(January 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.
OK, so the Christian has two choices:
1. Believe that such magic is possible for mortals and that angels do get personally involved in real life, in which case you are so loony that there's no point in having a rational conversation with you.
2. Admit that the Book of Acts is kind of fanciful and shouldn't be regarded as a historical document.
And before anyone whines about my "prejudice against the supernatural", all I'm doing is operating by the same rules we all do in every day life. ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you don't lend the same credence to the supernatural claims of other religions, you should understand why I don't let such credence to yours.
Hello. This message comes from Robert Bumbalough. I'm a strong or positive Atheist. The God of Classical Theism cannot exist. It is impossible. Please don't think I'm acting hateful due to my comments. I see problems with both the offered choices and the proffered pre-rebuttal.
Number one would be more appropriately worded if it directly invited the Bible inerrantist to step outside. Why taunt if the goal is to engage in reasoned dialogue? Getting Bible inerrantists to accept and own number two is a laudable goal. However, since evangelical and fundamentalist faiths function as Shibboleths guarding doorways into particular societies enmeshed in a cultural matrix roughly identified by religious acolytes-practitioners as Western Civilization, their cultural inertia will prompt them to recoil in horror from the raw suggestion of number two.
DeistPaladin's invocation of Sagan's extraordinary claims principle comes close to John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith . The reader of Loftus' blog will notice how Christian believers who are Bible inerrantists will dodge the OTF and deny they have any responsibility to avoid employing a double epistemic standard, viz-a-vie comparison against other religious faiths, with a set of excuses that reduce to a) Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization and the Renascence, and thus is self validating because Western Civilization is self validating; and b) that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit makes evangelical-fundamentalist-Bible inerrantist belief properly basic alleviating any need for evidentiary support. Using (a) and (b) to side step Sagan, they go on their merry, snarky way hurling passive aggressive smears at those pesky atheist folk. To get envangelical Bible inerrantist types, to accept option Two their defenses (a) and (b) would have to be undermined. I'm not qualified to undertake (a), but there is a strategy to accomplish (b).
I've recently read Prices "The Case Against The Case For Christ". On pages 181-184 Price presents a thorough refutation of C.S. Lewis' famous Trilemma argument. Evangelicals love the Trilemma. However, it presupposes the Heresy of Apollinaris of Laodicea. (Jesus had a human body, human soul, but had the Divine Mind Of the Logos Son.) Heresy is a serious Sin in Christian religions. Millions of Bible inerrantist, evangelical Christians have used the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" rejoinder without any conviction of guilt due to the Sin of Heresy via the alleged Holy Spirit. Neither did C.S. Lewis when he authored it. This in and of itself is strong evidence there is not any higher power at work in the lives of these people. Pointing out this as well as other alleged Sinful presuppositions in the thinking of Bible inerrantist, evangelical Christians seems to be a way to attack (b) as is the work of modern Neuro Science showing that all feelings a person experiences are the result of brain activity. Well, FWIW, that's what I think, and I've bored the reader for too long.
None of what I have just typed was intended as any sort of ad hominem or appeal to authority. If it comes off that way, I apologize. I generally like everyone I meet and tend to think the best of them. Many thanks to the reader and best wishes too.
