tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6658678286781278852..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Skeptical DifficultiesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90797374124716626162010-08-12T05:05:06.121-04:002010-08-12T05:05:06.121-04:00Edward T. Babinski wrote:
"Tobin doesn't...Edward T. Babinski wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Tobin doesn't have to prove atheism is true in order to raise questions for revealed biblical religions."</i></b> <br /><br />I didn't suggest otherwise. Why don't you interact with what I said?<br /><br />You go on to mention alternatives to Christianity, such as deism. I'm aware of the alternatives. But I was citing my worldview and Tobin's as my primary examples. It doesn't follow that I'm denying that there are alternatives or that I'm unaware of those alternatives.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-123495986778766812010-08-11T23:34:19.952-04:002010-08-11T23:34:19.952-04:00Tobin's appeal to "mainstream/critical&qu...Tobin's appeal to "mainstream/critical" scholarship, which turns out to be a euphemism for the secular outlook of the Jesus Seminar, is implicitly atheistic. Driven by a functional denial of the supernatural. <br /><br />Likewise, his rejection of typology is implicitly atheistic. <br /><br />So, yes, Tobin does need to prove atheism as a necessary presupposition of his attack on Bible history.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81806001334641415482010-08-11T23:19:50.166-04:002010-08-11T23:19:50.166-04:00Tobin doesn't have to prove atheism is true in...Tobin doesn't have to prove atheism is true in order to raise questions for revealed biblical religions. For instance, there's always deism or mysticism for Christians to fall back on. <br /><br />In fact, the book, The Christian Delusion, is more about raising questions concerning how and why people believe in Christianity, and questions raised by studying the Bible itself, rather than attempting to disprove all paranormal phenomena or tackle all possible arguments for God. <br /><br />J.P. Holding has likewise admitted that should his attempts to defend revealed biblical religion fail, his default position is "deism." <br /><br />There's also "errant" varieties of Biblical religion, so deism isn't necessary. Such varieties include the recognition of more questions and do not assume the certainty of knowledge that many conservative Christian theologians presume they can dig out of the Bible.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com