But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands.
Of course there is an obviously bad reason to reject Christianity. It's so plain and it shows that Loftus does not really even consider it a possibility. What if it's true? If it is true, and I believe it is true, then that would be an extremely bad reason to reject Christianity. Loftus says he has come to the conclusion that the Bible is not true due to over 40 years or studying it. It's sad that after all that time he does not understand what Christianity is. Loftus does repeat in this article what he believes the Christian faith is.
Obviously, Loftus has an Arminian perspective on salvation and seems to want to think that Calvinism should be ignored. Neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 nor any place in the Bible tells us that God has chosen each and every individual human being for salvation. Considering that he does not know God and never knew God it is no wonder he doesn't understand what the difference is between what some people say they believe and what the Bible says. Loftus thinks that the God of the Bible is obligated to save everyone and because not everyone believes that is proof that God does not exist. He is frustrated because that is not the God the Bible reveals to us.
Keep in mind that my target is evangelical, conservative, Bible thumping Christianity, the kind that would accept this Doctrinal Statement (or DS):
There is an omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him. This same God desires everyone should be saved and that no one should be lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).Evangelicals believe more than this DS, but at a minimum they believe it. Calvinists need not apply.
Loftus keeps giving us reasons to pray for him not good reasons to reject the God who bought us - those who believe and are being saved. Loftus illustrates the following:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. - 2 Peter 2:1
Debunking Christianity: There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith
Pascals wager? Really? That's all youve got?
ReplyDeleteI guess you didn't really read this post. Read it again and then come back and comment. Let me try to help you: Loftus is arguing on the basis that Christianity can't be true and further can't correctly explain what scripture is saying. I am saying that the Bible is true and God means what it says. You aren't making a wager if you follow God. It is the only logical response.
ReplyDelete***Of course there is an obviously bad reason to reject Christianity. It's so plain and it shows that Loftus does not really even consider it a possibility. What if it's true?***
ReplyDelete***What if it's true?***
***What if it's true?***
= Pascals wager
The thing you are missing is that I'm not asking "what if it's true?" I'm saying that Loftus should be asking if it's true. The fact that he does not know if is true or false makes it a bad reason to reject what the Bible say. He himself has said many times that he only thinks it's not true. If you don't know if it is true, it's your responsibility to find out. And you can know if it is true. a in case you are wondering, it is true.
ReplyDelete***I'm saying that Loftus should be asking if it's true.**
ReplyDelete= Pascals wager.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePasca's point was that no matter whether or not Christianity is true, you are better off as a Christina. I'm not saying that at all. You are confused. I'm saying that the worst reason for rejecting Christianity is missing the fact that it is true. nd to miss it because you don't know what Christianity is makes it even worst.
ReplyDelete**8you are better off as a Christina***
ReplyDeleteI am not better off as a Christina. A Jennifer, maybe...
***I'm saying that the worst reason for rejecting Christianity is missing the fact that it is true.***
Tautology much?
I am not better off as a Christina. A Jennifer, maybe...
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. I'm sorry for my typo. Now sure what "**8you are better off as a Christina***" is. You do know how to type quotation marks correct?
You obviously seem to like missing points. Pascal was arguing that one is better off being a Christian no matter the validity of Christianity. I hope you understand Pascal's Wager now. I also hope you finally learn how to type quotation marks.
Tautology much?
You mean like Loftus assumed that Christianity is not true without being able to demonstrate that it's not true. As if you could do better that him. Too funny.
Is the quotation mark the one to the left of the carriage return? But fair point on the 8. In any case, the *** is often used to identify someones direct quote. Surprised you'd not seen that before, it's fairly common on the blogosphere.
ReplyDelete***You mean like Loftus assumed... ***
Since Loftus committing a tautology has nothing to do with you having committed one, I'll take this as a concession that your point was a tautology. Nice chatting with you.
There is no carriage return on a computer. I just find it amusing that you commit typos while trying to mock mine. Priceless. And I am indeed familiar with using *** instead of quotation marks but given hat we have quotation marks accessible to us I see no reason to be that lazy. As for pointing out that Loftus committed the tautology fallacy is not to shift the accusation but show how poinless the accusation is. If Loftus can assert that Christianity is not true and base his entire argument on his presupposition, there is no reason why I can't point out his oversight and assert that Christianity is true without someone crying "logical fallacy". But I do understand why you would do that given that neither you nor Loftus can demonstrate that Christianity is false therefore there is a really bad reason to reject Christianity. You're welcome.
ReplyDelete***And I am indeed familiar with using *** instead of quotation marks but given hat we have quotation marks accessible to us I see no reason to be that lazy.***
ReplyDeleteUm, *** requires four keystrokes and " requires two, so...
*** there is no reason why I can't point out his oversight and assert that Christianity is true without someone crying "logical fallacy". But I do understand why you would do that***
because you didn't address or correct your logical fallacy.
As for how many key strokes it takes to use quotation marks versus the number it takes to use "***", maybe I was too hasty to say it was lazy to use "***". I apologize. I should have written that using quotation marks is more efficient and you wast energy and time. Thanks for pointing out my error.
ReplyDeleteAs for asserting the truth of the Christianity, proving Christianity is true was not the point of the post. If you truly interested in knowing why I know Christianity is true, my blog is full of such posts. You can read them if you are interested. I have been reading John Loftus' posts for a years now and he fails to argue that Christianity is false and on top of that admits that he can't prove that it is false only that he has come to the conclusion that it's likely false. The logical fallacy is yours and his.
***I should have written that using quotation marks is more efficient and you wast energy and time.***
ReplyDeleteHow old are you?
***proving Christianity is true was not the point of the post.***
It was a foundational assumption that it was already proven. Otherwise all you have is Pascal. But on the other hand, a tautology. See the problem.
***The logical fallacy is yours and his.***
For fun, identify the specific logical fallacy. Especially the one I've employed.
Too bad you don't seem old enough to recognize sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight. You and John Loftus are able to make a foundational assumption that Christianity is not true without proof but I can't state the opposite? That makes sense. You seem to think that Christianity hasn't been proven true. Where have you been? Besides that as I already stated my blog is full of such arguments and links to such arguments. Feel free to look at them and catch up.
The specific logical fallacy you have committed is the same as Loftus - assuming that Christianity is not true and can't prove that it is not. You already threw Loftus under the bus admitting that he has employed a tautology.
***You and John Loftus are able to make a foundational assumption that Christianity is not true without proof but I can't state the opposite? ***
ReplyDeleteLoftus has more posts than you (on the subject) and a better understanding of what it means to "prove" something.
*** You seem to think that Christianity hasn't been proven true.***
I know it hasn't. I also know what "prove" means. You need to do further study.
***The specific logical fallacy you have committed is the same as Loftus - assuming that Christianity is not true and can't prove that it is not.***
This is not a logical fallacy, especially given what "prove" actually means.
Nice try though.
Just how many posts do you think Loftus has on the validity of Christianity? 2000 years of better informed and understanding people have come to different conclusions. People who are way more trustworthy than either you or Loftus. It is so funny how atheists like you are so quick to accuse someone of not knowing what "proof" means simply because they are unable to prove that that Christianity is false. Really pathetic. If you can't prove (meaning demonstrate that Christianity is false) you have committed a tautology - a logical fallacy - making an argument depending on the concept that Christianity is false. Please do better.
ReplyDelete***Just how many posts do you think Loftus has on the validity of Christianity?***
ReplyDeleteUm, none? The point being (the one you missed) that quantity of post doesn't prove or disprove (debunk) anything.
***2000 years of better informed and understanding people have come to different conclusions.***
There have been more non-christians than christians for the entire existence of christianty. Not sure your point here.
***It is so funny how atheists like you are so quick to accuse someone of not knowing what "proof" means simply because they are unable to prove that that Christianity is false.***
Who said anything about being an atheist? But I suspect you think people are quick to accuse you of not knowing what "proof" means because you actually don't know what it means. It's a good habit, if there is a perceived problem, to always look to yourself first.
***If you can't prove (meaning demonstrate that Christianity is false) you have committed a tautology - a logical fallacy***
Please define what you think a tautology is and then explain how the above is one
You seem to like asking questions.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Loftus has more posts than you (on the subject) and a better understanding of what it means to "prove" something
Now you are saying
Um, none? The point being (the one you missed) that quantity of post doesn't prove or disprove (debunk) anything.
Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder? Do you even know what the subject is anymore? You tried to use the quantity of posts by John Loftus to try to demonstrate that he knows more about what "proof" is than I do. Don't back pedal now. Oh and I agree it's not quantity. It's about quality and your logic and his are lacking that very much.
But I suspect you think people are quick to accuse you of not knowing what "proof" means because you actually don't know what it means. It's a good habit, if there is a perceived problem, to always look to yourself first.
Another assertion made without proof. For someone who says they know a "Tautology" you sure haven't demonstrated that you know what it is. The burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that your assertion about what I do or do not know because you asserted it.
Besides that it has nothing to do with the point here: Are there any good personal (Loftus added that later in subsequent posts) reason for rejecting Christianity. And the answer is no because neither he nor you knows whether or not is false. If you don't know that it's true the fault is in you and not on God.
By the way, I think the reason why you like to use "***" so much is because you don't know HTML.
***You seem to like asking questions***
ReplyDeleteYou seem to like avoiding them. Feel free at any point to demonstrate you can define “tautology” and explain how not being able to prove Christianity is false but believing it is false is committing one.
***Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder?***
We seem to have gotten our wires crossed. So let’s start at the beginning. You asserted that Christinaity has been proven true and offered the quantity of posts on your website as evidence of that assertion. My point was John Loftus likely has as many or more posts (of higher quality) than you to the contrary. You then got confused and thought I meant because Loftus had more posts, that it meant you don’t know what “prove” means (of course there is still no evidence you know what it means to “prove” something, but the number of posts has nothing to do with that)
*** Are there any good personal (Loftus added that later in subsequent posts) reason for rejecting Christianity. And the answer is no because neither he nor you knows whether or not is false.***
OK, then I can only assume you are unfamiliar with Russell’s Teapot.
***By the way, I think the reason why you like to use "***" so much is because you don't know HTML.***
I do, but if I didn’t I’m not sure what the relevance would be. Do you know 1C:Enterprise? Would your answer either way be relevant to what we’ve been discussing? Or were you just trying to be mean?
I see you went overkill on the user authentication. It’s annoying and although moderation is reasonable, requiring approval before posting a comment is a sign of a weak person, so I’ll look forward to your response, but otherwise bid you and this site adieu.
You seem to like avoiding them. Feel free at any point to demonstrate you can define “tautology” and explain how not being able to prove Christianity is false but believing it is false is committing one.
ReplyDeleteI'm not avoiding the question. I don't have the burden of proof here. You Do. You made the claim that i don't understand what a tautology is and now saying that I need to explain "how not being able to prove Christianity is false but believing it is false is committing one." When you already admitted that Loftus committed a tautology.
Since Loftus committing a tautology has nothing to do with you having committed one, I'll take this as a concession that your point was a tautology. Nice chatting with you.
- February 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM
So either we both know what Tautology is or we both don't. Now whether or not it is an appropriate accusation or not should be further discussed. Don't get them confused.
And yes, let's start at the beginning. You did not say that Loftus' posts were of higher quality (which i would like to see you show is true). You said that he had more posts. All I can go by is what you say. If you want to say that I misunderstood you because you can't communicate clearly I will accept that and ask that you back up what you are saying.
I am familiar with Russell's Teapot, I just reject it as having any validity. Feel free to show that it's true if you can (you can't).
I see you went overkill on the user authentication. It’s annoying and although moderation is reasonable, requiring approval before posting a comment is a sign of a weak person, so I’ll look forward to your response, but otherwise bid you and this site adieu.
When you have your own blog you can handle user authentication as you see fit. As for me, there is way too much spam going on and this will definitely stop the bots - at least for a while.
As far as the HTML comment, you have claimed that I do not know about Tautology, what "prove" means, and about Russell's Teapot. You weren't using HTML. So why can you make blanket assertion about what I don't know and I cannot make blanket assertions about what you don't know. Get the point? You might learn something.
I would say posting on a blog without using your real name is the real sign of a weak person. I am only going to delete the comments from bots and not from real people. Just like I've always done. Having people authenticate just will make it easier. Cheer up, you can still comment anonymously if you need to.
A couple final thoughts.
ReplyDelete***I don't have the burden of proof here. You Do.***
This is incorrect, you accused me of committing a tautology when none was present (this constitutes my evidence that you don't know what one is).
*** When you already admitted that Loftus committed a tautology***
You misunderstood the point of that comment, it was not an admission that John Loftus did or did not commit a fallacy, it was simply making clear that you were trying to divert attention from your own fallacy by asserting that Loftus committed one. Loftus' fallacy does not mean you didn't also commit one. This is simple.
***I just reject it as having any validity.***
So you have no means of rejecting any claim. Must be a strange world you live in.
***So why can you make blanket assertion about what I don't know and I cannot make blanket assertions about what you don't know***
Because logical fallacies, Russell's teapot and the definition of prove were germane to the discussion. HTLM knowledge was not. It did demonstrate a pettiness on your part however, which was instructive.
***I would say posting on a blog without using your real name is the real sign of a weak person***
Ultimately, everyone is "anonymous" on the internet. "Anonymous" tells someone no less about me than "Marcus Mcelhaney" tells them about you.
No, you accused me of committing a tautology because you say that I assumed Christianity is true without proving it. The point of my post was not to demonstrate that Christianity is true. I've got more than enough in other posts demonstrating that. I'm saying that you and Loftus have committed a tautology by assuming that Christianity is false without being able to demonstrate that it is false. Truth is much more of a burden for you then it is for me.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that Loftus committing a tautology does not mean that I didn't. However, the point is who can demonstrate that they are right. He can't. You are right, this is simple.
You still have not explained why what Loftus did is not a logical fallacy and the ability to reject a claim does not depend on agreeing with Bertrand Russell on his Teapot.
The use of "***" has been a part of the discussion since your first post so of course HTML knowledge was in play and the fact that you seemed to miss my pointing out your inconsistencies is indeed instructive.
Signing your name with an argument does indeed tell you a lot about a person. It tells you whether or not they are really strong enough to own up to what you have said and not afraid. Makes me wonder how you don't know that.
I see you are not a man of your word.
ReplyDeleteThen you must be blind. I have no idea what you are talking about. Nice...if you were going for illustrating making an accusation without context or relevance.
ReplyDelete