"Talbott, if you want people to respect the philosophical disciplines then please, do it better than you do. You're making the rest of us look bad."
Given most of Loftus' argument against Christianity, this is ridiculous. Consider this coming from the guy who thinks it is a serious challenge to Christianity that God didn't make him with wings so that he could fly and drop poop bombs on people from 1,000 feet in the sky. Oh, no, sorry, that wasn't it; it was so he couldn't fall to his death. Or recall Loftus' claim that he'd rather be a dog in his wife's house than a human in God's world, and that he isn't shows that God isn't good. Apparently, he's unhappy that God hasn't neutered him or made him flexible enough to clean those hard to reach areas. Yes, these are the kinds of arguments Talbott should be giving. The kind atheologians should be giving. These arguments don't make atheologians look bad.
Anywho, enough of picking of Loftus—though he makes it so tempting and easy. Here I'll (again) point out a problem with Loftus outsider test (an issue I've pointed out before and hasn't been rebutted). Loftus writes,
"For Talbott or anyone else to suggest that I might possibility be wrong about an external world then all I can say is "so what?" Probability is the only thing that matters. Until he gives me a reason to think I am probably wrong then I'm not changing anything I think. "
As I've pointed out before, this makes the OTF superfluous. For example, I, like Loftus, will not take the OT for Christianity (or, in his case, for the external world) merely because of the possibility that I might be wrong. Loftus needs to show me that I am probably wrong. But if he can show that Christianity is probably wrong, there's no need, use, or purpose for and to the OTF. It's just a stupid waste of time when Loftus could use that time showing us that Christianity is probably false. But, if Loftus says that the mere fact that my belief in Christianity is at least partly due to where I was raised, and that this shows that Christianity is probably false, then (and besides the fact that it doesn't show this) the same applies, mutantis mutandis, to his belief in an external world EW.
The upshot is: If on the one hand Loftus claims that he doesn't have to take the OTEW until it is shown that his belief in the EW is "probably" false, then the OT is superfluous since once it is shown that some X is probably false, there's no need to take the OTX. On the other hand, if Loftus claims that the "accident of birth" into some culture show that the beliefs of members of that culture are "probably" false and so an OT must be taken (even though it needn't be taken, for supposedly it's already been shown that the beliefs are probably false), then Loftus' belief in an external world is "probably" false and so he needs to take the OTEW. So if Loftus wants us to take his response to Talbott seriously, then he must admit that no Christian should take his OTF until he shows that our belief is "probably" false, or he must admit that his OTF leads to OTEW, OT moral beliefs, OT western logic, OT other minds, OT science, OT etc. And if so, then Loftus is way too busy taking tests to be lecturing us about the tests we need to take. Indeed, him not taking his tests shows me I shouldn't take the ones he wants me to take.
Which horn does Loftus want to be impaled on?
Will read the work by Talbot. I find most of the stuff by Loftus to be actually rather sad.
ReplyDeleteAny impact he might have on a theist is more an indication of the inability of the theist to be grounded in their faith than the ability of Loftus to mount any sort of serious objections.
I remember well the time he trumpted the testimony of a Christian turned Atheist as being definite.
I thought; in the interests of fairness I will go read it. It boiled down to a one senten -- God didn't act the way I demanded God to act therefore God is not real. Not a serious challenge just sad.
Am I wrong in the following? Is most of John's impact amongst those who want what he is writing to be true? Much like the writings of that other great scholar -- Dan Brown?
ReplyDeletePaul
ReplyDeleteJust a query.
An overview of history seems to tell a significantly different story of christianity than that which christians have told. The basic premise is this: christianity is the one and only true religion. All others are false religions. For six hundred years christianity, in all its trueness, fully grounded itself in the middle east and completely subsume the cultures of the region. By 325CE with the advent of the becoming the official state religion it had the opportunity to further fully consolidate its position as the one true religion, so perfectly true simply by its inherent veracity, goodness and benevolence.
It had six hundred years to prove without a shadow of doubt that it was the one and only true religion, as bequeathed by the only true god, all others beings false gods.
In the 7thC this one true religion was utterly rejected and characterized as the work of a false prophet. Picking up Judaism's ancient pentateuch as a starting point, the new religion eviscerated christianity and literally obliterated it from its stronghold in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Algeria, etc.
Question; where was jesus and more particularly, god, when all this was happening to the one true religion? Has there been any long term research or theological investigation undertaken by christian investigators to isolate the determinants or the main factors that compromised the long-standing chain of evidence and substantive facts that christianity is the one true religion? Have they assessed the likely ramifications of this historical event to the claim of biblical inerrancy?
Would the application of the OTF provide a mechanism to accomplish such a broad-ranging assessment and establish reasons for the 1,400 year hiatus of christianity?
Um, what??? 8-0
ReplyDeleteCome on Paul. Are you not ready to give a defence, compleate with references to the Koran, Uthman, and Eusebius, of how the expansion of Islam over the original land of Christiandom has not caught the only wise God offguard?
ReplyDeleteIs that what he was asking? If God planned it, how was he caught off-guard? Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out if he meant "comprised" or "compromised" and how the "OTF" comes into play, and what, if anything, it has to do with my post. Maybe you can help Papalinton out again.
ReplyDeleteHi Paul
ReplyDeleteYes, 'compromised' is what I meant in the statement, not 'comprised'.
From your original post, if anyone or anything has been neutered, it seems to have been christianity right at its birthplace.
Papalinton, I'm still afraid I don't get your fortune cookie atheology. Or is it Zen koan atheology? Whatever it is, the whole vague, mysterious, overly-subtle, almost incomprehensible nature of your comments aren't really working for me. Perhaps you could actually advance an argument, unless that't too much to ask?
ReplyDeleteHi Paul
ReplyDeleteWhat is there in my historical overview that speaks of 'fortune cookie atheology'?
I simply took the evidence before my eyes, and sought an answer from you that would account for what actually is and has occurred. What would be an explanation that would account for what I have simply described?
What in my statement is untrue in terms of the historical circumstances extant in the Middle East?
What aspect of my statement about the christian perspective that 'christianity is the one and only true religion personally passed down through apostolic succession from the very hand of the one true god, is not correct?
How is it that the OTF, as a mechanism for verifying all faith claims [regardless of origin] is not suitable for christianity?
Poor philosopher [?] Thomas Talbott, really is a bit like a puppy going round and round trying to nip its own tail, as he opines, " .....then he [Loftus[ must admit that no Christian should take his OTF until he shows that our belief is "probably" false, or he must admit that his OTF leads to OTEW, OT moral beliefs, OT western logic, OT other minds, OT science, OT etc."
The OTF is not an examination or review applied by an external agency. I might add, Loftus did indeed apply the OTF to his forty-year [I think] love affair with christianity, starting in his very early life,after which, it become clear there was no basis for continuing to support a myth.
Papalinton,
ReplyDeleteSo I guess I won't be getting an argument?
And so I guess you can't, or won't deal with the argument of the post?
Paul:
ReplyDeleteI would hope Paps might engage but I would not hold my breath waiting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh I've started, Paul.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one running, hightailing it in reverse in high-range fourth gear.
I've read Talbott's critique, and believe me, it is pretty loose and fast. His take on the fundamental reason why christians stick with the religion they were brought up with and don't go looking around at other religions, is (on p.5) [Da-Dah!! drum roll]:
"Here is why. The Christian tradition, which is the religious tradition I know best, is so rich
and includes so much diversity within it that the question of diversity between the Christian tra-
dition as a whole and some other religious tradition, such as Islam, may have little or no coherent
meaning. Put it this way: A cultural Christian has no need to embrace another religious or cul-
tural tradition, at least not formally, in order to embrace religious views typically associated with
some other tradition."
What value the critique? So lazy, fog-headed and and trivial is Talbott's response to Loftus's challenge, he can't even manage to get himself out of bed to put a half-decent rejoinder together.
I must say, your take in the OP is pretty amateurish as well; and I venture a little redolent of sour grapes with a smidgen of pious jealousy
I rest my case.
Okay, I've tried to get you to interact with the argument of my post or to at least present your off-topic questions as an argument. You are refusing to do so. You must not understand my post or how to construct an argument for whatever it is you're trying to get at. All you have left is your attempt to overcompensate for your inability to mount an argument or counterargument via name calling rather than demonstrating. So now, though I wanted to hold off on this and think the best of you, I must tell you that your new name shall be Bellybuttonlinton. 'cause you're about as annoying and as sharp as a piece of belly button lint.
ReplyDeletePapalinton is in search of an explaination rather than offering an argument. But perhaps one can be made:
ReplyDelete(1) Islam now holds the Holy Land.
(2) For Christianity to be the one true religion, it must hold the Holy Land.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.
Oh, is that his argument? Of course, both (1) and (2) are false.
ReplyDeleteNow, he's obviously not in search of an explanation, he's trying to give an argument for the usefulness or applicability of the OTF. He's just trying to do it through leading questions and such. Notice he's a teacher. He does this with his high school students. Leading those young eager minds into the truth with him as the guide.
But assuming your view, he wants an explanation for what? He's asked numerous questions, most of which are all over the place. Does he just want me to explain why God allowed Muslims to remove Christians from previously occupied "Christian" lands? Who knows and who cares? Like that matters for Christianity. Does he want me to explain why Jesus wasn't there protecting physical land? Aside from the fact that a good read of the Gospels would set him straight about Jesus' mission, everyone knows that Jesus was surfing in Australia at the time. Duh, that's obviously the only reason Jesus could have for allowing Muslims to take over Christian lands. Like, who would give up hanging 10 on an 8 foot wave in Australia, brah?
Anyway, Vytautus, I'm obviously not taking him seriously because I don't think he's a serious person who has good arguments and a sincere desire to discuss these things. He's a village atheists who spends most of his time cheering John Loftus's "arguments" (which is 3 strikes against anyone) and making fun of us over at Debunking Christianity.
Papalinton aka PapaBellyButtonLinton,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, your comment is totally off topic with regard to Paul's post. I say "once again" because it's not unlike many if not most of your comments on our blog such as these recent ones.
In any case, assuming I'm correctly reading your rather loose and unfocused comments, you have a highly one-sided view of history (to put it mildly).
christianity is the one and only true religion.
For starters, the first Christians were Jews. Perhaps Luke is an exception if we consider him a Gentile God-fearer or Jewish proselyte.
There's also the background of believers in OT Israel to consider. Those who believed in and lived for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
All others are false religions.
If the God of the Bible exists, then all other religions would indeed be false. Likewise atheism.
For six hundred years christianity, in all its trueness, fully grounded itself in the middle east and completely subsume the cultures of the region.
The first Christians who were Jews were often counter-cultural within their own Jewish culture.
Although there were a variety of Jewish cultures and subcultures in the 1st century Roman Empire. For example, Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews (e.g. Acts 6:1). Further, Acts 2:5-11 gives the following account: "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians - we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.'"
Moreover, many if not most Christians throughout history have been counter-cultural (e.g. William Wilberforce).
BTW, given his later comments, Papalinton seems to imply there's something wrong with Christian's "completely subsum[ing]" other cultures. Yet Christian ethics and morality were often superior to the ethics and morality of the cultures in which Christians lived. Take the ancient Roman practice of exposing infants: "I am still in Alexandria...I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it."
Certainly Christian ethics and morality are infinitely superior to the "ethics" and "morality" Papalinton's atheistic and naturalistic beliefs would entail.
[Christianity is] so perfectly true simply by its inherent veracity, goodness and benevolence.
ReplyDeleteMore evidence which reveals Papalinton's biased and prejudicial take on history. According to Papalinton, Christianity isn't true because it is objectively true, but because of its "inherent veracity." Whether or not we agree Christianity is true, Papalinton ignores the fact that Christians throughout have argued for Christianity's truth based on objective criteria.
Of course, Christian ethics and morality can be one line of evidence for its truth.
In the 7thC this one true religion was utterly rejected and characterized as the work of a false prophet. Picking up Judaism's ancient pentateuch as a starting point, the new religion eviscerated christianity and literally obliterated it from its stronghold in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Algeria, etc.
As usual, Papalinton has an utterly ignorant reading of history. For one thing, Islam doesn't characterize Jesus as a false prophet. In fact, Muslims consider Jesus a true prophet. The "seal" of the Israelite prophets, as they'd put.
Also, Papalinton apparently subscribes to the belief that "might makes right." As if the truth or falsehood of beliefs might be adjudicated by military victory or defeat.
Question; where was jesus and more particularly, god, when all this was happening to the one true religion?
Do you mean where was God when Muslims were militarily defeating a Christianized Europe? How does Islam's victory over a Christianized Europe have any impact whatsoever on the truth claims of Christianity itself?
It could be that no one in the entire world believes in the God of the Bible, but it doesn't then mean the God of the Bible isn't the true God.
Has there been any long term research or theological investigation undertaken by christian investigators to isolate the determinants or the main factors that compromised the long-standing chain of evidence and substantive facts that christianity is the one true religion?
Yes. Read the Bible for starters. Read the history of Christian apologetics while you're at it too.
Have they assessed the likely ramifications of this historical event to the claim of biblical inerrancy?
What does the rise and spread of Islam have to do with "the claim of biblical inerrancy"?
Would the application of the OTF provide a mechanism to accomplish such a broad-ranging assessment and establish reasons for the 1,400 year hiatus of christianity?
Paul, Steve, Jason, Peter, and others here have more than dealt with Loftus' OTF. To begin with, see their comments in The Infidel Delusion (PDF).
Not to mention, um, Paul more than adequately deals with Loftus in this very thread, which PapaBellyButtonLinton still fails to address!
I like this part from the article by Talbott:
ReplyDelete"(2) “Consequently, it seems likely that adopting one’s religious faith is not merely
a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural
conditions to an overwhelming degree” (p. 82).
Now as it stands, (2) strikes me as too vague and unclear for anyone to assess its supposed import
with any precision. In particular, it includes no distinction between those religious beliefs
acquired in early childhood and those acquired (or perhaps reaffirmed) later in life after considerable
reflection; neither does it distinguish between more reflective and less reflective persons,
between those who really care about the truth or falsity of religious doctrines and those who
could care less about such matters, or between those willing to challenge prevailing ideas (when
it seems appropriate) and those who typically just go along with the crowd."
The 2nd assertion of Loftus is too vague. My embracing of New Reformed thought is dependent on my own reading through the Spirit's leading and teaching and has little to do with my upbringing or seminary education.
C'mon Paul. C'mon Patrick
ReplyDeleteNo good acting like Calvinist Stormtroopers. Aggressive, belligerent, Calvin bullies do not impress anyone.
Paul, you were the master of deflection and deception in your response to Vytautas who sought to help you clarify my query to you. Still waiting for an honest reply.
Patrick, hardly any jews were christians. They rejected christianity outright right from the very beginning. Saul didn't write to jews. He wrote to the people in Corinth, in Ephesus, Thessalonika, Philippi, Rome, and Colossae, none of whom were jews, period.
Apologetics simply doesn't pull sway with real biblical scholars.
Patrick, I noted with a smile as you offered one of the classic oxymorons of christian thought, namely, 'the superiority of christian ethics and morality'.
And you still haven't answered the question of why Christianity had its butt kicked so hard in the 7thC while father/son/ghost [the three amigos] looked on. And 1400 years later, there has been no backfilling in the vacuum created by that massive butt-kick. And yes Patrick, what's the point of not winning the religious war for god? Winning the pious war, fighting the good fight, is what it is all about. Not a matter of 'might = right'; it's about god jumping ship when most needed. What's the point praying in a foxhole if you get your butt kicked so hard. Christians engaged in a holy war and got their butt reddened big time. History tells us that. How many ways do I have to explain the obvious before you get it?
C'mon boys. You have to lift your game. You can't do a Fred Phelps on me.
Papa(belly button)linton,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I'll just have to repeat myself:
Do you have an argument?
Do you have a counterargument to my post?
Do you have a problem with Christianity not having a land?
Do you have a problem with the fact that the truth of Christianity doesn't depend on whether the Muslims took control of Turkey or not? Whether Constantinople became Istanbul doesn't affect the truth value of the existence of Jesus, his resurrection, etc. if you think it does, present an argument.
Do you have a problem with the fact that whatever happens in history if planned and decreed by God?
Do you have a problem of being overly simplistic? It's not as if "Christianity" got its butt kicked. Most scholars point out that you can't isolate the religious, political, sociological, geographic, and economic factors and find "the" cause. The issue's more complicated than you want it to be.
Do you have a problem being able to define "Christianity" and then show that *it* "got its butt kicked?" For starters, on what basis is "Christianity" identified with a political institution, what is the theological justification for this.
As I read history, the butt-kicking went both ways. There was no clear winner.
How are we defining "but kicking?" Is this meant in a diachronic sense? Are we just viewing particular battles or long term consequences? On what basis does Christianity have its "butt kicked" today?
What is the Christian view of victory? What does the Messiah do the first time around vs. the second?
Do you have a problem that I brush you off because you're an angry village atheist who doesn't deserve sincere interaction because that's not what you want and you clearly couldn't handle it?
Am I engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man? How could Momma Nature let this happen? How would the OTF help you give a counter-story to the meme that atheists are the "rational" ones? Your irrational rants give the lie to the idea that you're "rational," this is similar to those televangelists who pretend that they are super "holy" and get caught with a prostitute.
Not to pile on (I know the above will cause consternation), but I'll help you out. I will give you the skeletal outline for your argument:
ReplyDelete[1] Christianity got its butt kicked by the Muslims in various battles in the middle ages.
________________
[C] Therefore, Christianity is not the one true religion.
Now, go ahead and derive [C] from [1].
Belly Button Linton said:
ReplyDeleteNo good acting like Calvinist Stormtroopers. Aggressive, belligerent, Calvin bullies do not impress anyone.
No good acting like a trained atheist monkey. Ignorant, arrogant, poop throwing Belly Button Lintons do not impress anyone! Except other trained atheist monkeys such as John Loftus, Ed Babinski, and their troop of baboons.
Patrick, hardly any jews were christians. They rejected christianity outright right from the very beginning.
Hm, did I say "most of the first Christians were Jews"? Nope! Rather I said "the first Christians were Jews." So your comment makes sooo much sense! Well, at least I imagine it makes some sort of sense to you in your atheist monkey world where everything is pretty much bananas from one end to the other.
Saul didn't write to jews. He wrote to the people in Corinth, in Ephesus, Thessalonika, Philippi, Rome, and Colossae, none of whom were jews, period.
This is strikingly ignorant. More evidence of your inadequate education (which is ironic considering you used to be an educator). Or plain stupidity. Or both.
Have you even read the NT? If so, you'd see how Saul/Paul often preached to the Jews. Not to mention wrote to the Jews. For example, see Acts 13:5, 13:43, 14:1, 17:11, 17:17, 18:4-5, 19:10, 20:21, 28:17; Rom 1:15-16; and 1 Cor 1:24, 9:20, 12:13. We could easily go on.
Besides, was Saul/Paul the only early Christian preaching or writing? Hardly.
Was he the only NT writer? Not at all. There's also Peter, James, John, Matthew, Jude, to name several. All of them Jews who also wrote to Jews.
Apologetics simply doesn't pull sway with real biblical scholars.
Oh, you mean people like Loftus, Babinksi, Carrier, Avalos, and their ilk? Yes, for a trained atheist monkey like you, these guys must seem like "real biblical scholars."
Anyway, if this is true, then that's too bad for Loftus et al who do apologetics for atheism!
Patrick, I noted with a smile as you offered one of the classic oxymorons of christian thought, namely, 'the superiority of christian ethics and morality'.
Belly Button Linton, I noted with a smile as you offered one of the classic morons of atheist thought, namely, yourself.
And yes Patrick, what's the point of not winning the religious war for god? Winning the pious war, fighting the good fight, is what it is all about...What's the point praying in a foxhole if you get your butt kicked so hard.
As I said earlier, everything Belly Button Linton has written here is grossly off topic. Belly Button Linton has yet to address Paul's post with even a modicum of reason.
Not to mention he has yet to address Paul's outline:
[1] Christianity got its butt kicked by the Muslims in various battles in the middle ages.
________________
[C] Therefore, Christianity is not the one true religion.
Now, go ahead and derive [C] from [1].
"and their troop of baboons"
ReplyDeleteI think you meant troop of buffoons.
As I've pointed out before, this makes the OTF superfluous.
ReplyDeleteBut Loftus states (pg 21) that to compare EW to religious worldviews is a category mistake. Hence you cannot get out of it by claiming Loftus is inconsistent, since that assumes OTF is equivalent to OTEW.
The question 'Does X exist in the external world?' clearly differs from the question 'Is there an external world?' There can be great doubt about the former, so all questions of that sort must be approached very thoroughly, trying to eliminate bias, which is all the OTF is calling for.
The latter looks false on its face: there is at least my consciousness and the appearance to my consciousness, so already there are elements 'external' to me.
I agree about the Islam stuff - that seems a bit random and doesn't bear on anything here.
Thnuh,
ReplyDeleteYou back for more?
"But Loftus states (pg 21) that to compare EW to religious worldviews is a category mistake."
1. This must be your variant on inerrancy: Loftussaid it, thatsettlesit! What do care what he stipulates?
2. I'm not comparing it to religious worldviews in any strict sense. Anyway, it's not like an OT can only be given to religions, or is this an admission to special pleading?
The point is that EW is largely a byproduct of where and when Loftus was born. If he were a Hindu, he would believe all is Maya. "C'mon, say it aint so." This is a major premise of the OTF.
"Hence you cannot get out of it by claiming Loftus is inconsistent, since that assumes OTF is equivalent to OTEW."
3. Sure I can, for the same premises that Loftus uses to create an OTF can be used to create an OTEW. It's simply an *application* of general principles. So your defense of Loftus is that he's arbitrarily selective. Is this the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" comeback?
4. Anyway, if Loftus doesn't want to take my OTEW test, then I won't take his test. If he can just ignore me, then I can ignore him. I'l just mirror all the moves he makes: to compare the OTEW to the OTF is a category mistake. My test should be taken. If Loftus were born in another time and place, he might have been an external (mind-independent) world skeptic. "Come on, you know it's true."
"The latter looks false on its face: there is at least my consciousness and the appearance to my consciousness, so already there are elements 'external' to me."
5. That's just what Christians would say about other religions. They look false to them.
6. This is obviously a bad argument against the idealist position. That position doesn't deny that you have ideas and appearances etc.
7. Anyway, if all you have to do is "give some reasons" why you believe the way you do, and this is enough to allow you to avoid test taking, then that's what I do with Christianity and so avoid any OTF test taking.
Wake up and smell the bad arguments. Anyone who lauds Loftus' OTF should have their head examined.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry Paplinton, you apparently don't know how to give an argument and you've had several chances to make good. You're not welcome to comment in my comboxes anymore. Your argument that Christianity isn't true because some Muslims beat some armies in the HRE is ridiculous, but I gave you the change to derive it. You didn't. You also confuse predestination with "whatever will be will be," but that latter is simply an uninteresting tautology, and it's hard to see how you could deny it. Anyway, it's not predestination. You don't know enough to know how much you don't know. So go back to DC and engage in more in-group glad-handing, more self-affirming and self-congratulating belief protection therapy. But you're not welcome in my comboxes anymore. Sorry, but I was very generous with my chances. You were asked to make an argument numerous times. You never did. So I must conclude you're not a serious interlocutor.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePapaBellyButtonLinton said:
ReplyDeleteIn summation:
1. Christianity pervaded all of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. Christianity was in its birthplace and covered the whole area by 600CE.
2. The great christian church fathers lived, wrote and preached to millions of christians in Alexandria,, Carthage, Antioch, Damascus, Ephesus, Stridonium, Hippo, Seville, Nyssa, Caesaria Maritima, Nicea, Constantinople, etc. [All famous names from christian antiquity]
3. Islam arose out of the desert, spread like wildfire across the eastern Mediterranean, north Africa and Asia Minor.
4. Christianity was eviscerated.
5. The resulting crusades were a religious military disaster for christianity. From a theist perspective, obviously god was not on their side.
6. islam remains the dominant true religion, as declared by the victors.
Now:
The hypothesis:
1] Christianity got its butt kicked by the Muslims in various battles in the middle ages.
________________
[C] Therefore, Islam is the one true religion.
Case closed. { I have to admit there is a lot of persiflage in my analysis. But then how else can one approach theism in any real substantive way? How should one treat the gossamery nature of metaphysics?]
C'mon boys. Give us your best. And don't forget the OTF is watching you and recording your 'trooth' claims.
Really? This is your response? I don't think we have to do anything more than quote your response to see how you've failed to rise to Paul's challenge. Not once or twice, but time and time again. Alas, Papalinton, you're your own worst enemy.
Of course, what's pathetic is that you don't even know enough to know that you don't know anything.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised a fellow atheist hasn't taken Papalinton aside yet and said "Psst, you're making us look dumb. Please stop."
ReplyDeleteOr maybe he is just a an accurate reflection of the level at which most atheists operate?
Papa Belly Button Linton Wilson said:
ReplyDeleteDamn you in hell and damnation, Patrick. May you roast in hell forever. I worked assiduously for that ban. Sheesh.
Oh, I didn't say you didn't work hard. I'm sure you worked as hard as a hamster running in place on its hamster wheel!
Some people don't have to work too hard to solve a problem. Others work hard but eventually figure it out. Still others don't work hard at all and thus don't end up solving the problem. PapaLinton, however, works super hard but still can't figure out anything. Pity.
How high do you have to rise to be level with a snake's bum?
As I said, it's pathetic that you don't know enough to know that you don't know anything. Since you're suggesting Paul's challenge is no higher than a snake's bum, the fact that you can't even reach this level only makes you look all the worse.
Again, like I said, PapaLinton, you're your own worst enemy. We only need to quote you to rebut you. You rebut yourself.
BTW, I recommend you starting wearing led boots, PapaLinton, given how often you shoot yourself in the foot.
I give credit where credit is due, everytime.
If that's the case, then you ought to go back and "give credit" to all the good arguments people have brought up in this thread against what you've said. Of course, that's about as likely to occur as PapaLinton is to use his brain.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBelly Button Linton,
ReplyDeleteDon't get your panties in a bunch! Or should I say your knickers in a knot? I mean, don't take it personally. Rather think of it as natural selection's way of evolving the species by getting rid of the weak and lame. After all, you're well past your fertile years and in fact due to expire, aren't you?
BTW, speaking for myself, I don't think of you as "small fry." Instead I think of you as a big drongo.
Papalinton,
ReplyDeleteI've said you're not allowed to comment anymore (because you refuse to *argue* and have admitted your goal was to get banned). This isn't your blog. You apparently can't honor the request and are opting to act like a child. Your number's up. You're not the cool, calm, collected, rational free thinker you want others to believe you are. You're an old man who acts like a toddler and throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way (people to yammer endlessly back and forth about meaningless propositions). Don't get me wrong, I understand why you'd throw a temper tantrum: it's got to be paradigm shattering to get utterly pwned by someone you have told yourself and others is "irrational" because they are a "theist." You think of yourself as rational, as a mental giant who squashes theists like ants. But the game you play in your bedroom and bathtub doesn't match reality. In reality you were tied up and turned around and left in the alley not knowing what hit you. When you suddenly got your wits about yourself, it was as if you were someone who thought he was a world class boxer and just found out he was bested by someone he thought was a child. That's got to be a hard pill to swallow, and so I can understand why you're acting the way you are. But, for Pete's sake man, hold on to your dignity, this is embarrassing for you. How old are you? 60? Act like it. Things just didn't work out between us. Don't go away mad, just go away.
C'mon Paul
ReplyDeleteDon't be a mean playground bully. Sulking behind your Big Red Button [censor, censor, censor] because I beg to differ.
Paul, "No! You can't play here. This is *my* toy and you are not allowed to play with it, so *there*!"
PapaL, "You are a big meany, unchristian kind of bully-boy that is going to roast in hell for your behaviour. It is so unlike what jesus would do that the only reason your heart is so hard against me is because satan is inside you, directing it; so there, too!."
Paul, "Oh you're only saying that because you are a big sook."
PapaL, "No, it's true. Satan is so deep inside your soul that god is going to take away your toy, forever, so there!"
Paul, "You're only doing it to scare me."
PapaL, "No, Paulie, I don't have to do anything."
Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the sounds of a man who knows his position has no rational merit to it whatsoever and cannot stand the fact that he's been bested (two different threads in a row now) by someone he's told himself and his friends is an intellectual child, compared to the rationality that supposedly demarcates atheists.
ReplyDeleteAtheists talk a big game, like to ruffle their tail feathers a lot. Here's how to beat them: ask them to present an argument for what they believe is true.
All the little micro-cephalic Calvinists hiding, quivering behind their Big Red Moderator Button [censor, censor, censor] just in case Papalinton makes a call with words.
ReplyDeleteC'mon Paulie, don't be a selfish nark. I want to have fun playing with you and your little imaginary pal perched on your shoulder. And push that big bottom lip back before you trip over it. Goodness gracious! Paulie.
The only person who has any goads on Triablogue is Patrick Chan. At least he has the courage of his convictions to leave my comments up and actually challenge them. Besides the ad hominem commentary [and I give as good as I get], there is much to be had on open discussion. But in the end you know that I know that you know, religion as we know is driving itself into its own cul-de-sac, and encouraged along I might add by the more sensible and reasoned perspective of atheism.
Belly Button Linton Wilson said:
ReplyDelete...micro-cephalic...
Given how poor your science is, which we and others have had to correct on more than one occasion, I doubt you even know what the term means.
The only person who has any goads on Triablogue is Patrick Chan. At least he has the courage of his convictions to leave my comments up and actually challenge them.
Don't wet yourself, PapaLinton. I'd have no problem deleting your comments if I had to.
Also, I notice from time to time you will praise one of us while condemning another one of us. Perhaps you're trying to gain some sort of an advantage. But this play school ploy only works on little kids like Loftus. So I suggest you try it over on his weblog. (Indeed, Loftus will be beside himself in glee if you so much as mention his name in passing somewhere. The guy is so besotted with himself he probably spends much of his time Googling for himself or references to himself. He certainly spends a considerable amount of time promoting himself.)
there is much to be had on open discussion.
Yes, that's true, but so far in our many, many "discussions" with you, no one has gained very "much," least of all you, given how narrow-minded and unreasonable you are.
religion as we know is driving itself into its own cul-de-sac, and encouraged along I might add by the more sensible and reasoned perspective of atheism.
If it's a numbers game, then you might want to check the numbers of atheists vs. the number of theists worldwide.
If it's about truth, reason, logic, sound argumentation, and the like, then, for starters, you might want to re-read your own comments in this very thread (much of which I've quoted) to see how poorly you've performed.
After all, you never made an argument for your utterly off topic point about the rise and spread of Islam somehow disproving the truth claims of Christianity despite several requests and opportunities to do so. Nor, more importantly, did you ever even touch on the point of Paul's post with regard to Loftus, Talbott, and the OTF. Instead you simply show up, make some off topic remarks, engage in some ad hominem, and then congratulate yourself for being so logical and reasonable when the opposite is the case.
Anyway, as I've already said, we only need to quote you to rebut you since you effectively rebut yourself. That's why I appreciate it when you comment. Thanks for lending a helping hand to slap yourself in the face! :-)
Both sides of this need to grow up. This is really pathetic. The Christians need to realize they are confirming the beliefs that the 'impersonality' of the internet can lead to abnormal behavior like 'flaming', etc.
ReplyDeleteThat said, to get back on topic, I think the OTF is not a hill worth dying on. I don't think it ought to be defended as any kind of dogma as such. It's really just an elaborate way of saying, 'be aware of your biases and try to counteract them so you can come to an objective understanding of the issue at hand.' I think that is a reasonable thing to expect.
That said, are any of you Christians willing to accept that, or are you all too dedicated to irrational Van Tillian fideism to even acknowledge that that is a rational position to take.
And yes PA is clearly freaking out and cannot handle this medium. But there are irrational Christians as well. Don't try to take comfort by thinking that PA by his behavior somehow "proves" something about atheism.
Thunh,
ReplyDeleteI goad Papa because he's an overly confident village atheist who constantly makes claims about how irrational theists are and how he smashes their arguments like a toddler crushes an ant. I just play Papalinton to Papalinton, he gets mad when he sees himself in the mirror.
be aware of your biases and try to counteract them so you can come to an objective understanding of the issue at hand.'
Surely this isn't what *Loftus* thinks the OTF is, nor some of the atheists who have lauded it. Clearly your understanding doesn't warrant posts, articles, books, mugs, and t-shirts, does it??? You don't just get to make up an understanding of OTF divorced from the author's intentions.
However, even given your understanding, it's too vague and ambiguous to comment on. First, it fails to distinguish between psychological and rational biases. Given different senses, it's possible to be biased *and* objective. Moreover, it isn't clear that some biases shouldn't be sought to be "overcome." There may be some good reason to have the bias. Indeed, people are biased toward an external world, yet you din't think they should seek to "overcome" this bias. I suspect that when you spell your claim out into the obvious and harmless "truism" you think it is, it will be a fairly uninteresting claim that merits no attention in atheist/theist debates.
Papa, you're not going to goad me into a debate. I've seen what you have, and it's not impressive. Debate is all give on my part and all take on yours. You have nothing to offer me. You have no interesting challenges to my beliefs. So i dub you a waste of time, I kick the dirt off my sandals, as it were. Sorry this upsets you, but I am not losing sleep over it. You had your chances to offer an argument. You never did. I then laid waste to your "questions" and exposed them as tendentious, ambiguous, misinformed, or absurd. You had no comeback. You fired every round you had, and we saw that you were just shooting blanks. Like I said, run along and go back to those who will affirm you in your apostasy and tell you how smart you are. Repeat: "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me" over and over again.
ReplyDeleteThnuh Thnuh said:
ReplyDeleteIt's really just an elaborate way of saying, 'be aware of your biases and try to counteract them so you can come to an objective understanding of the issue at hand.'
That's a rather watered-down definition of the Outsider Test for Faith!
It's similarly naive given Loftus' motives and intentions in "developing" the OTF. It's not as if he makes a genuine attempt to apply it to himself, for instance.
BTW, I'd hardly say the OTF is "elaborate." You give Loftus way too much credit here. But be that as it may.
are you all too dedicated to irrational Van Tillian fideism
What does Van Til or fideism have to do with criticizing the OTF? An atheist could criticize the OTF on many of the same grounds with which we do.
And yes PA is clearly freaking out and cannot handle this medium.
If by PA you mean Papalinton, then I'd agree.
But there are irrational Christians as well.
No one said otherwise.
Or are you referring to someone in particular?
Don't try to take comfort by thinking that PA by his behavior somehow "proves" something about atheism.
Again, no one said otherwise. At best, Jonathan simply asked whether Papalinton's behavior accurately reflects the level at which contemporary atheists operate. But he never stated it "proved" something about atheism. Let alone what it would prove if it did prove something.
Of course, Papalinton's behavior does demonstrate how irrational he is. Plus it demonstrates how he doesn't argue in good faith.
Patrick said,
ReplyDeleteIt's similarly naive given Loftus' motives and intentions in "developing" the OTF.
People should know that it is *I* who inspired and motivated the OTF!
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/outsider-test.html
Given that Loftus is selling OTF mugs and T-shirts, I wonder if I am legally entitled to royalties?
Jonathan said:
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised a fellow atheist hasn't taken Papalinton aside yet and said "Psst, you're making us look dumb. Please stop."
LOL