(August 15, 2010 at 10:28 pm)RAD Wrote:

(August 15, 2010 at 7:25 pm)LEDO Wrote: Apparently you have never read the Christian arguments. Either the entire Bible is true, or it is not. They claim if any part of it is false, then it is not a book of God.

I'm a Christian, and I would be committing the same logical fallacy you are if I depended solely on Genesis for any and all knowledge of the fall. You can't make a logical argument using a logically false premise. You have used a "genetic fallacy." But then if you want people to become atheists based on irrational reasoning like yours, go ahead. If half of Mark is true, you won't be going to heaven. Agreed?

Quote: If we assume the beginning is false, that there was no fall of man, then all of Christinaity is false because it is based entirely on the idea there was a fall and man needs to be saved. They also claim the entire Bible is geared towards man salvation and the coming of the messiah. Hence the whole Bible is false based on their logic, not Durant.

Even if Genesis is not true, there still could have been a fall. Here is a link to a "genetic fallacy." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...llacy.html

The Bible speaks of a fall elsewhere anyway

Quote:Unless you have read my books, don't be critical of them.

Since I am 99.9% sure they use your logic here, I'm safe in doing so.

That link proves nothing. The question is how to debate a Christian. Apparently you have never debated one and do not know what works. The Bible can speak of a fall in a thousand places, but there is only one that counts. Try reading the Bible.

(August 16, 2010 at 8:46 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: I'm looking forward to seeing his reply to this, Padraic. Could it be that these were not true Christians?

Man, you must be psychic!

RAD just made that very point. Apparently Catholics are not true Christians. I could just as easily used Judaism,Islam Hinduism as examples. Of course the Babylonians and meso Americans were more consistently dramatic with human sacrifice.

Serves me right for breaking one of my own rules; trying to have a rational discussion with an apologist.

I guess referring to Solja as a troll was an argument from incredulity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


@RAD;from Wiki;

Quote:"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

(August 16, 2010 at 8:56 pm)padraic Wrote:

(August 16, 2010 at 8:46 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: I'm looking forward to seeing his reply to this, Padraic. Could it be that these were not true Christians?

Man, you must be psychic!

I noticed you just avoided the whole question of whether they were doing what Jesus said or not. Hopefully thinking persons will notice.

So then, am I a patriot because I say I am?

Am I a Communist even though I did not read Marx, or do what he said?

Actually NTS doesn't apply even if it were an actual fallacy.

If I do the opposite of what Jesus said to do, why would you blame his "religion" for anything I do?

---

(August 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm)LEDO Wrote: Apparently you have never debated one and do not know what works.

Oh it might work to use logical fallacies. Is that what you want to do, an end justifies the means sort of thing?

Quote:The Bible can speak of a fall in a thousand places, but there is only one that counts. Try reading the Bible.

Why does only one count? (Not that I don't believe it was a revelation from God) Sorry, you are still using a variation of "false in one place, therefore false in all" fallacy. it's actually so common among "free thinkers," they don't even know they are doing it.

(August 17, 2010 at 1:06 am)RAD Wrote: I noticed you just avoided the whole question of whether they were doing what Jesus said or not.

I thought the whole point of Christianity is that you can be forgiven even if you do fail to live up to what Jesus said. Anyway, he supposedly has supremely superhuman abilities that no one could truly live up to anyway I thought? I thought the whole point was to ask for forgiveness and be saved, be accepted by Jesus. I thought that the - at least mainstream - view of Christianity is that no one has succeeded in 100% following what Jesus has said. We all need to be 'forgiven' because our nature is 'sinful'.

So if those who don't live up to Jesus aren't 'true Christians' then wouldn't that make Christianity's view (at least mainstream I think?) on the matter be that no one is a "true Christian" at all?

Actually EvF there is a very biblical way of testing whether people are Christians are not. Check out the fruts of the spirit and fruits of the flesh.

And what's that? And how is it done?

Perhaps it tells us something about either Christianity or religion in general that, after two thousand years, no-one has managed to live up to Jesus' teachings (allegedly) and that, in fact, people's interpretations of the Bible have led them to do more harm than good, in many cases. Either it is impossible to follow his teachings, due to human nature (how can a person love others as much as he/she loves him/herself?), or the teachings aren't as wonderful as Christians make out, or are tainted by the rest of the Bible.

To me if you have to resort to using the bible for a debate, you've already lost.

I heard another reply today from somebody related to the reading of the bible that puzzled me. I started reading the bible from the skeptic annotated bible site, which is the king james version, but this person when I said that I am reading the bible asked me what version, and upon hearing the name of this version denied its accuracy and the accuracy of most bible versions. He said that only the true, original, jewish version is the true one, the rest are translated incorrectly, thats why its seems silly and full of contradictions. How can I reply to that?

By asking "what original jewish bible is that?"