Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camaban · 11-24-2002, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
The weakest argument,

"If you just accept Jesus in your heart, then you'd think like me."

That's a strong argument

But not in the direction he wants

Jackalope · 11-24-2002, 11:35 PM

*snort*

That's on par with, "If you'd just open your heart to GAWD, you'd understand that everything I've been telling you is true."

I think the conversation went straight downhill at that point, since a comment that involved something about "If you'd only use your brain..." popped out of my mouth next.

Camaban · 11-25-2002, 01:11 AM

Quote:

I think the conversation went straight downhill at that point, since a comment that involved something about "If you'd only use your brain..." popped out of my mouth next.

Hill implies some sort of slope...

would cliff be a better word?

Oolon Colluphid · 11-25-2002, 01:54 AM

Weakest argument I�ve come across: one from my own pet cretinist (and a former physics teacher to boot!):

�If the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, how come it is used for engines?�

(Hint: fuel

)

DT

Camaban · 11-25-2002, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier:
Weakest argument I�ve come across: one from my own pet cretinist (and a former physics teacher to boot!):

�If the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, how come it is used for engines?�

(Hint: fuel

)

DT

From a physics teacher?

I think you're coming close to winning

Sandslice · 11-25-2002, 05:33 AM

I kinda like this Hovind gem about Unicorns:

"I suspect all the pictures of horses with horns have been so imbedded in our minds we cannot get them out. Scripture mentions the unicorn's great strength, aversion to man, and un-trainability. Horses are domestic animals that train well; reptiles are wild animals with small brains that don't train well, if at all. If we could start fresh and read what the Bible says about unicorns, I think we would find that a stocky strong reptile like the triceratops would fit the description much better."

"Unicorn" by definition, has one horn; "triceratops" means three-horned face. Try again?

KC · 11-25-2002, 06:16 AM

My favorite is the hydrologic sorting argument to reconcile the fossil record and the Noachian Flood. How that explains flowering plants appearing first in later layers than ferns is a mystery.

Cheers,

KC

BibleBelted · 11-25-2002, 10:13 AM

I was really convinced by this one. It is Christian Apologetics in One Lesson.

<a href="http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/logical_defense.htm" target="_blank">A Logical Defense of the Faith??</a>

Quote:

Men simply become fools trying to deny their Creator. Consider the Big Bang theory for a moment. There is no Creator, so the universe created itself. First there was nothing, then it exploded, and all of the complex and intricate order � from the atom to the DNA molecule, from planets to galaxies, from genes to life, from viruses to man � it all came from that chaotic explosion breaking down for billions of years. We have to be very desperate and go to college for a very long time in order to become fanciful enough to dream up a theory like this, or stupid enough to believe it. I know. I used to believe it.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:22, KJV)

They are educated beyond their intelligence.

Do not waste a lot of time on the question, "Is there a God?" Those who deny God�s existence are only fooling themselves.

Of course, in order to understand that you need further study:

Quote:

There are lots of good resources for apologetics, if we know how to use them. Most materials are written from an evidentialist point of view. I believe we must first stand upon the solid ground that the Bible is the Word of God, then argue from that position. By contrast, evidentialists first fight to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. They use evidence from all of the unreliable sources of truth which I mentioned earlier � such as evidence from our senses combined with the scientific method. They argue that man, by reason, can find out God � which essentially places the authority of man�s reason above the authority of God�s word. They begin at the wrong place. They use the wrong evidence as authority. Remember, the bottom line is, "How do you know for sure?" Scripture � the Word of God � is the highest possible authority.

the highlight of the whole thing - BB

There is no authority higher than the Word of God which can be used to authenticate the Word of God. The only authority which we can use to prove Scripture is Scripture itself. Scripture is self-authenticating. If we use any other evidence, that evidence must necessarily be lower in authority than Scripture. To use a lower authority than Scripture to authenticate Scripture is like using a tone-deaf three-year-old with a kazoo to authenticate the musical compositions of Bach � the authority of the greater is necessarily lowered by the lesser.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: BibleBelted ]

phlebas · 11-25-2002, 11:37 AM

From my brother, no less:

"Why else would we look like God if he didn't create us?"

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I was stunned. My answer was something like "why would he look like us if we didn't create him?"

Runner-up: a multi-way tie, with anything that ends in "In Christ, Douglas."

Oolon Colluphid · 11-26-2002, 12:03 AM

We need to define our terms I think. A weak argument should be plausible, but easily demolished with the tiniest of thought. But phlebas's example strays into the realms of the incorrigibly stupid, so I think doesn't count for this poll...?

DT

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

11-24-2002, 11:35 PM	#22
Jackalope Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hayward, CA, USA Posts: 1,675	snort That's on par with, "If you'd just open your heart to GAWD, you'd understand that everything I've been telling you is true." I think the conversation went straight downhill at that point, since a comment that involved something about "If you'd only use your brain..." popped out of my mouth next.

11-25-2002, 01:54 AM	#24
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Weakest argument I�ve come across: one from my own pet cretinist (and a former physics teacher to boot!): �If the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, how come it is used for engines?� (Hint: fuel ) DT

11-25-2002, 05:33 AM	#26
Sandslice Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 80	I kinda like this Hovind gem about Unicorns: "I suspect all the pictures of horses with horns have been so imbedded in our minds we cannot get them out. Scripture mentions the unicorn's great strength, aversion to man, and un-trainability. Horses are domestic animals that train well; reptiles are wild animals with small brains that don't train well, if at all. If we could start fresh and read what the Bible says about unicorns, I think we would find that a stocky strong reptile like the triceratops would fit the description much better." "Unicorn" by definition, has one horn; "triceratops" means three-horned face. Try again?

11-25-2002, 06:16 AM	#27
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	My favorite is the hydrologic sorting argument to reconcile the fossil record and the Noachian Flood. How that explains flowering plants appearing first in later layers than ferns is a mystery. Cheers, KC

11-25-2002, 11:37 AM	#29
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	From my brother, no less: "Why else would we look like God if he didn't create us?" <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> I was stunned. My answer was something like "why would he look like us if we didn't create him?" Runner-up: a multi-way tie, with anything that ends in "In Christ, Douglas."

11-26-2002, 12:03 AM	#30
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	We need to define our terms I think. A weak argument should be plausible, but easily demolished with the tiniest of thought. But phlebas's example strays into the realms of the incorrigibly stupid, so I think doesn't count for this poll...? DT

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.