The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2014, 06:03 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-04-2014 05:39 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Let Go of the Shroud Part I - The Shroud of Turin: It’s obviously fake
Let Go of the Shroud Part II - The Shroud of Turin: Examining the evidence
Let Go of the Shroud Part III - The Shroud of Turin: It’s Just Bad Science

Thanks for these. "Let go of the Shroud"...that title made me smile. Like a dog chewing a slipper..."bad dog...give me the slipper, give me the slipper...PUT THE SLIPPER DOWN!" Laugh out load

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Eva's post
01-04-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-04-2014 12:43 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 04:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I apologize for replying late. Work schedules are busy at the moment.

I'd just like to add a post that many a X-stian forum has it full share of bullies and bigots to boot.

This board is an example => http://discussions.godandscience.org/

When the moderators ban a member for providing links to science pages, you've got to figure the nutters are running the insane asylum.

Very much cheers to all.





I was on another atheist forum where the majority of members were interested in setting up a new form of Christianity based on a book by a descendant of the San Jacinto General Burleson called "Crosses on the Road". The only active moderator believed in "Trioonism". But, hey, if you suggest that there is a factual basis for the New Testament which doesn't involve virgin birth and resurrection you get abuse. Oh well?!


[Image: colin-farrell.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-04-2014, 12:52 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
That GIF. I love that GIF. I laugh every time. It's so perfect! xD
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
02-04-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-04-2014 05:38 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(02-03-2014 01:53 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyone coming to this forum who had a modicum of good sense and manners would think atheists are a bunch of foul mouthed bullies.

That idea is self contradictory.

To have 'a modicum of good sense' and then to assume based on the interactions of a few people on an internet forum that an entire demographic (atheists) are foul-mouthed bullies is contradictory behaviour.
If a person came to that conclusion, I dare-say they've lost their right to claim that they are of good sense for painting an entire demographic in such a way.

First, I have never claimed to have a modicum of good sense.

Secondly... I forget what I was going to say.

Anyway, oh shit, who cares anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 12:12 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 05:38 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  That idea is self contradictory.

To have 'a modicum of good sense' and then to assume based on the interactions of a few people on an internet forum that an entire demographic (atheists) are foul-mouthed bullies is contradictory behaviour.
If a person came to that conclusion, I dare-say they've lost their right to claim that they are of good sense for painting an entire demographic in such a way.

First, I have never claimed to have a modicum of good sense.

Secondly... I forget what I was going to say.

Anyway, oh shit, who cares anyway.

I never said that you claimed to have that which you wrote about in your accusation of us regarding that which you wrote when you said what you never said you didn't have.

I just said that what you said that a person with 'a modicum of good sense' would come to that conclusion which you wrote of was contradictory in nature to the idea of having a modicum of good sense.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
02-04-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 12:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 12:12 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  First, I have never claimed to have a modicum of good sense.

Secondly... I forget what I was going to say.

Anyway, oh shit, who cares anyway.

I never said that you claimed to have that which you wrote about in your accusation of us regarding that which you wrote when you said what you never said you didn't have.

I just said that what you said that a person with 'a modicum of good sense' would come to that conclusion which you wrote of was contradictory in nature to the idea of having a modicum of good sense.

Thanks for clarifying that.Huh

Since I have been on this board I have been subjected to an onslaught of foul language, not by you or the majority of people but by a few posters who, on the one hand, are not in the least bit interested in what I am saying while, on the other hand, feel compelled to level abuse at me.

Why?

I came here because I found some posts by Ralph Ellis on a comment section of an on-line newspaper and that led me to his thread and I was able to get in touch with him and we have had a very pleasant series of emails back and forth about his works and his books. He has been very open and helpful and has not sought to put his case any higher than it is so i don't understand why there is so much hostility towards his ideas here. If people aren't interested in his ideas because they are unorthodos, ok, understood, but that is no justification for brainless, potty mouth behavior. If Ralph Ellis was in a public place talking to some people who happened to be interested in hearing what he said, what kind of person would go up to him and start swearing at him or even telling him to "take a hike". If they did, they would be told to "f off" themselves because it is totally unacceptable behaviour in a polite society. This sort of behaviour seems to be countenanced here as I have been sworn at repeatedly and told to "get the h out of here" by a number of people.

I have read here about Saudi bringing in laws to make atheists into terrorists. This forum appears to be inhabited by a lot of people of a similar mindset, that if someone disagrees with them it is ok to abuse them until the leave. I get this message that if "we" don't like your ideas, "we" will gang up on you and eventually get you kicked off the forum

Ralph Ellis has spent a lot of time and energy trying to effectively debunk Christianity and show it as a story about a real person, not a son of god, and to explain the "miracles" as conjurer's tricks performed by "magi". Maybe he is wrong, but he is an atheist and his theory helps some people understand what Christianity is really about, ie., an invented story intended to create a god figure for political purposes. Of course it is controversial, but I would have thought that of all places this would be the last to treat him the way he was treated since we come here precisely because we want to get away from bigots and bullies who don't accept us because our beliefs and ideas are different from theirs.

I think Ralph Ellis deserves an apology from the "we" group who drove him off this forum and I think he has something to add to the debate and would like to have him contribute to this forum so that we can understand what he is actually saying. It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
02-04-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I came here because I found some posts by Ralph Ellis on a comment section of an on-line newspaper and that led me to his thread and I was able to get in touch with him and we have had a very pleasant series of emails back and forth about his works and his books. He has been very open and helpful and has not sought to put his case any higher than it is so i don't understand why there is so much hostility towards his ideas here. If people aren't interested in his ideas because they are unorthodos, ok, understood, but that is no justification for brainless, potty mouth behavior. If Ralph Ellis was in a public place talking to some people who happened to be interested in hearing what he said, what kind of person would go up to him and start swearing at him or even telling him to "take a hike". If they did, they would be told to "f off" themselves because it is totally unacceptable behaviour in a polite society. This sort of behaviour seems to be countenanced here as I have been sworn at repeatedly and told to "get the h out of here" by a number of people.

I have read here about Saudi bringing in laws to make atheists into terrorists. This forum appears to be inhabited by a lot of people of a similar mindset, that if someone disagrees with them it is ok to abuse them until the leave. I get this message that if "we" don't like your ideas, "we" will gang up on you and eventually get you kicked off the forum

Ralph Ellis has spent a lot of time and energy trying to effectively debunk Christianity and show it as a story about a real person, not a son of god, and to explain the "miracles" as conjurer's tricks performed by "magi". Maybe he is wrong, but he is an atheist and his theory helps some people understand what Christianity is really about, ie., an invented story intended to create a god figure for political purposes. Of course it is controversial, but I would have thought that of all places this would be the last to treat him the way he was treated since we come here precisely because we want to get away from bigots and bullies who don't accept us because our beliefs and ideas are different from theirs.

I think Ralph Ellis deserves an apology from the "we" group who drove him off this forum and I think he has something to add to the debate and would like to have him contribute to this forum so that we can understand what he is actually saying. It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.

Ellis's made-up nonsense does not help to debunk Christianity since it so obviously a tissue of supposition, coincidence of translations of words, leaps of illogic, and so on.

You are simply too credulous. I owe neither him nor you any apology for calling his nonsense what it is.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-04-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Of course it is controversial, but I would have thought that of all places this would be the last to treat him the way he was treated since we come here precisely because we want to get away from bigots and bullies who don't accept us because our beliefs and ideas are different from theirs.

I don't want to get away from people whose beliefs and ideas are different. I want to get away from people whose beliefs and ideas are based on crap. Everyone has their level of tolerance when it comes to ideas. Some people like edgy ideas that haven't passed peer-review, are poorly supported, and do not take into account actual historical facts. Other people want ideas that have been through the gauntlet before they'll accept them. Ralph's ideas got beat to a pulp here. Nice guy or not, he did not (and still cannot, unless something has changed) pass any sort of peer review.

What is your personal tolerance for 'quality' ideas? Would you accept medical treatment from someone who had Ralph's approach to knowledge? Would you fly in a plane built by an engineer who's math hadn't passed a quality review from other engineers? Of course not. While your life doesn't depend on Ralph's abilities, the concept is the same. Is the information 'good'? Does it hold up to current standards?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
02-04-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 12:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I never said that you claimed to have that which you wrote about in your accusation of us regarding that which you wrote when you said what you never said you didn't have.

I just said that what you said that a person with 'a modicum of good sense' would come to that conclusion which you wrote of was contradictory in nature to the idea of having a modicum of good sense.

Thanks for clarifying that.Huh

Oh it's no problem at all.

(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Since I have been on this board I have been subjected to an onslaught of foul language, not by you or the majority of people but by a few posters who, on the one hand, are not in the least bit interested in what I am saying while, on the other hand, feel compelled to level abuse at me.

Why?

