Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 3:49:14 GMT
I reported previously on a discussion about Jesus and history I was having with an atheist on the "Rational Response Squad" forum. He had suggested Jesus wasn't really crucified because we had no Roman records of the fact. I quoted some historians to demonstrate that we had very few records of that period in Palestine, and none of Pilate, so his argument proved nothing. He admitted he had done no research, so I replied: "I hope you don't use that argument again."I thought it worth recording for posterity his amazing, and disgusting, response in full: I told him what I thought of this and terminated the discussion. I don't suppose he is typical (he is more honest about his lack of integrity) but I don't suppose he is alone either. And to think I bothered asking you guys for some good references! Why are you debating with a Jesus Mythicist in the first place, Unklee? Even worse, it's one from the RRS. Other atheists stopped taking them seriously a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 10, 2009 4:10:21 GMT
Why are you debating with a Jesus Mythicist in the first place, Unklee? Even worse, it's one from the RRS. Other atheists stopped taking them seriously a long time ago. That's a very good question, and I don't have a very good answer. Because it seemed like a good idea at the time??? I haven't been really debating all that much. I chose a very particular statement and set myself a very limited goal - to show that one statement was untenable. I always think it is good to try to show over-confident people (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) "how weak is the foundation thay are standing upon". I think I have achieved that, and this bit of the discussion was sort of collateral damage. I didn't realise RRS had a poor reputation, but on this showing, that is understandable. I promise to be a good boy in future if you let me off this time! : )
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Aug 10, 2009 6:29:10 GMT
I thought it worth recording for posterity his amazing, and disgusting, response in full: I told him what I thought of this and terminated the discussion. I don't suppose he is typical (he is more honest about his lack of integrity) but I don't suppose he is alone either. And to think I bothered asking you guys for some good references! Well, I've come across that kind as well, especially with people denying that Jesus existed. Whenever I catch someone doing this, I call their bluff and ask them how they can build their life on an admitted lie. Or - if it is in a discussion forum - I quote their bluffs, with name and number, until they behave differently or leave the forum (or more propably just change their nick). One thing is spreading falsehoods unwittingly (as I imagine they think most Christians do), another is to do it willingly as a tactic to keep Christians at arms length. Is he really satisfied with living like that? Is the unexamined life worth living? Doesn't it require a "rational response"?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 10, 2009 7:13:36 GMT
Whenever I catch someone doing this, I call their bluff and ask them how they can build their life on an admitted lie. That is a good idea. I generally avoid being that confrontational, but in this case, I wish I'd said it, though I don't think he would have cared. I may do that, if I post any more on the forum. Thanks for the ideas. I often look back on things I have written and think of better ways to respond. : (
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Aug 10, 2009 8:23:27 GMT
Wow, the 'rational response squad'!. Let's see how rational these chaps are: www.rationalresponders.com/Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. A metaphysical explanation which invokes God would explain why a mysteriously fine tuned universe capable of producing complex organisms would leap into existence out of nothing. Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Note that the chemical conditions need to be exceedingly special for abiogenesis to occur, ditto planet formations, star formation, the production of complex elements etc.... Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The evolved human brain is 'simply' the most complex physical object in the known universe. If one takes an object's internal degree of complexity and capacity for reflective self-conciousness as a criterion for determining its importance then we look pretty darn significant. This seems to dodge the question of whether or not we have free will and the hard problem of conciousness. Both of these pose serious problems for materialism. This seems to be based on a metaphysical proposition: 'when I pray for something under controlled conditions, God will provide it'. It's far from clear why that should be the case when Christians have traditionally understood that there is no right to expect prayers to be answered and no way to compel God to answer them. Except for the ones that suggest the universe had a beginning and suggest that the created order is the rational, lawlike and purposeful product of a creator God. Oh look, they sell thongs and trucker hats: www.cafepress.co.uk/RespondRational/2538625
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2009 10:22:58 GMT
This seems to dodge the question of whether or not we have free will and the hard problem of conciousness. Both of these pose serious problems for materialism. There are a lot of philosophers who wouldn't agree with you on both points, especially the second one.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Aug 10, 2009 12:23:30 GMT
This seems to dodge the question of whether or not we have free will and the hard problem of conciousness. Both of these pose serious problems for materialism. There are a lot of philosophers who wouldn't agree with you on both points, especially the second one. Dan Dennett springs to mind.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 10, 2009 12:53:40 GMT
Oh look, they sell thongs and trucker hats: ;D That broke me up! But at least it's a raison d'etre!
|
|