Luigi Cascioli for taking his defeated (in Italy) Christ-myth related case to the human rights court in Strasbourg. Nope, the historicity of Jesus is not about history, it's about human rights. And I find it hilarious Cascioli is demanding "precise evidence"!

(in Italian, English) April 13 entry
http://nochiesa.blogspot.com/

Originally posted by Jedi Punkish

Doubting John, for inviting Acharya S to post on his Debunking Christianity blog

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...oing-here.html

I don't think DJ realized was I was being facetious when I said he ought to invite her. What a dip!

Originally posted by jpholding

I don't think DJ realized was I was being facetious when I said he ought to invite her. What a dip!

I did think that.

Ed invited her. Matthew Green objected, as did someone else.

I don't know the full extent of her views, nor her scholarship. What I am concerned about for now is whether she shares in our common purpose to debunk Christianity, and whether she participates effectively. So far she has.

Whether the screwball award is justified this time may be too soon to call. But if you're right then you finally pinned one on me.

Could we just once have some equal opportunity and have some atheists go on a rampage to "Debunking Islam" or "Debunking Hinduism"?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=75270

No comment...

Originally posted by Doubting John

.

I don't know the full extent of her views, nor her scholarship.

That just magnifies your screwball award, DJ.

You just invited someone aboard that totally destroys your credibility. That's what you get for being uncritical, which has been your problem since Day 1. Edski is a numbskull. Listening to him for advice on ANYTHING is a huge mistake.

Dude, Acharya got reamed a leading scholar on Hinduism in the US for stupid stuff she said, and you know what her reply was? That he needed to take a Religion 101 course!

What I am concerned about for now is whether she shares in our common purpose to debunk Christianity, and whether she participates effectively. So far she has.

So who you gonna invite next? Tom Metzger? David Duke?

Hey, why don't you invite Brian Flemming?

Whether the screwball award is justified this time may be too soon to call. But if you're right then you finally pinned one on me.

I've pinned you all right. Know who Robert Price is? Here's what he said about her "scholarship":

"She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations."

"...no one whose disquiet with traditional Christian faith is based on solid fact or credible theorizing will want to recommend [her] book, much less appeal to it as justification for one's own doubts."

OUCH!

She's so stupid I now have Sheila answering her:

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/achyvssheila.html

Maybe you ought to read her book too:

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

At the risk of offending her let me put it to people here this way……

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Let's say she is wrong about everything--everything. [Of course this isn't likely, just like it isn't likely that Christians are right about everything]. Then who is to blame for this state of affairs? Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

Originally posted by Doubting John

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

At the risk of offending her let me put it to people here this way……

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Let's say she is wrong about everything--everything. [Of course this isn't likely, just like it isn't likely that Christians are right about everything]. Then who is to blame for this state of affairs? Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

Personally, all of this seems like nonsense to me. I'm not sure what point DJ is trying to make but based on his last paragraph, I do know something.

The reason I'm not sure what to make of it is DJ's fault! It has nothing whatsoever to do with me or any limited knowledge on my part or a bias I might have or a refusal to see something I might not want to see. If I don't understand the communication, it HAS to be DJ's fault.

I am just so thankful that I'm okay.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists.

Why is it that the universe can be interpreted so differently that there are flat earthers, new earth creationists, day-agers, gap theorists, aliensmadeusists and even evolutionists? Believe it or not a question ends with a question mark.

How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

Most people are not purely logical when it comes to it. Few people that I know can claim that. JPH and Arterial Spray on tweb would be two examples of people who I believe to be purely logical. I'm not, and you sure as heck aren't either.

Originally posted by Doubting John

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

No she isn't. She's one step away from appearing to be so stupid that I can only assume she's a con artist because nobody is that stupid.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

I think this is a valid question. My answer would be that many of these and other movements began with a dissatisfaction in something, usually orthodoxy, or what is socially acceptable (I question whether modern satanism=self-glorification is a metaphysical worldview) and it doesn't have to follow that these interpretations of reality are actually valid. It may also be that people do not like testing their presuppositions and prefer to stick with 'what they know' or something like that.

I expect you to say in reply that orthodoxy is indeed unsatisfactory At least as a freethinker you are free to examine the truth value of such claims (opposition to orthodoxy), whereas in cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies, you are not allowed that luxury.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Why is it that this universe can be interpreted so differently that there are atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pantheists/new agers, animists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and even Satanists. How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to metaphysical beliefs?

Why is it that the political landscape can be interpreted so differently that there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, Communists, Socialists, Free Soilers, Whigs, anarchists, Nazis, Constitutionalists, Greens, Natural Law-ers, and even KKKers? How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to political beliefs?

Better yet, how is this anything but DJ dodging the hard issues again by pretending that diversity of views somehow relieves him of the necessity to defend his own view properly?

It's a fair question, but there was no point in DJ asking it in this context other than as a long, drawn out way of sayin' DUUUUUH.

Let's see here....she doesn't believe in Christianity, but Christians can take solace in her rejection of their faith because she also believes and supports things which few of us would support and believe.

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say you were plumb stupid to take her on your team. It's the story of your life: You make rash decisions without sufficient information, then make a fool of yourself defending those decisions.

But what seems strange from my perspective is how sure Christians are about Christianity when she is a living testimony of someone who is trying to do the best she can with the evidence that God supposedly planted here for us all to see.

Yeah, that's why she accepts crap like Graves' 16 Crucified Saviors as valid and publishes with a group that also does books on Atlantis and UFOs.

Then who is to blame for this state of affairs?

Doesn't matter. But here's another eval of her work, from Bede http://www.bede.org.uk who as you may not know is a Christian who does not defend inerrancy:

By new-age-Jesus-mythologist guru Acharya S., this website “is the work of a rebel against the untruths and delusions of the status quo.” She caused a stir at one point, but Acharya S. is now taken seriously by few participants in the Jesus Myth debate. Although an adamant proponent of the Jesus Myth, she is just as likely to rant against french fries as a threat to western civilization or try and convince you that “AIDS is not an cannot be an infectious disease.” J.P. Holding takes her work to pieces as does Mark Licona and even ultra sceptical Robert Price. Bearing in mind that Price thinks the execrable Jesus Mysteries is 'excellent', the fact even he buries Acharya is revealing. As for her website, it is too reliant on bells and whistles so detracts from the contents even further.

Getting the picture that says "Bad Move" yet?

Where's your God now? Why can't he help those of us who are trying to find out what we should believe?

Why do you think He sent me to persecute you, Dum Dum?

One more thing, DJ. I hope for your sake that your little jibe about one of your crew ripping me a "new one" was a reference to Matthew's next entry in the Scholarly Diplomacy series -- which I see more as a discussion than a debate at this point. Because if you send ANY of your pastry team after me, you'll find out the hard way what the full brunt of my wrath is like. I've taken it easy on you so far, believe it or not; get my mojo riled and I'll give you the same treatment that Flemming freak is now getting, and worse. Fancy a toon where Sheila drops a two ton weight on your head? Or maybe a full parody of your silly little blog (except anything Matthew writes) complete with illustrations? You know I have the time, the will, and the ability. So you'd better consider your next move carefully.

You might want to check the parable of the king with an army smaller than his enemy before you run your mouth again.

Originally posted by jpholding

Why is it that the political landscape can be interpreted so differently that there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, Communists, Socialists, Free Soilers, Whigs, anarchists, Nazis, Constitutionalists, Greens, Natural Law-ers, and even KKKers? How is it that any of us are purely logical when it comes to political beliefs?

The diversity thesis and the dependency thesis in ethical theory can explain these things. Morals are diverse and dependent on what we've experienced. That explains it! So also are most political theories and metaphysical views. Is there any wonder that both Pascal and Wm James suggested that in order to induce ourselves to believe we should start going to church, reading the Bible and praying? Beliefs are many times caught by association with a culture of likeminded people. I know this would seem strange to you but if you began reading UFO books, magazines, and attended conferences with like minded people you too would be influenced to believe what they do. And before long you'd think there was a governmental conspiracy to cover these things up. What we read influences us all, as does where we go and who we hang out with. We human beings are quite maleable as thinkers. But in your opinion what we believe will cause us to be damned to hell.

And in your opinion you have the Holy Spirit to guide Christians. So why is there now 45,000 different denominations, eh? How do YOU explain the wide diversity among people in these areas where there is no hard cold evidence one way or another? I can explain it. Can you?

One more thing, DJ. I hope for your sake that your little jibe about one of your crew ripping me a "new one" was a reference to Matthew's next entry in the Scholarly Diplomacy series -- which I see more as a discussion than a debate at this point. Because if you send ANY of your pastry team after me, you'll find out the hard way what the full brunt of my wrath is like...................Blah Blah Blah Blah.

JP, don't you realize that anyone can rip YOU a new one Oh PERFECTLY LOGICAL ONE! YOU'VE GOT 'EM FOOLED, DON'T YOU?

We'll see how it goes on our Blog, but I'm the boss there---no wonder you don't want to come over into my territory.

Originally posted by Doubting John

The diversity thesis and the dependency thesis in ethical theory can explain these things.

It's also a good way to avoid defending any one view as right, isn't it? DUH. And you did it again, of course.

Is there any wonder that both Pascal and Wm James suggested that in order to induce ourselves to believe we should start going to church, reading the Bible and praying?

Yeah, well, dude, know what I did in church during the sermon 2 weeks ago? I sketched 40 pages of script for Shrike Team #3. Wanna know how often I read the Bible? 5 minutes a day, to the Mrs. in the evening. Wanna know how much I pray a day? 5 seconds at meals. Wow. I've got the brainwash, huh????

DJ, when you gonna stop hauling up the experiential crap and start answerin' some stinkin' arguments?

I know this would seem strange to you but if you began reading UFO books, magazines, and attended conferences with like minded people you too would be influenced to believe what they do.

HORSE MANURE. Don't ascribe your collectivist gullibility to ME, sonny boy. I'm not some weak-minded vassal, like you are/were.

And in your opinion you have the Holy Spirit to guide Christians.

Holy Spirit not gumball machine, Bizarro. I correct you on that time and time again, you no listen! I have no such opinion whatsoever.

So why is there now 45,000 different denominations, eh?

Listen, Mr. Dweeb:

1) 45,000 denominations does not equal 45,000 different points of view.
2) Many denominations are based on factors other than doctrine -- geography, ceremony, etc.
3) You can't count denominations like "The Morton R. Meldrim Holy Rolling Steel-Belted Church, Reformed" with only one member in 'em. (Morton R. Meldrim of course.) That's individualism (America's disorder) at work, not differences in doctrine. If it were not so, Mormonism wouldn't have over 200 "denominations" after only 150 years.
4) It's STILL a way to avoid defending your views.

How do YOU explain the wide diversity among people in these areas where there is no hard cold evidence one way or another? I can explain it.

Badly? I know you can. And I'm sure I could explain each one precisely with enough research, which you don't do because all you care about is belching up a big number as though that's an argument.

JP, don't you realize that anyone can rip YOU a new one

Certainly not you, Kemosabe. As of now you have 500 gaping holes (500 witnesses, as it were) with my autograph.

We'll see how it goes on our Blog, but I'm the boss there---no wonder you don't want to come over into my territory.

You don't WANT me to, son. I'll keep you so busy you'll do the same thing you did here -- get mad and go away.

But keep it up and you'll see how much fun it is to keep up with a parody with the title, "Duh! Bunkin' Christianity".

By the way, Jason Long, whom DJ invited to his blog, wins another Screwball for this commentary:

Let us suppose that there is a hypothetical dichotomy that the experts must decide upon. If 90% of the scholars agree with the position that favors Christianity, I would feel extremely confident that about 90% of the scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such authorities, who began with the conclusion before considering the evidence, cannot be trusted simply because they are authorities. One simply cannot trust those with huge emotional investments to be objective on critical issues. You cannot trust a car salesman when buying a car; you should trust a consumer report. You cannot trust an Islamic scholar when studying Islam; you should trust a scholar who had no opinion going in. You cannot trust a Jewish scholar when studying Judaism; you should trust a scholar who had no set opinion going in. You cannot trust a mother of an artist when determining which artist made the best painting; you should trust an art critic with no knowledge of the artists. For this reason, I put little stock in the opinions of people who began studying Christianity years after they accepted the notion of a talking snake.

Another long-winded way of saying, "Let's avoid hard data arguments and just whine about 'bias'."

But you CAN of course trust an apostate atheist when studying against Christianity.

Originally posted by Darth Executor

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=75270

No comment...

Originally posted by Biblischism

For those not “in the know,” the lost writings of late Sicilian philosopher/skeptic Giovanni Verdi have recently been published in The Lost, Last Gospel of Giovanni Verdi (Iconoclast Press, 2006). The book contains what could very well become the core tenet of atheism.

I think this is just the argument atheism has needed to counter, for example, the luminescent allure of Mormonism, but I welcome any dissenting opinion.

The argument to which I’m referring goes like this:

A good God would have harvested, dry roasted, and ground peanuts into a slurry and then provided men the yummy puree in vacuum-sealed, non-breakable plastic jars. Since man must endeavor to make his own peanut paste, God’s providence is, therefore, incomplete.

Ergo, God must not exist.

(A closer examination of Verdi’s preliminary notes reveals that he tried to extend the argument to cheese and ice cream. Verdi’s peers are currently working on the cheese/ice cream dilemma as we speak; the results so far are promising but inconclusive.)

Just FYI: I’m currently sitting on the fence between atheism and full Mormonic commitment.

Thank you,

B.

P.S. Please respond ASAP, as the compelling apologia of the Smithites is wending its way to my heart.

He's got to be kidding.

Originally posted by Johnny EC

He's got to be kidding.

With Spasm, it's hard to tell.