Judith said
So that’s that! We’ll all have to do our part. Difficult for me as I hate confrontation but I want this to stay good.
Judith, it’s not so bad…..the uncivil behavior I’ve encountered on this forum would not hold a candle to what I’ve experienced on other forums. It’s usually just one bully-boy on a forum – and all they accomplish is getting themselves a bad name.
I’m sure this forum will stay good – naming and shaming often sends the bully-boys back to their corner….
It is difficult if one hates confrontation – one needs to develop a thick skin to survive the online bad weather….
Judith said
This is the only blog I care about and I do want us to be civil toward one another.
I am fairly new here and I read more than I post as I really don’t have the deep knowledge to contribute very much but I think, Judith, that your wish, alas, is a pious hope. There seems to be not many more than half a dozen or so regular posters and very little agreement on the rules or at least the norms of debate. Perhaps Sarte had a point, ‘L’Enfers, c’est les autres.’
maryhelena said
Boltonian said
maryhelena said
Judith said
Just curious and want to know, having never blogged except here:
Is contributing a mere comment simply not done and those of us who do it should stop? Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Judith, comments are always welcome on a forum. Serious arguments are few and far between – especially so on this forum which seems to be in danger of become a fan club for Bart Ehrman. Scholarship does not require that approach – as Ehrman, I’m sure, would not be impressed to find his views given special status…..i.e. his views are welcome but they are not sacrosanct …..Sure, its interesting to follow Bart’s scholarship – not forgetting that there are other scholars worth reading as well.
Knowledge is not static. All of use need to keep awareness of that simple fact in mind….
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free’ website operated by the Guardian in the UK so I set up my own blog (www.boltonian.edublogs.org) where courtesy was a sine qua non. The adversarial nature of the discussions on CiF was particularly noticeable in these sorts of debates – on the origins and validity of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As this is an area of interest for me it became the source of some of the most rewarding threads on ‘boltonian.’ However, after a few years, it was obvious that the same few posters were contributing to each discussion (we even met once a year or so in London) and we weren’t getting any new blood onto the blog, so it sort of died a natural death. It still exists so please take a look and tell me if you think I should put some effort into reviving it – happy to do so if people will contribute. I concluded that most people actually enjoyed the vitriol and insults that tribalism encourages and that civilised and respectful discussion eventually becomes anodyne. I would be interested in your views.
I had a look at your blog. Probably a great idea at the time if you were able to take a few of your Guardian contacts along with you – with the idea of developing a sort of online social-club to discuss whatever ideas that you, and they, found of interest. This type of blog, without new blood, does seem to eventually run it’s course. Anyway, I’m sure that it was enjoyable while it was running…
I really don’t know anything about running a blog i.e. how to get new blood, new ‘visitors’ etc. Maybe the social club type blog is just not sustainable in the long term. Perhaps people want the wider audience of a Guardian type situation. i.e. public verse private outlet for their comments. A more hit and run type of commenting rather than having to support their arguments….
Yes, great to have gone the way of requiring good manners…..Unfortunately, good manners are hard to come by on internet forums. A certain amount of give and take can spice up a debate but when things get personal then unpleasantness rears it’s head. And yes – this forum has not been immune…..
I actively encouraged disagreement and controversial or unorthodox opinion but in the end we just ended up being really nice to each other, especially after we had met.
In the end, I suppose, we homo sapiens are tribal creatures with a leadership fetish, condemned to be always seeking the moral high ground. It has obviously served us well in evolutionary terms but it does have its downside.
Boltonian said
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free’ website operated by the Guardian in the UK so I set up my own blog (www.boltonian.edublogs.org) where courtesy was a sine qua non. The adversarial nature of the discussions on CiF was particularly noticeable in these sorts of debates – on the origins and validity of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As this is an area of interest for me it became the source of some of the most rewarding threads on ‘boltonian.’ However, after a few years, it was obvious that the same few posters were contributing to each discussion (we even met once a year or so in London) and we weren’t getting any new blood onto the blog, so it sort of died a natural death. It still exists so please take a look and tell me if you think I should put some effort into reviving it – happy to do so if people will contribute. I concluded that most people actually enjoyed the vitriol and insults that tribalism encourages and that civilised and respectful discussion eventually becomes anodyne. I would be interested in your views.
I had a look at your blog. Probably a great idea at the time if you were able to take a few of your Guardian contacts along with you – with the idea of developing a sort of online social-club to discuss whatever ideas that you, and they, found of interest. This type of blog, without new blood, does seem to eventually run it’s course. Anyway, I’m sure that it was enjoyable while it was running…
I really don’t know anything about running a blog i.e. how to get new blood, new ‘visitors’ etc. Maybe the social club type blog is just not sustainable in the long term. Perhaps people want the wider audience of a Guardian type situation. i.e. public verse private outlet for their comments. A more hit and run type of commenting rather than having to support their arguments….
Yes, great to have gone the way of requiring good manners…..Unfortunately, good manners are hard to come by on internet forums. A certain amount of give and take can spice up a debate but when things get personal then unpleasantness rears it’s head. And yes – this forum has not been immune…..
I actively encouraged disagreement and controversial or unorthodox opinion but in the end we just ended up being really nice to each other, especially after we had met.
In the end, I suppose, we homo sapiens are tribal creatures with a leadership fetish, condemned to be always seeking the moral high ground. It has obviously served us well in evolutionary terms but it does have its downside.
…”leadership fetish”. Yes, dangerous but leaders can also inspire……comes the moment comes the man…I wonder what stuff Boris is made of……
Hi spiker, the best summary I found of Bayes Theorum that is not totally mathematically intimidating to my non-mathematical mind is a post on the rjosephhoffman.wordpress.com blog, tag archives:Bayes Theorum. The article was posted May 29,2012 and I’d titled Proving What? Leaving out the formulas, it boils down to the fact that Bayes Theorum is useful when making predictions about events based on previous verifiable events. Good for things like what is the chance that there will be snow on the Fourth of July based on the number of previously recorded snowfalls on that date. I am sure there are people on the forum that can explain it better than I.
On the topic of my atheism, I tried out Christianity from about age 13 to 19 mostly because my boyfriend went to the same church where my aunt and uncle were deacons. It was a very superficial acquaintanceship. By the time I was 19 I just decided that the teachings made little sense and that I didn’t see any advantage to pretending they did, so I just up and said to myself I quit! Never looked back, never felt I lacked anything. My recent interest is because I wanted to have more facts at my disposal if my grandson, now six, ever had questions for me. His other grandma is a believer, although my daughter is not. She also made up her own mind after trying a couple of churches. it got to be an interesting study in psychology and sociology. Curious how so many people believe so many different things about religions.
On another topic, I would like to recommend a book by Aviya Krushner, The Grammar of God: A Journey into the Words and Worlds of the Bible. It is written by a Jewish lady and describes her adventures in studying the use of words and how they might be interpreted by different sects of Judaism and Christianity. Short and well written, it is an eye into a different world for me, but ties in with the topic of Bart’s newest book. I am anxious to get it and it should be out soon.
i guess Judith and I are both non-confrontational, although I do enjoy a bit of reparteé and have been known to produce terrible puns. Last I checked, I had not not been proclaimed rule maker nor do I really want to be.I appreciate your understanding!
Judith said
Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Was that what was stated above?
Let’s go to the video tape,
The issue was never will we agree. I don’t really care if she agrees. But offering an actual argument would be nice.
I think there’s a substantial difference between what is implied by your question and what was actually said.
Further,the question is what sort of responses are “appropriate”. Certainly I could argue that your mischaracterization of what I
said above is inappropriate, deliberate etc. I don’t see how offering to abide by Yours and Mags sense of it is confrontation.
magpie said
Hi spiker, the best summary I found of Bayes Theorum that is not totally mathematically intimidating to my non-mathematical mind is a post on the rjosephhoffman.wordpress.com blog, tag archives:Bayes Theorum. The article was posted May 29,2012 and I’d titled Proving What? Leaving out the formulas, it boils down to the fact that Bayes Theorum is useful when making predictions about events based on previous verifiable events. Good for things like what is the chance that there will be snow on the Fourth of July based on the number of previously recorded snowfalls on that date. I am sure there are people on the forum that can explain it better than I.On the topic of my atheism, I tried out Christianity from about age 13 to 19 mostly because my boyfriend went to the same church where my aunt and uncle were deacons. It was a very superficial acquaintanceship. By the time I was 19 I just decided that the teachings made little sense and that I didn’t see any advantage to pretending they did, so I just up and said to myself I quit! Never looked back, never felt I lacked anything. My recent interest is because I wanted to have more facts at my disposal if my grandson, now six, ever had questions for me. His other grandma is a believer, although my daughter is not. She also made up her own mind after trying a couple of churches. it got to be an interesting study in psychology and sociology. Curious how so many people believe so many different things about religions.
On another topic, I would like to recommend a book by Aviya Krushner, The Grammar of God: A Journey into the Words and Worlds of the Bible. It is written by a Jewish lady and describes her adventures in studying the use of words and how they might be interpreted by different sects of Judaism and Christianity. Short and well written, it is an eye into a different world for me, but ties in with the topic of Bart’s newest book. I am anxious to get it and it should be out soon.
i guess Judith and I are both non-confrontational, although I do enjoy a bit of reparteé and have been known to produce terrible puns. Last I checked, I had not not been proclaimed rule maker nor do I really want to be.I appreciate your understanding!
Mags,
Thanks for the kind and informed reply. I will add the suggestions to my ever growing reading list.
Now as to confrontation, I wasn’t asking for it nor do I think this is what has been happening, BUT I did offer to defer to your
sense of things, if after reading my explanation for what I was doing, you felt that my approach was wrong, too harsh whatever,
There’s nothing wrong with PMing someone and saying Dude chill out,(that doesn’t make you a rule maker or a confrontation) but like I said I have ridiculed the both the ideas and their presentation; not the person. So my question was whether you think I have done anything out of what would be the norm in a debate.
Boltonian said
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free
Seriously, Bolt!?
I’m sure you experienced that on your blog, but you can’t associate asking someone to support their claims or
a bit of ridicule to be “tribalism and one-eyed hero worship” Further, I don’t see anyone treating Bart’s ideas as sacrosanct.
There’s a lot of respect, of course, but that’s different. There are a number of people out here that have different ideas than
Ehrman. LawyerSkeptic comes immediately to mind (No offense, LS!). Sorry Bolt I don’t see where you’re coming from. BTW generalizing about a specific group is not tribalism; though it can be a good bit of polemic pushing them to up their game.
Now I have clashed with LS a couple of times, but I do respect his opinion, read his posts and will probably purchase his book when it comes out. Now in my own defense I have offered to defer to what the group thinks here and am completely open to being told that someone thinks there’s a problem with what I say or do. As Joe Pesce put it in My Cousin Vinnie, “I could use a good ass kicking,I’II be very honest with you.” But I also think if your coming out here and claiming something is true,you ought to be willing and able to defend yourself with something more than insinuation and rhetoric. I don’t claim to have nearly the knowledge, you, Stephen, Greg or (Gosh I can’t think of his name) have and am entirely open to criticism. But evasion strikes me as dishonest and I don’t take well to that.
spiker said
Boltonian said
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free
Seriously, Bolt!?
I’m sure you experienced that on your blog, but you can’t associate asking someone to support their claims or
a bit of ridicule to be “tribalism and one-eyed hero worship” Further, I don’t see anyone treating Bart’s ideas as sacrosanct.
There’s a lot of respect, of course, but that’s different. There are a number of people out here that have different ideas than
Ehrman. LawyerSkeptic comes immediately to mind (No offense, LS!). Sorry Bolt I don’t see where you’re coming from. BTW generalizing about a specific group is not tribalism; though it can be a good bit of polemic pushing them to up their game.
Now I have clashed with LS a couple of times, but I do respect his opinion, read his posts and will probably purchase his book when it comes out. Now in my own defense I have offered to defer to what the group thinks here and am completely open to being told that someone thinks there’s a problem with what I say or do. As Joe Pesce put it in My Cousin Vinnie, “I could use a good ass kicking,I’II be very honest with you.” But I also think if your coming out here and claiming something is true,you ought to be willing and able to defend yourself with something more than insinuation and rhetoric. I don’t claim to have nearly the knowledge, you, Stephen, Greg or (Gosh I can’t think of his name) have and am entirely open to criticism. But evasion strikes me as dishonest and I don’t take well to that.
Hello Spiker. Have you ever participated in the debates on CiF? Much heat, hardly any light, at least in the discussions I was interested in. Few contributors were (perhaps it is the same today, although I rarely attend now) in the least bit interested in understanding the views of others but very committed to big-mouthing their own opinions. When I was asked to set up my blog by a number of CiFers I was astonished by the number of contributors who had intelligent things to say but said nothing on CiF for fear of the bullies. And there were certain prominent posters on CiF who attracted a tribal and uncritical clique that swung into action if their hero was deemed to have been even slightly questioned.
Re-evasion; I agree but there are ways and ways of saying things. It is possible to challenge views without resorting to ad hominen attacks. Also, please don’t put me at the same level of knowledge as Greg, Stephen (and yourself) etc. Although this subject has been an interest on an off (mainly off) for many years I do not pretend to any great depth of learning. Perhaps as a final thought and because history of many periods has occupied much of my leisure reading for nearly 50 years, it is an inexact discipline, sometimes subjective and occasionally speculative. You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Boltonian said
Re-evasion; I agree but there are ways and ways of saying things. It is possible to challenge views without resorting to ad hominen attacks. Also, please don’t put me at the same level of knowledge as Greg, Stephen (and yourself) etc. Although this subject has been an interest on an off (mainly off) for many years I do not pretend to any great depth of learning. Perhaps as a final thought and because history of many periods has occupied much of my leisure reading for nearly 50 years, it is an inexact discipline, sometimes subjective and occasionally speculative. You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Bolt, I made it very clear that I didn’t doubt your experience on your blog. The question is whether this is what is happening here.
Please show me where I resorted to Ad hominem (Here’s to hoping you don’t think translation is definition)
You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Absolutely, and once again, I feel I have made this point several times, I don’t care if there is disagreement. There’s a substantial difference between drawing opposite conclusions and insisting your right because, it’s “an idea whose time has come” As far as I can recall none of my disagreements with others have been resolved except my last about whether Pilate was at Jesus Trial. Here’s an example where Greg and I sort of agreed until he changed his mind. In an effort to make my case more persuasive, I did some digging, but all I could come up with was information suggesting Pilate was in fact there. So I had to admit it looked like Pilate was INFACT there despite my sense that Jesus was too small a fish for Pilate to fry. That’s something I still believe but can’t substantiate. So guess what? I had to eat a big bowl of crow stew with not even a handful of oyster crackers.
spiker said
Boltonian said
Re-evasion; I agree but there are ways and ways of saying things. It is possible to challenge views without resorting to ad hominen attacks. Also, please don’t put me at the same level of knowledge as Greg, Stephen (and yourself) etc. Although this subject has been an interest on an off (mainly off) for many years I do not pretend to any great depth of learning. Perhaps as a final thought and because history of many periods has occupied much of my leisure reading for nearly 50 years, it is an inexact discipline, sometimes subjective and occasionally speculative. You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Bolt, I made it very clear that I didn’t doubt your experience on your blog. The question is whether this is what is happening here.
Please show me where I resorted to Ad hominem (Here’s to hoping you don’t think translation is definition)
You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Absolutely, and once again, I feel I have made this point several times, I don’t care if there is disagreement. There’s a substantial difference between drawing opposite conclusions and insisting your right because, it’s “an idea whose time has come” As far as I can recall none of my disagreements with others have been resolved except my last about whether Pilate was at Jesus Trial. Here’s an example where Greg and I sort of agreed until he changed his mind. In an effort to make my case more persuasive, I did some digging, but all I could come up with was information suggesting Pilate was in fact there. So I had to admit it looked like Pilate was INFACT there despite my sense that Jesus was too small a fish for Pilate to fry. That’s something I still believe but can’t substantiate. So guess what? I had to eat a big bowl of crow stew with not even a handful of oyster crackers.
I was actually referring to ad hominem attacks on CiF which led to the setting up of my blog. We all agreed that many of the commenters there were bullies, who spoiled it for others and did their best to close down opinions with which they disagreed by resorting to insult and personal attacks. So far as I know – and please point out where if I have – I have not mentioned this blog. You will need to ask others whether they feel that you are personally guilty of ad hominem comments. I would certainly let you know if I felt that you had overstepped the mark with me. You suggested earlier that I must have experienced such unpleasantness on my blog – not once (you can see for yourself). Disagreements were civilised and debates conducted in the spirit of a mutual learning experience – perhaps that is why, in the end it had run its course. But it was great while it lasted (and it did keep going for a few years) and I learned a lot, especially from those I initially disagreed with.
Anyway, we are miles off topic here, so perhaps we ought also to bring this discussion to a gentle close.
Greg Matthews said
spiker said
feel
I figured out why your badge says Doctorate Member. If you click on the icon at the top that looks like a star on a ribbon you get the list of member ranks and the one for 301+ posts is what you have. I don’t know why I don’t even have a badge.
Ha! I originally thought that was the case, but then noticed you didn’t have that designation!
So then I dreamed it must be a gold star from Bart!
P.S 10 more posts and Steefan will have his doctorate!
Boltonian said
spiker said
Boltonian said
Re-evasion; I agree but there are ways and ways of saying things. It is possible to challenge views without resorting to ad hominen attacks. Also, please don’t put me at the same level of knowledge as Greg, Stephen (and yourself) etc. Although this subject has been an interest on an off (mainly off) for many years I do not pretend to any great depth of learning. Perhaps as a final thought and because history of many periods has occupied much of my leisure reading for nearly 50 years, it is an inexact discipline, sometimes subjective and occasionally speculative. You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Bolt, I made it very clear that I didn’t doubt your experience on your blog. The question is whether this is what is happening here.
Please show me where I resorted to Ad hominem (Here’s to hoping you don’t think translation is definition)
You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Absolutely, and once again, I feel I have made this point several times, I don’t care if there is disagreement. There’s a substantial difference between drawing opposite conclusions and insisting your right because, it’s “an idea whose time has come” As far as I can recall none of my disagreements with others have been resolved except my last about whether Pilate was at Jesus Trial. Here’s an example where Greg and I sort of agreed until he changed his mind. In an effort to make my case more persuasive, I did some digging, but all I could come up with was information suggesting Pilate was in fact there. So I had to admit it looked like Pilate was INFACT there despite my sense that Jesus was too small a fish for Pilate to fry. That’s something I still believe but can’t substantiate. So guess what? I had to eat a big bowl of crow stew with not even a handful of oyster crackers.
I was actually referring to ad hominem attacks on CiF which led to the setting up of my blog. We all agreed that many of the commenters there were bullies, who spoiled it for others and did their best to close down opinions with which they disagreed by resorting to insult and personal attacks. So far as I know – and please point out where if I have – I have not mentioned this blog. You will need to ask others whether they feel that you are personally guilty of ad hominem comments. I would certainly let you know if I felt that you had overstepped the mark with me. You suggested earlier that I must have experienced such unpleasantness on my blog – not once (you can see for yourself). Disagreements were civilised and debates conducted in the spirit of a mutual learning experience – perhaps that is why, in the end it had run its course. But it was great while it lasted (and it did keep going for a few years) and I learned a lot, especially from those I initially disagreed with.
Anyway, we are miles off topic here, so perhaps we ought also to bring this discussion to a gentle close.
Boltonian said
spiker said
Boltonian said
Re-evasion; I agree but there are ways and ways of saying things. It is possible to challenge views without resorting to ad hominen attacks. Also, please don’t put me at the same level of knowledge as Greg, Stephen (and yourself) etc. Although this subject has been an interest on an off (mainly off) for many years I do not pretend to any great depth of learning. Perhaps as a final thought and because history of many periods has occupied much of my leisure reading for nearly 50 years, it is an inexact discipline, sometimes subjective and occasionally speculative. You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Bolt, I made it very clear that I didn’t doubt your experience on your blog. The question is whether this is what is happening here.
Please show me where I resorted to Ad hominem (Here’s to hoping you don’t think translation is definition)
You and I could read exactly the same evidence and draw different (indeed opposite) conclusions. We none of us starts our search with a blank slate.
Absolutely, and once again, I feel I have made this point several times, I don’t care if there is disagreement. There’s a substantial difference between drawing opposite conclusions and insisting your right because, it’s “an idea whose time has come” As far as I can recall none of my disagreements with others have been resolved except my last about whether Pilate was at Jesus Trial. Here’s an example where Greg and I sort of agreed until he changed his mind. In an effort to make my case more persuasive, I did some digging, but all I could come up with was information suggesting Pilate was in fact there. So I had to admit it looked like Pilate was INFACT there despite my sense that Jesus was too small a fish for Pilate to fry. That’s something I still believe but can’t substantiate. So guess what? I had to eat a big bowl of crow stew with not even a handful of oyster crackers.
I was actually referring to ad hominem attacks on CiF which led to the setting up of my blog. We all agreed that many of the commenters there were bullies, who spoiled it for others and did their best to close down opinions with which they disagreed by resorting to insult and personal attacks. So far as I know – and please point out where if I have – I have not mentioned this blog. You will need to ask others whether they feel that you are personally guilty of ad hominem comments. I would certainly let you know if I felt that you had overstepped the mark with me. You suggested earlier that I must have experienced such unpleasantness on my blog – not once (you can see for yourself). Disagreements were civilised and debates conducted in the spirit of a mutual learning experience – perhaps that is why, in the end it had run its course. But it was great while it lasted (and it did keep going for a few years) and I learned a lot, especially from those I initially disagreed with.
Anyway, we are miles off topic here, so perhaps we ought also to bring this discussion to a gentle close.
Thanks, Boltonian, for the suggestion that we bring this discussion to a gentle close. I agree but before we do, there are two points I’d like to make:
Dr. Ehrman has repeatedly asked that we do all possible to help increase the number of bloggers. I have some ideas for how to do that and am working on it. The problem is that we want bloggers who make interesting contributions (no more lightweights:-) Keeping The Forum civil will be good for the purpose of attracting and keeping additional bloggers. Then on December 31, 2014, Greg Matthews made the suggestion that Dr. Ehrman not hold things up on The Forum by reviewing first and stated he believed everyone could be relied on to be civil. So it seems to me I’m in good company in thinking that’s possible.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)