The Admiral

Empty Tomb, Empty Tomb, Squawk Squawk, Polly wanna cracker, Empty Tomb, Empty Tomb.

Jesus, what a credulous shallow thinking bunch of sick minds these fundies are.

And I haven't even had a martini yet.

The Admiral

Strawberry

Care to expand? There seems to be a story behind this post.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

LOL!! Care to share your story behind this?

I agree, though...the whole "empty tomb" argument makes me want to have a drink too.

-Nick

Starboy

Admiral, tell me about it. Almost as stupid as the Christian that claimed that it was god that held the protons together in the nucleus of an atom. Or that the reason the sky was blue was "because god made it that way." Once you accept supernatural over natural explanations as "truth" there is no hope for reason.

Starboy

Amie

go have your martini you big bundle of joy...

The Admiral

What provoked this incoherent outburst? Well, I have been doing a lot of Christian apologetics reading lately. Within the last couple of months I have read "In the Fullness fo Time" "Scaling the Secular City" twice, "Mere Christianity" "The Case for Christ", among others. This morning I started to read "Know Why You Believe" by Paul Little. It is so ridiculous that at page 50 I dropped the damn thing and vented my feelings into the computer through my wireless odorless keyboard.

Thanks Amie but it's really to early in the day for a martini, though I'm tempted. I should be able to make it to page 100 first.

The Admiral

Toto

Are you torturing your mind for some reason?

I have to agree, Christian apologetics is so illogical, you wonder how anyone can read it and stay sane.

I have decided that the whole field of Christian apologetics is just a big in-joke. The Christians are writing parodies of logical arguments, much like an atheist troll posting on these boards. They write apologetics not to prove anything, but to muck up the intellectual process - because they don't trust reason when it leads to the wrong results.

Christian apologetics is really just a form of post-modern performance art, but without the nudity and canned yams.

fando

So that's the secret! Next time I read the bible, I'll have a martini.

Ernest Sparks

"Take ye and drink of this..."

But I don't necessarily agree with Toto and others. Christians like apologetic arguments because they find them so convincing. They are already oriented toward the conclusions. People who aren't so inclined will always find ways to thwart them. Some arguments are stupidly made. Others of a historical-scientific-philosophical character do not so much advance thought forward but rather wrap their subjects up in a theistic package. I am amazed and amused when forms of transcendental argument for God throw monkey wrenches into debate and turn it into a fiasco. the apologists remember that it is the audience that is the target of a debate, not the other debator. The opponent forgets this and gets utterly flabbergasted.

That reminds me of a line:

"Singlely, the arguments for God's existence are not rigorously valid, but collectively they add up to an overwhelming certainty."

That sounds like the old car commercial:

"We lose money on each car sold, but make it up by our huge sales volume."

seebs

Well, if someone said he could flip a coin and always get heads, any given flip wouldn't convince me, but a thousand in a row (with a "fair" coin) would.

Probabalistic arguments are perfectly reasonable as long as the probabilities in question are accurately understood. (This excludes the "here is the chance of someone fulfilling all these prophecies" nonsense.)

I think most apologetics is silly at best - but I think this is true on both sides. An argument you agree with always *looks* more plausible. Such is the human condition.