Sunday, May 29, 2016

Avoiding Confirmation Bias


I was a bit surprised to see that Victor Reppert took a defensive stance in response (I believe) to my previous post, in which I said that he seized upon a certain article that appealed to his confirmation bias.  Victors words were:
It seems to me that the defense of any position can be attributed  to confirmation by its opponents. It is a charge that proves everything, and therefore nothing. - Reppert 
He seems to think that the accusation of confirmation bias was used to refute his argument, but since anyone can be accused of having confirmation bias, it is a meaningless charge.  What's surprising to me is his failure to grasp what it means to say that someone has confirmation bias, and that he would see this as a refutation.  So let me try to set the record straight.

Confirmation bias is something that afflicts us all.   It is the natural tendency to favor information that agrees with what we already believe, and ignore or discount information that doesn't support those beliefs.  When we search the internet for articles to help us make an argument, for example, we may skip over ones that contain any information that supports the opposite viewpoint, and look for only the ones that strictly support our own position.  When we read something, we have a tendency to interpret it in a manner that agrees with what we believe.  And when we recall something, we tend to be (unconsciously) selective in which facts come to mind.  These things are well documented.

There is no shame in saying that someone has confirmation bias.  We all have it.  It's perfectly natural.  We want our own beliefs to be true, so we seek out information that helps us to confirm those beliefs.  I certainly don't exempt myself from this.  It would be disingenuous for me to say that someone else has confirmation bias, but not admit the same thing about myself.  It's not an accusation or a "charge", as Victor puts it.  It's simply a recognition of the human condition that we all share. 

When I say that Victor has seized upon an article that appeals to his confirmation bias, I am not making the case that his position is invalid for that reason, because that would be a logical fallacy on my part.  I am simply pointing out that there is another side to the argument that he has glossed over or ignored.  I'm saying that Victor has found an article that supports his side of the argument, and he has declared victory by simply presenting one side of the story.  Furthermore, he bolstered his case by selecting an article written by a supposed atheist.  The implied argument is that if an atheist agrees with the religious position, that lends additional credence to the religious position.  But that's a fallacy.  Of course, having said these things about Victor's argument, it is incumbent on me to prove my point by presenting the other side.  Please note that none of this implies that one side or the other is right.  It is simply a commentary on Victor's approach to presenting the argument.

Victor asks: "Is Confirmation Bias Avoidable?"  I think he's asking, "Is the charge confirmation bias avoidable?"  What he means by this is that any argument could be countered by charges of confirmation bias.  I disagree.  You can't refute your opponent's argument by accusing him of confirmation bias.  The fact of being biased says nothing about whether or not you are correct.  If someone tells you that your argument is false because of your bias, you have every right to retort that this is a fallacy.

Nevertheless, confirmation bias is real, and it affects all of us.  So what can we do about it?  The first thing is to recognize that it exists, and that it affects the way we seek and process information.  The second thing is to make a conscious effort to see both sides of the story.  You owe it to yourself to at least look at opposing viewpoints and try to understand them.  Finally, if someone says you have confirmation bias, don't get defensive about it.  Ask yourself, "Am I making an honest effort to examine the issue objectively?"  Nobody can be perfectly objective about all things.  But recognizing that and making an effort to be more objective can make a big difference.  At least you might adopt a stance that is a bit more nuanced - a stance that takes into account truths that exist in your opponent's side of the story.  That only serves to make your own stance more defensible.  That's the best you can do.

78 comments:

  1. Sorry, but your position sounds to me like an excuse for never committing yourself to anything. Maybe that's what you want, but it holds no interest for me. None.

    "You are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your position sounds like "I've got this cool verse from that bible I've been wanting to use on you, and I couldn't find the right time when it actually applies, so what the hell, I'll just use it anyway."

      Delete
    2. No, actually that was a last minute addition. Icing on the the cake, as it were. But if that's the security blanket that you need, well....

      Delete
    3. Stick to carpentry, Plank. Baking ain't your thing.

      Delete
    4. Hah! In today's political climate, who in their right mind would even want to be a baker? Before you know it, some wannabe totalitarian would be forcing you to bake something in violation of your most dearly held beliefs. Not interested!

      Delete
    5. Metaphor-what a concept.

      Delete
    6. Hey planks,

      What do you suppose Jesus would say about your refusing to treat other people with equal dignity, in violation of his most dearly held beliefs?

      Delete
    7. what a hypocrite you are, in that sham of debate you whined your way though you actually said you refuse to read the links because:" I bet those aren't real studies." You can't see that's combination bias steroids.

      Delete
  2. Jesus would answer:

    "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female?", and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That passage is about divorce. You should read on down to verse 19.

      Delete
    2. Where did your "jesus" get his degree in genetics?

      Delete
    3. Uhh.. He created genetics, remember?

      "All things were made through [Jesus], and without Him was not anything made that was made."
      (John 1:3)

      "In [Jesus] all things were created, in Heaven and on Earth ... all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
      (Colossians 1:16-17)

      Delete
    4. "Uhh.. He created genetics, remember?"

      Allegedly.
      But apparently "he" didn't understand it very well.

      What is the deal with quoting your "holy" book to atheists?
      You do understand that only the indoctrinated consider it to be "god breathed", no?

      And why on earth would you think a pair of bare assertions carry any weight when they come from a book of which you don't even know the authors?

      Delete
  3. I notice Plank has exhausted his cache of apologetic rationalisations and has now resorted to Plan B... Bible quotes. In exercising due diligence I cross referenced the two quotes for their factual verification of the claims Plank makes, be they scientific or otherwise, with the other Abrahamic traditions and found no evidence for them. So it would seem these claims are baseless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "has now resorted to Plan B... Bible quotes"

    That's actually Plan A. Anything the Word of God has to say will always be better than anything I could come up with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of all the thousands of "holy" books written by humans only yours is actually written by a "god".

      How very fortunate for you.

      Delete
  5. Of all the thousands of "holy" books written by humans only yours is actually written by a "god".

    No, that honor actually goes to the Koran. In stark contrast to Islam's foundational text, not one line of the 73 books that make up the Old and New Testaments claims to have been written by God. Now what is claimed, is that they were written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...what is claimed, is that they were written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit."

      Distinction without a difference.
      And you're wrong. Your "holy" book makes the same claim as all the others.

      2 Timothy 2:16

      {"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"} KJV

      The judeo/christer/islamic traditions all claim "god" inspired the human writers. As do the traditions of the vedas, the guru granth sahib, the yasna and visperad, the agamas, the kojiki, the popol vuh, the book of mormon.... etc etc....

      But you lucked out and were born into a culture that really had that dirct line to the creator of the universe.

      Again, how very fortunate for you.

      Delete
    2. "...under the influence of the Holy Spirit...."

      Fermented grapes? You've got that right.

      Just another example of the continuing segue of apologetical rationalisation. For centuries it was the actual written word of god inscribed in stone, no ifs and buts, the inerrant word of God no less. Today, "written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit", which is concurrently jockeying for top position with 'the inspired word of God'. Tomorrow it will be simply a 'genuine allegory' about how man should live, a metaphor for how we should conduct our lives.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And you're wrong.

    Huh? The verse you quoted says the exact same thing that I was. All scripture is inspired by God, not written by Him.

    Again, how very fortunate for you.

    100% agreement. I am indeed fortunate, and will not argue that for an instant. I thank God several times aday for my good fortune. But kindly show me how being fortunate necessarily makes one factually incorrect. If not, then my good fortune (or misfortune) is no argument whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Huh? The verse you quoted says the exact same thing that I was. All scripture is inspired by God, not written by Him."

    The claims of the christers and Jews are no different than the claims of the Muslims. Why is this difficult for you?

    And Papalinton makes an excellent point. The Ten commandments were indeed allegedly written by the finger of your "god".

    "I am indeed fortunate, and will not argue that for an instant. I thank God several times a day for my good fortune. But kindly show me how being fortunate necessarily makes one factually incorrect. If not, then my good fortune (or misfortune) is no argument whatsoever."

    And you have a cutting edge sense of irony as well. (sarcasm in case you missed that too.)

    Do you understand, Planker, that the adherents of every other religion, without exception, feel that they too have the same good fortune?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you understand, Planker, that the adherents of every other religion, without exception, feel that they too have the same good fortune?

    Of course I do. So what? It is neither an argument for nor against what either they or I believe. You don't see me using my good fortune as an argument in favor of Catholic Christianity, so I see no reason for it to be used as an argument against it. It's irrelevant.

    And as for Pap's point. Sure, the 10 Commandments were indeed "written by the finger of God", but the Book of Exodus was not. And that is my point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...So what? It is neither an argument for nor against what either they or I believe. You don't see me using my good fortune as an argument in favor of Catholic Christianity, so I see no reason for it to be used as an argument against it. It's irrelevant."

    No, it really isn't irrelevant.
    You have to say that all other adherents of religions other than your own are deluded.
    And having done that, if you are honest, you must seriously entertain the proposition that you are just as deluded as they are.

    All religions can't be right-but all could be wrong.

    "And as for Pap's point. Sure, the 10 Commandments were indeed "written by the finger of God", but the Book of Exodus was not. And that is my point."

    Your faith in a book of bronze age fairy tales is touching.

    And my point is that all religions claim the same "inspiration from whatever god" as you do.
    That every one of said "gods" chooses to write using human fingers is not conclusive evidence that your claim is nonsense but it is strong evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. bronze age fairy tales

    The Bronze Age lasted from 3300 B.C. to 1200 B.C. (dates approximate, of course). The Old Testament was written between circa 900 B.C. and 124 B.C. So at a minimum, 300 years separate the very earliest writing in the Bible from the last days of the Bronze Age, and a full one thousand years from the most recent.

    Hmm... 300 years ago, no one was even thinking about a United States. In fact, there weren't really any self-supporting English colonies in the Americas at that time. In Europe, the Holy Roman Empire still dominated the continent, and Poland was a world power that stretched from Hungary to the gates of Moscow. So a lot can happen in 300 years! And do you really want me to go into a thousand year period?

    So please tell me how anything in the scriptures can be labeled "Bronze Age fairy tales".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much of the old testament consists of bronze-age fairy tales that were written down during the iron age.

      Delete
    2. Oh, what beautiful red herring.
      I like it so much I may forget that you just stepped on your d!@k.
      LOL

      Jewish tradition claims that the earth is 5,775 years old and their calendar has been used since the beginning of human history.

      Oops.

      Delete
  12. Oh, so you are conceding that after a 300 (or even a 1000) year span, oral information can be accurately set down in a written form? Well then, I guess we won't be hearing anything further from you about the so-called problem of the New Testament having been written at most a couple of decades after the events described?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...conceding that after a 300 (or even a 1000) year span, oral information can be accurately set down in a written form?..."

      Who the hell said it was accurate?
      Get a grip, son.

      The problem with the NT is that nowhere in it does anyone claim to be an eye witness to the miraculous events described.

      Even Paul-the earliest NT writer and the only one who isn't anonymous-never claims to have met an earthly "jesus".

      Delete
  13. The problem with the NT is that nowhere in it does anyone claim to be an eye witness to the miraculous events described.

    Have you even read the New Testament?

    "He who saw it has borne witness" (John 19:35)

    "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things." (John 21:24)

    "we were eyewitnesses" (2 Peter 1:16)

    "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands ... we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us." (1 John 1:1-2)

    Now you may not believe that these writers were eyewitnesses, but there's no way you can claim that "nowhere in [the New Testament] does anyone claim to be an eye witness". I just cited four such claims.

    And there are other places as well. Hmm.. first you incorrectly date the writing of scripture by anywhere from 3 to 10 centuries, and then you don't even know what they say!

    ReplyDelete
  14. LOL

    John 19:35

    Do you understand the term "hearsay"?
    How about second hand testimony?
    This one is a fail, planker.

    {"....The Gospel of John is anonymous; Church tradition identified the "beloved disciple" mentioned in John 21:24 as the author and named him (John the evangelist), but this is rejected by the majority of modern scholars. Scholars believe that the text went through two to three "editions" before reaching its current form, and because of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single author...."} wiki

    And He who saw it is in the second person, fool.

    Rookie mistake, dude.

    John 21:24

    Same problems.

    "...we know that his testimony is true..."

    Second hand hearsay once again. Not a claim to being eye witness but to knowing an eye witness.
    Do you understand the assertion? I'm doubting it.

    2 Peter 1:16

    Hilarious, dude.
    2 Peter isn't even written by the same author as 1 Peter.

    "....The great majority of scholars agree that Peter could not have written this letter. For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion" Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged", as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter." Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author." Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority to be largely inconclusive. Likewise, Stanley Porter points to the fact that 2 Peter's acceptance to the canon by early Christians presumes that they were sure that Peter wrote it. In the end, Carson and Moo point to the controversy reflective of this issue, stating, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."} wiki

    IOW, it was written by a someone in a religious community long after the fact to bolster the authority of the leaders and the faith of the faithful.

    And note that is phrased as "we" were eye witnesses, not "I" was an eye witness.
    And 2 Peter is dated by most biblical scholars at 110 CE.
    I'll leave you to do the math on that.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you have reading comprehension problem s. Of course it's in second person it; not John writing, it's the elders of the church Ephesus attesting to the authors veracity,. that's not hearsay they knew the guy.

      It's not second person but third second is "you."

      Delete
    2. True, third person is he/she, but what Merrill is saying is that the accounts of witness are all second-hand. That is to say, the authors of these stories are not the persons who witnessed the events. The NT contains no eye-witness accounts. None.

      Delete
    3. @joe hinman

      "... Of course it's in second person it; not John writing, it's the elders of the church Ephesus attesting to the authors veracity,..."

      And thus has nothing to do with the original assertion.

      "...that's not hearsay they knew the guy...."

      Hilarious.
      Character witness is not equivalent to eye witness.

      Delete
    4. Hilarious.
      Character witness is not equivalent to eye witness.

      It's not character witness. Character witness is when you say "this guy is a good guy," They are saying: this guy was there, He knew Jesus he saw the events. that's what they are telling us. They were in a position to know he was there.

      Delete
    5. "...They are saying: this guy was there, He knew Jesus he saw the events. that's what they are telling us. They were in a position to know he was there."

      LOL

      And that makes it second hand testimony and not eye witness.
      Thanks for agreeing with me at long last.

      Delete
    6. I find it amazing that someone can claim to be a scholar of history and not understand what eye-witness testimony is. Of course, it seems to be a majority position among Christians that the New Testament is chock-full of it. If you are inclined to succumb to confirmation bias, this is a rich source of false persuasion that could otherwise be easily refuted.

      Delete
  15. (continued)

    1 John 1:1-2

    Leaning a little heavily on John here, no, planker?

    Again, John is dated to 90-110 CE and is anonymous-catholic tradition notwithstanding.
    The math is a big problem for you as is that same royal "we".
    If the royal "we" was of the age of reason and responsibility during the purported events (which by the way are very loosely described and elide into some poet/metaphorical "if we walk in light...we are in fellowship" BS that makes the 1st and 2nd seem kind of metaphorical and poet as well) we're talking about someone(s) who were around 20 at the time now being 80 something in a time when life expectancy was around 40 IIRC.
    And it doesn't really say much about miracles, does it?

    "Now you may not believe that these writers were eyewitnesses...."

    You got that one right.

    "....but there's no way you can claim that "nowhere in [the New Testament] does anyone claim to be an eye witness". I just cited four such claims."

    LOL
    Two of which were reports of hearsay 2nd hand and one of which is the royal "we" not an "I" while the fourth is from a pseudepigraphical work (according to almost all biblical scholars) and is obviously fudging the eye witness account by making it plural rather than personal-the problematic pronouns as they are labeled by the scholars.

    So, to recap, three complete washouts and one so ambiguous as to be worthless.


    "And there are other places as well. "

    Really?
    If these were your best shot I'm not to hopeful but drag them out if you wish.
    So far, you have failed big time.

    Hmm.. first you incorrectly date the writing of scripture by anywhere from 3 to 10 centuries..."

    LOL
    Planker, you seem impervious to logical argument.
    Are you actually going to maintain the old testament is bogus when it claims to start from the beginning of human history?
    And if you're throwing biblical literacy under the bus are you really going to avoid the argument that the myths were around as oral traditions before they were written down?

    I find that rather sad, son.

    And are you really that concerned about whether your campfire stories are bronze age or iron age?
    I think not. I think this is egocentric nit picking.



    "....and then you don't even know what they say!"

    Dude, had this argument many times.
    If there were good examples of such claims they would be celebrated by biblical scholars everywhere.

    They are not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, obviously Victor just doesn't get the concept. He was obviously very bothered by the fact that I said he had confirmation bias. He has made no less than four posts on the topic since I said that. His latest is an emotional tu quoque against atheists. It's really pretty pathetic. You just don't believe Jesus existed because you refuse to admit that the gospels are really true and they're the only evidence we need. How biased is that?

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Merrill, check this out:

      DOXA: Community as Author

      The gospels were a product of the Christian community as a whole, not just one person.

      Delete
    2. just because label it doesn't it['s really as you label. you don't get the concept. the Gospels are produced by the community not buy a single, that is through the process of redaction.

      read the link JB mentions.

      Delete
    3. The point of this comment was about confirmation bias, in keeping with the OP. I am saying you don't refute someone's argument by saying they have confirmation bias. Yet, that is exactly what Victor is attempting to do. He doesn't get the concept.

      As for the gospels, I agree that they were a community effort. Passed down by word of mouth. Changed over time (as all oral traditions are). Eventually written down in a variety of contradictory and competing forms. Selected and "corrected" by the church as new dogma was introduced.

      Delete
    4. JBsptfn

      "....The upshot is that these communities, school/communizes, contained eye witnesses who bore witness to the original events of Jesus ministry and who could have check mistakes and embellishments upon the story....." your anonymous link

      Nope.
      Of course they were written by communities. They are little more than collections of things a group of people wished were true.

      Eye witnesses don't say "we" saw this with our own eyes.
      they say "I" saw this with my own eyes.

      And the third person omnipotent viewpoint is certainly not an eye witness claim.

      Delete
    5. Nope.

      yes.

      Of course they were written by communities. They are little more than collections of things a group of people wished were true.

      No, why don't you try actually try studying the field? they had an oral tradition they memorized the words of the teachers and spit them back. They were in the co munity telling the stories, hearing the witnesses and repeating the teaching to each other in a controlled way,. oral tradition is not just wild rumor. Of course you are afraid to read the link JB gave you because you learn the truth,



      Eye witnesses don't say "we" saw this with our own eyes.

      you have no idea what eye witnesses said in the first century in Palestine. you are imposing modern court standards upon another age. they would say that as s collective if it was important that the particular collective endorsed it. they are the elders of the church that means more than just regular people. as a group they encores in a document. yes they would use second person. you were right out the person, second person plural.

      they say "I" saw this with my own eyes.

      And the third person omnipotent viewpoint is certainly not an eye witness claim

      no reason why it can't be. one switches person in the same sentence/ "I saw him do this: first and third.

      Delete
    6. You can be kind of childish, son. Not in the sense of child-like but in the sense of "petulant".

      Oral traditions in religions function to reinforce belief, not to preserve factual history.
      Also it is absurd to suggest that people in the ANE were assiduous and ardent fact checkers. Most testimony was accepted at face value since travel and time to interview witnesses was not as effortless as it is now. (LOL Speaking of the historical fallacy.)

      "...No, why don't you try actually try studying the field? "

      LOL
      Like you have, fool?
      Here is someone who actually has and they don't agree with you:

      http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

      "...you have no idea what eye witnesses said in the first century in Palestine. you are imposing modern court standards upon another age"

      BS.
      It's actually you and the other biblical literalists imposing modern standards of fact checking on an age when they didn't exist. (That lying idiot J. P. Holding/Robert Turkel comes immediately to mind on this subject.)
      Claims of miraculous "godmen" were so frequent and such a staple of religious dogma that most in that time didn't blink an eye when told of them.

      And we can make a pretty good effort to define how eye witnesses spoke as opposed to how myth makers wrote in the ANE.

      https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/patterns-of-myth-making-between-the-lives-of-alexander-the-great-and-jesus-christ/#more-11842


      "...they would say that as s collective if it was important that the particular collective endorsed it."

      Of course. Religious myth binds communities together.
      That has no bearing on veracity of truth claims in oral traditions.


      ".... they are the elders of the church that means more than just regular people. as a group they encores in a document."

      Yes, clergy, myth propagators and shamans often use the royal we.
      Eye witnesses not so much.
      And 'encores in a document"?
      No idea what you mean by that.

      "...yes they would use second person. you were right out the person, second person plural."

      You need to take a little more time proof reading your posts, Joe.
      That is word salad to me after reading it 5 times.


      "...no reason why it can't be. one switches person in the same sentence/ "I saw him do this: first and third."

      Citation needed.
      that's a ridiculous claim. Sorry.

      No, when we have reports of what "jesus" was thinking when no one else was around someone was inventing things.

      Delete

  17. Oral traditions in religions function to reinforce belief, not to preserve factual history.

    Not to brain wash them but they needed to know the teachings the net effect is they remembered regardless of why.




    Also it is absurd to suggest that people in the ANE were assiduous and ardent fact checkers. Most testimony was accepted at face value since travel and time to interview witnesses was not as effortless as it is now. (LOL Speaking of the historical fallacy.)

    No most testimony was not accepted at face value, you have no evidence that it was that is a mere assertion based upon atheist ideology not fact, they don't have to be fact checkers to assure they keep the story straight.

    "...No, why don't you try actually try studying the field? "

    LOL
    Like you have, fool?

    yes like I have butt hole

    (1) Maasters in the feidl from major liberal seminary

    (2) =ABD on Ph.D. in history

    (3)read NT in Greek


    Here is someone who actually has and they don't agree with you:

    http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

    "...you have no idea what eye witnesses said in the first century in Palestine. you are imposing modern court standards upon another age"

    ah yes the great man throws a tantrum when people criticize his bull shit. He has come credentials although not in Biblical scholarship, he's not using them like a scholar.

    BS.
    It's actually you and the other biblical literalists imposing modern standards of fact checking on an age when they didn't exist.


    Can't you argue the facts from evidence? you have to go throwing names at people. why on earthy would anyone think i'm a literalist? so typical of little atheist bully boys,. you can't reason you can[t argue if someone stands up to you have to l,ibel their imntelligence..

    (That lying idiot J. P. Holding/Robert Turkel comes immediately to mind on this subject.)

    you are a liar and you are an idiot.


    Claims of miraculous "godmen" were so frequent and such a staple of religious dogma that most in that time didn't blink an eye when told of them.

    that is totally disproved.it also has nothing to do with the issue. the truth is you don't care what's true you have a core case against God and that's the issue and all nonsense about the bible s window dressing. you don't really care. you are starting to call the fail safes a sure sign you know can't stand up to my arguments. here's link to my page on dying rising savior4gods

    here

    And we can make a pretty good effort to define how eye witnesses spoke as opposed to how myth makers wrote in the ANE.

    that is totally stupid. you are oblifiou8s to the whole process.

    your argument that if it was true Bible scholars would say so if you saw the material JB linked to you would see they do. of course you are not interested in facts.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not to brain wash them but they needed to know the teachings the net effect is they remembered regardless of why."

      Remembering is not the issue. Manufacturing agreement is.

      "No most testimony was not accepted at face value...."

      Yes it was, especially when delivered by friends, family or members of a community.

      "...you have no evidence that it was that is a mere assertion based upon atheist ideology not fact..."

      LOL
      What part?
      Are you denying that travel was more arduous?
      That interviewing alleged witnesses without electronic media was more difficult and time consuming?
      Get real.

      ".....they don't have to be fact checkers to assure they keep the story straight."

      Way to miss the point.
      We're not talking about "keeping the story straight" we're talking about verifying it.

      You are a disgrace to your field and to your university if you've actually studied ANE history.
      You can't write a coherent sentence and your every post is tainted with religious bias.

      Butt hole.

      "ah yes the great man throws a tantrum when people criticize his bull shit. He has come credentials although not in Biblical scholarship, he's not using them like a scholar."

      Oh, bite me.
      He makes you look like a piker in terms of coherence, scholarship and use of logic (including Bayesian logic.)


      "Can't you argue the facts from evidence?"

      The only evidence required for my assertion is your own posts, fool.


      "....you have to go throwing names at people."

      right.

      Butthole.

      "...why on earthy would anyone think i'm a literalist?"

      Does the NT describe an actual historical person called "jesus" or does it not?
      Why don't you parse that and talk about what you consider literal and what you don't. (Puts elbows on table and reaches for the popcorn bowl.

      ".....so typical of little atheist bully boys,. "

      Again with the name calling you decry, fool?

      "....you can't reason..."

      Says the clown who just tried to argue that fact checking trumped personal trust in the ANE?
      Too funny.

      "....you can[t argue if someone stands up to you...."

      Really?
      what am I doing right now?

      "...have to l,ibel their imntelligence.."

      Look who's talking, fool. The guy who can't even figure out how to turn on spell check.


      (continued)

      Delete
    2. (continued)

      "you are a liar and you are an idiot."

      Sorry, if you don't understand how mendacious Robert Turkel is you don't get to claim to be intelligent.

      "that is totally disproved."

      Really?
      Not talking about "savior gods" here-just miracle workers.
      If you deny they were common you don't know anything about the era.

      "it also has nothing to do with the issue."

      Really?
      The common belief that gods could father children with mortals-fundamental to roman religion IIRC-is irrelevant to whether people would bother to fact check such claims?
      Wow. that's quite an assertion.

      "...the truth is you don't care what's true..."

      Says the clown whose confirmation bias kicks in every time his religious views are questioned.
      LOL

      "....you have a core case against God...."

      Nope.
      I couldn't care less about your imaginary friend.
      However what his fan club is doing scares the hell out of me.

      "....and that's the issue and all nonsense about the bible s window dressing."

      Right.The fact that your "jesus" has no contemporary evidence outside of the NT is just "window dressing".

      "...you don't really care. "

      Yes, I'm responding to you because I don't care.
      Got it.

      "....you are starting to call the fail safes....."

      No idea what you mean by that. Reading your posts is like trying to decipher a foreign language or the blatherings of an autistic child sometimes.

      "....a sure sign you know can't stand up to my arguments."


      And yet, here I am decimating them one by one.
      Imagine that.

      "here's link to my page on dying rising savior4gods"

      You have reading comprehension issues, son.
      Not talking about "savior gods" here.

      "that is totally stupid. you are oblifiou8s to the whole process."

      Did you just call Matthew Ferguson "totally stupid"?
      You didn't bother to read the link, did you?

      Moron.

      (continued)

      Delete
    3. (continued)

      "your argument that if it was true Bible scholars would say so if you saw the material JB linked to you would see they do. of course you are not interested in facts."

      I'm getting rather tired of reading your sentences without punctuation and often without verbs or subjects and trying to get to what you are trying to communicate.

      Again, if I understand that word salad, show me exactly where in the NT anyone claims to be an I witness to the miraculous events of "jesus".

      Don't bother with the passages I've already dismissed.

      I read the link JB posted. I responded to it directly. I even quoted it and labeled the quotation as such.

      What's the point of arguing with someone who is apparently unable to read simple exchanges and understand them?

      LOL
      What facts were presented in JB's link?
      Most of it was unsupported opinion and really amounts to "the NT is true because the NT says it is true".

      Are all the DOXA articles anonymous?
      The scholarship seems kind of shoddy to me on my limited exposure.
      Why aren't authors creditid?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Typo alert-"eye witness" of course. Not "I" witness.

      Delete
  18. What facts were presented in JB's link?
    Most of it was unsupported opinion and really amounts to "the NT is true because the NT says it is true".


    (1) I don't think you understand argumkentatiom sufficiently to as supported argujmenjt whenj you see one.

    (2) I dougbt tyatvyou reaqde more tayn a few3 oines sI'k sure you did not reaed page two.

    (2) page w3 has multiples quotes from many different scholars about the validity of the Jews oral tradition.
    Are all the DOXA articles anonymous?

    (4) expert testament is support


    The scholarship seems kind of shoddy to me on my limited exposure.
    Why aren't authors creditid?

    they are. you didn[t read page 2. page 1 was mostly from acts. did you want me to say:"luke" when you read one limne and no more you dom't see much

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "(1) I don't think you understand argumkentatiom sufficiently to as supported argujmenjt whenj you see one. "

      WUT?
      LOL-that makes no sense at all, son.
      Offering opinions is argument.

      And seriously, dude......spell check. it's a simple thing.

      "(2) I dougbt tyatvyou reaqde more tayn a few3 oines sI'k sure you did not reaed page two."

      Hahahahahahaha....
      You mad, bro? You're devolving into gibberish.
      I read all of it and gave you my assessment. I stand by that assessment.

      "(2) page w3 has multiples quotes from many different scholars about the validity of the Jews oral tradition."

      It has multiple opinions from christer scholars about said traditions.
      Not the same thing.

      {{Are all the DOXA articles anonymous?}}

      "(4) expert testament is support"

      Okaaaaaay.....
      I'll stick to simple questions that you can actually understand in the future.


      "The scholarship seems kind of shoddy to me on my limited exposure.
      Why aren't authors creditid?"

      "they are. you didn[t read page 2. page 1 was mostly from acts. did you want me to say:"luke" when you read one limne and no more you dom't see much"

      And of course you don't understand the difference between authorship and citations.
      Of course you don't.

      I knew where it was from, fool. The subject was the synoptic gospels.

      Delete
  19. Oral Tradition Trustworthy


    Fewer changes if tradition is controlled


    "No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error" (Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, p.250)

    Tradition was controled.

    Neil adds in a fn: "This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the Jews. IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings" (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method.

    See also M. Dibelius... Neil goes on to say that there is some "flexibility" in the transmission, but nothing that would change the basic facts or the thrust of the teaching otherwise, "But there is a vast difference between recognition of this kind of flexibility, of this kind of creative working of the community on existing traditions, and the idea that the community simply invented and read back into the life of Jesus things that he had never done, and words that he had never said. When carried to its extreme this method suggests that the community had far greater creative power than the Jesus of Nazareth, faith in whom had called the community into being." (Ibid.).


    Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans* (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998):


    "...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions.*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Oral Tradition Trustworthy"

      Oh, we're going to have to go over the BS offered by your link point by point?
      Well, okaaaaaaay then.


      "Fewer changes if tradition is controlled"

      Meaningless.
      Controlled by whom?


      "No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. "

      And there's the rub. LOL

      "This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error" (Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, p.250)

      And?

      "Tradition was controled."

      By whom in which community?
      And what evidence do you have for that assertion?
      I find it highly unlikely since even the scribes who copied the manuscripts later were pretty much on their own by all appearances until Eusebius.

      "Neil adds in a fn: "This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the Jews."

      Wrong.
      They aren't called "people of the book" on a whim.

      "IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings" (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method."

      Dealing with you is so maddening since you can't even reproduce trivial details accurately.
      It's Riesenfeldstraße, moron, not 'Risenfeld'.You wasted 2 minutes of my time with that error. Thanks.

      " Riesenfeldstraße presented an alternative hypothesis, which has been met with skepticism by his colleagues..."

      Mostly because it's bullshit. There is simply no evidence for "jesus" teaching his disciples to recite from memory.

      "See also M. Dibelius... Neil goes on to say that there is some "flexibility" in the transmission...."

      Hahahahahahaha....
      There is some "flexibility" even between the three synoptic gospels.

      (continued)

      Delete
    2. (continued)

      "....but nothing that would change the basic facts or the thrust of the teaching otherwise..."

      That's what I mean by opinion being offered as fact.

      "But there is a vast difference between recognition of this kind of flexibility, of this kind of creative working of the community on existing traditions, and the idea that the community simply invented and read back into the life of Jesus things that he had never done, and words that he had never said."

      No one said they invented the traditions lock stock and barrel.
      Myths grow by accretion rather than fabulation.

      "When carried to its extreme this method suggests that the community had far greater creative power than the Jesus of Nazareth, faith in whom had called the community into being." (Ibid.)."

      Uhm, no.
      It's completely in line with the idea that oral transmission is flawed and allows for inflation/distortion over time.

      BTW, neither Neill nor Riesnfeldstraße were actually trained historians or scholars.


      "Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans* (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998):

      Again, evidence for this opinion?


      "...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions.* "

      Complete BS since it ignores the fact that there were dozens of apocryphal "gospels" competing with the ones that now survive as the canon. The were suppressed by Eusebius because they contradicted the canon.

      Delete
    3. Good point. Of course we know that there were numerous alternative oral "traditions", and that some of them went on to become alternative written "traditions". It was the church - not the community - that had the power to pick and choose which of those traditions would become their canon. We also know that even those that were selected had to be changed to conform with evolving church dogma. One of the most significant dogmatic evolutions was the story of the resurrection. Paul never spoke of Jesus' bodily resurrection, and the first gospel, Mark, didn't mention it at all until the ending was subsequently appended. Another such dogma is that of the trinity, which didn't come along until later. Isaac Newton became an Arian because he could find no textual support for the trinity in the earlier biblical manuscripts.

      Christians are 100% biased when it comes to looking at evidence for their beliefs. Put a dog in front of them, and they'll swear it's a cat. Such is the nature of their "evidence-based" belief system.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for that, I'm.
      Good work.

      Delete
  20. "Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(53-55)(corrosponding fn for Childton and evans")
    *


    Also, there wasn't an necessarily a long period of solely oral transmission as has been assumed:


    "Under the influence of R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius the classical form criticism raised many doubts about the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, but it was shaped by a number of literary and historical assumptions which themselves are increasingly seen to have a doubtful historical basis. It assumed, first of all, that the Gospel traditions were transmitted for decades exclusively in oral form and began to be fixed in writing only when the early Christian anticipation of a soon end of the world faded. This theory foundered with the discovery in 1947 of the library of the Qumran sect, a group contemporaneous with the ministry of Jesus and the early church which combined intense expectation of the End with prolific writing. Qumran shows that such expectations did not inhibit writing but actually were a spur to it. Also, the widespread literacy in first-century Palestinian Judaism [18], together with the different language backgrounds of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some of Jesus' teaching.[19]" (p. 53-54)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ""Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(53-55)(corrosponding fn for Childton and evans") "

      All irrelevant since no writer claims to be an eye witness.
      Why did you bother to cut and paste this?
      Have you forgotten what the original assertion was.....again?


      "Also, there wasn't an necessarily a long period of solely oral transmission as has been assumed:


      "Under the influence of R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius the classical form criticism raised many doubts about the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, but it was shaped by a number of literary and historical assumptions which themselves are increasingly seen to have a doubtful historical basis. It assumed, first of all, that the Gospel traditions were transmitted for decades exclusively in oral form and began to be fixed in writing only when the early Christian anticipation of a soon end of the world faded. This theory foundered with the discovery in 1947 of the library of the Qumran sect, a group contemporaneous with the ministry of Jesus and the early church which combined intense expectation of the End with prolific writing. Qumran shows that such expectations did not inhibit writing but actually were a spur to it. Also, the widespread literacy in first-century Palestinian Judaism [18], together with the different language backgrounds of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some of Jesus' teaching.[19]" (p. 53-54)"

      LOL
      The 'widespread literacy in first-century Palestinian Judaism'?
      Seriously?
      Then what need for an oral tradition?

      "...together with the different language backgrounds of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some of Jesus' teaching"

      Oh FFS.

      That the NT was written in Greek is not an argument for it's authenticity nor earlier dating than the consensus of textual analysis by scholars has established. And it certainly isn't a good argument for the absence of an oral tradition.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_the_New_Testament

      You seem to confuse cutting and pasting the opinions of christians whose opinions coincide with yours as argument.

      Pathetic.

      Delete
  21. impress me with your ignorance of scholarship some more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahahahahahaha...

      Impress me with your abysmal reading comprehension some more.

      Delete
    2. Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(53-55)(corrosponding fn for Childton and evans") "

      All irrelevant since no writer claims to be an eye witness.
      Why did you bother to cut and paste this?
      Have you forgotten what the original assertion was.....again?


      you are just ignoring the evidence it says he was an eye witness, the mistake you make is you think to be an eye witness they have to say:I am an eye witnes. no They don/t

      Delete
    3. "you are just ignoring the evidence it says he was an eye witness..."

      It says someone else was an eye witness, fool.

      {the mistake you make is you think to be an eye witness they have to say:I am an eye witnes. no They don/t"

      Yes they fucking do.
      And
      "...Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;..."

      is second hand no matter how you parse, it, fool

      Delete

  22. That the NT was written in Greek is not an argument for it's authenticity nor earlier dating than the consensus of textual analysis by scholars has established. And it certainly isn't a good argument for the absence of an oral tradition.

    stop ignoring the evidence a he is an exprt you are notLOLOLOLOL

    LOLPOLOOLOOL you know nothi8ng, you do niot have the expertoise to disagree wity thyeleanredvscholars.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_the_New_Testament

    You seem to confuse cutting and pasting the opinions of christians whose opinions coincide with yours as argument.

    you are not dealing with the evidence on a scholarly basis that is not answer the issues. you can't answer can you> cut and paste is stupid argument, irrelevant.

    you can't answer..denying the experts know anythng is stpid. you know nothing.

    I just beat your stupid argument intro theground the only argument you make is petty cheating.

    typical atheist stupidity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "stop ignoring the evidence a he is an exprt you are notLOLOLOLOL"


      Hahahahahahaha....
      argumentum verecundiam based on the unsupported opinion of a guy with a degree in theology. As if theology were an actual scholarly discipline .
      Too funny.

      "LOLPOLOOLOOL you know nothi8ng, you do niot have the expertoise to disagree wity thyeleanredvscholars."

      You know what, I'm not even going to try to understand what that mess of vowels and consonants was intended to convey.

      "you are not dealing with the evidence on a scholarly basis that is not answer the issues."

      WUT?
      Try to speak English, idiot boy.
      Sorry, an opinion by a reputed scholar isn't necessarily "scholarship".

      "you can't answer can you> cut and paste is stupid argument, irrelevant."

      Hahahahahahahahaha.....
      the accusation of cut and paste is completely relevant in cases of ignoratio elenchi-such as this.
      What you cut and pasted had no bearing on the original assertion-nor did most of the post JB linked to.

      "you can't answer..denying the experts know anythng is stpid. you know nothing."

      Can I get you some cheese to compliment that whine?
      An opinion is an opinion.
      And an opinion rejected by most biblical scholars doesn't help your already poor argument in the least.

      "I just beat your stupid argument intro theground the only argument you make is petty cheating."

      Danth's law, moron.
      You have only embarrassed yourself once again.

      "typical atheist stupidity"

      LOL
      typical god-bot confirmation bias and ad hoc/kitchen sink attempts at argument.

      Delete
  23. first you said no evidence then when I quote evidence you say the scholars don't know anything. you have no concept of argument you can't face the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "first you said no evidence....."

      Oh, FFS, Joe.
      I said no one claims to be an eye witness to the miraculous events of the life of "jesus" in the synoptic gospels.
      Neither you nor JB have yet provided me with a single quote that isn't second hand hearsay or third person omnipotent view point from an anonymous author.


      "......then when I quote evidence......."

      LOL
      Sorry, speculation and opinion isn't evidence, it's only speculation and opinion.
      You quoted nothing that could even remotely be described as "evidence".
      Are you so dense that you imagine that because someone wrote something in a book somewhere it becomes unimpeachable?

      ".....you say the scholars don't know anything."

      I said no such thing.
      I did say two of the sources your hackneyed article quoted weren't real scholars.

      "...you have no concept of argument you can't face the evidence."

      Hahahahahahahaha....

      If you don't know the difference between evidence and opinion I think we're done here.

      Delete
  24. so ironic, the post was on confirmation bias and you are clearly brainwashed and living in a fantasy where evidence could ever matter to you, let me ask you'd ever care about truth at all? would you ever be willing to have your dream disproved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "so ironic...."

      And of course you don't understand what the word "irony" means. Of course you don't.

      "...the post was on confirmation bias and you are clearly brainwashed and living in a fantasy where evidence could ever matter to you....."

      Hahahahahahaha....
      Now THAT is irony.
      The guy who grasps at straws and calls opinion rejected by a rather large majority of scholars "evidence" thinks I'm the one exhibiting confirmation bias.

      Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
      And sometimes they post under the byline "Joe Hinman".



      "....let me ask you'd ever care about truth at all?"

      LOL
      I value truth very highly-unlike you.

      "...would you ever be willing to have your dream disproved?"

      Hahahahahahahahaha.....

      I'm not the one with a cherished dream about a jewish zombie that can make you live forever if you telepathically communicate to it that you renounce reason in favor of belief.

      That would be you, son.

      Let me ask you:

      What freakin' backwoods bible college is considering giving you a PhD?

      Delete
  25. those are called research .I had to look those up you know. that's a hell of a lot more than you can do. those are expert testimony by scholars. you are too stupid to know what a scholar is.

    btw IM I've seen you call down others for name calling against atheists but he called me a butt hole several times?don't you care?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "those are called research ."

      LOL
      No those are called selection bias.


      "I had to look those up you know."

      Hahahahahahaha....
      Yes, fool, everything that you turn up in a google search is true because of your massive expended effort.

      "that's a hell of a lot more than you can do."

      Hahahahahaha....
      How do you think I determined that two of your quoted "authorities" weren't even scholars, fool?

      "those are expert testimony by scholars."

      Sigh.
      Of course you don't understand the difference between opinion and expert testimony, Of course you don't.

      "you are too stupid to know what a scholar is."

      LOL
      I'm smart enough to know the difference between a missionary and a scholar as well as a theologian and a scholar.
      You-apparently not so much.

      "btw IM I've seen you call down others for name calling against atheists but he called me a butt hole several times?don't you care?"

      You used that precise word first, fool.
      I merely threw it back at you.

      Delete
    2. I would appreciate if commenters make try to their points without shouting names at each other.

      Delete
  26. What freakin' backwoods bible college is considering giving you a PhD?

    look dumb fuck I'm only going to tell you this one time. My ph.D. works was in secular program do you know what that means. It was not a religious school it was University of TEXAS at Dallas. not to be confussedwithy the university of Dallas.

    My Masters degree is form a world famous >LIBERAL seminary at Southern Methodist University. SMU is ome of they top schools in the South west on a partv withy Rice and UT.

    I know that you are too stupid to understand what liberal means. you don't know that there are liberals in theology.

    every g=heard of john Dominck Crosson? or the Jesus seminary? those are liberals. that's like the kind of guy zistudied with.

    you are an idiot I've wasted too much of my life talkimg to idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "look dumb fuck I'm only going to tell you this one time. My ph.D. works was in secular program do you know what that means. It was not a religious school it was University of TEXAS at Dallas. not to be confussedwithy the university of Dallas."

      Hahahahaha....
      My curiosity is getting the better of me.
      Secular degree in what?
      And you have been waiting for your dissertation to be approved for how long now?


      "My Masters degree is form a world famous >LIBERAL seminary at Southern Methodist University. SMU is ome of they top schools in the South west on a partv withy Rice and UT."

      LOL
      That explains why you do have a masters-bible college-and why you don't have a PhD.

      "I know that you are too stupid to understand what liberal means. you don't know that there are liberals in theology."

      Irrelevant ranting. Stop it...blood pressure.....

      "every g=heard of john Dominck Crosson? or the Jesus seminary? those are liberals. that's like the kind of guy zistudied with."

      Of course I've heard of John Dominic Crossan.
      And of course, all of his students were geniuses-even the ones who can't spell his name correctly.

      "you are an idiot I've wasted too much of my life talkimg to idiots."

      Does this mean you're going to go away finally?

      Delete