Have you read these Christian Philosophers for Apologetic Value?

[2PhiloVoid]

Again you ignored my point. I said,

Having a discussion on, or being an expert in, some field which cannot be factually verified in any way is utterly silly, and you may as well have a PhD in Mother Goose.

Mathematics, for example, is absolutely verifiable despite being a human invention. Theology is a human invention that is not verifiable in any aspect.



I have been convinced by cloudyday2 that theology carries with it the assumption that God exists.



Above, you said,

The only way to determine whether or not theistic philosophy has any merit is to study it.

Just now, you said,

...theology assumes as its starting point that the divine exists...

So let me make sure I understand your position. You seemingly agree that I am reasonable in concluding that the body of facts known to humanity is insufficient to warrant belief in any deity. But then you say here that I must study a philosophy which assumes the existence of a deity as a starting point to know if the philosophy has any merit. This is nonsensical.

If I'm reasonable in concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support belief in the existence of fairies, do I need to read up on fairy lore? Fairy lore would already assume the existence of fairies and argue finer points, like whether they use pixie dust or magic wands. But isn't it silly for me to seriously consider these claims if I haven't yet been convinced of the existence of fairies?



I don't know what that second sentence means.



I concede that an atheist cannot be a theologian, by definition.

However, please explain to me what a doctorate in theology even means. Explain what falsifiable data is used in the thesis for such a degree.



Agreed.



Ok. But again, there's nothing factually verifiable in Hindu theology. So we are talking about a PhD in Mother Goose.



Lol, ok. Maybe get 2PhiloVoid to weigh in if you're so inclined.

Having tracked down one of the recent expressions of the "Mother Goose" meme by Aron Ra, I'm guessing we're talking about the various issues wrapped up in the following article?

Philosophistry - by Aron Ra (April 12, 2017) [...includes a portion of a video which records the encounter described in his article]

...and look who he paired up with when attending a debate/function at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Anthony Magnabosco (atheist) of "Street Epistemology" fame. Why am I not surprised?

Anyway, as it turns out, Aron Ra spoke with/debated John Mark Reynolds, a Christian philosopher with the following credentials, and who was a co-editor and co-author of the book, "Three Views On Creation and Evolution," a book which I have. So, seeing that this was the case, I pulled my copy of this book off the shelf and found that Reynolds is a defender of Young Earth Creationism. I had to chuckle because this automatically sets me off from him being that I adhere to the BioLogos approach to Christian faith, which is represented somewhat by Howard J. Van Til (a professor of physics) in the third viewpoint of the same book [i.e. Theistic Evolution].

So, Aron Ra was conversing with an advocate of YEC who also has a degree in Philosophy. Ok. It would have been more interesting if Aron Ra had spoken to Van Til, but things being as they were, Aron Ra and his friend were at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and not at some other, more liberally inclined, Christian university.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You haven't so far.

Yes I did. I explained clearly how you were propping up a straw man quite deliberately.

Rejecting the law of non-contradiction means that things can be both true and false. Nothing is verifiable.

I don't reject it. I accept it tentatively, and not absolutely.

Philosophy of religion and theology are two different things.

Philosophy of religion involves arguments for and against the existence of God. It is useful to come to an in depth understanding of the various arguments in their strongest forms before discussing them. To dismiss the whole field of study without looking into it first means that you are basing your beliefs on preconceptions and caricatures.

Theology takes as its starting point that God exists. An agnostic or atheist needn't study it if they are not interested, but they should then avoid serious discussions about doctrine. Writing it off as a waste of time is misguided, as theological thought is part of our intellectual heritage and can have value even for non-believers. Take a look at this piece about Rowan Williams' book about Saint Augustine: What non-believers can learn from St Augustine

What you call philosophy of religion here is what I call apologetics. I've drawn a distinction between apologetics and theology.

I don't believe that fairy lore exists as a field, so the comparison doesn't work.

I believe you're mistaken.

On the other hand, if you were going to write off studies in, say, Celtic mythology and folklore, simply because you personally are not interested in it, I would take issue with that too. There are historians of ancient religions.

So you are saying that my analogy is invalid because you are unaware of fairy lore?

There was a 1936 Master of Arts thesis called Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism. The author was Albert Camus.

All that digging, and you still didn't even find a PhD thesis?

