you can only engage in foul mouthed insults.

The real problem is that you can't see what you are doing so it is pointless having a dialogue with you...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 12:05 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
deleted/duplicate

I seem not to have access to the delete button.

Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 11:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you have a doctorate Biblical Studies or History of the ANE? If not, then your argument from authority fails before it gets off the ground.

Of course I understand Atwill's method, it's the same as Carrier's or Ehrman's or Mark's.

I simply do not agree with his conclusions as his argument in unconvincing, as is Mark's. (I don't agree with Carrier, either.) Many of the claims are simply too forced and contrived.

When someone digs up some correspondence between conspirators, then there would be evidence.


N.B. Ellis is demonstrably a nut job. Just Google him and read his writings. Or just read his posts here on TTA.


I'm mot making and "argument from authority". That is your problem, not mine. You seem to only accept something from an "authority". Everyone else you shit on. I was only pointing out that I am able to consider views, like Atwill's and Ellis' and be sceptical of them without you alerting me to the need to be sceptical by constantly using foul language and calling it "crap" and them "nut jobs".

You haven't read Atwill. He doesn't use Bayes Theorem. He uses a comparison method like a fingerprint or DNA expert.

I don't agree with you at all about Ellis. I have no problem discerning which parts of what he says are theory and what he sees as "fact" and where those "facts" come from, for instance, the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Nor do I have a problem with someone who finds it interesting to compare "myths" and finds that there are similarities which raise interesting questions. You seem to want to put words into people's mouths, or, indeed, stuff words into people's mouths and accuse them of asserting something as a fact when they are only putting forward an hypothesis. And that, you think, then justifies using inappropriate language which is insulting and juvenile. You remind me of one of the Lost Boys in the film "Hook" calling Robin Williams silly names because they thought it was funny. It just shows a lack of linguistic capacity that you can only engage in foul mouthed insults.

The real problem is that you can't see what you are doing so it is pointless having a dialogue with you...

You continue to not be able to tell fact from supposition, evidence from argument.

In fact, you can't tell good arguments from bad ones.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-06-2014, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 11:07 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Delta stop crying about bad language, it just makes you sound like a whinny bitch with a skinned knee. The fact you use similar language means your a hypocritical whinny bitch with a skinned knee.

Half your dialogue is this self righteous pollution. Sack up Sally, you're far more entertaining when you're being credulous than you are when your crying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
07-06-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(07-06-2014 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 09:22 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, what is your response?

Let's look at it. You again repeat, it's not evidence, Ellis is a nut job, you are interested in calling people nut jobs.

Atwill uses a method. Richard Dawkins read his book and he didn't call him a nutjob. He publicized his works by personally Tweeting about it.

I've read his book and so has Mark. You haven't. Mark is a doctor. I have a doctorate. You seem to think you are cleverer than us, Atwill, Ellis and Dawkins and it is just ok for you to smear anyone who has actually read the book and understands Atwill's method.

Face it Chas, you can't even explain what Atwill's method is because you don't understand it.

You think we are all gullible and naive. Sorry, but it's you who has the problem because your just rigid in your beliefs and can't think for yourself.

If you use text in separate pieces of literature as evidence to show a pattern then the text is the "evidence" you are using. That is what universities now do to detect plagiarism. They don't hunt around for someone who saw the student writing his paper and copying passages. The systems are accurate and can be used in a court if the student challenges them because people who have made a life's study of what "evidence" means understand the concepts of "probabilities" that different people writing independently don't come up with identical passages by mistake and they use statistical probabilities, just as Atwill did.

So, you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, you have a doctorate Biblical Studies or History of the ANE? If not, then your argument from authority fails before it gets off the ground.

Of course I understand Atwill's method, it's the same as Carrier's or Ehrman's or Mark's.

I simply do not agree with his conclusions as his argument in unconvincing, as is Mark's. (I don't agree with Carrier, either.) Many of the claims are simply too forced and contrived.

When someone digs up some correspondence between conspirators, then there would be evidence.


N.B. Ellis is demonstrably a nut job. Just Google him and read his writings. Or just read his posts here on TTA.

Ok Chas...I hear you that you don't find the arguments convincing, and you want direct evidence. In fact I heard you each of the previous 7 times you've said exactly the same thing. I respect that opinion. There's no need to keep saying it.

Now...please...in your next post...take things just a little further. Tell me some specifics. Talk around the topic. Demonstrate you've genuinely considered the possibilities. For example, which claims are too forced and contrived and why? Or...the podcast about the Flavians being great propagandists doesn't support Atwill's theory because...."

Then other people (like me) can learn from you and the conversation moves forward.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 09:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I'm sorry if that was insulting. I for one take WLC to be a very smart person who has to twist more than the average apologist to make sense of his claims.

What I meant to say is that you seem very defensive of Atwillism (for a lack of a better term) though it's understandable as this is your thread and you seem enthused about the video.

My other issue is that if you throw assertions left and right and avoid dealing with the objections, it's really hard to meaningfully and thoroughly deal with each point. I've lost count of the points I was going to address to be honest.

Especially as a father of three I only get half an hour tops everyday to browse the forum before calling it a night.

I'll try to deal with your points tomorrow. In the mean time in would be interested in a response (or explanation that fits your theory) to Paul's self debasing and almost suicidal comments in the quotes I mentioned earlier.

For the time being the only thing that I agree with you on is that Paul had mental problems.

"My other issue is that if you throw assertions left and right and avoid dealing with the objections," I hear you. Please fire away with your objections...I want to hear them...I want to discuss them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2014, 06:35 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(06-06-2014 11:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 08:05 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  It just seems useless to dissuade Mark that his theory has merit, I congratulate him on being the William Lane Craig of Atwillism.

On the other hand I've read through the thread people that claim that Paul knowingly made the entire thing up to gain status, power, etc. This is just doesn't make sense.

Paul didn't have a great time as a Christian leader. He was mocked and threatened often. He even was abandoned at times by fellow believers. Paul knew that he was going to end up getting killed one way or another if he continued preaching his message.
He says things like:

"For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." (1 Cor 4:9-13)

And

"Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”" (Rom 8:35-36)

And

"that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death" (Phil 3:10)

And many others. Definitely not a guy in it for the money, power, recognition, etc. He could've been crazy, but a scam artist he certainly wasn't.

Paul was a drama queen. He was also a liar. Need I say more?

So if he thinks he's getting killed for his cause, he's a drama queen? I really was going to try to deal with some issues in your points but it's really pointless

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: