• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Anyone converted to Christianity due to Christian Apologetics arguments?

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Like I pointed out before, Christians are more than happy to allow people to believe false propositions if it means they are saved. Therefore you should all be held accountable for any problems that arise from this.
You're going to hold me "accountable"? Oh, please do! I'm just waiting for a laundry list of "problems" from my own theology to just start rolling in..............................................................

Grand gesture. Yes. Like when I ask you what should be done about X, you reply that you're just one person and you aren't going to put a mountain on your back.
More nonsense from the Atheist Peanut Gallery, I see. But of course, I realize that I really can't expect too much in the way of other lines of thought from today's Baphomet Supporters.

I began my answer regarding Sam Harris, and what do I get in return? A two-bit comment. The point is, Harris is wrong about saying that Christian Faith is 'like' Alchemy. PERIOD, and the follow up point he then tries to make when starting his book that 'alternative' modes of the Christian Faith (which aren't alternative, really) are somehow dead on arrival isn't one I'll just let lie, mainly because I see the "game plan" he has---discount all religion and all forms of Christianity, no matter how diverse they may be from on another---as logically faulty.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
39
New York
✟223,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The point is, Harris is wrong about saying that Christian Faith is 'like' Alchemy.

But the Christian faith is totally like alchemy, in that Harris is spreading misinformation about both of them. ^_^

You can see in articles like this one that the transition from alchemy to chemistry wasn't really a "wholesale exchange of ignorance at is most rococo for genuine knowledge," since alchemists (like Isaac Newton!) were genuinely trying to figure out how the material world worked. There was obviously a spiritual, occultist dimension to it also, but as a tradition was never really divorced from genuine knowledge of chemistry.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But the Christian faith is totally like alchemy, in that Harris is spreading misinformation about both of them. ^_^

You can see in articles like this one that the transition from alchemy to chemistry wasn't really a "wholesale exchange of ignorance at is most rococo for genuine knowledge," since alchemists (like Isaac Newton!) were genuinely trying to figure out how the material world worked. There was obviously a spiritual, occultist dimension to it also, but as a tradition was never really divorced from genuine knowledge of chemistry.

That's a wonderful article if I do say so myself, and I was about to make a small, counter comment about how alchemy is "systematic" but Christianity isn't or doesn't have to be. But, I thought better than to bring it up after having read the whole article you chose and realizing just how well suited the article is. So, I reneged on making a minor, cheap shot about it ^_^:

giphy.gif


Thank you for the additional article about the history of Alchemy! It is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're going to hold me "accountable"? Oh, please do! I'm just waiting for a laundry list of "problems" from my own theology to just start rolling in..............................................................

Just revisit my "Firmly Planting the Goalposts" thread.

More nonsense from the Atheist Peanut Gallery, I see. But of course, I realize that I really can't expect too much in the way of other lines of thought from today's Baphomet Supporters.

Oh, no, please, why don't you tell me what you really think. Lol.

I began my answer regarding Sam Harris, and what do I get in return? A two-bit comment. The point is, Harris is wrong about saying that Christian Faith is 'like' Alchemy. PERIOD,

Which you've still yet to show, regardless of how confident you are about it, PERIOD. The fact is that you got confused on what you were even trying to demonstrate.

and the follow up point he then tries to make when starting his book that 'alternative' modes of the Christian Faith (which aren't alternative, really) are somehow dead on arrival isn't one I'll just let lie, mainly because I see the "game plan" he has---discount all religion and all forms of Christianity, no matter how diverse they may be from on another---as logically faulty.

But Christianity absolutely is logically faulty. As I said, you only care about the conclusion (whether one is saved) and NOT about the logical process by which one reaches the desired conclusion.

Sure, you might prefer that one is saved based upon sound logic (assuming that there is such a sound logical path to reach the desired conclusion), BUT you would prefer that one reaches the conclusion that Christianity is true ILLOGICALLY rather than for one to reach the conclusion of atheism LOGICALLY.

Now, where did I go wrong here? Or what did I miss? Because if you've got no objection to what I've said, then you must concede that Christianity is illogical. Even if it is true, it's still illogical. So yeah, just concede that point please and thanks.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just revisit my "Firmly Planting the Goalposts" thread.
.........so what? One of your main concerns on that thread was the fact that you feel you have been lied to by various Christians. The thing is: I'm not lying to you!

Which you've still yet to show, regardless of how confident you are about it, PERIOD. The fact is that you got confused on what you were even trying to demonstrate.
Where am I 'confused.' I'm only dealing with pages 13-14 in Harris' book. I haven't even begun to address pages 14-23.

I think it's clear enough that equating Alchemy on the whole in it's epistemological structures with Christianity on the whole is not only incorrect but a disingenuous thing for Harris to have done, and what with the articles I and @Silmarien have cited, I'd have thought that would be clear to you by now, as smart and perceptive as I know you are.

But Christianity absolutely is logically faulty. As I said, you only care about the conclusion (whether one is saved) and NOT about the logical process by which one reaches the desired conclusion.
Y'know, as far as I can tell, I've been bringing up the term "Philosophical Hermenuetics" along with those existentially laced nuances I've borrowed from the likes of Pascal, Kierkegaard, even Wittgenstein, with other I could add, and I'm not seeing any movement on the part of you atheists to engage any of that here. It appears obvious to me that as far as all of the favorite terms that you atheists like to treat as your Sacred Cows (e.g. Objectivity, Evidence, Logic, Proof, Truth, Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof, etc., etc., etc.) you'd have eventually realized that when it comes to the Christian Faith, there HAS to be more to the overall set of human Epistemic evaluations than the ones you all typically seem to settle for as you ignore other fields and other modes of thought and rationality.

Sure, you might prefer that one is saved based upon sound logic (assuming that there is such a sound logical path to reach the desired conclusion), BUT you would prefer that one reaches the conclusion that Christianity is true ILLOGICALLY rather than for one to reach the conclusion of atheism LOGICALLY.
I have not preference one way or the other, so in this regard, it might be best for you to not make an evaluation on what it is you think I prefer.

Now, where did I go wrong here? Or what did I miss? Because if you've got no objection to what I've said, then you must concede that Christianity is illogical. Even if it is true, it's still illogical. So yeah, just concede that point please and thanks.
I think where you're going wrong is whether knowingly or unknowingly persisting in a position that seems (...I say 'seems' since I don't want speak for you) to equate LOGICALITY with the terms RATIONALITY and/or REASONABLENESS. However, in keeping with Pascal & Friends, I reject that whole surmising as a veritable equivocation.

So, again, Harris is incorrect to imply an equation between the epistemic structures of Alchemy with those of Christianity. Of course, if one hangs out too long with Richard Dawkins, I suppose that kind of thing comes naturally to those who are committed to Philosophical Naturalism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
.........so what? One of your main concerns on that thread was the fact that you feel you have been lied to by various Christians. The thing is: I'm not lying to you!

I can remember one off the top of my head. You told me - and you weren't joking - that stupid people don't exist. I can't accept that you really believe that. And you seem to have said it purely to refute a point I made.

Where am I 'confused.'

You're confused on the difference between comparison and contrast. You said you were going to show how Harris incorrectly compared Christianity and alchemy, and then you proceeded to contrast the two as though that proves anything. Like I said, virtually any two distinct things can be contrasted and compared.

I'm only dealing with pages 13-14 in Harris' book. I haven't even begun to address pages 14-23.

Ok. I don't know what's in those pages.

I think it's clear enough that equating Alchemy on the whole in it's epistemological structures with Christianity on the whole

Wait... now he's equating? You said he was comparing them. Which is it?

is not only incorrect but a disingenuous thing for Harris to have done, and what with the articles I and @Silmarien have cited, I'd have thought that would be clear to you by now, as smart and perceptive as I know you are.

I don't read what she has to say, and I asked you to copy/paste the relevant material. I don't want to read entire articles to find one point.

Y'know, as far as I can tell, I've been bringing up the term "Philosophical Hermenuetics" along with those existentially laced nuances I've borrowed from the likes of Pascal, Kierkegaard, even Wittgenstein, with other I could add, and I'm not seeing any movement on the part of you atheists to engage any of that here.

Because we don't care about name dropping and word salads. We care about the logical process.

It appears obvious to me that as far as all of the favorite terms that you atheists like to treat as your Sacred Cows (e.g. Objectivity, Evidence, Logic, Proof, Truth, Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof, etc., etc., etc.) you'd have eventually realized that when it comes to the Christian Faith, there HAS to be more to the overall set of human Epistemic evaluations than the ones you all typically seem to settle for as you ignore other fields and other modes of thought and rationality.

More? You mean some kind of subjective experience? Or do you mean something else?

I have not preference one way or the other, so in this regard, it might be best for you to not make an evaluation on what it is you think I prefer.

Then you would be the first Christian I ever met who would be openly ambivalent as to whether one goes to heaven or hell.

I think where you're going wrong is whether knowingly or unknowingly persisting in a position that seems (...I say 'seems' since I don't want speak for you) to equate LOGICALITY with the terms RATIONALITY and/or REASONABLENESS. However, in keeping with Pascal & Friends, I reject that whole surmising as a veritable equivocation.

Where am I doing this?

So, again, Harris is incorrect to imply an equation between the epistemic structures of Alchemy with those of Christianity.

Again, I thought you said he made an invalid comparison. Which is it?

Of course, if one hangs out too long with Richard Dawkins, I suppose that kind of thing comes naturally to those who are committed to Philosophical Naturalism.

Uh, ok.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can remember one off the top of my head. You told me - and you weren't joking - that stupid people don't exist. I can't accept that you really believe that. And you seem to have said it purely to refute a point I made.
Some people (a very few) might very well be counted as being 'stupid,' but what I would want to first assert, prior to counting those few who I think may be stupid, is that we need to charitably parse out the differences associated with bona-fide Special Needs individuals from those who are Sheer Fools or who are, despite their intelligence, Purposefully Ignorant (simply because they may NOT WANT to learn a darned thing).

So, what I would label as "stupidity" would likely be something that other people would simply call foolishness and/or active ignorance. I want to make sure that we DON'T include those who have special cognitive needs in the semantic pool of meaning as we impute references to our definition(s).

Does this make sense? :dontcare:
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Some people (a very few) might very well be counted as being 'stupid,' but what I would want to first assert, prior to counting those few who I think may be stupid, is that we need to charitably parse out the differences associated with bona-fide Special Needs individuals from those who are Sheer Fools or who are, despite their intelligence, Purposefully Ignorant (simply because they may NOT WANT to learn a darned thing).

Yes, that distinction is important in polite conversation. But with regards to my point at the time, it is irrelevant. I was advocating a plain reading of the Bible on the grounds that stupid people exist, that they were created that way deliberately by God, and that they are no less entitled to divine truths than anyone else.

So, what I would label as "stupidity" would likely be something that other people would simply call foolishness and/or active ignorance. I want to make sure that we DON'T include those who have special cognitive needs in the semantic pool of meaning as we impute references to our definition(s).

Does this make sense? :dontcare:

Yes, makes sense, even if it is inaccurate (for the purposes of being polite) and irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, that distinction is important in polite conversation. But with regards to my point at the time, it is irrelevant. I was advocating a plain reading of the Bible on the grounds that stupid people exist, that they were created that way deliberately by God, and that they are no less entitled to divine truths than anyone else.



Yes, makes sense, even if it is inaccurate (for the purposes of being polite) and irrelevant.

I'm not sure why your point about whether or not stupid people exist is so high on your priority list to 'prove' one way or another.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Therefore...?

... therefore...................I'm still correct that the Bible isn't simple, and our attempted evaluations about God's character as it relates to His 'publishing' methods throughout the World don't besmirch His Goodness, no matter how unfair we happen to think He has been, even if there are people who are lost in the shadows or who were born with lower than average intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
... therefore...................I'm still correct that the Bible isn't simple,

Well, that was fast. You're already wrong. The fact that a debate occurred 4 years ago doesn't mean you're still correct.

and our attempted evaluations about God's character as it relates to His 'publishing' methods throughout the World don't besmirch His Goodness,

Nowhere in that argument did I attack God's character.

no matter how unfair we happen to think He has been, even if there are people who are lost in the shadows or who were born with lower than average intelligence.

Basically your counter-argument is just a "nuh-uh" assertion.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, that was fast. You're already wrong. The fact that a debate occurred 4 years ago doesn't mean you're still correct.



Nowhere in that argument did I attack God's character.



Basically your counter-argument is just a "nuh-uh" assertion.

Well, it's not as if that entire thread had anything to do specifically with whether or not stupid people actually exist; no, the nexus of that discussion had to do with your assertion that Christians should go the 100th mile, financially and evangelically speaking. To your credit, but to some limited extent, you did have a point in that old thread, but then things got derailed along the way with red-herrings about 'simple bibles' and the existence of stupid people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, that was fast. You're already wrong. The fact that a debate occurred 4 years ago doesn't mean you're still correct.
... I went back and began to peruse the flow of the thread. But sure, I could have missed some outstanding detail from that old thread that you're free to bring to my attention if you like.

Nowhere in that argument did I attack God's character.
I was referring to the overall flow of the old thread, not to any one single argument within that thread. (Context, buddy, context!)

Basically your counter-argument is just a "nuh-uh" assertion.

On which point, because there was more than one all wrapped up in a wad in that old thread of yours?

As for your contention about there 'being stupid people' in the world, I don't remember specifically saying, without qualification, that there weren't any stupid people in the world.

However, shall we go back to how Sam Harris is incorrect to compare (without really contrasting) the old discipline of Alchemy with the Christian Faith, or do we instead just want to spar over how many stupid people may or may not actually inhabit our planet?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, it's not as if that entire thread had anything to do specifically with whether or not stupid people actually exist; no, the nexus of that discussion had to do with your assertion that Christians should go the 100th mile, financially and evangelically speaking. To your credit, but to some limited extent, you did have a point in that old thread,

Well maybe I just don't understand why your commitment to Christ should be so limited. In my mind, "good enough" is the starting point, not the finish line.

but then things got derailed along the way with red-herrings about 'simple bibles' and the existence of stupid people.

Right. Threads naturally evolve. We've certainly hijacked this one here. And even this thread is not proposing an argument for against the existence of God, which, last I checked, makes it off topic. But hey, who's counting?

... I went back and began to peruse the flow of the thread. But sure, I could have missed some outstanding detail from that old thread that you're free to bring to my attention if you like.

The point was that a plain reading of the gospels strongly suggests that Christians ought to sell all that they have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.

Christians are quick to point out that doing this is not necessary for salvation. They ignore the fact that Christ promised the rich young ruler "riches in heaven" for doing it.

I mean, if I came to your house and told you I'd give you ten billion dollars in exchange for everything you own, I think you'd do it. Irreplaceable family photos and all.

Apparently Christians value "riches in heaven" at well below ten billion dollars.

Now, you've pointed out that God "isn't fair in the sense that we mean" and I think you're right. The parable of the workers in the field all getting paid the same for different hours comes to mind. But the kingdom of heaven, by that analogy, either rewards or over-rewards, and doesn't under-reward.

But still, do you really need to be rewarded before you consider doing the right thing? Even tax collectors will do good deeds if it means they'll get a reward. Being a good person often times means doing the hard thing. Like taking up your cross.

And if my little sales pitch leaves you concerned about being broke and homeless, recall that Christ had little use for money. He told you not to worry about what you will eat or wear, because the Lord will provide.

I was referring to the overall flow of the old thread, not to any one single argument within that thread. (Context, buddy, context!)

"General flow" isn't a type of context.

On which point, because there was more than one all wrapped up in a wad in that old thread of yours?

I was responding to your post, #75, here on this thread.

As for your contention about there 'being stupid people' in the world, I don't remember specifically saying, without qualification, that there weren't any stupid people in the world.

Post #76 in that other thread.

However, shall we go back to how Sam Harris is incorrect to compare (without really contrasting) the old discipline of Alchemy with the Christian Faith, or do we instead just want to spar over how many stupid people may or may not actually inhabit our planet?

Sure, of course, let's go back to that.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,761
11,573
Space Mountain!
✟1,367,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well maybe I just don't understand why your commitment to Christ should be so limited. In my mind, "good enough" is the starting point, not the finish line.
I don't know about how unlimited any other Christian's philanthropy ought to be, but mine will be limited essentially because my spouse, not unlike many atheists, is put out with "the American Church" and has told me in no uncertain terms that "That's how it's going to be!"

So, if you're a marriage expert, please tell me how I might 'get around' this little predicament so that I might live more toward what you've interpreted is a fuller (richer?) Christian life, one lived for the benefit of other people and one in which I may magnify the Lord Jesus to my fullest ability.

Right. Threads naturally evolve. We've certainly hijacked this one here. And even this thread is not proposing an argument for against the existence of God, which, last I checked, makes it off topic. But hey, who's counting?
I'm not; besides, you're the mathematician, so if you're not counting I know that I'm not. :rolleyes:

The point was that a plain reading of the gospels strongly suggests that Christians ought to sell all that they have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.

Christians are quick to point out that doing this is not necessary for salvation. They ignore the fact that Christ promised the rich young ruler "riches in heaven" for doing it.

I mean, if I came to your house and told you I'd give you ten billion dollars in exchange for everything you own, I think you'd do it. Irreplaceable family photos and all.

Apparently Christians value "riches in heaven" at well below ten billion dollars.

Now, you've pointed out that God "isn't fair in the sense that we mean" and I think you're right. The parable of the workers in the field all getting paid the same for different hours comes to mind. But the kingdom of heaven, by that analogy, either rewards or over-rewards, and doesn't under-reward.

But still, do you really need to be rewarded before you consider doing the right thing? Even tax collectors will do good deeds if it means they'll get a reward. Being a good person often times means doing the hard thing. Like taking up your cross.

And if my little sales pitch leaves you concerned about being broke and homeless, recall that Christ had little use for money. He told you not to worry about what you will eat or wear, because the Lord will provide.

Yeah, ever since I became a Christian back in '86, even as naive and minimally educated as I was, I've never seen the wisdom in reading the Bible with a "plain reading."

"General flow" isn't a type of context.
...oh, I don't know about that! It's at least an 'aspect' of context ...

How to Grasp the Flow of Thought in a Passage - LogosTalk

I was responding to your post, #75, here on this thread.
Ok.

Post #76 in that other thread.
Ok.

Sure, of course, let's go back to that.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0