Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[*Deidre*]

What's your point though, discipulus?

If we all come to our senses and post....''praise da lawd, we're all saved...thank you discipulus!''

Is that what you're looking for?

[discipulus]

*face palm*
An incredible display of ignorance regarding the difference between the scientific method and the apologist's narrow (mis)understanding of the historical method.

You too are perilously close to an ad hominem.

This is to be expected.

My friend, I am well aware of what the scientific method is as well as historiography.

But since none of what you wrote in any way undercuts or rebuts my statement, which is a statement of fact i.e. that people defend the pursuits of science, it can be dismissed.

In fact, I can be charitable and agree for the sake of your argument that Christian apologists (I assume you mean this when using the word "apologist") are ignorant narrow minded imbeciles.

I would ask:

So what? How does that rebut or undercut my statement that people defend the pursuits of science?

It does'nt.

It is a red herring.

**********************

***Yawn****

Ehh.....well my friends, I am about to get in the shower.....toodles for now.....

[*Deidre*]

I KNEW you were going to go in this direction with that, well not verbatim.

The key difference of course, in 'defending' a scientific position

I did not say people have defended and are defending scientific positions.

Here we go....

What I stated was that people have defended and are defending science. To do this systematically, theses apologists cannot use science but must use other means at attempting to defend it because to say science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because of what we have discovered using science would be to argue in a circle. This is a fallacy known as a tautology.

Give an example, if u don't mind.

So you actually have just constructed a strawman of my statement.

No, you put your spin on things, as usual.

Apologetics is the systematic defense of a particular position irrespective of whether it is secular or religious. That is all it is. Yes there are apologists who deal with defending their particular religious views. So what? There are scientists who are apologists who deal with defending the pursuits of science.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Nothing you said either undercuts or rebuts my argument.

I'm waiting for a valid argument from you, but ok.

You have not read the works of too many scientists then.

Presumptious and arrogant FTW!

Ain't that amazing Deidre!!!

Not all of us Christians are so dumb after all! : )

Praise da lawd, st. discipulus is here!

[discipulus]

What's your point though, discipulus?

If we all come to our senses and post....''praise da lawd, we're all saved...thank you discipulus!''

Is that what you're looking for?

One of my reasons for being here is to show you that a person can be a Christian and can also at the same time love philosophy, science, rational discourse, and logical reasoning.

The misconception that Christians are naive, ignorant, superstitious, unthinking, uncritical, gullible poor souls is one that needs to be corrected.

That is one reason why I am here.

[Mudhammam]

But since none of what you wrote in any way undercuts or rebuts my statement, which is a statement of fact

Enter straw man:

i.e. that people defend the pursuits of science, it can be dismissed.

In fact, I can be charitable and agree for the sake of your argument that Christian apologists (I assume you mean this when using the word "apologist") are ignorant narrow minded imbeciles.

I prefer the term "deluded" but if we're going for more colorful language I'm happy with Big-Footers or UFO abductees, though admittedly those claims are more likely than any uniquely Christian belief.

[truthBtold]

What's your point though, discipulus?

If we all come to our senses and post....''praise da lawd, we're all saved...thank you discipulus!''

Is that what you're looking for?

One of my reasons for being here is to show you that a person can be a Christian and can also at the same time love philosophy, science, rational discourse, and logical reasoning.

The misconception that Christians are naive, ignorant, superstitious, unthinking, uncritical, gullible poor souls is one that needs to be corrected.

That is one reason why I am here.

U just said u were going in the shower.. did u even use soap?

[*Deidre*]

One of my reasons for being here is to show you that a person can be a Christian and can also at the same time love philosophy, science, rational discourse, and logical reasoning.

I agree.

The misconception that Christians are naive, ignorant, superstitious, unthinking, uncritical, gullible poor souls is one that needs to be corrected.

That's only thought of about Christians, when they debate using irrational arguments. I don't think you or anyone who is religious is gullible. I think you just put your hope in the wrong things. You put your time and money into the wrong things, therefore. Your zeal for a god that may or may not exist, could be put into your fellow man...you don't need a ''middle man'' to help mankind, discipulus. Another falsehood preached by religion.

IMHO.

[discipulus]

Give an example, if u don't mind.

Example 1. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word.

Example 2. Science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because science tells us that it is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in.

Religious apologetics are defending something that can't be proven. Verified. You know this.

Scientist who defend science are defending something they cannot prove then Deidre. Why? Because you cannot use science to say science is reliable. It is arguing in a circle.

[*Deidre*]

One of my reasons for being here is to show you that a person can be a Christian and can also at the same time love philosophy, science, rational discourse, and logical reasoning.

The misconception that Christians are naive, ignorant, superstitious, unthinking, uncritical, gullible poor souls is one that needs to be corrected.

That is one reason why I am here.

U just said u were going in the shower.. did u even use soap?

[Mudhammam]

Example 1. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is God's word.

Example 2. Science is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in because science tells us that it is a reliable means of learning about the world we live in.

And science makes predictions based on those means that can be verified, tested, re-tested, and most importantly, proven wrong. Have you ever taken a science class by any chance?