FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2012, 10:13 PM
FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
He did a great job, made an amazing speech. If you haven't seen it - here it is!


“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DeepThought's post
25-07-2012, 05:49 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Thanks for posting DT, will watch this evening!

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 06:11 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Just finished watching it 5 minutes ago.
Wonderful speech, great pictures, lots of fun and thoughtful moments.
I really enjoyed it!

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 07:22 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Seth is a great speaker. I watched and enjoyed the whole thing. Very compelling, witty, and entertaining.

My only complaint is when we uncharacteristically dips into logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty with the Christian who lauds science and evolution.

Seth starts a slippery slope fallacy with the well since he said there was no Adam and Eve he just refuted his holy book and there is no point in any other story of the Bible.

Most of you that have had back and forths with me, know that this isn't the case and that an allegorical take on Genesis is easily theologically reconcilable. I'm willing to bet that scientist is also an EC and that the scientist has explained and reconciled his belief; however, (this is assumption) Seth cherry picked a sentence from this guy to make it seem like he doesn't really believe what he believes. That is just not a fair thing to do... to anyone... on anything.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That is just not a fair thing to do... to anyone... on anything.

All's fair in love and war.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-07-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
I didn't have popcorn, but it was still sooooo good!

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
25-07-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Seth starts a slippery slope fallacy with the well since he said there was no Adam and Eve he just refuted his holy book and there is no point in any other story of the Bible.

Seth is on solid ground here.
Simply put, If original sin didn't happen the entire Christian narrative collapses.
Specifically, the Jesus dying for mankinds sins.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2012 04:22 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 03:58 PM)Thomas Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Seth starts a slippery slope fallacy with the well since he said there was no Adam and Eve he just refuted his holy book and there is no point in any other story of the Bible.

Seth is on solid ground here.
Simply put, If original sin didn't happen the entire Christian narrative collapses.
Specifically, the Jesus dying for mankinds sins.

No.

He would only be on solid ground if the scientist was a creationist (YEC, OEC, or PC). Since he believes in evolution, I can only assume he's a TE or an EC. TEs and ECs reject the common understanding of original sin*. TEs and ECs say that sin was created by God because God created an imperfect being. Sin became sin when God's image was placed upon humans.

*that because of Adam and Eve's sin everyone is now tainted by sin and is fallen

TEs and ECs view sin as original in nature; however, natural actions didn't become sin until there was an understanding of what sin was. What this means is that sin was always a part of humanity and it's because of this that humanity is fallen and damned; not because of someone else who sinned before us.

Seth was dishonest with his assessment of the guy. He should have learned what he believes theologically before saying the things he did. Although, I can't say one way or another what that scientist believes... heck, Seth may have actually researched his theology and Seth's statements may be intellectually honest. I, however, don't see a scientist who is a Christian and believes in evolution as believing the things Seth accused him of.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 04:31 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Seth starts a slippery slope fallacy with the well since he said there was no Adam and Eve he just refuted his holy book and there is no point in any other story of the Bible.

I know you don't play "name that fallacy" very often, KC, but I do so I'll help you out a bit here.

It's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope is when you shoot down someone's proposal by telling them that, although their proposal is acceptable, it will lead to future proposals that are unacceptable.

If Seth had said "here's a story which clearly isn't true, so let's believe the whole bible is untrue" then it might resemble a slippery slope, but since a proposition isn't being made, it's not. That would be a fallacy of composition (believing that something about a part must be true of the whole or of every part, like thinking that your computer monitor must be for input because your keyboard and mouse are).

But Seth isn't making that statement. What he's saying is that if the story that explains original sin isn't true, then we're left without an explanation for Jesus dying for the whole world. If all we needed was any sinless person to die needlessly, then a newborn baby's death would cover everyone's sin. But that baby has a sin nature passed on from Adam, and so it can't be seen as a perfectly sinless sacrifice... unless Adam never existed to give it a sin nature.

If the story about Adam is merely allegorical, then we're still left asking why we should assume that people have a sin nature or why Jesus was necessary to be our sacrifice. If a sinful nature is not something passed on physically through sperm (because we're all genetically tied to an original sinful person), then Jesus' birth from a virgin isn't necessary, either.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Seth starts a slippery slope fallacy with the well since he said there was no Adam and Eve he just refuted his holy book and there is no point in any other story of the Bible.

I know you don't play "name that fallacy" very often, KC, but I do so I'll help you out a bit here.

It's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope is when you shoot down someone's proposal by telling them that, although their proposal is acceptable, it will lead to future proposals that are unacceptable.

If Seth had said "here's a story which clearly isn't true, so let's believe the whole bible is untrue" then it might resemble a slippery slope, but since a proposition isn't being made, it's not. That would be a fallacy of composition (believing that something about a part must be true of the whole or of every part, like thinking that your computer monitor must be for input because your keyboard and mouse are).

But Seth isn't making that statement. What he's saying is that if the story that explains original sin isn't true, then we're left without an explanation for Jesus dying for the whole world. If all we needed was any sinless person to die needlessly, then a newborn baby's death would cover everyone's sin. But that baby has a sin nature passed on from Adam, and so it can't be seen as a perfectly sinless sacrifice... unless Adam never existed to give it a sin nature.

If the story about Adam is merely allegorical, then we're still left asking why we should assume that people have a sin nature or why Jesus was necessary to be our sacrifice. If a sinful nature is not something passed on physically through sperm (because we're all genetically tied to an original sinful person), then Jesus' birth from a virgin isn't necessary, either.

And there are theological reconciliations for that as well. Don't want to get into it because that's getting way off subject.

I'm saying Seth should have researched what this guy believes before making claims about what he believes. Like I said, that's not fair.

Also, saying one thing happens and because of this one thing then something else has to happen because of that is too a slippery slope.

Not believing in Adamic original sin does not negate Christ's sacrifice. To say it does is a slippery slope unless it is explicitly stated by the accused party.

I don't believe in Adamic original sin, yet I do believe in the necessity of Christ's sacrifice because He redeemed our fallen and sinful nature.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: