Do I even need to comment further? Let me just highlight what Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan wrote in response to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Some people simply cannot be helped. Sophisticated theology is bankrupt if he is one of it's defenders, and I mean it. All I have to do is link to the discussion, let him have the last word and laugh at his ignorant, utterly ignorant, responses. Join with me folks, in laughing. Like most apologists he is impervious to reason. Like most of them I must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will see it as improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. Take note of how Matt doesn't need to provide a better method than science, which forms the basis for the OTF. Come on Matt, are you stupid or what? I no longer care what Christian apologists think if this is how they reason. If this is the best they can do then the good ship "Christian" will certainly sink eventually. They are on the wrong side of history. Of that I am certain.
Notice that Loftus does not argue that Dr Flannagan is deluded, he's arguing that anyone who would defend Christianity is deluded.
These particular comments started a very interesting conversation.
- Derek McAllister Collapse
-
-
-
You think John Loftus makes displays of power through signs and wonders? Weird...
ReplyDeleteit's as if it never occurs to them that they could be wrong - that the delusion could be theirs.
I can't speak for everyone, but of course it does, of course we could be deluded. We both could be deluded and the Muslims or Mormons or Hindus or Druse or Buddhists or Animists or Sikhs or Juches or Jews or Bahai or Jains or Shintos or Zorastrians or Pagans or Rastafarians or Scientologists are the ones that are right. But what you have to do is weigh the actual evidence and determine what is more probable, and material naturalism wins every time.
You think John Loftus makes displays of power through signs and wonders? Weird...
ReplyDeleteYou and He claims that everything can be explained by material naturalism (which he confuses with science). That's making a display of power that you can't substantiate. But you show your Biblical illiteracy because the part about signs and wonders is referring to the Antichrist and I sure don't think John Loftus is the Antichrist. He's not important enough. The rest of the passage fits you and Loftus.
You are very inconsistent or either you are consistently wrong. Take your pick. First you admit you can be wrong and then claim that material naturalism answers everything better than any other religion or worldview. Not even close.
Marcus; I'm aware of what the passage was about, that's why I thought it was weird that you'd post it about John.
ReplyDeleteFirst you admit you can be wrong and then claim that material naturalism answers everything better than any other religion or worldview.
Yes.
Hopefully you now understand how the quote applies and the context.
ReplyDeleteSo you realize that you may be wrong that Material naturalism does as much as you think it does? Well, there may be hope for you.
Hopefully you now understand how the quote applies and the context.
ReplyDeleteNo, explain, if you are capable.