Originally posted by Ockers

For Mountain Man

In message 83 you talk about "the resurrection [of Jesus][,] for which there is plenty of evidence". May I ask you to specify that evidence to me?

Ockers,

Can I persuade you to start another thread perhaps? Maybe you can start a thread specifically for Mountain Man along the lines of something like "Why does Mountain Man beileve the resurrection of Jesus happened?" I am quite sure that Mountain Man will be happy to elaborate on his case. I don't want this thread to get off topic. I am still waiting for time to free up for Jaltus so he can post a response to what I argued for in my beginning post.

Matthew

Originally posted by jpholding

You're raising your personal rating from Class A Idiot to Lifetime Retarded Citizen of the Month, there, DJ. I've reamed several believers here: Crusader and GreatWhiteHype2 come to mind offhand. I even challenged the latter to a debate in which I would play the role of an atheist.

Stop this! Please, stop this!

Good heavens, do you even know when to quit?! I have tolerated this far enough! This needs to stop! You know, quite frankly I am getting a little sick of the ad hominems. I am dead serious here! I don't mind satire but this is not satire. This is a mean ad hominem and you know it! I stood by while you insulted Steve Carr and to my discredit I didn't do anything. I just stood there, staring at the computer screen, my eyes wincing with regret while you insulted Carr. Look- I don't care for Steven myself. He doesn't strike me as being particularly well-read, informed, or that careful of a thinker. I don't have that high opinion of him but I do not insult him. But, I am getting tired of you insulting people.

You may not have a high opinion of Doubting John or Ed Babinski. Regardless of what you think of them, I consider them to be good friends of mine. You know, I don't have a high opinion of Christians like Dee Dee Warren or your friend John Sarfati. But do I insult them? Do I insult and demean Mrs. Warren? No, I do not!! J.P. you have a lot of skeptics convinced that you are a jerk with a big ego! I have actually defended you and have said some high complementary things about you here and elsewhere. But I feel embarrassed defending you at times.

J.P. I am asking that you apologize to John for insulting him like that. I am not going to take this any more. It was wrong of me not to act on or speak out against what I have seen here earlier, and I apologize that I didn't step in when I should have. I am tired of the attacks I have seen on here and elsewhere. I am asking that you apologize to Doubting John, Ed Babinski, or just about anyone else you have personally attacked. I am asking that you seriously consider a change of heart. I am not personally trying to attack you here but I am tired of this and I am greatly concerned here.

Matthew

Originally posted by Matthew

Jaltus,

Now that's more like it! So Paul uses "anistemi" when Jesus raises himself. Would this imply the meaning carried by "anastasis" according to Holding's argument? If "egeiro" is used of, in passive form, of God raising Jesus, would Jesus have had the kind of resurrected body that could only come to believers at the general resurrection? What of Jesus using both "anistemi" and "egeiro" in referring to his own raising?

Now that you have decided to weigh in on certain points, I wanted to ask you: what do you think of my argument about the Greek? I wanted to say that I am no expert on the subject but I wouldn't mind having someone like you correct me if I need correcting- but just be gentle!

Matthew

Matthew,

Sorry I have not gotten back to you in a more timely manner. I am finishing up my diss while preparing for twin boys while getting ready to move (in three weeks or so) and I was asked to preach next Sunday and the one following.

In other words, I am flat out right now, and the worst part is needing to pack my books, all 1200-1300 of them, when I am still using them.

I would NOT link anistemi and anastasis too closely. Typically, a verb has more leeway in Greek than a noun (though there are exceptions, cf. pistis and pistew). Egeirw carries no connotations as to the body. For Paul, egeirw always, always, always stresses agency, not result. When Paul stresses result, he uses anistemi (pardon my various transliterations, I am trying to use your system when I am more at home with another, e.g. I use w for omega). I am sure someone may be able to come up with a possible exception, but I really doubt it.

I will try to look at Jesus' references to his own resurrection, but my guess is that they are author-specific rather than Jesus-specific.

