• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
Here's a summary of the last 20 posts:


DOC, there were 4 comments in the last 20 posts which were on topic and could have been responded to. Instead of doing so, you simply provided evidence that Kmortis was completely correct.

Did you mean to do this? Is your real intent to make Christians look bad?
We have evidence in this thread that you helped drive away one person from christianity. Is this your real goal?
Click to expand...
Nice summary, btw.

I would like to ressurect my previous theory that reincarnation is real and DOC is the reincarnation of Andy Kaufmann. Go ahead, proove me wrong.
 
joobz said:
Here's a summary of the last 20 posts:
Click to expand...

I would like to object to the characterisation of my post in that list as being an insult. It was a straightforward question; DOC claimed only to have taken post-graduate courses. I took "O" level woodwork, but I did not pass it, so you would not be sensible if you consulted me on the use of the mitre joint, or asked me to knock up* a davenport for you. I was trying to establish exactly what claim DOC was making about the post-grad courses, and exactly how careful he had been in his choice of words. I also pointed him to Waterman's post, as DOC seemed to be ignoring it.









*Yes, I know. And my headmaster at school had a secretary called Davenport.
 
DOC said:
What a waste of time the last 15 or so posts were. I skimmed through a few but its the same ol', same ol', let's get DOC. The good news is that my close to 1700 posts are out there and probably 95% have nothing to do with big bad DOC. So all the trashing in the world you do is only related to probably 5% of the posts. The other approx 95% is related to non-DOC information. You might fool some with the big bad DOC red herring but the important info is out there for anyone willing to take the time to read it.
Click to expand...

Mine was the ninth prior to this one.

I did not insult you I again reminded you that I had rebutted your use of Greenleaf as supporting the OP. You have yet to respond to that. If you want people to engage you in discussion you have to participate in it as well instead of complaining about all the sniping.

So the choices you have are, concede that Greenleaf is not relevant to this point as I outlined, or present an counter argument to my position. Continuing in the non-responsive manner implies (only implies) that you don’t find fault with the my reasoning in the matter. Bringing out other accomplishments by Greenleaf are irrelevant to the reasoning applied. He could be a genius in one area and still pursue things that turn out to be in error. (see Newton and alchemy)

I also presented you with the opportunity to clarify what you consider to be an ‘effective post’ and counter the implicit charge that you are engaging in trollish behavior. If you want the level of discussion rise above the sniping you can accomplish that by spending your efforts in responding to the substantive posts instead if focusing your efforts elsewhere. I am reminded of a Forest Gump reference “<blank> is as <blank> does” As it relates to this forum what do you put in the <blank>?
 
kmortis said:
A wiser and more experienced poster, who's name sound quite a bit like "Nercutio", tryed to advise me that I was butting up against a brick wall of ignorance and that my tactic had been tried time and time again. But I wouldn't listen, and persisted. Thinking, hoping beyond all evidence that if I said some right phrase, some little morsel of wisdom would seep into the skull o' Iacchus and he'd see the light and stop being a moron.

I lost it very shortly thereafter. I can't find the post now, but I 'sploded. I realized then that I couldn't take the rambling diatribes of a nameless, faceless poster on the intertubes all that seriously. If they don't want to engage in honest debate, mockery is all I have for them now. We don't have to agree, but an honest consideration of the posts is necessary.

So, why am I writing this to you, Waterman? I'm passing on the advice, here five years later, that I got from that wise and wooly poster. Don't let him get to you. There are 10,000+ posts in this thread, none of them have advanced the stated purpose of the OP. DOC is not an honest poster, he will not give your posts, no matter how carefully constructed, their just due. He'll continue posting his drivel until the cows come home to roost*. If you care to "play for the lurkers", then fine, but do not expect any honesty from this one, the Force is weak in him.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your wise advice, I had been following this thread for some time before deciding to enter into the discussion. I hold no illusions that I will be able to sway DOC from his deeply held beliefs. Unlike DOC, who appears to take the number and tenor of responses as an indicator an effective post, I consider his silence regarding my post as an indicator that it hit the mark. I am relatively new to the Skeptical Scene and am working on my reasoning abilities, posting style and finding areas of interest. You must start out with a coarse stone when honing a blade that has never been sharpened.

I was reading a Ramjet thread on a UFO discussing if a sighting could have been a blimp or not. Now that was maddening!
 
zooterkin said:
I would like to object to the characterisation of my post in that list as being an insult. It was a straightforward question; DOC claimed only to have taken post-graduate courses. I took "O" level woodwork, but I did not pass it, so you would not be sensible if you consulted me on the use of the mitre joint, or asked me to knock up* a davenport for you. I was trying to establish exactly what claim DOC was making about the post-grad courses, and exactly how careful he had been in his choice of words. I also pointed him to Waterman's post, as DOC seemed to be ignoring it.
Click to expand...
It is not intended as an insult against your post to call it an insult. Only that the post can be considered an insult.

For the sake of argument, I was being generous to DOC regarding post classification. Calling your post an insult doesn't change the point I was making, that DOC intentionally skipped over several substantive posts and made himself look foolish in the process.
 
Waterman said:
Thank you for your wise advice, I had been following this thread for some time before deciding to enter into the discussion. I hold no illusions that I will be able to sway DOC from his deeply held beliefs. Unlike DOC, who appears to take the number and tenor of responses as an indicator an effective post, I consider his silence regarding my post as an indicator that it hit the mark. I am relatively new to the Skeptical Scene and am working on my reasoning abilities, posting style and finding areas of interest. You must start out with a coarse stone when honing a blade that has never been sharpened.

I was reading a Ramjet thread on a UFO discussing if a sighting could have been a blimp or not. Now that was maddening!
Click to expand...
Well then, with eyes wide open, I'll gladly play Sancho Panza to your Don Quixote.
 
DOC said:
What a waste of time the last 15 or so posts were.
Click to expand...


Given that none of the time taken to compose the posts in question utilised any of your time, what makes you believe you are in any way either qualified or entitled to make this comment?

If I choose to spend four hours typing out a three word post and further consider this to be a worthwhile use of my time, then you have absolutely no basis on which to gainsay me.

I might agree that you reading the posts is a waste of your time, but that's your choice, and I'd further point out that your reading any of the posts in this thread is a waste of your time, since you have proven, approximately 1700 times, that you are incapable of responding to them rationally, either by choice or incapacity. I really can't tell, and I don't much care, which of the two it is.


DOC said:
I skimmed through a few but its the same ol', same ol', let's get DOC.
Click to expand...


Why does it not occur to you that receiving the same responses time and time again might just be the result of you posting the same driffle over and over?

Put it this way DOC; either you're wrong, or every other participant in the thread is wrong.

Before you start jumping up and down on the spot, gleefully exclaiming that we're the ones in error, try and recall which of us claims to have seen more evidence for jeebus' resurrection than he has for the American War of Independence.

If you're still unconvinced, why not try it out on a wider audience? Try a letter to the editor of the New York Times, for instance, and see what sort of response you get to that particular piece of unthinking, childlike garbage.


DOC said:
The good news is that my close to 1700 posts are out there and probably 95% have nothing to do with big bad DOC.
Click to expand...


The bad news, for yourself at least, is that your posts are now appearing in other sub-forums. Not, as you might hope, with the purpose of spreading your bitter and twisted message, but as examples of some of the most blatant ignorance and dishonesty that many of us have ever seen posted here.


DOC said:
So all the trashing in the world you do is only related to probably 5% of the posts. The other approx 95% is related to non-DOC information.
Click to expand...


lolwut?


DOC said:
You might fool some with the big bad DOC red herring but the important info is out there for anyone willing to take the time to read it.
Click to expand...


You still don't really get that there is no such person, do you DOC?

I'll bet you never do, either, which is cool because it means the lulz can continue.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Can I play the windmill?
Click to expand...
Sure. Ok, we got a Quixote, a Panza and a windmill. Anyone else want to join in on this reenactment of Don quixote's second quest?




In other news, I've wandering through old threads looking for comedy gold inspiring tales of humanity. I came across this little gem, thanks to our very own Belz...enjoy.
 
Waterman said:
must... resist... lances pointed at windmill innuendo... shiney oiled lances... used for protection.... spinning windmills...
Click to expand...
HEY! Stop that. You're the straight man, I'm the comedic relief. Says so right here in our contract....


<flip>

<flip>

<flipflipflipflip>

"And the party of the first part", that's you, "shall cede all attempts, futile or otherwise, of humor to the party of the second part", that's me, "who will then suck on a per..." well, you ge the idea. I'm the humorist, you're the setup. Get it? Good.
 
"Gunderscored"... brings up the old "Thundermug"..
A common household receptacle used to avoid walking to the bathroom during the night when needing to pee.
 
I can mint some medals.


picture.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom