(November 2, 2011 at 7:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I find it more likely that you heard about presuppositionalism and found it a handy rationalization to believe the things that you already believed. If I'm wrong, you can feel free to go into greater detail.
What you arbitrarily find more or less likely is irrelevant. What I said happened is what happened.
Quote:I still can't find Jesus' copyright notice on reason or morality.
Your inability to justify such thing has helped me find it.
Quote:Hello.
Haha, don’t flatter yourself. All you have done is either say you don’t have to account for such things, or your only justification has been because you arbitrarily like the results. That’s hardly accounting for anything.
Quote:Moral justice can't allow for the innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment, even if the innocent were willing.
According to whom?
Quote: For a religion that claims the copyright on morality, it sure is morally bankrupt on even the simplest issues.
According to whom?
Quote:The fact that a brilliant person is a Christian lends no credibility to the Christian case, especially in ancient times when we didn't know much about how the universe really works and people were burned at the stake for openly rejecting Jesus. That is appeal to authority.
You are not paying attention; I never said that simply because great logicians have been Christians therefore Christianity is necessarily true. You implied that a person could not believe the teachings of Christianity and be rational, so I was merely pointing out that some of the greatest rationalists in human history have indeed believed in such teachings. You can’t confuse rationalism with naturalism; there are both irrational naturalists and rational non-naturalists.
