Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of ParaclitosLogos

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ParaclitosLogos

31
No, what you said is that I was prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that someone came back from the death, 2000 years ago, with out any evidence  that I have claimed to do so, nor that I a was prepared to do so.

But there is evidence that you've done so, since you've produced arguments favouring the Resurrection.

You have made assertions about my own psychology, and, have refused to properly appreciate my own testimony of it.

On the contrary, I've asked you for that "testimony", but you say it's none of my business!

You made an (incorrect) inference on the basis of my attempts to correct others from missunderstanding and missrepresenting the actual argument (just like you did by making it incorrectly to be a demonstration).

So now you're confirming that you don't endorse the relevant arguments? I thought it was none of my business!?

It has nothing to do with endorsing or not, even less to do so with your idiosincratic defnition of endorsing ( accept???)

And after explaining my position, you have simply not budged.


en·dorse
inˈdôrs,enˈdôrs/
verb
1.
declare one's public approval or support of

But you've not explained your position-in fact, you've flatly refused to-so your charge that I've misrepresented you remains unsubstantiated.

And, no, my definition of 'endorse' is not idiosyncratic. For example, here's the Oxford English Dictionary:

To confirm, sanction, countenance, or vouch for (statements, opinions, acts, etc.; occasionally, persons), as by an endorsement. .

I offered a more truncated definition, but then I didn't think I was performing an act of lexicography, but helping you to understand a word with which you were unfamiliar.




I explained what I was doing, already, with respect to the resurrection argument. If you are just going to ignore what I say about my own intentions, I have nothing else to say to you.


I gave my testimony on my position with detail, you simply ignored it.


I said "You made an (incorrect) inference on the basis of my attempts to correct others from missunderstanding and missrepresenting the actual argument (just like you did by making it incorrectly to be a demonstration)."

Where does it say that I don´t endorse the argument ? where does it say that I endorse it?
it doesn´t.

Here, I did explain my position:


..
On endorsing the argument. I have defended the argument, but mostly, from what I see as missunderstanding of it and missrepresentation of it. I haven´t ever claimed that I can infer that Jesus was, in fact,  raised from the dead. What I Have defended is that the form of the argument, given by Craig,  is one of a well put argument, and, that the inference, given the critically ascertained facts, is a good one.
...

I have not claimed publicly weather I can infer (to the best explanation), much less demonstrate , that a man was raised from the death 2000 years ago.

What I have done is discuss the correct form of the argument, its strengths within its own context.


I´m done with this.

32
Not that this would solve the many issues involved in interactions on the forum, but I find that sometimes it's good to step back from an issue and consider the importance of it. If in doing so I realize it's not that important I just overlook it and give the benefit of the doubt to the other person. Maybe not always, but sometimes I think it's the better strategy to let go of the more minor issues so that the more major issues can continue to be addressed.

Seems to me there will always be misunderstandings and even uncharitable comments. But in the interest of furthering discussion, which is what a forum is for, I think it's sometimes better to overlook such things as much as possible, unless of course it's not possible without curtailing further discussion of major issues. I'd say for the most part, though, that it's usually the better tactic to overlook such things. At least that's how it seems to me.

That´s all fine, but, that misses somewhat the point, which is not about how to handle personally better a discussion between people who can´t simply agree, but thanks.

33

You said, I am prepared to declare such and such.

Ok, you did an inference, but, I explained to you what is my position, which is nuanced, and, that I have in fact not made such claims  a relevant nor consistent part of my exchanges, here, and instead of correcting your position, you have insisted on it, with out providing a shread of evidence.

It is a non sequitur to state that if I am not prepared to say wether I endorse , or not, such and such, you have not missrepresented me.

You need to provide the evidence for your claim, that I am prepared to do such declaration.

Like I said: I simply assumed (not unreasonably, I think) that you endorsed the arguments you were presenting. If I'm wrong about that, then correct me, and I will be happy to withdraw the claim you refer to and accept that I misrepresented you (albeit accidentally, and for understandable reasons).

If you aren't prepared to correct me, and instead wish to keep your endorsement (or not) of these arguments to yourself (on the puzzling basis that, in your view, it's no one else's business), then I'm happy to do neither.

You have already missrepresented me.

Since you have no evidence I have made such declarations nor that I am prepared to do so.

Furthermore, after I corrected you and made explicit my view, and, what I have done in respect to the argument, you further press me on a matter that is none of your business.


Bad form, you are just trolling at this point.

It's unfortunate you're reverting to accusing me of trolling, when it must be obvious to you at this point (as it should have been originally) that that accusation is just false. You should cultivate a willingness to accept that you and I may disagree on something, and irreconcilably, without inferring that I must be acting in bad faith when we do so. This is a courtesy I have always extended to you; I ask, yet again, that you extend it to me.

To make the point once more: since you've articulated such Resurrection arguments in the past, it was reasonable to assume that in articulating them you were endorsing them. I've only misrepresented you on this point if, contrary to appearances, you in fact don't endorse them.

I've invited you to clarify this (not "pressed" you), and offered to withdraw my claim that you endorse such arguments, and therefore to admit to having misrepresented you, if it turns out you don't endorse them after all. But you're flatly refusing to say whether this is the case, declaring, bizarrely, that it's none of my business. If you really think so, and wish to plead the fifth, it's your right to do so. But then, equally, you've no business in accusing me of misrepresentation, for that is a charge you cannot sustain.


You stated that I am prepared to do something (to declare) I have explicitely denied to have done , nor you have evidence that is the case that I am prepared to do, so, and, still have not done so, specially, after I have just explained, to you,  what is my view and how I have presented it, here.

It is incoherent, that in fact,  I have not made such claims, nor expressed  being prepared to do so, and I have further explained, in some detail,  the extent of my involvement in the matter, in these forums, and still, you sustain you are correct in representing my position contradicting these facts.

It´s hard for me to think you are not acting in bad faith, when you are defending such an incoherent position.
You are making claims about my own psychology, whilst, I am denying they are true, while not having any real evidence your claim is correct.

It´s also a non-sequitur that if I accept the  argument´s conclusion, on the basis of it, personally, it follows you have not missrepresented me, but, even if that was the case, you don´t even know this, because, this is something I haven´t made part of my exchanges, on the subject. I have always been interested in people understanding what the arguments are, not in making claims of what I can infer or prove to others. The only other interest I have on these matters is honing my own understanding.

This is quite a prolix response, but seems not to interact with my previous post. I'll try to put it another way:

You've accused me of misrepresenting you, because I've assumed (fairly, I think, even if incorrectly) that you endorse the Resurrection arguments you've articulated here. That implies that you don't endorse them, and that I was mistaken in making this assumption. But when I ask you to confirm this implication, you refuse to do so, and say it's none of my business.

Can you see why I might therefore not agree that I've misrepresented you?

Talk about not interacting with other´s posts.

No, what you said is that I was prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that someone came back from the death, 2000 years ago, with out any evidence  that I have claimed to do so, nor that I a was prepared to do so.

You have made assertions about my own psychology, and, have refused to properly appreciate my own testimony of it.

You made an (incorrect) inference on the basis of my attempts to correct others from missunderstanding and missrepresenting the actual argument (just like you did by making it incorrectly to be a demonstration).


It has nothing to do with endorsing or not, even less to do so with your idiosincratic defnition of endorsing ( accept???)

And after explaining my position, you have simply not budged.


en·dorse
inˈdôrs,enˈdôrs/
verb
1.
declare one's public approval or support of


I have made no public declarations of approval  that I can infer to the best explanation  (much less demonstrate) that someone was raised from the death , 2000 years ago, nor that I am prepared to declare so.


34

You said, I am prepared to declare such and such.

Ok, you did an inference, but, I explained to you what is my position, which is nuanced, and, that I have in fact not made such claims  a relevant nor consistent part of my exchanges, here, and instead of correcting your position, you have insisted on it, with out providing a shread of evidence.

It is a non sequitur to state that if I am not prepared to say wether I endorse , or not, such and such, you have not missrepresented me.

You need to provide the evidence for your claim, that I am prepared to do such declaration.

Like I said: I simply assumed (not unreasonably, I think) that you endorsed the arguments you were presenting. If I'm wrong about that, then correct me, and I will be happy to withdraw the claim you refer to and accept that I misrepresented you (albeit accidentally, and for understandable reasons).

If you aren't prepared to correct me, and instead wish to keep your endorsement (or not) of these arguments to yourself (on the puzzling basis that, in your view, it's no one else's business), then I'm happy to do neither.

You have already missrepresented me.

Since you have no evidence I have made such declarations nor that I am prepared to do so.

