Nope. I prefer to base my decisions on logical facts and logical inferences, as much as possible.

What with half my face covered by my palm.

The argument for the resurrection reminds of William Lane Craig's arguments. And he is supposed to be one of the best debaters on the theist side of things. Frankly, I have never been impressed with the guy. Or now this article either.

That authors work reeks of desperation and piss.

Funny, I'm still not convinced.

his logic or his grammar

"But, on occasion, God do something new, to bring about an event which normally does not happen in the day to day running of the Universe. After all, isn’t it possible that God could have reason to do something extraordinary in his universe now and then? Couldn’t God cause an exception to the laws of nature?"

what?

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 09:20 PM - Edit history (1)

fly out of my butt?

I see why you can accept this as well.

all have rational explanations. And they all follow natural laws.

No kidding, I looked just like that baby. That's basically a higher resolution baby photo of me.

I am not a miracle.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I might even believe now.

Maybe.

To give an example:

Can you refund me my 8 minutes?

Well, OK, not really, I was playing a game at the same time.

The game was more productive than hearing this.

From the kind of people that atheists avoid talking about? Not those fundy, strict literalists. A maintstream believer.

wow! just wow.

BTW, I'm not sure I would call him a mainstream believer. He is unapologetically an evangelizer for christianity and for catholicism particularly, and very, very conservative when it comes to issues of gender equality, glbt rights and is particularly opposed to transsexualism. There are many reasons to dislike him, but I'm not sure this video highlights them.

In the video he takes to task some of the belittling and dismissive terms and approaches that some non-believers use, and I think he makes very valid points about them. He then goes on to describe the god he believes in and how it bears no resemblance to the mocking descriptions of god that some use.

There are lots of great examples of lame apologetics, and this article is one of them, but this video, not so much.

they are good points, I can't help. The pseudo-philosophical rambling is painful.

I was not aware of his politics, so I will accept he is not mainstream. Though I don't know who people consider a mainstream catholic giving a debate in favor of Gods existence.

I'm not really interested in debates about whether god exists or not, but I do take issue with those that dismiss and ridicule those that do believe.

His "pseudo-philosophical rambling" is not nearly as painful to me as the juvenile rantings and terms used to describe god by some that don't even believe.

has been refuted more times than I can count.

only counter the far out fundy extreme types of religion.

It was the other strawman that atheist don't address the God believers really believe in.

Are you feeling ok today?

Did I miss read your meaning.

are engaging in juvenile ranting, that's a straw man? And that it has been refuted more times than you can count? Please refute it because i must have missed that.

It's juvenile and the perfect example of trying to make others look smaller so one can look bigger.

thanks for clarifying. I did misread.

When I am snarky or abusive, at least I want to be so for the right reasons.

I have to go yell at you on another post.

said believing in fairies is as valid as not believing in them. Don't pretend you care about critical thinking or skepticism.

You know what they say about insanity don't you? Repeating the same the over and over and expecting a different result.

You have a nice night now, phil, and when you are ready to have a real conversation with me, don't hesitate to let me know.

as opposed to heterodox. He's mainstream with the leadership of the Church, and given its structure, that's all that matters.

As for the video, here's a breakdown and critique I'll throw together for this post:

First he references Herbert McCabe, talking about letting the atheist lay out an unspecified objection/denial of God, then agreeing with them. Note, this objection/denial(wording that's invalid for most atheists anyways), is not specified, we don't know what this argument is, but its the one all the "New" Atheists use, apparently.

He then changes subject, talking about how Richard Dawkins invented or used the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a belittling of theism. Note that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was an invention of one Bobby Henderson in 2005 as a lighthearted and satirical protest against the Kansas' State board of Education decision to allow the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism. No more offensive than "Festivus for the rest of us." but more topical.

Not to mention that what he's actually discussing is an argument that's actually pretty old, and predates Dawkins by many years, could have substituted the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any number of fantastical, impossible beings in, and they are all just as likely to exist as the Christian God. While there is a point of contention about what motivates someone to use language that can be construed as demeaning, it doesn't reflect the accuracy of the observations made.