Falsifiability is a concept in philosophy of science. It is irrelevant outside of science, and if you can't understand how someone could get a doctorate in, say, English literature, I cannot help you.

Don't say that. I need your help. After what you just dug up on Albert Camus - which I haven't yet fact checked one bit but I'll take your word on it - why can't you find me a doctorate in English literature in which the PhD thesis contained no claims of verifiable facts? My understanding is that a PhD thesis requires a lot of research, and my understanding of research is that it is the act of finding and citing verifiable facts.

You are arbitrarily writing off everything that is not a hard science. Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

Christianity makes claims about reality. Its claims are false. I don't know what you expect me to do about that small issue... do you want it to have special exemption from the rules?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Arguing everything under the sun, for the sake of argument, can be counter productive. I assume that the non-Christians in here would say that their goal is to 'Wake people up!' Well, keep telling those 'On the fence' Christians that you don't see a difference between Jesus/God studies and Mother Goose studies...and IF they have done a certain level of research rest assured that you're doing a great job to help push them over to the side of Christianity being true. However if they never researched anything (they just read the Bible, or maybe not even that) I will admit that you will score yourself some victories and push some over to your side.

Contrary to this theory of 'The more things that I argue the more things that have to be defended'...actually to the semi educated on the fence Christian it looks like poor analytical skills. And poor analytical skills (ESPECIALLY if they are coming from a person who's known to be intelligent!!) can easily start to be interpreted as 'Wow there really is truth to people being spiritually blind!'

And I say it's counter productive because that can strengthen their faith. I speak from experience. As a teetering half Christian in the past bad arguments did have a tendency to toss me back into the Christian camp.

It is irrational to accept a proposition merely because the opponents of the proposition have argued poorly. If this is the line of reasoning that you follow, then I prefer that you remain a Christian. I'd rather not have you on my side defending atheism.

People arguing with me that Jesus didn't exist often would trigger that type of 'They are spiritually blind' reaction in me.

There is a strong case to be made that Jesus never existed, but if my goal is to win you over to atheism then it is not the best approach.

My goal, though, is to compel Christians to be true Christians or else to drop the faith. Lukewarm Christianity disgusts me.

They thought I was pulling my hair out because they were hammering me with doubts, when actually I was pulling my hair out that they didn't get it. And again, the more intelligent the person the stronger my 'People are spiritually blind' reaction was. When I had people who I knew were brilliant insisting to me that Jesus was a fictional character it gave me more confidence to write off ALL of their anti-Christian arguments.

More irrational behavior. I have no real intention of winning you over to atheism, so how about we try to make you into a good Christian? You can start by selling all that you have, giving the money to the poor, and wandering the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.

I seriously can't tell if this is an argue everything under the sun tactic, or if you really think Jesus studies and Mother Goose studies are equal.

I compared Mother Goose to theology, not to Jesus. And yes, discussing the nature of God has as much a factual basis as discussing Mother Goose.

 

[Dirk1540]

It is irrational to accept a proposition merely because the opponents of the proposition have argued poorly. If this is the line of reasoning that you follow, then I prefer that you remain a Christian. I'd rather not have you on my side defending atheism.

It's not my reasoning for accepting the proposition. Just pointing out that brutal counter arguments actually divert from your mission of deconverting, they actually help to lock the believer in more firmly. Thank you!

There is a strong case to be made that Jesus never existed

WOW!! It's funny how atheists START OFF as 'Champions of logic' which entails things such as inference to the best explanation, but than like clockwork along comes the sleight of hand where all the sudden if a proposition isn't completely verifiable it's false...as if we don't realize that you are mutilating you're own theories in the process.

My goal, though, is to compel Christians to be true Christians or else to drop the faith. Lukewarm Christianity disgusts me.

Oh this is cute...I'm sure this is a genuine calling for Christian values...drumroll please...

how about we try to make you into a good Christian? You can start by selling all that you have, giving the money to the poor, and wandering the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.

And there it is lol. Absolutely nothing to do with anything more than bitter atheistic mockery.

I compared Mother Goose to theology, not to Jesus. And yes, discussing the nature of God has as much a factual basis as discussing Mother Goose.

Said in a context of intellectual boasting, amazing!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is irrational to accept a proposition merely because the opponents of the proposition have argued poorly. If this is the line of reasoning that you follow, then I prefer that you remain a Christian. I'd rather not have you on my side defending atheism.

