I'm not really interested in dissecting words; it was one in the morning. I just want to hear the arguments from all sides and would rather spend my time reading the crème of the crap, from an Atheist perspective. I think it's possible to respect an opposing viewpoint, and not agree. I think its possible to distill topics down to fundamentals. I think I already know the answer to my questions but my thoughts are disorganized.

Pretty naïve.

Apologetics is to the Bible as fanfiction.net is to fictionpress.com

Quote: I think I already know the answer to my questions but my thoughts are disorganized.

Yeah - there is a connection there for certain.

(April 16, 2014 at 12:44 am)simpleinterest Wrote: I'm not really interested in dissecting words; it was one in the morning. I just want to hear the arguments from all sides and would rather spend my time reading the crème of the crap, from an Atheist perspective. I think it's possible to respect an opposing viewpoint, and not agree. I think its possible to distill topics down to fundamentals. I think I already know the answer to my questions but my thoughts are disorganized.

Pretty naïve.

Naive? Bullshit. You are missing Brian's point. Take creationism compared to our current understanding of cosmology. The universe, including the earth, being created in six days less than 10,000 years ago isn't just another viewpoint that deserves respect; it is simply fucking wrong and nowhere close to reality. I am compelled to respect someone's right to believe what they wish, but I don't have to respect the actual belief; that is earned on merit.

What's your favortie food? Who's your favorite rock artist? Do you think we should go to war? How much money should we give NASA? How do we resolve our healthcare issue?

These and other questions like them are amenable to argument and as you suggest, differing viewpoints; which can have equal validity.

If you're into audio, Foundations: An Overview of Systematic Theology - R.C.Sproul.
23 hours of apologetic bullshit

(April 15, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?

No, and neither does Plantinga so far as I know.

Quote:You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?

Okay let's say he thinks it's a solid argument: so what? "Solid argument" does not equal "irrefutable argument". Plantinga also thinks his modal version of the Ontological Argument is solid, but he clearly states the argument does not and cannot prove God's existence.

(April 15, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.

I've yet to see Plantinga try anything as stupid as your straw man of him.

Quote:He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.

You'll have to elaborate here.

---

(April 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I reject the books of apologists because they are not arguments for universal science. They are nothing more than arguments for personal comic book super heros they know do not exist.

Wait, so you're criticising apologetics books because they're not science books? Non sequitur much?

Well if you value things that can be proven, why don't you go ahead and prove that all apologetics books are "arguments for personal comic book heroes they [apologists] know do not exist". Claiming apologisrs KNOW God doesn't exist is an extremely stupid thing for you to say. You might as well be a Presuppositionalist claiming atheists just pretend not to know God exists...

(April 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 8:53 am)RobbyPants Wrote: My wife is a big fan of Love Wins, by Rob Bell. I may have liked it better if I still believed when I read it.

I don't think that's suitable for non Christians. I'm a fan but the support for that particular theology is thin, even though I adopt it myself.

Far better is velvet Elvis. Some awesome Bell stuff in there. Good for non believers too.

I'd also recommend John H Walton's "The lost world of genesis one". I was astounded reading that at the sensitivity Walton shows towards the non believing reader. I think he fully addresses and challenges the atheist position with full reverence and respect. I've seen nothing like it.

My wife read one or two of his other books. I'm only personally familiar with Love Wins.

(April 16, 2014 at 1:38 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: My wife read one or two of his other books. I'm only personally familiar with Love Wins.

Love wins is by far his weakest in my opinion. You should try Velvet Elvis and tell me what you think.

(April 16, 2014 at 9:23 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?

No, and neither does Plantinga so far as I know.

Quote:You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?

Okay let's say he thinks it's a solid argument: so what? "Solid argument" does not equal "irrefutable argument". Plantinga also thinks his modal version of the Ontological Argument is solid, but he clearly states the argument does not and cannot prove God's existence.

(April 15, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.

I've yet to see Plantinga try anything as stupid as your straw man of him.

Quote:He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.

You'll have to elaborate here.

---

(April 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I reject the books of apologists because they are not arguments for universal science. They are nothing more than arguments for personal comic book super heros they know do not exist.

Wait, so you're criticising apologetics books because they're not science books? Non sequitur much?

Well if you value things that can be proven, why don't you go ahead and prove that all apologetics books are "arguments for personal comic book heroes they [apologists] know do not exist". Claiming apologisrs KNOW God doesn't exist is an extremely stupid thing for you to say. You might as well be a Presuppositionalist claiming atheists just pretend not to know God exists...

I can find nice motifs in Harry Potter without believing little boys fly around on brooms. Tell me, if you have read any of that series does it do any credible job explaining scientific air flight by way of broom? Do you waste your time writing entire books claiming Harry Potter was real?

As soon as a writer of any book says "In this following book I will prove the existence of Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Vishnu/Ra, they are not making arguments for a provable reality, they are making arguments for their pet fictional deity.

It is extremely stupid of you to expect me to buy a comic book because someone else wrote a book defending that comic book.

---

The first few pages of that comic book tells me all I need to know. Creates the earth in 6 days. BULLSHIT. Pops men out of dirt. BULLSHIT. Pops a woman out of a man's rib. BULLSHIT. Treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light. ALSO BULLSHIT. That is my very short list, but the entire book is full of crap like this.

The fact that someone else writes elaborate crap to defend it, does not and will never make those fantastic claims true.

(April 16, 2014 at 6:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I can find nice motifs in Harry Potter without believing little boys fly around on brooms. Tell me, if you have read any of that series does it do any credible job explaining scientific air flight by way of broom? Do you waste your time writing entire books claiming Harry Potter was real?

Because essentially everyone who has even heard of Harry Potter knows why it isn't to be taken seriously: Because it is known to have intentionally been a work of fiction. Nor was Harry Potter even written for that intention (explaining flight), whoch is why your point about apologetics books not being science is silly aa can be.

Quote:As soon as a writer of any book says "In this following book I will prove the existence of Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Vishnu/Ra, they are not making arguments for a provable reality, they are making arguments for their pet fictional deity.

And your evidence for this is? Clearly, several apologetics arguments are intended to demonstrate God's existence via a proof. To say they aren't trying to do that but just arguing for a fiction is either a) impugning motives on them you can't prove or b) to just assume the non-existence of God without hearing the argument. I hope that isn't your idea of skepticism? Skeptics are supposed to have good reasons for not affirming something.

Quote:It is extremely stupid of you to expect me to buy a comic book because someone else wrote a book defending that comic book.

Comparing a known work of fiction (known because it was written as a work of fiction and it doesn't correlate with reality) to something not like that is absurd. And terribly unskeptical. Surely you want to believe and disbelieve things for good reasons?

Quote:The first few pages of that comic book tells me all I need to know. Creates the earth in 6 days. BULLSHIT. Pops men out of dirt. BULLSHIT. Pops a woman out of a man's rib. BULLSHIT. Treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light. ALSO BULLSHIT. That is my very short list, but the entire book is full of crap like this.

Even in the history of Christianity, the literal reading of Genesis is rather a recent event. Even Christianity's heaviest intellectual thinkers in history (St. Augustine and St. Aquinas) rejected this view. Nor does that even have to do with a book on apologetics, which rarely are predicated on the idea that the Bible is inerrant.

Quote:The fact that someone else writes elaborate crap to defend it, does not and will never make those fantastic claims true.

And bad reasons for rejecting something does not give you anything like the intellectual high ground. Surely it shouldn't be too hard to unveal the best apologists have if it's all bullshit?


Ah, the day I have to defend apologists and apologetics from [presumably] an atheist. Irony?