The Bible and its fallacies and contradictions

[Caecilian]

Hmm I agree and I wasn't impressed so much by that article, and you highlight it's weaknesses admirably. But I give Arcanus credit knowing him from previous encounters. Thanks for your answer.

Yeah, well, its always easier to attack someone else's views than to come up with constructive ideas of your own.

You obviously know Arcanus pretty well, and I respect your opinion, so maybe I'm being unfair.

[tackattack]

@Caecillian- Try reading some of what arcaus has written on here. I've never been to the other site, but on here I've known him to be quite logical, knowledgable and intellectually honest. And I won't speak for him, but to my knowledge he's not a young earth fundamental creationist.

Getting back on topic
@superstar- I've never not had a selfless prayer answered.

[tavarish]

The only thing I can contribute as far as Arcanus' texts are that he tries very hard to obfuscate points by using frames of reference not usually utilized in regular dialogue. He doesn't outline his point outright, he just makes a case against the point he's writing about, whatever it may be - so far it has been epistemology, abortion, or any other thing that's on a Christian's agenda.

He's a true apologetic, more interested in falsifying the point of the other guy, or at least arguing until they give up, rather than establishing his own views.

I spoke with him on the "If science, why God" on skype, and we spent 2 hours going around in circles because of semantics and the fact that his presuppositionalist mindset did not allow him to assess the validity of the very thing he was assuming to be true, as he regarded that it would be unscientific in any case to do so and wouldn't comport with his other preconceptions of truth.

[Caecilian]

---

The only thing I can contribute as far as Arcanus' texts are that he tries very hard to obfuscate points by using frames of reference not usually utilized in regular dialogue. He doesn't outline his point outright, he just makes a case against the point he's writing about, whatever it may be - so far it has been epistemology, abortion, or any other thing that's on a Christian's agenda.

He's a true apologetic, more interested in falsifying the point of the other guy, or at least arguing until they give up, rather than establishing his own views.

I spoke with him on the "If science, why God" on skype, and we spent 2 hours going around in circles because of semantics and the fact that his presuppositionalist mindset did not allow him to assess the validity of the very thing he was assuming to be true, as he regarded that it would be unscientific in any case to do so and wouldn't comport with his other preconceptions of truth.

---

Well, Arcanus is a presuppositionalist (I think I've spelled that right), which means that he's more interested in arguing against metaphysical naturalism than for anything in particular. The presups think that by 'disproving' naturalism, they can somehow 'prove' the existence of god, which of course doesn't follow at all.

In common with other presups, he's fixated by C.S. Lewis' 'Argument from Reason' and its various mutations. Imo its a very weak argument, based on the fallacy of composition. Still, its apparently pretty popular in some theist circles. Talk about clutching at straws...

[superstarr]

@Caecillian- Try reading some of what arcaus has written on here. I've never been to the other site, but on here I've known him to be quite logical, knowledgable and intellectually honest. And I won't speak for him, but to my knowledge he's not a young earth fundamental creationist.

Getting back on topic
@superstar- I've never not had a selfless prayer answered.

Did god really answer you? Or was it answered through yourself? The answers some of you think of aren't answers from god, but answers from your own mind.

And this topic wasn't meant to simply discuss what I wrote down, also for discussion on other fallacies and contradictions the bible has.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

@frodo so you're basically just giving Arcanus credit for being Christian despite his horrible ideas?

[fr0d0]

No lol I give Arcanus credit on everything else he says that he actually has a good point to make as is consistent for him. His attack on science as a religious stance I listen to and take note of as potentially correct as he points out. I might disagree on some points. There is no problem there.

Christians are completely at liberty to have horrible ideas. Are those ideas Christian is the question. I see evidence for Arcanus being a Christian, and give assent to what is written in that spirit.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I see evidence for Arcanus being a Christian, and give assent to what is written in that spirit.

you see evidence for Arcanus being a Christian? no waiii

it's not even potentially correct. how could his whole 'battery is to flashlight as Christianity is to science' even be potentially correct?

[fr0d0]

It's not beyond my intellect to see what Arcanus was trying to say. I don't have to hang on his every word, and declare every word the utterance of the divine to consider him a Christian. I'm sure he'd be flattered for you to think he deserved such adulation, whilst at the same time put you straight on his own fallibility.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

i'm sorry. I thought you were giving him kudos for being Christian even though he has a bad idea. I didn't think that his being Christian was exactly on your mind, though. When an atheist has a bad idea, I call them out even if they've had good ideas about other things. You know what: I'm sure you do the same so there was no point in even bringing it up. sorry again fallibility... you know.

If in his analogy he was trying to say 'well, without Christianity there is no 'explanation' for our senses (that God gave us) thus science becomes meaningless'... it's still a bad idea because you could use any theism to solve that problem not necessarily Christianity.