an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

A Drinking Game

If you can stand to do it, read through Fortigurn’s endless replies and take a swig of your favourite booze whenever he uses the phrase “relevant scholarly literature” – I’d better warn you, it’s a lot

Happy drinking!!

Addendum – it’s been pointed out that if you google ‘Fortigurn “relevant scholarly literature”‘ you get over 700 hits. Have a look.

Single Post Navigation

28 thoughts on “A Drinking Game

  1. Seriously, he uses it so much that I reckon he's got a hotkey binding for it, like online FPS players bind 'LOL', 'Nice Shot' and 'N00b!!'

  2. Google Fortigurn and his favourite phrase in quotes. Over 700 pages.

  3. Then hop on over to read anything by a biologist disputing creationism and keep playing. Suddenly realize, "Holy Crap! I'm a fundie!"

  4. I kinda like relevant scholarly literature. It has taught me that only 7 letters in the NT are authentically Paul and the rest of the NT is just plain forgeries of second generation post 70 AD Proto-Catholics who never saw, met or talked to Jesus in their life.It has taught me that Jesus was simply a Jewish apocalyptic preacher (believed to be God's son by adoption) who ran afoul of the Jewish and Roman authorities and got himself killed – if he even existed and is not just an invention from Jewish scripture.It would be funny if it turned out that instead of fulfilling scripture, Jesus was actually invented from the very scriptural passages he supposedly fulfilled. Just a Greek play written by some unknown writer and believed to be a true story by some later readers of it.Can you imagine the laughter?

  5. Corky, I too like relevant scholarly literature! It taught ME that all living things share a common ancestor billions of years ago, it taught me to appreciate the endless adaptation of some basic forms that worked (four limbs, five digits etc), it's helped me to understand why we have problems with parts of our bodies and why those problems are nothing to do with any gods being angry with us, and everything to do with our present form being slung together by natural selection from what was available. Indeed, if it weren't for the 'relevant scholarly literature' I wouldn't know that whales have vestigial hips and (in some cases back legs), I wouldn't understand how the ear and eye evolved (and I wouldn't have learned that the Creationist claim that some forms are 'irreducibly complex' is donkey balls), I wouldn't wander around natural history museums marvelling at how incredible the many forms of life that all follow the same basic blueprint are.Without 'relevant scholarly literature' I would never have discovered that Paul's reason for going to Damascus was historically bogus, I would be oblivious to the fact that some believe he was the lying priest mentioned in some early scrolls, and the fact that Jesus is mysteriously absent from extra-Biblical sources would have passed me by completely!

  6. "Then hop on over to read anything by a biologist disputing creationism and keep playing. "What do you even mean?? Why would reading a biologist discussing facts versus fiction make anyone realise they're a 'fundamentalist'?Facts are facts, Len, and creationism isn't one of them.Talking of facts, going to share what the facts of your beliefs are? Or am I eventually just going to have to start marking all of your self-righteous emissions as spam so we don't have to read you dribbling dickishness?

  7. Len said…Then hop on over to read anything by a biologist disputing creationism and keep playing. Suddenly realize, "Holy Crap! I'm a fundie!"…I've already realized you're a fundie.

  8. "Facts are facts, Len, and creationism isn't one of them."Duh!"What do you even mean?"Fundies can't stand to be referred to the actual scholarly literature, and they down a shot every time a biologist tells them to read the literature instead of Answers in Genesis. Now you have something in common with them: you also can't stand to be directed to the literature. Do you honestly not see that your response is precisely theirs?

  9. Len Len Len, a trekkies guide to turbolifts on the Enterprise can be 'scholarly', but it doesn't make what it's discussing real.

  10. I was just thinking about something.If a religion has the power to squash dissent, how much of the "relevant scholarly literature" is going to take a skeptical view? Think about it.If writing a skeptical piece about a religion gets you killed and all your writings destroyed, how much of the "relevant scholarly literature" is going to honestly review anything?And who through out the ages is the people who actually kept "relevant scholarly literature"? The church!How many skeptical writings would they bother to keep? How many skeptics do we only know via the church's replies to them?

  11. Len, we don't have to just go by what biologists tell us. You can actually examine the biological world. Experiment, observe, test, examine!

  12. Here's a thought, what would Fortigurn have done BEFORE the 'relevant scholarly literature' was written? For example, by his own standards, merely examining the original historical texts that suppose to mention Jesus would have been worthless, because he wouldn't have been able to turn to the 'relevant scholarly literature' to tell him what to think.Really though, this obsession with 'relevant scholarly literature' is just transference of Fortigurn's need to be told what to think and believe….he's lost some of his grounding when he learned that he'd been lied to about evolution, and he's filled that gap with 'relevant scholarly literature'.

  13. "Here's a thought, what would Fortigurn have done BEFORE the 'relevant scholarly literature' was written?"Stupid question. What would you have done if you were born before Darwin? Be ignorant, of course.

  14. You're an idiot, Len. Here's your last chance, state your beliefs, or I'm going to mark you as spam.

  15. Like I said, Len, you can examine the natural world.

  16. "Be ignorant, of course."Ridiculous, you're basically presenting a position where people can't learn and make judgements on evidence unless someone else has.

  17. "Ridiculous, you're basically presenting a position where people can't learn and make judgements on evidence unless someone else has."No, I'm saying that people can't know something before they know it. That's why your question was frivolous. If you lived before evolution was known, you wouldn't know it. If you lived before it was discovered that the earth is a sphere, you wouldn't know it. If you lived before the germ theory of disease, you wouldn't know it. If you lived before metallurgy, you'd use stone tools.If you INVENTED metallurgy, or the germ theory, or evolution, then you'd be the first one to know about those things. Folks who lived before you would just be out of luck; for them to know about those things, it would have to have been invented earlier.So your question, "What do people do before X is discovered?" is frivolous. The answer is, "Not know about X, until it's discovered."

  18. Len, you're wrong, there's always the ability to be the person who discovered it, or to make the best assessment possible from the evidence available.Fortigurn's insistence that the 'relevant scholarly literature' was more important for understanding than reading the original 'Jesus' texts is nonsense – all the 'relevant scholarly literature' does is present the opinions and findings of individuals examining the exact same texts, and those individuals (at some point) had to be the first to look at them. To claim you can learn nothing from the original source without reference to the 'relevant scholarly literature' presents a kind of reverse infinite regress, where you're stuck with (by Fortigurn's tortured logic) no-one being able to interpret or take anything from the original texts without someone else having done so before them.

  19. "So your question, "What do people do before X is discovered?" is frivolous. The answer is, "Not know about X, until it's discovered." "As you know full well, the point was 'what can people make of evidence before the "relevant scholarly literature" was written'

  20. "Len, you're wrong, there's always the ability to be the person who discovered it…"Of course!You could have been the one to crack the DNA code, for example, if it weren't already done: you'd simply need to get educated enough in chemistry and biology, and then you'd need access to a lab to perform enough experiments. Then you'd have to actually do all that work, and with a bit of cleverness and a bit of luck, you'd be the guy who cracked the code.Since billions of people aren't going to get that education, don't have a lab, won't do the work, and may not be that clever, they don't get to be the one who cracks the code. They could have been, but they won't be. If THOSE people want to know about it, they have to read the "relevant scholarly literature." That's the price they pay for not doing graduate work in biochemistry.Similarly, you could be the guy who dated the "Hezekiah's tunnel inscription." All you'd need to do is become thoroughly educated in semitic languages and paleography, do some research correlating ancient scripts' changes over time, and then you'd need to go look at the inscription or a suitable facsimile thereof. That kind of education will take you a good ten years, though; if you choose not to invest those ten years, you won't be qualified to do your own paleographic dating of the inscription. Billions of people have no choice, therefore, but to rely on the relevant scholarly literature, even though they could, if they chose, go become qualified and do it themselves. On the other hand, nobody even knew it existed until it was discovered; you could have been the guy to discover it, but that involves a healthy dose of luck, since you wouldn't even have known to go looking for it. You could have set out to find the conduit itself, but that would have required at least a decade's investment getting educated in archaeology, plus funding for a dig and a bit of luck.In general, since humans are short-lived, we have no choice but to draw on proper scholarly sources for much of our information, because we don't have a decade each to become expert in the languages, paleography, history, geography, archaeology, literary criticism, etc., to do all the research on our own.The original audience of Genesis, of course, doesn't need to draw on those disciplines to learn when the book was written, since for them it was "now." They don't need to do research to figure out what the original audience thought of it, because the original audience was "me," and they just had to ask, "What do I think of this?" In the same way, Julius Caesar didn't need a history book to learn about Julius Caesar.Those original readers could have discovered the spherical earth, I suppose, but it was vanishingly unlikely given that they lacked the instruments or the mathematics they would need, and weren't capable of finding out by circumnavigating the globe. If you were born in the bronze age, you were probably stuck not knowing the earth was a sphere.But you seem to be saying that we don't need any scholarship to learn the relevant history, linguistics, archaeology, etc. That's obviously false, so I don't see why you'd be disputing this. Perhaps you still believe, as your fundamentalist background taught you, that you don't need any of that–you just need to open it up and read it, and there you are. If so, that's a fundie misconception that you should know better than to believe.

  21. "But you seem to be saying that we don't need any scholarship to learn the relevant history, linguistics, archaeology, etc."That's not what I've said. I'm not going to dignify your rampant strawmanning, so I'm not going to bother going through your post point by point.

  22. "The original audience of Genesis, of course, doesn't need to draw on those disciplines to learn when the book was written, since for them it was "now." They don't need to do research to figure out what the original audience thought of it, because the original audience was "me," and they just had to ask, "What do I think of this?" In the same way, Julius Caesar didn't need a history book to learn about Julius Caesar."If the story of the flood represented 'now' for the readers, then 1066 and the Norman Conquest of the UK is the present for me.

  23. "If the story of the flood represented 'now' for the readers, then 1066 and the Norman Conquest of the UK is the present for me."The question raised earlier was, "Did the original audience understand Genesis to be describing a global flood?" The original audience regards PUBLICATION of the story to be "now," because that's what "original audience" means. The original audience would not regard the FLOOD as "now," since the book clearly refers to the flood as occurring in the past.So once again. The original audience knew what THEY thought the story was saying, obviously. And they were familiar with their own linguistic, cultural, literary and historical context, again obviously. So they didn't need scholars to tell them about their own culture or their native language.Those of us who were born thousands of years later, however, don't have the benefit of that context. We must either devote the time and effort to become scholars ourselves, or we must consult the word of those who have, in order to understand the linguistic, historical, cultural and literary context.

  24. "That's not what I've said. I'm not going to dignify your rampant strawmanning, so I'm not going to bother going through your post point by point."Either you recognize the need to consult the experts' research, or you don't. Since the discussion is even taking place at all, apparently you don't. Exactly WHY you don't is a matter of conjecture, unless you tell us. But you're on the record disputing that we need to consult experts' research in order to answer historical, linguistic, archaeological or textual questions.If you're now acknowledging that we DO need to do that, you can stop drinking a shot every time someone points you to the literature, as this post of yours suggests people do.

  25. "you can stop drinking a shot every time someone points you to the literature, as this post of yours suggests people do."Don't lie.He say drink if you hear the phrase "relevant scholarly literature".

  26. Alex:     I remember making a post regarding Len. Did it get marked as spam or did Blogger eat it?

  27. I think Blogger must have eaten it, I've not seen it in the comments or the spam folder (I don't think I've seen a single one of your posts get marked spam so far, though I might be wrong)

  28. //Fortigurn's insistence that the 'relevant scholarly literature' was more important for understanding than reading the original 'Jesus' texts…//That is not what I said. I simply pointed out that the opinion of untrained amateurs such as you and I on the original sources is irrelevant next to the consensus of the relevant scholarly literature. Your reason for rejecting the consensus of the scholarly literature on various subjects is that you simply don't like their conclusions. That's fine if you want to be in the same company as Ken Ham.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: