Welcome Rob. As Neko said, please make yourself at home and introduce yourself.
I still can only see the two options that I offered as possibilities. The first option is for the snake handlers and believers in tongues and faith healing. Such people are do divorced from reality I don't see any way to get through to them.
The second option may be unpalatable to the moderate Christian but the magic-packed nature of Acts leaves little other option. The tale of the apostles' post-Jesus adventures are so saturated with magic and angelic intervention that the story wouldn't be recognizable without them.
Perhaps my conclusion was blunt, perhaps even rude, but politeness isn't the issue here. Is there a viable third option? If not, suger-coating the dilemma would only obfuscate the point.
For the next few paragraphs, let me state that I know you don't believe any of these arguments. I'm not arguing with you but clarifying what I would say when presenting these arguments.
I'm always ready to call bullshit when this rewrite of history is offered. The Renascence and Age of Enlightenment weren't because of Christianity but in spite of Christianity. It was only when the monolithic power of the Catholic Church was splintered in the Reformation that intellectuals and scientists had the room to maneuver they needed. Make no mistake, the Protestants, though they were useful in offsetting the power of the Church, proved to be just as abusive and anti-intellectual as their Catholic rivals. in fact, these days the Catholics are actually more progressive in many areas.
Non sequitur. This fallacious reasoning is akin to American conservatives who note the piety of America and assume America's status as a superpower is the result of God's blessing and reward for our piety (and not, say, to a variety of worldly explanations too lengthy to go into). The spurious assumption that the Christian faith is responsible for the Renascence and Enlightenment but had no blame for the fall of Rome or the subsequent Dark Ages is a bare assertion that doesn't stand up to close examination.
However, even if it WERE true that Christianity offered a useful framework by which a society could develop a superior rational approach that led to the explosion of learning as Europe emerged from the Golden Age of Christianity (a.k.a. The Dark Ages), this would have nothing to do with the truth of Christian claims. I believe Jesus' alleged admonishment that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us is an effective basis for evaluating morality (similar to the social contract). This does not mean we can logically leap from "Jesus was right about that" to "Jesus must be God".
Positive consequences don't necessarily mean the argument is logically sound. Also, one must be careful not to assume causation is always behind correlation.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn tells me she's not impressed by this line of reasoning.
I need a whole different thread to discuss the Trilemma. Putting it on the cue...
No need to apologize. I understand that this medium can seem more harsh than intended and appreciate that you understand this as well. Occasionally I can be a bit rough around the edges but this is only because I see the debate as a wood chipper that ideas are tossed into. The ones that remain intact are the ones that should be embraced. I've also startled some people with my ability to turn on a dime and admit that I'm wrong and the other person is right if presented with evidence or sound arguments I hadn't heard before.
(January 16, 2012 at 11:01 pm)rbumbalough Wrote: 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.
I still can only see the two options that I offered as possibilities. The first option is for the snake handlers and believers in tongues and faith healing. Such people are do divorced from reality I don't see any way to get through to them.
The second option may be unpalatable to the moderate Christian but the magic-packed nature of Acts leaves little other option. The tale of the apostles' post-Jesus adventures are so saturated with magic and angelic intervention that the story wouldn't be recognizable without them.
Perhaps my conclusion was blunt, perhaps even rude, but politeness isn't the issue here. Is there a viable third option? If not, suger-coating the dilemma would only obfuscate the point.
For the next few paragraphs, let me state that I know you don't believe any of these arguments. I'm not arguing with you but clarifying what I would say when presenting these arguments.
Quote:a) Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization and the Renascence,
I'm always ready to call bullshit when this rewrite of history is offered. The Renascence and Age of Enlightenment weren't because of Christianity but in spite of Christianity. It was only when the monolithic power of the Catholic Church was splintered in the Reformation that intellectuals and scientists had the room to maneuver they needed. Make no mistake, the Protestants, though they were useful in offsetting the power of the Church, proved to be just as abusive and anti-intellectual as their Catholic rivals. in fact, these days the Catholics are actually more progressive in many areas.
Quote:and thus is self validating because Western Civilization is self validating;
Non sequitur. This fallacious reasoning is akin to American conservatives who note the piety of America and assume America's status as a superpower is the result of God's blessing and reward for our piety (and not, say, to a variety of worldly explanations too lengthy to go into). The spurious assumption that the Christian faith is responsible for the Renascence and Enlightenment but had no blame for the fall of Rome or the subsequent Dark Ages is a bare assertion that doesn't stand up to close examination.
However, even if it WERE true that Christianity offered a useful framework by which a society could develop a superior rational approach that led to the explosion of learning as Europe emerged from the Golden Age of Christianity (a.k.a. The Dark Ages), this would have nothing to do with the truth of Christian claims. I believe Jesus' alleged admonishment that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us is an effective basis for evaluating morality (similar to the social contract). This does not mean we can logically leap from "Jesus was right about that" to "Jesus must be God".
Positive consequences don't necessarily mean the argument is logically sound. Also, one must be careful not to assume causation is always behind correlation.
Quote:and b) that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit makes evangelical-fundamentalist-Bible inerrantist belief properly basic alleviating any need for evidentiary support.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn tells me she's not impressed by this line of reasoning.
Quote:Price presents a thorough refutation of C.S. Lewis' famous Trilemma argument. Evangelicals love the Trilemma.
I need a whole different thread to discuss the Trilemma. Putting it on the cue...
Quote: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.
No need to apologize. I understand that this medium can seem more harsh than intended and appreciate that you understand this as well. Occasionally I can be a bit rough around the edges but this is only because I see the debate as a wood chipper that ideas are tossed into. The ones that remain intact are the ones that should be embraced. I've also startled some people with my ability to turn on a dime and admit that I'm wrong and the other person is right if presented with evidence or sound arguments I hadn't heard before.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
