Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 10-23-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bagfullofsnakes
I didn't have to be there to know that Jesus couldn't have made his first, post-resurrection appearance in both Jerusalem AND Galilee.

It's one, or the other. Not both.

Or neither one

.

-Mike...

Doctor X · 10-23-2003, 09:23 AM

Hey if he can be born twice, ten years apart, he can do anything. . . .

--J.D.

rmadison · 10-23-2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
Or neither one .

-Mike...

Well...that too!

Roger Pearse · 10-23-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Well, I'm one of those wacky prejudicial folks who accepts the constancy of the laws of physics until demonstrated otherwise. I will lack belief in floating axeheads and talking asses until such things are demonstrated in a controlled enviroment or there is good reason to accept their factuality. ...

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, of course! (Is this view above not rationalism? -- few today share this philosophy).

The points you made, however, didn't seem to me to do more than articulate your beliefs. You'll forgive me if I don't have a go at these, as I don't see the relevance.

My response to the issue remains the same: i.e., shouldn't we prefer evidence to prejudice?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 10-23-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
It should be noted that most biblical scholars are not atheists but Xians.

On what is this curious statement based?

Quote:

Further, of this group of people qualified to make a determination, most do not consider the bible inerrant.

Which part of biblical studies allows a suitably 'qualified' person to determine whether a text is inerrant? This must be a theological statement, not something you can do in a test-tube.

Quote:

Biblical inerrancy itself is a relatively new invention of fundamentalist protestantism.

I think this is a confusion between a name and a thing.

Quote:

And so you won't be insulted again could you describe the course and nature of your biblical studies? Some of us here have studied the original language, text criticism, papyrology and so forth so attributing our failure to accept biblical inerrancy as "atheistic bias" could be considered just as insulting and, dare I say, a touch hypocritical.

Is this related to the bits in this thread about not needing knowledge of the original languages?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 10-23-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bagfullofsnakes
It doesn't matter if we were there or not. If the document from antiquity says that 2 + 2 = 5, then it's foolish to say that their statement is above investigation.

I didn't have to be there to know that Jesus couldn't have made his first, post-resurrection appearance in both Jerusalem AND Galilee.

It's one, or the other. Not both.

Contradictions demonstrate errancy.

The 'bible difficulties' to which you refer do not convince, I'm afraid. Since these difficulties have been apparent to all for 2000 years, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps the terms of the debate have been misdrawn?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

rmadison · 10-23-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
You are welcome to believe whatever you like, of course! (Is this view above not rationalism? -- few today share this philosophy).

LOL!

Right...rationalism is soooo bizzare and everything!

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse

My response to the issue remains the same: i.e., shouldn't we prefer evidence to prejudice?

Evidence always trumps prejudice.

And what is the best philosophical method to evaluate the evidence?

Oh yes...that backwater philosophy which (according to you) so few share, known as "Rationalism".

rmadison · 10-23-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
The 'bible difficulties' to which you refer do not convince, I'm afraid. Since these difficulties have been apparent to all for 2000 years, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps the terms of the debate have been misdrawn?

Sorry Roger...I don't understand you. This doesn't make any sense to me.

I tried to respond to it, but found I couldn't. I don't know what it is that you are saying.

Vinnie · 10-23-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, of course!

Red is a color, too. And the tautologies start rolling in....

Quote:

The points you made, however, didn't seem to me to do more than articulate your beliefs. You'll forgive me if I don't have a go at these, as I don't see the relevance.

I pointed out the seeming incoherence of the Biblical story under discussion given known facts of nature and precepts of morality. You avoid the issue by calling it irelevant.

This has been happening a lot to me lately. Why is it that those who disagress with me lately side-step the actual core issues that I am fully willing to discuss in order to whine out things like "what you wrote is insincere," "its irrelecant," "you have false motives"...

Are you here to discuss and debate the topic or not? Get with the game, soldier!

Quote:

My response to the issue remains the same: i.e., shouldn't we prefer evidence to prejudice?

What part of "lacking belief" in something until "evidence" is "presented" for it didn't you understand?!?! I can draw it in crayon if necessary.

And the constancy of the laws of nature are not a prejudice, they are an observed fact! Could they have been violated given Christian presuppositions? Yes. Is the story coherent with what we know. As I demonstrated, no.

Vinnie

MortalWombat · 10-23-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by penia
I don't see how one can prove evolution, no one was there.

I take it that you believe that anyone who is convicted of a crime based on forensic evidence alone should be let free?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2003, 09:23 AM	#62
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Hey if he can be born twice, ten years apart, he can do anything. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.