Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

A test for truth

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 3:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

Oh look a vacuous pot shot aimed at poster who calls out this prick.

If you think I have lied - STFU and prove it .. and rather than be a child - why not have a chat with airmax like an adult rather than pout publicly like a spoiled brat?

YOU are the problem Beasty - and these fairy tale accusations with nothing else but vendetta are the evidence.

You got called out - that happens WHEN YOU LIE. Simply reversing the charge because the mods are absent doesn't not make you honest - not that many people here believe you anyway ... just the you and the forum troll.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 3:09:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 3:00:47 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

Oh look a vacuous pot shot aimed at poster who calls out this prick.

If you think I have lied - STFU and prove it .. and rather than be a child - why not have a chat with airmax like an adult rather than pout publicly like a spoiled brat?

YOU are the problem Beasty - and these fairy tale accusations with nothing else but vendetta are the evidence.

You got called out - that happens WHEN YOU LIE. Simply reversing the charge because the mods are absent doesn't not make you honest - not that many people here believe you anyway ... just the you and the forum troll.

http://www.debate.org...
Post #86

There you are, proudly proclaiming that I'm wrong in stating that G. A. Wells wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist". And here you are telling me that I'm lying about that fact. So you continue to prove my point. Not only do you lie as a common tactic, but you then lie about lying.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 3:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Calling someone out in this forum, in the form of a thread, is NOT going to help it become more productive.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 3:15:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 3:09:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/2/2014 3:00:47 PM, neutral wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

Oh look a vacuous pot shot aimed at poster who calls out this prick.

If you think I have lied - STFU and prove it .. and rather than be a child - why not have a chat with airmax like an adult rather than pout publicly like a spoiled brat?

YOU are the problem Beasty - and these fairy tale accusations with nothing else but vendetta are the evidence.

You got called out - that happens WHEN YOU LIE. Simply reversing the charge because the mods are absent doesn't not make you honest - not that many people here believe you anyway ... just the you and the forum troll.

http://www.debate.org...
Post #86

There you are, proudly proclaiming that I'm wrong in stating that G. A. Wells wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist". And here you are telling me that I'm lying about that fact. So you continue to prove my point. Not only do you lie as a common tactic, but you then lie about lying.

Which is not the point of that particular claim is it Beasty? GA Wells ALSO wrote ethe Jesus Myth which is WHERE THE POINTS IN CONTENTION IN THAT THREAD ORIGINATED.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with the moderation team.

IF you leave our a MAJOR PORTION of a conversation in a partial text - you better check your own integrity at the door douchebag.

The context of the conversation ORIGINATED with GA WELLS, that he happened to write SIX BOOKS, all generally saying the same thing, one of which is happened to be called the Jesus Myth, is called minutia.

That you left out tat rater key point is EXTREMELY dishonest.

That you would dredge it up month after the fact, after the spanking ethan gave you for dishonesty is just shameful.

It is typically you though.

Lee Stroebel - any day now Beasty.

No evidence - any day now Beasty.

You beating ethan - any day now Beasty.

that one of the most dishonest people on the forum would call out others for integrity violations - in violation of the forum rules minds you - is pathetic.

If you think you have anything here - take it up with the mods - I triple dog dare you.

Put up or shut up.

You ARE a liar.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beastt, I normally like your posts and you have made some really smart contributions to a lot of threads. However, I have to say that you and neutral calling each other out so often, and now doing it with threads that seem to serve no other purpose than to antagonize one another, this is not helpful for anyone. I know the temptation to do this kind of thing. I would have done it myself at points in the past had I not witnessed others engage like this first. It never, ever makes anything better.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

The authors of those books are boldly dishonest, twisting history to support their hatred of God. You can believe lies all the way to Hell. People believe that rubbish, and it's nothing new. The reason people want to believe stuff like that is very simple.: If you believe Jesus is God who took your death and offers you forgiveness in His resurreciton it will change your life and if you choose to trample His blood under your feet, He is just to reject you in death in Hell the same as you rejected Him in life after He died to save you. People simply are too proud. They do not want to admit God rules over them, so they think that by saying He is not there they free themselves from His judgement. Big mistake.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:55:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

You choose to believe lies and liars. As much as I would like you to believe Jesus Christ, apparently you never will and you will not believe God will leave you in Hell untill you find yourself unable to get out of the fire. You are counting down in the first death and in danger of the second death which has no finality to count down to. You are running out of time. You need to quit believing liars and believe Jesus Christ before your death is finalized and you can will never again have the chance to know God is good.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 3:15:47 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Calling someone out in this forum, in the form of a thread, is NOT going to help it become more productive.

Perhaps that's true. But someday Neutral needs to grow up and learn to take responsibility for his actions.

As I stated, I have my reservations about authoring this kind of thread. But Neutral brings this upon himself. He lies and cries and whines about everyone else, but is debatably, the worst on the forum, for most of the things, about which he points fingers to others.

I've had enough. If it was wrong, them I'm wrong. But it's about time people here who lie chronically and repeatedly, are publicly paraded each and every time they do it. Perhaps.... just perhaps; it will reduce the number of lies, the number of unsupportable assertions, and improve the quality of debate.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 4:09:02 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Beastt, I normally like your posts and you have made some really smart contributions to a lot of threads. However, I have to say that you and neutral calling each other out so often, and now doing it with threads that seem to serve no other purpose than to antagonize one another, this is not helpful for anyone. I know the temptation to do this kind of thing. I would have done it myself at points in the past had I not witnessed others engage like this first. It never, ever makes anything better.

You're probably right.

But as true as that may be, he's either going to apologize to me over the incident in our first encounter, or I'm going to keep calling him out. And I hope others do the same. At some point this guy has to learn that he's actually held responsible when he decides that the way to "win" his debate is to just start spewing a blizzard of lies. And no one EVER holds him responsible for more than a few minutes. So it's time that we start to pin him down for EVERY SINGLE lie he tells. Perhaps he'll learn that it's better to tell the truth, than to face the consequences.

I detest lies, I detest liars and I detest liars who accuse others of lying as if it were no big deal. And to be fair, he probably doesn't think it is because he lies as a standard practice of debate. But some of us realize that being a liar is a strike against who you are as a person. It reflects poorly on your ethics, your integrity, your view of yourself as an indivisual, along with your honesty (or lack thereof). And Neutral IS going to learn that it's a very serious allegation.

He's also going to learn to apologize.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:40:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 4:55:42 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

You choose to believe lies and liars. As much as I would like you to believe Jesus Christ, apparently you never will and you will not believe God will leave you in Hell untill you find yourself unable to get out of the fire. You are counting down in the first death and in danger of the second death which has no finality to count down to. You are running out of time. You need to quit believing liars and believe Jesus Christ before your death is finalized and you can will never again have the chance to know God is good.

Here is a good example. This is part of the reason that debate here is of poor quality, and fading. The first - and by far the more significant reason - is that people like Neutral have learned that they can spew lies as often as they blink, and it costs them nothing. You might expect that Christians would want to disassociate themselves from anyone of such blatant dishonesty. But as it turns out, Christians tend to be the ones lying far more often than the atheists here. That's not to say that I haven't seen some atheists lying openly. And I probably should have called them out on it but didn't. I'll usually elect not to add my two-cents when I see that happening. And I'm admittedly more likely to make an issue of it when I see Christians lying openly. So I'm not claiming there isn't a bias. But I seriously do believe that - in general - most of the divisive lying here comes from the Christians.

But perhaps the number two problem is the number of people who simply post assertion, after assertion, after assertion, and honestly believe they've presented a strong debate. The above post makes the point. This is a story. It's a story that many people believe, but it is a story none-the-less. And that means that it's completely unsupportable. No matter how strongly one may believe this story, they can't support it. So they can debate it only through blind assertion. And it should be understood that blind assertions are inherently weaker points of argument than supportable (and supported) claims.

Please don't misunderstand. I realize that you think you're giving me helpful advice - the most helpful advice of my supposed eternity. However, if I were to hound you about living in a wooden home (a "house built of sticks"), and constantly warn you that the Big Bad Wolf was going to huff, and puff, and blow your house down, how seriously would you take my warning? And the key here is that it's a story. And if I seriously believed that story, I'd think I was giving you incredibly good advice. But it would be advice for which I could offer no support. I could quote the story word-for-word, but that doesn't make it more than a story.

Debate claims which can be supported will always beat blind assertions. So I would urge you to learn about the origin of the story you're quoting. Learn how it formed, who was behind it, and why people believe it to be a message from God, when nothing about it's origin is even slightly consistent with that claim.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:57:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 4:51:14 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:48:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
One of my first encounters on the forum was with the member who calls himself "Neutral". I listed a few of the books I've read in regard to the evidence (or lack, thereof), for a historical Jesus and two of the books have the same title. One has a subtitle, the other does not, and the authors are not the same.

Neutral immediately accused me of not knowing anything about the book, and claimed I had the author wrong. (I'd listed the book written by G. A. Wells, and that written by Bart D. Ehrman, both entitled "Did Jesus Exist?"). I explained that there were two different books from two different authors but that the titles were the same.

Neutral responded by calling me a liar. Then another member entered the thread and assured Neutral that I was correct and he continued calling both of us "liars". So I posted a link to the book Neutral was claiming didn't exist at Amazon.com. And while he could no longer continue claiming that no such book existed, he has NEVER admitted that he was wrong, nor has he ever apologized for claiming we were ignorant, when the ignorance was all his. He has also never apologized for calling me a "liar", when I was being open and honest.

My point here is that this seems to be more the rule than the exception when it comes to Christians. It is absolutely the rule when it comes to Neutral. He is brash, arrogant, ignorant, abrasive, insulting and purely dishonest. And yet, he becomes very angry when people show him that he's wrong. He holds that against them, as though they've done something wrong, by demonstrating that he is wrong. Despite this, he never tires of playing the victim.

So how is it that anyone is supposed to find any argument he makes for Christianity, to be the least bit compelling? He insists there are no historians who subscribe to Jesus Mythicism, despite having been given the name of Richard Carrier multiple times. This is pure and blatant dishonesty. How does he think he can present any case for Christianity, when he shows everyone that he operates on pure lies and ego?

I'm generally opposed to threads presented for the purpose of pointing a finger at any specific user, but with the recent interest shown in trying to "clean up" the forum and open the door to the possibility of productive debates, perhaps it is time the spotlight is placed where it belongs in such instances. Christians who blatantly lie cannot do anything positive in attempting to support Christianity because they demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the truth. My aim here is not to eject Neutral from the forum. Put to a vote, I would vote against such an effort, without hesitation.

But I do hope that at some time in the future, Neutral and any others using the same tactics will begin to ask themselves whether they have any genuine interest in the truth, or whether their interest is all on the part of serving their own egos, by loudly bellowing that they are on the winning team, even if "winning" to them, means cheating, lying, and then lying about lying and cheating.

If you've already demonstrated a continual habit of lying and then lying about your dishonesty, how can anyone believe that you even care about the truth when it comes to your religion? You have already failed the test for truth.

If Christians hope to be compelling, they need to show everyone - online, and off - that they are boldly and unfailingly honest. And when they show the opposite, they demonstrate that truth is of no interest to them. Do you want people to believe you, or know that there is no reason to believe you?

The authors of those books are boldly dishonest, twisting history to support their hatred of God.
Okay, here is another good example. I'm talking about two books which are both titled "Did Jesus Exist". One was written by G. A. Wells who takes the stance that Jesus never actually existed. The other was written by Bart D Ehrman, who claims that a historical Jesus absolutely did exist. And your response... they're both lying.

So it would appear that you're calling (or suggesting) both of these authors to be liars. Yet it also appears that you don't even know what the authors claim, because one of them attempts to support the belief that Jesus actually did exist. So how honest are you being?

And if you're willing to suggest that an author is being purposefully dishonest without even knowing what he wrote, how interested are you in the truth? All you've done here is to give yourself a huge black-eye. And that black-eye is something you should be wearing in debate for the next several weeks. It should become a tag which accompanies each of your posts, showing that you have been known to demonstrate very poor integrity.

You can believe lies all the way to Hell. People believe that rubbish, and it's nothing new.
At this stage, you're coming right out and claiming that they're producing "lies". If this is true then...
1. It is a lie that Jesus actually existed
2. It is a lie that Jesus never actually existed

Do you see the problem?

The reason people want to believe stuff like that is very simple.: If you believe Jesus is God who took your death and offers you forgiveness in His resurreciton it will change your life and if you choose to trample His blood under your feet, He is just to reject you in death in Hell the same as you rejected Him in life after He died to save you. People simply are too proud. They do not want to admit God rules over them, so they think that by saying He is not there they free themselves from His judgement. Big mistake.

The bigger question is; why are you so certain that Jesus did exist? You have no more evidence for Jesus than does anyone else. And the historical evidence for Jesus is all hearsay, extremely limited, and fully inconsistent with the enormity of the claims Christians accept of him from the Bible. If the Bible were true, there would be every reason to find mention of Jesus in the writings of nearly every historian of the time. Instead, we find not a single mention of him, by any historian of that time. The only historical mentions, all came decades after the time Jesus was supposed to exist. And they're all hearsay. Of the more than 2-dozen historians known to have been living in that time and region... not a single one ever mentions Jesus. Of those living after that time, none claim to have any first-hand knowledge of Jesus. Every single reference to him (and it's being generous to suggest there are five), is simply a mention that they had heard a story or simply a mention of, Jesus. We get the very same thing in the writings of Plato, in regard to Zeus.

If you and I were in a room at the moment, and not allowed reference materials, I'm fairly certain that I could bury you in this debate in very short order. You certainly wouldn't change your mind because you still believe that to listen to reason in this instance would condemn you to Hell. My point is simply that you're willing to make such allegations having very little knowledge of the facts at hand.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire