• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.
NoHolyCows
Reaction score
494

Latest activity Postings About

    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Micheal, Here is the exact, unavoidable version of the analogy you keep sidestepping. Imagine a heartfelt company-wide email from a...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Calling the analogy “terrible” is not an answer; it just avoids the test. You say to treat Galatians as a “love letter.” Fine. Make the...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Calling the analogy “ridiculous” isn’t an argument; it’s a dodge. Genre labels don’t defeat observable functions. A document can be a...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows reacted to Michael S. Pearl's post in the thread Origins Of Christianity with Roll Eyes Roll Eyes.
      When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Nothing in my method “ignores” emotion. Emotion is itself publicly checkable when it leaves marks in a text: vocatives (“O foolish...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Micheal, A company-wide email goes out: “This policy is not from HR; it is from the Board. Any manager who teaches otherwise is out of...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows reacted to DBT's post in the thread Origins Of Christianity with Like Like.
      We have nothing to be found in Paul's work that stands out as possibly divinely inspired, that it is not the work of man. We have many...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      What you call “purposefully ignorant” is simply the only defensible way to make public claims: restrict yourself to what the artifact...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      No, Michael. Restricting claims to what can be publicly checked in the document is not “ignoring the person,” it is refusing to invent...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      No, Michael. I acknowledged the emotion explicitly—“O foolish Galatians…,” the rebukes, the urgency—and I treated it correctly: as tone...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      I have taken the emotive register into account; Galatians contains obvious emotion (“O foolish Galatians…”, sharp rebukes, urgency)...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      Bare assertion is not an argument. The question is whether the text exhibits operations that define polemic. Galatians names rivals...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      No, it’s a direct summary of your repeated move. You concede the text exhibits the operations that define a polemic—named rivals...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      You’ve conflated two different claims and then treated their blur as a refutation. My “must” is not a metaphysical necessity; it is the...
    • NoHolyCows
      NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.
      A “full-account” is not a feeling; it’s an explanation that makes the observed features more likely than rival explanations. To count as...
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top Bottom