Eric Ruach tells it like it is - The God Who Wasn't There

[dizzle]

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-19-06.asp

In order to avoid getting his clock cleaned in a public internet debate on TheologyWeb, he decided to issue a Statement of Belief (not once, but twice) that would-be debaters must sign and have notarized before he will give them the honor of challenging his intellectually-superior gray matter.

For the record - this invitation was not sent by JP. I wrote Brian and invited him here for a one on one debate with JP. I received absolutely no reply. The email was not rude or obnoxious so he doesn't have that excuse for no responding to me.

[Darth Executor]

That was a good article. :thumb:

[Goth_S]

It actually was a pretty good article, and made a few good points in relation to the "statement of belief" or perhaps, non-belief.

I've stated on the beast forums before, that the statement is somewhat poorly worded. However, I have to agree with the general sentiment that it poses.

All too often, the argument of "god said it, I beleive it, pass the butter" is used in debate. I figure, that this statement is an attempt at stopping the "jesus decoder ring" from being an acceptable tactic in debate.

To turn it around, christians might not beleive what is said in some science books, about evolution. They might want to know the basic facts surrounding such a statement. Who said it first? What were their credentials? Has this phenominon been observed, tested and repeated? Does it follow the scientific method? Is it logical, or believable?

Simply because it was written down, does not make it so. As the article's author stated, "Some recorded events are better recorded than others."
And I agree with this statement.

If the debate itself is to have any point, then it must be a debate about the validity of said recorded documents. No faith required.

Ultimately, I think the statement should be better worded, but I agree with the general sentiment.

Simply my opinion.






Love,
Goth_S

[jpholding]

I've stated on the beast forums before, that the statement is somewhat poorly worded. However, I have to agree with the general sentiment that it poses.

All too often, the argument of "god said it, I beleive it, pass the butter" is used in debate. I figure, that this statement is an attempt at stopping the "jesus decoder ring" from being an acceptable tactic in debate.

If the intent is indeed to avoid "God said it" debaters, I would have no objection. But I honestly think there's more to it than that.

My own materials on the dates of the Gospels, etc. never use such appeals, for example, but gauge authorship evidence versus evidence for other ancient documents. Not one "God said it" in the bunch; no faith (in the sense implied) required.

I remain convinced that he is simply trying to make it so that informed opposition cannot debate him, because they cannot sign such a statement in good conscience. Not even GDon could sign this even now, since he does think Luke has good evidence for being by Luke, IIRC.

[dizzle]

It actually was a pretty good article, and made a few good points in relation to the "statement of belief" or perhaps, non-belief.

I've stated on the beast forums before, that the statement is somewhat poorly worded. However, I have to agree with the general sentiment that it poses.

All too often, the argument of "god said it, I beleive it, pass the butter" is used in debate. I figure, that this statement is an attempt at stopping the "jesus decoder ring" from being an acceptable tactic in debate.

To turn it around, christians might not beleive what is said in some science books, about evolution. They might want to know the basic facts surrounding such a statement. Who said it first? What were their credentials? Has this phenominon been observed, tested and repeated? Does it follow the scientific method? Is it logical, or believable?

Simply because it was written down, does not make it so. As the article's author stated, "Some recorded events are better recorded than others."
And I agree with this statement.

If the debate itself is to have any point, then it must be a debate about the validity of said recorded documents. No faith required.

Ultimately, I think the statement should be better worded, but I agree with the general sentiment.

Simply my opinion.






Love,
Goth_S


Hi Goth, I don't think that is what he doing at all frankly. It is worded so precisely such that one has to actually agree with him prior to debating which makes debating useless. He might as well just be upfront and say I am not going to debate because of such and such rather than a really moronic "requirement." I don't debate hyperpreterists, but at least I don't pretend like I do by requiring that any hyperpreterist I debate agree that the bodily resurrection is future. It is like saying you don't mind Jews keeping kosher as long as they eat pork.

Further if someone was debating so shallowly it would be a very easy debate for Brian and give him wonderful opportunites for showing how allegedly bad Christian arguments are. He leaves no room open for misunderstanding Goth with his completely arrogant side-remarks that shows he means exactly what he said, it isn't poorly worded. And BTW if you think so, perhaps you too (his words) aren't worthy of his consideration. Just a thought.

[jpholding]

I'll comment on Tekton, on the changes, on Monday, when I have time to see if they're meaningful, but I wonder if he'd accept it if the Statement was revised to simply say, "I will not debate these issues, they can be off limits." I don't need to use the Gospels to address main premises like the alleged problematic silence of Paul on the life of Jesus.

Probably not... :teeth:

[dizzle]

I doubt it. It seems very obvious to me that he doesn't wish to debate. He should just say it. As I said, I don't debate hyperpreterists and I could care less if they like it, but I don't pretend like I would but only under certain conditions which beg the very question under dispute with them. I don't, I say why, and don't pretty much care what others may think of that. But playing a game wherein one pretends like they debate but alas no one is "worthy" of them is 'tarded.

[dizzle]

JP needs to make a Xena Hearthstone toon

[Goth_S]

I dunno.


Ultimately, it's kinda hard to be objective in this sense. A christian might have use for the argument styles that the statement forbids, whereas an athiest might see them as illogical or whatever.


I'm not entirely sure I agree with either side, 100%. At least, not currently.

I have, in fairness, noted that the arguments presented by JP, are rarely (if ever) of the "God said it, I beleive it" sort.
But I also don't think that the statement was directed specifically at JP either.

The statement itself, came after (if memory serves) after the debate with the calvinist, who mostly stuck to spinning in circles, and rarely gave an appropriate answer to the questions.
Perhaps in comparison to that debate specifically, an understanding could be reached as to the merits/flaws/reasons for the statement.



Just trying to see all sides.




Love,
Goth_S

[dizzle]

Hey Goth, I appreciate you trying to see all sides, I just don't think there is much to Brian's "side" on this one. He has arbitrarily excluded anyone who could give him a run for his money and dismissed them as "unworthy" of him. He has crafted a statement that requires a person to already agree with him before he will debate them. I dunno, but that is very manipulatively suspect in my book. And again, I think I have more of a particular standing to have a position on this since I am involved in a controversial subject, and I have chosen (for various reasons) to outright refuse to debate. I don't have an issue with persons who do that if they state their reasons. I may attach their reasons, but at least they aren't being less than honest about their willingness to debate. They are not willing. I believe that there are at times good reasons not to.

[Goth_S]

Yeah, I can definately understand how the statement could come across as such.


Brian seems like a pretty smart guy. I hope it's all done in honorable intentions at the least.





Love,
Goth_S

[dizzle]

Okay cool. I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from in my own situation in that I don't have a problem with people refusing to debate as long as they give reasons. Others may attack those reasons but at least it is all laid out on the table. I know there are certain kinds of debate format that JP won't do, and he gives his reasons. Other may not like those reasons, but hey, there they are. I don't think anyone, Christian, atheist or otherwise, can be expected to dedicate their entire lives and time to refuting every comer. Especially with the advent of the Internet.

[Stephen Keys]

Good article.

I briefly followed this in the beginning and am following it again now so I'm not sure but has Flemming acknowledged JP at all?

[jpholding]

I'm going to do this here rather than on Tekton, and just link to it from there.

If Flemming really IS trying to sift out the "God said it" sort of deal, then the following proposal should be perfectly acceptable to him. It is based on his Statement of Belief, and rather than saying "I believe/don't believe", it merely sets off-limits in debate the issues in question which I cannot, in good conscience, reject. The effect will be the same, and thus he should have no problem accepting it if he is honest in his intent here.


So then. Here is my counter proposal. I have no problem with how some are worded (like #2) and will keep those as is (though of course, I remain with the view that the presuppositions embedded in them have flaws; eg, "religious cults make things up" is little more than well-poisoning and categorical irrelevancy).

*************

In this debate, I will not make arguments that assume that the Bible is infallible. I will use it as one would any other historical document.

I acknowledge that claims can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.

I acknowledge that there is no known evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the period between 6 BC and 33 AD.

Although I think there are solid arguments that can be made for the authenticity of the Gospels, and for their authorship by the persons whose names are attached to them, including disciples of Jesus, I will not use them in a debate unless the opposition, Brian Flemming, brings them up first.

I acknowledge that it is common for religious cults to make things up.

I acknowledge that it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.

Although I do think that God performed certain actions to influence Christianity's growth (such as the Resurrection) I will not appeal to the acts of God, the Spirit, Satan, or any other "supernatural" being in the debate.

In addition, I propose the following as subjects of debate (without saying that these are the only ones possible):

*The "Silence" of Paul on the Life of Jesus: Is it real? If it is, is it a problem?
*Was the figure of Jesus influenced by other "savior figures"?

*************

I would like to ask other parties to do the following ---

Darth Xena (Dee Dee), please email the above to Flemming with a new debate challenge.

Punkish, Goth, or GDon, or whoever sees this first who is also on the Beast forum: Please post this there, preferably in a new thread.








I have, in fairness, noted that the arguments presented by JP, are rarely (if ever) of the "God said it, I beleive it" sort.

If you find one by me, let me know and I'll see about removing it. :wink:

But I also don't think that the statement was directed specifically at JP either.

Do you know who else might have been in mind? I don't recall the calvinist using that sort of argument, either, but I may have missed it.




JP needs to make a Xena Hearthstone toon

I got one set up -- there's a Xena-like character in the Karu'shi Av'nen series, set in Hearthstone's medieval period. I won't get to it for at least 5 years, though. :sad:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Good article.

I briefly followed this in the beginning and am following it again now so I'm not sure but has Flemming acknowledged JP at all?
Yes, Stephen

http://www.waroneaster.org/2006/05/11/a-christian-sees-the-light/

[jpholding]

Good article.

I briefly followed this in the beginning and am following it again now so I'm not sure but has Flemming acknowledged JP at all?

In his blog, yes.

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/

May 11 entry, and I responded at http://www.tektonics.org/af/flushingflemming.html

I also have had responses up to the links he provides for years. Such as http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/brooksbonked.html for the first one.



As an aside, I just read the explanation part of the new Statement. Hmm. So Sheila gets accused of "vitriol" on the Beast forums, but when Flemming talks the same way, it's "tough love". :hehe:

[dizzle]

JP shoot me the email addy if you have it. I don't have it any longer, and I am going out of town ... I would like to get that resent before I go.

[jpholding]

I'm looking now at the "explanation" attached to the new statement of belief.


Imagine that a man approaches you and requests a conversation. With great urgency, he tells you that aliens are communicating with him via secret messages encoded in the daily newspaper. Concerned for this man's well-being, you try your best to convince him that these aliens are in his imagination only, and that the daily newspaper shows no real sign of containing encoded messages. But it doesn't matter. The schizophrenic man has an answer for everything. After several hours of speaking with him, you naturally conclude that reason and common sense are useless. The schizophrenic believes what he believes, and is essentially unreachable. Your time with him has been entirely wasted.

You are that schizophrenic man.

The funny thing is, I am starting to think I can apply this to Flemming himself when it comes to debating things like the authorship of the Gospels. :hehe: Needless to say, nothing there requires me to appeal to anything like coded messages in a newspaper....it's just plain old consideration of the evidence, the same as is applied to works like Tacitus' Annals. All the more reason why I find this Statement of Belief to be contrived.

You start with the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Or something close to that. Perhaps you use the word "inspired" instead.

I do none of this for my arguments that I can ever recall. I do start with the premise that it is up to the doubter of the ancient document to make his case and not assume the document guilty or error until proven innocent. But that's something historians do too.

The tools I would use, evidence and reason, would be as useless with you as they would be with the alien-believer.

Which is not to say that you do not gather evidence and employ reason when it doesn't get in the way. You may even have developed considerable skill at making certain of your conclusions appear as if they are not the product of your central delusion. But so has the alien-obsessed schizophrenic man; this skill only means that the pointless conversation takes longer.

Hmm. This statement smells funny. It sounds like it could be used as a real good excuse to avoid informed opposition (again). But if that's not what it is, then my counter-proposal should be perfectly acceptable to Flemming and allow him to debate me.


To understand what it feels like to be me, faced with a request to engage you in a dialogue, imagine that someone wanted to talk to you about a topic such as, say, avian flu. Now imagine this person asserted that demons -- not germs or viruses -- caused all disease. Would you have a desire to continue the conversation?

Actually, I have conversations like this all the time. :hehe: If I didn't, I wouldn't want to debate Flemming, either. But I have a rep on the Net for being someone who will tackle this very sort of person for the fun of it. Bottom line is I don't sympathize at all with this complaint.


It is no different when you approach me with conclusions stemming from a Bronze Age belief in a supernaturally inspired and perfect book.

I didn't know the Bronze Age extended into the first century. :hehe:


Mainstream biblical scholarship, dominated by Christians, has accommodated your delusion. I will not.

Whoooooa. Now this sure smells BAD. It sounds like "biblical scholarship" is under some sort of institutional brainwash and/or bias. I know darned well that Flemming has never cracked open materials by these people (or of he did, he acts like they don't exist), and he certainly avoided interviewing them for the film, so what I can't help but see here is a direct response to ME as one who makes use of that scholarship.

And, yes -- the notion that disciples of Jesus wrote any of the Gospel accounts is based on faith, not on evidence. If you were not aware of this fact until now, you are among the vast majority of Christians who are remarkably
ignorant about which beliefs in Christian tradition are based on evidence and which are based on faith. (Hint: It's not just the miracles and resurrection that require faith.)

How much faith does it take to think that the Annals were authored by Tacitus, I wonder, since the evidence for that is of far less quality and quantity.... :teeth:

I will not continue a conversation with you until you sign the Statement of Belief. I do not expect that you will. I know that it contradicts the central delusion that rules your life. But I hope that reading the Statement will give you a better idea of what you would believe if that central delusion were absent.

I already know what I'd believe....I'd be a deist.


In any case, please understand that my refusal to engage you at all does not mean that I don't like you. My blunt tone is tough love, and I mean that sincerely. I honestly hope that someday you will let go of the delusions that may be causing to you make less of this life -- the only life you have – in preparation for one that will never come.

Sheila says the same thing right back at you, Brian, dear. :hehe:


It takes courage to see the world as it is. I hope you find that courage.


And if he refuses my debate challenge NOW, after I gave him something which would allow him to conduct a debate without what he implies would violate his sense of reason, then this last statement will cause the irony meter to go off the scale.

[Blake Reas]

I am amazed, no offense JP and et al., that you would even discuss a joker like this! He demands a response about as much as a professor of German writing on the Historical Jesus would. His "guide lines" for debate prove that Mr. Flemming either does not understand argument, or he is mentally deranged, or maybe he is a good example of wish fulfillment (I wish Jesus did not exist, therefore he doesn't because I can rationalize all historical evidence away!). Only the most gullible souls would try and defend his foaming at the mouth rambling. I, at one time, was gaining respect for Richard Carrier but then I heard he was on this video! Talk about a reputation wrecker. :eek:
For those who want to complain that I have not made any "arguments" against mr. Flemming or his pathetic excuse for a documentary, need to realize that he does not deserve a response. John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, or Dale Allison deserve responses, but Flemming and his group of "scholars" do not deserve a response. Of course they can have "academic freedom" but that does not mean it is ethical to waste our time or our "grey matter" to respond to crack pot conspiracy theories. Jesus existed get over it!

Blake :sigh:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi JP,

ready for this?


Thanks for writing. I get approached several times a week for stuff
like this, whether one on one or in a formal setting. I refer
everyone to the Statement. When Beyond Belief Media receives the
notarized Statement, that's when I'm willing to talk further. This
position is not negotiable.

Of course, those seeking a debate can visit any number of websites to
debate Christ Myth advocates. Persons seeking a debate with scholars
can also contact the scholars in The God Who Wasn't There as well as
others.

Best,
Brian

[jpholding]

Hi JP,

ready for this?

You wrote him directly with a description of my offer and got that reply by email, correct?

I'll note this tomorrow on the site if so. (Pls. send me a copy of what you wrote to him, if you would.)

[jpholding]

I am amazed, no offense JP and et al., that you would even discuss a joker like this!

Yeah, I know. I just got the mojo goin' to step on an obnoxious ant. :hehe:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

You wrote him directly with a description of my offer and got that reply by email, correct?

I'll note this tomorrow on the site if so. (Pls. send me a copy of what you wrote to him, if you would.)
Correct...email on its way

[Stephen Keys]

Thanks for the links guys. Kind of what I expected.

Have fun squashing the ant JP. :teeth:

[Blake Reas]

Yeah, I know. I just got the mojo goin' to step on an obnoxious ant. :hehe:

I know you just could not resist yourself, it is like the fat kid who wants more cake. :teeth:

Blake

[jpholding]

I've asked Punkish to try inviting the Flemming drones at rationalresponders.com for a debate. Their name says it all....let's see how well they live up to it. :teeth:

[Blake Reas]

Like I said, "More cake for the fatboy!" hahaha :ale:

[jpholding]

Like I said, "More cake for the fatboy!" hahaha :ale:

Yeah, but you KNOW you like watching the carnage. :hehe:

[Blake Reas]

JP,

My enjoyment of watching carnage knows no ends! That is why I read your works.

Blake :lol:

[foahchon]

I've asked Punkish to try inviting the Flemming drones at rationalresponders.com for a debate. Their name says it all....let's see how well they live up to it. :teeth:

I'm listening to their show on "Biblical contradictions" (guest Dennis McKinsey) right now, and my brain is starting to go numb... :duh:

[jpholding]

I'm listening to their show on "Biblical contradictions" (guest Dennis McKinsey) right now, and my brain is starting to go numb... :duh:

McKinsey? What a loon. :lolo: I use him as an example of Skeptical stupidity and arrogance in one of my talks.

I had an email exchange with him once where he made some crack about listening to my conscience, and I replied with a crack about him being Jiminy Cricket. He deigned to correct me: "No, that's JIMMY Cricket, not Jiminy!"

I replied, "Dude, listen...I live ten miles from Disney World...." :hehe:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

McKinsey? What a loon. :lolo: I use him as an example of Skeptical stupidity and arrogance in one of my talks.

I had an email exchange with him once where he made some crack about listening to my conscience, and I replied with a crack about him being Jiminy Cricket. He deigned to correct me: "No, that's JIMMY Cricket, not Jiminy!"

I replied, "Dude, listen...I live ten miles from Disney World...." :hehe:

Like ones knowldge of Disney movies even really comes into play in a debate on teh Bible/religion.

Although, as one obsessed with the Kingdom Hearts games, I concur, it is Jiminy.

[Goth_S]

I posted support for it on the Beast forums.


I think it's a more than acceptable list of revisions.

I can't fathom why flemming would not take this opportunity. I'm simply stunned.


Since I'm not him, nor am I connected, I hesitate to make assumptions. I only hope he has a good reason. He is working on another movie after all.


Frustrating.





Love,
Goth_S

[jpholding]

Since I'm not him, nor am I connected, I hesitate to make assumptions. I only hope he has a good reason. He is working on another movie after all.



I'd certainly accept "I'm busy" as a viable reason not to debate someone -- I have to make that appeal myself at times. But if Flemming IS that busy with the next movie, then issuing a form for people to sign to debate him doesn't make a lot of sense, especially after debating centuriOn (The Calvinist) and therefore knowing how much time it would take up. It would also be so much easier to just reply to the message we sent him this week, "I don't have time" -- not, "this is non-negotiable".

[dizzle]

It is sent.

[Sparko]

I posted support for it on the Beast forums.


I think it's a more than acceptable list of revisions.

I can't fathom why flemming would not take this opportunity. I'm simply stunned.


Since I'm not him, nor am I connected, I hesitate to make assumptions. I only hope he has a good reason. He is working on another movie after all.


Frustrating.





Love,
Goth_S


You seem like a very honest person Goth, who wants to believe the best about Brian. That is commendable.

But Brian is not interested in debate, but in squashing it by poisoning the well, so to speak, so that he can go around and claim that all of the Christian scholars refuse to debate him on the matter. That is the sole purpose of that "statement of belief" to exclude any real Christian scholars from debating him. JP Holdings generous counter offer proved that. JP was basically willing to tie his hands behind his back and still debate Brian, but Brian still won't. Because he is scared he will lose and that might damage his reputation among his peers. He probably doesn't even realize that the ridiculous statement of belief he is asking people to sign already has damaged his reputation among any serious scholars on either side and even among the general public, people like me and you. It is such a transparent ploy.

[Goth_S]

You seem like a very honest person Goth, who wants to believe the best about Brian. That is commendable.

But Brian is not interested in debate, but in squashing it by poisoning the well, so to speak, so that he can go around and claim that all of the Christian scholars refuse to debate him on the matter. That is the sole purpose of that "statement of belief" to exclude any real Christian scholars from debating him. JP Holdings generous counter offer proved that. JP was basically willing to tie his hands behind his back and still debate Brian, but Brian still won't. Because he is scared he will lose and that might damage his reputation among his peers. He probably doesn't even realize that the ridiculous statement of belief he is asking people to sign already has damaged his reputation among any serious scholars on either side and even among the general public, people like me and you. It is such a transparent ploy.



Awww, cmon. do you really think that Flemming dwells in his home, with the windows shut, plotting at how to "ruin those pesky christians and their talking dog's plans in their mystery machine"?

The intent of the statement makes total sense to me. I don't suppose you'll ever have the pleasure of arguing with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, and repeats like a broken record, "God said it, I beleive it" over and over. The debate with "The Calvinist" was a fair justification for such a statement.

Even viewing that argument in a sympathetic light, I still say Brian beat the tar outta him. And yet, *that* debate, was what started the "Statement of Beleif" so I don't think it's a ploy to avoid christian scholarly debate.

I just think it's somewhat poorly worded, to his intentions.
And I would agree, that it may very well have hurt his reputation.


But I sincerily beleive that his intentions were noble, if poorly executed.




Love,
Goth_S

[Darth Executor]

Awww, cmon. do you really think that Flemming dwells in his home, with the windows shut, plotting at how to "ruin those pesky christians and their talking dog's plans in their mystery machine"?


No, I think he's snorting cocaine while enjoyng a lap dance in a Cuban strip club with the money he gets from gullible atheists. Christianity doesn't hold exclusive rights to con artists. :wink:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

The intent of the statement makes total sense to me. I don't suppose you'll ever have the pleasure of arguing with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, and repeats like a broken record, "God said it, I beleive it" over and over.

Sort of like what Flemming has done with this Statement of Belief. Try reading it again. It basicly says you have to agree with him or he will not debate you. And that defeats the entire purpose of debate. In fact one has to wonder how there can be a debate if both parties agree ahead of time.

I think Holdings re-write was more than fair, and if Flemming was truly interested in debate he would have taken him up on it. The fact that he didnt speaks volumes about the real purpose behind his 'Statement of Belief."

[Goth_S]

No, I think he's snorting cocaine while enjoyng a lap dance in a Cuban strip club with the money he gets from gullible atheists. Christianity doesn't hold exclusive rights to con artists. :wink:



He's sure no Rev. Tilton. :lol:





Love,
Goth_S

[dizzle]

Goth, watch the sig young lady :wink:

You might want to put your sig line in your actual sig line so it is there permanently without chance of slip-ups.

[Goth_S]

Did I do it again?


I thought I didn't (?)


Either way, yeah. Signature time.

[dizzle]

Yeah, I edited it for you the sec it got posted as I happened to be reading the thread.

[jpholding]

Awww, cmon. do you really think that Flemming dwells in his home, with the windows shut, plotting at how to "ruin those pesky christians and their talking dog's plans in their mystery machine"?

I think he does it with his windows open and he lives next to a landfill. :hehe:

Seriously though, I don't think he thinks his reactions through that carefully. I think he works up ideas to erect barriers on the spot, then tries to deal with the consequences later. I think he did this as a Christian, as a way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, and I think it is what he does now. I don't see any effort on his part to think in the long term and I don't believe he has changed at all in any way but where his loyalties lie. I know this sort of Christian to this day. They're everywhere (except on this forum :wink:).

The intent of the statement makes total sense to me. I don't suppose you'll ever have the pleasure of arguing with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, and repeats like a broken record, "God said it, I beleive it" over and over.

Well, yes...in fact I have a reputation for dealing with just that sort of person from the Skeptical side, though of course they say, "Acharya S/Dan Brown/Robert Ingersoll said it" rather than "God". I get a great deal of pleasure out of arguing with that sort. :teeth: Besides which, in academic circles the Christ-myth is widely regarded as the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears when scholarship is calling, so erecting barriers isn't an answer....choosing different sorts of opponents to debate is.

I know you may not have time, but can you find me some places in Calvinist's comments where he violated specific points now found in the Statement of Belief (the newer version of course), other than to do with the authorship of the Gospels?

[Goth_S]

Dang.


:sad: Soz :sad:

[Goth_S]

I know you may not have time, but can you find me some places in Calvinist's comments where he violated specific points now found in the Statement of Belief (the newer version of course), other than to do with the authorship of the Gospels?


Well, I contend that the statement was poorly written, so that might be tricky.
I'd require some interprative powers to do such.

But when I get home, I'd be glad to give it a shot.

[Sparko]

Awww, cmon. do you really think that Flemming dwells in his home, with the windows shut, plotting at how to "ruin those pesky christians and their talking dog's plans in their mystery machine"?

Yeah, pretty much. :teeth:

The intent of the statement makes total sense to me. I don't suppose you'll ever have the pleasure of arguing with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, and repeats like a broken record, "God said it, I beleive it" over and over.

Uh I guess you haven't been around here long enough. Check out "Smaller" in this thread.... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77258

He is about the densest person I have ever met. But I don't make him sign away all his beliefs before engaging him in discussion. I actually argue against those beliefs of his, and let his own obtuseness show to the world what a fraud he is.

Anyone who makes a person sign away any possible avenue of argument against your position before you will discuss something with them is a coward. He is only trying to stack the deck in his favor before the debate even starts.


The debate with "The Calvinist" was a fair justification for such a statement.
I never read that debate (pm me a link), but I did read the Statement that Brian is asking anyone to sign. He might as well save space and reduce it to one statement: "I the undersigned agree that Christanity is false, Jesus never existed and Brian Flemming is right on all counts"


But I sincerily beleive that his intentions were noble, if poorly executed.


If he were truly noble in his intentions, and interested in scholarly debate, then why did he refuse to accept JP's offer with the modified statements that did not cripple him completely from the get-go? He never said anything about 'being busy' just refusal to debate anyone unless they signed his statement that hamstrings his opponents before they even get started.

[Goth_S]

Yeah, pretty much. :teeth:

Awww.... :(

That might be the way you see it, and your entitled to it of course.
But I really want to work for a time when JP can debate Flemming on open and honest ground. I realise that the current set-backs haven't been very helpful in that vein, but I think such attitudes are just as harmful as the statement of beleif.

Why should Flemming listen to anybody, when he's automatically labled as such?
Essentially doing the same thing as the statement of beleif has done to the christian argument.



Uh I guess you haven't been around here long enough. Check out "Smaller" in this thread.... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77258

He is about the densest person I have ever met. But I don't make him sign away all his beliefs before engaging him in discussion. I actually argue against those beliefs of his, and let his own obtuseness show to the world what a fraud he is. Anyone who makes a person sign away any possible avenue of argument against your position before you will discuss something with them is a coward. He is only trying to stack the deck in his favor before the debate even starts.

Mmm, see, I dissagree. I can certaintly see why you feel that way, and it's not without merit, but I don't see that as his *intentions.* I never argued what it *said* merely what he was intending to do.

There are some things that simply serve to obfuscate the discussion, and send the whole thing spiraling towards the inevitable doomed pit of "god said so" arguments.

I'm not arguing that in it's current incarnation, the statement isn't poor. Merely that the intent behind it is most likely rooted in some rational and honest intentions.


I never read that debate (pm me a link), but I did read the Statement that Brian is asking anyone to sign. He might as well save space and reduce it to one statement: "I the undersigned agree that Christanity is false, Jesus never existed and Brian Flemming is right on all counts"

Well, I completely agree that the statement is poor. I think that alot of people on both sides of the debate, think it's poor.
But I truly beleive that he's doing it (or at least, beleives to be) in some attempt at creating a more balanced environment, free from supernatural explanations that are impervious to any sort of counter argument. Or as I call it, "God said.." syndrome.


I'll PM you a linky to the debate. :)

If he were truly noble in his intentions, and interested in scholarly debate, then why did he refuse to accept JP's offer with the modified statements that did not cripple him completely from the get-go? He never said anything about 'being busy' just refusal to debate anyone unless they signed his statement that hamstrings his opponents before they even get started.

Probably one of those authority things. You know how guys are. ;)

I dunno. Could be that he doesn't want to be seen as weak. Could be that he doesn't want to start making special exceptions.
I really don't know on that count. I can only hope for the best.

I agree with a *few* things on the statement. But the majority, I think is simply poor wording in an honest attempt.

[papabryant]

Off Topic -

I just found the wikipedia entries for "The Beast" and "The God Who Wasn't There".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_%282006_film%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There

Just thought people might be interested.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Awww.... :(

That might be the way you see it, and your entitled to it of course.
But I really want to work for a time when JP can debate Flemming on open and honest ground. I realise that the current set-backs haven't been very helpful in that vein, but I think such attitudes are just as harmful as the statement of beleif.

Why should Flemming listen to anybody, when he's automatically labled as such?
Essentially doing the same thing as the statement of beleif has done to the christian argument.





Mmm, see, I dissagree. I can certaintly see why you feel that way, and it's not without merit, but I don't see that as his *intentions.* I never argued what it *said* merely what he was intending to do.

There are some things that simply serve to obfuscate the discussion, and send the whole thing spiraling towards the inevitable doomed pit of "god said so" arguments.

I'm not arguing that in it's current incarnation, the statement isn't poor. Merely that the intent behind it is most likely rooted in some rational and honest intentions.




Well, I completely agree that the statement is poor. I think that alot of people on both sides of the debate, think it's poor.
But I truly beleive that he's doing it (or at least, beleives to be) in some attempt at creating a more balanced environment, free from supernatural explanations that are impervious to any sort of counter argument. Or as I call it, "God said.." syndrome.


I'll PM you a linky to the debate. :)



Probably one of those authority things. You know how guys are. ;)

I dunno. Could be that he doesn't want to be seen as weak. Could be that he doesn't want to start making special exceptions.
I really don't know on that count. I can only hope for the best.

I agree with a *few* things on the statement. But the majority, I think is simply poor wording in an honest attempt.

All I can say is that you have way more trust in people than I do. Although honstly thats not saying much.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Me and a friend have made this parody of Flemming's 'Statement of Belief.' We've also agreed to give JP permission to use it on his site(if he wants),

Statement of Belief
By agreeing the following statements you are not agreeing that they settle any additional questions. You are only acknowldging that you understand the difference between evidence and faith. If you cannot sign this statement you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I acknowldge that the Bible, if not infalable, is at least generaly true.

I acknowldge that a claim could be made by Acharya S, Dan Brown, Robert Ingersoll, et al, and still be wrong.

I acknowldge that there is sufficent evidence to say that Jesus almost certainly existed.

I acknowldge that there is an almost univeral agreement in the early church about who wrote the Gospels, and no good reason to dispute the fact that these people wrote them.

I acknowldge that the Gospels can all be dated to have been written within the lifetime of Jesus's followers, and almost certainly were based on eyewitness testimony.

I acknowldge that it is common for angry athiests to make stuff up.

I acknowldge the Gospels were not copied from stories of Minthra, Osiris, or any other Pagen god(s)

I acknowldge that Jesus's resurection is the most reasonable explanation for the birth of Christianity.

I swear, under penalty of Perjury, that the forgoing is true and correct.

[Goth_S]

This is just as ridiculous as the statement of beleif.

Comical perhaps, but equally ridiculous.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

This is just as ridiculous as the statement of beleif.

Comical perhaps, but equally ridiculous.

That's kinda the point.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

at least, Goth, you are prepared to debate on reasonable grounds (I think) and (hopefully) on non-ridiculous pre-debate criteria.

[Goth_S]

at least, Goth, you are prepared to debate on reasonable grounds (I think) and (hopefully) on non-ridiculous pre-debate criteria.

Aye, I try to at least.

I admit, I'm guilty of some of the "fundi-athiest" garbage that you see from time to time.
I think we all do it every now and then. It's easy to attack someone using the easy method. It's a very different thing to do face to face. There's a certain issue of honor as well as accuracy at stake.


I hope that Flemming changes it up to be more appropriate. If the statement is being made in the spirit in which I assume, then I think it's a relatively decent request. But in it's current incarnation even I as an athiest don't agree with it.

[jpholding]

Had to share this one.

A reader is helping me get references to Flemming in newspapers and magazines. There aren't many on the databases (IOW he's not getting the attention he craves) but this was just too funny. Comments by Jason Byassee, a writer for the LIBERAL Christian magazine, The Christian Century:

I've also found in churches that it's the former fundamentalists who tend to be most committed to prayer and have the greatest biblical literacy and the deepest zeal to serve others. My complaint about Flemming is that he is not "former" enough. He clings to a fringe historical view about Jesus despite massive evidence to the contrary. He vilifies moderate Christians in terms they themselves would not recognize. And he denigrates his fundamentalist interlocutors as people without a shred of intellect or integrity. He has left behind the content of fundamentalism, but not the form.

Can you say, "fundy atheist"!!! :lol:

He also says:


Flemming's attack on nonfundamentalist Christianity reveals his own persistent fundamentalism. That mainline Christians only "sort of believe is a stock claim of fundamentalist preachers, here spun out to give secularists their jollies.

This fundamentalism extends to his reading of history. He has latched on to a fringe claim about Jesus' nonexistence and about Paul's gnosticism and clings to it not in the face of counterevidence but in ignorance of it. It is another stock fundamentalist move to ignore responsible scholarship on a subject while still claiming to be thinking historically or scientifically. The fundamentalist claim that creation science is "better science" than evolutionary biology is here paralleled in Flemming's claims to offer a better history of the origins of Christianity....


It is painful to watch Flemming strew his personal baggage on the screen. The film is the strange fruit of outrageously poor religious instruction and of an incredibly brittle worldview.

[papabryant]

I think we should get in contact with the people who give out the Golden Raspberry Awards (the Razzies) around Oscar time and see if they would nominate TGWWT for worst film of the year.

[aikidoka]

If Brian Flemming is the one who uses the Brian Sapient ID on their website and in myspace, I'm not impressed. The more intelligent non-Christians in a myspace group, didnt think much of him or his groups tactics.

[Cynic Sage]

If Brian Flemming is the one who uses the Brian Sapient ID on their website and in myspace, I'm not impressed. The more intelligent non-Christians in a myspace group, didnt think much of him or his groups tactics.

He already has his own blog, why would he want to be on myspace?

[aikidoka]

They advertise their radio show there. He was pimping the show in a Christian group I participate in but he might have got banned for doing that, as I havent seen him for awhile. But he did get a few intelligent non-Christians to say they dont think much of him or his radio show before that. hehe

[aikidoka]

Off Topic -

I just found the wikipedia entries for "The Beast" and "The God Who Wasn't There".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_%282006_film%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There

Just thought people might be interested.

I notice that wikipedia entry doesn't provide much regarding Christian objections.

I think for the movie database entry of The Beast now called Danielle, I'll post a topic noting Flemmings lack of accuracy and scholarship with links to reviews of the The God Who Wasnt There. hehe

[RumTumTugger]

I notice that wikipedia entry doesn't provide much regarding Christian objections.

I think for the movie database entry of The Beast now called Danielle, I'll post a topic noting Flemmings lack of accuracy and scholarship with links to reviews of the The God Who Wasnt There. hehe

Good for you.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

"I acknowledge that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any e!ect upon the formation of early Christianity."

Ummm, how many people exactly has this guy debated? Does ANYONE deserve his attention?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I hereby and sincerely announce that I will debate Mr Flemming.

However, I will only do it if he is worthy of my time. In order to prove that he is worthy of my time, he must sign the following statement. With that proviso, the offer is genuine:

1) I admit that every attempt to provide evidence that there is a logical or moral problem with Christian theism has been unsuccessful.

2) I admit that the overall consensus of New Testament scholarship, even among critical scholars who ar eneither theologically conservative nor evangelical in outlook, is that Jesus' tomb was found empty, and large numbers of people suddenly, and under a variety of different ciscumstances, came to believe that He had risen from the dead.

3) I admit that the written accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were transcribed within one generation fo the events taking place by people who were well positioned to be acquainted with all the relevant facts.

4) I admit that there is a natural tendency among sinners to suppress the truth about God.

5) I solemnly swear that my opponent is right.


________________________________ (signature)



The offer stands. I will debate Mr Flemming on whether or not Christianity is true. I'll now sit here and begin waiting. When the signed form arrives, we can arrange the debate. That part is non negotiable.

[jpholding]

Ummm, how many people exactly has this guy debated? Does ANYONE deserve his attention?

One that I know of, a guy with the moniker "centurion".

AFAIK he hasn't debated anyone since he issued the Statement, which I have suspected was the point of issuing it in the first place.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, in a week I'll start calling him a chicken if he won't rise to my challenge. That seems fair.

[Sparko]

Well, in a week I'll start calling him a chicken if he won't rise to my challenge. That seems fair.

...then you need to make a documentary about how he chickened out and post it on youtube :hehe: