The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

Is Christianity a composite religion? -arguments for/against
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=38784
Page 4 of 4

Author:  Max Majestic [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

Argument by link is :flag

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Geez....what is up with you guys - First you cry and whine about not using sources...and then I give sources and you write some sentence about "argument by link"....what? I think I've argued plenty - it was an interesting read......you posted something about why a roman historian would be so concerned with a jew........How did you get that from reading Tacitus? I read a good chunk of it just recently.....Tacitus was previously talking about the different God superstitions....and then he talked about a group of people (christians) who's founder was Christ. He's not talking ABOUT christ in that sense......he's talking about the christians as a group of people and the predicament they were supposedly in.


Max Majestic wrote:
Argument by link is :flag

Author:  Max Majestic [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let me illustrate what's, in my humble opinion, the proper way to form an argument:


Option #1 - I think X,Y,Z. Dr. Such-and-such from So-and-so University agrees with me, as illustrated in this (include link) paper entitled "X,Y,Z". Several others in his field, including A,B & C confirm his thesis, as found here (include links).

Option #2 - Present a formal syllogism.


Just my two cents. You are certainly free to choose your own debate style, but (and I'm speaking only for myself here) only something like what I listed here is going to convince me of anything.

Author:  Tired [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let's make that $.04. Swag, sources are great (and necessary). But present your argument by staging your claim and, when necessary, use the source to back up or provide additional information as to why you argue as you do. And please condense the link in your argument - people normally don't want to read 29 pages of stuff that may or may not directly affect the argument.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well you know what they say about opinions......

Ok Max...whatever
No one on here has argued that way......you've used the "syllogistic" approach a few times....long after the arguments were underway usually..... This isn't a formal debate....I'm not turning this in for credit.....We can skip some formalities in light of the fact that we are discussing this in cyberspace where everyone on here can take a quick glimpse of the various arguments and either post a summarized version or tag a link...It doesn't bother me one bit - why does it bother you?
Maybe the "proper" way to argue is somehow linked to your Catholic Traditional viewpoints.....I'm none of the above, and I could hardly care if someone argued a point in ebonics with an etcha sketch.......if I need a source I'll ask for a link...no big deal.

Max Majestic wrote:
Let me illustrate what's, in my humble opinion, the proper way to form an argument:


Option #1 - I think X,Y,Z. Dr. Such-and-such from So-and-so University agrees with me, as illustrated in this (include link) paper entitled "X,Y,Z". Several others in his field, including A,B & C confirm his thesis, as found here (include links).

Option #2 - Present a formal syllogism.


Just my two cents. You are certainly free to choose your own debate style, but (and I'm speaking only for myself here) only something like what I listed here is going to convince me of anything.

Author:  Max Majestic [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:

Maybe the "proper" way to argue is somehow linked to your Catholic Traditional viewpoints



Actually, it's linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

But, as I said, you are free to argue for things anyway you choose.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

What could you possibly be unclear on regarding this thread? Give me an example and I'll try to help clear it up.

Max Majestic wrote:
swaglantern wrote:

Maybe the "proper" way to argue is somehow linked to your Catholic Traditional viewpoints



Actually, it's linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

But, as I said, you are free to argue for things anyway you choose.

Author:  Max Majestic [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
What could you possibly be unclear on regarding this thread? Give me an example and I'll try to help clear it up.

Max Majestic wrote:
swaglantern wrote:

Maybe the "proper" way to argue is somehow linked to your Catholic Traditional viewpoints



Actually, it's linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

But, as I said, you are free to argue for things anyway you choose.




I said, "It [my desire for proper argumentation] is linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

I'm not accusing you of being un-clear.....simply that your points would have been clearer had you used the outlined techniques. At the very least, you would have avoided the charges that your assertions were unsupported.

We're derailing the thread. Back to issue.

Author:  swaglantern [ Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

I stand corrected - I think I am trying to do too much at once really.
I may start a new thread to address this issue better and post tonight....it will be more interesting maybe...more radical.. hehee :-)

Max Majestic wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
What could you possibly be unclear on regarding this thread? Give me an example and I'll try to help clear it up.

Max Majestic wrote:
swaglantern wrote:

Maybe the "proper" way to argue is somehow linked to your Catholic Traditional viewpoints



Actually, it's linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

But, as I said, you are free to argue for things anyway you choose.




I said, "It [my desire for proper argumentation] is linked to my desire for clarity of thought, presentation, verifibility, and precision.

I'm not accusing you of being un-clear.....simply that your points would have been clearer had you used the outlined techniques. At the very least, you would have avoided the charges that your assertions were unsupported.

We're derailing the thread. Back to issue.

Author:  MoreistCarmelite [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:58 am ]
Post subject: 

Swag, have a look at infidels.org, an atheist site which argues strongly against McDowell but for the existence of Jesus as, in most ways, the man he says he is, excluding and ignoring the issue of divinity.

Author:  swaglantern [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Yea...good site.

My ulimate position would be that if your definition of jesus implicity includes supernatural acts then we would part ways (obviously)...but if you would argue that it's irrelevant, and that there may have been a chap named jesus who preached certain things...then I may be able to meet you half way.....but none of this has anything to do with evidence...or at least good evidence..because I really cannot find anything that would lead me to a sound conclusion as to whether or not he really existed in a tangible sense......we could really get into a good discussion on this rearding the gnostics...and how the were crushed under othodoxy.....what if they were right??



MoreistCarmelite wrote:
Swag, have a look at infidels.org, an atheist site which argues strongly against McDowell but for the existence of Jesus as, in most ways, the man he says he is, excluding and ignoring the issue of divinity.

Author:  Max Majestic [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
we could really get into a good discussion on this rearding the gnostics...and how the were crushed under othodoxy.....what if they were right??



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


OH.....MY.....GOODNESS.

Swag, you're a self-proclaimed objectivist. Given the gnostic perspective on truth, that's the last thing I'd ever expect an objectivist to say.

You must be pulling our communal legs on that one. :?

Author:  MoreistCarmelite [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Did I just see a plea for understanding of Gnosticism from a RATIONALIST???

Hellenistic Gnosticism died for many reasons, one of which was the repugnant practices they used their ill-argued beliefs to justify.

Author:  Zahra [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Glad to know I'm not the only one who is confused. I was beginning to wonder whether I missed a part of the definition of either "rationalism" or "Gnosticism"...

Can't wait what you'll throw at us next, swag.

Zoe

Author:  Max Majestic [ Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

He must be playing a joke on us....

Author:  swaglantern [ Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

::): - I didn't even know you guys responded!!!! - Never let it be said that Catholics aren't hip to sarcasm..... hehehehe

No love on the other post?


Max Majestic wrote:
He must be playing a joke on us....

Author:  Max Majestic [ Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
Never let it be said that Catholics aren't hip to sarcasm..... hehehehe



I am the king of sarcasm. Few people know it, however, because true sarcasm is completely indiguishable from normal speech.

Author:  swaglantern [ Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

I especially doesn't translate well in writing.

Author:  Max Majestic [ Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

swaglantern wrote:
I especially doesn't translate well in writing.



Try Babelfish

Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/