|
Post by timoneill on Nov 25, 2015 9:44:10 GMT
Wow. The material for my blog keeps coming faster than I have a chance to wrote posts about it. The latest from John Loftus' pet Myther Harry H. McCall - " Why Atheists Must Assert 'Jesus Never Existed'". McCall is an electronic engineer from South Carolina, so naturally the best person to explain to the atheist blogosphere "how Tim O’Neill (and all Historical Jesus believers) have failed to present a logical apology by applying a new logical methodology to their evidence." A whole new logical methodology, no less! How exciting!
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Nov 25, 2015 9:52:32 GMT
Wow. The material for my blog keeps coming faster than I have a chance to wrote posts about it. The latest from John Loftus' pet Myther Harry H. McCall - " Why Atheists Must Assert 'Jesus Never Existed'". McCall is an electronic engineer from South Carolina, so naturally the best person to explain to the atheist blogosphere "how Tim O’Neill (and all Historical Jesus believers) have failed to present a logical apology by applying a new logical methodology to their evidence." A whole new logical methodology, no less! How exciting! You are in deep excrement Mr. O'Neill. debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/why-atheists-must-assert-jesus-never.htmlAlthough, I cannot recall Tim O'Neill ever saying that there is evidence to "prove" Jesus existed. I do recall him saying something along the lines of "the available evidence indicates that the most parsimonious explanation of the data is that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure". I expect that Tim will correct me if I am incorrect here.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 25, 2015 10:12:57 GMT
Although, I cannot recall Tim O'Neill ever saying that there is evidence to "prove" Jesus existed. I do recall him saying something along the lines of "the available evidence indicates that the most parsimonious explanation of the data is that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure". I expect that Tim will correct me if I am incorrect here. True. But as Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Let's watch Harry the Slack Jawed Yokel dig himself into a hole ...
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 27, 2015 7:19:13 GMT
You gotta love a blogger who first declares that New Testament studies' view of a historical Jesus aren't based on evidence and then concocts an armchair psychologism for Ehrman out of pure speculation and finally justifies his own view with an appeal to ignorance. I didn't see a response on the blog, so I guess the 'debate' hasn't really begun yet. He did publish this unintentionally hilarious gem, though: debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2015/11/an-analogy-of-bible.html
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 5, 2015 23:01:40 GMT
I was wondering why Harry "Cletus" McCall's multipart destruction of my arguments against Mythicism was taking so long to get going. Then I found this exchange between Loftus and McCall, with the following comments: Loftus: "Harry what is wrong with you? You demand conformity. You find certainties in uncertainties. You now say something is proven. This is not how scholars treat these kinds subjects. You may be right but you are claiming way too much than the evidence actually shows, and in so doing undermining the credibility of us here at DC." McCall: "John, there’s nothing wrong with me. I’m still the same debater I was eleven years ago when I was asked to join this blog after you had started it a year earlier. Back then it was an all out assault on Christianity. This blog had around 10 regular contributors who were not afraid to take on any topic or professor. Over the years, all the original team left and new ones came on board and sadly, over time the contributor list grew smaller and smaller . Now there are only four regular contributors; myself, Hector Avalos, Jonathan Pearce and a Phil Torres (who rarely ever posts here). The Wild West days when the old 2006 - 2009 team lead by you which took on the Christian world was what I enjoyed, a great challenge, a fun time and I believe I have posted over 110 articles here. As you know, I left once around 2010 over a disagreement over my chapter in your first book. After a year, you asked me several times to come back, which I eventually did, but I found DC was in a flux of change. Now, DC plays second fiddle to your publishing career. At times, DC seems to be little more than a long running info commercial for your products (books and speaking engagements). That’s fine. DC is your baby, you earned that right. You started this blog and have spent thousands of hours managing it. You have to be admired for that as I could never have spent that amount of time doing the hard work required keeping this blog going. On the other hand, maybe you need a new group of contributors composed of James McGrath, David Chumney and Tim O’Neal to help head DC towards a new horizon; but I do know one thing, like all the old time past contributors (more than dozen), my time at DC has come and gone. This is not a knee jerk reaction, but the reality for me that DC has long since changed directions is a fact I’ve fully accepted and I have finally stopped living in denial. I leave you, the contributors and regulars who comment here a fond goodbye. I have learned a lot from our discussions even if they were sometimes heated; it made me defend my post and, at times, admitted I was wrong. John, I now ask you to “uninvite” me as a contributor at DC. It’s time for us both to move on. I have no hard feelings and I wish you the best on your publishing future. Sincerely, Harry McCall" Loftus: "Harry, I disagree strongly with parts of your brief history of DC. But in my opinion you have lost it. Uninvite yourself. Yes, you can do that. You can comment here as anyone though. Cheers." McCall: "It worked. I'm out!" Gosh. Looks like I've helped spark a schism.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 6, 2015 11:43:47 GMT
Gosh. Looks like I've helped spark a schism. And in no small part that was due to McCall's ham-handed obsession with "proof". It looks like Napoleon's maxim worked out quite well for you, sir. I'm also pleased to see that John Loftus still succeeds in resisting the Mythicist groupthink and did a decent job calling McCall's nonsense about proof out.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 7, 2015 8:23:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 18, 2015 0:11:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Dec 18, 2015 5:59:55 GMT
Some of the quotes from Artie Ziff in the comments are hilarious. Like this one: "That is the function of my writing. It ends all rational debate. Thus all continuing debate becomes demonstrably irrational (note how many times I catch people making arguments in response to an article, that the article already rebutted, thus exposing that they didn’t read the article, and have no actual arguments against what it actually said)."
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 5, 2016 6:36:10 GMT
I've neglected my blog badly in recent months, especially since I am now working on long rebuttals to both Godfrey and Carrier and making sure they are as watertight as possible (given that both are Olympic medal-winning nitpickers with much more spare time than me). But it's struck me that History for Atheists is going to be pretty dull if it doesn't have more on it than rebuttals to people like those two, so I've started a series of other posts entitled "The New Atheist Bad History Great Myths". And so the blog doesn't languish in the doldrums any longer, I've put my replies to the Terrible Twins on hold for a little longer and published Part One in this series: The New Atheist Bad History Great Myths 1: The Medieval Flat EarthThis pulls together Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent foray into medieval bad history on the subject and my Quora spat with that guy who insisted that Alonso Tostado was a flat earther. Corrections, typo alerts and suggested amendments welcome here. Please keep paeans of praise for the comments section of the blog! In other news, yesterday I recorded a segment about New Atheist bad history for the Freed Thinker podcast - a Christian podcast by a guy who doesn't seem like a fundamentalist loon. Part one of two is up for listening, entitled "History for Atheists ... And the Rest of Us - Part 1". I haven't listened to it yet, but hopefully I don't ramble too much.
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Jun 13, 2016 2:11:28 GMT
While I don't doubt that you are right that the belief in the medieval flat earth got a big boost in the 19th century. I have noticed the following passage in Pascal's Provincial Letters (letter 18) from the mid 17th century.
"Again, you must not imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary, excommunicating St. Virgilius for maintaining the existence of the antipodes, have annihilated the New World; nor must you suppose that, although he declared that opinion to be a most dangerous heresy, the King of Spain was wrong in giving more credence to Christopher Columbus, who came from the place, than to the judgement of the pope, who had never been there, or that the Church has not derived a vast benefit from the discovery, inasmuch as it has brought the knowledge of the Gospel to a great multitude of souls who might otherwise have perished in their infidelity."
Pascal is wrong. Virgilius was not excommunicated, and the belief in the antipodes as a location was not condemned by pope Zachary. OTOH Pascal is not actually suggesting the pope(s) in the age of Columbus thought the earth was flat, but it seems to me that this passage might have caused someone to think he was saying that.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 14, 2016 21:11:50 GMT
While I don't doubt that you are right that the belief in the medieval flat earth got a big boost in the 19th century. I have noticed the following passage in Pascal's Provincial Letters (letter 18) from the mid 17th century. "Again, you must not imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary, excommunicating St. Virgilius for maintaining the existence of the antipodes, have annihilated the New World; nor must you suppose that, although he declared that opinion to be a most dangerous heresy, the King of Spain was wrong in giving more credence to Christopher Columbus, who came from the place, than to the judgement of the pope, who had never been there, or that the Church has not derived a vast benefit from the discovery, inasmuch as it has brought the knowledge of the Gospel to a great multitude of souls who might otherwise have perished in their infidelity." Pascal is wrong. Virgilius was not excommunicated, and the belief in the antipodes as a location was not condemned by pope Zachary. OTOH Pascal is not actually suggesting the pope(s) in the age of Columbus thought the earth was flat, but it seems to me that this passage might have caused someone to think he was saying that. Peter I deal with the quite separate issue of the antipodes in my post. And Irving didn't wholly invent the myth of the medieval belief in a flat earth, he just made it "common knowledge" thanks to his bestselling novel.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 20, 2016 8:34:24 GMT
In other news, yesterday I recorded a segment about New Atheist bad history for the Freed Thinker podcast - a Christian podcast by a guy who doesn't seem like a fundamentalist loon. Part one of two is up for listening, entitled "History for Atheists ... And the Rest of Us - Part 1". I haven't listened to it yet, but hopefully I don't ramble too much. I listened to the pod cast and it was the first time that I have heard your voice. It sounded familiar and I came to the conclusion that you sounded very similar to Andrew Bolt. Don't punch me!!!! Please!!!!
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 20, 2016 8:46:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jan 2, 2017 6:35:58 GMT
|
|