Best of from FB Apologetics group
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
This guy, and even this post seem to sum up fundamentalism perfectly:

(In response to his own post about Islam growing in Europe)
Quote: Islam... denies the Son of God... period! It's a no brainer. It matters not if they are nice, or appear normal [not to mention the openly evil]... those who deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God are in every way imaginable the "enemy" of the true God... And what do you suppose God Himself will do with those who deny that Jesus is the Son of God, God the Son? And instead promote a demonic, false god which is no god at all, and leads millions to hell without hope for eternity? Should God slap them on the hand? Send them to a corner? Accept them? Honestly, the already obvious reprobate mind in the USA, and around the world is staggering, and almost to much to bear! NEWS FLASH... it is NOT OK, TO BLASPHEME THE SON OF GOD... PERIOD! And if it angers me, I cannot even begin to image how much anger it causes in the creator of all things.. Jesus Himself! In Jesus...

Things I noticed:
  • His world view is and must be correct, no matter what.
  • If you aren't a Christian, no matter how nice you are, you're an asshole. There can be no compromise.
  • He has a hard time maintaining a coherent stream of thought when thoroughly pissed.
  • He can't seem to separate the creator of all things and Jesus. Learn to Trinity.
It's this lack of compromise combined with sheer vitriol that scare me. Ironically, it's these same things in Muslim extremists (the people he hates) that scare me too. Here's hoping that as time goes on, sane society will continue to move away from non-compromising fundamentalism, and religion will gradually get watered down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
15-01-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Why this is so hard for some people to understand, I will never know:

(Part of a larger conversation)

Me: "The historicity of Jesus aside, there's no evidence any of the miracles or resurrection happened."


OP: "I'm not sure what that means exactly, but the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn't thing on a presuppositional argument people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have been able to put forward historical and scholarly methods of establishing the resurrection of Jesus Christ on well recognized historical facts and the result is that the resurrection provides the best explanation of the empty tomb..."


Me: "I'm not sure why a resurrection would be the best explanation for an empty tomb when there are numerous, mundane explanations that work just as well. If we're willing to look beyond the mundane, could he have been abucted by UFOs or disintegrated by magic?"


Different poster: "What would you say is the most plausible explanation for the empty tomb ?"


Me: "If an inanimate object is somewhere and is later not there, I would say the most plausible explanation is that something moved it. Can you show otherwise that this DIDN'T happen?"


I mean seriously, magic is the most plausible explanation for something moving from one place to another? Fuck, one of the Gospels even offered up a more reasonable alternative (the disciples stole him), but they chalked that up to "a lie that is still widespread to this day".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
16-01-2015, 05:15 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(15-01-2015 07:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Why this is so hard for some people to understand, I will never know:

(Part of a larger conversation)

Me: "The historicity of Jesus aside, there's no evidence any of the miracles or resurrection happened."


OP: "I'm not sure what that means exactly, but the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn't thing on a presuppositional argument people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have been able to put forward historical and scholarly methods of establishing the resurrection of Jesus Christ on well recognized historical facts and the result is that the resurrection provides the best explanation of the empty tomb..."


Me: "I'm not sure why a resurrection would be the best explanation for an empty tomb when there are numerous, mundane explanations that work just as well. If we're willing to look beyond the mundane, could he have been abucted by UFOs or disintegrated by magic?"


Different poster: "What would you say is the most plausible explanation for the empty tomb ?"


Me: "If an inanimate object is somewhere and is later not there, I would say the most plausible explanation is that something moved it. Can you show otherwise that this DIDN'T happen?"


I mean seriously, magic is the most plausible explanation for something moving from one place to another? Fuck, one of the Gospels even offered up a more reasonable alternative (the disciples stole him), but they chalked that up to "a lie that is still widespread to this day".

What empty tomb? Has it been established that the tomb was empty? Has it been established that there was even a tomb?

It's always presuppositional garbage. When there is some extra-Biblical support for any of this crap, let me know. I'll be in the den reading an actual book. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-01-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(15-01-2015 07:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Why this is so hard for some people to understand, I will never know:

(Part of a larger conversation)

Me: "The historicity of Jesus aside, there's no evidence any of the miracles or resurrection happened."


OP: "I'm not sure what that means exactly, but the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn't thing on a presuppositional argument people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have been able to put forward historical and scholarly methods of establishing the resurrection of Jesus Christ on well recognized historical facts and the result is that the resurrection provides the best explanation of the empty tomb..."


Me: "I'm not sure why a resurrection would be the best explanation for an empty tomb when there are numerous, mundane explanations that work just as well. If we're willing to look beyond the mundane, could he have been abucted by UFOs or disintegrated by magic?"


Different poster: "What would you say is the most plausible explanation for the empty tomb ?"


Me: "If an inanimate object is somewhere and is later not there, I would say the most plausible explanation is that something moved it. Can you show otherwise that this DIDN'T happen?"


I mean seriously, magic is the most plausible explanation for something moving from one place to another? Fuck, one of the Gospels even offered up a more reasonable alternative (the disciples stole him), but they chalked that up to "a lie that is still widespread to this day".


Another explanation is that Joseph of Arimathaea, who was part of the cult, bribed or convinced Herod to allow him to take the body. As soon as he got it, he knew that he had to bury the body where it would never be found. That's why the tomb was empty, their cult was about to collapse after the execution of their leader and Joseph provided cover for the disciples to make the claim that Jesus' rose from the dead and then went to heaven where you could never find any evidence.

So if Joseph of Arimatheae, was a believer, he obviously would have went along with this scheme.
There's also another reason, how much would the disciples be willing to pay for Jesus' body? This would have been a clear money maker for Joseph.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 08:30 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
I'm not going to post the whole thing here because it got huge, but a guy posted an image macro with two arms: one biological and one mechanical. It then goes on to sarcastically say how intelligent design came from nothing and atheism is so logical.

I pointed out how this is bad induction. Four times I had to explain this to the OP, with him refusing to acknowledge it every time. I told him that Ray Charles plays piano and is blind. My wife plays piano. Is my wife blind or not?

He tried to get me to prove evolution, demand I present an alternative, ask for a book name and page citation to back my claim of "lazy induction", call his view common sense, and simply state that my analogy is wrong and that he won't consider it. What a disingenuous asshole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Proof that the Bible is the Word of God

Not that I expect you to actually read that (the title is good enough), but I linked it in case you really wanted to hurt yourself. The short version is:
  • The Bible is accurate on historical and scientific facts (nope, but nice try),
  • the 100% track record on prophesies proves God (lets cherry pick four and call it a day!),
  • the prophesies of the Messiah were fulfilled (it's not hard to "fulfill" a prophesy when writing a story about it later),
  • and the plan revealed in the Bible proves The Planner (no, the stories prove a story teller, and the rest is presuppositional).
The guy who pushes this lowers his bar of evidence so low for God and then raises it impossibly high for evolution (which he constantly confuses with atheism).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
26-01-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(26-01-2015 11:13 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Proof that the Bible is the Word of God

Not that I expect you to actually read that (the title is good enough), but I linked it in case you really wanted to hurt yourself. The short version is:
  • The Bible is accurate on historical and scientific facts (nope, but nice try),
  • the 100% track record on prophesies proves God (lets cherry pick four and call it a day!),
  • the prophesies of the Messiah were fulfilled (it's not hard to "fulfill" a prophesy when writing a story about it later),
  • and the plan revealed in the Bible proves The Planner (no, the stories prove a story teller, and the rest is presuppositional).
The guy who pushes this lowers his bar of evidence so low for God and then raises it impossibly high for evolution (which he constantly confuses with atheism).

... I actually followed the link but fled when I felt under spiritual attack - my IQ was falling by the second, like the altimeter of a plane in a tail-spin... Of which I know 'cos I personally crashed shitloads of planes in Microsoft Flight Sim 98...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-01-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Oh boy! Time for some "you can't be moral without God" bullshit!

OP: <Posts picture with quote from Jeffery Dahmer saying how without God, there's no reason to be moral, "Can atheists answer him yet?">

"Getting caught is their only deterrent. Then they are sorry they got caught."



Other poster: " It's called empathy. Psychopaths, whether atheistic or theistic, don't have it."


Me: "Why do all atheists have to answer for one bad atheist's views? Does one bad Christian prove Christianity to be bad or immoral?

Two things:

1) As mentioned by <Other Poster>, empathy is a driving factor for many (myself included).

2) As someone who believes there is an invisible, omnipresent judge watching over your every move, it seems odd to complain about "getting caught" being a bad motivator."



Another poster: "Rob, to respond to your second observation - As a Christian, I'm not afraid of getting caught."


Me: "Neither am I. I don't feel compelled to do bad things."


Srsly guys, it's not that hard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Ugh. Related to the same topic above (herp-a-derp objective morality), I've been going in circles with one guy. Here's a synopsis.

Him: Rob, is torture wrong?

Me: Objectively, no; however, that doesn't stop us from individually and as a group from subjectively evaluating it as wrong.

Him: If your decisions are just chemicals in your brain, you aren't making decisions. You're just chemicals. Nothing is right or wrong.

Me: Agreed. Nothing is objectively right or wrong.

Him: But that would mean that murder isn't wrong.

Me: Agreed. Not objectively; however, that doesn't stop us from subjectively evaluating it as wrong.

Him: But you can't! You're just chemicals! Is water "wrong" when it drowns someone?

Me: Water isn't self-aware, we are. Water doesn't make decisions.

Him: Then you can't decide what makes something right or wrong.

Me: Objectively, no. We can, however, subjectively evaluate objective situations. This whole things seems to have this unstated view that you feel this is "bad" or wrong. That would be an argument from adverse consequences.

Him: But you can't say that pedophilia is wrong.

Me: Yes. For the forth or fifth time, I agree with you. We should probably move onto the next step. Next step: you seem to feel that a lack of objective morality is somehow bad or wrong. Why is that?


I don't have high hopes for his response. My bet is a mixture of appeal to consequences (it would be bad if it weren't moral!) and appeals to emotion (only a bad person wouldn't agree with the statement that "murder is wrong"). The number of times he went though that circle above is mind-boggling (I think I left one iteration out in my summary). Funny enough, he probably feels the same way about me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
28-01-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
What deos he think of killing enemy combatants? Murder might *by definition* be legally wrong but killing is justifiable - shades of grey are easy to find, why's he insisting on black and white?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: