quote='Rhythm' pid='150616' dateline='1309484214']
[/quote]
We already had this discussion before you got on here. It didn’t go anywhere. I produced evidence that atheists would not accept for the exodus, they produced evidence against it that I wouldn’t accept. So I am not really going to open up that can of worms again.
Viewing the Bible as historically inaccurate is actually a minority position and really is not one you should hang your hat on.
I am a bit shocked you even said this. I put Dawkins way above Hitchens. Sure Hitch is a gifted speaker and can make an occasional funny from time to time but that In no way makes him a good debater. He side steps issues, makes similar arguments in every single debate, and overall is just pretty weak. A classic example would be in his debate with Douglas Wilson where Wilson points out that Hitchens actually has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. Wilson made an analogy that it would be similar to stealing a car and driving it into the ditch and then saying, “Look your car is in the ditch!” Rather than addressing his point, Hitchens just made a “funny” with the analogy. “Actually I found the Christian car in the ditch.” The crowd laughed and the debate moved on, but when you actually think about it, did he even address the issue that he was borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to attack it? Of course not, that’s what he does, bobs and weaves. I am looking forward to seeing the debate between Lennox and Hitchens, I love Lennox.
Every premise you ever put forth begins with the assumption that the Bible is false, so don't pretend that you are some neutral observer.
What are you referring to?
Careful with Ehrman though, the guy refuses to debate other Biblical Scholars and Historians on his claims, he acts like a dishonest man to me
You harp on someone for giving an opinion (even though he did back it up with facts), but then you proceed to give an opinion which you have never backed up with fact (the that Bible is internally inconsistent)?
We already had this discussion before you got on here. It didn’t go anywhere. I produced evidence that atheists would not accept for the exodus, they produced evidence against it that I wouldn’t accept. So I am not really going to open up that can of worms again.
Viewing the Bible as historically inaccurate is actually a minority position and really is not one you should hang your hat on.
(June 30, 2011 at 9:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote:
I am a bit shocked you even said this. I put Dawkins way above Hitchens. Sure Hitch is a gifted speaker and can make an occasional funny from time to time but that In no way makes him a good debater. He side steps issues, makes similar arguments in every single debate, and overall is just pretty weak. A classic example would be in his debate with Douglas Wilson where Wilson points out that Hitchens actually has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. Wilson made an analogy that it would be similar to stealing a car and driving it into the ditch and then saying, “Look your car is in the ditch!” Rather than addressing his point, Hitchens just made a “funny” with the analogy. “Actually I found the Christian car in the ditch.” The crowd laughed and the debate moved on, but when you actually think about it, did he even address the issue that he was borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to attack it? Of course not, that’s what he does, bobs and weaves. I am looking forward to seeing the debate between Lennox and Hitchens, I love Lennox.
(June 30, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Every premise you ever put forth begins with the assumption that the Bible is false, so don't pretend that you are some neutral observer.
(June 30, 2011 at 10:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote:
What are you referring to?
(July 1, 2011 at 8:48 am)Ziggystardust Wrote:
Careful with Ehrman though, the guy refuses to debate other Biblical Scholars and Historians on his claims, he acts like a dishonest man to me
(July 1, 2011 at 9:23 am)Rhythm Wrote:.
You harp on someone for giving an opinion (even though he did back it up with facts), but then you proceed to give an opinion which you have never backed up with fact (the that Bible is internally inconsistent)?