. I'm looking forward to seeing this unfold.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > The Peanut Gallery: Debate Comments |
| Posted by: Reach Feb 2 2005, 11:03 AM | ||
| Here's the spot to post your comments on this debate: http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2588 ...as posted from here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42470
|
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 2 2005, 11:35 AM |
| Well Rameus is a confidant bastard at least . I'm looking forward to seeing this unfold. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 2 2005, 12:43 PM |
| Ya know... I really love this stuff. I have to ask myself this: "Are we the only people who get to have fun?"  |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 2 2005, 12:52 PM | ||
Um... Why would you be? Merlin |
| Posted by: Madame M Feb 2 2005, 01:11 PM |
| I wish Holding had consented to the Christ Myth debate. I'm kind of worn out on the whole Josephus/Tacitus thing. I'm not surprised he didn't, though. Josephus is a fairly safe area. If it gets debunked, it doesn't affect his faith any. Josephus isn't scripture. Yet, if Holding ended up unable to disprove Rameus' assertations that Christ was a myth, his faith structure, and those of his readers would crumble. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 2 2005, 01:23 PM |
| Amazing how quickly faith evaporates when faced with the facts, no? Merlin |
| Posted by: JasonLong Feb 2 2005, 02:08 PM | ||
There is no structure supporting faith, therefore nothing would crumble. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 2 2005, 02:24 PM |
| I can't count how many bible thumpers have claimed that their faith had basis in fact and proof. So there is something to destroy. The illusion of credibility. Melin |
| Posted by: spamandham Feb 2 2005, 02:49 PM | ||
I've seen this a dozen times or more. Someone says "my faith is grounded in the evidence of scripture", to which I reply, "then it isn't faith, it's merely a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. Why does god consider you special for simply drawing a logical conclusion given the evidence that you've been exposed to?" to which most eventually have to admit that faith is wishfull thinking as Paul defined it and start making references to how we should all be like children and "just believe". For the small percentage that admit that their "faith" would crumble if their assumptions were shown to be false, there is the possibillity of reason (hey Gerbil!). But for most, you can't reason someone out of a position that is based in emotion rather than reason. You can only attempt to provide a greater emotional appeal. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 2 2005, 05:27 PM |
| I may not understand the nature of the debate -- I don't see how one could prove that the historical didn't exist. At the very least the NT documents give ample evidence that such a figure did exist. Hey, I'll admit the NT documents may have overblown Jesus' claims or misrepresented his claims but the very idea that they manufactured the personality of Jesus out of whole cloth would be outrageous. If I remember correctly, even the Jesus Seminar -- that group of scholars that didn't believe Jesus is G_d or anything -- tried to determine what he actually said but they didn't deny an itinerate preacher by the name of Jesus was wandering around in the first century. |
| Posted by: bob Feb 2 2005, 05:54 PM | ||
Well put Jason. |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 2 2005, 06:29 PM | ||
(by Mad)
Most scholars would agree with you. However there are a few examples in history when a brave (read: masochistic) individual demonstrated to the academic majority that they were mistaken; permanently (and oftentimes radically) altering academic thought. Rewarded in life with ridicule, remembered in death as pioneering visionaries. Those are the stakes, and if I didn't think I had a winning hand Mad then I wouldn't be playing the game. Rameus |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Feb 2 2005, 06:51 PM | ||||
It's not just scripture that gives these people a 'foundation' for their belief. Anything from a vapid misunderstanding of the composition of clay to news of a 10,000 year old rock can throw them into a sermon. They also love to say that "You put faith in science just like I put faith in xyz." I hate that. Merlin |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 2 2005, 06:52 PM |
| Rameus: Knowing in advance that you have a winning hand kinda kills the adventure, doesn't it? That aside, are you saying then that you are actually trying to prove that there wasn't a man name Jesus in the first century that went around preaching and thereby gained a following that resulted in Christianity -- that he is a complete and total fabrication? It is beyond me how you'd prove that, but kudos on the visionary thing. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Feb 2 2005, 09:21 PM |
| Hey Gerbil. Don't worry, you can still remain a christian even after it is demonstrated that Jesus Christ was a myth. After all, the inventor of the religion (Paul) didn't care anything about whether an itinerant preacher or prophet named Jesus ever existed. He speaks only of a heavenly Christ. If that's good enough for Paul, I'm guessing it's good enough for you (being a little presumptious here - sorry). In fact, any christian can still remain a christian (with some adjustments here and there), and in addition, the christian religion might actually gain new adherents who simply can't buy the mythology as being literally true. This could be the best thing that ever happened to christianity - that its main character is obliterated from history. |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 2 2005, 09:51 PM | ||
(by Mad)
The debate with Hominid will likely answer your question, and perhaps raise a few more. So you're going to have to wait a few weeks for an answer my friend. Rameus |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 3 2005, 11:10 AM | ||||||||||
| Fundeology-web (Theologyweb) has a commentary thread open on the debate between J.P. Holding and I. Everyone, and I mean everyone fully expects Holding to emerge absolutely victorious. I would appreciate it if everyone would let them have their delusions for the time being and not provide any commentary supporting a Rameus victory scenario. *** SUPPRESSED SO AS NOT TO SPOIL THE FUN *** This is going to be very entertaining my friends. Rameus http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=902358#post902358 (by Amazing Rando)
(by Mark_S)
(by salvationfound)
(by Tim)
(by Amazing Rando)
|
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 3 2005, 02:12 PM |
| I gave ya a good roast over there, banana boy. |
| Posted by: Yoshi Feb 3 2005, 05:36 PM |
| Might I suggest that we comment in TheoWeb's commentary thread, so that we don't have to be looking in a billion different places for the comments? |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Feb 3 2005, 05:51 PM |
| I was hoping to get a response out of Rameus for my flame of him over there. I'll have to go back to harrassing NBBTB -- at least she responds..... |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 3 2005, 05:58 PM |
| Yoshi, As I have told Dave many times in the past, I feel like Ex-C is my online home. I post exclusively here, the only exceptions being when apologists are not willing to engage in debates on our forums. J.P. Holding was invited to our forum for this debate, he declined indicating that Fundieology-Web is his exclusive debating arena. Respecting that, I signed up for an account and am engaging him there. I am a member of that forum purely out of necessity, my only intention being to conduct a debate with Holding and move on. Ex-C is my home and I consider many of the members here to be my friends. If my friends want to hold their "peanut gallery" here, then that's where it will be held. Rameus |
| Posted by: spamandham Feb 3 2005, 06:22 PM |
Rameus, I'm going to join the rabid rodent and start taunting you too if you two guys don't get on with the debate already.  |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 3 2005, 06:52 PM |
| Believe me I'm devoting every free moment I have to researching and writing this essay. They have given me a strict time limit and I intend to stick to it, however this is going to be a formal piece so it’s not something that can be thrown together in a few days. As this is going to be a "production quality" essay, I will be donating it to Dave as a reference piece for Ex-C members to use in the future. Taking the time to make it compelling, articulate, and (most importantly) apologist resistant will pay off in the long run. I guess the question is Spam, do you want to see Holding embarrassed and discredited (more than he already is, if that is possible) or do you just want him to receive a light spanking? Rameus |
| Posted by: spamandham Feb 3 2005, 06:55 PM | ||
Didn't you notice the smiley? I'm just excited to see how this unfolds is all. Take your time and do it right. |
| Posted by: BlueGiant Feb 3 2005, 07:20 PM |
| Take their hell and give it back to them Rameus. The intellectual beatdown should be entertaining. I just wonder who is going to clean up the smear in their forums when you get done with this guy? *gets some virtual popcorn ready* |
| Posted by: lalli Feb 3 2005, 07:39 PM | ||||
Sorry Rameus, but I doubt I'm good enough an actor to do that convincingly.
Isn't there a Bible verse commanding Christians not to throw their pearls to swine?  BlueGiant, is that sweet or salted you're making over there? *goes to the shops to buy several bottles of pop* |
| Posted by: Clergicide Feb 4 2005, 06:26 AM |
| Oh, how unclean do I feel. I shall straight away flee to the pulpit and offer 2 turtledoves as a burnt sacrifice to purify my blood. |
| Posted by: AggieNostic Feb 4 2005, 06:46 AM | ||
I wonder how one would go about proving the historical plates of Joseph Smith did not exist. Or whether Allah really tore asunder (and presumably repaired) the Moon. Or whether the Earth actually "stood still" as the OT claims. Etc. The history we do know combined with our present knowledge of the possible should make us skeptical about historical claims that have no precedent. That's not to say that such claims are an impossibility. But, an objective person would err on the side of reason -- namely start from the premise that said claim is more likely to be bogus than actual. But, alas, religionists reserve a special place in their "heart" for their own theology -- standing such a premise on its head -- assuming that their beliefs are real and that it is someone unreasonable to be skeptical of them. In my opinion, the difference between a skeptic and a religionist is that the religionist practices selective skepticism (i.e. they have a healthy suspicion of extraordinary claims from people of other religions; but not their own). On the other hand, the skeptic practices non-selective skepticism, exposing all religions to the same standard of proof. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Feb 4 2005, 08:51 AM | ||
Ok, done. |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 7 2005, 08:32 AM | ||
How is this for inflammatory?
Feel free to roast the Hell out of me if you get a kick out of that sort of thing. You know, to stir the pot a little. Rameus |
| Posted by: Reality Amplifier Feb 7 2005, 09:20 AM | ||
Fundamentalist Concussion. That phrase is AWESOME. Seriously though, http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm, the http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html, http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html and what Dr. Edward DeBono calls the Intelligence Trap present themselves as multiple epistemological hurdles for people when it comes to viewing data that is contrary to what they have believed (or wish to believe). Being objective and unbiased is hard enough to do when people don't have such a high emotional stake in the knowledge outcome of testing ideas and following logical induction (based on available evidence) to conclusions that are contrary to sacredly held religious beliefs. If you remember the Christian viewpoint, the emotional alternatives of changing their opinions seem especially daunting and bleak - and it's obviously tough for them to handle (e.g. the Fundamentalist Concussion). As we all know, deconversion is a process that takes some time to get your arms around. Sadly, I think that's why we so often see our steel-jacketed logic and evidentiary bullets pass right through those Christian beliefs as if they were fog… |
| Posted by: Matthew Feb 10 2005, 03:30 PM |
| Rameus, Just curiously- do you plan on writing any rebuttals to "J.P. Holding's" magnus opus, "The Impossible Faith"? I have thought of some possible rebuttal points but I am not expert enough in ancient history to argue effectively on the matter. There are some arguments I am not quite sure how to answer although I have a rough idea of how to do so. Matthew |
| Posted by: Rameus Feb 10 2005, 04:01 PM |
| Matthew, I have been spending far too much time on the forums this last week, so I'll be scaling back in the future. Right now I'm just trying to get through my academic program, get ready for everything in April, and hand Holding his ass in our current debate. So I honestly don't know what my next debate topic will be. If you want to email me your thoughts I would be happy to hear them. rameus@isp.com Rameus |
| Posted by: CRCampbell Feb 22 2005, 12:10 PM | ||
What "personality"? This is absurd. Whole books are written with far more intricate characters than the gospels. Just take a look at Shakespeare. Just because something is written about someone claiming he acted this way and that, isn't proof that he existed. It would be far more impressive if we had some first-hand accounts, and something written by Jesus's own hand. It would be nice if Jesus wrote medical texts and signed his name to them, but we don't have anything like that. |
| Posted by: Slayer-2004 Feb 22 2005, 11:31 PM |
| Im looking forward to this , as Im totally against the bible now and reject it clearly ... but Im still agnostic as to whether or not the guy ever existed . I will be watching this one carefully and plan to make my first initial desicion based on the outcome . |
| Posted by: Jayrok Feb 23 2005, 07:34 AM |
| Looking forward to this as well.. I've talked with JPH on a few topics on his home forum.. He was actually friendly to me, but I've seen him blow up on some folks. It appears that when he is pushed in a corner on an issue, he will resort to attacking the credentials and scholarship authority of his opponent. Nevermind if the issue is ironclad, if he can discredit your credentials, he thinks you're toast.. |