tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post6287312365252894235..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Habitually "Lying" Christian Apologists?: 19th Century "Hittites Didn't Exist" Radical Skepticism (vs. Atheist "DagoodS")Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20839841685637923812011-01-18T07:55:49.253-05:002011-01-18T07:55:49.253-05:00Thanks Martin, for at least reading the post initi...Thanks Martin, for at least reading the post initiating this bizarre interaction. Some people are persuaded by Dave Armstrong’s arguments; others are persuaded by mine. *shrug* Thus the way of internet life.<br /><br />I admit slight disappointment you think he has shown my position to be “over the top.” I don’t see how asking for one (1) quote from one (1) skeptic who said, “Hittites don’t exist” to support the claim “Skeptics said, ‘Hittites don’t exist’” is over the top. I would hope--if this was true--we could produce one! But again, you are entitled to be persuaded by whatever arguments you find convincing. I guess I am entitled to be disappointed when my arguments are not. *grin*DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61519647734605754152011-01-17T19:41:24.697-05:002011-01-17T19:41:24.697-05:00Ok, I read the OP. I tried to write a long he-said...Ok, I read the OP. I tried to write a long he-said she-said post but it became too convoluted so I'm not going there. Simply put I think Dave has already shown your claim to be overthetop. Sorry, that's all I have time for.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88057048356880476542011-01-17T11:31:19.200-05:002011-01-17T11:31:19.200-05:00As an additional humorous touch, DagoodS cites ano...As an additional humorous touch, DagoodS cites another post of his that wasn't even the one I originally critiqued, and complains: "Alas, no one bothers to actually read the post."<br /><br />Generally, when making such a comment, the post referred to is the one actually being critiqued (the one in question). But alas, not in DagoodS' case . . . <br /><br />Now DagoodS goes after William Wright. He didn't lie about Newman's position at all. Here is what he wrote:<br /><br />"It is desirable that this investigation should be undertaken, because the casual references to the Hittites in the Bible have been used by the enemies of Divine revelation to discredit the historical accuracy of the book, and some of the weak friends of the Bible have begun to propagate doubt where they cannot disprove.<br /><br />"In 1857 Professor F. W. [Francis William] Newman, fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, in his <i>History of the Hebrew Monarchy</i> [Pp. 178, 179, Vol. xii], speaks of the Bible references to the Hittites as 'unhistorical,' and as 'not exhibiting the writer's acquaintance with the times in a very favourable light,'"<br /><br />Note that Wright did not claim that Newman denied that they existed at all. Nor did he equate Newman with the "enemies of Divine Revelation." Rather, he is one of the "weak friends of the Bible" (a delightful description of a theological liberal).<br /><br />No "lie" here that I can see; no distortion of another's position. Perhaps DagoodS can explain to us how he sees "lying" in any of that.<br /><br />I'd also be curious to see DagoodS document where I made the following outlandish accusation:<br /><br />"I am accusing ALL Christian Apologists of ALL lying and therefore I am a liar."<br /><br />I never called him a "liar." This is a comical exercise of broad brush caricature to the extreme, but I don't see how it helps DagoodS to avoid the huge mess he has (like Laurel and Hardy) gotten himself into.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79072871026829244602011-01-17T11:16:58.100-05:002011-01-17T11:16:58.100-05:00Keep spinning away, DagoodS! You remind me of thos...Keep spinning away, DagoodS! You remind me of those guys who used to be on the Ed Sullivan Show, who would spin ten plates at the same time.<br /><br />You make the Clinton advisers green with envy with your ability to spin and obfuscate.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1561716156320811502011-01-17T09:49:12.654-05:002011-01-17T09:49:12.654-05:00Martin,
I quite agree with you. There is a huge...Martin, <br /><br />I quite agree with you. There is a huge difference between passing on information one thinks is correct (but later discovers is not) as compared to deliberately passing on information one knows is false. Indeed I made careful distinction on that very point <a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-lying-is-not-convincing.html" rel="nofollow"> in my original post about why using lies is not convincing.</a> Alas, no one bothers to actually <i>read</i> the post—instead relying upon what Dave Armstrong characterizes my position is. *shrug* <br /><br />I carefully (at least I thought) differentiated between “non-truth” and actual lie. My concern was two-fold;<br /><br />1) First, don’t initiate the lie; and <br />2) Once you discover it incorrect, don’t promulgate it.<br /><br />The only person, so far, I have seen who I would suspect lying regarding this miniscule issue is William Wright regarding F.W. Newman’s position. Wright’s quote-mining is troublesome. My original point being I would <i>hope</i> it would be equally as troublesome to Christian apologists. <br /><br />I cited numerous examples of how non-truths are unknowingly spread, and how Christians would actually gain credibility by acknowledging the inaccuracy upon discovering it. One such example was this “Skeptics claim Hittites didn’t exist.” <br /><br />Somehow it became blown up to allegations I am accusing ALL Christian Apologists of ALL lying and therefore I am a liar. Apparently that makes for much better story-making and furor than the rather dull point originally intended.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-40823664140772939312011-01-16T22:02:12.750-05:002011-01-16T22:02:12.750-05:00Though Save is taking the high road by searching f...Though Save is taking the high road by searching for actual quotes even if he fails to find a quote it still weighs on Dagoods to produce evidence that Christian apologists are lowering as opposed to simply being wrong by reporting a common trop that they were taught early on. Certainly, I was taught that scholars disbelieved that Hittites existed. If I had made a statement to that fact and, if mislead, I would not be a liar only mistakenMartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750763393428404220noreply@blogger.com