(October 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Delicate Wrote: Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

Actually, most atheists on this site are better informed than the theists.  If you wish to refer to that as "ill-informed" then how would you describe the the theists on this site?

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheists query and examine, whilst the theist just accepts.

(October 25, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Deny all you like...and when you're done, what will have changed?  Will you have resolved sola scriptura?  Will you have a definitive christology?  Will you be able to comment upon the availability of redemption?  No, no, and no.  

Instrument choice doesn't measure a blip on my radar.  I don't care, and you don't care...so why are we discussing it?  

You betray your opening statement in the conclusion, but why should it matter - have either of us been discussing Ireland?  No. 

Since it's a political history of campaign ideology in public elections, the information is freely available to anyone who wishes to view it.   Is there some requirement for you to waive away a political reality?  Should these groups fail to serve their collective interests, is there some shame in accomplishing that goal?   

 Is adherence to scripture unimportant?  Is christology unimportant?  Is redemption unimportant?

What does resolving sola scriptura have to do with anything in this discussion? Have you even looked into the issue? Are you assuming (wrongly, it should be pointed out), that sola scriptura is core doctrine?

To what extent is the indeterminacy of, say, experimental findings in a scientific subfield an indictment on science? If it's not, how in God's name does your brain convince you that indeterminacy in a particular area of theology an indictment on religion?

It's confused responses like these that ask to be ignored.

How insular is your schism, are you unaware of how important that issue is, to catholics...for example?  I suppose I could see why you don't see it as a core issue.....it's only a comment on the legitimacy of their entire faith organization.......it's only -self-stated- as a necessary part of their faith that they decide in favor of the church, and against the proposition in question.  

The other two, then..any comments there?  Will we be resolving any of these discrepencies this evening?  You seem to think I'm indicting religion, or that this is even my goal, but it isn't.  It's the ignorance and disrespect you're showing to christianity that's being indicted...in this thread.  I guess you're just the fruit by which I'll know the tree.....

(that, would be an indictment of religion, btw)

(October 26, 2015 at 12:31 am)Delicate Wrote: No, I'm asking questions.

If there are indeed so many doctrinal differences, even over core doctrines, we ought to be able to substantiate that with specifics. So I'm asking for specifics from the very people who are so confident of the claim.

I didn't just pull all of those differences out of my ass, you know. Each one of them comes from a christian I've met in discussion with in the past, sometimes here on this board, sometimes in person. My brother in law, for example, recently left a church he was attending because they wouldn't preach that even christians of other denominations will be going to hell like a Westboro Baptist or especially fundamentalist Apostolic church might. That's kind of the problem: the variation is so widespread that there's little hope even of any two churches within a denomination having precisely the same views, or of any two christians within one of those churches doing likewise.

This doesn't help you, by the way: if I can find two christians just on the street that vary in their views the way I've done, and those variations concern core tenets and not the irrelevant fripperies you claim, then the potential pool of core divisions between christians suddenly jumps into the millions, not merely the tens of thousands of denominations that exist. The possibility space is both wider and deeper than you're acknowledging here.

(October 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Delicate Wrote: I suppose any theist who has read this part of the forum has to chuckle at how terrible atheist critiques of theism are.

But when the laughter dies down, you're left with a troubling realization: There actually is a huge pool of people on this planet who call themselves atheists and post on the internet, but are less familiar with theism than toddlers with the inside of a quantum mechanics textbook.

Where does one go for actually informed atheistic critiques of religion? I'm feeling my brain atrophy after reading some of the threads here.

Is there a secret regimen other than "the good spirits" that one must consume to ascend to the heavenly abodes and beyond the ordinary frailty of human understanding as your blessed sophisms require?

(October 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Delicate Wrote: I suppose any theist who has read this part of the forum has to chuckle at how terrible atheist critiques of theism are.

But when the laughter dies down, you're left with a troubling realization: There actually is a huge pool of people on this planet who call themselves atheists and post on the internet, but are less familiar with theism than toddlers with the inside of a quantum mechanics textbook.

Where does one go for actually informed atheistic critiques of religion? I'm feeling my brain atrophy after reading some of the threads here.

You'd be surprised how informed some of the atheists on this site are.  No me, mind you.  I only know a smidgeon of bible babble and I like it that way.


You certainly are the cheeky little devil. Do you actually find people who give a damn about impressing you with their theological acumen?

(October 26, 2015 at 12:39 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 25, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Delicate Wrote: What does resolving sola scriptura have to do with anything in this discussion? Have you even looked into the issue? Are you assuming (wrongly, it should be pointed out), that sola scriptura is core doctrine?

To what extent is the indeterminacy of, say, experimental findings in a scientific subfield an indictment on science? If it's not, how in God's name does your brain convince you that indeterminacy in a particular area of theology an indictment on religion?

It's confused responses like these that ask to be ignored.

How insular is your schism, are you unaware of how important that issue is, to catholics...for example?  I suppose I could see why you don't see it as a core issue.....it's only a comment on the legitimacy of their entire faith organization.......it's only -self-stated- as a necessary part of their faith that they decide in favor of the church, and against the proposition in question.  

The other two, then..any comments there?  Will we be resolving any of these discrepencies this evening?  You seem to think I'm indicting religion, or that this is even my goal, but it isn't.  It's the ignorance and disrespect you're showing to christianity that's being indicted...in this thread.  I guess you're just the fruit by which I'll know the tree.....

(that, would be an indictment of religion, btw)

It's precisely because I know the Catholic stance on the issue that I know the issue is not core doctrine. If you actually knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be saying the things you are. Like, what in the world is a "faith organization" and how is the legitimacy of Catholicism predicated on sola scriptura? WTF kind of babble is this?

The more you post the clearer it is: you have no idea what you're talking about.


Are there any Catholic posters here?

There are, and if they so chose, they could come along and tell you that they are not beholden to scripture alone.  When they're done doing so.....I can grab another poster who defines his entire faith, and describes the one true christian faith, as dogged adherence solely to scripture.  To his mind, the words on the page trump everything.  If the latter is right, if one must rely solely on scripture,  then the catholic church (for example) has no authority.  That's important, or at least it seems that it might be important to catholics...and it seems as though it must have been important to protestants as well......  

But don't take my word for it, ask a catholic...
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/article...-scripture

Quote:According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scripturahas not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.

...aaaand now lets ask a protestant
http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-o...scriptura/

Quote:The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

If you need a dictionary to tease out the meaning of two words in tandem, google has you covered.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:15 am)Delicate Wrote: It confirms my theism rather than weakening it.

Pearls, swine, etc etc.

You continue to ignore points that are relevant, such as what SD linked you to, because they're pretty corrosive to your argument.

Pseudointellectual egotism coupled with sneering condescension lost its charm years ago, kid ... but hey, whatever you have to do to prop up your self-esteem is worthwhile, I suppose.

(October 26, 2015 at 12:43 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 26, 2015 at 12:31 am)Delicate Wrote: No, I'm asking questions.

If there are indeed so many doctrinal differences, even over core doctrines, we ought to be able to substantiate that with specifics. So I'm asking for specifics from the very people who are so confident of the claim.

I didn't just pull all of those differences out of my ass, you know. Each one of them comes from a christian I've met in discussion with in the past, sometimes here on this board, sometimes in person. My brother in law, for example, recently left a church he was attending because they wouldn't preach that even christians of other denominations will be going to hell like a Westboro Baptist or especially fundamentalist Apostolic church might. That's kind of the problem: the variation is so widespread that there's little hope even of any two churches within a denomination having precisely the same views, or of any two christians within one of those churches doing likewise.

This doesn't help you, by the way: if I can find two christians just on the street that vary in their views the way I've done, and those variations concern core tenets and not the irrelevant fripperies you claim, then the potential pool of core divisions between christians suddenly jumps into the millions, not merely the tens of thousands of denominations that exist. The possibility space is both wider and deeper than you're acknowledging here.

Okay, here's what's going on: I clear up one fallacy the atheist commits, they commit two more fallacies elsewhere in their next post. Let's start over, simpler this time:

To prove the atheist position, three criteria need to be met:
1) The differences must be core differences, not peripheral differences (this point has been repeated to death)
2) The differences must involve what Christianity teaches, NOT how individuals practice (your brother preferring a certain kind of preaching is reflective of preference, not teaching, and it's of one person).
3) The differences must be widespread (one weird bro does not widespread make)

The atheist claim must meet all three criteria in order to justifiably claim that there are widespread doctrinal differences that are serious or problematic. 

So far all I've seen from atheists have been a lot of feeble arm-flailing and anger. No substance. Better posts tomorrow I hope.

(October 26, 2015 at 1:48 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(October 26, 2015 at 12:15 am)Delicate Wrote: It confirms my theism rather than weakening it.

Pearls, swine, etc etc.

You continue to ignore points that are relevant, such as what SD linked you to, because they're pretty corrosive to your argument.

Pseudointellectual egotism coupled with sneering condescension lost its charm years ago, kid ... but hey, whatever you have to do to prop up your self-esteem is worthwhile, I suppose.

Please look at my last post to Esquilax, because odds are, if you think SD's post was good, you're confused.