Zeitgeist?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Locked
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote: You have also proven to me, as well as a few others, that Christians behave EXACTLY like Mormons when their beliefs are held to the microscope.

I sincerely hope you can recognize these flaws.


Uh, GoodK?

Kevin's been around the boards for several years, and is well known as an LDS apologist.


Uh...You mean an internet discussion board apologist?


There really isn't much of any other kind when it comes to LDS apologists, but I digress.

Kevin's well known around these parts, was the point.


I would consider these guys a better form of LDS apologist:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/authors.php

Your point was I should know him? Or what? Confusing...
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote: You have also proven to me, as well as a few others, that Christians behave EXACTLY like Mormons when their beliefs are held to the microscope.

I sincerely hope you can recognize these flaws.


Uh, GoodK?

Kevin's been around the boards for several years, and is well known as an LDS apologist.


Uh...You mean an internet discussion board apologist?


There really isn't much of any other kind when it comes to LDS apologists, but I digress.

Kevin's well known around these parts, was the point.


I would consider these guys a better form of LDS apologist:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/authors.php

Your point was I should know him? Or what? Confusing...


http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/

My point was that saying, "You have also proven to me, as well as a few others, etc." Since Kevin is well known around these parts, I have to wonder who these "few others" are.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote: You have also proven to me, as well as a few others, that Christians behave EXACTLY like Mormons when their beliefs are held to the microscope.

I sincerely hope you can recognize these flaws.


Uh, GoodK?

Kevin's been around the boards for several years, and is well known as an LDS apologist.


Uh...You mean an internet discussion board apologist?


There really isn't much of any other kind when it comes to LDS apologists, but I digress.

Kevin's well known around these parts, was the point.


I would consider these guys a better form of LDS apologist:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/authors.php

Your point was I should know him? Or what? Confusing...


http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/

My point was that saying, "You have also proven to me, as well as a few others, etc." Since Kevin is well known around these parts, I have to wonder who these "few others" are.


Hmm... I don't know.

You were right, you did digress. < Insert confused smilie here. >
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Here's another link for you while you're trying to remedy being confused:

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/search/s ... SEARCH.y=0
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_Bryan Inks
_Emeritus
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by _Bryan Inks »

dartagnan wrote:No they don't. You have not refuted anything I have said. I said this wasn't biblical, and your own source agrees. Your source does not prove it was actually the original bibl;ical allegory either. Instead it relies on fellow atheist mythers whose expertise ranges from poetry and Hungarian basket weaving!!

Way to go BryanInks!

I'm sorry, but you don't really have much credibility with me.


And just who in the hell considers you credible?

For you to say this about me... well, I take it as a compliment the same way I would if charity said it.


Hey, raving asshole! All I said was that I found the sources they used with a single mouse click. I wasn't defending the information, I wasn't promoting the information. I was pointing out that the information your were bitching about not having access to was right f***ing there.

Don't bring me into your ePeen measuring contest with GoodK. And if you are going to, at least get your f***ing quotes right.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

the road to hana wrote:Here's another link for you while you're trying to remedy being confused:

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/search/s ... SEARCH.y=0


Still confused as to what your point is.
Starting to feel like some people argue just for the sake of arguing.
Still confused about why you think the Bible can be true and false at the same time...
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Hey, raving asshole! All I said was that I found the sources they used with a single mouse click.

No, that isn't all you said. Yous aid "the religion section was absolutely wonderful." You also said they "had their ducks in a row." You also suggested I had somehow overlooked something important when in fact I was right. Do you not understand what an original source document means?

When translations of any given ancient document is given in publication, the obligation is to disclose exactly what source ie being used. For example, when these idiots determine Horus was baptized, walked on water, etc., they had to have translated this from some ancient document.

Well, what is that document? They never say. Instead, we get a bunch of references to more atheist, anti-religion Christ mythers. I mean these idiots are so desperate that they're willing to call upon anyone, even knitting experts, to plea their case.

The reason they never provide the original source document is because they do not want you to verify their claims. Disclosing these things is a must. This is standard fare in scholarship, which is why these idiots are not considered reliable except among those who 1) have no apparent familiarity with scholarship and 2) aren't critically inclined. Enter people like you and GoodK.

And speaking of GoodK,
You've somehow managed to place me in the position of defending a movie I am not willing to defend.

No, you did that all by yourself.
I did, however, express disdain for your immediate dismissal of the entire movie based on one non-critical argument.

Based on one non-critical argument? Are you truly this dumb? I based it on several points of fact that contradict its claims. You can't deal with my argument, which is why you're ignoring my points. And there is nothing wrong in immediate dismissal. Wouldn't you immediately dismiss a two hour movie when its opening chapter argues that the world was flat, humans lived in the sun and the moon was made of cheese?

I base my dismissal on knowledge I have gained researching this issue over the years. You admittedly have no knowledge, so you have chosen to play it neutral. That is fine, except for the fact that your admitted ignorance puts you in no position to challenge my informed dismissal. You have no knowledge either way, so for you to "immediately dismiss" my dismissal without having engaged in any research whatsoever, makes you a hypocrite at best, and a complete fool at worst.
I also expressed my lack of confidence in the references you cited.

Your lack of confidence is due to a lack of knowledge. You are a know nothing on this issue. You've expressed no valuable opinion either way because you are not interested in researching things for yourself. But you don't like my opinion because, well, you just don't. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that you roundly reject opinions from people based on their religious affiliation (i.e. Baptists).
You, on the other hand, have proven you lack the skills to engage in debate with real intellectuals

Oh?

