Riverwind

This is why I'm not going to bother responding to Sauron at this point. This is what debates with him always boil down to, name calling and "I showed you / No you didn't". If one finds it fun to mess with him, then I suppose it is worthwhile. I'm not being the "apologist" he accuses me of being and I don't enjoy this kind of "debate", so he's a good candidate for my ignore list. I can't think that I've ever read anything of interest from him except militant atheist apologetics anyway. He's good for keeping up with the latest in hard-nosed rhetoric, though.

Sauron consistently makes these types of assumptive claims to every point that anyone makes:

(1) You don't know what you're talking about.
(2) I'm older than you.
(3) I've been here longer and have been doing this longer than you.
(4) I know everything about every topic under the sun and you don't.
(5) No. You're wrong.
(6) You're just evading...stalling...whatever (this one gets especially old, stupid, and annoying but he never stops and probably never will, so this habit alone deserves the ignore list)
(7) You're a poptart. (Huh??)

There. Seven. A complete list. Well, ok, I'm sure there are one hundred more things like this that could be listed, but I'll leave it at that. Sorry, Sauron, but you really need to learn some humility (echo...echo...echo...).

Riverwind

Yes, and we have "evidence" in the form of the Bible, yet that evidence is merely turned away from by many.

I find this to be a matter of opinion. I happen to think that a loving God would allow us "free will" to live our lives and choose what we want to do and how we want to act.

I disagree with the "rebellions against evidence" obviously. If one believes in a particular God, then by necessity, any other worldview will be incorrect. How does one know? Faith. That's all anyone has in life for any view.

Certainly not and I was arguing against that earlier in this very thread. What I was trying to yank into perspective was the human tendency to think that we have and know all the answers to life. We know next to nothing. Therefore, we should always be wary of "evidence" and more importantly how we interpret that "evidence".

I, personally, find plenty of supporting evidence for Biblical claims. There is some that, by interpretation, appears to go against Biblical claims. I suppose you are correct that future "evidence", if read and interpreted correctly, would reverse false or misguided claims.

I felt it was obvious and not in need of an "argument". Your position, rejecting the supernatural, obviously rejects the existence of the Biblical God.

Layman

What backtracking? My post was full of questions about what his suggestion would mean in particular circumstances. Such questions are how you flesh out an idea and make sure you and everyone else understands just what is being proposed. Kirby could have difused them all by clarifying that while he wanted N.T. Wright and those like him to have "no place at the table" of the study of Christian Origins, that he still thought they should be allowed to contribute to the leading academic journals devoted to that subject. That would help clarify what he meant by "the table," a term he never even tried to define. Certainly there is nothing beyond the pale about considering such an editorial rule by such journals as a logical result of a rule excluding "dogmatic" Christians from the table of the study of Christian Origins.

Kirby made very provocative comments while failing to clarify key elements of his suggested banning of "dogmatic" Christians from the study of their own origins. I wanted specifics. He apparently has withdrawn the motion rather than give them.

And characterizing a rule that would bar scholars like N.T. Wright--who Kirby mentioned by name--from having a "place at the table" in the study of Christian origins is--laughably and obviously--not a "rather innocent idea." It would be earthshaking in its implications to the field.

Sauron

Yes, and my original post substantiated that claim.

The first unsubstantiated claim was your statement "that's illogical". So burden is still on you.

Yes, you did. So prove the illogic, using my position - not your strawman.

No, you battered your own strawman.

I merely put it back on your shoulders, where it belongs.

Then as usual, your "knowledge" is faulty.

Sauron

More excuses.

The same points that I have raised have also been raised by other posters. You also fail to respond to them.

Now tell us once again how your failure to respond is due to me, and not due to the difficulty of the questions.

Not hardly. You and I were having a decent, cordial exchange for awhile. But then you decided that my positions lacked introspection. Shortly aftwards, you demonstrated a lack of intellectual integrity by dodging well-formed and honest questions.

Things went downhill from there. You have only yourself to blame.

You confuse (a) pride with (b) a lack of tolerance for trickery in debate.

Sauron

Are you ready to provide us with a metric by which we can:
(a) accept the bible 'evidence' while
(b) turning away other ancient miracle claims?

We also have evidence of supernatural events in other ancient texts, you know. Why should we accept the bible claims, but reject those of other texts?

Oh here, let me give you an example - it'll be harder for you to ignore if you have one shoved right under your nose. Herodotus tells us about flying serpents in Egypt:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.


Oh, and it's not just magic beasts, we have evidence of Greek gods - thus 'proving' their existence:

[2.91] The Egyptians are averse to adopt Greek customs, or, in a word, those of any other nation. This feeling is almost universal among them. At Chemmis, however, which is a large city in the Thebaic canton, near Neapolis, there is a square enclosure sacred to Perseus, son of Danae. Palm trees grow all round the place, which has a stone gateway of an unusual size, surmounted by two colossal statues, also in stone. Inside this precinct is a temple, and in the temple an image of Perseus. The people of Chemmis say that Perseus often appears to them, sometimes within the sacred enclosure, sometimes in the open country: one of the sandals which he has worn is frequently found - two cubits in length, as they affirm - and then all Egypt flourishes greatly. In the worship of Perseus Greek ceremonies are used; gymnastic games are celebrated in his honour, comprising every kind of contest, with prizes of cattle, cloaks, and skins. I made inquiries of the Chemmites why it was that Perseus appeared to them and not elsewhere in Egypt, and how they came to celebrate gymnastic contests unlike the rest of the Egyptians: to which they answered, "that Perseus belonged to their city by descent. Danans and Lynceus were Chemmites before they set sail for Greece, and from them Perseus was descended," they said, tracing the genealogy; "and he, when he came to Egypt for the purpose" (which the Greeks also assign) "of bringing away from Libya the Gorgon's head, paid them a visit, and acknowledged them for his kinsmen - he had heard the name of their city from his mother before he left Greece - he bade them institute a gymnastic contest in his honour, and that was the reason why they observed the practice."



So by your standard, we have to accept all the above as accurate, since
(a) we can't know anything for sure anyhow and
(b) we accept the bible, so we have to accept other ancient miracle claims.

Either that, or you have some kind of secret metric that you use to accept one, but reject the other. Care to share that metric with us?

Oh, and if you want more examples, just speak up. I can generate a dozen or so without any effort.

Sauron

No, your post contained a litany of outrageous positions, juxtaposed with Kirby's name. Lawyerly.

When challenged on that, you failed to address or explain those outrageous positions and tried to downplay the original over-the-top thrust of your question. As you are doing again, in your most recent response.

When caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you retreat and try to sound wise and reasonable, ignoring the parts of your post where you clearly were neither.

As I said: backtracking.

Brother Daniel

By whom? Concluding that a claim is false is not the same as turning away from the evidence that consists of the mere fact that someone has made the claim. The Bible exists, and it says what it says. That basic fact has been considered, not ignored, by all of us who have an opinion about it, one way or another.
I can't see what possible relevance this opinion has to our discussion.
It follows from a definition of supernatural that I offered, with the suggestion that such a definition is completely consistent with the usual usage of the word by traditional Christian apologists. Alleged events are labelled "supernatural" precisely in order to play shenanigans with the evidence. When people are following evidence rationally, there is no need to make a distinction between "natural" and "supernatural".
Faith is a very slippery word. It can mean many different things. I don't find it to be helpful in a serious discussion.

In context, you appear to be saying: "OF COURSE I'm not following evidence. No one else does either!" To which I reply: We all must do our best to be rational and to follow evidence. If others make errors, that is no excuse for knowingly embracing our own errors.

Again, if I'm misrepresenting you, then please clarify.
But in context, you seemed to be making an excuse for abandoning rational ways of reaching conclusions. (In favour of what? "Faith"?) But if all you mean to say is that we have to be careful, then of course I agree.
And you were wrong. My argument was about the nature of evidence, and about how to evaluate the probability that an allegation about history is true. There was no assumption therein about the existence of God, or about the characteristics of any God that might exist.
If my argument leads, as a consequence, to the rejection of your narrow version of God, that does not mean that I started with an assumption that one should reject that God.

If you think my argument contains atheistic assumptions, then go ahead and point out where those assumptions enter my argument.

Brother Daniel

In context, Riverwind appears to have presented "faith" as that metric. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sauron

Indeed.

Funny how Riverwind invokes QM and existential uncertainty when he desires to downplay evidence, but then says:

So appeals to QM - it is hoped - will negate contrary evidence to the bible because we can't know anything for sure.

But QM doesn't operate in the lives of ordinary people, because "free will" intervenes.