I came here because I found some posts by Ralph Ellis on a comment section of an on-line newspaper and that led me to his thread and I was able to get in touch with him and we have had a very pleasant series of emails back and forth about his works and his books. He has been very open and helpful and has not sought to put his case any higher than it is so i don't understand why there is so much hostility towards his ideas here. If people aren't interested in his ideas because they are unorthodos, ok, understood, but that is no justification for brainless, potty mouth behavior. If Ralph Ellis was in a public place talking to some people who happened to be interested in hearing what he said, what kind of person would go up to him and start swearing at him or even telling him to "take a hike". If they did, they would be told to "f off" themselves because it is totally unacceptable behaviour in a polite society. This sort of behaviour seems to be countenanced here as I have been sworn at repeatedly and told to "get the h out of here" by a number of people.

I have read here about Saudi bringing in laws to make atheists into terrorists. This forum appears to be inhabited by a lot of people of a similar mindset, that if someone disagrees with them it is ok to abuse them until the leave. I get this message that if "we" don't like your ideas, "we" will gang up on you and eventually get you kicked off the forum

Ralph Ellis has spent a lot of time and energy trying to effectively debunk Christianity and show it as a story about a real person, not a son of god, and to explain the "miracles" as conjurer's tricks performed by "magi". Maybe he is wrong, but he is an atheist and his theory helps some people understand what Christianity is really about, ie., an invented story intended to create a god figure for political purposes. Of course it is controversial, but I would have thought that of all places this would be the last to treat him the way he was treated since we come here precisely because we want to get away from bigots and bullies who don't accept us because our beliefs and ideas are different from theirs.

I think Ralph Ellis deserves an apology from the "we" group who drove him off this forum and I think he has something to add to the debate and would like to have him contribute to this forum so that we can understand what he is actually saying. It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.

I don't think anybody owns Ellis an apology; it was his decision to enter this area, and it was his decision to leave it.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
02-04-2014, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2014 08:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 12:50 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I never said that you claimed to have that which you wrote about in your accusation of us regarding that which you wrote when you said what you never said you didn't have.

I just said that what you said that a person with 'a modicum of good sense' would come to that conclusion which you wrote of was contradictory in nature to the idea of having a modicum of good sense.

Thanks for clarifying that.Huh

Since I have been on this board I have been subjected to an onslaught of foul language, not by you or the majority of people but by a few posters who, on the one hand, are not in the least bit interested in what I am saying while, on the other hand, feel compelled to level abuse at me.

Why?

I came here because I found some posts by Ralph Ellis on a comment section of an on-line newspaper and that led me to his thread and I was able to get in touch with him and we have had a very pleasant series of emails back and forth about his works and his books. He has been very open and helpful and has not sought to put his case any higher than it is so i don't understand why there is so much hostility towards his ideas here. If people aren't interested in his ideas because they are unorthodos, ok, understood, but that is no justification for brainless, potty mouth behavior. If Ralph Ellis was in a public place talking to some people who happened to be interested in hearing what he said, what kind of person would go up to him and start swearing at him or even telling him to "take a hike". If they did, they would be told to "f off" themselves because it is totally unacceptable behaviour in a polite society. This sort of behaviour seems to be countenanced here as I have been sworn at repeatedly and told to "get the h out of here" by a number of people.

I have read here about Saudi bringing in laws to make atheists into terrorists. This forum appears to be inhabited by a lot of people of a similar mindset, that if someone disagrees with them it is ok to abuse them until the leave. I get this message that if "we" don't like your ideas, "we" will gang up on you and eventually get you kicked off the forum

Ralph Ellis has spent a lot of time and energy trying to effectively debunk Christianity and show it as a story about a real person, not a son of god, and to explain the "miracles" as conjurer's tricks performed by "magi". Maybe he is wrong, but he is an atheist and his theory helps some people understand what Christianity is really about, ie., an invented story intended to create a god figure for political purposes. Of course it is controversial, but I would have thought that of all places this would be the last to treat him the way he was treated since we come here precisely because we want to get away from bigots and bullies who don't accept us because our beliefs and ideas are different from theirs.

I think Ralph Ellis deserves an apology from the "we" group who drove him off this forum and I think he has something to add to the debate and would like to have him contribute to this forum so that we can understand what he is actually saying. It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.

Too bad. He deserves no apology. The fact is he has absolutely NO training in History. His convoluted hilarious, preposterous "dot-connecting" makes a mockery of the study of History, and historical methodology. Your problem is you can't tell the difference between crappy methodology and REAL History. It's also his problem. Attempting to "debunk" Christianity with crappy History serves NO one, LEAST of all us. If you are SO short-sighted you can't see that, it's YOUR problem. IF he had ever submitted any of his nonsense to peer review, AND listened to the criticism he got from REAL scholars, he might not be in the position HE PUT HIMSELF. You promised to go away with your whining.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: