Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Great Pumpkin

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Great Pumpkin

1081
Apologetics and Theology / Running Scared of Dr Craig?
« on: August 14, 2011, 12:33:01 pm »
jonahbear wrote:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=116718

I know that this forum has beat the "Dawkins avoids Craig" horse to death but now it would appear that AC Grayling and Polly Toynbee are jumping on the runaway train heading "anywhere but toward Craig" too.

I find this surprising behavior for the strong advocates of atheism but I guess they must not have confidence in their arguments.

Grayling, after forgetting that he actually debated Craig in 2005 made a glaringly immature comment after he was called on it:


“I was wrong about debating [with] Lane Craig — but Lane Craig is wrong about everything else in the universe; so I guess I don’t do too badly in the deal.”


Are the rational atheists a dying breed or are these folks in the UK an anomaly?  At least Hitchens and Harris have the salt to face their opponent.

I am honestly not gloating here I just find the recent "avoiding Dr Craig" phenomenon disingenuous to say the least.  Either put up and be prepared to defend or stop writing books pretending that you have anything defensible to say.

Perosnally, I think the Dr. Craig train has run it's course and people are moving on to larger fish and bigger issues.

Craig is a small subset and happens to be a fairly loony subset of inerrantists, evangelicals and minor philosophers which people have very little time for; at least most serious philosophers.  In fact, I don't think Craig has debated a top philosopher.  Even Flew was not known to be a major philosopher, just a popular atheist.  Many, if not most, philosophers are atheist or agnostic and would be appalled at the level of discourse in apologetics.

That Craig is a tricky orator during debates just makes the process a lose-lose for everyone involved.


I know it must burn the britches of people who think their subject is the most important thing in the world, but most of philosophy has no time for the arguments of Craig and his comrades.

So, when you see people avoiding Craig, you can think of it as an effort to maintain their respectability.

1082
Apologetics and Theology / Scoffer Prophet Slammed to the mat
« on: August 14, 2011, 11:24:21 am »
_CTD_ wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
The OP is an example of rampant anti-intellectualism in the Christian apologetics movement, particularly from the Evangelical sect.

Say what you want about Kant, he was indeed a great thinker who, even if everything he said was false, gave rise to a completely novel way of approaching philosophy and can be credited for even modern apologetics.

This slash and burn approach of everything intellectual and non-biblical is a sad day for all of us, particularly when it is attacking a philosophical position that already is known to have severe flaws.

It's the same as attacking Darwin or any school of thought or paradigm that is but a stepping stone to a better understanding of our world.

The anti-intellectual crowd seems to believe that if any thinker doesn't agree with their interpretation of the metaphyical philosophy of the Bible, then it is part of "scoffers" and other horrible things.

Yes, CTD, it's sad we can't all see the world as you do, but some of us have an education.

Welcome new painter/comedian. You don't scare me much with your buckets and brushes. Did it ever occur to you that folks will read the O.P. before they read your post?

"Anti-intellectual"


You've dumbed down Kant so that you can attack him.  How is this anything other than anti-intellectualism?

When you provide an iota of important thought to world; a fraction of what Kant offered, maybe we can have a conversation, but it is obvious your only goal is to scoff at things you don't understand.

Let's face it, you probably have not read Kant, understood whether a person who is talking about Kant understands Kant, or even understand what you are scoffing at.

If you did realize the vast intellectual depth of philosophical thought outside of Christian Apologetics, you would have more humility.

1083
Apologetics and Theology / Is the USA misguided-about itself?
« on: August 14, 2011, 10:34:28 am »
john wrote: I've just seen Rick Perry present himself in a way which makes it obvious he assumes his audience are idiots. My faith, blah blah. Hard work blah blah. Heroic pilot blah blah.
It energized me to bring up something which may be helpful to Americans among you.
I'm of the opinion that the US citizen automatically believes a whole lot of things about his nation and they are ingrained in him from birth...... but many of them are perfectly misguided.

I'll expand, but it's late night, and let's just start rating the US about a few items. For you Christians, you might like to consider the morality involved.

First, an item which is of pressing importance to a nation indebted by $14T yet one which if you question you may be called unpatriotic.
A chart should do it. Military spending.



Anyone see anything odd here?

John

ps: I had heard of a trillion as the budget this morning and must investigate the figure.



