tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2433264617447589789..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Monkeys with PhDsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65101374195618336272010-07-26T21:16:20.976-04:002010-07-26T21:16:20.976-04:00BTW, it didn't work out for you too well when ...BTW, it didn't work out for you too well when I did contact two of the scholars you cited (Beale, Oswalt). Be careful what you ask for.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26499491741396486462010-07-26T19:53:21.669-04:002010-07-26T19:53:21.669-04:00EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:
“Why not argue that J.P....EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:<br /><br />“Why not argue that J.P. Holding's website, and various other Christian apologetic sites, including your own, are of limited value since most of you are not NT nor OT scholars?”<br /><br />I don’t argue that for the obvious reason that my argument was a tu quoque argument. Do you lack the mental capacity to grasp that type of argument? I notice that in his response to me, Avalos makes the same mistake. <br /><br />“Second, You can check each of my citations of OT scholarship in my chapter via the endnotes, and write all of those scholars (including the Evangelical Protestant scholars I cite), telling them what you told me concerning the topic on which I wrote.”<br /><br />Let’s see. You cite liberal scholars (Enns, Sparks, Lamoureux) whom you mislabel as Evangelicals. <br /><br />You also disregard my critique of Enns and Lamoureux in TID. (And this isn’t the only time I’ve taken issue with Enns.) You also cite John Walton, which is ironic since, as I point out, he agrees with Beale on the cosmic temple symbolism. And he’s not the only one by a long shot (as I also document).<br /><br />Oh, and since you bring it up, when were you planning to check each of my citations of OT and NT scholarship via my footnotes, then write all of those scholars, expressing your disagreement with their positions?<br /><br />“The consensus of those who study the OT in its ANE environment (including leading Evangelical OT scholars) is that the ancient authors of biblical writings assumed a the earth was flat (with God's heavenly abode lying directly above it).”<br /><br />Except that, as I documented, no such consensus obtains. Moreover, you hide behind this nonexistent consensus to duck my counterarguments.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49838893458301305172010-07-26T13:39:08.278-04:002010-07-26T13:39:08.278-04:00@Steve Hays STEVE WROTE: For instance, is Babins...@Steve Hays STEVE WROTE: For instance, is Babinski a scholar? He contributed an essay on ANE cosmology. Is he a Hebraist? Does he read cuneiform? Does he publish learned articles in BASOR? <br /><br />ED'S RESPONSE: Steve, Why not argue that J.P. Holding's website, and various other Christian apologetic sites, including your own, are of limited value since most of you are not NT nor OT scholars? <br /><br />Second, You can check each of my citations of OT scholarship in my chapter via the endnotes, and write all of those scholars (including the Evangelical Protestant scholars I cite), telling them what you told me concerning the topic on which I wrote. <br /><br />The consensus of those who study the OT in its ANE environment (including leading Evangelical OT scholars) is that the ancient authors of biblical writings assumed a the earth was flat (with God's heavenly abode lying directly above it).Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56586267146058249712010-07-22T06:53:38.570-04:002010-07-22T06:53:38.570-04:00>From the Darwinian standpoint, what does it me...>From the Darwinian standpoint, what does it mean to be a scholar? To be a monkey with a PhD? <br /><br />From their standpoint there is only one meaning: tyranny leading to genocide, which is human sacrifice to the devil.<br /><br />Atheists, why don't you surprise us and found a hospital or university or two?The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1591519574117670992010-07-22T03:13:12.335-04:002010-07-22T03:13:12.335-04:00Oh you guys... You should all hang out and have i...Oh you guys... You should all hang out and have ice cream some time. Chat all this delusion stuff over. haha<br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39754528837786307572010-07-22T03:04:01.108-04:002010-07-22T03:04:01.108-04:00I have been reading through TID all afternoon and ...I have been reading through TID all afternoon and part of this evening.<br /><br />This is brilliant stuff, and I am going to make sure copies are availab;e all over campus when the semester starts up later next month.Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74121666966784034492010-07-21T23:52:31.290-04:002010-07-21T23:52:31.290-04:00“Over and over we read where atheists have no righ...“Over and over we read where atheists have no right to make moral judgments if there are no absolute objective morals. This is simply false. They are ignorant to say otherwise. But this is true of most Christians.”<br /><br />Even if they had a right to make moral judgments (setting aside the issue of what a "right" is in a universe with no moral absolutes), why would their moral judgments *matter*? If moral judgments are just statements of preference or something of that sort, then *nothing* is proven in the real world apart from the fact that Loftus is in mental state M. If by "God is evil if he does X", all Loftus means is "Thinking of God's doing X puts me in mental state M", that has *no* bearing at all on whether or not God exists. I don't understand the reasoning here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80177473498034930902010-07-21T21:58:33.894-04:002010-07-21T21:58:33.894-04:00It doesn't say much for their confidence in th...It doesn't say much for their confidence in their own arguments when they employ such a blatant double standard. Apparently they can't take what they dish out. This rash response is just a bunch re-hashed anti-Christian prejudices.<br /><br />“Then too, the authors are Calvinists which I think is a reprehensible theology, as I posted here.”<br /><br />You'd think that someone who touts their scholarly creds wouldn't make such an amateurish mistake as engaging in ad hominem fallacies. Or maybe he's just giving us autobiographical information here on his psychological makeup? What is not clear is what if anything it has to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity. He seems to think any argument from a Calvinist can be dismissed at the outset by the mere fact that it came from a Calvinist.<br /><br />If they really thought that you guys weren't worthy of a response, they wouldn't have responded. As it is, apparently you've hit a nerve to evoke such a rash, bitter and not well thought out response. Well done!Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73093777034971252252010-07-21T21:58:00.840-04:002010-07-21T21:58:00.840-04:00Not many outside of their little camp (Pulliam, Lo...Not many outside of their little camp (Pulliam, Loftus, Long, Carrier and a few others that are only known online for this stuff), think they offer much of substance. Yet he gets <i>so</i> angry when people disagree.<br /><br />I used to think it was funny, and I used to think it was legitimate. I no longer do. I think his rants are not out of anger or frustration, but because their suppression of truth (don't read this...there's no need to respond to non-scholars...why waste your time on this drivel, etc.) and angry attitudes attract those who are actually afraid to deal with the issues comprehensively themselves and would rather rely on their idols to deal with the issues for them.<br /><br />It goes like this:<br /><br />Internet Infidel A: This is the greatest book ever! I may not have read it, but these guys have degrees in important fields of study like the history of ancient science, psychology and dentistry, so they must be right. Christianity is doomed and irrational!<br /><br />Triablogue: We've written a 250-page response showing some of the flaws of this book.<br /><br />Internet Infidel A: Oh? Wow, could Christians write such a long response...it's surely not well thought out...or is it? Do any of them have doctorates in dentistry? Well...I do claim to be a rational person and should probably read it...first though, let's see what Loftus and friends have to say about it.<br /><br />Loftus: What idiots! These guys aren't scholars. Don't waste your time reading their critique. They just want to claim that you are destined for hell and therefore can't reason legitimately, etc.<br /><br />Internet Infidel A: Loftus is probably right. They are just saying that I'm going to hell. They probably haven't said anything new against our views anyways...we're validated in still saying this is the best book ever...This is the best book ever! Christianity is doomed and irrational!<br /><br />And that's the type of person that Loftus wants to keep in his fold, because they are the type who will continue to support him and his goals of influencing college aged ignorants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64336586531919325852010-07-21T21:48:56.434-04:002010-07-21T21:48:56.434-04:00Steve,
I'm making my way through TID right n...Steve, <br /><br />I'm making my way through TID right now. Great stuff. I am especially appreciative of Paul's work on naturalism in the 2nd chapter (via Fesser as well). I think one of the points that you drive home is the absence of coherence in regards to the contributors' opinions. This further explicates the nature of unbelief and lack of standards, disunity. Whats more, there is ample philosophical literature that was left out of their book, footnotes included. Many assumptions are made about positions which are hotly debated, as PM points out, among ATHEIST thinkers. I bought Loftus' first book. I will not be returning the favor. Thanks for providing quick and thorough deconstruction of surface arguments and assumptions. I'm sure when J-Frame sees this he'll be proud.Greg Schneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279466597821820413noreply@blogger.com