Lenardo's Rebuttal
NOTICE: Lenardos showed up on Rational Responders forum to discuss this paper! (And then ran away!) See end for details!
G. Brady Lenardos has provided a response to my paper, "Framing the Misdirection", which was my response to his paper, "Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument". His response is found here. This paper is my response to his response.
People who read my debate with Lenardos can probably tell that he is not one of my favorite people. I find him to be arrogant and derisive, though I suppose he might say the same about me. I confess that at times during our debate, I allowed Lenardos to "get under my skin" and sometimes responded in a less than congenial manner. However, in my paper "Framing the Misdirection", I endeavored to go strictly by the facts and avoided ad hominems. Unfortunately, Lenardos found it necessary to use ad hominems and be condescending throughout his response. Some examples:
People who read my debate with Lenardos can probably tell that he is not one of my favorite people. I find him to be arrogant and derisive, though I suppose he might say the same about me. I confess that at times during our debate, I allowed Lenardos to "get under my skin" and sometimes responded in a less than congenial manner. However, in my paper "Framing the Misdirection", I endeavored to go strictly by the facts and avoided ad hominems. Unfortunately, Lenardos found it necessary to use ad hominems and be condescending throughout his response. Some examples:
"...an attempt by Paul and other atheists to appear as if they are open-minded and rational, but in actuality they are nothing more than fideists"
"In Paul’s new paper, his old positions are merely regurgitated, with a few new fallacies added along the way" "Paul calls his magical knowledge “scientific fact.”" "Paul needs to avoid this at all cost. For he already understands that given the data we have concerning Jesus’ resurrection, reaching a conclusion regarding the resurrection is far more than just a possibility." |
I confess to "goading" him into responding to my paper, by occasionally sending e-mails to him asking when he intends to respond. So, perhaps I should expect his response to be derisive. But the bottom line is, his paper, which I resoundingly refuted, is still up on his site and it took him a year to bother to defend it. And only after being goaded would he even try to defend it. And after a year to work on his defense, what he produced is pitiful and insulting. So now I have the task to refute his latest. Given the tone of his response, I won't "pull my punches" here.
Rather humorously, Lenardos and other apologists have referred to Sanders' Introduction to Research in English Literary History to defend their arguments. I say it is "humorous" because Sanders book is about the study of literature, meaning fiction. Could their picking a book about the study of fiction as a reference for their arguments in regards to the Bible be a proverbial Freudian slip? Besides, Sanders work flatly contradicts Lenardos. In "Framing the Misdirection", I pointed out how Sanders' work in no way supports his arguments. In his latest response, the complete lack of any reference to Sanders is quite stunning. Remember, it was Lenardos that introduced Sanders' work into our debate, but I'm the one who actually read Sanders' book and showed how it flatly contradicts him. To which Lenardos was left literally speechless. He provided no response at all. Therefore, I take this as a concession that he is completely wrong on Sanders.
Now that I've covered what Lenardos didn't say, I will discuss what he did say. In my article, I presented a passage from Gottschalk's book Understanding History, and gave it the title of "the Gottschalk Method". I said that I surmised that Lenardos would accept that as being a "historical method", and indeed in Lenardos' response, he accepts the the Gottschalk Method:
Rather humorously, Lenardos and other apologists have referred to Sanders' Introduction to Research in English Literary History to defend their arguments. I say it is "humorous" because Sanders book is about the study of literature, meaning fiction. Could their picking a book about the study of fiction as a reference for their arguments in regards to the Bible be a proverbial Freudian slip? Besides, Sanders work flatly contradicts Lenardos. In "Framing the Misdirection", I pointed out how Sanders' work in no way supports his arguments. In his latest response, the complete lack of any reference to Sanders is quite stunning. Remember, it was Lenardos that introduced Sanders' work into our debate, but I'm the one who actually read Sanders' book and showed how it flatly contradicts him. To which Lenardos was left literally speechless. He provided no response at all. Therefore, I take this as a concession that he is completely wrong on Sanders.
Now that I've covered what Lenardos didn't say, I will discuss what he did say. In my article, I presented a passage from Gottschalk's book Understanding History, and gave it the title of "the Gottschalk Method". I said that I surmised that Lenardos would accept that as being a "historical method", and indeed in Lenardos' response, he accepts the the Gottschalk Method:
Let’s ask ourselves, “What is subjective about the above method?” Are we supposed to subjectively guess the answers to those questions? Or answer them with the answers we would prefer? No, we are to look over the objective evidence and reach a conclusion based on the evidence, not based on our likes and dislikes. This is an objective, inductive methodology that Gottschalk describes.
|
Astonishingly, Lenardos accepts the Gottschalk Method as a historical method, but insists that is indeed objective! Does Gottschalk say this? Noooo, he doesn't actually. Lenardos acts like each of the questions Gottschalk asks can be answered objectively! Is he serious??? Take one of Gottschalk's questions is, "Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?" Did Gottschalk give us an objective method to answer this yes or no? No he didn't. Imagine that. Unless you're a mind reader of people who have been dead 2,000 years, there is no way to answer this objectively.
Lenardos charges me with the fallacy of equivocation. That means to make an argument by shifting among multiple meanings of the same word. If anyone is equivocating, it is Lenardos. He tries to teach a lesson on on what the word "subjective" means, but it is Lenardos that needs to pick up a dictionary to learn what the word means. Basically, Lenardos seems to equate "subjective" with "willy-nillie." Let's have a look at what he says:
Lenardos charges me with the fallacy of equivocation. That means to make an argument by shifting among multiple meanings of the same word. If anyone is equivocating, it is Lenardos. He tries to teach a lesson on on what the word "subjective" means, but it is Lenardos that needs to pick up a dictionary to learn what the word means. Basically, Lenardos seems to equate "subjective" with "willy-nillie." Let's have a look at what he says:
One might ask, why then do we bother with history at all? If history is not giving us an objective look into the actual events of the past, but merely telling us the stories that the author likes, it has no value. Do we really give out PhD’s in history for just telling stories that the author likes? Of course not!
|
He equated "subjective" with "no value". Or, more bluntly, he equates it with "just pulling something out your ass." No, Lenardos, saying something is subjective doesn't mean you pulled it our your ass, okay? Subjective means it is influenced by the person making the judgment, it doesn't mean the person making the choice did so randomly.
Since Lenardos made hay of pulling out some alleged logical fallacies of mine, I will point out that the fallacy Lenardos is using is called a "false dichotomy". This is where the person presents two extremes as if they are the only possibilities, ignoring other options. To Lenardos, either something is objective, or completely of "no value." Its objective, or just something pulled out your ass. This is a false dichotomy. Subjective simply means that it is influenced by the person making the judgment and that is all.
Lenardos has such a difficult time understanding this word, he is unable to comprehend what Gottschalk means when he uses the word, and tries to tell us that Gottschalk doesn't really mean "subjective". Lenardos understands that Gottschalk isn't saying, "history is just pulled out our collective asses", so, he concludes that Gottschalk doesn't really mean subjective. Lenardos tells us that given the context, Gottschalk's meaning of "subjective" is "not 100% certainty". There is no such definition of the word "subjective" in the dictionary. As it happens, Gottschalk spends a couple of pages on the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I didn't initially quote any of that material before because I didn't think it was necessary. But in order to show that Gottschalk understands the word, here is the opening to Gottschalk's section "Objectivity vs. Subjectivity":
Since Lenardos made hay of pulling out some alleged logical fallacies of mine, I will point out that the fallacy Lenardos is using is called a "false dichotomy". This is where the person presents two extremes as if they are the only possibilities, ignoring other options. To Lenardos, either something is objective, or completely of "no value." Its objective, or just something pulled out your ass. This is a false dichotomy. Subjective simply means that it is influenced by the person making the judgment and that is all.
Lenardos has such a difficult time understanding this word, he is unable to comprehend what Gottschalk means when he uses the word, and tries to tell us that Gottschalk doesn't really mean "subjective". Lenardos understands that Gottschalk isn't saying, "history is just pulled out our collective asses", so, he concludes that Gottschalk doesn't really mean subjective. Lenardos tells us that given the context, Gottschalk's meaning of "subjective" is "not 100% certainty". There is no such definition of the word "subjective" in the dictionary. As it happens, Gottschalk spends a couple of pages on the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I didn't initially quote any of that material before because I didn't think it was necessary. But in order to show that Gottschalk understands the word, here is the opening to Gottschalk's section "Objectivity vs. Subjectivity":
Sometimes objects like ruins, parchments and coins survive from the past. Otherwise, the facts of history are derived from testimony and therefore are facts of meaning. They cannot be seen, felt, tasted, heard or smelled. They may be said to be symbolic or representative of something that once as real, but they have no objective reality of their own. In other words, they only exist in the observer's or historian's mind, and thus they may be called "subjective." To be studied objectively, a thing must first be an object; it must have independent existence outside the human mind; and most of history is based upon recollections -- that is written or spoken testimony. (p 42)
|
I'll have to concede that after this passage, Gottschalk continues on and discusses the need to attempt to study the testimony in a judicially and detached manner, in order to attempt to approach "the actual past" as much as possible. I suspect Lenardos would say that Gottschalk is agreeing with him. And to a degree he is, but in the same degree that I agree with Lenardos. We all agree that the goal is to try to discover the past as much as possible. Its just that there isn't any "magic formula" to apply. There are plenty of passages where Gottschalk shows the necessity of human (subjective) judgment. Here are some passages:
The historian must do what he can do to restore the total past of mankind. He has no way of doing so but in terms of his own experience. (p. 46)
The historian is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened. For the exercise of the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules except very general ones. It is a platitude that the historian who knows contemporary life best will understand past life best. Since the human mentality has not changed noticeably in historic times, present generations can understand past generations in terms of their own experience. (p. 50)
And so historiography, the synthesizing of historical data into narrative or expositions [...] is not easily made the subject of rules and regulations. Some room must be left for naive talent and inspiration, and perhaps this is a good thing. (p. 50)
The historian is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened. For the exercise of the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules except very general ones. It is a platitude that the historian who knows contemporary life best will understand past life best. Since the human mentality has not changed noticeably in historic times, present generations can understand past generations in terms of their own experience. (p. 50)
And so historiography, the synthesizing of historical data into narrative or expositions [...] is not easily made the subject of rules and regulations. Some room must be left for naive talent and inspiration, and perhaps this is a good thing. (p. 50)
Notice Gottschalk makes reference to terms of one's "own experience", the very definition of subjective. To summarize this section: guess what Lenardos?!! Gottschalk really means subjective when he says subjective! I can't believe that I've had to spend several paragraphs to explain this, but such is the nature of refuting theists. And he says that I'm guilty of equivocation?
Next up, Lenardos discusses my section about using the "Gottschalk Method" on the NT. He says:
Next up, Lenardos discusses my section about using the "Gottschalk Method" on the NT. He says:
Paul makes a feeble application of this method to the New Testament without any real historical investigation.
|
Well, I concede that section of the paper was not exhaustive. I really wasn't intending to rebut every author he might think of, like FF Bruce, Moreland, etc. I can name drop too, people like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and Bart Ehrman happen to be some of my heroes. But here are some real simple facts that Lenardos can't hide from no matter whose name he drops:
1. NOBODY knows who wrote the Gospels.
2. NOBODY knows why they wrote the Gospels.
3. NOBODY knows when they wrote the Gospels.
4. NOBODY even could have been an eyewitness to some events. Nobody could eyewitness Mary's virginity.
5. The Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses, except John. Luke on the other hand specifically states he is not an eyewitness. (And there good reasons to reject the claim of authorship of John. See Paul Tobin: "The Gospel of John"..)
Those are facts, Lenardos. FF Bruce can't change these facts. You just have to face reality on this.
Lenardos continues,
1. NOBODY knows who wrote the Gospels.
2. NOBODY knows why they wrote the Gospels.
3. NOBODY knows when they wrote the Gospels.
4. NOBODY even could have been an eyewitness to some events. Nobody could eyewitness Mary's virginity.
5. The Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses, except John. Luke on the other hand specifically states he is not an eyewitness. (And there good reasons to reject the claim of authorship of John. See Paul Tobin: "The Gospel of John"..)
Those are facts, Lenardos. FF Bruce can't change these facts. You just have to face reality on this.
Lenardos continues,
Paul next attacks the veracity of the Gospel authors with several points. Let me list them:
Simply because an author is correct in details about one thing that we can confirm, doesn’t mean he is right about everything else. Simply because an author claims to be an eyewitness means nothing unless that authorship is confirmed by another at the time. With time there are memory failures, apparently even twenty years is far too long for accuracy according to Paul. We must exercise caution if the document is written by parties with an interest in the events. Multiple, independent witnesses are needed.
Simply because an author is correct in details about one thing that we can confirm, doesn’t mean he is right about everything else. Simply because an author claims to be an eyewitness means nothing unless that authorship is confirmed by another at the time. With time there are memory failures, apparently even twenty years is far too long for accuracy according to Paul. We must exercise caution if the document is written by parties with an interest in the events. Multiple, independent witnesses are needed.
There's one tiny detail that Lenardos didn't mention in his discussion, THOSE WEREN'T MY CRITERIA! Those are all from the Gottschalk Method, and I provided the references within Gottschalk's book to these criteria. And Lenardos already conceded that the Gottschalk Method is a valid historical method.
Well, I guess I have to confess that there is one part in there that was mine, the "twenty years" part. Lenardos says,
Well, I guess I have to confess that there is one part in there that was mine, the "twenty years" part. Lenardos says,
Paul just picked a number out of the air that he liked. Once again, Paul uses subjectivity and nothing more. For instance, ask a holocaust victim to recount the horrors he or she endured 60 years ago and in most cases you will get a very detailed description of that experience. Ask my friend Jim what he did yesterday and chances are you will get nothing.
Lenardos weeps tears of disdain over my picking "20 years". Well, take it up with Gottschalk. Gottschalk didn't give any guidelines at all AND I SPECIFICALLY NOTED THIS FACT IN MY PAPER! Gottschalk just said that the nearer in time the better, and gave no indication at all what is sufficient. Notice what is really going on here. Lenardos accepted the Gottschalk Method as a valid historical method, declared it to be objective, and he's now crying in his beer and blaming me for how subjective it is.
In fact, if Lenardos is so offended at my time frame, where is his objective measurement for memory reliability? If its not 20 years, what is it? The world awaits his answer on how to objectively judge the reliability of memories of people dead 2,000 years. Not only that, but, Lenardos but when he says, "ask my friend Jim what he did yesterday and chances are you will get nothing," he just conceded that memory from a day ago can be highly faulty! He just argued my case for me! Even assuming that some memories over a many-year period can be accurate, obviously they can also be inaccurate -- as Lenardos concedes. He's now essentially making the claim: "the Gospels were written based on the authors' good memories and not from any of their bad memories". How does he know? He doesn't. I know he'd probably deny that he makes this claim, but it is implied in what he says when he acknowledge some memories are good and some aren't.
As far as the holocaust victim, Lenardos apparently is not current with the study of memory. Vividness or strong emotional response to a memory is not actually necessarily a good indicator of memory reliability. Richard McNally of Harvard University, on studying cases of alleged alien abduction, said, "The intensity of emotional reaction associated with a memory cannot confirm the authenticity of the memory." Further, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is well known for her studies into the fallibility of human memory. Her book, Eyewitness Testimony is specifically on the subject of the problems of relying upon eyewitness testimony. Here is a link to a page with many of her articles.
I suspect that Lenardos might try to argue that McNally's and Loftus' work, both of whom have focused primarily on the subject of implanted memories, might not be necessarily applicable to the subject at hand. But then, we aren't talking about the holocaust either, so Lenardos' holocaust example isn't necessarily applicable either. But I can say that all studies I know of relating to memory show it to me far less reliable than we wish for it to be. If he wants to try to find some studies to refute me, go for it. I won't hold my breath.
Next up, he discusses my quoted section from Richard Carrier. He says,
In fact, if Lenardos is so offended at my time frame, where is his objective measurement for memory reliability? If its not 20 years, what is it? The world awaits his answer on how to objectively judge the reliability of memories of people dead 2,000 years. Not only that, but, Lenardos but when he says, "ask my friend Jim what he did yesterday and chances are you will get nothing," he just conceded that memory from a day ago can be highly faulty! He just argued my case for me! Even assuming that some memories over a many-year period can be accurate, obviously they can also be inaccurate -- as Lenardos concedes. He's now essentially making the claim: "the Gospels were written based on the authors' good memories and not from any of their bad memories". How does he know? He doesn't. I know he'd probably deny that he makes this claim, but it is implied in what he says when he acknowledge some memories are good and some aren't.
As far as the holocaust victim, Lenardos apparently is not current with the study of memory. Vividness or strong emotional response to a memory is not actually necessarily a good indicator of memory reliability. Richard McNally of Harvard University, on studying cases of alleged alien abduction, said, "The intensity of emotional reaction associated with a memory cannot confirm the authenticity of the memory." Further, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is well known for her studies into the fallibility of human memory. Her book, Eyewitness Testimony is specifically on the subject of the problems of relying upon eyewitness testimony. Here is a link to a page with many of her articles.
I suspect that Lenardos might try to argue that McNally's and Loftus' work, both of whom have focused primarily on the subject of implanted memories, might not be necessarily applicable to the subject at hand. But then, we aren't talking about the holocaust either, so Lenardos' holocaust example isn't necessarily applicable either. But I can say that all studies I know of relating to memory show it to me far less reliable than we wish for it to be. If he wants to try to find some studies to refute me, go for it. I won't hold my breath.
Next up, he discusses my quoted section from Richard Carrier. He says,
However, Carrier does not use the principles that Paul has invented
I DIDN'T INVENT THEM, the "principles" are the Gottschalk Method that he conceded as being a historical method! He then goes on to try to show how Carrier's work on Caesar wouldn't pass the Gottschalk Method. Well, take it up with Gottschalk and Carrier, that's not really my problem. I'm not the one in search of some "holy grail" about historical methods. Even so, I will expose Lenardos' criticisms as being fallacy laden. For example, he uses another false-dichotomy, insisting that if something about Carrier's evidence doesn't score perfect on the Gottschalk Method, then it must be worthless and thrown out. Each of the points on the Gottschalk Method are subjectively judged and scored, giving answers between "probably yes" and "probably no," NOT "exactly perfect" or "exactly worthless." Lenardos continues:
We can apply Paul’s first principle directly to the work of Caesar. [...] Caesar is the only source for much of what we claim to know about those events. Given Paul’s principle we would have to throw all of that out.
|
This is called a "red herring", not relevant to the particular discussion. There may well be events in Caesar's writings that we have no other source for and therefore they might indeed be suspect for that reason -- but the topic of Carrier's discussion was on the Crossing of the Rubicon, which is attested to by many other sources. The possible issues with other things Caesar wrote about is not relevant, a red herring.
As for Paul’s fifth principle, well, there does seem to be some secondary reports of some of the details found in Caesar’s book, but how independent are they? After all, they are coming from sources sympathetic to Caesar
|
This is called "incompetence". Lenardos spent a year working on his rebuttal to my paper, and obviously didn't read it too well, as I quote Carrier specifically stating otherwise. I'll re-quote the relevant section:
Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.
|
Okay, I think this is sufficient to show that Lenardos' hasn't a clue what he was talking about in regards to the section on Carrier and the Crossing of the Rubicon. However, if anybody wants any more detail, Carrier has a more extensive article on the subject at this link. Oh, one other thing about Carrier that Lenardos says that I'd like to mention:
Carrier uses an objective methodology, although he ignores most of the evidence for the New Testament and therefore invalidates his conclusion about the New Testament.
|
Just thought I'd point out that Carrier has a masters in history, should get his doctorate in 2007, and his specialty is Roman history. Of course this doesn't mean he's the "God of Roman History", but, generally speaking, he knows what he is talking about. And in this particular case, no, he is not "ignoring most of the evidence for the NT", there isn't any to ignore.
Lenardos discusses my section about Gottschalk's claim that the supernatural is dismissed in historical investigations. Often during our debate, when I claimed that the supernatural cannot be part of historical investigation, he would arrogantly dismiss my argument as just being "my opinion". He'd say there is nothing about historical methods that disallows the supernatural and that I was disallowing the supernatural because "I just don't like the implications". Well, surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Gottschalk happened to agree with me. And Lenardos accepted the Gottschalk Method. Lenardos is kinda screwed, eh? So, Lenardos has to disagree with Gottschalk on at least this point. Well, it is just Lenardos' opinion that Gottschalk is wrong. Lenardos just doesn't like the implications.
I'm not saying that Gottschalk is the "God of Historical Methods", but, I am saying that he is a credible reference. (And, as a reminder, the entire reason I picked Gottschalk's book is because it has been referenced by Christians such as Josh McDowell, claiming it supports the historicity of the Resurrection.) All Lenardos has to say in response is that he doesn't like Gottschalk's position. Given that Gottschalk is a credible reference and Lenardos isn't, Lenardos has to do better than his opinion that Gottschalk is wrong.
So now we come to the topic of the supernatural claim of the Resurrection. Here is some of what Lenardos has to say:
Lenardos discusses my section about Gottschalk's claim that the supernatural is dismissed in historical investigations. Often during our debate, when I claimed that the supernatural cannot be part of historical investigation, he would arrogantly dismiss my argument as just being "my opinion". He'd say there is nothing about historical methods that disallows the supernatural and that I was disallowing the supernatural because "I just don't like the implications". Well, surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Gottschalk happened to agree with me. And Lenardos accepted the Gottschalk Method. Lenardos is kinda screwed, eh? So, Lenardos has to disagree with Gottschalk on at least this point. Well, it is just Lenardos' opinion that Gottschalk is wrong. Lenardos just doesn't like the implications.
I'm not saying that Gottschalk is the "God of Historical Methods", but, I am saying that he is a credible reference. (And, as a reminder, the entire reason I picked Gottschalk's book is because it has been referenced by Christians such as Josh McDowell, claiming it supports the historicity of the Resurrection.) All Lenardos has to say in response is that he doesn't like Gottschalk's position. Given that Gottschalk is a credible reference and Lenardos isn't, Lenardos has to do better than his opinion that Gottschalk is wrong.
So now we come to the topic of the supernatural claim of the Resurrection. Here is some of what Lenardos has to say:
So, what of the resurrection? The resurrection of Jesus is not a claim that a mortal in and of himself rose from the dead. The claim of the resurrection is that a sufficient cause restored Jesus life.
|
Yeah, yeah, I know that is the claim. But it doesn't get you off the hook. For example, God (if He exists) surely has sufficient power to allow me to flap my arms and fly. But is a story, "God gave me the ability to flap my arms and fly" any more believable than "I magically have the ability to flap my arms and fly"? Don't BOTH stories require much better evidence than saying I walked to the store? Don't both stories require JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE? Yet it is impossible to quantify exactly how much, isn't it?
So, now we are coming to Lenardos' closing remarks:
So, now we are coming to Lenardos' closing remarks:
But, according to Paul there is no evidence that could demonstrate a resurrection, because he already magically knows the atheistic worldview is true,
|
This is called a straw-man argument, mischaracterizing your opponent's position. I don't "'magically' know the atheistic worldview is true." Rather, I've successfully argued (despite Lenardos' protestations to the contrary) that "magic" (the supernatural) is fundamentally beyond being demonstrable. I acknowledge this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Indeed, the supernatural absolutely could exist. It is simply a fact that the natural can't demonstrate that which is not natural. Its not a bias as he might charge, its definitional. It can't be done simply because of the very definition of the term.
He just repeats the same old haggard points over and over again, despite the fact that each and every one has been shown to be laden with fallacy.
|
This is called "projection", it is he who "repeats the same old haggard points over and over again, despite the fact that each and every one has been shown to be laden with fallacy" and he projects this flaw of his onto me. So, let's review his fallacies:
straw-man arguments
fallacy of equivocation
false dichotomy
red herrings
ad hominems
In conclusion, I'd like to make one more complaint about Lenardos. As I've seen many other theists do, he engages in amateur mind-reading:
straw-man arguments
fallacy of equivocation
false dichotomy
red herrings
ad hominems
In conclusion, I'd like to make one more complaint about Lenardos. As I've seen many other theists do, he engages in amateur mind-reading:
Paul needs to avoid this at all cost. For he already understands that given the data we have concerning Jesus’ resurrection, reaching a conclusion regarding the resurrection is far more than just a possibility.
|
Do not presume to read my mind or put words in my mouth, okay dickhead? Besides, his charge is completely without merit. Carrier's article succinctly shows how nonexistent the evidence for the Resurrection is.
Normally, I avoid mind-reading theists, at least until they do it to me. I'm fully convinced that Lenardos knows his arguments are complete bullshit, and he hopes to continue to bullshit his readers. Well I'm calling him on his bullshit. He ran away from his own arguments regarding Sanders because he was caught with his pants down. And he knows it. It took Lenardos a year to produce his rebuttal paper, and its nothing but crap. And he knows it. He just doesn't like the implications.
Normally, I avoid mind-reading theists, at least until they do it to me. I'm fully convinced that Lenardos knows his arguments are complete bullshit, and he hopes to continue to bullshit his readers. Well I'm calling him on his bullshit. He ran away from his own arguments regarding Sanders because he was caught with his pants down. And he knows it. It took Lenardos a year to produce his rebuttal paper, and its nothing but crap. And he knows it. He just doesn't like the implications.
NOTICE: Lenardos showed up on Rational Responders forum to discuss this paper! But, he seemed to get tired of having his ass handed to him repeatedly, as he hasn't shown up in while, at least as of this writing. A member of that forum who uses the handle "Todangst" is a doctoral psychology major, and he started a discussion about this paper, and my prior paper. G. Brady Lenardos, using the handle "Zorro" showed up to defend his position. I use the handle of "Caseagainstfaith". Join the fun!