Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Erm, the Ancient Sumerians, Indians, and Spartans were all Christians? Really? REALLY?

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

Ugh, Wikipedia? Again?

Those are hardly similar to the form of modern Democratic Republic we see today. In the late 1700s at least two thirds of the American colonies were run by Calvinists, it was their views on individual freedom, providence, checks and balances, the relationship between church and state, constitutional governments, and human rights that helped form our very own Democratic Republic. Just take a look at how Calvin constructed the Presbyterian Church in Geneva; it was a novel approach at the time but was run very similar to the way we run our government today. It’s pretty disgusting how you all act as if someone uses the name of religion to commit an atrocity it is religion’s fault but if someone uses their religion to create some wonderful and monumental it is not religion’s fault. You can’t have it both ways.

It's okay if it's an uncomfortable question for you. Apparently one of the "greatest christian reformers of all time" was all about executing heretics. How about you?

Oh! So Calvin didn’t ever actually execute anyone like you initially claimed? So were you lying or just wrong?

By the way, RE the whole christianity and science thing. Once you've been corrected, and you continue to repeat such a statement, it's called lying (in your case, lying for jesus).

Where was I corrected? I backed up my assertion (one that even Dawkins agrees with). This ought to be fun though, given your atheistic worldview why is it “wrong” for someone to lie? (Now don’t pull the old, “If you don’t know why it’s wrong to lie I don’t have to explain it to you!” canard. I know why it’s wrong to lie; I want to know why you think it is wrong)

(you know you never answered my question about how you knew you were one of the elect btw)

Actually I already did, you must have missed it.

Appeal to Popularity and Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Nope, you stated that the burden of proof was on the extraordinary claim. So I used the actual definition of “extraordinary” to show that the burden of proof is on you since claiming that miracles cannot happen is by definition the extraordinary claim since a majority of people (the ordinary position by definition) believe miracles can and do happen.

As an aside, do you know what they call supernatural occurrences that are proven to be real?
Natural occurrences.

Your naturalism seeps through.

And if I did, you'd be skeptical, right? You play by the same rules in all other areas of life. You just hold Christian claims to a different standard.

Nope, because I would not be skeptical for the reasons you would be skeptical. Different means arriving at the same result.

No non-Christian books though, right? The Muslim Haddiths and the Iliad are not among them, right?

Correct.

If these quotes are representative of scholarly consensus, it's a sad reflection of our society and an indication we're far from being that rational society.

Moving the goalposts I see. You asked for some names of people who held Luke in high regard so I gave you some. If you had actually asked for quotes from the majority of scholars today I would have told you to go pound sand because that’s a ridiculous request. So if I have to provide quotes from the majority of scholars in order to prove something can you please demonstrate to me that a majority of biologists alive today accept Darwinian Evolution?

The stone was rolled away after they arrived.

Where does it say that? It just says they went to the tomb and the stone was rolled away by an earthquake, it never says this happened after they had arrived at the tomb, it probably happened while they were en route.
A. Women leave to go and see the tomb
B. A great earthquake moves the stone and scares the guards
C. The women arrive at the tomb and the angel sitting on the stone speaks to them.

That order of events matches up perfectly with all of the gospels, I am surprised you even tried with this one, there are far better issues we could be discussing.

Ramsay, an apologist, died 1939.

Blaiklock, an apologist, died 1983.

Society is safe Deist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Musgrave_Blaiklock

Is Wikipedia your homepage? It’s too bad you either didn’t read the article or you misrepresented it, here are Ramsay’s actual accomplishments.

“Educated at Oxford, Ramsay held several prestigious professorships, including "First Professor of Classical Archaeology" and "Lincoln and Merton Professorship of Classical Archaeology and Art" at Oxford, and "Regius Professor of Humanity" at the University of Aberdeen. He received gold medals from Pope Leo XII, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Geographical Society, and the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, and was knighted in 1906.
He was the first Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford University and pioneered the study of antiquity in what is today western Turkey.”

Pretty impressive actually, the most impressive thing though is that he only became a Christian Apologist after he had set out on an archeological quest to disprove the Bible and was converted because of all that he found that substantiated the Bible. So he was an atheist when he was ignorant of the evidence and a Christian after he examined the evidence, sounds about right.