Forge Post -- Camping Out

[lilpixieofterror]

You know Pixie, there's a rule of grammar that says when your predicate is plural, your verb should be plural. "There ARE conflicting views" as opposed to "There IS conflicting views". I can cut you a break on the spelling, but if you want to be taken seriously you should at least bring your grammar to the 4th grade level.

I love grammar Nazi's that think picking on minor grammar and spelling errors are arguments, in some circles. Well, when you don't have any good arguments (like you don't), then you need to do anything you can to feel better about yourself. Perhaps I'll take you seriously, when you finally show you understand things beyond grade school levels?

Here's the difference, Pixie. In the scientific disciplines, when two factions disagree, ultimately one will be proven right or wrong based on new data, and then both sides will agree.

Hummm, sounds like a laymen's understanding of science and the history of science to me. You might want to check and see how well Einstein took Quantum mechanics and how hard it worked at disproving it, even when almost every scientist disagreed with him. I'm sorry that you're so deluded that you don't understand that scientist, just like any other group of humans, can be very stubborn and will refuse to agree, even when the evidence is against them. Just so you know, there's scientist out there that do not agree with the impact theory, even when the evidence is against them.

Scientists disagreed on whether or not a heavier-than-air machine could fly. The question has been settled, universally. Scientists disagreed as to whether or not organs could be successfully transplanted from one human to another. The question has been settled. Unsettled scientific questions pretty much always involve a lack of data, and can pretty much always be settled if and when sufficient data is obtained. The situations you point out above are simply unsettled questions that can ultimately be settled if we obtain more data. In fact, the "Netherthal" (sigh) question I believe has already been settled based on recent DNA evidence that there was human interbreeding. (And FYI, there are not contradictory views about which direction current flows in a conductor, just differing conventions. I'm pretty sure the designers of the computer you're working on right now know which way the electricity flows through the conductors.)

Some agree with that conclusion about 'Netherthals' and some do not dear, perhaps you should try reading things in more depth before you say something so stupid? (BTW great whining about spelling errors, but then again, when you don't have any good arguments, find a spelling error to help out yourself esteem!). Second, no you are wrong, engineers are not 100% sure just how electrify flows though wires and I know this because unlike you, I went to school and took electrical theory and can tell you, nope, they are not 100% sure just how it works because it's far more complex and far more in depth, then most people know. This article, gives a good summery of the problem and goes into the complexities of the issue. This just goes to show, one does not necessarily need to know the ins and outs of something, to be able to use it.

So how many religious questions have been settled by Biblical scholars over the years, Pixie?

I'd suggest that you go about and read, but Ben Witherington's The Jesus Quest, actually covers some of that history and goes into it. I could also bring up the fact that Aquinas was able to put to rest, the debate between Aristotelian philosophy in the Christian framework. He married the two together and put an end to the debate that was going on before him. That is just one example, of many, that shows how wrong you really are, but then again, since you can't figure it out, it must mean nobody can, right?

How will apologists settle the question of whether Calvinism or Armenianism is true? Or for that matter, whether Christianity is true and Islam is false? There is no set of earthly data that one can obtain to prove one over the other.

Once an idiot, always an idiot I see. So since you can't 'solve' these's problems, just throw up your hands and claim, "DUH! Nobody can know!" That is usually what happens, when one doesn't know what he's talking about. How about we study the claims of these beliefs and see how they fit into reality or is that too hard for your tiny mind to grasp, so you simply prefer the method of throwing up your hands and claiming nobody can know?

BTW it's Arminianism dolt, if you are going to whine about minor grammar and spelling errors, you better get yours straight first.

So you're all just bloviating.

Yet again, "WAAA!!! Christians disagree so it's all wrong." The classic refuge of the ignorant, trying to sounds smarter then they really are. Guess from now on, I can throw up, "Look how these scientist disagree, nobody can know for sure, so they are all wrong!" Is that the way smart people go about things? Ummm nope, so why does it work here? Bottom line, it doesn't, now come up with a good argument soundbite or do you just want to sound like the world's most ignorant skeptic?

And the worst bloviators are the ones who claim to be PROFESSIONAL bloviators. Ultimately, there is no difference between JP Holding and Creflo Dollar. They can both hold up their bibles and shout over each other all the live long day, and neither can ever prove the other wrong. That's why Camping screwed up. He made a falsifiable claim. Otherwise, he'd still be just as credible (or not credible, depending on your viewpoint) as any other bloviator, including Holding. And what's Holding's claim for superiority? Well, his accusation that Camping is "self-studied", while Holding is....what?

So since you are too stupid to answer what JPH has written and how he uses experts, in their fields, to come to his conclusions, it must mean that JPH and Camping are the same thing. No wonder others make fun of you. You say all sorts of dumb things, like above and yet you wonder why others make fun of you? Now do something you can't do, show that JPH has made a false claim and refuses to admit to his error. I'll be waiting.

So I asked, knowing full well he would choose not to answer the question, and I was right.

The fact you ask such a stupid question, tells me about your intelligence. Camping and JPH both make falsifiable claims, you dolt, the difference is that JPH goes to experts and looks up his facts before he speaks and Camping doesn't. It's not my fault that you can't prove JPH wrong, so now you're asking dumb questions like this to help out your self esteem.

[Soundsurfr]

And here we go again treating all disciplines as if they must be like the physical sciences.

If you have a problem with anyone equating your apologetic "discipline" with the physical sciences, then you need to take it up with Pixie, as she is the one who initated that path.

That aside, any discipline that claims to provide objective knowledge based on evidence can be equated to the physical sciences on that level. You do set out to provide objective knowledge based on evidence, do you not?

I suppose that since no one scientifically proves or disproves Platonism vs. Aristotleanism, we should abandon both ways of thought.

Yeah, 'cause that's a conclusion that can be inferred from my comments. You guys have become seriously gifted at working with straw.

Could it actually be we have a harder time with those due to a more difficult subject matter? How many debates are still going on amongst mathematicians, for instance? How long did it take to prove Fermat's Last Theorem?

Now you're just reiterating Pixie's misguided argument, which I already addressed.

How many times has science "proven" something only to have it disproven in following years?

Never. (And since you brought this up, have you suddenly decided that it is appropriate to compare your discipline with the physical sciences, or are you just trying to shift the argument into one about the veracity of science itself?)

Perhaps you should pick up Kuhn's work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions to read what he says on the topic. In either case, looking at disagreement itself is no factor in determining truth and neither is just throwing up your hands and giving up. After all, you are of the opinion that all Christians are wrong, but that does not stop you from saying that just because that has not been proven, you will go with it.

More straw. I am not looking at disagreement as a factor in determining truth. I am looking at the utter impossibility of resolving disagreement as a factor in determining the veracity of a discipline that claims to deal in truth. Maybe if you read that sentence over and over and over again, you will begin to understand it.

And in closing, remember everyone that this post has been made in response to THE MAKER OF THE SUPERSONIC BEARS!

You are really hung up on the bears thing, aren't you? And you somehow think you're embarassing me when you bring it up. Fascinating.

Here's a challenge for you. Take your "When I grow up I want to be JP Holding" hat off long enough to give me a serious, non-evasive, non-obfuscating, non-sarcastic reply to each of these two questions: 1. Do you really think I believe that supernatural bears existed? 2. On what logical grounds should the suggestion of supernatural bears in the Elisha situation be discounted?

Note that, as predicted, Holding won't provide a serious answer to my previous question to him.

[jpholding]

Note that, as predicted, Holding won't provide a serious answer to my previous question to him.

Why is one needed? It's a monumentally stupid question that only a retarded chimpanzee couldn't come up with a correct answer to. Everyone but you and Horsebutt the Clown knows how to identify an expert in a field. Every post you make contains at least one substantially embarrassing comment reflecting your ignorance, inability to think clearly, or proclivity to evade when called down for monumentally stupid comments. Anyone around here who brings up any topic more complex than an recipe for ramen noodles is going past your ability to comprehend, as shown by the fact that every time it comes down to tacks and you're asking to respond to arguments directly, your response amounts to "hur hur that's funny, do you really believe that".

But really, do entertain us with some more of it. Then you can give us some special insights into Greco-Roman rhetoric, agonistic concepts of limited good, and ursine behavior patterns that all those experts who are not really experts missed.

[rogue06]

Re-opening closed thread

[ApologiaPhoenix]

If you have a problem with anyone equating your apologetic "discipline" with the physical sciences, then you need to take it up with Pixie, as she is the one who initated that path.

Nope. That was you with your statement on how some truths cannot seem to be proved.

That aside, any discipline that claims to provide objective knowledge based on evidence can be equated to the physical sciences on that level. You do set out to provide objective knowledge based on evidence, do you not?

Yes, but not all evidence is scientific. There is philosophical evidence, mathematical evidence, historical evidence, theological evidence, etc. Note the methodology is not the same either. The historical method is not the scientific method. Philosophy is not mathematics, etc.

Yeah, 'cause that's a conclusion that can be inferred from my comments. You guys have become seriously gifted at working with straw.

Ah! We shouldn't, but we should just not bother with religion since that can't be proved, but let's still go with Platonism or Aristotleanism. Sorry. It's an entirely valid conclusion from what you said.

Now you're just reiterating Pixie's misguided argument, which I already addressed.

No. You typed a bunch of something, but that's not the same as addressing.

Never. (And since you brought this up, have you suddenly decided that it is appropriate to compare your discipline with the physical sciences, or are you just trying to shift the argument into one about the veracity of science itself?)

Phlogiston? The inadequacy of Newton? Geocentrism? Spontaneous generation? How many times does science say at one time that eating X is good for you and then later, well it turns out that's not so good.

More straw. I am not looking at disagreement as a factor in determining truth. I am looking at the utter impossibility of resolving disagreement as a factor in determining the veracity of a discipline that claims to deal in truth. Maybe if you read that sentence over and over and over again, you will begin to understand it.

Perhaps you should say why it is utterly impossible. Finally, Platonism and Aristotleanism have neither one been proven or disproven. Does that mean that we should question the philosophical discipline?

You are really hung up on the bears thing, aren't you? And you somehow think you're embarassing me when you bring it up. Fascinating.

Hard to embarrass someone who's already embarrassed enough.

[QUOTE] Here's a challenge for you. Take your "When I grow up I want to be JP Holding" hat off long enough to give me a serious, non-evasive, non-obfuscating, non-sarcastic reply to each of these two questions: 1. Do you really think I believe that supernatural bears existed? 2. On what logical grounds should the suggestion of supernatural bears in the Elisha situation be discounted? [QUOTE]

#1. No

#2. Because it's perfectly explainable by natural means.

Whew! That was hard!

Note that, as predicted, Holding won't provide a serious answer to my previous question to him.

You had a serious question?!

[lilpixieofterror]

If you have a problem with anyone equating your apologetic "discipline" with the physical sciences, then you need to take it up with Pixie, as she is the one who initated that path.

No wonder you couldn't answer my argument with anything more than empty rhetoric, you don't even understand how flawed your logic was and still is. You tried to make it sound as though disagreements among Christians means that Christianity is wrong, so I took your logic and showed how it invalidated all of science because scientist disagree with one another. What you next did was try to change the goal post with something to effect of: "DUH! Science solves issues, but religion doesn't!" Which shows your ignorance of basic logic and church history. Hummm, I guess you've never heard of the ecumenical councils? What do you think they were brought together for? They were brought together to solve disagreements among the church and they did do just that. What do you think Aquinas did? He helped to solve a disagreement among the church (I gave you this example too and even gave you a resource to look at how Christians have solved disagreements and you ignore it because you most likely are not interested in truth, but in justifying your own doubts). Sorry soundbite, but you clearly don't understand what you are talking about and just made a total fool of yourself yet again. The only 'straw' here is you and your changing up the goal post when your argument was proved wrong. It's too bad that even with your changed goal post, you still show lots of ignorance when dealing with the history of Christianity because there's plenty of examples out there, of Christians coming together to solve disagreements. Try again soundbite and this time, don't sound like a total fool.

[Soundsurfr]

Why is one needed?

Well, let’s see. Do you think the thousands of lemmings who followed Camping over the cliff of divine embarrassment know how to tell an expert in the field?

It's a monumentally stupid question that only a retarded chimpanzee couldn't come up with a correct answer to. Everyone but you and Horsebutt the Clown knows how to identify an expert in a field.

So what you’re saying is, pretty much anyone who listens to Joyce Myer is Horsebutt the Clown. Or perhaps they’re all a bunch of retarded chimpanzees. Is that your position? If so, I’ll be glad to help publicize it on your behalf. Or is it that all these people really do know exactly how to tell the difference between an “expert” in the field of Christian ministry and a bloviating hack, and they’ve determined that Meyers is an expert and YOU’RE the hack?
In that context, your response begins makes some sense.

Every post you make contains at least one substantially embarrassing comment reflecting your ignorance, inability to think clearly, or proclivity to evade when called down for monumentally stupid comments. Anyone around here who brings up any topic more complex than an recipe for ramen noodles is going past your ability to comprehend, as shown by the fact that every time it comes down to tacks and you're asking to respond to arguments directly, your response amounts to "hur hur that's funny, do you really believe that".

Full paragraph of nothing but snarky bluster. Impressive maybe, but only to the dolts who are turned on by snarky bluster. And only you could display the self-absorption necessary to accuse me of evasion while you’ve been evading my one simple question since this thread started. There’s still some entertainment value left in the ole Tektonics forum.

But really, do entertain us with some more of it. Then you can give us some special insights into Greco-Roman rhetoric, agonistic concepts of limited good, and ursine behavior patterns that all those experts who are not really experts missed.

Ho, the riposte ensues with a full thrust of scholarly jargon! Should I parry with a short, sharp “bioi”, or go for a full lunge with some “honor-shame dialectic”?
You can skip the posturing, Holding – I get the implication. If you use professorial buzz phrases, that’s our tipoff that you are indeed an expert in biblical exegesis. I did notice that folks around here who can’t seem to figure out when to use the singular or plural form of a verb are dutifully impressed.

[jpholding]

[FONT=Calibri]Well, let’s see. Do you think the thousands of lemmings who followed Camping over the cliff of divine embarrassment know how to tell an expert in the field?

Yes. They just don't bother to apply it to Camping because they prefer to believe his message. Duh huh....

So what you’re saying is, pretty much anyone who listens to Joyce Myer is Horsebutt the Clown.

Wow, for once he actually got one of my positions correct! Just remember it's "Meyer" -- as is "Oscar" and "weenies".

If so, I’ll be glad to help publicize it on your behalf.

Too late! I've already publicized it myself! And I've been publicizing it for years, Horsebutt. Try these samples:

http://tektonforge.blogspot.com/2011...s-toilets.html
http://tektonforge.blogspot.com/2010...ts-part-2.html

What, did you actually think I'd say, "NOOOOOOO! PLEASE DON'T PUBLICIZE THAT! I'D BE SOOOOO ASHAMED!!!" You're really that stupid?

Or is it that all these people really do know exactly how to tell the difference between an “expert” in the field of Christian ministry and a bloviating hack, and they’ve determined that Meyers is an expert and YOU’RE the hack?

Oh. My. Word.

Suggesting that Joyce Meyers is an "expert". That's ultra duper super Platinum right there. More embarrassing even than the supersonic bears.

Full paragraph of nothing but snarky bluster.

Small paragraph of you flashing your backside as you run from the field.

You can skip the posturing, Holding – I get the implication. If you use professorial buzz phrases, that’s our tipoff that you are indeed an expert in biblical exegesis. I did notice that folks around here who can’t seem to figure out when to use the singular or plural form of a verb are dutifully impressed

And if you dodge actual content reflecting knowledge of such things, my point is validated. Once again.

Joyce Meyer an expert...oooooh boyyyy....

[Soundsurfr]

Too late! I've already publicized it myself! And I've been publicizing it for years, Horsebutt. Try these samples:

http://tektonforge.blogspot.com/2011...s-toilets.html
http://tektonforge.blogspot.com/2010...ts-part-2.html

What, did you actually think I'd say, "NOOOOOOO! PLEASE DON'T PUBLICIZE THAT! I'D BE SOOOOO ASHAMED!!!" You're really that stupid?

No, I just underestimated your willingness to arrogantly insult large numbers of your fellow Christians in a public forum. In retrospect, that was pretty stupid of me.

Oh. My. Word.

Suggesting that Joyce Meyers is an "expert". That's ultra duper super Platinum right there. More embarrassing even than the supersonic bears.

So once again you manage to completely twist the point and dodge the question. You asked why we might need an answer to the question of how we can identify experts in biblical exegesis, and I pointed out that quite a few people think Joyce Meyers is an expert. Or Joel Osteen. Or even Benny Hinn, my personal favorite. Seems to me there are scads of people who don't quite understand how to tell the difference between a professional and an amateur in your particular field. That's why we need an answer to the question.

As to why you won't answer it, don't worry. I completely understand.

[Rational Gaze]

that was pretty stupid of me.

That much we can certainly agree upon.

[Soundsurfr]

Ah! We shouldn't, but we should just not bother with religion since that can't be proved, but let's still go with Platonism or Aristotleanism. Sorry. It's an entirely valid conclusion from what you said.

No sir. You cannot infer "we should just not bother with religion" from my post without prejudice on your part. You can and should infer "we should not bother with the truth-claims of bloviating apologists", however.

Phlogiston? The inadequacy of Newton? Geocentrism? Spontaneous generation? How many times does science say at one time that eating X is good for you and then later, well it turns out that's not so good.

Theories all. You do understand the difference, right? Do you think the fact that heavier than air machines can fly will be proven wrong at some future time?

Perhaps you should say why it is utterly impossible. Finally, Platonism and Aristotleanism have neither one been proven or disproven. Does that mean that we should question the philosophical discipline?

If and when some philosopher claims that either Platonism or Aristotleanism is the only undeniably true position, then we should question that. Is my position starting to sink in, or shall we continue to pursue this straw man until one of us dies of old age?

1. Do you really think I believe that supernatural bears existed?
2. On what logical grounds should the suggestion of supernatural bears in the Elisha situation be discounted?

#1. No

Right. So then you are poking fun at me for forwarding a position that you know I believe to be nonsense. Help me understand why I'm the one who is supposed to be embarrassed.

#2. Because it's perfectly explainable by natural means.

I see. So your implied rule of thumb is...if it's expainable by natural means, then that automatically trumps any suggestion that a supernatural event might have occurred? How about if a pregnant woman claims to be a virgin?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

No sir. You cannot infer "we should just not bother with religion" from my post without prejudice on your part. You can and should infer "we should not bother with the truth-claims of bloviating apologists", however.

Actually, you can just fine. Note also the truth-claims of religion are those promoted by the apologists. Either way, you say the same thing. Since we supposedly cannot know with certainty, why bother?



[QUOTE]Theories all. You do understand the difference, right? Do you think the fact that heavier than air machines can fly will be proven wrong at some future time? [QUOTE]

Theories all. Note that they were all also at one time accepted as facts. A scientific fact cannot be disproven or it would not be a fact. The FACT however is that not all said today in scientific circles is a fact. That's the same for any field.

If and when some philosopher claims that either Platonism or Aristotleanism is the only undeniably true position, then we should question that. Is my position starting to sink in, or shall we continue to pursue this straw man until one of us dies of old age?

If you do not need absolute proof to see a position promoted and believe it can be rationally promoted, I do not see what your problem is.





[QUOTE] Right. So then you are poking fun at me for forwarding a position that you know I believe to be nonsense. Help me understand why I'm the one who is supposed to be embarrassed. [QUOTE]

That you were forced to such lengths to defend absurdity is revealing enough.

I see. So your implied rule of thumb is...if it's expainable by natural means, then that automatically trumps any suggestion that a supernatural event might have occurred? How about if a pregnant woman claims to be a virgin?

Nope. The account of Elisha contains no mention of the bears having supersonic speed as there is no need. The account of the virgin birth does specifically state that that is the cause of her pregnancy. I don't believe in adding miracles when one isn't claimed and one isn't needed.

[Rational Gaze]

we should not bother with the truth-claims of bloviating apologists

Good, so we should not bother with you. I am glad we cleared that up.

[jpholding]

No, I just underestimated your willingness to arrogantly insult large numbers of your fellow Christians in a public forum. In retrospect, that was pretty stupid of me.

In retrospect, just about everything you say and do is stupid of you.

So once again you manage to completely twist the point and dodge the question.

No, once again I catch you in an embarrassing idiocy which you now realize you have to spin in order to evade. If it were otherwise, you would have qualified by indicating that Meyer is NOT an expert but rather an ignoramus. As it is, it's clear you're too ignorant to know better.

Seems to me there are scads of people who don't quite understand how to tell the difference between a professional and an amateur in your particular field.

No, as I said, the problem is not that these people have no idea how to recognize an expert, but that they refuse to APPLY what they know when it comes to their favorite teacher. If you had actually READ their works, WATCHED their TV programs, and done your research on the church at large, as I have, you'd know this. You'd know that the investment these dips have in Meyer, Osteen, etc. is totally emotional; that their refusal to look further is entirely due to laziness and being soaked in Western opulence and/or selfishness, and that the question, "Is this person qualified to teach?" doesn't even enter their mind -- in spite of the fact that the parallel question DOES more frequently enter their mind whenever they DO have a vested interest, such as when they look for a plumber, a home builder, or an aerobics teacher. Of course, some get lazy or emotional when it comes to such choices too -- but it still isn't inability to recognize expertise that is the problem; it is unwillingness to bother.

Sorry, but as usual, you're out of touch with reality, and as stupid as a stump.

As to why you won't answer it, don't worry. I completely understand.

Yes, my tendency to not entertain morons like you with the obvious is well known.

[Hamster]

if it's expainable by natural means, then that automatically trumps any suggestion that a supernatural event might have occurred?

If you're going to put in unwarranted supernatural elements, then I'll just say that God miraculously kept them from dying which is why it didn't say that they died