meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,
meester_bond
meester_bond

And after that brief interlude... Part 10 of POT3Os

So after having posted my final perspective on the Problem of the 3 Os, I did what I usually do, and posted the link to the entire chronicled debate. This provoked some... "interesting" to say the least responses from not only the main focus opponent of that debate, one Daniel Wood, but also a return from our old buddy David Wolcott of the "20 Questions" fame. It's for that reason that not only is this getting tagged as a continuation of the POT3Os debate, but also, since it does in fact get touched upon, the "20 Questions" thread will be tagged too.

So we begin with David, and his typically minimalist response to my final perspective, picking only a really small point and then completely missing what it's about.

David Wolcott:

Daniel and other theists like him are not interested in actual fairness.


Wait, this coming from the types of people that deny historical reliability where it's due? Who's not interested in fairness?


Yes, at this point, David's still trotting out his remarkably original complaints about how people deny Jesus ever existed. I let him have it in my response, only for him to set the pattern for what he would do in the entire thread and only address one really small point.

Me:

You're talking about the difference between a divine Jesus and a purely flesh and blood Jesus. We apply the same standards to everything when it comes to proof. If we didn't have evidence for Julius Caesar that would have come from within his time living, we would have pretty good reason to doubt that he ever existed. As it is, since Caesar supposedly lived at the same time as Jesus, we have tons of contemporary evidence for Caesar but bugger all for Jesus. The earliest evidence we have for Jesus's existence is dated only AFTER HIS DEATH. That's the point. And like I said, many people accept that a human man named Jesus may have existed and that he could have been the inspiration for the formation of Christianity - but there's VASTLY different standards of evidence required in proving two different claims. So even if we grant the premise of a flesh and blood Jesus, that does NOTHING to advance your claim of a divine Jesus who did supernatural stuff.

Anyhow, shouldn't you be actually answering my responses to your demonstrably lame answers in the "20 Questions Christians Have Yet To Sufficiently Answer" series?


David Wolcott:

I notice you changed the name to your series of questions. Suddenly realized it was based on lies?


Me:

Really? I don't see the difference between "failing to sufficiently answer" and "having yet to sufficiently answer" buddy. The key word there is SUFFICIENTLY. I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that Christians do in fact answer the questions, it's just what they reply with doesn't make for good answers to the questions at all. "Fail" and "Have Yet To" are synonyms, buddy. They mean exactly the same thing when it comes to the nature of providing anything "sufficient".


David Wolcott:

And on whose authority are you defining "sufficiently"?

Because keep in mind, I can build a far LARGER list of questions that atheists actually do fail to "sufficiently" answer, if we are removing any basis for who defines what "sufficient" is.

And no, YOUR authority is irrelevant. So is any biased man or woman you choose.


At this point in the conversation, I quipped that David clearly hadn't bothered to read the Final Perspective link at all, and transcribed it in full. His reaction was highly predictable:

Sorry, all biased sources, cannot trust them. Give me a non-biased source that agrees with you.


Witness first hand how David proceeds to them promptly reject whatever source I throw at him, without tackling any of the content:

Me:

Rationalwiki, as well as Evowiki and Iron Chariots, is held to be reliable by some of the best academics on the planet, including Richard Lenski, Daniel Dennett, Ophelia Benson, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Richard Carrier, and many others. I will take their actually qualified opinions above yours any day of the week. Nice try though. I also mentioned Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry as well, unless you want to claim they're biased too? Now how about actually addressing those points I raised?


David Wolcott:

All 3 of which I have seen are HIGHLY biased.

So, care to give me one NOT biased?


Me:

Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Try reading. Again, what makes you more qualified than the opinions of people with actual credentials and expertise on God claims like the names of those I mentioned who actually endorse those websites? Also, I'm sure you can produce 20 questions for atheists. Problem is, everything you'd think HAS in fact been answered, like here:http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1365/


Hey, I had to throw in that quip at the end there. I wouldn't object to answering any "questions to atheists" David would like to pose to me, but there's nothing to indicate in what happened afterwards, nor for that matter in his behaviour in other threads, to indicate that his questions would have been any different to the ones Richard Carrier so beautifully took down. Continuing...

David Wolcott:

Again, more biased sources. I want a non-biased source. Can you give me ONE?

Again, what makes you more qualified than the opinions of people with actual credentials and expertise


And what makes you more qualified than the legal, historical, philosophical, scientific, and archaeological experts that I have brought up numerous times?

Also, I'm sure you can produce 20 questions for atheists. Problem is, everything you'd think HAS in fact been answered, like here:


As have all of the questions you asked of Christians. So, again, on what basis are you defining that the questions have been "sufficiently" answered, or that all the questions I have actually have been answered?


Me:

Other resources: Websites: www.godisimaginary.com , The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, the Skeptic's Dictionary, Talk Origins, Infidels.org, Free Inquiry Magazine, Truth Saves, Freethought Blogs in general, the Anti-Intellect blog, Greta Christina, An Apostate's Chapel, AronRa, Atheism: Proving The Negative, The Atheist Experience, BioDork, Carrier, Brayton, Myers, EvolutionBlog, Non Stamp Collector, Reasonable Doubts, Religion Dispatches, Skepchick, Singham, Why Evolution is True, Christina Rad.

Books: 50 Reasons People Give For Believing In A God (Guy P Harrison), Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion (Altemeyer & Hunsberger), Atheism: The Case Against God (George H Smith), Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Daniel C Dennett), Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Dennett), Doubt: A History (Hecht), The End of Biblical Studies (Avalos), The End of Faith (Harris), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Stenger), God vs Darwin (Singham), God's Defenders (Joshi), How We Believe (Shermer), stuff by AC Grayling, Irreligion (Paulos), Letter to a Christian Nation (Harris), Misquoting Jesus (Ehrman), Why Darwin Matters (Shermer), Why Evolution Is True (Coyne), Why I Am Not A Christian (Bertrand Russell, and also one of the same name by Carrier)


Now let's bear in mind here that David's next response addressed this last comment of mine, and also came literally only seconds after I had published it. And what did he say?

All biased. Got one not biased?


There is no fucking way the guy had read all those books, and certainly there's no way he even did a Google search. The guy was being completely intellectually dishonest, and I truly let him have it in my response.

Me:

And what makes you more qualified than the legal, historical, philosophical, scientific, and archaeological experts that I have brought up numerous times?


You sure as hell didn't bring them up when you were given the 20 Questions, or if you did then they failed for exactly the reasons I highlighted in one of the quotes from the Final Perspective (namely the quote about the testing process. I then took David to task on him dismissing the above provided resources)

Bullshit, David, you will dismiss anything as "biased" if it will disagree with your worldview. And also, a lot of those books and websites are operated by actual scientists [and there’s no bias as evidenced from the quote in the Final Perspective]

How about you produce one not-biased source for YOUR claims and then JUSTIFY why it's not biased?


David Wolcott:

Besides the unproven hypothesis you base your entire argument on, you still have yet to prove any SUFFICIENT reason for me to accept anything you say as true.

Oh, besides the fact that your own sources explicitly contradict each other, and deny your own claims. But too bad you never bothered to read your own sources to find that out.

Now, as an admin: cuss me out again and I'm banning you. I'm sick of your repeated attitude of Dawkins-syndrome: ridiculing any you don't agree with.

As a debater, however: now you know how we feel when you reject our sources or answers, simply because they don't agree with you.

So, until you are willing to accept sources and answers that don't agree with you, I will follow your own "expert" opinion, and deny any sources or answers you give that do agree with you. Any questions?


Well, I quite simply wasn't gonna let him get away with THAT kind of vague bullshit...

Me:

Besides the unproven hypothesis you base your entire argument on, you still have yet to prove any SUFFICIENT reason for me to accept anything you say as true.


Uh, maybe because I've actually cited sources that are held in high regard by actual established scientists? It's not my fault you have a conspiracy theory complex where you believe that the mainstream scientific establishment is out to oppress your beliefs, even though there's no good reason financially or otherwise for them to do so. A far simpler explanation is that scientists are treating your beliefs under actual careful scientific study the same way they treat everything else.

Oh, besides the fact that your own sources explicitly contradict each other, and deny your own claims. But too bad you never bothered to read your own sources to find that out.


Oh, one other consistent aspect. The vagueness. I would kill for an example of stuff that contradicts each other, as well as stuff that disagrees with the claims I make. Within the links provided, please demonstrate this.

Now, as an admin: cuss me out again and I'm banning you. I'm sick of your repeated attitude of Dawkins-syndrome: ridiculing any you don't agree with.


And you think that your Ray Comfort style of debating is any better? Seriously? Y'know, what with the faux politeness but passive aggressive tone combined with all the underhanded dismissals you make of very very clear evidence, like say this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47 which goes into detail about how evolution is actually helpful in a wide range of areas in our day to day lives?

As a debater, however: now you know how we feel when you reject our sources or answers, simply because they don't agree with you.


No, I disagree with them because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As someone who recognised he was wrong once before and became an atheist and evolutionist and secular humanist as a result, I am more than open to the possibility that I could be wrong again. You're the one professing absolute 100% faith here to the point where nothing will convince you. It's not me doing that.

So, until you are willing to accept sources and answers that don't agree with you, I will follow your own "expert" opinion, and deny any sources or answers you give that do agree with you. Any questions?


So does that mean you're going to disregard the Bible, then, since as per http://meester-bond.livejournal.com/5390.html this post you didn't address and also the Bible verses listed in http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Slavery and http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Rape, slavery and rape are in fact condoned in the Bible? Way to back yourself into a corner there, buddy.


So that's Part 10. Join us again when we delve into Ehrman and Daniel makes his first appearance in the thread!
Tags: problem of the 3 os
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 0 comments