January 2009 Screwballs

[jpholding]

Email...person first quoted my Calculated Contempt article:

Isn't that refreshing? Well, enough for now. Bud is on the line and his scholarship has turned out to be directly in opposition to his capacity to use words like "bullsh*t". For the crowd I have in mind, such verbiage represents the height of their scholarship."

And then said:

Right. And your inability to write a paragraph with one of those insipid and childish smiley face emoticons doesn't speak to your, um, what did you call it, the height of your scholarship.

The bible can be without error (as it pertains to cross-validation) and not contradict itself, just like any novel on the library bookshelf, but that doesn't mean it isn't a work of fiction. A bullet-proof story is a wonderful accomplishment, whether it was written by 1 or 1000. Doesn't make it true. The only thing that matters is the why ws it written - errant or not. You have your "why" and non-Christians (the majority of people on this planet) have theirs.

Enjoy your delusion -- which, by the way, makes it impossible to see (or accept) even the mere possibility of error. THIS is why apologetics exists. That is to say, you can't afford to be wrong. And so you won't allow that to happen.

[DoomRater]

What I did was break down homophobia's parts and then say that arguing against something isn't necessarily showing fear. I was then told by no less than two people that I had completely botched my breakdown.

[Kabane52]

Nomination for robtul's latest post. And his performance in our debate in general, as a matter of fact.

Many screwball comments from godlessmessiah, who tried to rebut me on that youtube video from jassi.

Outside of the Bible there remains NO accounts of Jesus

There are NO first hand witness accounts written within the Bible, seeing as the first Gospel was written in approximately 70 A.D at the earliest.

There are no specified dates of actions which supposedly took place, CONTRARY TO ANY historical figure.

NO details of his appearances

There are no indications of ANY existence , outside the concept to that of an ordinary man.

The only "EVIDENCE" of Jesus is an empty tomb

Codex Sinaticus 400 A.D DOES NOT contain ressurection claims,and yet the never verson does. hhmmmm.

When you weight up the evidence...

-There is less evidence than that of any important human being of that time

-No evidence outside of the bible, and not written by any witnesses.

-and the only thing that can be concluded as any kind of evidence is an empty tomb which contains no evidence at all.

The belief that Jesus (if anyone existed) was no more than a common man.

I Honestly cannot imagine how people can claim Jesus to be the "son of God" based on such little evidence of an existence. or even worse, when they claim he WAS god.

It boggles the mind.

lets imagine a man...
we dont know much of his name,
or when he was born,
or where he died,
or sure on how he died,
no witnesses,
no non contradictory claims,
nothing that he wrote ,
no personal belongings of his
and the only "evidence" is an empty coffin which no indication that he was ever in there...

NOW TELL ME ,THAT WAS THE SON OF GOD! OR GOD HIMSELF!

its ludicrous to say that there even a man, let alone the claims you people are making!

[shadowmaster]

I thought POWELL was supposed to smart.

Where on earth would ever get that idea?

He could be replaced by a track star with a parrot on his shoulder.
The track star runs from thread to thread and the parrot says "ECREE!, ECREE!".

[DoomRater]

I think by "smart" he meant "hurt".

[Darth Executor]

Nomination to Spartacus for his shoutbox inanity. First he repeats the golden rule about 7 times, even after pixie & I explained that if we were acting like pitchfork pat we'd want to be treated the same way we treat him.

Sample:
"Darth, I do not think that I ahve been tanned, I thnk lpot, through treating pitch like trash, is asking to be treated like trash herself "

Then he goes on to ask "Did Jesus die for all our sins, including the pharisees", as if it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Mountain Man]

Another screwbie nod to John Powell for this (hopefully unintentionally) bigoted remark:

To use 24 hours to refer to days helps to avoid confusion when their readers don't know how to count integral days. The ancients weren't smart enough yet to do that. We learned from their challenges.

[Pumbelo]

From the infidel-forum:

Here is an argument against the Kalam which I have constructed. It was suggested to me by one of the guys (named Dave) who reviewed a chapter of my book and I think it is absolutely devastating to the Kalam:

"...Yet another nail in the coffin of Kalam argument is uncovered by turning Craig’s own reasoning against him: He is arguing that since we observe that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Yet he ignores the fact that every personal being we have every encountered has a physical body. Does that mean that there cannot be a great spirit being like Craig thinks? I imagine if Craig had to answer this question he would tell us that while all the minds within the universe have bodies, there is no reason to accept that this is true outside of the universe. Fair enough. But Craig must either accept that the law of cause and effect does not apply outside of the universe, in which case his argument is destroyed, or accept that a mind cannot exist without a body, in which case his argument is shattered."

Ehm, hello?

[Alien]

What I did was break down homophobia's parts and then say that arguing against something isn't necessarily showing fear.

And you were right.

I was then told by no less than two people that I had completely botched my breakdown.

Oh well ....

[Alien]

I read both Lewis Carroll and James Joyce. I'm allowed. (Actually, I thought it was a pretty good "portmanteau word," to use the Carrollian term, even if I do say it myself.)

Oh cool! Another Carroll fan! "All mimsy were the borogroves ..."

So what two meanings would that word carry? Bankrupt and ruptured? I like that.

I refuse to let such people control the definition of terms.

That's the spirit!

The (I never managed to get into Joyce though) Alien

(Oops, this is catching!)

[The Curtmudgeon]

Oh cool! Another Carroll fan! "All mimsy were the borogroves ..."

So what two meanings would that word carry? Bankrupt and ruptured? I like that.

That's correct, Alien -- I couldn't resist the "rupt" overlap.

That's the spirit!

The (I never managed to get into Joyce though) Alien

(Oops, this is catching!)

It's easiest to approach Joyce by starting with his Dubliners collection of short stories. There's very little (or none) of the word play that makes Finnegan's Wake unique, but you get a good handle on how he structures stories. Then move to Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man to meet Stephen Daedelus and background info, before attempting Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake.

If you have the intestinal fortitude for serious, serious word play, FW is just freakin' awesome.

Finnegan's Wake

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

© source where applicable

The first, and by concensus the easiest, sentence in the book (yes, it starts with a lower-case 'r').

Any book that tries to really analyse FW has to be longer than the book itself, because nearly every word or phrase has to get unpacked, sometimes multiple times. Take that "Eve and Adam's" in the first sentence, f'rinstance. Obviously there's the Biblical reference to the beginning of things (which is why it's in the first sentence), also the reference to the parents of us all since family relations are going to be important throughout the book; but most (American, at least) readers, unless they've really studied it, wouldn't recognise the reference to this.

The (okay, I'll stop spamming the Screwbie thread now) Curtmudgeon

[jpholding]

Prior emailer with the big mouth writes again:

Get a belly laugh because I shall have the last laugh!

You stated also that [a certain work by Paine] was so bad that it was not worth commenting on. That leads me to suspect that you DID NOT read it because it was a PROFOUND piece of work and I just don't think that you would ignore refuting it if you could do so. Fact is, if you did read it and failed to comment on it, it is because you HAVE NO REBUTTLE!

Just what IS your definition of prophecy anyway? If it is different from mine , Paine's or Webster's, then you are trying to re-define the term and that is a common trick of those who try to explain the unexplainable. I have read much of the Josh Mc Dowell crap and that is what he does with a lot of specious explanations and arguments that can be refuted in an instant. I suspect your arguments fall in the same school of BS.

I told 'em this was my last reply and they need to get over here if they ain't chicken.

[Alien]

That's correct, Alien -- I couldn't resist the "rupt" overlap.

And why should you resist such a frumious construction?

It's easiest to approach Joyce by starting with his Dubliners collection of short stories. There's very little (or none) of the word play that makes Finnegan's Wake unique, but you get a good handle on how he structures stories. Then move to Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man to meet Stephen Daedelus and background info, before attempting Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake.

If you have the intestinal fortitude for serious, serious word play, FW is just freakin' awesome.

Finnegan's Wake

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

© source where applicable

The first, and by concensus the easiest, sentence in the book (yes, it starts with a lower-case 'r').

Any book that tries to really analyse FW has to be longer than the book itself, because nearly every word or phrase has to get unpacked, sometimes multiple times. Take that "Eve and Adam's" in the first sentence, f'rinstance. Obviously there's the Biblical reference to the beginning of things (which is why it's in the first sentence), also the reference to the parents of us all since family relations are going to be important throughout the book; but most (American, at least) readers, unless they've really studied it, wouldn't recognise the reference to this.

Very interesting indeed, thank you. Maybe if I ever manage to retire (again) .....

The (okay, I'll stop spamming the Screwbie thread now) Curtmudgeon

Heh. Me too.

[Bill the Cat]

Prior emailer with the big mouth writes again:





I told 'em this was my last reply and they need to get over here if they ain't chicken.

Rebuttle?

[jpholding]

Here's an early email nominee for 2009 Platinum:

I have read your article "Shattering the Christ-Myth," and had a few questions. I wanted to know where is the physical evidence that a Jesus did exist in you article. The only thing that is written is an argument against the experts arguing Jesus did not exist. What could add credibility to your argument is physical evidence that a "Jesus" existed. What kind of building style did he use in building chairs (he was a carpenter) and other items? Is there any carvings/papers with Jesus' name on it? I mean, the name Jesus was an influential name obviously, where can we find that he did exist with his name on cave engravings and so on, any type of coin, or what other article? What evidence do you have?

There is considerable evidence that the Roman Emperor Constantine attempted to wipe all pagans off of the face of the planet, how do you discredit the pagan temples, which predate the supposed dates of Jesus? The earliest versions of Christianity came to existence in the mid to late 300s AD, how do you discredit the executions of the pagans whom was forbidden from worship at their temples by Constatine and Constatine followers? How do you argue against Constatine's creation of Christianity to take control of the country?

Wow. New rules for historical epistemology, folks! We can't say that eg, Gamaliel existed unless someone provides us with the chalk he used on the classroom blackboards, or with student papers he graded and signed, etc. I guess the rule is, if you can't win the argument, set the bar arbitrarily as high as you can.

The second part? Not sure what the point there is. But I invited the dumbass here.