Furthermore, after I corrected you and made explicit my view, and, what I have done in respect to the argument, you further press me on a matter that is none of your business.


Bad form, you are just trolling at this point.

It's unfortunate you're reverting to accusing me of trolling, when it must be obvious to you at this point (as it should have been originally) that that accusation is just false. You should cultivate a willingness to accept that you and I may disagree on something, and irreconcilably, without inferring that I must be acting in bad faith when we do so. This is a courtesy I have always extended to you; I ask, yet again, that you extend it to me.

To make the point once more: since you've articulated such Resurrection arguments in the past, it was reasonable to assume that in articulating them you were endorsing them. I've only misrepresented you on this point if, contrary to appearances, you in fact don't endorse them.

I've invited you to clarify this (not "pressed" you), and offered to withdraw my claim that you endorse such arguments, and therefore to admit to having misrepresented you, if it turns out you don't endorse them after all. But you're flatly refusing to say whether this is the case, declaring, bizarrely, that it's none of my business. If you really think so, and wish to plead the fifth, it's your right to do so. But then, equally, you've no business in accusing me of misrepresentation, for that is a charge you cannot sustain.


You stated that I am prepared to do something (to declare) I have explicitely denied to have done , nor you have evidence that is the case that I am prepared to do, so, and, still have not done so, specially, after I have just explained, to you,  what is my view and how I have presented it, here.

It is incoherent, that in fact,  I have not made such claims, nor expressed  being prepared to do so, and I have further explained, in some detail,  the extent of my involvement in the matter, in these forums, and still, you sustain you are correct in representing my position contradicting these facts.

It´s hard for me to think you are not acting in bad faith, when you are defending such an incoherent position.
You are making claims about my own psychology, whilst, I am denying they are true, while not having any real evidence your claim is correct.

It´s also a non-sequitur that if I accept the  argument´s conclusion, on the basis of it, personally, it follows you have not missrepresented me, but, even if that was the case, you don´t even know this, because, this is something I haven´t made part of my exchanges, on the subject. I have always been interested in people understanding what the arguments are, not in making claims of what I can infer or prove to others. The only other interest I have on these matters is honing my own understanding.




PS: Notice, that I haven´t insisted on the charge of fallacy from incredulity. The only reason I have not done so, it´s because, you said you did not mean to argue that the IBE is not doable, based on your incredulity. I could have gone your route and insisted that´s what you wrote, and probably meant. But, I did not, only because you said you didn´t. See? I am conceding you a courtesy you are not conceding back to me, namely, that plausibly you are in possession of your own mental states and you are not being dishonest about them.

35

Yes, they are accurate. I've put thought into them, to identify the problems with eloquence and care for proper discourse. The internet is full of rotten leaves, I aim to arrive with a skimmer.

The salutations I've received for drawing attention to them outnumber the bitter, disparaging responses by over a dozen. This suggests it has positive effect. Whilst you seem to become ever more bitter and jealous towards me.


Yes, I think you're jealous towards myself and other theist posters, because we don't let you get away with your game. You see an educated, intelligent, well read interlocuter who doesn't keel over and die at the first sign of resistance. I suspect the rigor and depth which we can add, suggests theism is a plausible and intellectual position for the thinking man, and this fills you with an intolerable dread and phobia.


I've seen it before, many times. You're not the first, by any means. I've encountered many an atheist who windmilled helplessly against me intellectually, and henceforth set out on a crusade to destroy me through any means necessary. One of them even followed me to this forum.

Well this is... delusional.

Like, seriously delusional.  I've always thought Craig's presentation had a bit of a "we're more intellectually sophisticated than you" vibe to it, which has negative effects on his fans.  But this is another level.

How on Earth did you get this conceited?  Is it insecurity?  Do you really think the virtual high fives you get from other bigots actually means you're intelligent and achieving something?

Seriously, how does someone who claims to follow a man who preached humility wind up with an ego like this?

These are hefty words, Crash.

Though, I already disagree with your 1st comment, I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Can you show some quotes of posts from Lucious where he is being a bigot? and what other bigots are you referring to?

Remember you are an athiest accusing others of bigotry, including Craig, I am supposing? you need to show some evidence, otherwise, you are just harrasing and insulting others, and, you are an atheist.


36

You said, I am prepared to declare such and such.

Ok, you did an inference, but, I explained to you what is my position, which is nuanced, and, that I have in fact not made such claims  a relevant nor consistent part of my exchanges, here, and instead of correcting your position, you have insisted on it, with out providing a shread of evidence.

It is a non sequitur to state that if I am not prepared to say wether I endorse , or not, such and such, you have not missrepresented me.

You need to provide the evidence for your claim, that I am prepared to do such declaration.

Like I said: I simply assumed (not unreasonably, I think) that you endorsed the arguments you were presenting. If I'm wrong about that, then correct me, and I will be happy to withdraw the claim you refer to and accept that I misrepresented you (albeit accidentally, and for understandable reasons).

If you aren't prepared to correct me, and instead wish to keep your endorsement (or not) of these arguments to yourself (on the puzzling basis that, in your view, it's no one else's business), then I'm happy to do neither.

You have already missrepresented me.

Since you have no evidence I have made such declarations nor that I am prepared to do so.

Furthermore, after I corrected you and made explicit my view, and, what I have done in respect to the argument, you further press me on a matter that is none of your business.


Bad form, you are just trolling at this point.

37

I haven´t read Lucious posts, except for some part of one of his recent exchanges with AiL, and I thought he was right on point on his remarks on the subject, in fact, I thanked him for it.

That´s the extent of what I can say from his posts, as I said , I hardly read theists.

I don´t particularly like doing psychology on others, as I don´t like others doing it, to me.

And being the case that issues with theists are being pointed out, I feel like I could point out some with atheists, but I won´t, because, it just seems to get back onto the same run of the mill.



38
Thanks for explaining.

I agree, you were expressing a particular instance of ignorance, and, agree I also follow under that critique, but, you were also expressing other critiques, as far as I can tell:

I will paraphrase you to explain what I was criticizing as fallacious:  <<It never ceases to amaze me that people will ...claim they can run an IBE for the conclusion that (you said "demonstrate that" ) someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago>>

This is what Dr. Craig and others claim, and, you seem to be objecting to this being doable on the basis of incredulity (it never ceases to amaze you). Perhaps, you did not mean people like Dr. Craig , Habermmas, Lycona, but you did say that you were talking about the wider problem.

No, I'm not suggesting it's not doable on the basis of incredulity. I'm suggesting that I find it remarkable that someone would try to 'do it' at all. I cannot help but feel this distinction is quite an obvious one.

That said, Why is it that people can not infer to the best explanation this? because they are routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period?  IBEs are defeasible by nature, and their stength depends on these consideratins, but, that does not mean people can not run them, they would have to have severe cognitive limitations not to be able to do so. That they are routinely ignorant of the basic historical background from the period, goes to their IBEs being weaker than they could be, but, that is no one else´s business, but the inferer.
You are given some facts, some  context, and their support by the application of certain criteria, and, the general agreement of many scholars, anyone can run an IBE.

OK. But who said otherwise?

I would agree it would be astonishing, and can typify the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance, if any of those people were indeed declaring they can demonstrate (not running an IBE on the basis of the scholarly supported and independently critically ascertained data) Jesus was raised from the dead, or not being historians purporting to write history on the basis of their personal IBEs.

To repeat what I said earlier: Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters...and would enable me to fairly make the same observation.

On endorsing the argument. I have defended the argument, but mostly, from what I see as missunderstanding of it and missrepresentation of it. I haven´t ever claimed that I can infer that Jesus was, in fact,  raised from the dead. What I Have defended is that the form of the argument, given by Craig is a well put argument, and, that the inference, given the critically ascertained facts, is a good one.


What I personally think of it, or do with it or not, I have kept it for myself, and for the  most part, it is no one else´s business.

If you aren't prepared to say whether you endorse the argument (this isn't the same as clarifying it, of course), then you're in no position to accuse me of misrepresenting you.


Ok, so you are not really saying it is not doable, what ever the distinction is or was, then, I´m fine with this.

Well, I'm implying it's not doable (after all, if I thought it was, I wouldn't be incredulous of attempts to do so). But I'm not suggesting that such attempts fail on the basis of my incredulity of them, for that would be absurd.


If I am not prepared to endorse the argument then you have missrepresented me, by stating that I am prepared to declare I can infer to the best explanation that Jesus was raised from the dead, two thousand years ago.

Besides, you are the one making claims about what I am preapred to declare, so where is the evidence of this?

