A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2012, 10:41 PM
A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Edit: double post saying I'm editing a double post.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2012, 10:49 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 10:41 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Edit: double post saying I'm editing a double post.

okay Erxomai is on time out for the next 10 posts! .. go sit in your corner.. go!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ddrew's post
20-08-2012, 10:55 PM
A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 10:49 PM)ddrew Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 10:41 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Edit: double post saying I'm editing a double post.

okay Erxomai is on time out for the next 10 posts! .. go sit in your corner.. go!

It's not my fault I wasn't expecting that last hit to send me to the stars... Smokin

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Erxomai's post
20-08-2012, 11:01 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Welcome! I hope you stick around to discuss, even if we have heard it. (Example below- we've heard it, and everyone likes to put, in their own words, the sense you've missed Wink ) It's always fun to see the responses made to wiggle non-sense into reason and truth Big Grin


(20-08-2012 10:10 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  I thus find theistic or at least deistic belief to be the only plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, as there must be an ultimate, non-contigent cause.

Why? Why must there be?

No, seriously.

Since the dawn of biblical time, Rainbows MUST be a sign, the earth MUST be flat and the earth MUST be six thousand years old. But now, we know the truth of these outrageous ancient and mythical explanations.

Guess what. Just because we don't yet know how the universe has come to exist doesn't mean anything besides we just don't know. There doesn't even have to be a why or a purpose. It's beautiful just the way it is, amazing in fact.

If and when we do find the answer, it could possibly be something very simple.


I can tell you how and why christianity came to be. Based on social and emotional evolution, it was a very functional means. It is passé now, with all of our truth and knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 16 users Like LadyJane's post
20-08-2012, 11:52 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 10:49 PM)ddrew Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 10:41 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Edit: double post saying I'm editing a double post.

okay Erxomai is on time out for the next 10 posts! .. go sit in your corner.. go!

Well done ddrew. Several times I've had to say, "Erx, park uranus in the naughty chair!"

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like aurora's post
21-08-2012, 12:35 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Welcome Smile

... I love how you religious types always have usernames reflecting your certainty Wink

Anyway, hope you stick around for a while. Feel free to start threads and ask questions or indeed answer them with the Truth and Nothing But The Truth, even the same tired old questions, as far as I'm concerned. Real time discussion is a lot more fruitful than picking over old threads. But we might link you back to previous discussions if we feel the need...

Also you might get a few curveballs thrown your way...

Also realise that... being one of the younger members of the site, thar be dragons where you tread Big Grin Basically there's a bunch of people here who've seen a lot of life. So be careful what you're certain about Wink

I'd like to know, what do you think of
a. abortion ?
b. being gay ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
21-08-2012, 02:02 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
I welcome the civil, measured tone of your debut post. But underneath the civility I sense more than a little youthful arrogance, which I hope you'll outgrow. For example:

(20-08-2012 04:56 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  If someone is influenced by the arguments I present, I will count it an honor and a privilege, but my expectations here are not to convert everybody. I just want to have some civil discussions with people from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Notice what you haven't said: If you are influenced by the arguments we present, will you also count it an honor and a privilege? Or is that simply outside the realm of possibility for you, since you already have the absolute truth?

Quote:Feel free to ask me any questions about Christianity.

So you can enlighten us concerning a subject we know nothing about? What makes you think there aren't people here who know a helluva lot more about Christianity than you do?

I'm also wondering about your education. You say you're about to earn a BA in pastoral ministry, but your writing skills have grown rusty from lack of use. What have you been doing in your courses? Your teachers don't have you write???

As for a place like Biola, what you'll get there is indoctrination, not education. I used to teach a course with a major critical thinking component, and I recall having a couple of students who had transferred to my university from Biola. Neither one of them could think critically worth a damn. Small sample set, I know. But it certainly seemed that what they had gotten at Biola was poor preparation for life outside the Christian goldfish bowl.

You also mentioned debating. Keep in mind that debating has little to do with truth-seeking. It's a game, a sport. It's all about scoring points. If you study at Biola with William Lane Craig and his ilk, you'll improve your debating skills, all right--through sophistry, half-truths, and sometimes outright lies.

By the way, did you ever ask yourself why places like Biola have "Apologetics" departments--academic units devoted to defending the faith against critics? I wonder why MIT and CalTech don't have similar departments to help future scientists defend the principles of physics and chemistry and biology and astronomy. Smile

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like cufflink's post
21-08-2012, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2012 02:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 09:55 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  Yet that still doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of the universe. So let's say God needed something to cause him, so what? Something still needed to cause the universe that was outside of that universe. So, before we deal with problem of what caused God, we must deal with the most immediate problem which is, what caused the universe? And that is the question I pose to you.

As a system, Christianity is about as easy as anything could possibly be to disprove. All one has to do is point out the pathetic position of the Yahweh Sabaoth dude, which I shall leave for last. Meanwhile :

1. Actually, before one deals with what caused the universe, unless one is going to commit the Genetic Fallacy, one will have to deal with what caused causality. If one's god caused anything, that means causality was already in place, in the structure of (the universe?). or wherever, or in whatever she exists. If she "caused" anything, including causality, how and why is causality already a part of the structure of reality ? That explanation must be done without invoking Infinite Regression, or the Genetic Fallacy. (Something is not true, just because I define it to be true, with no evidence). ("The moon is made of green cheese, because that is the nature of moon-ness, or moon-head").
We do not know how this universe came into existence totally, yet, but not knowing the answer to that, does not justify an Argument from Ignorance, and permit one, with no evidence, to cook up an answer that lets one sleep better, just because one needs to sleep. Saying "everything needs a cause, except my god", is the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

2. Apparently, not only is this one not going to convert everybody, he's not going to convert anybody.

3. The universe does not have to disclose to us, here and now, all the details of it's origins, just because brains demand that of it, right now. That, however, does not justify my cooking up an explanation, to suit my needs, in the absence of any evidence, simply to achieve satisfaction, right now, or because I demand it, right now, like a two-year old.

4. We know from Relativity, (Einstein), Uncertainty, (Heisenberg), Complex matrices, (Dirac's spinors etc.), that the universe is not intuitive. Therefore what appears to my brain as "logical", ("everything that is has a cause"), is not necessarily a trustworthy view, in light of the advances of the three non-intuitive discoveries above. If the universe is not intuitive, then the only thing one can trust, is evidence.

5. Biblical scholars know that Genesis was written by humans around 575-550 BCE, and that those mostly illiterate people, and the Judean priests who did the first assembly of the texts in Genesis got them mostly from the Sumerian myth systems. We know where they got them, and how they changed them, and in general, why they did that. We also know that humans have inhabited the planet ever since they evolved from their ancestors, around 200,000 years ago. That means that for at least 200,000 years the details of any "creation event" would have to be recalled, or made up, by illiterate, totally ignorant creatures, who had not the slightest idea what "accurate" or "historical" meant, and that they accurately transmitted those "facts" to each succeeding generation, for 200,000 years, or for 4.5 billion years, (when they were not around yet).

6. All of Christianity, is built on a fallacious interpretation of the Sumerian Choas myths, which Yeshua NEVER said a word about, ("original sin"), but was grafted later onto the growing cult, first by Saul of Tarsus, then developed later, by church "fathers", who admitted, many times, that deception was something they employed, and was justified, if it promoted their ends, and ending with Augustine's final exposition of the "original sin" business, hundreds of years after Yeshua was dead.

7. Actually the religion "Christians" profess to practice is really Paulianity, as Saul of Tarsus changed radically the apocalyptic preaching of Yeshua ben Josef, (if he even existed, as a single person), and the development process is quite evident in the early texts, both inside and outside the New Testament. For example the Pauline literature changes it's various concepts of what is or was the "ignorance" of the un-converted, and that idea changes radically, depending what one is reading, of Paul's. If the original concept is valid, ("inspired"), then why is a second one also "valid". Can't he make up his mind ? Can't god make up her mind ?



Saul also grafted onto the growing cult the "salvation" paradigm, which is totally absent from the Gospel of Mark. Yeshua never said a word about himself being the "sacrificial offering" to the eons-long pissed off deity, who first a.) set up the pay-back scheme/need, and then, b..) (while remaining an eternal/timeless being), "sent" her "son", (in TIME), to assuage her pissed-off-ness, instead of just saying, "I forgive you", and then "became appeased" by Yeshua's death, even though she was "immutable", and obviously *changed* her outlook, on things.