I will go back over your OP at some point in time, but I did want to continue on this point since I can cover it off the top of my head.

- Jaltus

Originally posted by Doubting John

Holding.....when will you ever debate MountainMan, or DarthBaby? Naw..you seem to think it's better not to disagree with a fellow believer in public.

Originally posted by jpholding

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=69
You're raising your personal rating from Class A Idiot to Lifetime Retarded Citizen of the Month, there, DJ. I've reamed several believers here: Crusader and GreatWhiteHype2 come to mind offhand. I even challenged the latter to a debate in which I would play the role of an atheist.

Originally posted by Matthew

Stop this! Please, stop this!

Good heavens, do you even know when to quit?! I have tolerated this far enough! This needs to stop! You know, quite frankly I am getting a little sick of the ad hominems. I am dead serious here! I don't mind satire but this is not satire. This is a mean ad hominem and you know it!

Matthew

Matthew,

Do you know what an “ad hominem” is?

Ad hominem. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Responding to DJ’s question,

Originally posted by Doubting John

Holding.....when will you ever debate MountainMan, or DarthBaby? Naw..you seem to think it's better not to disagree with a fellow believer in public.

JP did appeal to logic and reason, thusly:

Originally posted by jpholding

I've reamed several believers here: Crusader and GreatWhiteHype2 come to mind offhand. I even challenged the latter to a debate in which I would play the role of an atheist.

Since JP supported his response with logic and reason, it is therefore not an ad hominem.

Now, Matthew, why were you unable to discern that?

Doubting John’s modicum of intelligence is well documented, both in his books and on TWeb. Here he presents himself in his own words:

From Minister to Honest Doubter, p. 4.
But the deficiency with a cumulative case approach is that I lack the scholarship to deal adequately with all of the issues involved.

From Minister to Honest Doubter. “What if I’m Wrong?” pp. 171-173.
Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand traditional Christianity? I tried with everything in me. I even spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D. program to figure my faith out.

Because I’m pretty sure most all of us are wrong about some crucial religious issues. I’m probably wrong too.

If I am wrong about anything I have written in this book, then I am wrong. And I probably am wrong about some things, and maybe about many things. I know this.

From Minister to Honest Doubter, p. 5.
And since I haven’t been reading a lot on these issues in the lasts six years I do not show an awareness of recent research and writing,

July 15th 2005, 04:29 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...7&postcount=44
Doubting John’s Argument Against The Resurrection
John Shelby Spong is not a scholar, just like me.

May 26th 2005, 08:02 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=10
Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?
I'm no scholar, and will probably never be one.

July 23rd 2005, 07:07 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...40#post1126540
Logical Argument for Christianity
Your psychological evaluation of me is wrong. In the first place, who said I had something called “certainty?” I never said I was certain that I was right. I don't believe that I'm certain, either. Anyone who is certain of something is a fool. Do you think I'm a fool?

December 20th 2005, 09:02 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=49
The Supernatural is inherently irrational
ONCE AGAIN. I AM NOT CERTAIN ABOUT MUCH OF ANYTHING.

You can find more examples at the following links:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/creds.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ignorance.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/illogic.htm

Perhaps you should calm down, take a stress pill, and think things over.

Daisy, daisy ...

Tophet,

Please,

I apologize if I am wrong about ad hominems. I go by the definition that I read here

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graph...hom/adhom.html

What I dislike are the personal attacks. Even if John isn't very intelligent, that's not a reason, in my book, to personally attack him. The fact of the matter is that I am sick of the insults and I am not going to endorse the insults or just let them skate by. By telling me to calm down, why would I? So am I just going to sit by idly and let someone who I'd like to respect just attack and insult people? If I am in the wrong to criticize J.P. then I will retract my criticism but this is beyond what I can handle. I do not like insults and attacks from anyone and I do not endorse it.

Please do not give me anymore unsolicited advice,

Matthew

Originally posted by Matthew

Stop this! Please, stop this!

Huh?

DJ and I have traded barbs like that for months now, bud. If you're against it you'll have to change him too...or else get tired of him.

My Net service is acting up this morning (alternately slow and fast) and I'll be having a tech out tomorrow to work on it, so that's all I can say for now.

Originally posted by jpholding

Huh?

DJ and I have traded barbs like that for months now, bud. If you're against it you'll have to change him too...or else get tired of him.

My Net service is acting up this morning (alternately slow and fast) and I'll be having a tech out tomorrow to work on it, so that's all I can say for now.

Yeah, but you insulted me continually before I "got with the program." You know that I don't generally insult people who with disagree with me. Yet you insult almost everyone who disagrees with you. You're insults are creative, no doubt, but for the most part they are very demeaning to other human beings. Doing so merely says you think it's a matter of intelligence. But it's not just a matter of intelliegnce, and it's about time you admitted this. Otherwise, only intelligent people can be saved (or stupid people who just happened to get it right).

Believe it or not, I am just as sincere as you are in trying to understand the meaning of existence (I'll bet I'm even more sincere than you are). I'm doing the best I can with what your God gave me, and what he purportedly allowed me to experience. I long for a completely satisfying answer to the meaning of this existence, although, I would settle for an answer that clearly wins out in the marketplace of ideas. But there isn't one, even if I think atheism is a better answer than other answers That's no reason to insult people who disagree with you.

Howdy, Matthew,

Originally posted by Matthew

I apologize if I am wrong about ad hominems. I go by the definition that I read here

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/grap...dhom/adhom.html

The definition given here is virtually the same as the one I gave.

All right, let’s go with that:

“One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting).

Did JP make an argument against DJ’s ideas? Yes, he did. Therefore, no ad hominem.

“Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument.”

Did JP make a rational evaluation of DJ’s accusation? Yes. Therefore, no ad hominem.

DJ made himself look foolish with his own unsupported accusation. That was an ad hominem.

Originally posted by Matthew

What I dislike are the personal attacks.

Except that in the example you gave, DJ made himself look foolish by falsely accusing JP, thusly:

Originally posted by Doubting John

Naw..you seem to think it's better not to disagree with a fellow believer in public.

Originally posted by Matthew

Even if John isn't very intelligent, that's not a reason, in my book, to personally attack him. The fact of the matter is that I am sick of the insults and I am not going to endorse the insults or just let them skate by. By telling me to calm down, why would I?

Ah, yes, a solicited question.

Because, if you were calm and thinking clearly, you would realize that DJ was falsely accusing JP. JP was defending himself.

Originally posted by jpholding

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=69
I've reamed several believers here: Crusader and GreatWhiteHype2 come to mind offhand. I even challenged the latter to a debate in which I would play the role of an atheist.

So why do you not chastize DJ for falsely accusing JP?

Originally posted by Matthew

So am I just going to sit by idly and let someone who I'd like to respect just attack and insult people?

Are you going to sit by idly and let DJ insult people? I notice you didn’t chastize him for falsely accusing JP in this instance.

Originally posted by Matthew

So am I just going to sit by idly and let someone who I'd like to respect

Matthew, in the "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" thread, DJ by default and de facto made the following concessions:

He conceded that he is a prevaricator.
He conceded that he is a hypocrite.
He conceded that he is a coward.
He conceded that he is ignorant about Christianity.
He conceded that he is mentally deficient.
He conceded that he blames other people for his own failures.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

DJ demonstrates every one of these points in that thread.

This is someone you would like to respect?

To paraphrase a certain Jedi Knight, who’s the more foolish, the fool or the one who follows the fool?

Originally posted by Matthew

If I am in the wrong to criticize J.P. then I will retract my criticism but this is beyond what I can handle. I do not like insults and attacks from anyone and I do not endorse it.

Except when you personally attack JP?

Originally posted by Matthew

Please do not give me anymore unsolicited advice,

I see. So I should sit idly by and let you accuse and unfairly admonish JP. Nice.

In a personal matter such as this, why don’t you exchange your grievances by PM instead of airing them in public?

Originally posted by Doubting John

Holding.....when will you ever debate MountainMan, or DarthBaby? Naw..you seem to think it's better not to disagree with a fellow believer in public.

Just out of curiosity, what have I said that you think JP should have objected to?

Originally posted by Doubting John

Yeah, but you insulted me continually before I "got with the program."

Bah. I insulted you when it became clear that you were NOT interested in serious debate on things you claimed to know something about.

"How about the Trinity, based on this in your book?"

" ---."

You admit yourself that your book is intellectual pornography with the intent to deconvert people. So you already were spoiling for a fight....don't cry when you get one.

You know that I don't generally insult people who with disagree with me.

I know....you prefer to start with a long look down your nose rather than insults. The technique is different but the essence is the same. You insult by way of a superiority complex rather than directly.

Doing so merely says you think it's a matter of intelligence. But it's not just a matter of intelliegnce, and it's about time you admitted this.

The problem is, DJ, that the above is like saying "it's not a matter of height" in a world where everyone has decided to roll themselves down to the bottom of the Dead Sea and stay at the bottom feeling sorry for themselves, whining about how hard it is to be on level ground. As I once told this Mormon named Edward Watson who claimed that the Bible was supposed to be able to be understood by the man on the street, "How do you know it's not just that the man on the street used to be a lot smarter on these things, and it's that your intellect has gone downhill?"

Believe it or not, I am just as sincere as you are in trying to understand the meaning of existence (I'll bet I'm even more sincere than you are).

There's that complex again, dagnabit. Sorry -- coming from you, along with all this rot about not being able to make a decision...rings more hollow than a bat-free belfry. After seeing how bad your scholarship was, there's no way that excuse will fly.


Added: In addition, the simple fact is that YOU NEVER LEARN. I just checked your blog and that crap about "How the NT Used the OT" is the sort if thing I've corrected you on more than once. You know better, and it's far from honest to present arguments that you know have been addressed and debunked.

Quotes by Doubting John:

June 19th, 2005, 07:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=103
Re: Visions vs. Expectations: Holding's Argument

You know that I don't generally insult people who with disagree with me.

July 24th 2005, 06:11 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=59
What is the relationship of faith and reason?

I'm sorry Captain, but Ave Maria and I were having an intelligent discussion. You are an annoyance.
... But as before, you'll claim the victory, which is what stupid people do when people like me stop responding to them.

Oh, did I single you out here? I meant to.

June 13th 2005, 10:51 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=80
Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?

JP, you are very irritating, and it's not because you're correct, either.

July 19th 2005, 01:21 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&postcount=68
Doubting John’s Argument Against The Resurrection.

I'm sorry but it's very hard for me not to just lash out at you with all kinds of phrases that indicate your very low intelligence level.

July 23rd 2005, 04:09 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&postcount=39
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.

... You're stupid, and I mean it, and I'm not just putting on airs like JP does, either.

July 23rd 2005, 06:12 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=41
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.

I asked myself why you write such stupid things. I really don't think that you're stupid--really. But I asked myself what would make you write as if you were stupid. That is, what is there here that makes you say stupid things?

July 16th 2005 , 08:47 PM
Re: If Jesus is God, then does God have a body?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=11

FormerFundy is right. I was being disengenuous.

June 29th 2005, 05:38 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2&postcount=54
Where is God in Infinite SPACE?

You are an idiot. Anyone who will take the time to read through the thread “Is There Such a Thing as an Honest Doubter?” Will see that. I cannot discuss anything with you because you simply cannot understand a mildy complex argument. You shouldn't even be on this website until you finish your high school level degree. Anything I say gets twisted by you (probably this post as well), so there isn't even a basis for a discussion at all, and I have better things to do. If you were even a half-wit thinker you could answer every one of the questions you asked of me.

July 8th 2005, 09:55 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...78&postcount=9
Does God Foreknow The Future?

Hey stupid. I hold the copyright.

July 9th 2005, 04:14 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=133
Submit Your Candidates for July Screwballs of the Month

You're funny. Anyone who compares what you write to what I write will know that you're a joke.

July 24th 2005, 05:37 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...0&postcount=31
Does God Foreknow The Future?

Well then, by what you have said I'll give you an Ad Hominem attack and be done with you.

You're an idiot!

July 25th 2005 , 04:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...60&postcount=1
Parting Thoughts From Doubting John

What I know is that you cannot defend Christianity, and I cannot make any headway with most of you.
You can die in your delusions if you want to, it won’t make a difference to me at all.

June 19th, 2005, 07:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=103
Re: Visions vs. Expectations: Holding's Argument
That's no reason to insult people who disagree with you.

June 19th, 2005, 07:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=103
Re: Visions vs. Expectations: Holding's Argument

Believe it or not, I am just as sincere as you are in trying to understand the meaning of existence (I'll bet I'm even more sincere than you are).

July 25th 2005, 04:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...60&postcount=1
Parting Thoughts From Doubting John

What I know is that you cannot defend Christianity, and I cannot make any headway with most of you.
You can die in your delusions if you want to, it won’t make a difference to me at all.

June 29th 2005, 08:29 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=56

But just to be sure. I'm beyond help. I've rejected Christianity, having been a former apologist for it with three masters degrees.

That's me when it comes to Christianity. I cannot bring myself to even entertain the idea anymore. It's simply an incorrect theological system, no matter who's doing the interpreting.

June 30th 2005, 02:50 AM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...4&postcount=60

You, your arguments, and your God are not worth my time anymore.

July 2nd 2005, 10:43 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...62&postcount=1
Does God Answer Prayer?

I noticed in the "Chaplain's Office" people are praying for my wife who has been diagnosed with cancer. Thank you very much for your concern, and I sure would like to think it can help, but I really don't think so.
My contention here that the promise of answered prayer “dies the death of a thousand qualifications,” so to speak. There is no reason to think that God, if he exists, will answer our requests.

June 19th, 2005, 07:39 AM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=103
Re: Visions vs. Expectations: Holding's Argument

I would settle for an answer that clearly wins out in the marketplace of ideas. But there isn't one

June 13th 2005, 06:51 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8&postcount=80
Is there such a thing as an honest doubter?
I, however, and [sic] an honest man, and an honest doubter.

Originally posted by Tophet

The definition given here is virtually the same as the one I gave.

All right, let’s go with that:

“One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting).

Did JP make an argument against DJ’s ideas? Yes, he did. Therefore, no ad hominem.

What if I admit to being wrong about it? Huh? I'm sorry. Is that okay with you? HUH? IS THAT OKAY?

So you're not denying that he insulted J.P? You're defending the insulting? Figures.

“Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument.”

Did JP make a rational evaluation of DJ’s accusation? Yes. Therefore, no ad hominem.

What about the insults? I bet you just love insults, don't you? As long as a Christian insults an atheist but heaven forbid an atheist should insult a Christian

DJ made himself look foolish with his own unsupported accusation. That was an ad hominem.

Except that in the example you gave, DJ made himself look foolish by falsely accusing JP, thusly:

But does that excuse insults?

Because, if you were calm and thinking clearly, you would realize that DJ was falsely accusing JP. JP was defending himself.

I see. I am not as clearly thinking as you are. I guess I am to conclude that you are some hyper-intellectual and I am just a moron compared to you. I guess, then, that you might also conclude that atheists are just not as clearly thinking as Christians like yourself are!

How was DJ falsely accusing J.P?

So why do you not chastize DJ for falsely accusing JP?

What did he false accuse JP of?

Are you going to sit by idly and let DJ insult people? I notice you didn’t chastize him for falsely accusing JP in this instance.

What did he falsely accuse JP of?

I try and chastize everyone for insults. But even if DJ insulted people and threw the first stone, why does anyone have to sink to that kind of level.

Matthew, in the "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" thread, DJ by default and de facto made the following concessions:

He conceded that he is a prevaricator.
He conceded that he is a hypocrite.
He conceded that he is a coward.
He conceded that he is ignorant about Christianity.
He conceded that he is mentally deficient.
He conceded that he blames other people for his own failures.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

DJ demonstrates every one of these points in that thread.

I will have to reread what he has written. No doubt you'll probably love to villify him. Villify anyone who is not a Christian, right?

To paraphrase a certain Jedi Knight, who’s the more foolish, the fool or the one who follows the fool?

Insults. How Christian of you.

Except when you personally attack JP?

Where did I attack him, brainiac? I asked him to stop with the insults!

I see. So I should sit idly by and let you accuse and unfairly admonish JP. Nice.

In a personal matter such as this, why don’t you exchange your grievances by PM instead of airing them in public?

I didn't 'accuse' and 'unfairly admonish J.P.' I simply criticised him for the insults! There is a difference. As for more unsolicited advice, let me throw some back to you, pal...

Why don't you go rot in the same hell that you're trying to save others from? It grieves me that there are ARROGANT Christians like you on this planet. Sometimes I think that if there was an eternity, I would rather spend it with folks like Joseph Stalin than the likes of you.

Matthew

Hiya, Matthew,

Originally posted by Matthew

I apologize if I am wrong about ad hominems. I go by the definition that I read here

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/grap...dhom/adhom.html

Originally posted by Tophet

The definition given here is virtually the same as the one I gave.

All right, let’s go with that:

“One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting).
Did JP make an argument against DJ’s ideas? Yes, he did. Therefore, no ad hominem.

Originally posted by Matthew

What if I admit to being wrong about it? Huh? I'm sorry. Is that okay with you? HUH? IS THAT OKAY?

Sure. Just as long as you’re sincere. You are sincere, aren’t you?

Originally posted by Matthew

So you're not denying that he insulted J.P?

I’m not denying he insulted JP. He did insult JP.

Originally posted by Matthew

You're defending the insulting?

In the example you gave, I am defending the one who was insulted. It is you who are ignoring the insulting by DJ.

Originally posted by Matthew

Figures.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Tophet

“Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument.”

Did JP make a rational evaluation of DJ’s accusation? Yes. Therefore, no ad hominem.

DJ made himself look foolish with his own unsupported accusation. That was an ad hominem.

Originally posted by Matthew

What about the insults?

What about them?

Originally posted by Matthew

I bet you just love insults, don't you?

Don Rickles is pretty funny, isn’t he?

Originally posted by Matthew

As long as a Christian insults an atheist but heaven forbid an atheist should insult a Christian.

So, are you going to tell DJ to apologize for all the insults against those who disagree with him?

Originally posted by Tophet

DJ made himself look foolish with his own unsupported accusation. That was an ad hominem.

Except that in the example you gave, DJ made himself look foolish by falsely accusing JP, thusly:

Originally posted by Matthew

But does that excuse insults?

DJ insulted himself with his own false accusation.

Originally posted by Tophet

Because, if you were calm and thinking clearly, you would realize that DJ was falsely accusing JP. JP was defending himself.

Originally posted by Matthew

I see. I am not as clearly thinking as you are.

Do you believe jumping to the wrong conclusion is an example of clear thinking?

Originally posted by Matthew

I guess I am to conclude that you are some hyper-intellectual and I am just a moron compared to you.

A responsible historian considers the data before drawing a conclusion. Are you drawing a conclusion without considering the data?

Originally posted by Matthew

I guess, then, that you might also conclude that atheists are just not as clearly thinking as Christians like yourself are!

That is your guess, which means it’s an unsupported assertion.

Originally posted by Matthew

How was DJ falsely accusing J.P?

See below.

Originally posted by Tophet

So why do you not chastize DJ for falsely accusing JP?

Originally posted by Matthew

What did he false accuse JP of?

See below.

Originally posted by Tophet

Are you going to sit by idly and let DJ insult people? I notice you didn’t chastize him for falsely accusing JP in this instance.

Originally posted by Matthew

What did he falsely accuse JP of?

I told you in post #104, which means you weren’t paying attention. Please pay attention this time.

Originally posted by Tophet

Except that in the example you gave, DJ made himself look foolish by falsely accusing JP, thusly:

Quote: Originally posted by Doubting John
Naw..you seem to think it's better not to disagree with a fellow believer in public.

Because, if you were calm and thinking clearly, you would realize that DJ was falsely accusing JP. JP was defending himself.

Quote: Originally posted by jpholding
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...50&postcount=69
I've reamed several believers here: Crusader and GreatWhiteHype2 come to mind offhand. I even challenged the latter to a debate in which I would play the role of an atheist.

Originally posted by Matthew

I try and chastize everyone for insults.

Except in this case.

Originally posted by Matthew

But even if DJ insulted people and threw the first stone, why does anyone have to sink to that kind of level.

Probably for the same reason you do, as your post demonstrates.

Originally posted by Tophet

Matthew, in the "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" thread, DJ by default and de facto made the following concessions:

He conceded that he is a prevaricator.
He conceded that he is a hypocrite.
He conceded that he is a coward.
He conceded that he is ignorant about Christianity.
He conceded that he is mentally deficient.
He conceded that he blames other people for his own failures.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
He conceded that he engages in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

DJ demonstrates every one of these points in that thread.

Originally posted by Matthew

I will have to reread what he has written. No doubt you'll probably love to villify him.

That’s “vilify.” And actually, if you read his statements, he vilifies himself.

Originally posted by Matthew

Villify anyone who is not a Christian, right?

Wrong.

Originally posted by Tophet

To paraphrase a certain Jedi Knight, who’s the more foolish, the fool or the one who follows the fool?

Originally posted by Matthew

Insults.

Not at all. It’s just admonishment for you not to ally yourself with someone with a demonstrated lack of integrity and fraudulent behavior.

Just so we’re clear:
ad•mon•ish
1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

If you knew someone who was being bamboozled, wouldn’t you warn them?

You see, Matthew, if you were calm, you wouldn’t be so quick to misjudge.

No, I have not insulted you. That is a false accusation.

Originally posted by Matthew

How Christian of you.

You mean it’s not Christian to warn people away from frauds?

Originally posted by Tophet

Except when you personally attack JP?

Originally posted by Matthew

Where did I attack him, brainiac?

Right here:

Originally posted by Matthew

June 17th 2006 , 11:03 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=98
This is a mean ad hominem and you know it!

With the example you gave, you assaulted his integrity with this false accusation. We have established that it was not an ad hominem, and you apologized for it.

Originally posted by Matthew

I asked him to stop with the insults!

Yes, you did. Now, why don’t you stop with the insults?

Originally posted by Tophet

I see. So I should sit idly by and let you accuse and unfairly admonish JP. Nice.

In a personal matter such as this, why don’t you exchange your grievances by PM instead of airing them in public?

You didn’t answer this question. Why?

Originally posted by Matthew

I didn't 'accuse' and 'unfairly admonish J.P.'

Yes, you did. Read this carefully:

Originally posted by Matthew

June 17th 2006 , 11:03 PM http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=98
This is a mean ad hominemand you know it!

With the example you gave, you assaulted his integrity with this false accusation. We have established that it was not an ad hominem, and you apologized for it. That was a sincere apology, wasn’t it?

Originally posted by Matthew

I simply criticised him for the insults!

That, too.

Originally posted by Matthew

There is a difference.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Matthew

As for more unsolicited advice, let me throw some back to you, pal...

Why don't you go rot in the same hell that you're trying to save others from? It grieves me that there are ARROGANT Christians like you on this planet. Sometimes I think that if there was an eternity, I would rather spend it with folks like Joseph Stalin than the likes of you.

Yes, yes, your hatred is noted. I thought you didn’t believe in insults? Why condemn people for their behavior when you don’t abide by your own standard?

On the other hand, I wish you well.

Peace.

Matthew, it's called poisoning the well. There are people on the web who feel their job is to poison the well, so to speak. They berate and pick and insult and quote us out of context in order to get a rise out of us. When we respond because they have finally irritated us to that point, they take a snapshot and post it for everyone to see. It's their mission, since they cannot deal directly with what we have to say. Those who are stupid enough to look at the snapshot and conclude that this is who we are, can then ignore what we say. It's a convienent informal-fallacy-based apologetical device used against anyone who threatens them. So, our choice is to tolerate their treatment of us and to respond kindly to anything they throw at us, which is a real feat in and of itself, or for them to take that snapshot of us when we are upset at them for treating us like dirt. Me? No one treats me like dirt. I respect myself too much. Hence, you see the snapshots that they have of me. It's a win/win situation for them, so why should I care which side they win on? The problem is that only stupid people will believe them. Smarter people will sit up and take notice that the whole reason they do this is because such a person is 1) a threat, and 2) he has self-respect.

Originally posted by Doubting John

It's their mission, since they cannot deal directly with what we have to say

Y'mean like *I* did before you got mad at me?

To this day I still have detailed fact-refutations of your book posted. And still you repeat the same lines as though it's never been answered or as though the argument has never been addressed.

Why doesn't your blog entry address the works of scholars like Longenecker and Hays, who have long since shown that such arguments -- which haven't changed since Paine -- are ridiculous?

Originally posted by jpholding

Y'mean like *I* did before you got mad at me?

To this day I still have detailed fact-refutations of your book posted. And still you repeat the same lines as though it's never been answered or as though the argument has never been addressed.

Why doesn't your blog entry address the works of scholars like Longenecker and Hays, who have long since shown that such arguments -- which haven't changed since Paine -- are ridiculous?

As Ron Reagon would say, "There you go again." In the first place, you have not refuted my book. Say all you want to, but you have not done so. In the second place the arguments are not ridiculous.

You still fail to realize that what we're dealing with are control beliefs. They control what we see. You think evidence is all that is needed, and that intelligence will lead someone to see the same things that you see. But from the perspective of most all philosophically trained people THAT viewpoint is truly ridiculous.

My cumulative case arguments are to help the reader see things differently. There is no single piece of evidence or lone argument that will cause someone to change their control beliefs, because evidence is always interpreted by our control beliefs. Control beliefs must come crashing down all together or not at all. Control beliefs cause us to accept problematic conclusions in some areas because the sum total of what we believe has fewer problems than the alternative way of viewing things. I try to share why I see things differently than you, and you do likewise with me. But it's all with the seeing. It's not about intelligence or education. It's about seeing. And any philosophically trained person knows this. You don't.

That is why I trashed you towards the tail end of the "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious" thread, and yet you continued to believe in Christianity. I could call you stupid and your arguments ridiculous, but for you my points are small problems within the total sum of what you believe. I could do the same with my arguments on the problem of evil in the debate I had with ApologiaNick, but that too may be a small problem in your set of control beliefs. A cumulative case is one where the weight of the sum total of arguments just all of a sudden topples your previous set of control beliefs. In fact, if you just tried it, you know our arguments quite well already. You could envision what it would be like to change your mind right now. You can picture what it's like to argue against Christianity. You know the arguments fairly well. You could play the Devil's Advocate, so to speak, and argue against the Christian faith. You can see it, can't you? If you tried. Go ahead. Picture it. It's not hard to see things differently. But most Christians won't even try, because they are afraid. Fear. That's right. They are fearful to explore, in a more or less even handed way, the truth unencumbered with previous fears. They are afraid of God's wrath. So they prefer to stick to defending what they have come to believe, even though what they are defending today was adopted long before they had much information about why they believe.