I think...

[Watson]

I don't.

[Xyster]

LOL @ CONTEXT

I have a definition of context that I have written on the back of my old military bible

CONTEXT:The act of putting a candy coating on IT to make IT palatable.
it=scripture

You can candy coat a Turd sandwich... It may taste better and you may be able to swallow it, but in the end you are still being fed a load of SHIT.

[Watson]

But you're the one who coated the candy in shit to begin with.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Again, you don't understand, so your points are moot about the Bible.

Appealing to that tired ad homimen reinforces my perception of your lack critical faculties.

You: "I appeal to authority"

Respondent" " I disagree on the basis of available evidence"

You: "That's because you're ignorant. (if you were completely au fait like my good self, you'd agree with me)"

My dear old grandmother observed that one of life's more interesting ironies was being patronised by the truly ignorant and stupid. This was rare until I began frequenting atheist internet forums and running across apologists of the lunar religious right..

[Watson]

Take a look at my other posts, and see why you're "I disagree on the basis of available evidence argument ultimately fails. You may be looking at some of the available evidence, but you are not looking at the correct evidence, and that is why you are not seeing what I see.

Do not think you are the first person to call me ignorant or stupid, my friend. It has been done before, and each time it only proves to me how truly looked down upon my views are. Where did I say I appeal to authority? Oh, and I love how on this forum I've been called an apologist several times. I don't even know what the tired old label means, and I am not one.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Where did I say I appeal to authority? Oh, and I love how on this forum I've been called an apologist several times. I don't even know what the tired old label means, and I am not one.

Huh? How on earth can you claim not to be something if you don't know what it is? THAT is a really stupid thing to say. Perhaps take the trouble to find out what it means.( EG : From The Concise Oxford Dictionary: "apologist:one who defends Christianity" )


You appeal to authority every time you use the bible as evidence.

You try defend Christianity by trying to put a positive spin on biblical content by the simple expedient of denying anything negative by claiming people either don't understand or are taking something out of context.Those are stereotypical apologist tactics.

I'm terribly sorry, a character flaw I know, but I'm simply unwilling to suffer fools,and right now,you take the biscuit on this forum. Can't be bothered with you.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

You seem to fit into the broad category of 'presuppositional apologetics'

Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as, Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "Transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach mentioned above is that the Presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, Presuppositionalists don't believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted (or, "brute") facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. In other words, they attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the allegedly unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of God. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.

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

[Minimalist]

but you are not looking at the correct evidence, and that is why you are not seeing what I see.

And if you saw (or claimed you saw) flying pink unicorns we would be expected to accept that they are "real" too? Because you said so?

[Watson]

Where did I say I appeal to authority? Oh, and I love how on this forum I've been called an apologist several times. I don't even know what the tired old label means, and I am not one.

Huh? How on earth can you claim not to be something if you don't know what it is? THAT is a really stupid thing to say. Perhaps take the trouble to find out what it means.( EG : From The Concise Oxford Dictionary: "apologist:one who defends Christianity" )

Ah, then in the sense that I defend Christianity, I suppose I am an apologist. But that does not mean I am confined t othe realm of thought for a so-called 'apologist' to have, hence my denial of the label.

You appeal to authority every time you use the bible as evidence.

I don't use the Bible as evidence. I use subjective experience and logical examination of that experience as evidence.

You try defend Christianity by trying to put a positive spin on biblical content by the simple expedient of denying anything negative by claiming people either don't understand or are taking something out of context.Those are stereotypical apologist tactics.

But the argument is valid if you honestly don't understand. I'm not ignoring the negative, in fact I bet if you gave me the most 'negative' Bible passages in their entirety as stories I could show you where you are wrong about each one. I could also write my own Bible within th esame vein as the Hly Bible one if I wanted to.

I'm terribly sorry, a character flaw I know, but I'm simply unwilling to suffer fools,and right now,you take the biscuit on this forum. Can't be bothered with you.

And if you saw (or claimed you saw) flying pink unicorns we would be expected to accept that they are "real" too? Because you said so?

I've never found a single shred of evidence to suggest that flying pink unicorns exist, so no.

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't use the Bible as evidence. I use subjective experience and logical examination of that experience as evidence.

There you go. Vacuum cleaning the house while listening to death metal on a headphone will produce better results of coherent thought.

[downbeatplumb]

Watson wrote 'I could also write my own Bible within the same vein as the Holy Bible one if I wanted to'.

So could any person but I'm sure you'd make a better job of it.
The bible as it stands is very badly written and just plain strange in places.
Lets start with 10 new commandments the ones in there at the moment are mostly shit