You're not really helping your case.

(March 2, 2014 at 2:48 am)Rahul Wrote:

(March 2, 2014 at 2:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: I really don't know why you bother with that shithead. Are you slumming?

Jeeze, Min. We all get worked up at times, but you seem to just be rude as shit to these poor bastards right out of the gate.

My patience with these people evaporated years ago.

(March 2, 2014 at 7:55 am)discipulus Wrote: For all who have been following DeistPaladin and myself, I responded to yet another red herring post of his in the philosophy forum. Simply click on this link and you will be taken to it.

You really are a very deluded fellow.

(March 2, 2014 at 11:49 am)Minimalist Wrote: My patience with these people evaporated years ago.

I'm starting to identify more and more.

When I engaged this guy, I thought he'd be a bit more like his avatar, C.S. Lewis. Granted, Lewis' philosophy was thoroughly fallacy-ridden but deconstructing these arguments, finding inconsistencies and fully analyzing the fallacious architecture would have been an interesting discussion for me. This is what I intellectually get off on: analysis and troubleshooting.

I don't know if people have noticed this about me but deconstruction and analysis is something I love doing. I mean, how many skeptics have read the Gospel accounts with a spreadsheet program open noting all the contradictions and inconsistencies. Apologist dude, you want to whine about "context"? I'll send you a copy of the damn spreadsheet to show you I've more that fully analyzed the context. Pull my string and I'm ready to identify and catalog all the fallacies in an apologetic argument.

So when I asked him for a compelling argument for Christianity, I was expecting:

• "Would they die for a lie?"
  
• "The Moral Argument"
  
• "The Trilemma"
  
• "Reliable Eye-Witnesses"
  
• "You can't assume naturalism"
  
• Other fallacy ridden philoso-babble.
  

Sure, all crap but I can break down WHY it's all crap and still have an interesting discussion.

But no, he's refused to engage in any of my response posts on this thread, even when I reply to his arguments about topics such as our supposed assumption of naturalism or the "eye-witness" accounts in the Gospels. He just ignores everything he can't argue against and moves on to the next topic, trying to bait-and-switch.

I'm done. He deserves nothing but Min's righteously contemptuous invitations to fuck off and take his invisible sky-daddy with him.

(March 2, 2014 at 5:36 am)max-greece Wrote: Brace yourselves for the typical Christian total reinterpretation of history to give Christianity all the credit.

He's following in the footsteps of McDowell and Strobel that because Western Democracies are either majority or at least historically Christian societies, that it follows that Christianity promotes scientific advancement and democracy. This is a classic fallacy of assuming correlation proves causation. Any cursory review of our history shows that enlightenment and liberty had to overcome Christian resistance and that our progress has only been made dragging Christianity kicking and screaming the whole way.

Go to Saudi Arabia? How about Europe of 500 years ago? Hell, the last witch burning didn't happen until the 19th century.

Or be prepared to deal bullshit as you go along.

(March 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(March 2, 2014 at 5:36 am)max-greece Wrote: Brace yourselves for the typical Christian total reinterpretation of history to give Christianity all the credit.

He's following in the footsteps of McDowell and Strobel that because Western Democracies are either majority or at least historically Christian societies, that it follows that Christianity promotes scientific advancement and democracy. This is a classic fallacy of assuming correlation proves causation. Any cursory review of our history shows that enlightenment and liberty had to overcome Christian resistance and that our progress has only been made dragging Christianity kicking and screaming the whole way.

Go to Saudi Arabia? How about Europe of 500 years ago? Hell, the last witch burning didn't happen until the 19th century.

Quote:The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
— H L Mencken,

Another problem I have with them is their refusal to acknowledge their double standard when it comes to the supernatural and other religions. There is just as much evidence (and maybe even more) for Muhammad splitting the moon than there is for the claims about Jesus.