(August 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Why are we wasting time with this idiot? He is obviously operating under the influence of a blow to the head with a heavy blunt object.
[...]

Because to us - it's just a discussion, with almost nothing at stake. Randy on the other hand is desperately fighting for his salvation and the eternal life he's been conned into believing in - and failing at it. It's morbidly fascinating - like watching a venomous spider trying to climb out of the bath-tub.

Or that after 10 years of debating Baptists about infant baptism and Lutherans about sola scriptura, I wanted a bigger challenge.

Well, this forum has been different, so I've added significantly to my understanding of how non-believers think, but it hasn't been a greater challenge once the first few weeks were behind me.

Kind of surprising, honestly.

(August 23, 2015 at 5:25 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I'm with Rhondazvous. 

"Is that your rebuttal? 

Why are we wasting time with this idiot? He is obviously operating under the influence of a blow to the head with a heavy blunt object."

This nut-job has been told over 'n' over 'n' over in many different ways that we can have NO respect for his so-called sources, because they were written by individuals laboring under the same delusions as he is.  Studying the voices in one's head only proves insanity.

And yet, he keeps cutting and pasting the same insulting trash onto dozens of threads.  Amazing.  

But atheist SCHOLARS do have respect for these sources, and this illustrates why you are in error. Since I don't recall seeing your name and avatar, I'll post this again, because it exposes the flaw in your thinking most clearly...it was written by none other than the famous atheist scholar, Bart Ehrman:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause." (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5.)

(August 23, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Or that after 10 years of debating Baptists about infant baptism and Lutherans about sola scriptura, I wanted a bigger challenge.
[...]

Challenge - shmallenge.

What difference does it make to a pigeon, whether it's playing chess against another pigeon, Garry Kasparov, or "Deep Blue"? The result is the same - knocked-over pieces and bird-sh*t on the board...

(August 23, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 22, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Because to us - it's just a discussion, with almost nothing at stake. Randy on the other hand is desperately fighting for his salvation and the eternal life he's been conned into believing in - and failing at it. It's morbidly fascinating - like watching a venomous spider trying to climb out of the bath-tub.

Or that after 10 years of debating Baptists about infant baptism and Lutherans about sola scriptura, I wanted a bigger challenge.

Well, this forum has been different, so I've added significantly to my understanding of how non-believers think, but it hasn't been a greater challenge once the first few weeks were behind me.

Kind of surprising, honestly.

Honest question: are you doing this to solidify your own faith, or win fresh converts to your side? Or some combination of the two? Or for some other reason?

I ask because I don't get the appeal of proselytizing. I don't go around to believer forums in an attempt to argue with them. I find the idea of going onto someone else's turf for the sole purpose of arguing against their belief unpalatable. I might be an asshole at times, but I don't go out of my way to be an asshole. I'm not a travelling asshole.

I realize that all religions have "go forth and spread the message" as a central tenet, but I'd think, at the very least, it'd get boring talking about the same things in the same way. The same cycle of arguments and rebuttals. It's why I tend to hang out in the non-confrontational areas more and more. I can only read/post so much of the same stuff before I get tired of it.

Are you just a fan of debate?

He's a troll.

(August 24, 2015 at 2:46 am)Minimalist Wrote: He's a troll.

Aren't they all?

I quite like the thought that 'troll' is a contraction of 'travelling asshole'.

(August 24, 2015 at 2:44 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(August 23, 2015 at 8:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Or that after 10 years of debating Baptists about infant baptism and Lutherans about sola scriptura, I wanted a bigger challenge.

Well, this forum has been different, so I've added significantly to my understanding of how non-believers think, but it hasn't been a greater challenge once the first few weeks were behind me.

Kind of surprising, honestly.

Honest question: are you doing this to solidify your own faith, or win fresh converts to your side?  Or some combination of the two?  Or for some other reason?

It is a common but erroneous assumption that the only reason people evangelize is to reassure themselves. First, we are instructed to make disciples of all nations (as you note below), and second, we think we have a pretty important message that will benefit others.

But I think there is a pretty big difference between going door to door or stopping people at a shopping mall to share the gospel and doing apologetics. In the former, the goal is to present the basic story of Jesus Christ to people who may or may not be familiar with it in an effort to compel them to take an action such as A) saying the sinner's prayer on the spot or B) agreeing to come to a Church to learn more or C) to at least read the pamphlet being offered and think about it.

Apologetics, on the other hand, is defined as "explaining and defending" the faith, and generally, this means interacting with people who already have some familiarity with the subject but have objections or misunderstandings in one form or another.

I've never been attracted to the evangelism, but I enjoy apologetics quite a bit, obviously.

Quote:I ask because I don't get the appeal of proselytizing.  I don't go around to believer forums in an attempt to argue with them.  I find the idea of going onto someone else's turf for the sole purpose of arguing against their belief unpalatable.  I might be an asshole at times,  but I don't go out of my way to be an asshole.  I'm not a travelling asshole.

Well, neither am I. No, seriously. Here's what I mean by that: If we lived next door to one another for 10 years, Christianity might never come up between us unless you broached the subject because I would not consider you a project. On the other hand, if you ASKED, then sure, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have or to give you a book or two to read...because I enjoy "explaining and defending" the Catholic faith.

My home forum is at catholic.com, and people with whom I interact there are all over the map in terms of their own faith positions and knowledge level. There are atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, polythesists...you name it. We have Baha'i, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses...lapsed Catholics, former Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, RadTrad Catholics, newly converted Catholics, wannabe Catholics and ignorant Catholics...again, you name it.

People come to CAF for a variety of reasons, but IT'S AN APOLOGETICS FORUM run by the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world. So, when people do wander into the forum, it's because they either have questions or want to discuss religion or tell Catholics why we're all going to hell. (I've been dealing with people like the professor for nearly a decade. He's nothing new to me.) I read their questions and provide answers. If I don't know the answers, I do some homework and then provide answers. MOST of this deals with a subsection of Christian apologetics that can be called "Catholic apologetics".

My assumption, and this may have been an error, is that members of this forum who voluntarily choose to enter the Christianity subforum would be doing so because they either want to A) hear what a theist might have to say or B) argue their own viewpoint. I'm not so sure that is what's happening. Memes and mockery are not discussion, and rather than intellectually satisfying arguments from reason, mostly what I've heard is denial of Jesus' very existence. Ehrman, O'Neill and the forum's own Aractus have pointed out the stupidity of this position, but it is the easy way out for folks who don't want to think very hard, I suppose.

Some will respond to this post by saying, "We've heard it all before...blah, blah, blah...". I'm not buying it. Do you know how many times I've explained to Baptists that Catholics don't worship Mary? There are a lot of misinformed people out there, and I'm correcting that situation one person at a time, apparently.

Seriously though, I suspect these same people who claim that I'm not saying anything new have also played Monopoly or chess or Spades more than once in their lives, so the problem is not the fact that they've played the game before. If you don't like tennis, stay off the court, ya know?

And btw, you may have noticed that I almost NEVER wander into or post in any of the other subforums here. If I really were a troll or a traveling asshole, I'd be wandering around the entire forum taking shots at y'all from every vantage point, wouldn't I?

Quote:I realize that all religions have "go forth and spread the message" as a central tenet, but I'd think, at the very least, it'd get boring talking about the same things in the same way.  The same cycle of arguments and rebuttals.  It's why I tend to hang out in the non-confrontational areas more and more.   I can only read/post so much of the same stuff before I get tired of it.

Sometimes, I'm simply recommending a book to a new convert; other times, I'm going toe-to-toe with an Orthodox priest concerning the inclusion of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. The range of topics that can come up is quite large. However, you can only argue the scriptural basis for infant baptism with evangelicals so many times, you know?

So, I decided to see what arguments atheists might have to offer.

Quote:Are you just a fan of debate?

I enjoy matching wits with people and figuring out how to respond to their questions, but debates, formal debates I mean, are not that effective in terms of covering the material. One person can simply be more skilled in the art of debate and win a because the other person FAILED to say things or to rebut things that needed to be addressed.

From the Bart Ehrmann cut 'n' paste: "It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

PRECISELY. So they studied their asses off. Good for them. Who cares? In fact, who cares whether Jesus existed or was a combination of very old myths in a newer package?  THEY STARTED OFF TRYING TO PROVE THEIR OWN DELUSION. That makes any conclusion they reach invalid.

I don't believe that god exists. The only "evidence" that will sway my opinion is scientific, measurable, data.  As I said before, have god show up on global TV, live, in person, touchable and verifiable, and I'll change my mind.

(August 24, 2015 at 10:40 am)drfuzzy Wrote: From the Bart Ehrmann cut 'n' paste: "It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

PRECISELY. So they studied their asses off. Good for them. Who cares? In fact, who cares whether Jesus existed or was a combination of very old myths in a newer package?  THEY STARTED OFF TRYING TO PROVE THEIR OWN DELUSION. That makes any conclusion they reach invalid.

Like Ehrman?

Yeah, you've missed the whole point. Even atheist scholars concede that Jesus did exist.

Quote:I don't believe that god exists. The only "evidence" that will sway my opinion is scientific, measurable, data.  As I said before, have god show up on global TV, live, in person, touchable and verifiable, and I'll change my mind.

Did Hannibal really cross the Alps? Did Caesar really cross the Rubicon? What do you know of the ancient Pharaohs or the emperors of China? Who discovered America, and how do you know this?

Ancient history is not proven by direct evidence nor by "scientific, measurable data".