Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Might want to reread my posts Stat. Not that you would stop being a dick either way. I read the man's accomplishments. Unfortunately for him any academic integrity he could have had was washed away by being an apologist. Of course, I shouldn't be too harsh, he died in '39, wasn't working with a full kit was he.

So, execution for heresy, yay or nay?

All name calling aside, his work was done while he was an atheist, his findings made him an apologist. I like your fallacious appeal to novelty here, archeology does not necessarily get better through the decades, especially considering you are moving away from the source in time.

So were you lying when you said Calvin executed people or just ignorant of the facts? You never answered my question about why it is wrong to lie either, I am thinking it’s because you don’t know.

I'm a patient man but I'm not going to explain to you why the burden of proof is on you to show that miracles happen.

According to you the burden of proof is actually on you that they cannot happen since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Actually, I wear it on my sleeve so there's nothing to seep through. But thank you anyway.

You do realize that naturalism is a self refuting worldview though don’t you?

Is this unabashed special pleading or is there a good reason Christian claims of miracles are held to a different standard?

No special pleading, I assure you. The reason for my rejection of those other books is because they are in direct contradiction to God’s revealed truth, not because of any perceived “lack of evidence”.

No, just commenting that IF scholarship accepts Luke as a "historian", then we don't live in a rational society. I repeat my statement that anyone who seriously suggest that mythology should be taken as serious history should simply be laughed out of the room.

Believing that laughing someone out of a room proves anything is in itself irrational. Committing a question begging epithet by referring to scripture as “mythology” is also irrational. Saying you don’t accept Luke as historical because scholars do not but then saying that even if scholars did they would be irrational is circular and therefore irrational. I am starting to think you’d be the one “laughed out of” any room full of rational people.

There are no biologists alive today who don't accept evolution.

You didn’t provide me with quotes from the majority of biologists alive today saying they accepted Darwinian Evolution!!! Oh no!!

P.S. Jonathan Wells is a Biologist and he does not accept Darwinian Evolution, so that was easy enough to refute. Actually the fish biologist I work with at the USDA does not accept Darwinian Evolution either, so that was easy enough to refute a second time.

Please point out where in that passage it says what you claim it says in bold above.

You are the one asserting this passage contains a contradiction, I gave you a scenario that harmonizes all the gospel accounts (something that would be impossible to do if they really did contradict one another), so it is now up to you to demonstrate something in my scenario is in disagreement with any one of the gospels.

“ 1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. “

The women come to see the grave.

“2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 “

It says the earthquake had occurred, it does not say it occurred after the women arrived at the grave, it could have occurred several hours earlier or even a few minutes before the women arrived.

“ The angel said to the women, “[a]Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.”

Since the angel spoke to the women, it appears he was still sitting on the stone when the women arrived.

[DeistPaladin]

According to you the burden of proof is actually on you that they cannot happen since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

No, the burden isn't on me. The burden is on the one who would suggest that miracles can or do happen. Just because you call a lack of belief in miracles an extraordinary claim doesn't mean that it is.

You do realize that naturalism is a self refuting worldview though don’t you?

You just go on believing that.

No special pleading, I assure you. The reason for my rejection of those other books is because they are in direct contradiction to God’s revealed truth, not because of any perceived “lack of evidence”.

Ah, their holy books contradict your holy book so it must not be true. Special pleading? You're soaking in it.

Saying you don’t accept Luke as historical because scholars do not

Did I? I don't remember this. I remember saying "who says Luke is a historian?" but that was more an exclamation along the lines of "who the hell believes this crap?"

I am starting to think you’d be the one “laughed out of” any room full of rational people.

If rational thinking prevails, no.
If religious thinking prevails, they won't be laughing but screaming for me to be imprisoned, tortured and executed.

P.S. Jonathan Wells is a Biologist and he does not accept Darwinian Evolution, so that was easy enough to refute. Actually the fish biologist I work with at the USDA does not accept Darwinian Evolution either, so that was easy enough to refute a second time.

Any biologist who rejects evolution isn't a biologist any more than a doctor who accepts "healing crystals" is really a doctor. If you extend the definition of a profession to include quackery, it's an insult to the profession.

And no, this isn't "no true scotsman" as evolution is so intertwined in the study of biology that the field would make no sense except in light of evolution.

Since the angel spoke to the women, it appears he was still sitting on the stone when the women arrived.

It doesn't say that. In fact the order of events implies otherwise. They came. Stone rolled. Angel talked.

[The Grand Nudger]

No matter how many times you ask that it won't ever change what I actually posted.

Archaeology is just a tad bit more precise today than it was in '39, I'm sorry that your fairy tale turned out to be a fairy tale.

It's embarrassing when people bring up your cults dirty laundry (and I say that as a human being embarrassed of another human being), so I completely understand if you aren't willing to face Calvin's words on the matter. Calvin of course forwarded his private correspondence with Servitus to the "authorities" (both men wrote to each other in an effort to convince the other of their theology) which secured his execution. Calvin was not in favor of burning btw, he suggested beheading.

Servitus was the only person put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime, making him one of the most ardent supporters (and indeed co-conspirators) of a very unique act of murderous bigotry. Both men were in Geneva seeking religious asylum from the Catholic Church, which makes it all the more upsetting that in this case Calvin maintained a united front with the very same. In all likelihood (and this was the contention of the time) it was a political move, his condemnation being integral to the removal of an ideological adversary.

In 1903 a plaque was placed in his honor, repudiating Calvin's mistake (by Calvinists). So I guess that only took about 450 years. Here's to hoping the rest of his legacy ends up on a public apology commemorated by a plaque somewhere.

You can play revisionist all you like, but them's the facts, jack. I already know that you're a bigot, I was asking you if it extended to murder (as it did for Calvin)? You owe Shell an apology btw. Pointlessly comparing her morality to Jeffrey Dahmer's when in fact, of the two of you, you're the one who bases your entire system of belief on the ramblings of a waste of human space.

Dick.

[Ryft]

Ughh... I cannot believe I actually waded through all those pages. But now that I am caught up, I notice that the hour is very late and a thoughtful response to you, CaptainScarlet, requires more than a couple of minutes. I will work on it tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for being patient.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, the burden isn't on me. The burden is on the one who would suggest that miracles can or do happen. Just because you call a lack of belief in miracles an extraordinary claim doesn't mean that it is.

You are right, just because I say it doesn’t make it so. However, since the term “extraordinary” is defined as something out of the ordinary, the position that miracles cannot and do not happen is extraordinary since the majority of people hold the position that they can and do happen this is by definition the ordinary position and claim. So according to you, if you hold the extraordinary position that miracles cannot happen you must provide extraordinary evidence to support this position, to date I have seen not even ordinary evidence provided.

You just go on believing that.

I don’t merely believe it to be so; I know it to be so and can demonstrate it to be so.

Ah, their holy books contradict your holy book so it must not be true. Special pleading? You're soaking in it.

You keep using that phrase; I don’t think it means what you think it means lol. You have demonstrated that you reject anything a priori that directly contradicts your naturalistic worldview (such as defining any supernatural occurrence that is observed as a natural occurrence), so don’t’ hate me for doing what you do.

Did I? I don't remember this. I remember saying "who says Luke is a historian?" but that was more an exclamation along the lines of "who the hell believes this crap?"

So then why reject him as a historian? I am smelling circularity!

If rational thinking prevails, no.
If religious thinking prevails, they won't be laughing but screaming for me to be imprisoned, tortured and executed.

False dichotomy between religious thinking people and rational thinking people, a person can be either, a person can be both, and a person can be neither. After all it was you who could not provide an account for the laws of logic given your worldview, that’s hardly a rational position.

Any biologist who rejects evolution isn't a biologist any more than a doctor who accepts "healing crystals" is really a doctor. If you extend the definition of a profession to include quackery, it's an insult to the profession.

The no true Scotsman fallacy rears its ugly head! Accepting the general theory of evolution has nothing to do with the definition of “biologist” (a specialist the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena), your claims to be rational are beginning to look more than just laughable.

And no, this isn't "no true scotsman" as evolution is so intertwined in the study of biology that the field would make no sense except in light of evolution.

Oh snap! Then how can the USDA employ my coworker as a GS 11 FISH BIOLOGIST if he rejects Darwinian Evolution? It is the no true Scotsman; nothing in the definition of being a biologist says they must accept any specific theory of life’s origins. So what would you say if I said, “You cannot be a Biologist and not believe in creation because life itself makes no sense unless looked at through the lenses of creation.”?

It doesn't say that. In fact the order of events implies otherwise. They came. Stone rolled. Angel talked.

Talk about reading into the text what is not there, where does it say they arrived at the tomb before the stone was rolled away? It only says they went to see the tomb on the morning of the Sabbath.

No matter how many times you ask that it won't ever change what I actually posted.

Well let’s look at what you acutally did post shall we?

“You guys were so busy executing each other (John Calvin ftw!) you forgot about all those damned heretics and their science.”

So you used Calvin’s name after saying Christians were too busy executing one another, so were you wrong about Calvin executing anyone or just lying?

Archaeology is just a tad bit more precise today than it was in '39, I'm sorry that your fairy tale turned out to be a fairy tale.

Fallacious appeal to novelty. A more convincing case could be made that the closer you are to a source in time the better you can conduct historical analysis on it, bummer for you though.

It's embarrassing when people bring up your cults dirty laundry (and I say that as a human being embarrassed of another human being), so I completely understand if you aren't willing to face Calvin's words on the matter. Calvin of course forwarded his private correspondence with Servitus to the "authorities" (both men wrote to each other in an effort to convince the other of their theology) which secured his execution. Calvin was not in favor of burning btw, he suggested beheading.

Not stopping a state sponsored execution is hardly “dirty laundry” considering what atheists have done in the last century. Wait, but you said Calvin actually executed someone, so were you being dishonest or just wrong? Calvin spent every day of Servetus’ imprisonment pleading with him to save himself, but Servetus refused and the authorities at the time (who were Calvin’s theological opponents mind you) executed him. Calvin pleaded for beheading because it was a far more humane and painless form of execution than burning, the authorities ignored Calvin on that point too. So nice try, but you are grasping at straws on this one.

Servitus was the only person put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime, making him one of the most ardent supporters (and indeed co-conspirators) of a very unique act of murderous bigotry.

What!? You acted like the reformers were executing one another daily, and now you say that Servetus was the only one? Nobody was ever executed for heresy while Calvin was in power in Geneva.

Both men were in Geneva seeking religious asylum from the Catholic Church, which makes it all the more upsetting that in this case Calvin maintained a united front with the very same. In all likelihood (and this was the contention of the time) it was a political move, his condemnation being integral to the removal of an ideological adversary.

Source?

In 1903 a plaque was placed in his honor, repudiating Calvin's mistake (by Calvinists). So I guess that only took about 450 years. Here's to hoping the rest of his legacy ends up on a public apology commemorated by a plaque somewhere.

Apologizing for something Calvin didn’t do seems kind of silly. I also don't see why I should apologize for him influencing the separation of church and state, checks and balances and democratically elected representation since those do not seem to be too horrible of a legacy to leave. You are hilarious.

You can play revisionist all you like,

No thanks, you’ve done enough of that for the both of us.

I already know that you're a bigot,

Bearing false witness again I see. Given your worldview why would being a bigot be a bad thing? Since you apparently could not answer my question about lying I will ask you this one instead.

I was asking you if it extended to murder (as it did for Calvin)?

Who did Calvin murder?

You owe Shell an apology btw. Pointlessly comparing her morality to Jeffrey Dahmer's

I owe her nothing, she made the comparison when she said that nobody owns her and she can make up her own morality, when she said this it sounded very familiar to me then I realized I had heard it before but from Dahmer, so I just pointed out that Dahmer said the exact same thing. If that is somehow offensive then maybe you two should both adopt a belief system that is not on the same sheet of music as Dahmer.

Dick.

That’s not my name.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dissonance or asshattery. Hard to tell with you.

[Statler Waldorf]

Dissonance or asshattery. Hard to tell with you.

So you can't respond to any of my actual points?

[The Grand Nudger]

You make points? They must get lost in the mountainous piles of bullshit.

[Statler Waldorf]

You make points? They must get lost in the mountainous piles of bullshit.

No they just go over your uneducated head.

[DeistPaladin]

At some point in the past, I posted this exercise of giving apologetic thinking a try. I think it's time to revisit this experiment/

OK, let's pretend this silly song I and every other kid at summer camp used to sing (perhaps you all may remember something like this ditty) is actually part of the Bible. I have to reconcile the contradictions using Stat Wal Logic:

One day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight
Back to back, they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
Two deaf policemen heard this noise
Came to kill the two dead boys
If you don't believe this lie is true
You can ask the blind man, he saw it too.

In verse one, the term "day" can mean a 24 hour period. So the event happened at night.

Regrading verse two, naturalists scoff at the idea that dead boys can get up to fight but they're just trapped in their self-refuting mindset. Most people believe in miracles anyway so the burden of proof is on them to prove that zombies aren't real.

In verse three, there is no contradiction. First they went back to back and then turned to face each other. Just like in verse four, drawing swords doesn't preclude later drawing guns.

In verse five, there are varying degrees of deafness. Even people hard of hearing can hear gunshots. So no contradiction there.

In verse six, killing the dead isn't a contradiction when you believe in the afterlife. The Bible itself refers to the Lake of Fire as the "second death". Consistent with this passage, the police attempted to put down the zombies in final death.

In verse seven, the term "lie" is actually a a translation of an ancient Hebrew word that can mean "story" or "fable". It isn't really a lie but a story that is true, as declared by the verse.

Finally, verse eight provides an embarrassing witness, the blind man who was able to recount the events. If this story were truly a lie, they would not have made up such an embarrassing witness.

So using Stat Wal logic, you really can do away with an "apparent contradiction".