What is an ad hominem?

[_Jersey Girl]

Ok...but you cried ad hom when asked to provide some information which you did not on the evidence thread...

How was the request for quotes from that list you posted on the other thread an ad hom? Perhaps you can get me to see. I ask you, because I have faith you won't post a nine-page thread spanning over three weeks on the issue. I have faith that you can get to the point, and quickly.

Nope I didn't. I cried ad hominem when Jersey Girl started saying I had no idea what I was talking about and I got my list from a skeptic cite (which by the way is far from the truth, if I was relying on skeptic sites I would have been more detailed, I was relying on personal knowledge)


And.... 1. Jersey Girl was derailing the thread, 2. Didn't argue the point, only that my scholarship was flawed (?)

Well hello again,GoodK. The thread was not derailed. You raised the issue of contradictions from page 2, I believe, and continued to bring it up on the thread. That there are contradictions in the New Testament was in no way established by you and until such time as it is, you can expect people to challenge your assertion.

The truth is that you do not engage the material presented to you. I need only point to your cavalier dismissals of what Nevo has presented to you. Nevo, is the most highly respected LDS poster I've ever seen online. He has the respect of both believers and non-believers. Your ignoring of the material he presented to you is a fine study in disingenuity on your part.

Your repeated assertions that I irrationally defend the Bible or reverence the Bible are evidence that you have no idea who you're engaged with here. I've engaged in online discussion for more than 8 years and you base your assertions on one thread with which you are familiar. FYI: I've engaged both positive and negative positions regarding the Bible and often on the same topic. Do you know how much I reverance the Bible? Tell us what your evidence is for that, Goodk. And when you're done with that, be good enough to tell me what my view of the Bible is.

Your entire participation on the Evidence for Jesus thread, largely consists of evasions and misdirections. I have yet to see you directly respond to one question or request. Instead, you choose to make off hand comments, ask for the thread to be split, a new thread to be created, talk about some other thread, make comparisions between posters...anything but answer on point.

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

[_marg]

Jersey Girl wrote:
"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

Okay this is ad hominal, the implication is that GoodK is not able to think, is accepting source material uncritically and therefore whatever GoodK argues should be dismissed. This is an attack on the person and has nothing to do with refuting or attacking the logic of GoodK's argument. Has it been established that all skeptic sites are a poor source for information? Has Jersey Girl even established that all GoodK ever does is argue from skeptic sites?

in my opinion the attack is fallacious. Even if GoodK got material from skeptic sites, that doesn't mean anything he/she has argued is unwarranted. Jersey Girl's argument is basically that what GoodK says should be ignored, we shouldn't listen to the argument because no matter what it isn't her/his own thinking. She is also letting it be known she is presupposing the argument GoodK is going to make, without it first being made.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl wrote:
"I can already tell from your posts that you rely on skeptic sites and have not engaged the material yourself. I've been engaging and engaged by skeptics for years and I know exactly what you're going to present to me before you present it.

The question here is not whether or not I "know this stuff" the question is whether or not you are willing to support your regurgitations of the skeptic material that is the basis for your unsupported assertions."

Okay this is ad hominal, the implication is that GoodK is not able to think, is accepting source material uncritically and therefore whatever GoodK argues should be dismissed. This is an attack on the person and has nothing to do with refuting or attacking the logic of GoodK's argument. Has it been established that all skeptic sites are a poor source for information? Has Jersey Girl even established that all GoodK ever does is argue from skeptic sites?

in my opinion the attack is fallacious. Even if GoodK got material from skeptic sites, that doesn't mean anything he/she has argued is unwarranted. Jersey Girl's argument is basically that what GoodK says should be ignored, we shouldn't listen to the argument because no matter what it isn't her/his own thinking. She is also letting it be known she is presupposing the argument GoodK is going to make, without it first being made.

The question was one of failure to support his assertions. To date, he has not done so. I cannot presuppose an argument that has never materialized. If you feel otherwise, I'd like a link to either the support or the argument.

Just as an aside, I didn't forget about a response to you on the evidence thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

I'd like to read your analysis of this post from GoodK:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=138316#138316

[_marg]

The question was one of failure to support his assertions. To date, he has not done so. I cannot presuppose an argument that has never materialized. If you feel otherwise, I'd like a link to either the support or the argument.

Just as an aside, I didn't forget about a response to you on the evidence thread.

First a question: Are you arguing that the Gospels contain no contradictions? Because that's a new one to me. As far as I know it is well established there are contradictions. So if something is well established, there is little need for them to go into great detail laying it out for you. While you might like someone to do that, it is time consuming on their part. Now if you disagree and say there are no contradictions in the Gospels, then I can see expecting someone to present them. In addition, while you may wish to focus on contradictions as being critical to GoodK's argument he/she has pointed out it isn't.

Now I believe GoodK has quoted Ehrman on contradictions and linked to a site with a debate between W. Craig and Ehrman on this, but I'm not 100 percent sure if Ehrman specifically mentions some but I believe he does.

[_marg]

marg,

I'd like to read your analysis of this post from GoodK:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=138316#138316

I believe I have addressed this already.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

I'd like to read your analysis of this post from GoodK:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=138316#138316

I believe I have addressed this already.

Okay, I'll go back through this thread more carefully. Thanks!

[_GoodK]

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

Are you really so illiterate? Go to page 2-4 of the thread you derailed and you will find the link.

[_Jersey Girl]

Your scholarship?

Please provide me with a link to your scholarship.

Are you really so illiterate? Go to page 2-4 of the thread you derailed and you will find the link.

What on earth are you talking about, GoodK?

Where does your "scholarship" appear in relation to my criticism?

[_marg]

What on earth are you talking about, GoodK?

Where does your "scholarship" appear in relation to my criticism?

Here is the link GoodK is referring to which addresses scholar Ehrman's comments on contradictions with examples. It's not from a skeptic site.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm