I asked him to explain his statement that I took him out of context. He never did that. I was also off line for a week becasue of the heat (My AC broke--too hot to turn on computer). Because I didn't take the statesmen down (regardless of the lack of explanation he get's angry and says he put me on ignore and he's not going to talk to me no more. When I got back on and saw all of this I made some conciliatory statements. Here they are this is me on CARM in the private part where you get "notifications."
--I'm not sure if that's true. Since people feel strong strongly about it I've decided to start a policy of paraphrase and small quotes of the crucial passage.what did I say here? I said I am not sure there is a legal problem with quoting someone form a message board if you quote for educational purposes. Regardless of this I was willing to change my policy and just paraphrase. Ah, you see this is not the real issue. He doesn't care about being quoted, he doesn't want the illogical and hatred of atheism to be exposed for what it is. I actually said I'm going to keep demonstrating to th world the inadequacy of the carm atheist arrangements and that's what pisses him off. He doesn't care that I'm wiling to not quote them as much. That was never the real issue.
But I say more:
getting something out of context or not fully representing what the person said is always a problem--it can happen to anyone, it's a communication error not malicious.That is to say that I was not merely ignoring the context, if I got it wrong it was an honest mistake.
Communication theory tells us the one sending the message never understandings fully how it's been received. so you may think you are being real clear and you are not.this is saying here is why it's better to quote more than less.
All I can do is be willing to listen to you when you explain--you have not explained.Here I'm saying I'm open to your concerns and I'm willing to listen to your point of view. But that's not nearly good enough because it's not really what he's after. he's reatlly trying wreck the blog by finding an excuse to make me look bad. He never once not one single time acknowledges that I said any of this. He goes on talking bout how ignored what he said I didn't take it down and I refuse to stop quoting (when in fact I said I would stop).
(this is quoted from the comment box on this blog it's in my domain it's not a violation of anything because he volunteered to make the comment)
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.So I said "I'm going to concede to what you ask and not quote" he says "I'm not going to talk to you any more." He pretends like I've been totally unreasonable when in fact I have tried to be totally conciliatory.
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.He's complaining about the way I represent his view in the discussion on CARM what does that have to do with this blog? Its' a matter of opinon and the Chrsitan who gave him rep points (probalby someone he thinks of as a total idiot normally, because he thinks Christians are idiots I'm sure) did not give him the rep points saying "this is because Meta is wrong." So in fact these "rep points" prove nothing and have nothing to with anything.
He goes on but look what he's talking about:
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.
Side bar issue on CARM that has nothing to do with the reason I quoted him here.
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."This is just a jumble of confused ideas. First of all, I quoted his statesmen which is stronger than just "I consider it meaningful." Look at what he really said:
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'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.All kinds of Bible scholars read Greek but it's only meaningful when the atheist does. I agree if the atheist scholar agrees with the religious view that's a good sign it's right. That makes it good evidence and in fact I try to use non Christian schoalrs as much as I can. Time and time again I've quoted atheists who agree with my position and atheist deny that they are atheists, or say they are stupid, or demand that they are really creationists and imply I'm lying about it. One of them said Thomas S. Kuhn was a creationist! I think it's pretty irnonic when it helps them then they have confidence, when it helps me they are not really atheists.
The confirmation bias clearly comes into play where he can't trust a religious scholar to say something about Greek but when an atheist doesn't it's meaningful. He goes on dragging into it these side bar issues about history that pertain to the argument on CARM and not my reasoning for quoting him here. He has actually demonstrated for me that the quoting of him here is not out of context. He tries to claim the fact that the guy Fox was lauding the historical value of John and I don't say "O that's so wonderful" then that means I'm taking it out of context. that is not out of context it has nothing to do with the context. The context is the confirmation bias that when the atheist says it then he's willing to find it "meaningful." That's exactly the context in which I quoted him. There has no not talking out of context, I merely failed to give up the argument just becasue he has an atheist saying that John is historical.
I would listen to solid reasons in either case, but I didn't have to, since I was reading an atheist scholar.Here he tries to give an indication that he's not biased. I understand why he's saying since the atheist is quoting it he doesn't need to argue. I get that. That's not confirmation bias. the confirmation bias comes where the atheists sweep aside the atheism of people I quote even though it can be proved. Here he excepted it here becasue it's ultiamtely backing his position.
She has stated wrongly in every case. I didn't misrepresent him in any way. I didn't say he's not quoting Fox on the accuracy of John and I understand his use of the atheist scholar in relation to the validity of the argument (it's sort of a reverse criteria of embarrassment in a way). I think that maks the implication that we can't trust Christian scholars. If an atheist says it's ok. The should be reasonably willing to accepted the educated view of any scholar and his religion should be of no consequence. That has to be talking on a sliding scale. I would trust a Yale guy before I would trust a Wheaton College guy. She also asserts that I "cuss him out and ignore his requests." I didn't do any "cussing." We apparently have differnt notiong of what that means. To me "cussing' is when you say words that are not acceptable such as "shit, hell, dman, fuck , ass hole, ect. " I don't think I used such language.
Nor did I deny his request. I quote myself at the top where I said I would honor his concerns. They have totally ignored that statement as though I never said it. They love to make a fuss. I'm so bad. I"m so bad, I always bad. The bottom line here that says it all for why they are carrying on as though I didn't even say "Ok I'll consider your feelings and I qont quote you anymore" it's all in the phrase Holly says:
"what kind of Christianity do you represent?"
In other words: Propaganda!
They are milking it, just as Hermit taught them, get every drop of propaganda value out of every single word a Christian utters. use every single opportunity to draw the link from this tiny little mistake to the huge gaping untruth of the Christian faith as a whole. What them like hawks use everything little mistake against them.
This is nothing but the atheist drama queen battalion at work. They can't beat the arguments fairly so they have to resort to personal attacks.
one other thing he also says:
I understand his context and reason for saying that the fact of Fox's atheism he finds meaningful. I get that he's not merely saying "he's right because he's an atheist" but that I don't have to argue about the controversy if an atheist takes the Christian position. yet to put it in postmodern parlance, I'm a applying a hermeneutic of suspicion. I think there's more to it than that. I think he would not accept such comments coming from Christians in spite of their expertise.