(June 7, 2015 at 1:07 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Hahaha suckered into? Every single person here knew exactly where you were going with that transparent bullshit. We just were hoping you weren't that stupid.

You are a case study for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

ETA: A perfect capstone for your blatant bullshit is you blaming CD and Stimbo for your fuck up. You really are a class act. And your credibility on this forum is in the red.

Baahaha it's funny, cuz it's true. Such an accurate assessment.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:02 am)Exian Wrote: I'm good because I don't want my mom to yell at me.

I love this! Its such a tight analogy! Your creator taught you how to be have and you fear its wrath should you disobey! Awesome!

(June 7, 2015 at 1:07 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Hahaha suckered into? Every single person here knew exactly where you were going with that transparent bullshit. We just were hoping you weren't that stupid.

You are a case study for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

ETA: A perfect capstone for your blatant bullshit is you blaming CD and Stimbo for your fuck up. You really are a class act. And your credibility on this forum is in the red.

In other words (to borrow from Randy The Liar's analogy), Randy check called down to the river, and when he called my all-in, I flipped over the stone cold nuts.

(June 6, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Here's the thing: 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported what they saw and experienced just as you did.

They endured threats, torture, imprisonment and death rather than deny what they knew to be true. 

Maybe they would have been just as insulted if someone had denied that what they said or wrote was true.

And the Early Church Fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Papias vouched for their character.

It's reasonable for us to conclude that what the gospels tell us about Jesus is true - at least it is more likely than not.

That's what the historical reliability of the gospels tells us - that the authors were generally reliable in reporting what they saw and experienced.

We had to spend a day contorting ourselves through these ridiculous games for this? Really?

Are we going to get an apology for the insane overreach with which you began this stillbirth of an argument? Or are you going to stick to your dishonesty guns to the last?

I don't think you fully appreciate what has happened here today.

When CD, Parkers and Steel took exception to my "atheists in foxholes" comment, they wanted to counter my comments with their own personal experiences (CD and Parkers) and the experiences of others (in Steel's case). When they put them into writing in an online forum, they had every expectation that what they wrote would be accepted and believed as true. 

Now, they may counter after the fact that they don't give a hoot whether I believe it or not...but that isn't consistent with their motivation at the time they first posted. At that point, it was their expectation that their anecdotal evidence would be demonstrate that I was in the wrong about "atheists in foxholes". IOW, it was their expectation that their personal eyewitness testimony would be sufficient to overcome my previous comments.

And why wouldn't they think so? People would normally expect to be believed about things they say. Philosopher Richard Swineburne speaks of the "principle of testimony" - in the absence of counter evidence, we should believe what others tell us they have done or seen. Without this principle, Swineburne tells us we would have very little knowledge of anything. Most of our beliefs are based on what others have told us about geography, science or history. Most of what we know is not based upon our own direct experience but upon the testimony of reliable and knowledgeable people.

So, I have no reason to doubt what our three writers said earlier today about their personal experiences (Steel's data gathering from the many servicemen he interviewed may not have been very methodical - dunno 'bout that, but I'll grant that he has accurately related the facts as he saw them). Sure, the three of them might have made it all up...I can't know with certainty...but I can reason that it is more probable than not that they were telling the truth about what they saw, heard and experienced. Why would they lie? To win an Internet-based argument with someone they don't even know?

But that is my point about the four writers of the Gospels. I can't know it with certainty, but I can reason with some confidence that it is more probable than not that they were telling the truth. All things considered, it is probably more likely that the authors of gospels told the truth than did our three authors today (who actually did want to win an argument). Why would the gospel writers lie? Money? Power? Sex? To start a fraternity prank that grew out of control but they went ahead and died for it anyway?

I don't think so.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:16 am)Goosebump Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:02 am)Exian Wrote: I'm good because I don't want my mom to yell at me.

I love this! Its such a tight analogy! Your creator taught you how to be have and you fear its wrath should you disobey! Awesome!

Thank you! I'm glad you caught it, but I can't take all the credit; I was inspired by the fear-mongering of the bible, I just put it in waaaay less words.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same" ...now all that's left to do is define what is bad, like bacon and sex.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:23 am)Exian Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:16 am)Goosebump Wrote: I love this! Its such a tight analogy! Your creator taught you how to be have and you fear its wrath should you disobey! Awesome!

Thank you! I'm glad you caught it, but I can't take all the credit; I was inspired by the fear-mongering of the bible, I just put it in waaaay less words.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same" ...now all that's left to do is define what is bad, like bacon and sex.

What if you're good because your mom wants you to be good AND you love your mom, want to make her happy, and want to be like her when you grow up?

You just rephrased it. Being good to avoid your Mom's wrath or earn her praises. Either way your doing it because your mom wants you to and you want or wish to avoid or receive her reaction. Either way your Mom is still defining the terms. What is your point?

Holy hell Randy. I called you out for being blatantly dishonest a while ago, and you utterly denied it and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Since then, all you've done is prove me right.

I can't believe the sheer disrespect you are showing our members, that you'd try and manipulate their experiences into a twisted analogy to try and sell your garbage. You failed completely at the debate level to produce anything but a series of flawed arguments and assertions, and now you're so desperate to reassure yourself (even you must know you're not going to convince anyone else now) you'll say almost anything. Never mind how vicious you are being, how you spit on people's honest answers to your questions, how you then try and martyr yourself on the outrage your obvious provocations cause... as long as you can score some points with your imaginary friends.

I've long since stopped caring about what you've written as you miserably failed my very generous challenge and went into full on dishonesty mode, but this is beyond what I can sit by and listen to. If you have any integrity at all, you'll back the fuck down and hand out apologies to all these stand up guys you have pissed on. You're a disgrace to your church and your religion.

Esquilax Wrote:Are we going to get an apology for the insane overreach with which you began this stillbirth of an argument? Or are you going to stick to your dishonesty guns to the last?

He doesn't think you understand how impressive he is. He's so busy being impressed with himself that he doesn't realize that this is only the 37th time we've heard this idiocy.

(June 7, 2015 at 1:18 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:07 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Hahaha suckered into? Every single person here knew exactly where you were going with that transparent bullshit. We just were hoping you weren't that stupid.

You are a case study for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

ETA: A perfect capstone for your blatant bullshit is you blaming CD and Stimbo for your fuck up. You really are a class act. And your credibility on this forum is in the red.

In other words (to borrow from Randy The Liar's analogy), Randy check called down to the river, and when he called my all-in, I flipped over the stone cold nuts.

And then declared himself the winner.