Micheal Nugent V WC

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Explain and show how Oldrnwisrs points don't stand up to scrutiny.

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

J C

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Yes Jc I read posts unlike you.
However you again miss the point. Oldrnwisr has made dozens of points. Do all of these not stand up to scrutiny?

And again, you're missing the post I made a few back. Any particular reason you're not replying to it? I thought you gave full detailed answers to all points?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Yes Jc I read posts unlike you.
However you again miss the point. Oldrnwisr has made dozens of points. Do all of these not stand up to scrutiny?

And again, you're missing the post I made a few back. Any particular reason you're not replying to it? I thought you gave full detailed answers to all points?

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

J C

J C wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

Which of his points did you examine. You have addressed none of them, nevermind in detail and nevermind showing them to not stand up.

And I simply don't believe that you have any intention of returning to my point as you have a habit of ignoring points and pretending they don't exist.

So either you address it now, or its you admitting you can't and that you concede the points.

looksee

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Lets look where this post fits on the pyramid of debating levels ...
... lets see where saying your opponent's post should be made in the "Delusional and Idiotic Posts" forum ... ah yes ... its somewhere below calling your opponent an ass hat !!

I'm not debating you, simply making an observation. You frequently complain that you have too many people to respond to, and you obviously have your work cut out for you, as you obviously can't even understand oldrnwisr's, let alone respond in anything resembling a meaningful way to it.

And I didn't call you an asshat, for three reasons. 1) I didn't actually call you an anything, 2) calling someone an asshat would be against the charter and 3) calling you an asshat would be an insult to asshats everywhere.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I said that I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... and I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.
That remains my position on this issue.

Ah, the Trump/Spicer method of evidence... "well the president believes <insert some ridiculous thing stated as a fact by Trump without any evidence> is the case, so there." I know you are a big Trump fan, so I guess it is hardly surprising. Awesome.

MrP

J C

looksee wrote: »

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

I would define the problem with this thread somewhat narrower (and more balanced) than you have.
Yes, I have Faith ... but it isn't a blind faith i.e. Christianity is based upon the historical validity of Jesus Christ, His actions and His words. Equally, I'm not about to be impressed to the point of ceasing to believe in Jesus Christ by the walls of text that Oldrnwisr, in particular, posts, which amount to an attempt to drown me under an avalanche of claims by trowing so much argumentation at me that I cannot posssibly respond to it all ... and responding to some of it exposes me to charges of selectivity.
Equally, the continuous badgering of me by various posters to answer various posts (that they often don't even specify) amounts to the same thing ... an attempt to drown me out with the sheer volume of their postings in comparison to anything I could possibly hope to post.
To put this into the context of the OP i.e. the upcoming Nugent-Craig debate ... what you are doing to me is the equivalent of five people along with Dr Craig filibustering when they get the floor and expecting Michael Nugent to deal with every point they make ... along with continuous interjections from the audience, as he attempts to respond in the debate and warnings and interjections from the debate moderator criticising the quality of Michael's contributions and analysing his motives for saying particular things - instead of leaving it to the audience to be the judge of that.

No debate could be conducted in such a one-sided and chaotic manner.

If you guys are serious about having a reasoned discussion on this thread, you need to start posting short reasoned points that you wish to make and have addressed by me.
I will deal with each point in turn ... but I'm not prepared to badgered and personally criticised while I attempt to answer questions posed to me ... nor am I prepared to be deluged with avalanches of material and postings that drown me out and would drown out any other Human Being, if this was being done to them.
If you have a hundred points to make, please choose your best one and lets debate it ... and we can then move onto the next one. Throwing a hundred points at me and then badgering me to answer number 35, when we haven't got past number 3 is no way to run any debate ... where the objective is to hear both sides of the argument.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Mod This is your belief JC, unfortunately you cannot force everyone else to accept your belief, just because you believe it. A&A arguments are going to be based on logic and research, blind belief does not come near to being a basis for accepting anything.

It appears we do not have a basis for discussion in the circumstances, you are not going to accept anything that may demonstrate creative writing in the NT and we are not going to accept anything that relies solely on personal belief.

I am very reluctant to kill a discussion, especially since there have been some posts of real interest to A&As, but unless you can come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it', or some more academically minded Christians pop in to offer solid argument, then I am afraid this thread will have to be declared defunct.

Why should the forum suffer because of JC's incompetence? Surely the more equitable remedy to this "issue", unless JC does something he has never done before and actually properly addresses a point, is to ban him from the thread, and allow the thread to continue for those that are actually interested in the discussion...?

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... but I'm not prepared to badgered and personally criticised while I attempt to answer questions posed to me ... nor am I prepared to be deluged with avalanches of material and postings that drown me out and would drown out any other Human Being, if this was being done to them.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I'm not debating you, simply making an observation. You frequently complain that you have too many people to respond to, and you obviously have your work cut out for you, as you obviously can't even understand oldrnwisr's, let alone respond in anything resembling a meaningful way to it.

And I didn't call you an asshat, for three reasons. 1) I didn't actually call you an anything, 2) calling someone an asshat would be against the charter and 3) calling you an asshat would be an insult to asshats everywhere.

MrP

You have just described me as worse than an ass hat ... and you previously described my posts ... and by direct extension myself, as "Delusional and Idiotic" ... which is significantly more serious than merely calling me an ass hat.
It would be very interesting what would happen at the Nugent-Craig debate, if a member of the audience were to interject in the debate with the observation that either protagonist was 'Delusional and Idiotic' ... I would hope that the debate would be stopped until the interjector was asked to withdraw such an unfounded ad hominem ... and was then promptly asked to leave.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Why should the forum suffer because of JC's incompetence? Surely the more equitable remedy to this "issue", unless JC does something he has never done before and actually properly addresses a point, is to ban him from the thread, and allow the thread to continue for those that are actually interested in the discussion...?

MrP

Sounds like you are only interested in a one-sided 'discussion' ... that would amount to little more than a 'mutual admiration society' ... for Atheists and their viewpoint.

Could I gently point out that this thread is discussing an upcoming debate on the existence of God ... and the debate is between an eminent Christian and an eminent Atheist ... it isn't going to be a 'discussion' betweeen two Atheists (or indeed two Christians) ... and if it was, I'd venture to suggest that very few people would be interested in attending it ... because it would be little more than an exercise in mutual admiration ... instead of a debate presenting both sides of the argument ... and letting the audience decide on which arguments are the strongest!!!

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

You have just described me as worse than an ass hat ... and you previously described my posts ... and by direct extension myself, as "Delusional and Idiotic" ... which is significantly more serious than merely calling me an ass hat.
It would be very intersting what would happen at the Nugent-Craig debate, if a member of the audience were to interject in the debate with the observation that either protagonist was 'Delusional and Idiotic' ... I would hope that the debate would be stopped until the interjector was asked to withdraw such an unfounded ad hominem ... and was then promptly asked to leave.

google wrote:

delusional

dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective
adjective: delusional

characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"

I have highlighted the particularly important part, as I know you have difficulty reading large texts less than 2000 years old. Seems pretty accurate to me.

If your beliefs were about anything other than religion, then you would be deemed to be mentally ill. And just to be clear, I am not saying you are mentally ill, because holding a religious belief, even when that belief perfectly satisfies the definition of delusional, for some reason gets special treatment and isn't considered to be a mental illness. So crack on JC you not mentally ill person.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Sounds like you are only interested in a one-sided 'discussion' ... that would amount to little more than a 'mutual admiration society' ... for Atheists and their viewpoint.

Could I gently point out that this thread is discussing an upcoming debate on the existence of God ... and the debate is between an eminent Christian and an eminent Atheist ... it isn't going to be a 'discussion' betweeen two Atheists (or indeed two Christians) ... and if it was, I'd venture to suggest that very few people would be interested in attending it ... because it would be little more than an exercise in mutual admiration ... instead of a debate presenting both sides of the argument!!!

No I am actually interested in discussion where people are capable of discussion. You aren't.

MrP

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

It is quite legitimate for Oldrnwisr to write as he does and its equally valid for me to call the result anti-Christian ... as it strikes at the very heart of the Christian Faith ... the veracity of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ and His Apostles as recorded in the Bible.
I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.

King Mob wrote: »

Then demonstrate this.

J C wrote: »

How can I demonstrate something I am not aware of ... and which I believe doesn't even exist?

Well, firstly you stated that you were aware of attacks by numerous scholars but that you didn't think any of them stood up to close scrutiny. So therefore you must be aware of the existence of these attacks, contrary to what you said. Therefore, it should be easy for you to demonstrate why these attacks don't stand up to scrutiny. There have been plenty of them posted in this thread so far.