8. In the end, arguing with Christian theists is a waste, in general, as they do not come to a discussion in good faith. As evidenced by WLCraig, in the following video, he beieves because he believes. Not because of anything convincing. He comes to the discussion in bad faith. The deconstruction of a faith position is a complex thing, and many things have to be changed, for the faith position to change. It is not simply a matter of argumentation.








This one said his god essentially is a utilitarian concept, to fill in, for himself, the "gap", (god of the gaps), of how the universe came in to existence. That seems to be a really poor reason for "landing" on the Judeo-Christian god, with whom there are so many problems, and who is so inconsistent and so impotent, and mean.
a. More science courses may change that situation.
b. Even if they don't, if that god exists, she is not going to like the fact that the only reason he accepts her existence, is that she fills a (gap) need. It implies if the gap were to be filled in any (other), way, then "pooph", she disappears, because the need disappears. That is the most backwards, and risky, reason for belief one could possibly imagine, and there are so many other possibilities, one could imagine...only one of which would displace the god. Actually I think this makes him a deist, not a theist ??

Theists cannot even provide for us, one property of existence which does not require time, (spacetime), to be be in place already. Thus their god cannot possibly be the creator of this universe, or any multiverse, as she cannot be the creator of the conditions required for her own existence.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-08-2012, 05:35 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 02:02 AM)cufflink Wrote:  I welcome the civil, measured tone of your debut post. But underneath the civility I sense more than a little youthful arrogance, which I hope you'll outgrow. For example:

(20-08-2012 04:56 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  If someone is influenced by the arguments I present, I will count it an honor and a privilege, but my expectations here are not to convert everybody. I just want to have some civil discussions with people from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Notice what you haven't said: If you are influenced by the arguments we present, will you also count it an honor and a privilege? Or is that simply outside the realm of possibility for you, since you already have the absolute truth?

Quote:Feel free to ask me any questions about Christianity.

So you can enlighten us concerning a subject we know nothing about? What makes you think there aren't people here who know a helluva lot more about Christianity than you do?

I'm also wondering about your education. You say you're about to earn a BA in pastoral ministry, but your writing skills have grown rusty from lack of use. What have you been doing in your courses? Your teachers don't have you write???

As for a place like Biola, what you'll get there is indoctrination, not education. I used to teach a course with a major critical thinking component, and I recall having a couple of students who had transferred to my university from Biola. Neither one of them could think critically worth a damn. Small sample set, I know. But it certainly seemed that what they had gotten at Biola was poor preparation for life outside the Christian goldfish bowl.

You also mentioned debating. Keep in mind that debating has little to do with truth-seeking. It's a game, a sport. It's all about scoring points. If you study at Biola with William Lane Craig and his ilk, you'll improve your debating skills, all right--through sophistry, half-truths, and sometimes outright lies.

By the way, did you ever ask yourself why places like Biola have "Apologetics" departments--academic units devoted to defending the faith against critics? I wonder why MIT and CalTech don't have similar departments to help future scientists defend the principles of physics and chemistry and biology and astronomy. Smile

Cuffed!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
21-08-2012, 05:36 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 05:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 09:55 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  Yet that still doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of the universe. So let's say God needed something to cause him, so what? Something still needed to cause the universe that was outside of that universe. So, before we deal with problem of what caused God, we must deal with the most immediate problem which is, what caused the universe? And that is the question I pose to you.

As a system, Christianity is about as easy as anything could possibly be to disprove. All one has to do is point out the pathetic position of the Yahweh Sabaoth dude, which I shall leave for last. Meanwhile :

1. Actually, before one deals with what caused the universe, unless one is going to commit the Genetic Fallacy, one will have to deal with what caused causality. If one's god caused anything, that means causality was already in place, in the structure of (the universe?). or wherever, or in whatever she exists. If she "caused" anything, including causality, how and why is causality already a part of the structure of reality ? That explanation must be done without invoking Infinite Regression, or the Genetic Fallacy. (Something is not true, just because I define it to be true, with no evidence). ("The moon is made of green cheese, because that is the nature of moon-ness, or moon-head").
We do not know how this universe came into existence totally, yet, but not knowing the answer to that, does not justify an Argument from Ignorance, and permit one, with no evidence, to cook up an answer that lets one sleep better, just because one needs to sleep. Saying "everything needs a cause, except my god", is the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

2. Apparently, not only is this one not going to convert everybody, he's not going to convert anybody.

3. The universe does not have to disclose to us, here and now, all the details of it's origins, just because brains demand that of it, right now. That, however, does not justify my cooking up an explanation, to suit my needs, in the absence of any evidence, simply to achieve satisfaction, right now, or because I demand it, right now, like a two-year old.

4. We know from Relativity, (Einstein), Uncertainty, (Heisenberg), Complex matrices, (Dirac's spinors etc.), that the universe is not intuitive. Therefore what appears to my brain as "logical", ("everything that is has a cause"), is not necessarily a trustworthy view, in light of the advances of the three non-intuitive discoveries above. If the universe is not intuitive, then the only thing one can trust, is evidence.

5. Biblical scholars know that Genesis was written by humans around 575-550 BCE, and that those mostly illiterate Judean priests who did the first assembly of the texts in Genesis got them mostly from the Sumerian myth systems. We know where they got them, and how they changed them, and in general, why they did that. We also know that humans have inhabited the planet ever since they evolved from their ancestors, around 200,000 years ago. That means that for at least 200,000 years the details of any "creation event" would have to be recalled, or made up, by illiterate, totally ignorant creatures, who had not the slightest idea what "accurate" or "historical" meant, and that they accurately transmitted those "facts" to each succeeding generation, for 200,000 years, or for 4.5 billion years, (when they were not around yet).

6. All of Christianity, is built on a fallacious interpretation of the Sumerian Choas myths, which Yeshua NEVER said a word about, ("original sin"), but was grafted later onto the growing cult, first by Saul of Tarsus, then developed later, by church "fathers", who admitted, many times, that deception was something they employed, and was justified, if it promoted their ends, and ending with Augustine's final exposition of the "original sin" business, hundreds of years after Yeshua was dead.

7. Actually the religion "Christians" profess to practice is really Paulianity, as Saul of Tarsus changed radically the apocalyptic preaching of Yeshua ben Josef, (if he even existed, as a single person), and the development process is quite evident in the early texts, both inside and outside the New Testament. For example the Pauline literature changes it's various concepts of what is or was the "ignorance" of the un-converted, and that idea changes radically, depending what one is reading, of Paul's. If the original concept is valid, ("inspired"), then why is a second one also "valid". Can't he make up his mind ? Can't god make up her mind ?



Saul also grafted onto the growing cult the "salvation" paradigm, which is totally absent from the Gospel of Mark. Yeshua never said a word about himself being the "sacrificial offering" to the eons-long pissed off deity, who first a.) set up the pay-back scheme/need, and then, b..) (while remaining an eternal/timeless being), "sent" her "son", (in TIME), to assuage her pissed-off-ness, instead of just saying, "I forgive you", and then "became appeased" by Yeshua's death, even though she was "immutable", and obviously *changed* her outlook, on things.

8. In the end, arguing with Christian theists is a waste, in general, as they do not come to a discussion in good faith. As evidenced by WLCraig, in the following video, he beieves because he believes. Not because of anything convincing. He comes to the discussion in bad faith. The deconstruction of a faith position is a complex thing, and many things have to be changed, for the faith position to change. It is not simply a matter of argumentation.








This one said his god essentially is a utilitarian concept, to fill in, for himself, the "gap", (god of the gaps), of how the universe came in to existence. That seems to be a really poor reason for "landing" on the Judeo-Christian god, with whom there are so many problems, and who is so inconsistent and so impotent, and mean.
a. More science courses may change that situation.
b. Even if they don't, if that god exists, she is not going to like the fact that the only reason he accepts her existence, is that she fills a (gap) need. It implies if the gap were to be filled in any (other), way, then "pooph", she disappears, because the need disappears. That is the most backwards, and risky, reason for belief one could possibly imagine, and there are so many other possibilities, one could imagine...only one of which would displace the god.

Theists cannot even provide for us, one property of existence which does not require time, (spacetime), to be be in place already. Thus their god cannot possibly be the creator of this universe, or any multiverse.




... and Bucked!


Is anyone keeping score?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: