How Have You Been Pursuaded So Far?

[Antlerman]

The point of this is to test the waters on this site of how much impact this new approach in apologetics is making to the membership here. It's a fair and honest question to ask considering the amount of energy being expended in stating arguments for the faith.

 

Please feel free to add you thoughts as to reasons why it's working for you, or reasons why it isn't. I'd hope to hear sincere, heartfelt answers as to why. I think it may say something about the value of the energy expended in devoting one's efforts to build a "case for Christ" really makes at the end of the day, and potentially expose the truth of what faith really is and isn't.

[dagnarus]

I went with "Not at all. It's just a revised tactic that apologists have always tried, but it fails for the same reasons their predecessors failed. It all boils down to a justification of a priori beliefs."

 

In the end the fact that he seems to just keep re-iterating the fact which aren't facts over and over again just seems to reinforce the fact that if your going to defend the factuality of Christianity you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

[Guest Davka]

I also went with the "a priori" option, although I want to add that I don't think it's a "new" approach at all. It's a pretty standard line of bullshit apologetics, with the added annoyance that he refuses to honestly address refutations.

 

If I were sitting face-to-face with Paul/LNC, I would not allow him to dodge questions or derail conversations so easily. I would also show him his fallacies in writing via my handy laptop, so as to make him stop misusing debate terminology. He's a lousy debater, but with a zillion responses to his every flawed argument, he can pick-and-choose which to address and which to ignore.

 

He will doubtless get an excellent grade in his apologetics courses, and make his professors proud. He has a nearly infinite capacity for dissembling.

[Vigile]

Appologists just make me tired. I haven't been following his threads. What exactly is new about his approach? From what I can see from my limited exposure is he is using the same tactics they all use: reliance on logical fallacy, bait and switch, ignoring questions.

[NotBlinded]

Go figure...AM you and I voted the same.

[nightflight]

Its like John Loftus said in his book Why I Became an Atheist; "It required to much intellectual gerrymanding to believe. There were just too many individual problems that I had to balance, like spinning several plates up on several sticks in order to keep my faith."

[oddbird1963]

My answer: "Not at all. It's just a revised tactic that apologists have always tried, but it fails for the same reasons their predecessors failed. It all boils down to a justification of a priori beliefs."

 

LNC is certainly demonstrating the second statement. I believe his last comments I read about people he disagrees with is that it's all the same evidence; they just come to different conclusions than him because of differing a priori assumptions. It's as if the evidence is immaterial. Rather than examine the evidence, examine the a priori because it seems as if to LNC they are what makes all the difference in the issue.

 

LNC applies the consensus fallacy to each of the 12 (sometimes 6) minimal statements that comprise the Habermas minimal facts argument. Supposedly the vast majority of 1000 scholars surveyed by Habermas agree on each of the twelve points. Most of them don't believe in the resurrection as an historical event. But no matter. Using their words against them like an overzealous prosecutor, a case is built that the majority of scholars agree upon these statements, so the resurrection is the best explanation.

 

Assuming this is true and Habermas did survey the works of 1000 scholars and the majority do agree on the minimal statements, that does not establish facts with any kind of epistemological certainty. Majority scholarship may believe this to be true. But nobody has imbued them with authority to establish facts. All Habermas can establish is what he believes the majority of scholars to believe is true. To jump from belief to fact is a fallacy of consensus. [Edited] The overuse of phrases like "the majority of scholars" and "most scholars agree" is a red flag for the fallacy of consensus.

 

Another weakness in the approach is the insistence that the resurrection be evaluated using the same criteria that historians use to evaluate non-miraculous events. Of course the ratio for non-miraculous to miraculous events is everything to 1, if the resurrection could be proved.

Pretending that the gospels and Pauline epistles provide eye-witness accounts does not even approach the level of proof one would need to establish a miraculous occurrence.

 

It's one thing to not dismiss the possibility of the miraculous a priori. It's yet another matter to insist that we be gullible. And even if the best minimal facts case is presented, we would still be called upon to be credulous in order to believe in a resurrection. The least plausible naturalistic explanation of an alleged resurrection in 1st century Palestine is vastly more probably than a conclusion based on a minimal facts argument precisely because the alleged event is a miraculous event. The level of proof is just not good enough.

[Ouroboros]

No, he doesn't sway me. I'm far more attracted to the view held by people like Open_minded. An honest, truthful, and human approach to understanding what religion is, instead of forcing the issues with false arguments. LNC could be arguing the historicity of Gandalf battling the Balrog and then becoming Gandalf the white, as far as I care.

 

Oddbird,

 

You do know that Habermas even believe the Shroud of Turing is real, right? When I realized that, I was done with LNC, of the simple reason that I don't try to convince UFO-believers that there are no aliens visiting Earth. It's useless. It doesn't result in anything. There's no win in any argument when you have a conspiracy theorist on the other end.

 

--edit--

 

My prediction for what occupation LNC will have in the future: a cult leader.

 

The reason is that he can easily sway weak minded people to agree to all his rhetoric. We might be observing the early stage of a developing new Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptists.

[Vigile]

Just thinking out loud here:

 

If you are still an xian holding out against all hope that your beliefs are true then maybe a new spin on apologetics would be welcome.

 

If you left the faith out of frustration but still want it to be true for emotional or other reasons then maybe a new spin would be welcome.

 

However, if Humpty has fallen off the wall for you and he is already rotten and smelly, how could a new spin have any real effect on you?

 

I don't think the last statement is closed minded, though it may come across that way from an outside perspective. What I'm saying here is for someone like me who really wanted to believe but who has long since been exposed to enough contra evidence that disproves the faith, it would take much more than a finely tuned argument to restore faith. It would take, for lack of a better word, a miracle, or at the very least some damned straight forward answers to some pretty impossible questions. Spin won't cut it.

[oddbird1963]

 

Oddbird,

 

You do know that Habermas even believe the Shroud of Turing is real, right? When I realized that, I was done with LNC, of the simple reason that I don't try to convince UFO-believers that there are no aliens visiting Earth. It's useless. It doesn't result in anything. There's no win in any argument when you have a conspiracy theorist on the other end.

 

--edit--

 

 

 

Han.

 

I had heard something to that effect. I didn't realize he actually believed the Shroud of Turan was really Jesus' burial shroud.

I thought he was just using that as a tactic to appeal to a post-modern culture which believes easily in UFO's, ghosts, angels and bigfoot.

 

Habermas' disciples are using an apologetic of pseudo science. I recently heard a debate between Robert Price and a guy named Hernadez or Fernadez who had been a student of Habermas. He claimed more of an openness to UFO's and bigfoot than I thought a reputable professor would admit. Now I guess I know why.

 

OB '63

[chefranden]

I haven't looked at LNC's stuff much. He never answered any of my posts, so it's no fun. I think that is because I called him an arrogant bastard early on.

 

But am I missing something like actual new arguments?

[Ouroboros]

I had heard something to that effect. I didn't realize he actually believed the Shroud of Turan was really Jesus' burial shroud.

I thought he was just using that as a tactic to appeal to a post-modern culture which believes easily in UFO's, ghosts, angels and bigfoot.

It sure didn't look like that when I read some of his material, but you know, I could have misunderstood him. I can admit wrong, if that's the case.

 

Habermas' disciples are using an apologetic of pseudo science. I recently heard a debate between Robert Price and a guy named Hernadez or Fernadez who had been a student of Habermas. He claimed more of an openness to UFO's and bigfoot than I thought a reputable professor would admit. Now I guess I know why.

Yes. Last year when I quoted from a Quantum Mechanics Encyclopedia, LNC claimed the author was wrong! Eh... yeah... a scientist who writes for a scientific encyclopedia for a specific topic, after years of study and experiments, is wrong, because LNC who hasn't graduated from apologist major knows better? I pulled my hair, and I honestly didn't know how to get an argument through to this guy. Everything that contradicts his belief, is wrong a priori (to use a recently popularized word).

[Ouroboros]

I haven't looked at LNC's stuff much. He never answered any of my posts, so it's no fun. I think that is because I called him an arrogant bastard early on.

Strange. I've called him a lot worse, and he still keeps on replying to mine. It must be my fabulous hair.

 

But am I missing something like actual new arguments?

Nope. Not a single one. Same ol', same ol'.

[Deva]

LNC keeps insisting the New Testament is made up of eyewitness accounts so that just automatically proves its all true!! Even after, what, 30 pages.

 

Its just like a parrot repeating. He doesn't answer the objections people give, he just continues with his script. I got really tired of it.

 

I voted it is irrelevant. Even if you 100% proved it actually happened I still wouldn't be a Christian. LNC put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Neon Genesis]

 

You do know that Habermas even believe the Shroud of Turing is real, right? When I realized that, I was done with LNC, of the simple reason that I don't try to convince UFO-believers that there are no aliens visiting Earth. It's useless. It doesn't result in anything. There's no win in any argument when you have a conspiracy theorist on the other end.

 

I knew there was no point in debating with LNC back when LNC claimed JK Rowling was from the devil and Harry Potter was an evil Satanic book that was going to corrupt children into the evils of paganism. There's no point in arguing with someone who can't tell reality apart from fiction.

[Ouroboros]

I knew there was no point in debating with LNC back when LNC claimed JK Rowling was from the devil and Harry Potter was an evil Satanic book that was going to corrupt children into the evils of paganism. There's no point in arguing with someone who can't tell reality apart from fiction.

 

Oh shit! I missed that post! If I had seen it, I would have given up earlier too... damn... too many posts, too little time.

[agnosticator]

I knew there was no point in debating with LNC back when LNC claimed JK Rowling was from the devil and Harry Potter was an evil Satanic book that was going to corrupt children into the evils of paganism. There's no point in arguing with someone who can't tell reality apart from fiction.

 

Oh, that's hilarious! I missed this too. How can LNC admit this while using logic to prove his arguments? He let the cat get out of the bag and it bit him on the ass!

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Oh shit! I missed that post! If I had seen it, I would have given up earlier too... damn... too many posts, too little time.

It was in that older thread I had posted in rants and replies where LNC turned it into a 20 page thread about the truth of the bible and he claimed Harry Potter was from the devil and that he had committed all ten of the ten commandments including murder and he kept ignoring everyone in the thread.

[chefranden]

 

 

Oh shit! I missed that post! If I had seen it, I would have given up earlier too... damn... too many posts, too little time.

It was in that older thread I had posted in rants and replies where LNC turned it into a 20 page thread about the truth of the bible and he claimed Harry Potter was from the devil and that he had committed all ten of the ten commandments including murder and he kept ignoring everyone in the thread.

 

LNC has committed murder? I guess he does need jesus.

[dagnarus]

 

 

Oh shit! I missed that post! If I had seen it, I would have given up earlier too... damn... too many posts, too little time.

It was in that older thread I had posted in rants and replies where LNC turned it into a 20 page thread about the truth of the bible and he claimed Harry Potter was from the devil and that he had committed all ten of the ten commandments including murder and he kept ignoring everyone in the thread.

 

I'm guessing by he, you mean lnc was refering to Harry Potter. When exactly did HP commit adultery?

[Neon Genesis]

 

I'm guessing by he, you mean lnc was refering to Harry Potter. When exactly did HP commit adultery?

It was LNC who had committed all the ten commandments supposedly. When I pressed him about what he meant and if LNC had really committed murder, he used that whole thinking the sin is the same thing as doing the sin argument.

[Ouroboros]

It was LNC who had committed all the ten commandments supposedly. When I pressed him about what he meant and if LNC had really committed murder, he used that whole thinking the sin is the same thing as doing the sin argument.

Oh, that argument. It's a very spurious argument. If thinking about a "sin" makes you a fully sinner, then why won't thinking about a righteous thing make you fully righteous? Basically, I could daydream about doing good stuff, and I'll go to Heaven as a saint!! Why not? Probably they have a billion made-up excuses "why not, just because they twist and spin things. There is no intellectual honesty, even when they try their best to sound like they have it. Fancy words don't make truth.

[Abiyoyo]

I went with the last option

[dagnarus]

 

I'm guessing by he, you mean lnc was refering to Harry Potter. When exactly did HP commit adultery?

It was LNC who had committed all the ten commandments supposedly. When I pressed him about what he meant and if LNC had really committed murder, he used that whole thinking the sin is the same thing as doing the sin argument.

 

Then why even bother to put in thou shalt not covet as a separate commandment?

[NotBlinded]

I went with the last option

You can't answer that, you were already "that way".