Alternatively, if you want you can show how any or all of these New Testament academics are wrong:

Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind who Changed the Bible and Why

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament


Denis MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark


Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion, Princeton University

The Origin of Satan


John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus, DePaul University

The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus became Fiction about Jesus

J C wrote: »

The first of Oldrnwisr's points, that I examined in detail (the one about the 'generation' Jesus was talking about in Mt 24), collapsed under scrutiny ... not a good start for him.

I try to answer as time permits me ... answering posts on the A & A isn't some kind of full-time occupation for me ... and there is only one of me and many of you.

You really shouldn't lie JC, Jesus doesn't approve of liars.

The post about Jesus' failed prophecy in Matthew 24 wasn't my first point or close to it. My first point in post 45 was the refutation of your opening comment about 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being evidence for the resurrection. You didn't engage with any of the points made in that post and instead dumped two links which claimed that the apostles were reliable. I then responded in post 50 by showing that we know very little about the lives of any of the apostles and the accounts we do have about them are unreliable. The failure of Jesus' prophecy was first introduced by you as a question in post 61 to which I pointed out the failure of the prophecy in Matthew 24 in post 73. So, even before we get to the topic of Jesus' failed prophecy there was a complete failure by you to engage with the points which had already been made.
Secondly, my point about Jesus' failed prophecy has not collapsed under scrutiny or at all despite your feeble rationalisations. You haven't engaged with any of the points made at all and simply respond each time by stating your belief and requoting the bible passage but without making any valid counterargument.

I understand why you choose to lie about this JC. If Jesus' prophecy really did fail then it not only impacts the claims about the divinity of Jesus but also has internal biblical ramifications given God's denouncement of false prophets in Deuteronomy 18. However, such open dishonesty isn't going to get you very far on this forum.

J C wrote: »

Equally, I'm not about to be impressed to the point of ceasing to believe in Jesus Christ by the walls of text that Oldrnwisr, in particular, posts, which amount to an attempt to drown me under an avalanche of claims by trowing so much argumentation at me that I cannot posssibly respond to it all ... and responding to some of it exposes me to charges of selectivity.

No, JC. Just no. You have been the architect of your own demise on this thread. There needn't have been as many points made if you had argued honestly. For example, when you introduced the point about 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, I responded by showing why this passage doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You could have offered counterarguments against any or all of the points that I made and debated that topic until it was exhausted. Instead you chose to rush headlong into a different topic by dumping two links to an apologetics website which claimed that the apostles were reliable. So, instead of dealing with one topic we now had two. When I responded to that point, you moved on again and again. Eventually, you settled down on the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 which you have pretended to defend for the remainder of this thread. The amount of material that has been posted so far demonstrates two things: a) the amount of evidence that is allied against your viewpoint and b) your total unwillingness to engage with any of the points made, preferring instead to skip from apologetic argument to apologetic argument in the vain hope that one of them will stick.

J C wrote: »

If you have a hundred points to make, please choose your best one and lets debate it ... and we can then move onto the next one. Throwing a hundred points at me and then badgering me to answer number 35, when we haven't got past number 3 is no way to run any debate ... where the objective is to hear both sides of the argument.

OK, if you want to narrow it down fine. Let's return to the original point. You said that you only believe in things which are evidentially true and that the resurrection is one of these. There are five sources which purport to provide evidence for the resurrection (the gospels + 1 Corinthians). Please demonstrate why these accounts are historically reliable.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

No I am actually interested in discussion where people are capable of discussion. You aren't.

MrP

Thousands of my posts on the Boards prove you wrong.

Perhaps it's you who are afraid of discussions ... where Atheism is questioned.:)

... and that's why you want me banned.

looksee

Mod: Ok JC, we have reached the end of the road with this. You know well you are not to argue a mod action on thread, we have given you a great deal of leeway with this. The last few pages have just been a to and fro suggesting to you to up your standard of argument and you are not responding.

Please do not post in this thread again, and if you choose to post in other threads on the forum you will be required to come up with a better argument than 'its true because I believe it is true'.

recedite

Well, everybody is happy now. JC has gone out as a martyr, defending his beliefs to the end, against the onslaught of rationality and reason.

The Cork debate will probably end with a similar "stalemate".

robindch

As per previous warnings, JC is welcome to join Absolam in the specious nonsense thread where the usual rules of engagement in A+A are loosened as little - for the sole reason that some posters enjoy interacting in this environment and others enjoy reading it. Anybody who prefers the usual and higher standard of debate can simply avoid that thread.

The specious nonsense thread is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056883606

Thanking youze

pauldla

So, any news on the debate?

silverharp

the before photo




one of the shots during the debate, mick delivers a knockout punch

robindch

^^^ Didn't know that Barack Obama was at the fight.

Michael OBrien

It was an enjoyable debate. I was in the main room and it was a text book WLC debate style (almost verbatim). the video should be up shortly. The AI crew had a little get together in The Rock pub afterwards. Michael did excellently.

recedite

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Michael did excellently.

Very good. His opponent seems to have become bedazzled and confused by the deployment of the bright red shirt, which works especially well in Cork

recedite wrote: »

All 250 tickets at the main event sold out on the first day? That's a surprisingly brisk take up.
What you going to wear? May I suggest a red polo shirt.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nugent just posted on face book that they intend to have the video up in the next couple of days. I will post here when that happens too.

equivariant

Fair play to MN for taking this challenge on. Craig is a very tough debate opponent, regardless of the fact that his arguments are all nonsense. The problem is that he is a trained philosopher and so it is very tough for someone without that background to win a debate against him.

One example I think that illustrates this point is Craig's misuse of mathematics in his defense of the Kalam argument. He appeals to things like Hilbert's hotel as arguments against the existence of "actual infinities" but he is mathematically naive here and I am amazed that this argument is taken seriously by anyone. The problem is that most people
are not really comfortable with the mathematics of infinity and he exploits this discomfort
without ever giving any semblance of a rigourous argument.

I think it would be analagous to a non specialist trying to debate quantum theory with a trained theoretical physicist (indeed Craig himself has tried to do this with Sean Carroll). No matter who is defending the correct position, the physicist can easily present arguments that require a specialist knowledge to counter, its not a fair debate. I think that Craig often finds himself with this unfair advantage e.g. debating Hitchens on the existence of God. Hitchens was a great speaker but he was just out of his depth philosophically I think in that debate.

The debate between Kagan and Craig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo) is a good example where Craig is fighting on a level playing field and I think he loses badly in this case. Kagan (a professional philosopher) is well able to calmly and efficiently destroy Craig's central arguments and doesn't get sidetracked by rhetoric.

equivariant

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nugent just posted on face book that they intend to have the video up in the next couple of days. I will post here when that happens too.

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

Michael OBrien

equivariant wrote: »

Fair play to MN for taking this challenge on. Craig is a very tough debate opponent, regardless of the fact that his arguments are all nonsense. The problem is that he is a trained philosopher and so it is very tough for someone without that background to win a debate against him.

One example I think that illustrates this point is Craig's misuse of mathematics in his defense of the Kalam argument. He appeals to things like Hilbert's hotel as arguments against the existence of "actual infinities" but he is mathematically naive here and I am amazed that this argument is taken seriously by anyone. The problem is that most people
are not really comfortable with the mathematics of infinity and he exploits this discomfort
without ever giving any semblance of a rigourous argument.

I think it would be analagous to a non specialist trying to debate quantum theory with a trained theoretical physicist (indeed Craig himself has tried to do this with Sean Carroll). No matter who is defending the correct position, the physicist can easily present arguments that require a specialist knowledge to counter, its not a fair debate. I think that Craig often finds himself with this unfair advantage e.g. debating Hitchens on the existence of God. Hitchens was a great speaker but he was just out of his depth philosophically I think in that debate.

The debate between Kagan and Craig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo) is a good example where Craig is fighting on a level playing field and I think he loses badly in this case. Kagan (a professional philosopher) is well able to calmly and efficiently destroy Craig's central arguments and doesn't get sidetracked by rhetoric.

As you will see, Michael did use Carrol and Kagan in his arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo

equivariant wrote: »

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

Ah thanks for that. They are posting it also on the AI You Tube channel but I think they are doing it in sections. So far only Nugents opening speech was uploaded there

Michael OBrien

equivariant wrote: »

its already available at https://www.facebook.com/reasonablefaithorg/videos/10154692933008229/

You may notice that the microphone seems to be VERY low for Michael and then set high for William. Odd that. It happens every time they switch. Every time.