Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  Rex

  >>Let’s limit that to Paul’s defense of the risen Lord in 1 Cor. 15.<<

  Okay then. Now prove that what Paul said is true; seems to be hearsay at a vast remove you presuppose to be true because you want it to be true, rather than something you have built a bullet-proof case for being factual. But, let's have the evidence the text is fairly reporting actual eye witness testimony, that it is unchanged since then and a over eager scribe (code for liar) didn't just add it in for verisimilitude.

  >>Again, you are getting away from specifics. Reasonable reconciliation of gospel accounts is what an apologist does. Critics point out alleged inconsistencies and apologists show that there is a reasonable explanation for the citations.<<

  Rex, "Reasonable reconciliation of gospel accounts is what an apologist does" is indeed what you do. This does not mean you, or any other apologist, are right. You will try to use apologetics to claim the truth of your beliefs irregardless of whether you are right or not. Dogs bark, cats meow, apologists apologise. None of these are smart considered reactions, they are reflexive. It is a pity to have such an insubstantial belief structure you have to keep apologising for it.

  You said: So, are you saying you put your beliefs regarding god in the same catagory of reliability as of those people who saw little grey (or green) men?

  >>You know that was not the point of the comments.<<

  This does not make the question irrelevant, but could well make it one you would prefer not to answer...

  I would also argue that the evidence of their god being the ‘one, True’ is without merit. Why is that? NO miracles, NO prophecy and NO historicity of Mohammeds assertions.

  And others (religionists, theists and atheists) would say you have no proof of miracles, that prophecies after the date are not prophecies, that ambiguous text claimed as prophecy are not prophecy, or (as a specific example of another religion's view of your claims regarding the Bible) that the Bible, lacking the continuous verbal tradition of the Qu'ran, is a book that would fall apart if you took all the additions and interpolations out

  >>Obviously not. But then, that is not my point.<<

  Your "point" is best expressed in the programming language basic;

  10 Print "I am right because I am right"
  20 Goto 10

  >>When Christians seek the ‘will of God’, they are supposed to compare that alleged message or understanding with the Bible. Does it line up with Biblical text that is in context? There are no new revelations.

  Unless you are a Ba'hai, Seikh, Mormon, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist... the list is endless...

  The sacred canon is closed...

  By pagans. Oooo, impressive.

  ... and the manual of mankind has been complete for many hundreds of years.

  So YOU say. Other religionists would differ and make claims of indistinguishable veracity.

  That is one reason that you saw me taking Jgnat to task. I honestly believe that she is picking and choosing her beliefs out of context.

  At this remove claims to 'context' are largely fanciful.

  >>Please sort this out in a single post and I will try to answer it for you, ok?<<

  Okay, I will, but right now I am on a business trip and have to go entertain guests and go to a wine tasting (poor me).

  >>You are again making an assumption that has no merit. The case for Christ is overwhelming. Why not read something like Lee Strobe’s ‘Case for Christ’, ‘Case for Faith’ or maybe Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ (1 & 2)? They are real apologists and make a very good case for Christianity.<<

  The fact that you need apologists show that there is not a very good case for any claims a particular version of Christianity is 'right'. I don't see 'gravity apologists' ("It exists, honest!!"). Oh, but then you can PROVE gravity exists...

  LOL, I don’t support a lot of the Pope’s assertions either! I haven’t dressed in a loin cloth since I was in my thirties and the idea of anything pierced in my nose give me pain. I wouldn’t let my wife ‘ring my nose’ either! LOL

  You know the point Rex. Your claims are just like all other religionist's claims and paranormalist (with claims of external proof); all talk and no trousers, as we say in England. Supreme Pontif, Ug the caveman, Barry the UFO nut and you, all indistinguishable as regards veracity and determinability of paranormal claims.

  hooberus

  Don't you see a pattern in how you will defend any use of 'science' by yourself or co-conspiracists (even when it flies in the face of conventional wisdom or ethical practice)... and yet will doubt science used by others at every turn? Oh, yes, you're not going to waste your time... more excuses... any news on bristlecone pines...? Oh, that's another thing you IGNORE whilst making your castles of sand... but then letting go of Biblical literalism is something which obviously petrifys you to the point of cognotive dissonance...
• 

  Shining One

  Old Soul,
  Have you ever read any of the Koran?
  >No more so than do the acts of certain violent Isalmists brands them as truly Moslem.
  I cannot believe that you have with this answer above. You guys always tell me to get my facts straight. You need to do some more research. You can also see the practical result of Islam even down to this day in the 'civilized' Islamic countries. You simply cannot be intellectually honest and say that Christian teachings are 'just like' Islamic teachings. I know and have talked to ex-muslims so don't try to peddle that here...
  Respectfully,
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Little Toe,
  >There are some levels of Christian Fundamentalism that bear a direct comparison to Muslim Fundamentalists. Don't excuse the lot as a sweeping generalisation
  
  Where are the thousands of 'fundamentlists' blowing themselves up for Jehovah? Where do the teachings diverge, my friend? My understanding of Islam, from ex-Muslims, is that the so called moderates are Islamic 'backsliders'. This is a cult that is every bit as bad as any that has ever existed. JWs are not even close and the most legalistic of the fundamentalists keep the 'law of love' that Jgnat and you like to talk about.
  Take the life and teachings of Christ and stack them along side of the caravan robber's Arabian Kingdom law. You can't honestly say they are comparably peaceful in nature or intent.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  >Okay then. Now prove that what Paul said is true; seems to be hearsay at a vast remove you presuppose to be true because you want it to be true, rather than something you have built a bullet-proof case for being factual.
  
  You are doing the straw man thing. No one said 'bullet proof', that is unattainable. Is it enough to convict in a court of law? I encourage you to read Lee Strobel's, 'The Case for Faith' and 'The Case for Christ', as well as Josh McDowell's two books, 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'.
  
  >But, let's have the evidence the text is fairly reporting actual eye witness testimony, that it is unchanged since then and a over eager scribe (code for liar) didn't just add it in for verisimilitude.
  >>Again, you are getting away from specifics. Reasonable reconciliation of gospel accounts is what an apologist does. Critics point out alleged inconsistencies and apologists show that there is a reasonable explanation for the citations.<<
  Rex, "Reasonable reconciliation of gospel accounts is what an apologist does" is indeed what you do. This does not mean you, or any other apologist, are right. You will try to use apologetics to claim the truth of your beliefs irregardless of whether you are right or not. Dogs bark, cats meow, apologists apologise. None of these are smart considered reactions, they are reflexive. It is a pity to have such an insubstantial belief structure you have to keep apologising for it.
  
  That is the same way that I view the Naturalist Philosophy with its teachings on evolution and natural origins. You pretend that you have no axioms or presuppositions and I have demonstrated that you clearly do.
  Previously said:<<<So, are you saying you put your beliefs regarding god in the same catagory of reliability as of those people who saw little grey (or green) men?gt;>You know that was not the point of the comments.<<>>>
  
  >This does not make the question irrelevant, but could well make it one you would prefer not to answer...
  No, it is a facetious assertion.
  
  My previous:I would also argue that the evidence of their god being the ‘one, True’ is without merit. Why is that? NO miracles, NO prophecy and NO historicity of Mohammeds assertions.
  
  >And others (religionists, theists and atheists) would say you have no proof of miracles,
  
  I have evidence of miracles. Whether or not is 'proof' depends on several factors.
  
  >that prophecies after the date are not prophecies, that ambiguous text claimed as prophecy are not prophecy, or (as a specific example of another religion's view of your claims regarding the Bible) that the Bible, lacking the continuous verbal tradition of the Qu'ran, is a book that would fall apart if you took all the additions and interpolations out
  
  Not at all, our scholars have demonstrated a obvious consistency in the 66 books of the Bible. Prophecies have been fulfilled and the risen Christ is alive and communicates with Christians. You can see Christ throughout the O.T. and we can look back at the Cross of Calvary today and see the salvation of mankind. Mohammed was a caravan robber who conquered others by force and established Arabian Kingdom law as holy. His followers fought over the spoils of his kingdom and his legacy is not good news but death to all who do not convert.
  You argue about ambiguous prophecies yet you will close your eyes to ths same ambiguous evidence that seem s to fit the evolutionary models. Any substancial admission on the skeptic's part soon leads to the conversion of the skeptic. There is no Papacy or Emperor forcing people to believe (or die) anymore. That horrid corruption was broken on the foundation of the Reformation and the realization of Christian freedom. Islam still forces 'belief' by the sword. Go ahead and see what happens to Islamists who convert to Christianity in civilized places like Egypt then tell me that is not true.
  One of the reasons that Christians argue for Christ is because our faith is the only one with a logical and consistent worldview that has any evidence as being correct. That's why C.S. Lewis made such a strong case for Christianity and the writers of today follow suit. The only thing that gets in our way are heretics who claim to be Christian yet constantly compromise and villify their own faith. The Bishop Spongs of the world.
  Rex
• 

  Cygnus

  I encourage you to read Lee Strobel's, 'The Case for Faith' and 'The Case for Christ', as well as Josh McDowell's two books, 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'.

  Rex, those books have been thoroughly shredded to pieces on skeptic.com and atheist.com but you know that. I'm sorry but there is no logic behind christianity or theism. Those guys just try to sell more books; they're not really concerned about the reader personally; they just carry on a long debate about gods and make good $$ doing it by targeting and marketing a market. The one you as a consumer belong in.

  It's funny, I remember you getting into it with a Catholic on H2O several years ago and unabashedly ripped his trinitarian, immortal soul believing, apologist for the Crusades butt off. Well you tried anyway. It's really fascinating to look back 6-7 years ago and read what our thoughts were at the time. I do wonder, Rex, if in 6-7 years you're defending Buddha, or atheism.
• 

  LittleToe

  Rex:

  Take the life and teachings of Christ and stack them along side of the caravan robber's Arabian Kingdom law. You can't honestly say they are comparably peaceful in nature or intent.

  ??? What kind of argument is this?

  I'm not talking about the teachings of Christ per se, I'm talking about the attitude of hate and intolerance for those who differ. In that sense there are groups of Fundamentalist Christians who take the biscuit from the Muslims, in terms of spittle fleck rhetoric - the pen can be mightier than the sword (and bomb).

  Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I live on an small island with sects and schizms having torn the place apart in the past. We have everything from Fundamentalists (usually hyper-calvinist) to completely woolly liberals, with some Charismatics thrown in for good measure. In one small portion of the island (inhabitants 300) there are six "Christian" denominations.

  Social evolution is an interesting thing.
• 

  Shining One

  >I see, "Shining One/Rex". You would dismiss all radical self-proclaimed Christians who undertake violent revolution as unchristian then. As Cygnus helpfully pointed out, that would go the same for the radical Muslims.
  Absolutely not, you look at the Koran and what it teaches. The moderate muslims are 'backsliders'. I have heard testimonies from ex-muslims and also the general bearing of the mullahs worldwide. There is a shocking silence instead of condemnation when terrorist acts are perpetrated and that has only gradually gottem better as the news media exposes it.
  >I just want to be clear on that point. Are there any Christian groups today that you would consider pure in this regard? Or would you have to evaluate individuals and their behavior? There are a couple statements I want you to take back, because I KNOW you are not a mind-reader.
  Are any Christians perfect? Of course not. Are some groups closer to the Biblical model, of course. You may be able to get a sense of where the person is at or where you yourself are at...
  >When I look at the numbers, though, I am shocked at how few there were. Here is what one of those contemporary Christian heroes said of that time:
  When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned.
  And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore I was not concerned.
  And when Hitler attacked the unions and Industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church-and there was nobody left to be concerned.
  Martin Niemoller 1892-1984.
  Did not the Lord say that the road to salvation would be 'narrow and cramped'? That is one issue. Another issue is that even those who are not (true) Christians will benefit from Biblical counsel, that applies to anyone who is not pshychotic. There is also a general good influence from the Holy Spirit in areas and communities that are predominantly Christian of any stripe.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Little toe,
  >I'm not talking about the teachings of Christ per se, I'm talking about the attitude of hate and intolerance for those who differ. In that sense there are groups of Fundamentalist Christians who take the biscuit from the Muslims, in terms of spittle fleck rhetoric - the pen can be mightier than the sword (and bomb).
  Thanks for the clarification. Let me ask you this, when Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." was He being intolerant and if so, should not a true Christian be intolerant as far as compromising his beliefs with other religions?
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Cygnus,
  I DON'T know that these books have been 'trashed'. It is easy to take a text of any type, write your opinion and get those who accept your presuppostions to applaud and agree with you. That happens here all of the time. It is also easy to make claims and assertions about what 'I did to so and so's arguments' in hindsight. None of that makes what you say factual. They are just an opinion and maybe even a baseless assertion. I remember when Greg Stafford and Robert Bowman debated online and the cheers were appropriate for each side, depending on what the observers held as beliefs. I do know that the general consensus from the 'unbiased unbelievers' was that Stafford got embarrased.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Hey Little Toe,
  What is the weather like on that island? If its not too bad it sounds like a fun place for a guy like me!
  Rex