"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

(ir)Rational Responders - dialogue with groupie 2 cont.

And btw, Blogger has been sucking.

This continues where my previous post left off. I'll now reply to Little Pirate's latest comments. You can see the entire discussion, until just before this post, in it's original format here.

My previous reply italics
Little Pirate's reply to that in bold
My reply to that in regular and red font


...your use of the ad novitatem fallacy, your dismissal of historical data, your misconception of faith, etc. doesn't change the fact that I have offered evidence on this blog at other times and elsewhere in discussions.

So you want to talk fallacies...fine. Although you make the ad novitatem fallacy sound like a bad thing...but the vary antithesis applies to your arguments in the form the ad antiquitatem fallacy. Touche.

Except I have never said the Bible is true simply because it's old. That you would reach for such an obvious inaccuracy makes me wonder if you're shooting for the tu quoque fallacy. You must really like to rack them up. And yes, dismissing something merely because of it's age is a bad thing. You need much more than that to justify ignoring the scriptures or arguments and data in general.

Just because something is old, or has historical references (i.e. the Bible) doesn't make everything in it true.

I didn't say that it did. I merely noted that you toss it aside simply because it's old. We can use standard historical means of study to examine the data contained within the scriptures and draw conclusions as supported by what we find.

I don't approach the scriptures with pre-determined conclusion against the supernatural, as I arrive at a positive answer concerning that by other means. As such, I treat the accounts in accordance with the rules of legal evidence rather than dismiss them due to an a priori bias. That is an appropriate means of study and NT holds up quite well. That the scriptures show reliability in other areas also gives support to considering that it may be reliable elsewhere and worth examination concerning those matters.

I have yet to see any plausible evidence for the miracles and major supernatural events that are described in the Bible. Have you?

That the early church began and declared Christ risen, from it's very beginning, is best explained by Christ actually rising from the dead, as He predicted. Other explanations do not cover all of the data available and/or merely assume that such an event could not happen.

There's also the rather large matter of the universe beginning to exist. You seem to think there's only the Biblical record for the supernatural. You might want to talk to Paul Davies about that or even Antony Flew, who hasn't been all that certain regarding atheism lately. Neither one is a Christian, yet they've both found the completely materialistic view of the world and it's origin to be less than convincing to varying degrees.

I could write a book with a group of friends on a subject, fill it with accurate, identifiable locations and references, and then fill it will all sorts of supernatural events and floating faieries and gods that wield fantastic weapons made out of bark, and a levitating soothsayer - then bury it in the ground, hoping someone a thousand years from now finds it. Just because those future folks can identify and corroborate actual locations and references to tangible "things", should they believe all of the fantasy content too, which they can't corroborate?

Have fun with that, but your hypothetical bears little resemblance to the history of the NT church. If you're trying to assert conspiracy on the part of the Biblical writers, you best work on proving that, as the charge alone is inconsequential.

Despite my not caring to engage your ilk, at this time, there really is nothing preventing you, except your arrogant bias, from finding this information easily yourself.

Once again, a splendid copout.

Nah, just have better things to do than try to lead an obstinate horse to water. As I've noted, such information is not hidden or unavailable even to you. It's rather obvious that your main goal is to merely act like a strutting peacock, displaying the plumage of their extreme skepticism inconsistently applied. Any wonder that I lack interest in explaining a great deal to an (ir)rationals groupie? But lucky for you and the entertainment of some of my readers, I get bored every now and then.

Instead of reiterating a great article, please read this article by John Loftus on his blog: http:// debunkingchristianity.blo...ristianity.html It is logically and rationally written, and just makes more sense to me. How one can look at a book like the Bible and apply what we understand in today's society is just pure intellectual dishonesty.

Unfortunately that article is simply incorrect concerning what the Bible teaches about cosmology. His post-Freudian comments are merely assertion while also ignoring that forgiveness helps in healing, and being forgiven and also forgiving others, is very much a part of Christianity. Regarding women, the Bible elevated them quite above what was typical of the surrounding cultures. While I can agree that we need to find ways to present the Gospel to other cultures, and the apostle Paul spoke of that as well, it simply does not follow that Christ's death does them no good. His comment about slavery indicates he has not a clue as to what was actually the case for the Hebrews in the ancient near east. In short, it was voluntary indentured servitude that enabled survival. His tossing around the term superstitious is merely begging the question and he commits the ad novitatem fallacy as well, along with cultural arrogance with no support to justify his positions. That he concludes we should reject the Bible on the basis of so many errors and assumptions is not an impressive display of rationality, except perhaps to a head up their ass skeptic. Besides all that, your author was not all that impressive with his book either.


Previous post:

Dialogue with RRS groupies - round 1
Dialogue with RRS groupies - round 2


Filed under: Religion -- Christianity -- Apologetics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, third world county, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: