Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There has been honest threads of people asking for evolutionary evidence on here int he past because of a lack of understanding.

Sure, that's an honest option. If a person came in here with a lack of understanding of history, and it's methodologies, the ways in which historians derive their conclusions, and they lack any really knowledge of NT history, and they came in here looking to those who might know a bit more on the subject, for information. That can be an honest inquiry.

This man of honest inquiry is one that understands that those that take their time to inform them on the topic, are not doing so out of obligation, but as a favor, out of charity. Those engaging this honest inquirer perhaps enjoy discussing the topic, and don't particularly mind passing along their knowledge to others who are honestly interested in it.

The man of dishonest inquiry on the other hand, is the one who comes in here and declares that other's are obligated to convince him of their positions and beliefs. He's one that declares, that those who hold a position, have a burden, and obligation to waste their time catering to this dishonest individual. He's one not interested in honest inquiry, but merely desiring to play a game. Where his motivation are far from honest ones. He doesn't care about the conclusions being drawn, or forming an explanation of his own, but primarily about the words being used. He's not looking to think through a question, but means of avoiding having to think all together.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 09:49 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 09:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There has been honest threads of people asking for evolutionary evidence on here int he past because of a lack of understanding.

Sure, that's an honest option. If a person came in here with a lack of understanding of history, and it's methodologies, the ways in which historians derive their conclusions, and they lack any really knowledge of NT history, and they came in here looking to those who might know a bit more on the subject, for information. That can be an honest inquiry.

This man of honest inquiry is one that understands that those that take their time to inform them on the topic, are not doing so out of obligation, but as a favor, out of charity. Those engaging this honest inquirer perhaps enjoy discussing the topic, and don't particularly mind passing along their knowledge to others who are honestly interested in it.

The man of dishonest inquiry on the other hand, is the one who comes in here and declares that other's are obligated to convince him of their positions and beliefs. He's one that declares, that those who hold a position, have a burden, and obligation to waste their time catering to this dishonest individual. He's one not interested in honest inquiry, but merely desiring to play a game. Where his motivation are far from honest ones. He doesn't care about the conclusions being drawn, or forming an explanation of his own, but primarily about the words being used. He's not looking to think through a question, but means of avoiding having to think all together.

Passive-agressive logical fallacies Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Passive-agressive logical fallacies Consider

Your appeal to fallacies is passive-aggressive.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 09:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Passive-agressive logical fallacies Consider

Your appeal to fallacies is passive-aggressive.

No, just plain aggressive. When what you type is reducible to such logical inconsistencies because they are so bad, they don't warrant a response greater than telling you the basics.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
1) It is amusing when theists try to emulate me (you trying in vein to compare me to creationists, insult me, or incorrectly point out logical fallacies)

2) the bulk of your rebuttals always seem to be along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"

Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) It is amusing when theists try to emulate me (you trying in vein to compare me to creationists, insult me, or incorrectly point out logical fallacies)

2) the bulk of your rebuttals always seem to be along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"

Laugh out load

Passive Aggressive False Dichotomy.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 09:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There has been honest threads of people asking for evolutionary evidence on here int he past because of a lack of understanding.

Sure, that's an honest option. If a person came in here with a lack of understanding of history, and it's methodologies, the ways in which historians derive their conclusions, and they lack any really knowledge of NT history, and they came in here looking to those who might know a bit more on the subject, for information. That can be an honest inquiry.

This man of honest inquiry is one that understands that those that take their time to inform them on the topic, are not doing so out of obligation, but as a favor, out of charity. Those engaging this honest inquirer perhaps enjoy discussing the topic, and don't particularly mind passing along their knowledge to others who are honestly interested in it.

The man of dishonest inquiry on the other hand, is the one who comes in here and declares that other's are obligated to convince him of their positions and beliefs. He's one that declares, that those who hold a position, have a burden, and obligation to waste their time catering to this dishonest individual. He's one not interested in honest inquiry, but merely desiring to play a game. Where his motivation are far from honest ones. He doesn't care about the conclusions being drawn, or forming an explanation of his own, but primarily about the words being used. He's not looking to think through a question, but means of avoiding having to think all together.

Who is the HE? Are you the he? How do you know the interworkings of the mind of He so well?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
19-10-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 09:54 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) It is amusing when theists try to emulate me (you trying in vein to compare me to creationists, insult me, or incorrectly point out logical fallacies)

2) the bulk of your rebuttals always seem to be along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"

Laugh out load

Passive Aggressive False Dichotomy.

Do you even know what the fuck a false dichotomy is?

Do you know what the phrase "passive aggressive" means?

Are you seriously that ignorant?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 08:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If some creationist came in here. Claiming to lack a belief in evolution. Declaring that every person in here has the burden of proof to convince him that it's true. His dishonesty would be readily apparent to everyone here.

This one requires comment.

The Creationist would be correct.

The burden of proof is on any scientific theory to demonstrate that every aspect of its model is correct, that every fact has been sufficiently checked, and to hold out doubt for the portions which cannot be satisfactorily proven.

The burden is indeed on us to convince him that it's true. The same applies to any proposition. Far from being dishonest, the Creationist who actually asks good questions and actually has a discussion about why he finds evidence incorrect or incorrectly applied is applying the Scientific Method in raw form.

It is only when they dishonestly stick to presuppositions that are unsupportable, in the face of better evidence, that they become dishonest.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 10:36 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The Creationist would be correct.

Now there's a sentence you don't see very often, especially when it is actually true.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: