Fuxxake, Randy, if you're going to irony at least give a warning. I very nearly choked on my drink there.

Really, Randy? Really? Wet Lizard Crap? REALLY?

Come the fuck on ._.

Randy, you're not proving anything in this thread other than your willingness to uncritically accept the validity of Biblical stories simply because they're in The Bible. You wouldn't accept similar arguments from someone with a different holy book so your expectation that any of us should find this compelling is misplaced and hypocritical.

(June 30, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Cato Wrote: Mark's silence doesn't prove anything in and of itself

Thank you.

Quote mining is not "quoting others accurately" Clear violation of rule 14.

Quote:14. Quoting Others Accurately
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but may not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule may result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned, banned, or have your post edited to indicate the violation and / or amend the misquote. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (i.e. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the additions are yours and not the quoted member's, and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text. Use of textual alteration for the purpose of parody may be allowed, provided it is clear that the changes have been made to the original quote. In the case of ambiguity, staff will err on the side of preserving the author's original words rather than preserving your artistic license. If in doubt, include the phrase "Changes made to original quotation." at the top of your post. Staff reserve the right to consider misquotations on a case-by-case basis, weighing context and additional factors.

(July 1, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Godschild Wrote: Some may have, but a great many atheist here have said they would not serve the God of the Bible even if He appeared to them.

Let's clarify this claim a bit shall we? The only atheists I've seen here that make this claim are saying they wouldn't serve or worship the gawd described in the christer buy-bull because it's described as such a narcissistic monster. Can I imaging a god I would willingly, even joyfully serve? Sure. The christer faith doesn't believe in one because the christer holy book doesn't describe one.

(July 3, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I would recommend reading William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith if you have not already done so.

You're still using WLC as a reasonable source? You really are desperate Randy.

(July 3, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Given your intellect, I would recommend reading William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith if you have not already done so. He gets a bad rap from folks in this forum, but I don't really think the negativity is deserved. The man is well-educated, highly intelligent and articulate. Even if you don't agree with him, you will undoubtedly enjoy being challenged by him.

So, I just wanna be real clear here: you bitch us all out on a routine basis (based on nothing, but that's a conversation you're avoiding in another thread) for having presuppositions against your position... and yet you'll recommend the work of a man who is on record, in writing and on film, numerous times, confirming his own presuppositions in this area, something that you would and have dismissed the words of others here for.

So, I mean... fuck, right? If you were being consistent to your own positions you'd have to dismiss everything WLC says out of hand, right? It's what you did to Cato on the basis of presuppositions you merely assert to exist, and here you have a set of presuppositions I can confirm to you in writing and video in a matter of minutes; why the hypocrisy?

(June 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: It's time for an honest answer, Esq:

Why did Mark have a character in his narrative say, "He is risen!" if Mark thought Jesus' body was still in the tomb?

The honest answer is that I neither know nor care: I don't have sufficient evidence to consider that book an accurate historical record, and even if I did I certainly don't have reason to take those beliefs to be an accurate representation of what objectively happened.

My point was that I can make up answers to that question that have the same level of evidence behind them as yours, and have the added benefit of being immediately confirmed as possible, yet you'll dismiss them, while still accepting the potentially impossible answer that you like. You asked for an honest answer, but you dismissed the one I gave even though it's more probable than the one you believe, so what's the point?

(July 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Godschild Wrote: Some may have, but a great many atheist here have said they would not serve the God of the Bible even if He appeared to them.

Let's clarify this claim a bit shall we? The only atheists I've seen here that make this claim are saying they wouldn't serve or worship the gawd described in the christer buy-bull because it's described as such a narcissistic monster. Can I imaging a god I would willingly, even joyfully serve? Sure. The christer faith doesn't believe in one because the christer holy book doesn't describe one.

What's to clarify, I said the God of the Bible and they did say if He were to appear before them, seems I stated as it was stated by them.

GC

(July 3, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Given your intellect, I would recommend reading William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith if you have not already done so. He gets a bad rap from folks in this forum, but I don't really think the negativity is deserved. The man is well-educated, highly intelligent and articulate. Even if you don't agree with him, you will undoubtedly enjoy being challenged by him.

So, I just wanna be real clear here: you bitch us all out on a routine basis (based on nothing, but that's a conversation you're avoiding in another thread) for having presuppositions against your position... and yet you'll recommend the work of a man who is on record, in writing and on film, numerous times, confirming his own presuppositions in this area, something that you would and have dismissed the words of others here for.

So, I mean... fuck, right? If you were being consistent to your own positions you'd have to dismiss everything WLC says out of hand, right? It's what you did to Cato on the basis of presuppositions you merely assert to exist, and here you have a set of presuppositions I can confirm to you in writing and video in a matter of minutes; why the hypocrisy?

I'm waffling on whether you are on my ignore list, Esq, but you've asked a fair question which deserves an answer.

In another thread, I pointed out that Cato was arguing based upon his presuppositions. Oddly, since Cato cannot be an evidentialist, folks have taken issue with that. So, now you think I'm being hypocritical for recommending William Lane Craig. I'm not.

Is Craig a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist? He has said:

Quote:"Presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists, therefore God exists.' A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything."(Five Views on Apologetics, 233.)

Have you ever read Reasonable Faith? How many of Craig's debates have you watched on YouTube? Have you studied the transcripts? Craig argues as an evidentialist, Esq...not as a presuppositionalist.

Does that mean that he (and I) don't have presuppositions? Probably not. But in the course of his apologetics work, it is clear that he is focused on providing evidence from which it may be deduced that the resurrection of Jesus is the MOST REASONABLE conclusion in terms of explanatory scope and power, etc. of all the facts that is available.

And, of course, this has nothing to do with whether someone would enjoy reading Craig's book.