on CARM
They assert that documents were destroyed in the canonizing process. I ask for documentation they give only conjecture (it must have hapepned because Christians are evil and mean). I say that is only conjecture.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
cottreau
Well, no - there are lots of historical events that go completely unrecorded and I'm sure there were lots of documents destroyed by the church where no one has recorded the event.conjecture!
However, you are right - there is no historical evidence that we know of. While people want to believe it, since it seems that the church at the time was fully capable of such atrocities to history, wanting to believe it doesn't make it true.
He did actually assert that the historical (he means naturalistic) parts of John might have history in them. KCD says "prove it." he says:
Originally Posted by cottreau
That proves your confirmation bias right here. you are so biased you automatically discount any evidence except from an atheist. that is brain washing. because you wont get anything form an atheist but atheism.all you are saying is 'I refuse to consider the fact, just confirm want I want to believe." He says he considers it meaningful because he's an atheist, that means he doesn't consider it meaningful if it's by a Christian or some kind of believer.
17 comments:
This is cottreau from CARM.
You can't just take my entries on CARM and post them on your blog. You need permission for that.
NOTE: you also can't carry on a conversation without someone to converse with. Feel free to raise the points and address them, but don't quote me please.
wrong. it's called "fair use law." you can quote anything for education purposes. this is for educational purposes.
Note: you have taken privately posted material and made it public.
Fair use law only applies to publicly published material. If you quoted my blog, or a book I'd published, fair enough. However CARM is private and not covered by fair use.
I am asking politely. Please remove my material from your blog.
Please also note that you've mis-represented me in both situations where you've quoted me.
If you'd bothered to follow-up in our CARM conversation, you would have realized that.
I believe you owe me an apology in any case.
This is cottreau from CARM.
You can't just take my entries on CARM and post them on your blog. You need permission for that.
NOTE: you also can't carry on a conversation without someone to converse with. Feel free to raise the points and address them, but don't quote me please.
you need to follow the blog that's the reason for putting comments on there.
If you think I took you out of context explain how. not very helpful to say I did it. how?
Determinist said...
Please also note that you've mis-represented me in both situations where you've quoted me.
If you'd bothered to follow-up in our CARM conversation, you would have realized that.
I believe you owe me an apology in any case.
that's stupid. "following up" means continuing the pissing contest when there's nothing more to be said because you got the shit kicked out of you. All you ever argue in the first place is about me not the ideas but how I am bad.
Carm is not private and fair use does apply.
NOTE: rules of CARM, and I quote:
"The CARM discussion boards and chatroom are private. They are not publicly owned boards. Therefore, you are to operate within these rules."
If you'd read the rules, you would know.
That is the last thing I will post to you. It's obvious that you are not listening to me.
Have a good life Metacock - I will not be involved in it any more, in any way.
here's a good eample of how ideolgoical brain washing prevents rational discourse. He quotes the rules saying the is private but the just forgets to prove that you can't use the use law on privet boards.
Just saying it's private doesn't prove that that fair use doesn't apply. He has not quoted anything on that.
he also just forgot the pm I sent him on carm saying I would respect his wishes. He also never bothered to say why it's taken out of context.
He's just whining about not getting his way.
I will not be engaging in any more CARM discussions with you, so you won't be able to quote me in discussion with you any more anyway.
I explained how you misrepresented me in further discussion IN THAT THREAD. I have had a Christian member give me reps and thank me for my explanation, saying that they understood my reasoning and agreed with it on the Robin Lane Fox statement.
1. I responded to your statement "If it has happened there would be someone somewhere in that era writing about it."
My reply to this is that there are lots of things that happen in history that are not written about. You are stating that I am claiming that the council of Nicea burned the books and because it went unrecorded. Ridiculous - I said no such thing. READ my statements before you claim to understand them. We KNOW that there is lots that happens in history that is not written down. I disagree with your statement that is basically "if it's not written down, it must not have happened" - which is clearly incorrect.
2. I said, "Fox is an atheist as well, so I consider it meaningful." and you replied "that proves your confirmation bias right here. you are so biased you automatically discount any evidence except from an atheist. that is brain washing."
NOTE: you must have missed my follow-up. Fox is an atheist, yet is stating that the Gospel of John is historically accurate. This is an atheist going against any atheist bias, thus, is more meaningful than a Christian stating that John is historically accurate, since this isn't going against the natural Christian bias.
I would listen to solid reasons in either case, but I didn't have to, since I was reading an atheist scholar.
yes you did say something very similar to that. you are like so many athesit who think that it's out of context and doesn't count if one little tiny nauence is out of place. you said exactly what I quoted you for saying the context was right fucking on! you don't know anything you are child and a whiner.
you want to mock and ridicule people for their beliefs when someone4 calls you on your bigotry you go to pieces.
here's what Cantu can't get to. I quoted him for this:
"I'm just quoting Robin Lane Fox, a Greek speaking/writing, Oxford classics scholar from the same book I mentioned in the last post ("The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible"). Fox is an atheist as well, so I consider it meaningful."
the last bit that says "he's an atheist so I trust him." That's the confirmation bias in action. his defense of that is based upon the assertion which is not documented at all about ms being destroyed in the canonizing process. That is not the issue that quoted him for.
when he says I take him out of context he doesn't' even understand the context I'm quoting him for.
This will be my last post to you anywhere, either CARM or here.
I was clear in my posts. Any normal, reasonable person would get it. Only a crazy person would call me a bigot or biased for what is a reasonable statement.
You are not a normal, reasonable person. You are bat-shit crazy.
I have to say, through quite a few posts, you actually had me fooled that you were normal. That's hard for a crazy person to do - I'm impressed.
dear meta,
you have indeed misrepresented cottreau. It is easy to see. He clearly explained why it was important, and you miss it again.
it is your own loss, for cottreau is another intellectually honest, truth seeker. You cuss him out, AND ignore his requests to not quote him without permission. What kind of christianity do you represent? You keep saying one has to read your blog. But you are taking conversations OFF of carm, and not replying there, making a person think you are through with a conversation, then your are carrying it on, here without telling them. I really don't think you care...I don't think this will have any effect on you,and yet...i try....
Nothing you said is true Holly. I don't think you even read my answers.
you say:
dear meta,
"you have indeed misrepresented cottreau. It is easy to see. He clearly explained why it was important, and you miss it again.
it is your own loss, for cottreau is another intellectually honest, truth seeker."
Yes he is such an honest truth seeker that when I say "I will honr your requriest because you feel strongly about it," he says "you have not agreed to do this." that's real truth seeking hu? I said that in the PM thing on CARM, I told him I would honor his request, he would rather have soemthing to whine about than to actually make peace so he doesn't even bother to acknowledge that I said it.
You cuss him out, AND ignore his requests to not quote him without permission.
Didn't ignore his requirest. that's a lie. I didn't "cuss." her is "cussing"
You stupid shit hole, fuck you you stupid dildo! that's "cussing." saying that he doesn't know anyting is hardly cussing. I didn't say anything like that.
"What kind of christianity do you represent? You keep saying one has to read your blog. But you are taking conversations OFF of carm, and not replying there, making a person think you are through with a conversation, then your are carrying it on, here without telling them. I really don't think you care...I don't think this will have any effect on you,and yet...i try...."
that's another lie you told and you are totally misrepreseting waht I said. YOu are taking my stuff out of context I think you are doing it knowing that you are lying.
I said I quoted him for the one line where he says "I feel confident becasue he's an atheist." You don't even acknowledge that you and he are still talking about other issues that I did not quote him on.
he makes this one big last emotionally packed statement:
"This will be my last post to you anywhere, either CARM or here.
I was clear in my posts. Any normal, reasonable person would get it. Only a crazy person would call me a bigot or biased for what is a reasonable statement.
You are not a normal, reasonable person. You are bat-shit crazy.
I have to say, through quite a few posts, you actually had me fooled that you were normal. That's hard for a crazy person to do - I'm impressed. "
He still doesn't acknowledge that I agreed not to quote him. I'm quoting him from his blog. I agreed not to quote him from carm. I can quote him in a comment box from comments he makes on this blog.
he still doesn't acknowledge that I point out I quoted him for the statement that he would believe the expert because he's an atheist. That's confirmation bias and that's why I quoted him he doesn't even acknowledged that. He's still talking about other issues when he says "context" there's no way the context changing the comment about "I trust him because he's an atheist."
Post a Comment