Thana
Lady
Sure, Just like a psychologist is a brain surgeon.
Next time I have a question about the Egyptian pyramids, I'll be sure to ask a German professor about them. Mmkay!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another Example of Blatant Dishonesty from a Creationist...
- Thread starter RedJamaX
- Start date
Sure, Just like a psychologist is a brain surgeon.
Next time I have a question about the Egyptian pyramids, I'll be sure to ask a German professor about them. Mmkay!
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, Just like a psychologist is a brain surgeon.
Next time I have a question about the Egyptian pyramids, I'll be sure to ask a German professor about them. Mmkay!
No, just like a brain surgeon is a surgeon.
One is a subset of the other.
Language professors are historians Thana, not quite sure how you find that so difficult to grasp.
The professor in question has better qualifications as a historian than most professional historians, he has a Phd - to be a historian you just need a degree.
Last edited:
Thana
Lady
Just answer me this, If you have a question about the Egyptian Pyramids, Are you going to ask a German professor about them?
No?
Then I rest my case.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
You haven't made a case to rest.
If that German professor has expertise in that area well yes of cpurse.
The German professor in question is a highly qualified expert historian, far more qualified than the average historian. So how is Dawkins dishonest for citing him?
Your original objection was your misconception that he is not a historian, what is your objection now? And have you noticed how many posts you have made and not actually identified any justification whatsoever for claiming Dawkins was dishonest - only your ignorance about what a language professor is.
Thana
Lady
He doesn't have any expertise in that area!
Far out.. You are ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
If you want to ask German Professors about the Egyptian Pyramids then enjoy your non-informative answers.
I'm going to stick with real Historians, Because no where does it say that a language professor is a historian.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
He doesn't have any expertise in that area!
Far out.. You are ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
If you want to ask German Professors about the Egyptian Pyramids then enjoy your non-informative answers.
I'm going to stick with real Historians, Because no where does it say that a language professor is a historian.
You are just being ridiculous, you are also boring me to death.
So Dawkins cited a professor you know nothing whatsoever about, but dislike and somehow that makes him dishonest - apparently on the basis that he holds the highest possible qualification in German, he therefore can not know anything about anything else.
Brilliant.
Who could refute that?
Last edited:
The common use of the word "dishonesty":
"Someone proffers to believe something which I find utterly false."
Examples:
Republicans say Democrats lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Democrats say Republicans lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Creationists say evolutionists lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Evolutionists say creationists lie about what they believe & their agenda.
It seems that "dishonest" is a word used to frequently, & most often to express
the users frustration with disagreement. "Intellectual dishonesty" is a way of
fancying up the word to make it seem more sophisticated, but it's really the same.
Of course, Kitzmiller v Dover shows that there are demonstrable cases of dishonesty.
Regarding the phrase, "You can't prove a negative......
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
"Someone proffers to believe something which I find utterly false."
Examples:
Republicans say Democrats lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Democrats say Republicans lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Creationists say evolutionists lie about what they believe & their agenda.
Evolutionists say creationists lie about what they believe & their agenda.
It seems that "dishonest" is a word used to frequently, & most often to express
the users frustration with disagreement. "Intellectual dishonesty" is a way of
fancying up the word to make it seem more sophisticated, but it's really the same.
Of course, Kitzmiller v Dover shows that there are demonstrable cases of dishonesty.
Regarding the phrase, "You can't prove a negative......
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Last edited:
RedJamaX
Active Member
Not exactly... While a language professor will have some knowledge about the history of the cultures from the language(s) his is proficient in...
Saying that his knowledge on history is equal to an actual historian of the same culture is like saying an archeologist, or a geologist is equal to a paleontologist when studying the same area of the earth.
It's simply not the truth. The language professor has some historical knowledge as it would pertain to the general development of the culture, but would not be nearly as versed in the specifics of that culture's history as would an actual historian who's main focus is to study history.
RedJamaX
Active Member
Agreed, however, In the example I have given... and the multitude of other examples which display similar tactics... There is clearly an intent to falsify the information, thsu proving that this particular creationist was deliberately dishonest.
Yes, there are occasions when scientists (actually, wanna-be-scientists) have submitted information that was later proven to be falsified, or a hoax.
But... The ratio of who is more dishonest is "likely" to be 10,000 to 1... 1 dishonest claim from a real scientist for every 10,000 dishonest claims from creationists. (I am not including ignorant claims from either party, only deliberately dishonest claims)
Of course I don't know the actual figures... but I bet I'm pretty close. I am certain that the ratio "seems" different because when a scientist lies about something, the whole world finds out about it... When a creationist lies about something, even the other 70-90% of the believers in their own faith expect that sport of tactic from them.
It's above my pay grade to quantify the ratio of dishonesty in the creationism v science argument.
I just note that there are ignorant, educated, honest & dishonest people to be found on any side of any issue.
And I advise that we not be so quick to accuse others of lying. We should have evidence of false intent.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
Exactly, and that is why they have titles.
If it did not matter, they would just be called professors and could teach in any area of choice.
A language professor could never get a job as a historian professor no more than a brain surgeon is qualified to operate on someones knee.
The flip side is that one can have degrees in many fields to qualify for other jobs, but that is a totally different subject matter.
RedJamaX
Active Member
Wait, I thought it was impossible to prove the negative?
Plus, if one could "mount a serious historical case that Jesus never lived."
Why did he not do that then?
All he did in the book was lie about what historians said and took others out of context, is that what he means by mounting a serious case? :sarcastic
That was not Richard's goal with that book. If you didn't read it, but only watched a ridiculous video trying to undermine it, I suggest you don't comment on it any further since you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not how debates are structured. A "debate" with an entire book as a topic would never actually work. Debates typically address one very specific topic that both debating parties agree upon, as well as the debate format.
Richard Dawkins said he could, but doesn't find sufficient reason to dedicate the time toward that goal.
However, Richard Carrier did dedicate the time toward proving just that in his new series of books "Proving History".
The first one is called Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. This book explains the faults with the current historical methods which are used and lays out the principals, techniques and examples for using a new method that is more scientific in nature.
The next one being released this month is called Proving History: On the Historicity of Jesus. In this book he intends to "mount a serious case against the existence of Jesus"...
Wait, I thought it was impossible to prove the negative?
Plus, if one could "mount a serious historical case that Jesus never lived."
Why did he not do that then?
While we can never prove a negative with 100% certainty... for example, we cannot 100% prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, WE CAN determine with a great deal of certainty, that it is highly unlikely that the FSM exists at all. That will be the goal of Carrier's book in regards to the historical existence of Jesus. With the previous research I have done myself regarding the existence of Jesus, I believe he will be able to make his case well more than adequately enough to show that it is highly unlikely that Jesus ever existed at all with a probability of greater than 99.9%. (this may be corrected soon... I will confirm a reply below which states that Carrier is claiming a 75% certainty... See what I did here? I challenge ANY creationist to admit their faults and provide corrections)
Last edited:
RedJamaX
Active Member
Agreed, I adjusted my post... and have submitted a request to have the main title changed... I did not intend to group ALL creationists together... just the "teachers" and "scientists" who manipulate information in the manner I showed in my original post. I propose that the remaining creationists are simply ignorant.
Last edited:
kashmir
Well-Known Member
what are you talking about?
It was his goal to claim it true, the point of what he said is the purpose of the book, It is called the "god delusion"
and the video I provided showed he lied in the book, which was my point to begin with, two totally different subjects I was addressing.
yes it can work and infact, he was invited to a debate about it, did not show up.
People have discussions on books all the time.
It is done with the Bible, a huge huge book, constantly.
People go on talk shows and promote their books and areas are debated
"we cant debate a book, there is no time for that ever"
hahaha
BTW, dawkins debated the book with that one talk show guy everyone hates, forget his name, brain fart.
That is a total cop out, if he could actually disprove Jesus existed he would.
No one can, or they would.
provide one debate where Jesus has been successfully disproved to have existed.
Odd, so we are supposed to take the word of a hard core atheist over all the thousands of well educated historians?
Do you really actually believe he successfully refutes the existence of Jesus and knows more than what others on the planet in his field of study that completely disagree with him does not already know?
You do know this is just controversial subjects to make money and nothing more, right?
Rehashing the same data, well i doubt he will discuss all data, just what he wants to discuss, its his right.
Hell, people do it with just about everything, just to make money.
Here is a diff book on doing the same thing, refuted, (as you claim people dont do)
[youtube]YC1GyMXDfzM[/youtube]
I already knew of this link, will play the dawkins card and claim I don't have time nor deem it relevant to find on that refutes Richard Carrier's book.
I already heard him debate, and as with all atheists, they rehash the same tactics, twist areas, and leave out data, plus already provided the video and a link where dawkins did it in his book.
But, if he makes money with the books, good for him, that is all it is about.
It has nothing to do with discussing ALL the data, openly and honestly and proving Jesus didnt exist.
If that could be done, it would have been and someone would have won some huge award for it.
You are pretty much contradicting yourself.
Adding "highly unlikely" does not add weight to proving the negative.
And what is the difference in 99.9% and 100%?
Nothing on this planet is labeled "highly unlikely" with a 99.9% probability.
That is just huge plays on words.
And again, if it could be done with open, honest, unbias discussion of ALL data, it would have been done, prob by dawkins, years ago, instead of his pathetic god delusion book.
BTW, unbias and honest Historians are 99.9% certain that Jesus existed and did die on the cross.
So all of them are wrong, because one man writes a book, and refuted them all ehhh?
Scientists go by the most probable from the majority rules of the provided data, so by that standard, guess whose book isn't worth its weight in my opinion?
Thousands of historians who have unbias position on the data,
or one man, who is bias and most likely will not discuss all the data?
I decided to google this book,
This review is from another atheist btw, lmao
[youtube]pq1fVjR0LQw[/youtube]
Carrier himself, self appoints the probability to be 75% that Jesus didn't exist.
The comments also highly suggest bias reading material.
But this new book will be different?
Using the same exact data once again but now will conclude 99.99% that Jesus didn't exist?
Seriously, no one can prove it either way, no more than we can prove that anyone from then lived, but we surely accept most of them to have lived.
Suggestive bias is a nice word.
I bet if Jesus never claimed to be of God, and was just an awesome teacher for man to love each other and stop killing...
No one would have a problem with his existence one bit.
But since he claimed to be Holy, now we have to do what ever we can to delete him away.
Sad really.
The man died a horrible death on the cross, and all he wanted to do was teach love and this this the thanks he gets 2000 years later.
I just do not get it.
Oh yah, forgot, $$$ selling books, my bad
Last edited:
RedJamaX
Active Member
You obviously have more time on your hand than I do, so I will address what I choose...
That's not how your post sounded... I was pointing out that the focus of the book was not to show Jesus didn't exist..
They can address specific claims in the book, but not effectively. And I have seen "discussions" and "interviews" about the book, but never a debate about the book. I have seen a debate titled "the god delusion", but it was not a debate about the book. It was a debate with a clear topic of discussion "is god a delusion?"... that is NOT a debate "about" the book.
It's also about being scientifically honest... claiming to be 100% sure about just about anything is impossible in some philosophical sense.
Stop being a sheep.. do the research.. it's unlikely that Jesus was even a real person.. even the claims surrounding the conditions of the Crucifixion taking place when it did are highly unlikely... plus so many other factors leading up to and following the claimed event and so many other factors claimed about the life of Jesus... when you actually do the research and study materials presented by historians of ancient literature and of the ancient civilizations in question... it becomes quite clear the Jesus was not a real person. Stop getting your information from theologians and philosophers... They aren't history experts... they are "theology", and "philosophy"... experts... If you don't know the difference that's your own perpetuated ignorance.
what are you talking about?
It was his goal to claim it true, the point of what he said is the purpose of the book, It is called the "god delusion"
and the video I provided showed he lied in the book, which was my point to begin with, two totally different subjects I was addressing.
That's not how your post sounded... I was pointing out that the focus of the book was not to show Jesus didn't exist..
They can address specific claims in the book, but not effectively. And I have seen "discussions" and "interviews" about the book, but never a debate about the book. I have seen a debate titled "the god delusion", but it was not a debate about the book. It was a debate with a clear topic of discussion "is god a delusion?"... that is NOT a debate "about" the book.
Obviously I cannot speak for Dawkins, I was only making an assumption based on the interviews and information I have read about, and from him.
Check your information... Carrier used to be among that list of historians who believed that Jesus Mythycists were a fringe group of people and he claimed that "surely Jesus existed, everybody knows that" (paraphrasing)... But then he analyzed the claims, the history, and the methods and found that all of the specifics of the claims were so far apart from each other form one historian to the next... With all of the same data, shouldn't we all come to the same conclusion?? And so he began to investigate the flaws of the current historical method, the developed a new one that can more accurately provide degrees of certainty regarding historical claims... This new method employs Bayes Theorem.
I'll have to look at this later
We shouldn't need somebody to prove he didn't exist.... it should be the Christian's responsibility to prove that he did... and they don't have any convincing evidence
There is a huge difference depending on the context of what probability is being measured... There is not a 100% certainty that a car's wheel will fall off while you are driving, but the possibility is there because it has happened before, and certain to happen again to somebody. Even with a 99.99% change if that NOT happening, it would still be an extremely dangerous risk for everybody on the road because that would mean that one out of every 10,000 cars would have their wheel fall off while driving. With 230 million automobiles on the road in America on any given day, that means that 23,000 cars would lose a wheel while driving EVER DAY. So yes, there is a difference between 100% and even 99.9999%.
It's also about being scientifically honest... claiming to be 100% sure about just about anything is impossible in some philosophical sense.
Based on your on-the-fly, check-a-video, research tactics... I doubt you would actually read both books, or do enough research to investigate who Richard Carrier is and what he's about, so your opinion in this matter is worthless.
You "googled" for a previous review... basing your defense on somebody else's opinion on a book that you haven't even taken the time to see what it is about and how it came to be...
I'll look into this claim... I've already read the first book so I will have to review it again to see if he lays out his estimate of certainty.
Again, I'll check on the % of certainty, but yes, this book uses a completely new method of analyzing history which Richard Carrier has proven to be effective in many other historical examinations laid out in his first book, as well as countless presentations and lectures.
Why would you just accept that what ancient people said was true just because it was written down??? ... you must live in a seriously twisted form of reality... do you randomly wait up late at night just in case the aliens decide to abduct you??
I bet if Jesus never claimed to be of God, and was just an awesome teacher for man to love each other and stop killing...
No one would have a problem with his existence one bit.
But since he claimed to be Holy, now we have to do what ever we can to delete him away.
Sad really.
The man died a horrible death on the cross, and all he wanted to do was teach love and this this the thanks he gets 2000 years later.
I just do not get it.
Oh yah, forgot, $$$ selling books, my bad
Stop being a sheep.. do the research.. it's unlikely that Jesus was even a real person.. even the claims surrounding the conditions of the Crucifixion taking place when it did are highly unlikely... plus so many other factors leading up to and following the claimed event and so many other factors claimed about the life of Jesus... when you actually do the research and study materials presented by historians of ancient literature and of the ancient civilizations in question... it becomes quite clear the Jesus was not a real person. Stop getting your information from theologians and philosophers... They aren't history experts... they are "theology", and "philosophy"... experts... If you don't know the difference that's your own perpetuated ignorance.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
I was discussing the book, dawkins one lie, the quote dawkins said from the professor...
The focus of the book is titled the god delusion, dawkins lied about what historians said about Jesus, dawkins intend was to dispove God, disproving god, lying about Jesus, deems his focus on Jesus too
I still don't follow, there is nothing but the ones involved to decide what is debated and debating the book, is very plausibleThey can address specific claims in the book, but not effectively. And I have seen "discussions" and "interviews" about the book, but never a debate about the book. I have seen a debate titled "the god delusion", but it was not a debate about the book. It was a debate with a clear topic of discussion "is god a delusion?"... that is NOT a debate "about" the book.
Me as well, if he can spend years writing a book full of misconceptions, he could have written an honest book to back up his claims instead
I provided plenty of info to show his word is no more valid than anyone elses.
I dont have to believe him over thousands of others, just because you do.
Scientists dont even come to the same conclusions on fossils, many fossils have been reclassified all the time.
So now the world has to stop believing because he is he final say?
I doubt many if any, will skip church to rush to this book
atheists will be the top buyers
Goal posting, who is the one talking about someone else who is writing the books that disproves Jesus?
You are defending him and claiming he is 99.9% correct.
You cant just back out now and have me refute a book that isnt even out yet
now its .9999?
Where is this data that 23,000 cars loose a wheel every day?
BTW, DNA tests never come back 100%, its always 98 99 97%
Still means its their kid, no ifs ands or buts.
There is no way a guy can tell the judge I am not paying support if there is .01% chance it is not my kid, it is his kid.
Evolution, not a one of those fossils is 100%
The probabilities are so high, its deemed true.
Using your logic, evolution is not true, it might be, but it isn't proven 100%
Do you believe in evolution or not?
This is a total contradiction of everything you are saying now.
I am 100% sure it is me typing this right now.
I am 100% sure I am on RF.
I am 100% sure I am a male.
I am 100% sure I had chicken for dinner
I am 100% sure dawkins is an atheist who wrote the god delusion.
Plays on words over a book, you haven't read yet and still contradicting numbers to mean something they don't actually mean.
If anything the book can never go over 50% probability if others can claim the complete opposite.
We don't get to make up numbers from a bias stance.
This is why they almost never declare a winner in debates about god or any religious areas, or even the something from nothing.
They are held to give people both sides of the coin to ponder their own conclusions of the presented arguments.
You go to any YT vid on the subjects, and all kinds of different perspectives are posted, "dawkins destroyed the religious guy, the atheist got destroyed by Craig", and so forth.
Something can come from nothing.
Nothing can come from nothing.
No, I watched the vid, read all the comments, already heard the man debate several times, read tons of comments there too, heard the audience.Based on your on-the-fly, check-a-video, research tactics... I doubt you would actually read both books, or do enough research to investigate who Richard Carrier is and what he's about, so your opinion in this matter is worthless.
You "googled" for a previous review... basing your defense on somebody else's opinion on a book that you haven't even taken the time to see what it is about and how it came to be...
on the fly is just an ad hominem.
Plus I even told you I have seen him debate plenty of times...
Did you forget that part?
Its said in the vid and other atheists discuss it too.
You don't remember what you read but can make claims on what hasn't even came out yet.
BTW, I YT all the time, its very easy to figure out what is going on, just from the comments.
If someone lies about facts, tons of people call him out.
When someone tells the truth, other reply and add support.
I am not talking about opinions, I am talking about facts and in this case, its the self appointed numbers Carrier gave himself for the book.
They discussed it in the comments, so I am 100% sure it was said in the book.
Circular argument...Again, I'll check on the % of certainty, but yes, this book uses a completely new method of analyzing history which Richard Carrier has proven to be effective in many other historical examinations laid out in his first book, as well as countless presentations and lectures.
How do we know the new method is better?, carrier says it is.
How does carrier know?, the new method told him.
Carrier is not THE authority on history, there are thousands who disagree with him completely, so his methods are self supporting only by him and those like you.
That isn't even a real reply to what I said, not even on topic at all.
But I will reply,
so why would you believe what carrier says, if he is going by what ancient people have said and what history says?, yet you dont accept what ancient people have said or what history says?
Kind of put your foot right into your mouth, ehhh?
Where is this evidence you speak of that Jesus was not a real person?
You should write your own book, seriously.
You seem to know much more than everyone else, I assume a noble peace prize is waiting for you.
Here we have it folks, Jesus was not a real guy.
It has just been proven conclusively.
I will end with this, if you don't wish to reply to anything else, that is fine.
We will just continue to repeat ourselves.
But if you have something new, ok, but if not, I understand your position and you should mine now.
You claim Jesus was not real, offer nothing.
so I will goal post myself, just for you.
Debate this evidence of Jesus's existence...
Pretty sure carrier will hopefully discuss this in his new book, if he is honest
Its a 4 part vid, about a total of 35 mins of data.
Not opinions, actual data.
If the other 3 vids dont show up in the next thumbs, then just click over to YT, they will be there.
[youtube]zrRQqYGf4O0[/youtube]
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure,but that is not what I claimed. You are saying that a claim I did not make is not the truth - what is the point?