Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-02-2016 12:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Classic Dunning- Kruger...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

I don't think you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger, but it would be great if you would respond to my concerns. I must repeat, I've won our debate.

Ipso facto
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
16-02-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You certainly did answer my question previously. However, posting commentary, that is varying opinion, regarding Paul, written hundreds to thousands of years after his life isn't really answering my questions. And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring...

...that my questions regarding your position revolve around whether you have contemporaneous counter-documents to the scriptures and/or smoking gun evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Again, a commentary written hundreds of years after the scriptures that the scriptures themselves were redacted at the time of their writing would not hold in court (even mock debate court). Imagine someone today bringing charges that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were redacted and changed despite the evidence to the contrary including signatures.

As promised before the ring opened, you would stick to mere commentary, as well as breaking the rules of formal debate, and spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any. There aren't even apocryphal "scriptures" with things to say against Paul.

I've won this debate. Thank you for your time.

"And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring.."

Yep. It is obvious you haven't read, thought about or responded to the hundreds of issues I have raised about Paul...because you have already made your mind up.

"spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any."

So you keep saying...ad nauseum. Yet you don't realise that Paul's writings themselves are inconsistent and invalid and full of unsubstantiated nonsense. We don't need any contemporary commentators to tell us this...it is obvious from the letters themselves.

What is more, you haven't read or understood what I wrote about James' letter or the dead sea scrolls, which are contemporary documents.

Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
16-02-2016, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2016 03:36 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-02-2016 08:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring.."

Yep. It is obvious you haven't read, thought about or responded to the hundreds of issues I have raised about Paul...because you have already made your mind up.

"spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any."

So you keep saying...ad nauseum. Yet you don't realise that Paul's writings themselves are inconsistent and invalid and full of unsubstantiated nonsense. We don't need any contemporary commentators to tell us this...it is obvious from the letters themselves.

What is more, you haven't read or understood what I wrote about James' letter or the dead sea scrolls, which are contemporary documents.

Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

Oh, you are still here. And, as always, our readers have learned nothing, zilch, from your post.

I'll make another attempt to draw you into the discussion, although I won't hold my breath waiting for answers, and I'll be very surprised if you actually know enough, or can be bothered to do some research, to answer me.

"It is not obvious to those who study Paul...that Paul is inconsistent."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining his inconsistencies. It is your duty to respond.

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining why he was not. It is your duty to respond.

"No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls."

Ok, tell us what you think of my arguments, because you have not made one skerrick of commentary about this. It is your duty to respond.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
16-02-2016, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2016 05:06 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-02-2016 08:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring.."

Yep. It is obvious you haven't read, thought about or responded to the hundreds of issues I have raised about Paul...because you have already made your mind up.

"spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any."

So you keep saying...ad nauseum. Yet you don't realise that Paul's writings themselves are inconsistent and invalid and full of unsubstantiated nonsense. We don't need any contemporary commentators to tell us this...it is obvious from the letters themselves.

What is more, you haven't read or understood what I wrote about James' letter or the dead sea scrolls, which are contemporary documents.

Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

After you have finished answering the above questions, please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?

Consider an analogy that elucidates my point. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant orator and organiser. Do you lie awake at night reading "Mein Kampf" as the word of God?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-02-2016, 10:37 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-02-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 08:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

Oh, you are still here. And, as always, our readers have learned nothing, zilch, from your post.

I'll make another attempt to draw you into the discussion, although I won't hold my breath waiting for answers, and I'll be very surprised if you actually know enough, or can be bothered to do some research, to answer me.

"It is not obvious to those who study Paul...that Paul is inconsistent."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining his inconsistencies. It is your duty to respond.

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining why he was not. It is your duty to respond.

"No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls."

Ok, tell us what you think of my arguments, because you have not made one skerrick of commentary about this. It is your duty to respond.

You have written many pages of commentary, yours and others, on the texts under question. However:

1. I will not waste my time providing commentary--as you have--of writers not contemporary to Paul. Yes, in a debate you may present commentary, but presenting 100% commentary and no facts leaves you open to the charge of sophistry.

2. You have consistently stated that you know which of Paul's statements are his and which are pseudo- or deutero-Paul. What is your proof?

3. You have consistently stated each time I provided verses and passages that refuted your ideas/concepts that you know my Bible verses are either 1) not Paul's writing or 2) Paul's writing but Paul wasn't really writing what we plainly read, he was lying. Please provide your proof.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-02-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-02-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 08:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

After you have finished answering the above questions, please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?

Consider an analogy that elucidates my point. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant orator and organiser. Do you lie awake at night reading "Mein Kampf" as the word of God?

I don't follow your false analogy. Most people take Mein Kampf as evil in print and most people take Paul's writings as kind and good, regardless of their stance on biblical Christianity overall.

Also, I never wrote that Paul only spoke truth. But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles. But this discussion must be moot until you prove how you know (see above) which Pauline statements are really his and not another author's...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-02-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
"most people take Paul's writings as kind and good,"

"Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Argumentum Ad Numerum is a logical fallacy: it is the idea where something is true, because great numbers believe it. As in "eat shit, twenty trillion flies cant be wrong!" - Bill Maher.

So, for the 100th time, and to relieve the boredom of our readers, how about you actually enter the discussion about Paul and say something about him? Your reputation is in tatters...here is your chance to do something about it. No more (incorrect) argumentum ad numerums please...they only reflect your own biases.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-02-2016, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2016 09:19 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  After you have finished answering the above questions, please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?

Consider an analogy that elucidates my point. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant orator and organiser. Do you lie awake at night reading "Mein Kampf" as the word of God?

I don't follow your false analogy. Most people take Mein Kampf as evil in print and most people take Paul's writings as kind and good, regardless of their stance on biblical Christianity overall.

Also, I never wrote that Paul only spoke truth. But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles. But this discussion must be moot until you prove how you know (see above) which Pauline statements are really his and not another author's...

"But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles"

Please provide contemporaneous commentary to prove your outlandish opinion...I'm not interested in what has been written hundreds, even thousands, of years later. And I'm not interested in a discussion of Paul's letters themselves (he he Big Grin)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
17-02-2016, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2016 03:30 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  After you have finished answering the above questions, please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?

Consider an analogy that elucidates my point. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant orator and organiser. Do you lie awake at night reading "Mein Kampf" as the word of God?

I don't follow your false analogy. Most people take Mein Kampf as evil in print and most people take Paul's writings as kind and good, regardless of their stance on biblical Christianity overall.

Also, I never wrote that Paul only spoke truth. But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles. But this discussion must be moot until you prove how you know (see above) which Pauline statements are really his and not another author's...

"I don't follow your false analogy."

Obviously. You didn't read it carefully. Concepts more than a sentence long are difficult for you, aren't they?

I asked you why you believed Paul wrote the truth, and in fact, why you think he wrote the word of God. Him being a good orator or a good organiser is not a good reason. (As proven by my analogy.)

Are you going to answer, or just, as usual, reply with another (already addressed) question?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-02-2016, 04:55 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2016 05:08 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 10:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh, you are still here. And, as always, our readers have learned nothing, zilch, from your post.

I'll make another attempt to draw you into the discussion, although I won't hold my breath waiting for answers, and I'll be very surprised if you actually know enough, or can be bothered to do some research, to answer me.

"It is not obvious to those who study Paul...that Paul is inconsistent."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining his inconsistencies. It is your duty to respond.

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining why he was not. It is your duty to respond.

"No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls."

Ok, tell us what you think of my arguments, because you have not made one skerrick of commentary about this. It is your duty to respond.

You have written many pages of commentary, yours and others, on the texts under question. However:

1. I will not waste my time providing commentary--as you have--of writers not contemporary to Paul. Yes, in a debate you may present commentary, but presenting 100% commentary and no facts leaves you open to the charge of sophistry.

2. You have consistently stated that you know which of Paul's statements are his and which are pseudo- or deutero-Paul. What is your proof?

3. You have consistently stated each time I provided verses and passages that refuted your ideas/concepts that you know my Bible verses are either 1) not Paul's writing or 2) Paul's writing but Paul wasn't really writing what we plainly read, he was lying. Please provide your proof.

"... but presenting 100% commentary and no facts..."

How ironic that you, of all people, accuse me of having "no facts"! Facepalm

My posts are littered with facts...yours aren't. What is more, you simply ignore facts that don't fit with your beliefs. That's dishonest.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: