Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, the burden isn't on me. The burden is on the one who would suggest that miracles can or do happen. Just because you call a lack of belief in miracles an extraordinary claim doesn't mean that it is.

You are right, just because I say it doesn’t make it so. However, since the term “extraordinary” is defined as something out of the ordinary, the position that miracles cannot and do not happen is extraordinary since the majority of people hold the position that they can and do happen this is by definition the ordinary position and claim. So according to you, if you hold the extraordinary position that miracles cannot happen you must provide extraordinary evidence to support this position, to date I have seen not even ordinary evidence provided.

You just go on believing that.

I don’t merely believe it to be so; I know it to be so and can demonstrate it to be so.

Ah, their holy books contradict your holy book so it must not be true. Special pleading? You're soaking in it.

You keep using that phrase; I don’t think it means what you think it means lol. You have demonstrated that you reject anything a priori that directly contradicts your naturalistic worldview (such as defining any supernatural occurrence that is observed as a natural occurrence), so don’t’ hate me for doing what you do.

Did I? I don't remember this. I remember saying "who says Luke is a historian?" but that was more an exclamation along the lines of "who the hell believes this crap?"

So then why reject him as a historian? I am smelling circularity!

If rational thinking prevails, no.
If religious thinking prevails, they won't be laughing but screaming for me to be imprisoned, tortured and executed.

False dichotomy between religious thinking people and rational thinking people, a person can be either, a person can be both, and a person can be neither. After all it was you who could not provide an account for the laws of logic given your worldview, that’s hardly a rational position.

Any biologist who rejects evolution isn't a biologist any more than a doctor who accepts "healing crystals" is really a doctor. If you extend the definition of a profession to include quackery, it's an insult to the profession.

The no true Scotsman fallacy rears its ugly head! Accepting the general theory of evolution has nothing to do with the definition of “biologist” (a specialist the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena), your claims to be rational are beginning to look more than just laughable.

And no, this isn't "no true scotsman" as evolution is so intertwined in the study of biology that the field would make no sense except in light of evolution.

Oh snap! Then how can the USDA employ my coworker as a GS 11 FISH BIOLOGIST if he rejects Darwinian Evolution? It is the no true Scotsman; nothing in the definition of being a biologist says they must accept any specific theory of life’s origins. So what would you say if I said, “You cannot be a Biologist and not believe in creation because life itself makes no sense unless looked at through the lenses of creation.”?

It doesn't say that. In fact the order of events implies otherwise. They came. Stone rolled. Angel talked.

Talk about reading into the text what is not there, where does it say they arrived at the tomb before the stone was rolled away? It only says they went to see the tomb on the morning of the Sabbath.

No matter how many times you ask that it won't ever change what I actually posted.

Well let’s look at what you acutally did post shall we?

“You guys were so busy executing each other (John Calvin ftw!) you forgot about all those damned heretics and their science.”

So you used Calvin’s name after saying Christians were too busy executing one another, so were you wrong about Calvin executing anyone or just lying?

Archaeology is just a tad bit more precise today than it was in '39, I'm sorry that your fairy tale turned out to be a fairy tale.

Fallacious appeal to novelty. A more convincing case could be made that the closer you are to a source in time the better you can conduct historical analysis on it, bummer for you though.

It's embarrassing when people bring up your cults dirty laundry (and I say that as a human being embarrassed of another human being), so I completely understand if you aren't willing to face Calvin's words on the matter. Calvin of course forwarded his private correspondence with Servitus to the "authorities" (both men wrote to each other in an effort to convince the other of their theology) which secured his execution. Calvin was not in favor of burning btw, he suggested beheading.

Not stopping a state sponsored execution is hardly “dirty laundry” considering what atheists have done in the last century. Wait, but you said Calvin actually executed someone, so were you being dishonest or just wrong? Calvin spent every day of Servetus’ imprisonment pleading with him to save himself, but Servetus refused and the authorities at the time (who were Calvin’s theological opponents mind you) executed him. Calvin pleaded for beheading because it was a far more humane and painless form of execution than burning, the authorities ignored Calvin on that point too. So nice try, but you are grasping at straws on this one.

Servitus was the only person put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime, making him one of the most ardent supporters (and indeed co-conspirators) of a very unique act of murderous bigotry.

What!? You acted like the reformers were executing one another daily, and now you say that Servetus was the only one? Nobody was ever executed for heresy while Calvin was in power in Geneva.

Both men were in Geneva seeking religious asylum from the Catholic Church, which makes it all the more upsetting that in this case Calvin maintained a united front with the very same. In all likelihood (and this was the contention of the time) it was a political move, his condemnation being integral to the removal of an ideological adversary.

Source?

In 1903 a plaque was placed in his honor, repudiating Calvin's mistake (by Calvinists). So I guess that only took about 450 years. Here's to hoping the rest of his legacy ends up on a public apology commemorated by a plaque somewhere.

Apologizing for something Calvin didn’t do seems kind of silly. I also don't see why I should apologize for him influencing the separation of church and state, checks and balances and democratically elected representation since those do not seem to be too horrible of a legacy to leave. You are hilarious.

You can play revisionist all you like,

No thanks, you’ve done enough of that for the both of us.

I already know that you're a bigot,

Bearing false witness again I see. Given your worldview why would being a bigot be a bad thing? Since you apparently could not answer my question about lying I will ask you this one instead.

I was asking you if it extended to murder (as it did for Calvin)?

Who did Calvin murder?

You owe Shell an apology btw. Pointlessly comparing her morality to Jeffrey Dahmer's

I owe her nothing, she made the comparison when she said that nobody owns her and she can make up her own morality, when she said this it sounded very familiar to me then I realized I had heard it before but from Dahmer, so I just pointed out that Dahmer said the exact same thing. If that is somehow offensive then maybe you two should both adopt a belief system that is not on the same sheet of music as Dahmer.

Dick.

That’s not my name.