The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2014, 01:12 AM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 01:47 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.
Laughat

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day. I have no doubt that *some* of the stuff that comes out of Ralphie's pen has a passing acquaintance with actual reality. The question is which part. And here we have the problem that he doesn't get his stuff peer reviewed.

He might even be a true believer himself in his theories, but true belief is insufficient to claim actual truth. If no peer review, no accept outlandish, outside-of-expert-consensus claim. Full stop. I and most others here are not experts. If you have to convince non-experts of your claims it is of course easier than doing so for experts, but convincing a non-expert does not in any way strengthen your claim.

Ralph *must* get proper peer review if he wishes to be taken seriously. What he *has* done is written a few "popular" books not addressed at experts, and containing wild claims which contradict all other expert consensus. That is not true scholarship and he is not entitled to any respect for attempting to pass it off as the same.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
04-04-2014, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2014 01:26 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(02-04-2014 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

Suck it up big boy and apologize. You know I am right.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(04-04-2014 01:17 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(02-04-2014 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Suck it up big boy and apologize. You know I am right.

Drinking Beverage

In what universe? Ellis is a fraud and a hack, calling him out on that is not seting back anything but his false sense of superiority.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
04-04-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(04-04-2014 01:17 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Suck it up big boy and apologize. You know I am right.

Drinking Beverage

Fucken troll Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2014 02:02 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
It is, of course, possible that even without being "peer reviewed", he might be right about a thing or two.

Laughat

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.

~~~ Which would be two more than you are right.

I have no doubt that *some* of the stuff that comes out of Ralphie's pen has a passing acquaintance with actual reality. The question is which part.

~~~Yes, it is difficult to figure out which part isn't it, especially if you haven't read anything he has written and have to rely on other people to tell you what is right.

And here we have the problem that he doesn't get his stuff peer reviewed.

~~~Yes, here "we", ie., "you" have the problem, because you can't figure out what the f he is saying so you have to have someone else tell you.

He might even be a true believer himself in his theories, but true belief is insufficient to claim actual truth.

~~~Everyone "believes" what they are saying is "true" as far at they can make out or they wouldn't say it, unless they are deliberately lying or telling a joke. He says that he can't produce an affidavit from Josephus and that he is "joining the dots", as best he can and he says that this is all anyone can do with events from 2000 years ago with little or no documentation still in existance.

If no peer review, no accept outlandish, outside-of-expert-consensus claim. Full stop. I and most others here are not experts. If you have to convince non-experts of your claims it is of course easier than doing so for experts, but convincing a non-expert does not in any way strengthen your claim.

~~~I am not claiming anything. Ellis and Atwill disagree. I am interested in both their theories. Being "interested" in something doesn't mean one is saying it is true. You just make that connection because it fits with your glib and insulting style of put downs. I suppose you think it makes you look good to shoot off about people who you know are interested in unorthodox positions by portraying them as being gullible "believers" who have uncritically accepted something as "true" rather than just someone interested in hearing more about a new idea.

Ralph *must* get proper peer review if he wishes to be taken seriously.

~~~Theologians who argue for creationism get peer reviewed. It doesn't make them right. It only shows that peer review is self serving.

What he *has* done is written a few "popular" books not addressed at experts, and containing wild claims which contradict all other expert consensus. @@@

~~~He hasn't written "popular" books. He has written the findings of his research and his analysis of them. They aren't Mills and Boone romances or Hardy Boy adventures. What are you going on about?

That is not true scholarship and he is not entitled to any respect for attempting to pass it off as the same.

~~~True Scholarship? How about "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulen in which he sets out the three theories of the atonement, the way in which we can all become at one with God through Jesus Christ, a groundbreaking, peer reviewed work on religion? Aulen is respected, yes? And that makes him right in your opinion, because he is peer reviewed???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Bud, if it ain't published in a journal and it ain't reviewed by other Biblical scholars, then it's popular bulllshit no matter how many references he sticks at the end of it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
04-04-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
You've just made the so called courtier's reply, in that you're saying that in order to reject Ralph McTruthful's crap I've got to be an expert. I don't. I just have to know how scientific consensus is reached and how the peer review system works, which you clearly don't. His gimmicks with asserting that everyone's out to get him speak for themselves.

Even if his reviewers disagreed with him, if they found no fault with his methods then they would say so. It might cause an upset in the academic world if a new radical theory was proposed and some might not accept it at first. But if he refuses to even try that route, or tries and is rejected then he's pretty much guaranteed to be a crank.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
You've just made the so called courtier's reply, in that you're saying that in order to reject Ralph McTruthful's crap I've got to be an expert.

~~~No I haven't, I have said that you haven't read his book so you are talking out of your ass.

I don't. I just have to know how scientific consensus is reached and how the peer review system works, which you clearly don't.

~~~Religious "revisionism" isn't science. It is conjecture and guesswork based on a partial record. He is expressing his own "opinion" based on the research he has done, research which you haven't read or done or understand.

His gimmicks with asserting that everyone's out to get him speak for themselves.

~~~Gimmicks? You are talking nonsense.

Even if his reviewers disagreed with him, if they found no fault with his methods then they would say so.

~~~Richard Carrrier says that there were no peer reviewed papers on mythicism before he wrote one....not one. You really don't know what you are talking about. Theology and religious studies faculties of universities are staffed by conventional theologians who are taught by priests, Jesuits...Christians. I don't know if you noticed but Western Civilization has been Christianized for the last couple of thousand years. They were burning people who wrote translated the bible out of Latin a while ago in places like "England".

It might cause an upset in the academic world if a new radical theory was proposed and some might not accept it at first. But if he refuses to even try that route, or tries and is rejected then he's pretty much guaranteed to be a crank.


~~~He published books, not scholastic papers. Authors go to publishers who publish works that they think will sell. Peer review has nothing to do with commercial publication of books. Now people publish ebooks. Religious revisionism is not a big "popular" field so ebooks is the way to publish these sorts of works which have a small market.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
(01-03-2014 07:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We know all too much about that shit. It's not a "debate". Verenna at least lives on planet Earth. Ellis got nuthin'. He thinks his shit doesn't stink. It's a little tragic, as he might have made a decent historian back when, at some point. But he never had any real education, (therefore no guidance from a "mentor" or someone to point out his "crazy"). He connects dots all over the place which no one else in the entire world even accepts AS dots. Check out his crap about the Masons. Just sad. He thinks there's a grand conspiracy among academics to silence him. Sure there is.

Verano is no longer an Atheist.

While he touted himself as having a connection with Rutgers, he was, in truth, only a second year student, having taken about 5 years to achieve that status. He published nothing in any peer reviewed journals and has now left Rutgers without having received a degree.

Gasp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: The Ralph Ellis v. Thomas Verrano debate
Bud, if it ain't published in a journal and it ain't reviewed by other Biblical scholars, then it's popular bulllshit no matter how many references he sticks at the end of it.

~~~I was going to write something sensible in response to this but what is the point. You really are a wingnut, Bud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: