Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
John Loftus immediately commented:
Boy, this sounds a lot like me. ;-)
I don't think this person really understand what Christianity is. I mean if you switch out his words and use opposite words, you get the following:
[Atheists] think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their [doubts] based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is ["probable"], and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely ["probable"]. Short of providing real evidence for the [non]existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the unnecessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
Yes, indeed it does sound a lot like John Loftus. The fact that the same thing can be said, invalidates the statement against Christianity.
but when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble".
ReplyDeleteWow, this describes you to a tee.
Also, you screwed this up. Which I have fixed for you...
[Atheists] are being rational and logical when they rationalize their [doubts] based on [a lack] evidence, they {point out} what is ["not probable"], and then {sit back and wait for the Christian to try to make convincing arguments other than something} merely {being} ["probable"].
Also, everything you wrote after that is exactly not the case.
Nope. I don't deny you and other atheist present evidence. I just disagree with your reasoning. And "resorting to probabilities" is more apt because you do try to point out what you think is improbable and make up what you think is probable...you know like the darkness during the crucifixion being caused by cloud cover (one of yours) or that they didn't know the right tomb (in a stupid attempt to explain the empty tomb).
ReplyDeleteIt's those reasons atheist loose arguments. And my rendition fits reality. Yours are real silly. thanks for the laugh
and make up what you think is probable...
ReplyDeleteExamples that actually fit the category please.
The darkness during the crucifixion being caused by clouds...one of your many flights of fancy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, examples that actually fit the category please, as that had nothing to do with probabilities and was simply pointing out that a plain reading of Mark and Matthew could easily be read as clouds (i.e. it's not specific enough to warrant jumping to the supernatural spooky blotting out of the sun...).
ReplyDeleteI know you are from California, but in other parts of the world, it can get pretty darn dark when clouds roll in (like Israel in the spring, by the way).
Like I said, examples that actually fit the category please, as that had nothing to do with probabilities and was simply pointing out that a plain reading of Mark and Matthew could easily be read as clouds (i.e. it's not specific enough to warrant jumping to the supernatural spooky blotting out of the sun...).
ReplyDeleteYeah a probability you can't possibly prove. What objective measure do you have to show what is more probable than anything else? Yourself? Rather arrogant
Yeah a probability you can't possibly prove.
ReplyDeleteIt's not specific enough to "prove" what the author was "probably" talking about one way or another. You're not really up on the philosophy of literature, are you?
You made s statement that you think is better explains what the text says and you can't demonstrate that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI need to demonstrate that "At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon", with no other context can't mean a storm rolled in?????????????? Wow...
ReplyDeleteThe text does not say a storm rolled in that means you are making up things that you have no reason for.
ReplyDeleteAnd you said
I know, you can't, but you're still a coward for not trying.
You are the coward because you won't come clean that either you don't understand 1 John 4 or can't demonstrate that you understand what it says before you start pretending that I can't demonstrate that it's valid. Truly pathetic.
The text does not say a storm rolled in that means you are making up things that you have no reason for.
ReplyDeleteThe text also does not say that a supernatural darkness blotted out the sun.
ReplyDeleteThe text also does not say that a supernatural darkness blotted out the sun.
Agreed and I'm not making that argument. The passages don't tell us the mechanism causing the darkness only reports it. You do disservice going beyond the text and then arguing against your own flight of fancy. You've really go to do better than that.
Agreed and I'm not making that argument.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but I believe you are on record doing just that somewhere on this impossible to search hog of a blog.
I could be wrong, but I believe you are on record doing just that somewhere on this impossible to search hog of a blog.
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly not the first time you have been wrong. I'm stating that the account is true and it does not say by what mechanism it happened - only that it did. One day we might find out. That's not really important to the point being made here: You make stuff up and pretend to be reasonable.
That's not really important to the point being made here...
ReplyDeleteIt's informative on how later gospel accounts built exaggerated the claims of earlier ones.
That's your imagined interpretation that you can't prove. Don't forget the account is also in Mark and I thought you supported "Markan Priority"
ReplyDeleteYes, Mark and Matthew are identical. Also informative...
ReplyDeleteyour conclusion doesn't follow.
ReplyDeleteI didn't present you with a conclusion...
ReplyDeleteYour conclusion was that
ReplyDelete"It's informative on how later gospel accounts built exaggerated the claims of earlier ones."
Wrong
ReplyDeleteWhich is obviously unrelated to Matthew using the exact same language as Mark, since by definition, using the exact same language means you are not exaggerating the earlier claims...
ReplyDeleteJust can't admit that you went up against God's word and lost. Truly sad.
ReplyDeleteWhen did that happen?
ReplyDeleteArguing for the darkness during the Crucifixion was just cloud cover. With no evidence.
ReplyDeleteNow that comment simply makes no sense. You are saying because I said "'At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon', with no other context can't mean a storm rolled in?" means that I went up against gods word and lost? Seems more like I offered a version that is "against" your version of what you think gods word is and didn't really "win" or "lose" because that's not what it's about.
ReplyDeleteYou are a bit of a simpleton, aren't you?
The scripture says nothing about a storm. You are the one talking about things that aren't there. A simpleton has a problem reading a text and understands it - inserting his own imagination instead of what's there. Perfectly describes you.
ReplyDeleteThe scripture says nothing about a storm. You are the one talking about things that aren't there.
ReplyDeleteHi Pot, you're black!!!
So you admit that you have a problem reading a text and understanding it - inserting your own imagination instead of what's there.
ReplyDeleteSo, Kettle, since we agree how about you demonstrating that I've done that as I have demonstrated that you have. Waiting.
In clearer terms. Show how I've ,mishandled and misrepresented what the Bible says as you have clearly done.
ReplyDeleteOne word, Pangea...
ReplyDeleteI advanced a theory, that you disagree with. I didn't go against what the passage says by adding to it or subtracting from it. You did. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me wrong, Mr Storm cloud when the text says nothing about rain, storms, clouds or anything. Genesis says nothing about time period. In order to say I'm wrong, you have to make assumptions that Noah's story is from 6k years ago. I don't have to assume anything to debunk your imagination.
ReplyDeleteI didn't go against what the passage says by adding to it or subtracting from it.
ReplyDeleteThis is where it gets fuzzy (for you). I did not add or subtract anything from Mark or Matthew, nor more than you did with Peleg/Pangaea (in fact, quite less than Peleg/Pangaea). But something that could easily have been meant by Mark and Matthew does not fit with Luke.
Your assumption is that these books must be in accord, but you won't entertain that they could have built upon each other.
In order to say I'm wrong, you have to make assumptions that Noah's story is from 6k years ago.
Um, in order to assume you are correct, you have to assume Noah lived 200 million years ago. There is more evidence than you can shake a stick at against that...
You did add to Matt, Mark, and Luke. None of them say anything about a storm.
ReplyDeleteYour assumption is that these books must be in accord, but you won't entertain that they could have built upon each other
By pointing out that you have no good reason to presuppose clouds or a storm does not require nor deny that Matthew, Mark, or Luke could have been built on one another. Says nothing about that at all.
In Genesis, it says the earth was divided. I don't have to add anything to the text. You do to make your imagination stick.
Yawn...
ReplyDelete