That's good. I'd much rather have Dirk on my side. Of course, it would be great to have you back on our side as well ...

There is a strong case to be made that Jesus never existed, but if my goal is to win you over to atheism then it is not the best approach.

So, who should I believe? Carrier or Ehrman?

My goal, though, is to compel Christians to be true Christians or else to drop the faith. Lukewarm Christianity disgusts me.

Is this an emotive statement (like A.J. Ayer would have made), or one informed by the book of Revelation? Either way, you're preference for a hot or cold Christianity doesn't seem to be one born of Logic (or of good hermeneutics, necessarily), NV.

More irrational behavior. I have no real intention of winning you over to atheism, so how about we try to make you into a good Christian? You can start by selling all that you have, giving the money to the poor, and wandering the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.

I see you're going in circles, again ...

I compared Mother Goose to theology, not to Jesus. And yes, discussing the nature of God has as much a factual basis as discussing Mother Goose.

The question remains, NV; have you read any of the Christian Philosophers I've provided on my lists?

Here's an anthology that is edited by one of the names on my list (C. Anthony Anderson), one that I've never heard of before, but I thought the book he edited looked interesting even though it has nothing directly to do with the Christian faith:

Logic, Meaning and Computation

In looking at the price of it, I'll probably not be reading it any time soon. Although, the Preface makes it sound interesting.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes I did. I explained clearly how you were propping up a straw man quite deliberately.

Saying something is a strawman doesn't make it a strawman. I have explained clearly why writing off philosophy of religion before reading it is a form of atheistic presuppositionalism--you've decided in advance that there is no value to be had in it. That is a presupposition.

I don't reject it. I accept it tentatively, and not absolutely.

That's new. In the past you have explicitly rejected it, but if you've changed your mind, that at least makes conversation possible.

What you call philosophy of religion here is what I call apologetics. I've drawn a distinction between apologetics and theology.

There are atheist and agnostic philosophers of religion. Unlike the vast majority of modern atheists, who can only shriek incoherently about science and falsifiability, these people actually know what they are talking about and are worth listening to. Presumably because they are interested in actually understanding and engaging with arguments. Several of the mods over at the Secular Outpost are good examples, if you would like to take notes.

If you want to write off a whole field of study because you don't like William Craig Lane, that is certainly your decision too. Just don't expect anyone on the theistic side to take anything you say seriously.

So you are saying that my analogy is invalid because you are unaware of fairy lore?

If it exists as a serious field, it's probably more interesting than your caricature. And it's probably based in folklore, which would make it a historical study. I know there are people who believe in fairies--if I were going to mock them, I would want to first make sure I knew exactly what they believed and why.

All that digging, and you still didn't even find a PhD thesis?

I'm a former atheist existentialist, so no digging required to have some sense of the various ways this particular school of thought intersects with Christianity. In case you are unfamiliar with Albert Camus, he was one of the most influential atheistic intellectuals of the 20th century and a prime example of a non-believer who saw enough value in Christianity's intellectual patrimony to write on the topic.

I'm sorry that his level of education is not good enough for you. Hopefully his Nobel Prize in Literature makes up for it.

Don't say that. I need your help. After what you just dug up on Albert Camus - which I haven't yet fact checked one bit but I'll take your word on it - why can't you find me a doctorate in English literature in which the PhD thesis contained no claims of verifiable facts? My understanding is that a PhD thesis requires a lot of research, and my understanding of research is that it is the act of finding and citing verifiable facts.

A thesis in theology would require research too. You can't just claim that Augustine or Aquinas said whatever you want them to--you need to engage with their actual thought. A difficult concept in the age of Dawkins, I know. From a secular perspective, it's the equivalent of a paper in literature or intellectual history more broadly. The fact that theology plays by its own internal rules does not mean that it is not verifiable from within that framework.

Christianity makes claims about reality. Its claims are false. I don't know what you expect me to do about that small issue... do you want it to have special exemption from the rules?

Setting aside the fact that I've come across no compelling argument as to the falsity of Christian claims, you could start by not judging the value of studies in a particular field on objective truth statements. Someone whose focus is political policy in the Middle East had better understand Islam, regardless of whether or not they think it's true.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's not my reasoning for accepting the proposition. Just pointing out that brutal counter arguments actually divert from your mission of deconverting, they actually help to lock the believer in more firmly. Thank you!

Right, you were being irrational.

WOW!! It's funny how atheists START OFF as 'Champions of logic' which entails things such as inference to the best explanation, but than like clockwork along comes the sleight of hand where all the sudden if a proposition isn't completely verifiable it's false...as if we don't realize that you are mutilating you're own theories in the process.

What?

All I'm saying is that there is positive evidence to indicate that Jesus never existed. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Oh this is cute...I'm sure this is a genuine calling for Christian values...drumroll please...

And there it is lol. Absolutely nothing to do with anything more than bitter atheistic mockery.

Mockery? Saying that a Christian should follow Christ's words is mockery? So... if I go to a restaurant and order a burger, would I be mocking if I expected a burger to arrive?

Said in a context of intellectual boasting, amazing!!!

Well this conversation, despite having nothing to do with the topic, has further convinced me that Jesus never existed. It's non sequitur hour!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Saying something is a strawman doesn't make it a strawman. I have explained clearly why writing off philosophy of religion before reading it is a form of atheistic presuppositionalism--you've decided in advance that there is no value to be had in it. That is a presupposition.

You've read my gumball machine analogy. You then saddled me with the claim that God does not exist. That's a straw man. Your perpetual denial shows all onlookers what kind of person you are.

That's new. In the past you have explicitly rejected it,

False.

but if you've changed your mind, that at least makes conversation possible.

It takes two to make conversation. At some point you should consider doing your part.

There are atheist and agnostic philosophers of religion. Unlike the vast majority of modern atheists, who can only shriek incoherently about science and falsifiability,

Do you own and operate your own straw man factory or do you buy straw men in bulk?

these people actually know what they are talking about and are worth listening to. Presumably because they are interested in actually understanding and engaging with arguments. Several of the mods over at the Secular Outpost are good examples, if you would like to take notes.

Well if they have an endorsement from you, that's all I need to know.

If you want to write off a whole field of study because you don't like William Craig Lane, that is certainly your decision too. Just don't expect anyone on the theistic side to take anything you say seriously.

I think you mean William Lane Craig. And I wasn't aware anyone likes him, so I don't see why one's opinion on him would be a criteria for anything.

If it exists as a serious field, it's probably more interesting than your caricature. And it's probably based in folklore, which would make it a historical study. I know there are people who believe in fairies--if I were going to mock them, I would want to first make sure I knew exactly what they believed and why.

So if I told you I saw a leprechaun, you'd want to make sure you know what color beard he had before you dismiss my claim?

I'm a former atheist existentialist, so no digging required to have some sense of the various ways this particular school of thought intersects with Christianity. In case you are unfamiliar with Albert Camus, he was one of the most influential atheistic intellectuals of the 20th century and a prime example of a non-believer who saw enough value in Christianity's intellectual patrimony to write on the topic.

You can end the tension by merely telling me what value there is in Christian philosophy. As far as I see, they get just about everything wrong. Abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, many criminals deserve death but the death penalty should not be legal, and then there are issues like global warming where Christian philosophy just waves its hand and says "Lol." Christian contribution to society is pretty much a joke. Or do you think the charity they have given outweighs two thousand years of child rape?

If only they followed Christ's words and rendered to Caesar what is Caesar's... but no, they want to get their emergency aid and pay no taxes for it.

I'm sorry that his level of education is not good enough for you. Hopefully his Nobel Prize in Literature makes up for it.

Apology accepted.

A thesis in theology would require research too. You can't just claim that Augustine or Aquinas said whatever you want them to--you need to engage with their actual thought. A difficult concept in the age of Dawkins, I know.

What is wrong with Dawkins?

From a secular perspective, it's the equivalent of a paper in literature or intellectual history more broadly. The fact that theology plays by its own internal rules does not mean that it is not verifiable from within that framework.

Right... and I can come up with a thesis on whether Spider-Man would scoop out sperm while mating like an actual spider or if he would reproduce like a human being. And I could make my claim with "evidence" from within the Marvel Comics framework.

Setting aside the fact that I've come across no compelling argument as to the falsity of Christian claims, you could start by not judging the value of studies in a particular field on objective truth statements. Someone whose focus is political policy in the Middle East had better understand Islam, regardless of whether or not they think it's true.

No compelling evidence that Christianity is false? Try looking under Flood, Noah's.

 

[Dirk1540]

Mockery? Saying that a Christian should follow Christ's words is mockery? So... if I go to a restaurant and order a burger, would I be mocking if I expected a burger to arrive?

No of course you wouldn't be mocking by ordering a burger. Saying to a Christian "Ok so you're a Christian? Then it's time for you to sell everything you own and wander the Earth preaching to everyone" is mockery. Your inability to decipher between two drastically different things is shining through again.

Well this conversation, despite having nothing to do with the topic, has further convinced me that Jesus never existed.

And with this statement are you making my ability to use logic look bad, or yours?

What?

All I'm saying is that there is positive evidence to indicate that Jesus never existed.

Ok let's hear the positive evidence. Forget about historical arguments over inferences from the evidence as to what really took place after the Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, let's hear your explanation that renders all of the Jewish, Christian, and Roman verification for the event of the crucifixion itself null & void, the most documented event of the ancient world. Oh wait I'm sorry I just totally under sold your argument, Jesus' crucifixion isn't just null & void, his actual existence is as well...let's fire up that incinerator again we have more Jewish, Christian, and Roman evidence to destroy.

A follow up question would be which sections of history are left? Did Charlemagne exist? We also should stop getting ahead of ourselves with all of this crazy talk about the philosophies of Augustine or Aquinas before we even know whether they existed or not. You've already declared several fields of study null & void I suppose it wasn't long before huge chunks of history and archaeology got the boot as well. Again which sections of history are left? Something tells me the sections that you like are left.

 

[Silmarien]

You've read my gumball machine analogy. You then saddled me with the claim that God does not exist. That's a straw man. Your perpetual denial shows all onlookers what kind of person you are.

Yes, the kind that looks at what people actually say instead of what they claim to believe for rhetorical purposes. The game is up as soon as you walk in and start mocking alternative positions.

False.

Oh, I see. You try to claim that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute but also not false. That is an incoherent position. If the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then things can be both true and false. All knowledge is meaningless if built upon a shaky foundation and a physics degree becomes Mother Goose as well.

It takes two to make conversation. At some point you should consider doing your part.

I tried months ago, and you responded by tossing every ridiculous Christian stereotype at me. The irony there is that I'm agnostic, so I'm frankly not interested.

Do you own and operate your own straw man factory or do you buy straw men in bulk?

I wish it were a strawman. As someone who used to identify with atheism, the current state of affairs disgusts me.

So if I told you I saw a leprechaun, you'd want to make sure you know what color beard he had before you dismiss my claim?

I would want to know any number of things before dismissing your claim. The color of the beard might be relevant--if you were in a forest and it was the same color green, that would make it more likely that your eyes were playing tricks.

You can end the tension by merely telling me what value there is in Christian philosophy. As far as I see, they get just about everything wrong. Abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, many criminals deserve death but the death penalty should not be legal, and then there are issues like global warming where Christian philosophy just waves its hand and says "Lol." Christian contribution to society is pretty much a joke. Or do you think the charity they have given outweighs two thousand years of child rape?

You will need to substantiate allegations of 2000 years of child rape. That frankly sounds like anti-Catholic hysteria. Speaking of which, Pope Francis on climate change: Pope Francis warns "history will judge" climate change deniers

In any case, Augustine's Confessions certainly has value as the first Western autobiography and a very compelling picture of humanity's quest to understand itself. All of Western literature and thought is built upon the basis of Christian theology, so discard it and you have no idea where the modern world even came from.

If only they followed Christ's words and rendered to Caesar what is Caesar's... but no, they want to get their emergency aid and pay no taxes for it.

First of all, you're misinterpreting that line. The interesting thing about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is that it's a direct attack upon the Roman Imperial cult. It's only about taxes in a shallow sense.

More importantly, the failures and various hypocrisies of Christianity as a religion have nothing to do with Christian theology. If Christianity is true, many people who consider themselves Christians are in a lot of trouble, especially in this country.

What is wrong with Dawkins?

Dawkins on Aquinas in The God Delusion:

"To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

The fun part is that Aquinas thought the universe could have logically been eternal, so attributing the Kalam to him is ignorant. These are other cosmological arguments.

Right... and I can come up with a thesis on whether Spider-Man would scoop out sperm while mating like an actual spider or if he would reproduce like a human being. And I could make my claim with "evidence" from within the Marvel Comics framework.

I'm sure theses on Marvel have been written. There's plenty of room for cultural commentary in X-Men, for example. You will need to explain how writing a paper on Shakespeare or Euripides differs from writing one on Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa. Childish remarks about comics don't count, especially when they don't even do the comics justice.

No compelling evidence that Christianity is false? Try looking under Flood, Noah's.

What about it? Similar stories show up in other mythologies, so it probably has its roots in actual historical floodings of early agrarian societies. The truth or falsity of Christianity is not dependent upon the historicity of the earliest parts of the Old Testament, however. Most of the Christian world does not subscribe to literal inerrancy.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No of course you wouldn't be mocking by ordering a burger. Saying to a Christian "Ok so you're a Christian? Then it's time for you to sell everything you own and wander the Earth preaching to everyone" is mockery. Your inability to decipher between two drastically different things is shining through again.

And with this statement are you making my ability to use logic look bad, or yours?

Ok let's hear the positive evidence. Forget about historical arguments over inferences from the evidence as to what really took place after the Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, let's hear your explanation that renders all of the Jewish, Christian, and Roman verification for the event of the crucifixion itself null & void, the most documented event of the ancient world. Oh wait I'm sorry I just totally under sold your argument, Jesus' crucifixion isn't just null & void, his actual existence is as well...let's fire up that incinerator again we have more Jewish, Christian, and Roman evidence to destroy.

A follow up question would be which sections of history are left? Did Charlemagne exist? We also should stop getting ahead of ourselves with all of this crazy talk about the philosophies of Augustine or Aquinas before we even know whether they existed or not. You've already declared several fields of study null & void I suppose it wasn't long before huge chunks of history and archaeology got the boot as well. Again which sections of history are left? Something tells me the sections that you like are left.

I'm not saying the evidence for Christ's existence is lacking. I'm saying there is a positive case that can be made to the contrary. Bringing up questions like, "Did Charlemagne exist?" show that either you're confused or else that you've never given serious consideration to the Christ Myth claim.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok let's hear the positive evidence. Forget about historical arguments over inferences from the evidence as to what really took place after the Romans crucified Jesus of Nazareth, let's hear your explanation that renders all of the Jewish, Christian, and Roman verification for the event of the crucifixion itself null & void, the most documented event of the ancient world.

I wouldn't go that far. As far as I can tell, almost all of the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is circumstantial. There's a lot of it, yes, and no valid reason to deny the Crucifixion, but I don't think we have Roman documentation of it at all.

It is worth pointing out that all the documentation for the assassination of Julius Caesar seems to be even later. (Though his military campaigns are certainly documented firsthand by Caesar himself. Which doesn't make it particularly reliable, but he was obviously there.)

If you want well documented ancient history, go with the Peloponnesian War, since Thucydides, the Athenian historian who wrote about it, had taken part in it as a general.

 

[Dirk1540]

Do you own and operate your own straw man factory or do you buy straw men in bulk?

As far as I see, they get just about everything wrong. Abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, many criminals deserve death but the death penalty should not be legal, and then there are issues like global warming where Christian philosophy just waves its hand and says "Lol." Christian contribution to society is pretty much a joke. Or do you think the charity they have given outweighs two thousand years of child rape?

Did I seriously just pull these 2 quotes from the same exact post Hahahaha

 

[Dirk1540]

I'm not saying the evidence for Christ's existence is lacking. I'm saying there is a positive case that can be made to the contrary. Bringing up questions like, "Did Charlemagne exist?" show that either you're confused or else that you've never given serious consideration to the Christ Myth claim.

I think you might be trying to make an argument such as 'What if there was tons of evidence that the story of Spiderman was written 2,000 years ago, so what, all the evidence doesn't mean he wasn't fictional.' I'm not at all making a purely 'Volume of evidence' argument. TYPE of evidence is absolutely critical!!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you might be trying to make an argument such as 'What if there was tons of evidence that the story of Spiderman was written 2,000 years ago, so what, all the evidence doesn't mean he wasn't fictional.' I'm not at all making a purely 'Volume of evidence' argument. TYPE of evidence is absolutely critical!!

Yep.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, the kind that looks at what people actually say instead of what they claim to believe for rhetorical purposes. The game is up as soon as you walk in and start mocking alternative positions.



Oh, I see. You try to claim that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute but also not false. That is an incoherent position. If the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then things can be both true and false. All knowledge is meaningless if built upon a shaky foundation and a physics degree becomes Mother Goose as well.



I tried months ago, and you responded by tossing every ridiculous Christian stereotype at me. The irony there is that I'm agnostic, so I'm frankly not interested.



I wish it were a strawman. As someone who used to identify with atheism, the current state of affairs disgusts me.



I would want to know any number of things before dismissing your claim. The color of the beard might be relevant--if you were in a forest and it was the same color green, that would make it more likely that your eyes were playing tricks.



You will need to substantiate allegations of 2000 years of child rape. That frankly sounds like anti-Catholic hysteria. Speaking of which, Pope Francis on climate change: Pope Francis warns "history will judge" climate change deniers

In any case, Augustine's Confessions certainly has value as the first Western autobiography and a very compelling picture of humanity's quest to understand itself. All of Western literature and thought is built upon the basis of Christian theology, so discard it and you have no idea where the modern world even came from.



First of all, you're misinterpreting that line. The interesting thing about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is that it's a direct attack upon the Roman Imperial cult. It's only about taxes in a shallow sense.

More importantly, the failures and various hypocrisies of Christianity as a religion have nothing to do with Christian theology. If Christianity is true, many people who consider themselves Christians are in a lot of trouble, especially in this country.



Dawkins on Aquinas in The God Delusion:

"To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

The fun part is that Aquinas thought the universe could have logically been eternal, so attributing the Kalam to him is ignorant. These are other cosmological arguments.



I'm sure theses on Marvel have been written. There's plenty of room for cultural commentary in X-Men, for example. You will need to explain how writing a paper on Shakespeare or Euripides differs from writing one on Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa. Childish remarks about comics don't count, especially when they don't even do the comics justice.



What about it? Similar stories show up in other mythologies, so it probably has its roots in actual historical floodings of early agrarian societies. The truth or falsity of Christianity is not dependent upon the historicity of the earliest parts of the Old Testament, however. Most of the Christian world does not subscribe to literal inerrancy.

I'm not interested in reading this or talking to you. Your refusal to admit to a small infraction is an indictment against your intellectual honesty.

 

[Dirk1540]

I wouldn't go that far. As far as I can tell, almost all of the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is circumstantial. There's a lot of it, yes, and no valid reason to deny the Crucifixion, but I don't think we have Roman documentation of it at all.

It is worth pointing out that all the documentation for the assassination of Julius Caesar seems to be even later. (Though his military campaigns are certainly documented firsthand by Caesar himself. Which doesn't make it particularly reliable, but he was obviously there.)

If you want well documented ancient history, go with the Peloponnesian War, since Thucydides, the Athenian historian who wrote about it, had taken part in it as a general.

Due to the 2 sections I've bolded we're probably talking about 2 different things here. I don't try to tap dance away from circumstantial evidence, for me it's always been about taking 20 steps back and looking at the totality of circumstantial evidence that is piled ontop of itself. As a matter of fact sometimes I laugh at how each individual situation can always have multiple explanations attached to it, which is why it is about totality for me.

Caesar's assassination would be a good example. These shows & movies that I've watched...is it true that each man took turns stabbing him? Details like this will be more dependent on the documentation that you spoke of as being not too ironclad. The general evidence that he was assassinated will be a different matter, surrounding evidence that's not even about his assassination will clue us into the fact that the Emperor has been assassinated. But again because of the 2nd line of your post that I bolded it doesn't even sound like your playing Devil's advocate for Jesus' mere existence or his crucifixion.

Roman documentation is where a historian would expect it to be, after the fact, after this thing called Christianity had political ramifications. Our Roman records are evidence for the general picture of Jesus that we have, the general picture that almost all non-Christians start off with in formal debates against Christians. Some are on the radical end of speculation and will deny Jesus existed.

I DO know people who take the Henry Ford approach, a famous line from him was "History is bunk!" I do know people who laugh at the entire field of history and their motto is "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see." I'm actually content walking away from those people as we agree to disagree that 'History is valuable vs History is worthless.' It is when a person doesn't disregard historical studies, but says that there's a historical argument that he never existed, that I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the historical explanation.

All of the disagreements that we have in our history about Jesus...the in fighting between Christians about 'What he meant' over here, and over here. The figting between Christians & Gnostics over 'Who he was.' The Roman mockery over the 'Crucified sage' and his pathetic followers. The 'He was a heretic' arguments with the orthodox Jews. The interpretative arguments with Nazarenes, etc. "That he existed" is an argument in our historical evidence that doesn't exist. So I'm intrigued with how one would present a positive historical case for Jesus' non-existence...and at the same time explain how the historical evidence possibly led them there. And I'd also be interested in them showing me how they would apply the same historical logic to address other non-related historical puzzles. Seems to me that you would actually have to burn the evidence to claim Jesus didn't exist, as opposed to using the evidence.

 

[Silmarien]

But again because of the 2nd line of your post that I bolded it doesn't even sound like your playing Devil's advocate for Jesus' mere existence or his crucifixion.

No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I have nothing nice to say about the Christ Myth theory, but turning around and referring to the Crucifixion as the most documented event in the ancient world is extreme hyperbole. I don't see any reason to deny it, just as I don't see reason to deny the assassination of Caesar or execution of Socrates as historical events, but I don't think it's useful to exaggerate the sort of evidence we have.

It's important to approach these issues with as much objectivity as possible. Otherwise you lose credibility and probably make the opposing side look more reasonable. I've become very, very careful when it comes to which biblical scholars I'll read--the first hint of bias affecting someone's scholarship and it's game over.

 

[Dirk1540]

No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I have nothing nice to say about the Christ Myth theory, but turning around and referring to the Crucifixion as the most documented event in the ancient world is extreme hyperbole. I don't see any reason to deny it, just as I don't see reason to deny the assassination of Caesar or execution of Socrates as historical events, but I don't think it's useful to exaggerate the sort of evidence we have.

Well...this may sound like I'm trying to hype things up with fancy hyperbole but not really, unless it's misleading for people to hear me say 'Event' and compare it to a series of events. For example the Peloponnesian Wars or the 1st Crusades are very far from single day events. Yes, I believe that the Roman crucifixion of Jesus is the best attested single day event in the ancient world. More authors/sources reference this single day event (within X amount of years close to the event) than any single day event that I know of in the ancient world. If I'm in need of correction I will not only not be confrontational about it but I will appreciate it so that I don't type this anymore in a way that is exaggerated and misleading. There have been times where I have found out that I had been overexaggerating something, and I yelled at myself for awhile, then didn't do it anymore lol.

As far as I know the statement of misinformation that people tend to throw out is instead when people call 'The Resurrection' of Jesus the most attested event in the ancient world. Conversely, some of the most militant atheists alive have no problem with the Roman crucifixion of Jesus.

It's important to approach these issues with as much objectivity as possible. Otherwise you lose credibility and probably make the opposing side look more reasonable. I've become very, very careful when it comes to which biblical scholars I'll read--the first hint of bias affecting someone's scholarship and it's game over.

My actual intend is not to shoot for cool sounding hyperbole, my intend is a lot of times to stress how firmly grounded the crucifixion is in history...for a specific objective reason. If we all have our objective historiography hats on then what needs to be stressed is that the Roman crucifixion of Jesus is so well grounded in history that you can actually weigh the strenght of Jesus theories against their likelihood to have led to Jesus being crucified by Rome. This helps us to not simply pick & choose theories we like such as Jesus just being a wise moral teacher who went around championing the poor. Such a Jesus would not logically lead him to the cross.

So I more so have things in the back of my mind that people need to consider when making their inferences, instead of having a goal of preacher style hyperbole of exaggeration. Or worse, I hope people don't sense a sleight of hand on my part where I'm saying 'Event' and hoping that they draw the wrong conclusion and contrast it to a long series of events (that verbally are usually just stated as if a single event). I'm not trying to do that. I might come across as sounding like that because I know how important it is to stress the historical strength of the crucifixion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. I have nothing nice to say about the Christ Myth theory, but turning around and referring to the Crucifixion as the most documented event in the ancient world is extreme hyperbole. I don't see any reason to deny it, just as I don't see reason to deny the assassination of Caesar or execution of Socrates as historical events, but I don't think it's useful to exaggerate the sort of evidence we have.

It's important to approach these issues with as much objectivity as possible. Otherwise you lose credibility and probably make the opposing side look more reasonable. I've become very, very careful when it comes to which biblical scholars I'll read--the first hint of bias affecting someone's scholarship and it's game over.

... but doesn't everyone have bias to some extent which affects our individual attempts at objectivity? What philosophical (or legal) principles provide the criteria by which we decide to give some scholar the ol' heave-ho because he's a bit too exuberant over his case?