He then talked about those car emblems, most parodies of the Ichthys, and he seems unaware that their are a LOT of them, not all the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hell, one was even created by Gene Roddenberry's son to show if you are a Star Trek fan. I might buy that one.

He then segues into talking about Thomas Merton and his conversion experience. Now, I'll be honest and say that my level of research into Merton's life is superficial, just browsing the his Wikipedia page. However, it does appear that, in his youth, he was raised nominally Catholic, but was content to remain mostly ambivalent and self label agnostic. It appears, from the quotes used, he simply didn't think about it much.

He references a book Thomas Merton apparently read, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, and said that Merton was surprised at the rich intellectual history of theology in Christian Europe. I would assume he wasn't properly Catechized at all.

He then gets into the absurdity of what God is, quoting Thomas Aquinas, that God is the "Sheer act of to be itself" rather than being a being, or the "biggest thing in the universe". He then goes into Sartre and other philosophers who argued that an interventionist god would make there presence more known. He then completely goes into word salad mode. God is "to be, to be" or "I am who I am". Its nonsensical, to be honest.

He then goes on to say that we have to define what we mean by God to have a conversation, but honestly, the definition he laid out is one no one can argue against, because it means nothing. Seriously, if you break it down, he said that God doesn't really exist, its a will unto itself, an impossible being, a square circle, etc. He also claims God isn't a thing in the world(assuming universe).

Then he goes into the weakest argument of them all, asking what atheists are looking for as evidence, physical traces of God's existence? Something to put under a microscope? You can do an experiment on it? He states these questions dismissively, but I would say yes to all those. Give me evidence, something testable, something concrete.

"There's no evidence for the architect of this room!" This statement of Barron's is false, there's plenty of evidence, the room is an artificial construction, at this point in time, the architect is most likely a human, possibly with some computer assistance, we can look them up, find them, look at them, hire them to build us that exact same room if wanted. Not to mention the room is a contrast with the natural world, which has naturalistic explanation. Its not a complete explanation, but an architect/creator of some sort may not be necessary at all. He, quite literally, falls back on the "Intelligent Design" argument, this video I picked for a reason, it was particularly lame, as far as apologetics go.

He's all about proselytizing and bugging the poor and downtrodden, along with everything else you said.

Color me unimpressed.

that atheists like Dawkins only address fundy, extreme religion and don't take on real theology like the writings of Aquinas.

When in fact, he does.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/258-why-there-is-no-god

It's from a really obscure Irish site that doesn't appear to have had any action since 2012. It is as lame as some of the anti-theist sites out there that teach you how to argue with a theist.

Your snarky comment says everything that needs to say about why you went to the trouble of posting this. No one is going to defend it but many will find a reason to attack it and use it as an excuse for mocking the "intelligent arguments among christians".

Great job! Bullseye.

no matter where it comes from. Ah, double standards.

with many likes.

with friends and family far afield. And you can pick who you want to friend or not.

You can limit your post to only be seen by friends, so eliminate most of the bad parts of FB.

This was from a friend whose religious postings I usually just ignore. But thought it worth posting here.
Because whether you want to accept it or not, many, many people take these points in the article as a good arguments.

Just read the angels and demons thread here and you can see that nonsense is believed.

Precisely.

I could care less what my 2nd cousin's baby ate for lunch or how dogs and cats just love each other.

I fully accept that some people take the points in the article as good arguments. I also fully accept that there are similar sites that throw up equally untenable and lame arguments that counter these and some think those are good arguments.

You seem to care so deeply what about what others believe or don't believe when it's not consistent with what you believe and don't believe.

What people believe in interest me.
It's not like we suffer the ramifications.

But since you aren't, why do you engage in the discussion so often?

bigotry, whether it be religiously driven or not.

I'm not interested in what people believe in terms of religion unless it results in actions that are harmful to others. I find no need to declare believers superior, smarter or more sane than non-believers or vice versa, though there clearly those who engage in this discussion only for that purpose.

I engage in the discussion primarily to counter those who display intolerance, prejudice and bigotry towards people based solely on whether they have religious beliefs or not and to promote the positive actions taken by religious groups, interfaith groups and those that define themselves as non-beleiveing groups.

Sometimes people try to make others look small to make themselves feel like they are big.

Since you claim to be so even-handed, of course.

"Sometimes people try to make others look small to make themselves feel like they are big."

You mean like you did in the paragraph preceding that sentence?

people just speak out against nonsense and the irrational.

Your priority is that beliefs be left alone. Others is that irrational beliefs be challenged.

people just call things nonsense and irrational because it's not how they see the world and they think that their way is the only way. They can't possibly be wrong so everyone else must be stupid and deluded.

When you label others' beliefs as irrational from the get go, that's not a challenge, that's a dismissal. You have already made your judgment. There is no challenge, there is only sentencing.

and see it for the irrational nonsense it is? (as displayed in this article)

Or can we not call them nonsense; cause religion?

for which there is evidence that they are not.

Those beliefs that fly in the face of scientific evidence and are still held to be true are irrational, I would agree.

But calling all beliefs irrational nonsense just because you don't share them, even though you have no evidence to contradict them. is what I object to.

If you really did listen carefully, which I don't think you do that often when it come to this, I think you would learn to distinguish and see the differences.

The "cause religion" phrase is just another very lame way of dismissing something. No one says that here. There must be a logical fallacy term for it, because it never furthers the discussion.

I don't say all beliefs are nonsense I say belief has no bearing on whether something is true.

And I think there is plenty of evidence to contradict many beliefs. But then we get into the whole absence of evidence and proof of claims thingy.

People do say that, but you are right that they don't here, at least in Religion, I've seen it in GD.

what is clearly nonsense (because there is evidence against it), what is clearly not nonsense even if you don't believe it (because there is not evidence against it) and all that stuff in the middle where both sides can make a case and neither can win.

It is the first group that I think we can work together with believers on fighting. It is the first group that gets in the way of glbt civil right, environmental action and scientific education. It is the first group that leads to discrimination.

But all that other stuff? That just comes down to being right, and honestly I think both sides are losers.

There is so much to counter. Does it not make sense to focus our energies on the things we KNOW are wrong? Wouldn't it be a great idea to not alienate people who agree that those things are wrong, even if we don't agree with some of their other relatively benign beliefs.

What do we gain by ridiculing people who are our potential allies?

Other than to score points.

I waste time on lots of non-productive activity elsewhere as well.

There are places that this kind of discussion is either inappropriate or counter productive.

Thankfully there are places like this where it is appropriate.

Nonproductive activity is not non-productive if it is either destructive or constructive.

Fun for you, I am sure.

Those beliefs that fly in the face of scientific evidence and are still held to be true are irrational, I would agree.

Other than that you do soundly defeat the strawman you set up.

The beliefs that are not rational, that have no grounding in evidence and logic, that are based instead simply on irrational faith, those are the beliefs being discussed. Not "all" beliefs.

Pontius Pilate asked that question if the High Priests. I ask it here. What IS truth?

According to this dictionary:
1) the quality or state of being true.

2) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

3) a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Do you reject number 3 and only accept the first two?
Do you accept numbers 1 and 3 and only accept number 2?

If you accept all three definitions, belief can be synonymous with truth. In believing, the belief becomes true.

Truth = that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. (2) as you rightly posted.

(3) covers mythological truths. Example: It's true Thor has a hammer.

Proof: there are images of Thor with his hammer.

In this essay, we'll look at some reasons why defining truth can be challenging. Truth seems like something we naturally comprehend and while intuition can help us a great deal in understanding what it is, surface definitions present us with unique problems and I’ll illustrate why. I'll then lay out some terms and concepts that will help us get a better handle on understanding what truth is. Next, we'll look at three main views of truth. The coherence theory describes truth in terms of interconnected belief. A belief is true if it is consistent with other beliefs we have. The correspondence theory describes truth in terms of a relation concepts or propositions have to the actual world. Finally postmodernism lays out a view of truth in terms of individual perspectives and community agreement. While this essay does not focus on practical issues like why a view of truth is important, I'll say a few words about that idea at the end and provide more resources for further reading.

http://philosophynews.com/post/2015/01/29/What-is-Truth.aspx

You did not answer my question. You reject definition number 3?

But in everyday life, I accept as truth what can be shown or proved.


I also understand some things can be ambiguous (how A vs B perceived C's emotions)

Some other things could hypothetically be true, but do not have any shred of evidence:

the flying teapot orbiting Mars, devils and angels, the March Hare, mythology in general.

truthiness than factual truth.

And to obscure that we are talking about factual truth is to evade and divert.

the Sun circled the Earth?

I am older, but not that old. It sounds like you have a problem with the definition that I quoted, as well as the article talking about defining "truth".

Do you have a better definition, or rather, a definition that you prefer, for truth?

but I think here we are talking about factually true.

Definitions can vary, and so can word meaning. What you define as truth, factually true, assumes that we both accept the same things as facts. I would agree that some mathematical concepts can be precisely defined. It is a fact that water boils at 100C at sea level. So we can probably agree that it is a fact.

we can debate the facts and not the semantics of the word truth.

In the context of this thread, what the author offers up as facts about the resurrection, i think we can both agree are far from facts.

And if, as my definition posted says, truth can be based on a belief, such as the statement "we hold these truths to be self-evident", any discussion will depend on a common acceptance of the meaning of the word.

As to the resurrection of Jesus, we are both aware that a person in a coma can spontaneously regain consciousness. I was not present at the crucifixion of Jesus, but a spontaneous awakening seems possible for those who accept the Bible as a literal narrative rather than a series of story messages, creation stories, and genealogical listings.

I said we must agree on which definition, and here we are talking about factual truth.

The last part is such a stretch and doesn't address what Christians actually believe about the resurrection.
The article uses the conflicting stories in the Gospels as evidence the resurrection happened.
The foundation of this argument is too flawed to take seriously.

The story of Lazarus, like the story of Jesus, could have easily been a case of spontaneous awakening from a coma like condition. But given the level of medical knowledge of that time, the awakening could not have been explained. If there was no "rational" explanation, it must have been a miracle. A miracle would have been a possibility for people living at that time.

And yes, some Christians do believe that the Bible is literally/factually true. If I were one of those we would not be having this discussion because I would have dismissed you as a godless heathen. But I am not a Biblical literalist.

that some of the NT stories might have a basis in fact. I don't dispute that, though the paltry evidence there is is far from reliable to do more than speculate. Which is all you are doing.

I am talking about the idiotic arguments the OP article gives to verify the resurrection of Jesus from death.

And yes, anything that purports to be an explanation of events that took place 2000 years ago is merely speculation.

There is a magazine called Biblical Archeology Review that has published a number of articles over the years relating to "the Jesus years", my terminology here, and a certain number of events that are related in the Gospels can be supported by archaeological evidence. If you are interested, read more at the link:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

It's not that I find that uninteresting. I just was trying to stay on track for this thread.

This might be worth another thread.

The arguments for miracles aren't even well crafted, but it does remind me of something. Every once in a while, somebody gets in a terrible accident of some kind, and the TV people interview the poor schmuck, who is all messed up, burned and broken and looking forward to years of painful physical therapy and reconstructive surgery. And what does he say to the TV people? "I'm lucky to be alive. God was watching over me! It's a miracle!" OK, buddy if you say so. I would believe the miracle stuff a bit more if some supernatural force had lifted that speeding bus six feet into the air, so it missed you, instead of scrambling you like an egg.

Too Stupid Couldn't Read. I skimmed it though, it made my head hurt. Can I go now?

I thought my warning would let people know what was in store.

that was traumatic. I am going to go read Tolkien now at least he knew his world was made up. Plus Orcs are less scary than the Wholey Babble god.

just take Frodo to Mt. Doom, would have saved a lot of time and effort.

Kind of like when in a horror story groups of people breaking up to go see what that noise was...

Eagles were bigoted against hobbits.

could be could be

or skimmed through anyway. It was sort of like a train wreck i could not avert my eyes from.