What would you have done?

[devildavid]

Another ad-hominem, here's what I assume you're referring to David:



Note that "miracle" is in quotation marks David, note too that "turning vats of water into wine" is prefixed with "e.g.", describing anything in that as dishonesty is an ad-hominem attack, nothing more.

The question is asking what you would do, had you lived some two thousand years ago, were you to witness something inexplicable, shocking, remarkable whatever it may be, for example someone turning water into wine.

The post then goes on to show that in the case of the gospels, these documents do fit the pattern of what we'd expect if they did originate from an event or observation like that, you've said nothing of substance that counters that view.



I never said anything was "written about at the time they happened", this is a strawman argument David.

I'd hoped for a stimulating discussion about this but instead I get repeatedly insulted and attacked.

But this is no surprise I suppose, this is what atheism ultimately amounts to, where it always leads to, false accusations, personal attacks, assaults on one's character, vitriol; this is in fact what atheism is, this is what it looks like in the cold light of day.

In almost every discussion I've had with atheists in this and other forums, 99.9% of the time this is how it goes, this is how the atheists conduct themselves.

The real problem is how you conduct yourself.

You didn't hope for discussion, you hoped to ram a point down our throats. A point which is based on a whole lot of "ifs". Just because a thing is written down does not mean it is about something that really happened, even if it is the only means to record it. So you argument fails. There are many reason s to write things down. You make assumptions and try to derive something factual from them. It can't be done.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The real problem is how you conduct yourself.

An ad-hominem attack.

You didn't hope for discussion, you hoped to ram a point down our throats. A point which is based on a whole lot of "ifs".

An another ad-hominem attack.

My motives, hopes, aspirations, beliefs, sexual inclination, skin color, weight, height, hair style, gender, age, ethnicity, musical taste, political leaning etc etc etc ARE IMMATERIAL to my argument - this is an ad-hominem attack.

Just because a thing is written down does not mean it is about something that really happened, even if it is the only means to record it. So you argument fails.

A strawman attack.

I never ever argued that the fact something is written down "means" it really happened - this David is a STRAWMAN argument, a fallacious argument if you care to study the definition of the term.

There are many reason s to write things down. You make assumptions and try to derive something factual from them. It can't be done.

This is a vacuous argument, you make no mention of what it is I assumed nor what I derived that you feel I cannot derive, it is a vacuous argument, simply rhetoric.

Let me close with these defintions:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman, also sometimes straw dog) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

 

[watsup]

An ad-hominem attack.



An another ad-hominem attack.

My motives, hopes, aspirations, beliefs, sexual inclination, skin color, weight, height, hair style, gender, age, ethnicity, musical taste, political leaning etc etc etc ARE IMMATERIAL to my argument - this is an ad-hominem attack.



A strawman attack.

I never ever argued that the fact something is written down "means" it really happened - this David is a STRAWMAN argument, a fallacious argument if you care to study the definition of the term.



This is a vacuous argument, you make no mention of what it is I assumed nor what I derived that you feel I cannot derive, it is a vacuous argument, simply rhetoric.

Let me close with these defintions:





These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

Poor Sherlock. Always so trod upon with ad hom and strawmen. As far as I can tell, everyone who has ever debated with him has done so, at least according to him. Nothing he would ever do himself, of course. He is always as pure as the driven snow in debate.
Is “vacuous argument” and ad hom?

 

[devildavid]

An ad-hominem attack.

An another ad-hominem attack.

My motives, hopes, aspirations, beliefs, sexual inclination, skin color, weight, height, hair style, gender, age, ethnicity, musical taste, political leaning etc etc etc ARE IMMATERIAL to my argument - this is an ad-hominem attack.

A strawman attack.

I never ever argued that the fact something is written down "means" it really happened - this David is a STRAWMAN argument, a fallacious argument if you care to study the definition of the term.

This is a vacuous argument, you make no mention of what it is I assumed nor what I derived that you feel I cannot derive, it is a vacuous argument, simply rhetoric.

Let me close with these defintions:

These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

Yet you break every rule that you propose everyone should follow. In fact, you did it in this very post.

 

[blarg]

why would it be up to people to show the actions and will of an all powerful all knowing god? one who wants to make itself known? the obvious answer is such a god is a work of fiction created by the desires of humans

 

[Rumpel]

What would you have done?

That may refer to anything and nothing.
I think a title should tell us what the topic is.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yet you break every rule that you propose everyone should follow. In fact, you did it in this very post.

You did not answer the question I asked you, this is the second time I'm going to ask you.

 

[Rumpel]

You did not answer the question I asked you, this is the second time I'm going to ask you.

What did you ask me?

 

[devildavid]

You did not answer the question I asked you, this is the second time I'm going to ask you.

I guess you missed my post about answering questions.

 

[devildavid]

An ad-hominem attack.



An another ad-hominem attack.

My motives, hopes, aspirations, beliefs, sexual inclination, skin color, weight, height, hair style, gender, age, ethnicity, musical taste, political leaning etc etc etc ARE IMMATERIAL to my argument - this is an ad-hominem attack.

A strawman attack.

I never ever argued that the fact something is written down "means" it really happened - this David is a STRAWMAN argument, a fallacious argument if you care to study the definition of the term.

This is a vacuous argument, you make no mention of what it is I assumed nor what I derived that you feel I cannot derive, it is a vacuous argument, simply rhetoric.

Let me close with these defintions:

These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

Your motivations are apparent from what you posted. That is what I am commenting on.

Since you claim that you never argued any importance regarding writing something down, what is the point of this thread?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your motivations are apparent from what you posted. That is what I am commenting on.

Since you claim that you never argued any importance regarding writing something down, what is the point of this thread?

My motivations are immaterial, you must focus on the argument itself in a detached way, that's what a good debater does; once again you've resorted to an ad-hominem attack.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I guess you missed my post about answering questions.

It matters not then, I'm answering it for you as I explained I would:

This is the question you have refused to answer:

These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

You don't know what the goal is, that's what I infer from what you've been writing so far.

I'll tell you then, the goal David is to avoid dishonesty, this is why ad-hominem and strawman and other evasive tactics are frowned upon, they provide a means to prevent a participant from being dishonest.

I assume honesty when debating, if the facts, the truth do not matter to you then please say so and save us both a lot of time.

 

[devildavid]

My motivations are immaterial, you must focus on the argument itself in a detached way, that's what a good debater does; once again you've resorted to an ad-hominem attack.

Your motivations are obvious, and i can see through them and refuse to play your game. No one has to answer anyone else's questions.

 

[devildavid]

It matters not then, I'm answering it for you as I explained I would:

This is the question you have refused to answer:

These exchanges should be neutral, should be ruthlessly logical and impersonal, all of these rules David for debating have ONE GOAL in mind, do you know what that goal is?

You don't know what the goal is, that's what I infer from what you've been writing so far.

I'll tell you then, the goal David is to avoid dishonesty, this is why ad-hominem and strawman and other evasive tactics are frowned upon, they provide a means to prevent a participant from being dishonest.

I assume honesty when debating, if the facts, the truth do not matter to you then please say so and save us both a lot of time.

Your OP reeks of intellectual dishonesty. None of your exchanges ever come close to what you say they should. The goal of debate is the exchange of and critical assessment of ideas. You should practice what you preach. Your final statement betrays everything you claim to care about. Another "if" statement, implying that I do not care about facts or truth. That does depend upon what each person claims are facts or truth. That is part of what a debate attempts to determine. One side or the other doesn't get to decide what is facts or truth and impose it on the other. That is called intellectual dishonesty. So rather than assuming honest, post in an intellectually honest manner, if true debate is what you are after. You actions here belie your words.

 

[watsup]

Your OP reeks of intellectual dishonesty. None of your exchanges ever come close to what you say they should. The goal of debate is the exchange of and critical assessment of ideas. You should practice what you preach. Your final statement betrays everything you claim to care about. Another "if" statement, implying that I do not care about facts or truth. That does depend upon what each person claims are facts or truth. That is part of what a debate attempts to determine. One side or the other doesn't get to decide what is facts or truth and impose it on the other. That is called intellectual dishonesty. So rather than assuming honest, post in an intellectually honest manner, if true debate is what you are after. You actions here belie your words.

I agree. In actuality, real and honest debate is it asking one loaded question after another. It is one person giving a point of view and the other person answering with a point of view, and back and forth like that. Making declarative statements, not hiding behind questions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your motivations are obvious, and i can see through them and refuse to play your game. No one has to answer anyone else's questions.

This is an ad-hominem attack.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your OP reeks of intellectual dishonesty. None of your exchanges ever come close to what you say they should. The goal of debate is the exchange of and critical assessment of ideas. You should practice what you preach. Your final statement betrays everything you claim to care about. Another "if" statement, implying that I do not care about facts or truth. That does depend upon what each person claims are facts or truth. That is part of what a debate attempts to determine. One side or the other doesn't get to decide what is facts or truth and impose it on the other. That is called intellectual dishonesty. So rather than assuming honest, post in an intellectually honest manner, if true debate is what you are after. You actions here belie your words.

This is a strawman attack and a ad-hominem too.

 

[watsup]

This is an ad-hominem attack.

Not at all. You need to stop complaining and stay on topic. Understanding motive is often key to debate input.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.

So then when some claim "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

***

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

The problem with your theory is that it is pretty well accepted that the people who wrote the books of the Bible were NOT actual witnesses to the supposed events, even if anything even remotely like those events actually happened. So at best, it's the result of a giant game of "telephone." And of course, they read almost exactly like what you would expect them to do if they were written as deliberate embellishments, or even outright fabrications, by people who were bent on spreading a new religion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The problem with your theory is that it is pretty well accepted that the people who wrote the books of the Bible were NOT actual witnesses to the supposed events, even if anything even remotely like those events actually happened. So at best, it's the result of a giant game of "telephone." And of course, they read almost exactly like what you would expect them to do if they were written as deliberate embellishments, or even outright fabrications, by people who were bent on spreading a new religion.

But what would you have done? atheist after atheist after atheist has replied but very few have attempted to honestly answer the question.

 

[watsup]

But what would you have done? atheist after atheist after atheist has replied but very few have attempted to honestly answer the question.

Actually, Tirmin just answered your question in a very honest and discerning manner. If you don’t agree with it, you ay least need to acknowledge it instead of just repeating your normal talking points yet again.

 

[devildavid]

This is an ad-hominem attack.

No, it is not.

 

[devildavid]

This is a strawman attack and a ad-hominem too.

It is neither.

 

[devildavid]

But what would you have done? atheist after atheist after atheist has replied but very few have attempted to honestly answer the question.

Your rhetorical question is intellectually dishonest and meaningless. Its like saying what would you do if you witnessed a real miracle. It makes assumptions about what was witnessed. It assumes the miracle took place. Well, miracles are subject of debate, not something we have to agree that could even be witnessed in the first place. It is a cheap debating trick.

 

[Noodlegawd]

But what would you have done? atheist after atheist after atheist has replied but very few have attempted to honestly answer the question.

If you honestly wanted an answer to the question, I imagine that you wouldn't have embedded it in a wall of logical fallacies.

But fine, I'll play.

First, I would question my own cognition. Then I would try to recall how much of that "water" I already had to drink. Then I would ask everyone else if they saw what I saw, and then I'd talk to hundreds of people to figure out if there was a way it could have been a trick. After all that, if I were still convinced it was an actual miracle, I most definitely would not wait for someone else to write it down based on twentieth-hand storytelling a generation or more later.