I am torn over this area of politics.

On one hand I realize that a nation of 300 million can only compete against the other 6 billion people in the world for resources if we have a bigger stick.

However, I don't know how anyone can keep their lunch down after reading two things:
Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" Speech
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler  (text)


We swim in an ocean of sharks and we can really only hope to stay out of the way, and never expect them to turn into minnows.

1084
Apologetics and Theology / Scoffer Prophet Slammed to the mat
« on: August 14, 2011, 10:27:29 am »
The OP is an example of rampant anti-intellectualism in the Christian apologetics movement, particularly from the Evangelical sect.

Say what you want about Kant, he was indeed a great thinker who, even if everything he said was false, gave rise to a completely novel way of approaching philosophy and can be credited for even modern apologetics.

This slash and burn approach of everything intellectual and non-biblical is a sad day for all of us, particularly when it is attacking a philosophical position that already is known to have severe flaws.

It's the same as attacking Darwin or any school of thought or paradigm that is but a stepping stone to a better understanding of our world.

The anti-intellectual crowd seems to believe that if any thinker doesn't agree with their interpretation of the metaphyical philosophy of the Bible, then it is part of "scoffers" and other horrible things.

Yes, CTD, it's sad we can't all see the world as you do, but some of us have an education.


1085
MorleyMcMorson wrote:
Quote from: Michael
Wait, are you guys arguing for the idea that two people can be 'married' before God, without actually getting a pastor or priest involved?


The traditional interpretation as far as I can tell is that such a thing can happen.  God didn't create a third person to marry off Adam and Eve, after all.


I think the "traditional" interpretation that seems to be used today is some idea that a man and woman, by having sex, create 1 flesh - and so the symbolism is that the act of procreation is merged with the concept of merging man/woman and man/woman/child.  That in creating one flesh (baby) from two (man& woman) the man and woman are fused symbolically (Parents).

It's more symbolic of how humans procreate then a legal term.

1086
neilmeyerza wrote:
This is the problem with the "objective morality" argument. This is subjective morality based on what God wills.


What's subjective about it . It's wrong end of story. Cannot be more objective Have not heard of any Christian denomination that's okay with it.Seems to me a moral judgement rooted in objectivity.

I suspect your objection is rooted in the euphrose dilemma but surely you have heard the Christian responses to that on this website

The Christian response is unsatisfactory.  Euthyphro's Dilemma has been around over 2400 years for a reason.

But, there is nothing objectively wrong with premarital sex.  It is subjective, and that is proven by the fact that there are few laws that regulate it: that means people are pretty ambivilent about it.

It's not enough to say that YOUR God is against it, since you subjectively chose your religion and hence, chose the God you believe in and chose the characteristics of that God.

Religion is the ultimate in subjectivity.  Consider how many theologies exist, and each party claims it's absolute truth (from their perspective).

1087
Apologetics and Theology / Mars has flowing water on its surface.
« on: August 13, 2011, 08:58:28 am »
I think Science should drop every kind of research and focus on time travel, then, they would be able to solve every problem by learning from the future and bringing it back to the past....

1088
Rostos wrote: I havent read many posts here, but looking at the title of the thread it looks like a classic example of man wanting to be God and determine themselves what is right or wrong.

If you approach a crossing in the middle of the night and the sign is red (dont cross), even though there is no cars in sight, does it mean it is ok to cross the road even though the light is red?

This is essentially the issue.

Just because you dont think you are harming anyone by doing it or risking yourself, the law is the law, if it is red, you dont cross, IRRESPECTIVE of what you think is right.

But there is no law against premarital sex.

1089
jmischley wrote: Also, if there is no God, then there is objectively nothing wrong with premarital sex, or murder, or rape, or slapping you in the face, or anything else for that matter.
This is an immature response.

Premarital sex (and not rape nor murder, etc.) is consensual.

If, as you say, under atheism nothing is objectively wrong, then it is subjective and surely even a Theist must see the difference between a consensual act that both parties feel is subjectively right, and an act that only one party feels is right, but the other feels is horribly wrong.

If you can't see the difference, I would implore you to find a non-violent religion for fear of you becoming a rapist and murderer since you apparently are a sociopath.

Pages : 1 ... 71 72 [73]