Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[2PhiloVoid]

The horse, preferably goes before the cart.

It sounds like you have certain unqualified expectations about the performance to be had from the forced relationship between a "horse and cart." Are you assuming the horse is domesticated?

I wouldn't be too picky. God rather than not god is already difficult enough without being particularly picky about the exact details as religious folks usually are.

Well then. Now that we know you're not specifically interested in the CHRISTIAN GOD, then we can all fold up our chairs here in the Apologetics forum...and go home. (Whew! For a moment there, I thought I'd have to actually think and do some work. Thanks for saving me the time and effort of having to intelligently discuss this with you, Variant).

Have a great day! I know I will!

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, look at the New Testament overall; in what ways and for what purposes does apologetics seem to be advocated?

I've always been under the impression that the NT tells Christians to gain new converts. Does it get very specific about how to or how not to accomplish that task? I don't think so, but what do I know?

I don't mind that people are stubborn as much as I mind that they dismiss an opposing view out of hand...and often without much explanation. Oops! I forgot. ... Christian's have the Burden of Proof to explain everything. [At least, that's what it feels like, sometimes. ]

Atheists have to prove that the arguments and evidence presented by theists is bad. If all the atheists around here heard your arguments and evidence and responded with nothing more than a "nuh-uh!" you might have something, but that isn't the case. You've got a bunch of theists complaining that atheists aren't putting in the effort to produce evidence and arguments that a completely nebulous concept doesn't exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've always been under the impression that the NT tells Christians to gain new converts. Does it get very specific about how to or how not to accomplish that task? I don't think so, but what do I know?

What I'm implying is that giving a public testimony to those in power and under social pressure makes up the Christian (and somewhat Jewish) context for what Christian apologetics REALLY is. What were doing here in this forum is hardly that; just look at the examples of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts, along with the content of their respective cognitive and speech styles. THAT is Christian Apologetics, not this mamby-pamby debate we do with non-believers in what is typically peaceful, democratic, academically instilled society.

Atheists have to prove that the arguments and evidence presented by theists is bad. If all the atheists around here heard your arguments and evidence and responded with nothing more than a "nuh-uh!" you might have something, but that isn't the case. You've got a bunch of theists complaining that atheists aren't putting in the effort to produce evidence and arguments that a completely nebulous concept doesn't exist.

Actually, my complaint isn't that atheists aren't putting effort into producing evidence or arguments. My complaint is that some people, whether they presently be Christian or Atheist, have to be force fed the very water they "say" they actually want to drink if offered the chance, and this as we are then standing at the very watering hole to which we had to drag their little donkey butts ...

Yeah, that about spells it out from my perspective.

 

[variant]

It sounds like you have certain unqualified expectations about the performance to be had from the forced relationship between a "horse and cart." Are you assuming the horse is domesticated?

Man that would be funny if it were funny.

Well then. Now that we know you're not specifically interested in the CHRISTIAN GOD, then we can all fold up our chairs here in the Apologetics forum...and go home. (Whew! For a moment there, I thought I'd have to actually think and do some work. Thanks for saving me the time and effort of having to intelligently discuss this with you, Variant).

Have a great day! I know I will!

I'd be fine with an argument for what you actually want to argue for, it's just that you guys generally fall at the first hurdle of demonstrating any Gods at all.

Insisting a very specific interpretation of religion is a much more difficult idea than merely demonstrating that your entire argument isn't based upon a foundation of quicksand because you have no real way of knowing anything about this God you speak of or if it even exists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Man that would be funny if it were funny.



I'd be fine with an argument for what you actually want to argue for, it's just that you guys generally fall at the first hurdle of demonstrating any Gods at all.

Hurdles? What hurdles?

Insisting a very specific interpretation of religion is a much more difficult idea than merely demonstrating that your entire argument isn't based upon a foundation of quicksand because you have no real way of knowing anything about this God you speak of or if it even exists.

Again, I'm not here to demonstrate anything, unlike perhaps my counterparts. No, I'm here to help make some sense of it if possible, that is for those who care about that kind of thing. But, if you're waiting for someone to explain and do 'tricks' like Elijah, I'm not the guy you need to be talking to. Maybe go talk to Stan Lee; he's Jewish.

 

[Moral Orel]

What I'm implying is that giving a public testimony to those in power and under social pressure makes up the Christian (and somewhat Jewish) context for what Christian apologetics REALLY is. What were doing here in this forum is hardly that; just look at the examples of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts, along with the content of their respective cognitive and speech styles. THAT is Christian Apologetics, not this mamby-pamby debate we do with non-believers in what is typically peaceful, democratic, academically instilled society.

Meh, maybe this is just good practice for using your mad apologetic skillz on someone more receptive.

Actually, my complaint isn't that atheists aren't putting effort into producing evidence or arguments. My complaint is that some people, whether they presently be Christian or Atheist, have to be force fed the very water they "say" they actually want to drink if offered the chance, and this as we are then standing at the very watering hole to which we had to drag their little donkey butts ...

Yeah, that about spells it out from my perspective.

Now I have no idea what you're talking about. You were complaining about Christians having to "prove everything" in one post, and now there's some "water" that Christians and atheists should both be drinking? Your metaphors are getting too abstract.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meh, maybe this is just good practice for using your mad apologetic skillz on someone more receptive.

I think it's fairly obvious from the book of Acts that when Peter and Paul spoke, whether near Jerusalem's Temple or on Mars Hill in Athen's, the reception was typically less than overwhelming, a response level that is to be expected by what we see from the epistemic indicia in the Bible.

Now I have no idea what you're talking about. You were complaining about Christians having to "prove everything" in one post, and now there's some "water" that Christians and atheists should both be drinking? Your metaphors are getting too abstract.

My point is (and if you'll notice I cited more than just atheists in this) that people in general are typically stubborn, and it is this that the Bible affirms. It also DENIES that people will believe if just given sufficient levels of "proof."

But, look out! Here come's the Modern Mindset saying, "No, No, you're wrong! We'd believe if just given ENOUGH ...!" And Jesus and the Apostles say, "Yeah....right!" So, the implication is that there is a sin problem in the matrix of each person's cognitive response to what God is, and is doing, in the world. Most people, if left to themselves, and even if they are generally well-intended, so-called moral people by today's standards, and even if superbly wise, would rather find satisfaction in life by adopting some aspect(s) of the 666 philosophy, or what I call "Solomon Syndrome," a term that apparently has already been used by others in related but not identical ways; and no, I don't mean by it a 'medical condition.'

[Interestingly enough, what I call "Solomon Syndrome" I later found is also similar to what Mark Atteberry calls "the Solomon Seduction" in his book by that same name ... ]

So, there you have it, Nick. It's not a pretty picture that the Bible paints of where we all are really at epistemically, despite all of our claims about what we each say we would or would not do before the person of Jesus if we had the knowledge we each think we need ...

 

[Moral Orel]

My point is (and if you'll notice I cited more than just atheists in this) that people in general are typically stubborn, and it is this that the Bible affirms and it DENIES that people would believe if just given sufficient levels of "proof." But, here come's the Modern Mindset saying, "No, No, you're wrong! We'd believe if just given ENOUGH ...!" And Jesus and the Apostles say, "Yeah....right!" So, the implication is that there is a sin problem in the matrix of each person's cognitive response to what God is, and is doing, in the world. Most people would rather have the satisfaction of drinking in 666.

That's what I thought you meant, I just didn't see why you suddenly lumped in Christians. If they believe, then they've clearly been drinking (to stay with your metaphor of water).

Frankly, I think it's a ridiculous assertion that the amount of evidence doesn't matter. I get how you can see that in the NT. Look at the story about Lazarus's rich buddy. But it seems crazy to say, "Hey, you didn't believe something you read in your old scrolls, why would your friends believe someone who came back from the dead?".

So let's test it. Has there ever been someone who got all the proof they asked for and then believed immediately? Even just one would be proof of concept...

There needs to be some kind of logical fallacy about falsely equivocating the quality of different evidences.

 

[variant]

Hurdles? What hurdles?

If you are attempting to defend christianity the first hurdle is the idea that God exists.

Again, I'm not here to demonstrate anything, unlike perhaps my counterparts. No, I'm here to help make some sense of it if possible, that is for those who care about that kind of thing. But, if you're waiting for someone to explain and do 'tricks' like Elijah, I'm not the guy you need to be talking to. Maybe go talk to Stan Lee; he's Jewish.

God himself wasn't so big on being so invisible back in the day. This ineffable undefinable idea of God only became popular much later.

You're right I know you don't have any tricks, just a rather empty philosophy and some attitude, like most religious people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's what I thought you meant, I just didn't see why you suddenly lumped in Christians. If they believe, then they've clearly been drinking (to stay with your metaphor of water).

Frankly, I think it's a ridiculous assertion that the amount of evidence doesn't matter.

I'm not indicating that the amount of evidence has no bearing whatsoever on belief or faith in Christ, I what I'm getting at is that there is to specific and exact formula by which evidence reaches some sufficiency that will throw the lever in the mind of the potential convert from a simply state of disbelief, to one that no only recognizes the possibility that Christ is the Messiah, but even further to causing one to fall to their knees with arms outstretched by crying out, "Abba, Father!!!" ...that's just not going to happen with all people with some guaranteed result each and every time. I can actually imagine a scenario in which a so-called "sufficient" amount of evidence is encountered by any particular persons and rather than expressing a heart of gratitude, they instead foist their fist into the air (assumably to represent sticking it in God's nose) and yelling out, "Aw, ___________________!!

So, there is no direct cause and effect between the sufficiency of any amount of evidence (however arbitrarily it is come by and interpreted) and a resulting full-bodied faith in Christ.

I get how you can see that in the NT. Look at the story about Lazarus's rich buddy. But it seems crazy to say, "Hey, you didn't believe something you read in your old scrolls, why would your friends believe someone who came back from the dead?".

The point of the Lazarus story is that interpretation of events which can serve as 'evidence' are still subject to not only the limited perceptions and interpretations of any one person's mind, but more so their state of heart will become a central factor in whether they will indeed want to meet with God.

So let's test it. Has there ever been someone who got all the proof they asked for and then believed immediately? Even just one would be proof of concept...

I don't know of anyone off hand--Josh McDowell, maybe?; and I'm pretty sure that St. Thomas DOES NOT count, for specific reasons I can spell out if needed.

There needs to be some kind of logical fallacy about falsely equivocating the quality of different evidences.

There also needs to be some kind of logical fallacy about falsely assuming that the human mind will acquiesce to Jesus as Lord and Savior in all counts where an encounter is had with supposed "sufficient" evidence, and this can be the case for all kinds of mitigating reasons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are attempting to defend christianity the first hurdle is the idea that God exists.



God himself wasn't so big on being so invisible back in the day. This ineffable undefinable idea of God only became popular much later.

You're right I know you don't have any tricks, just a rather empty philosophy and some attitude, like most religious people.

So, it doesn't matter that I don't say something caustic about atheists and their beliefs, but if I exhibit the least bit of resistance to the atheist's complaints, then....let me get this straight....I have an attitude problem? Really?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But, look out! Here come's the Modern Mindset saying, "No, No, you're wrong! We'd believe if just given ENOUGH ...!" And Jesus and the Apostles say, "Yeah....right!"

And they’d be demonstrably wrong.

You sure you want to float that statement?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And they’d be demonstrably wrong.

You sure you want to float that statement?

Yes, I'm sure. You know why? Because if it is not a fact that Jesus KNEW what is in men's hearts when He referred to belief through a resurrection of Lazarus, then Jesus is false. So, it's not that 'I' know this; it is that Jesus says HE knows this. It's one of the epistemic indicators--those little things in the N.T. I keep talking about.

 

[Silmarien]

I can actually imagine a scenario in which a so-called "sufficient" amount of evidence is encountered by any particular persons and rather than expressing a heart of gratitude, they instead foist their fist into the air (assumably to represent sticking it in God's nose) and yelling out, "Aw, ___________________!!

Have I ever told you about the time I had an angel come to me in a dream and tell me not to turn away, and my answer was quite literally, "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"?

Misinterpretation of Paradise Lost set aside, I agree, intellectual rebellion is absolutely a thing. Any hint of evidence is a threat, not a piece of a puzzle to be considered objectively.

Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but if any of the resident atheists need proof that it can be a factor, well... good luck arguing that I don't exist.

 

[variant]

So, it doesn't matter that I don't say something caustic about atheists and their beliefs, but if I exhibit the least bit of resistance to the atheist's complaints, then....let me get this straight....I have an attitude problem? Really?

The attitude of religious folks is that they pretend they are very insightful on a subject that there are no experts in.

 

[Hieronymus]

If you are attempting to defend christianity the first hurdle is the idea that God exists.

The hurdle is to accept He exists.
Well, it is to many anyway.

 

[variant]

The hurdle is to accept He exists.
Well, it is to many anyway.

Preaching is rhetoric, not reason or research.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have I ever told you about the time I had an angel come to me in a dream and tell me not to turn away, and my answer was quite literally, "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"?

No, I don't think you've told me about that dream just yet. It sounds rather ... liberating? I had a dream like that, except the entity involved came from below...I think.

Misinterpretation of Paradise Lost set aside, I agree, intellectual rebellion is absolutely a thing. Any hint of evidence is a threat, not a piece of a puzzle to be considered objectively.

Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but if any of the resident atheists need proof that it can be a factor, well... good luck arguing that I don't exist.

Somehow again, I have a difficult time seeing you as a rebel, Silmarien. Somehow, I affiliate you with flowers, chirping birds, and sunshine.

 

[Hieronymus]

Preaching rhetoric, not reason or research.

Are you suggesting people (particularly in our culture) don't have a hard time accepting God exists?
Making a case for God's existence is not the hurdle.

 

[variant]

Are you suggesting people (particularly in our culture) don't have a hard time accepting God exists?

I don't think it's the peoples fault for not accepting religious arguments.

Making a case for God's existence is not the hurdle.

To quote myself:

The attitude of religious folks is that they pretend they are very insightful on a subject that there are no experts in.