You mean like Evangelical scholars on scholarly e-lists, or like debating Daniel Peterson on Islam, or Bill Hamblin, or Brian Hauglid, or John Gee, or David Bokovoy on biblical issues? Some happen to think I can hold my own rather well among intellectuals.

Stop pretending to be something you're not. You don't even understand the fundamental tools necessary to debate successfully. Good grief, you throw out terms like non sequitur and straw man, when you obviously don't know what they mean. So go do yourself a favor, amateur.

Go earn your scars first, and then get back to me in ten years. Maybe then you'll have a track record worth comparing.
You have also proven to me, as well as a few others...

Oh, you want to make this a popularity contest. That's fine. But I seriously doubt a "few others" on this forum truly exist. I know the intellectual pulse of this forum fairly well, I should think.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

dartagnan wrote:
Hey, raving asshole! All I said was that I found the sources they used with a single mouse click.

No, that isn't all you said. Yous aid "the religion section was absolutely wonderful." You also said they "had their ducks in a row." You also suggested I had somehow overlooked something important when in fact I was right. Do you not understand what an original source document means?

When translations of any given ancient document is given in publication, the obligation is to disclose exactly what source ie being used. For example, when these idiots determine Horus was baptized, walked on water, etc., they had to have translated this from some ancient document.

Well, what is that document? They never say. Instead, we get a bunch of references to more atheist, anti-religion Christ mythers. I mean these idiots are so desperate that they're willing to call upon anyone, even knitting experts, to plea their case.

The reason they never provide the original source document is because they do not want you to verify their claims. Disclosing these things is a must. This is standard fare in scholarship, which is why these idiots are not considered reliable except among those who 1) have no apparent familiarity with scholarship and 2) aren't critically inclined. Enter people like you and GoodK.

And speaking of GoodK,
You've somehow managed to place me in the position of defending a movie I am not willing to defend.

No, you did that all by yourself.
I did, however, express disdain for your immediate dismissal of the entire movie based on one non-critical argument.

Based on one non-critical argument? Are you truly this dumb? I based it on several points of fact that contradict its claims. You can't deal with my argument, which is why you're ignoring my points. And there is nothing wrong in immediate dismissal. Wouldn't you immediately dismiss a two hour movie when its opening chapter argues that the world was flat, humans lived in the sun and the moon was made of cheese?

I base my dismissal on knowledge I have gained researching this issue over the years. You admittedly have no knowledge, so you have chosen to play it neutral. That is fine, except for the fact that your admitted ignorance puts you in no position to challenge my informed dismissal. You have no knowledge either way, so for you to "immediately dismiss" my dismissal without having engaged in any research whatsoever, makes you a hypocrite at best, and a complete fool at worst.
I also expressed my lack of confidence in the references you cited.

Your lack of confidence is due to a lack of knowledge. You are a know nothing on this issue. You've expressed no valuable opinion either way because you are not interested in researching things for yourself. But you don't like my opinion because, well, you just don't. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that you roundly reject opinions from people based on their religious affiliation (I.e. Baptists).
You, on the other hand, have proven you lack the skills to engage in debate with real intellectuals

Oh?

You mean like Evangelical scholars on scholarly e-lists, or like debating Daniel Peterson on Islam, or Bill Hamblin, or Brian Hauglid, or John Gee, or David Bokovoy on biblical issues? Some happen to think I can hold my own rather well among intellectuals.

Stop pretending to be something you're not. You don't even understand the fundamental tools necessary to debate successfully. Good grief, you throw out terms like non sequitur and straw man, when you obviously don't know what they mean. So go do yourself a favor, amateur.

Go earn your scars first, and then get back to me in ten years. Maybe then you'll have a track record worth comparing.
You have also proven to me, as well as a few others...

Oh, you want to make this a popularity contest. That's fine. But I seriously doubt a "few others" on this forum truly exist. I know the intellectual pulse of this forum fairly well, I should think.


Your spiteful, hostile, arrogant tone doesn't fool me, sir.

Scholarly e-lists? Good God man, are you proud of yourself?

Anyone with internet access can debate these men. As soon as you write something good enough to be published (in real life, not e-life) I might consider you worth my time.

You need to watch this and think about it carefully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jvfvY3G4ms
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

As soon as you write something good enough to be published (in real life, not e-life) I might consider you worth my time.

Then what, pray tell, would make you worth my time? Who are you to require publication status for all your debate opponents? Publication certainly didn't do much for the credibility of Acharya.

You're just a kid with ego issues. You remind me of this kid I knew who started his own form of Martail Arts. He said he was a blue belt.

You need to watch this and think about it carefully

So you admit being among the internet "youth". Cry me a river.

Incidentally, recently you got all over my case for "immediately dismissing" Zeitgeist. Last night I found the following from the secular web, written by an atheist:

" The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless. After all, a scholar who rarely cites a source isn't useful to have as a reference even if he is right."
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

dartagnan wrote:
As soon as you write something good enough to be published (in real life, not e-life) I might consider you worth my time.

Then what, pray tell, would make you worth my time? Who are you to require publication status for all your debate opponents? Publication certainly didn't do much for the credibility of Acharya.

You're just a kid with ego issues. You remind me of this kid I knew who started his own form of Martail Arts. He said he was a blue belt.

You need to watch this and think about it carefully

So you admit being among the internet "youth". Cry me a river.

Incidentally, recently you got all over my case for "immediately dismissing" Zeitgeist. Last night I found the following from the secular web, written by an atheist:

" The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless. After all, a scholar who rarely cites a source isn't useful to have as a reference even if he is right."


Is your avatar a picture of yourself? Are you taking the picture yourself?
Ego issues...
Locked