Where is the quote where I have declared ( or  the evidence that I am prepared to do so) I can infer to the best explanation   that my particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago (whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course)) ?

You're not prepared to say whether or not you endorse the argument, so therefore you should not be prepared to say that I've misrepresented you, for that accusation is only true if you don't endorse the argument, so far as I can tell.

I simply assumed (not unreasonably, I think) that you endorsed the arguments you were presenting. If I'm mistaken about that, then feel free to correct me. Thus far, you have not, instead claiming "for the  most part, it is no one else´s business".

You said, I am prepared to declare such and such.

Ok, you did an inference, but, I explained to you what is my position, which is nuanced, and, that I have in fact not made such claims  a relevant nor consistent part of my exchanges, here, and instead of correcting your position, you have insisted on it, with out providing a shread of evidence.

It is a non sequitur to state that if I am not prepared to say wether I endorse , or not, such and such, you have not missrepresented me, by stating that I am prepared to do so, which is right down incoherent.

You need to provide the evidence for your claim, that I am prepared to do such declaration.


39
Thanks for explaining.

I agree, you were expressing a particular instance of ignorance, and, agree I also follow under that critique, but, you were also expressing other critiques, as far as I can tell:

I will paraphrase you to explain what I was criticizing as fallacious:  <<It never ceases to amaze me that people will ...claim they can run an IBE for the conclusion that (you said "demonstrate that" ) someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago>>

This is what Dr. Craig and others claim, and, you seem to be objecting to this being doable on the basis of incredulity (it never ceases to amaze you). Perhaps, you did not mean people like Dr. Craig , Habermmas, Lycona, but you did say that you were talking about the wider problem.

No, I'm not suggesting it's not doable on the basis of incredulity. I'm suggesting that I find it remarkable that someone would try to 'do it' at all. I cannot help but feel this distinction is quite an obvious one.

That said, Why is it that people can not infer to the best explanation this? because they are routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period?  IBEs are defeasible by nature, and their stength depends on these consideratins, but, that does not mean people can not run them, they would have to have severe cognitive limitations not to be able to do so. That they are routinely ignorant of the basic historical background from the period, goes to their IBEs being weaker than they could be, but, that is no one else´s business, but the inferer.
You are given some facts, some  context, and their support by the application of certain criteria, and, the general agreement of many scholars, anyone can run an IBE.

OK. But who said otherwise?

I would agree it would be astonishing, and can typify the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance, if any of those people were indeed declaring they can demonstrate (not running an IBE on the basis of the scholarly supported and independently critically ascertained data) Jesus was raised from the dead, or not being historians purporting to write history on the basis of their personal IBEs.

To repeat what I said earlier: Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters...and would enable me to fairly make the same observation.

On endorsing the argument. I have defended the argument, but mostly, from what I see as missunderstanding of it and missrepresentation of it. I haven´t ever claimed that I can infer that Jesus was, in fact,  raised from the dead. What I Have defended is that the form of the argument, given by Craig is a well put argument, and, that the inference, given the critically ascertained facts, is a good one.


What I personally think of it, or do with it or not, I have kept it for myself, and for the  most part, it is no one else´s business.

If you aren't prepared to say whether you endorse the argument (this isn't the same as clarifying it, of course), then you're in no position to accuse me of misrepresenting you.


Ok, so you are not really saying it is not doable, what ever the distinction is or was, then, I´m fine with this.


If I am not prepared to endorse the argument then you have missrepresented me, by stating that I am prepared to declare I can infer to the best explanation that Jesus was raised from the dead, two thousand years ago.

Besides, you are the one making claims about what I am preapred to declare, so where is the evidence of this?

Where is the quote where I have declared ( or  the evidence that I am prepared to do so) I can infer to the best explanation   that my particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago (whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course)) ?




40


And, you are still missrepresenting me. I have never claimed that  I can abductively show (by running an inference to the best explanation that Jesus was raised from the death. What I have done consistently in the past is try to explain the argument run by Dr. Craig, different in key elements and similar to other´s arguments (e.g.  Habermas, Lycona).

I've only misrepresented you if you don't endorse the arguments vis-a-vis the Resurrection you've made in the past. Is that what I am to understand?

That said, you did run an argument from incredulity there, and now you are also running a genetic fallacy.

Quite false. I suggest you are not reading my posts with attention, whence:

The argument is not less because , people on RF are not historians, the argument is what it is, completely, independent of it, and, that is what you should be addressing.

In the post of mine you originally addressed, I was expressing a particular instance of ignorance which happens to amaze me; I continued to do so in my subsequent post, and expressed that it strikes me as problematic. I've offered no comment on the quality of the argument itself, though if you think I have been, this would explain your inaccurate accusations as regards arguments from incredulity and genetic fallacies.


I have an idea what endorse means, but, could you explain what exactly you mean by it?

That you accept, approve, vel sim that argument.

Also, I seem to be missing a recognition that your accusations of my having committed a 'genetic fallacy' and 'argument from incredulity' were incorrect, based as they were on an inaccurate reading of my posts, i.e. that they were commenting on the quality of the Resurrection argument per se.

I look forward to you withdrawing those accusations with the same haste with which you made them.


Thanks for explaining.

I agree, you were expressing a particular instance of ignorance, and, agree I also follow under that critique, but, you were also expressing other critiques, as far as I can tell:

I will paraphrase you to explain what I was criticizing as fallacious:  <<It never ceases to amaze me that people will ...claim they can run an IBE for the conclusion that (you said "demonstrate that" ) someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago>>

This is what Dr. Craig and others claim, and, you seem to be objecting to this being doable on the basis of incredulity (it never ceases to amaze you). Perhaps, you did not mean people like Dr. Craig , Habermmas, Lycona, but you did say that you were talking about the wider problem.


Also, you stated that "Folks, yourself included, are prepared to declare that they can demonstrate (or, in your case, 'infer to the best explanation') that their particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago, whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period "

As I said what I have done, consistently, is try to clarify and explain what the argument run by Dr. Craig actually is, I have not consistently claimed that I can infer to the best explanation that my particular hero or that Jesus was raised from the death.

That said, Why is it that people can not infer to the best explanation this? because they are routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period?  IBEs are defeasible by nature, and their stength depends on these consideratins, but, that does not mean people can not run them, they would have to have severe cognitive limitations not to be able to do so. That they are routinely ignorant of the basic historical background from the period, goes to their IBEs being weaker than they could be, but, that is no one else´s business, but the inferer.
You are given some facts, some  context, and their support by the application of certain criteria, and, the general agreement of many scholars, anyone can run an IBE.


I would agree it would be astonishing, and can typify the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance, if any of those people were indeed declaring they can demonstrate (not running an IBE on the basis of the scholarly supported and independently critically ascertained data) Jesus was raised from the dead, or not being historians purporting to write history on the basis of their personal IBEs.


On endorsing the argument. I have defended the argument, but mostly, from what I see as missunderstanding of it and missrepresentation of it. I haven´t ever claimed that I can infer that Jesus was, in fact,  raised from the dead. What I Have defended is that the form of the argument, given by Craig,  is one of a well put argument, and, that the inference, given the critically ascertained facts, is a good one.


What I personally think of it, or do with it or not, I have kept it for myself, and for the  most part, it is no one else´s business.

I´m more than happy to apologize if I have missread you, but, I don´t think I am too far from what you wrote.

41
OM clarified the actual format of the resurrection argument.  That "minimal facts" that pass historical criteria are considered as therefore warranted (including post-mortem appearances) and therefore the IBE part of the argument has to explain actual post-mortem experiences.  This explains why "alternative explanations" cited by Craig include the outlandish (like swoon theory and twin theory) rather than the much more prosaic "false account"

This is a good example of the wider problem of people not knowing how little they know. It never ceases to amaze me that people will not only claim they can demonstrate someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, but, implicitly, that they can do so whilst being unaware of who the emperor was at the time...


Talk about an example of people not knowing how little they know.

I have never claimed that I can demonstrate that Jesus  rose from the death 2000 years ago.

I have never, even, claimed that I can demonstrate that Jesus was risen from the death, 2000 years ago.

Nor that Dr. Craig can or does, such misrepresentation of what I have explained is not even close to the right understanding of it.

In fact, it couldn´t be the case that I have claimed a demonstration of any kind (with respect to this subject), since, I have explicitly said that the Resurrection argument defended by Dr. Craig is an inference to the best explanation, which is widely known to be based  on non-demonstrative reasoning  (a fact that seems to be ignored by some. An example of some not knowing how little they know?), that much I do know.

Since I am being referred to in the post that is being commented on, this seems to be a gross misrepresentation of what I have said or explained (not to mention my state of knowledge, or rather, the lack thereof), with respect to the subject.


Nor, do I know who (not me) has claimed that they can run the argument with or with out knowing that Tiberius Caesar was emperor at the time of the events.

Besides, arguments from incredulity are fallacious.


PS: On  a side note, I don´t remember everything I have said, but, I am quite certain I never said that those statements of observation , related to the resurrection historical case, that pass the historical criteria are warranted (or even taken to be so), which seems to be, yet,  another misrepresentation.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but rather making a general point. Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters (you're probably reading more into my "demonstrates" than is there), and would enable me to fairly make the same observation. Folks, yourself included, are prepared to declare that they can demonstrate (or, in your case, 'infer to the best explanation') that their particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago, whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course!). That's astonishing, and typifies the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance.

Rather than responding reflexively (e.g. by suggesting that by making such an observation I must be betraying similar ignorance, or that in doing so I am making an "argument from incredulity"), it may be advisable to give careful consideration to whether there's something to what I've said.

And, you are still missrepresenting me. I have never claimed that  I can abductively show (by running an inference to the best explanation that Jesus was raised from the death. What I have done consistently in the past is try to explain the argument run by Dr. Craig, different in key elements and similar to other´s arguments (e.g.  Habermas, Lycona).

I've only misrepresented you if you don't endorse the arguments vis-a-vis the Resurrection you've made in the past. Is that what I am to understand?

That said, you did run an argument from incredulity there, and now you are also running a genetic fallacy.

Quite false. I suggest you are not reading my posts with attention, whence:

The argument is not less because , people on RF are not historians, the argument is what it is, completely, independent of it, and, that is what you should be addressing.

In the post of mine you originally addressed, I was expressing a particular instance of ignorance which happens to amaze me; I continued to do so in my subsequent post, and expressed that it strikes me as problematic. I've offered no comment on the quality of the argument itself, though if you think I have been, this would explain your inaccurate accusations as regards arguments from incredulity and genetic fallacies.


I have an idea what endorse means, but, could you explain what exactly you mean by it?

42
On the topic of the thread, I don't think this forum started without hope.  There are intelligent and knowledgeable posters here, and there were quite a lot back in the day.

The problem, in my opinion, was the steady growth in "Let's bash the other side" threads.  They're unirenic, have little if anything to do with philosophy, lead to negative feeling on the board, and just cause arguments.

While it would be useful to take the "Let's all agree to stop doing this" line, as it's nice and reconciliatory, a big problem with trying this is that this phenomenon has become almost exclusively a theist issue.  We don't see "Why do theists always do 'tactic X'?" or "Why are theists so Y?" threads.  We don't even often see threads picking on people like Hovind or Stein or Comfort started by atheists (unlike the constant Dawkins bashing threads).

What makes this even worse is that not only are these threads not called out by other theists, but a small group of theists actively encourage them, and the theists that don't are either posting much less or have left entirely.

Again, this is not a "Theists" problem.  Back in the day we used to have really irenic and interesting conversations with Michael, or Archsage, or idunno, or Troy, or...  Even now, there are still some really intelligent and irenic theists here, but they're drowned out by the "Let's just blame everything one New Atheism" crowd.



And before anyone decides that accusing me of hypocrisy somehow makes what I just said untrue:

1) I'm not a hypocrite.  I don't start theist bashing threads, and I don't negatively generalise against theists.
2) I'm aware my posting style isn't as substantive or irenic as it used to be.


Thanks for attempting to address the OP.

At one time before, I did try to suggest that some years back RF was a better environment, that there were posters that offered higher quality of ideas and there was significantly less bashing, but, I seem to recall Harvey and yourself were not very much in agreement with my view.

I touch on this point, because, that plays a part in my view on the matter, at the moment.

So, you seem to be in more agreement with my previous view, that even if today things have gone down the sink, it was significantly better at some prior time.

My impression, so far, is that Harvey has somewhat the opposite opinion, that before it was not better, and that now is even better (... people are addressing the points, now, etc...)


I don´t know how terrible the theists are, for the most part, because, in general, I don´t read them, nor have exchanges with them.   


I tried as much as I could to make it a problem for everyone (in the OP), after all, we are all failing at mutually understanding each other, if I am right.


43
As to the conclusion of your OP.

You seem to be saying that the sword is mightier than the pen.

I don't know if you are correct.  I hope you aren't.  But either way, that won't be what determines my choice.


I don´t want to be correct. I´m not saying, though that the sword is mightier than the pen, but, I am saying, I had higher hopes when it comes to RF compared to most other social contexts, and yet, things do not look good,
so, if mutual understanding is not in sight, confrontation is, and then, it follows we should be preparing for the later, rather than trying to reach the former.

44
OM clarified the actual format of the resurrection argument.  That "minimal facts" that pass historical criteria are considered as therefore warranted (including post-mortem appearances) and therefore the IBE part of the argument has to explain actual post-mortem experiences.  This explains why "alternative explanations" cited by Craig include the outlandish (like swoon theory and twin theory) rather than the much more prosaic "false account"

This is a good example of the wider problem of people not knowing how little they know. It never ceases to amaze me that people will not only claim they can demonstrate someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, but, implicitly, that they can do so whilst being unaware of who the emperor was at the time...


Talk about an example of people not knowing how little they know.

I have never claimed that I can demonstrate that Jesus  rose from the death 2000 years ago.

I have never, even, claimed that I can demonstrate that Jesus was risen from the death, 2000 years ago.

Nor that Dr. Craig can or does, such misrepresentation of what I have explained is not even close to the right understanding of it.

In fact, it couldn´t be the case that I have claimed a demonstration of any kind (with respect to this subject), since, I have explicitly said that the Resurrection argument defended by Dr. Craig is an inference to the best explanation, which is widely known to be based  on non-demonstrative reasoning  (a fact that seems to be ignored by some. An example of some not knowing how little they know?), that much I do know.

Since I am being referred to in the post that is being commented on, this seems to be a gross misrepresentation of what I have said or explained (not to mention my state of knowledge, or rather, the lack thereof), with respect to the subject.


Nor, do I know who (not me) has claimed that they can run the argument with or with out knowing that Tiberius Caesar was emperor at the time of the events.

Besides, arguments from incredulity are fallacious.


PS: On  a side note, I don´t remember everything I have said, but, I am quite certain I never said that those statements of observation , related to the resurrection historical case, that pass the historical criteria are warranted (or even taken to be so), which seems to be, yet,  another misrepresentation.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but rather making a general point. Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters (you're probably reading more into my "demonstrates" than is there), and would enable me to fairly make the same observation. Folks, yourself included, are prepared to declare that they can demonstrate (or, in your case, 'infer to the best explanation') that their particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago, whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course!). That's astonishing, and typifies the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance.

Rather than responding reflexively (e.g. by suggesting that by making such an observation I must be betraying similar ignorance, or that in doing so I am making an "argument from incredulity"), it may be advisable to give careful consideration to whether there's something to what I've said.

I read exactly what you wrote, which was too much. And it was in answer to a post referecing what I have puportedly said in the past, so, I did feel the need to reply back.

And, you are still missrepresenting me. I have never claimed that  I can abductively show (by running an inference to the best explanation that Jesus was raised from the death. What I have done consistently in the past is try to explain the argument run by Dr. Craig, different in key elements and similar to other´s arguments (e.g.  Habermas, Lycona).

They are the historians and the scholars that claim to have enough support and understanding of the scholarly research to run such type of argument for that conclusion, for the most part, what I have tried to do here is do my best to clarify what the argument is, the best I can.

Sure, I can agree we (I do) lack important key knowledge of the time. Keep in mind, that some of us do our best to close that ignorance gap, constantly, the best we can.

That said, you did run an argument from incredulity there, and now you are also running a genetic fallacy.

The argument is not less because , people on RF are not historians, the argument is what it is, completely, independent of it, and, that is what you should be addressing.



PS: I don´t want to start a going back and forth with you, I am quite happy on you helping us deal with the more technichal matter of understanding historically the original language and the more.

45
You guys are all just trying to deflect the various debunkings of you guys' POVs with AD HOM threads like this.

Reported.

Ironic.

Nope. the OP is about the (my) conclusion, based on the experience gathered in this forum (mine) , that we Christians should be getting ready to kick ass, instead of  trying to communicate and reach mutual understanding, debunked or not.

That the whole arguing thing is merely good for time spending.

So far, I have just received more confirmatory evidence of the point of the OP, from the comments.

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 327