Jump to content

Discussing With Smart Christians


kevin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have recently been listening a lot to discussions\debates from sites like IG and Gene Cook and his pet Paul Manata. It's so frustrating when the question is never really answered. I also fail to see how Cook/Manata claim a victory over Dan Barker in their recent debate, when there was no real meat and potatoes to the debate. Dan was in my opinion the most honest of the two by far. What I am seeing is that xtians are starting to use logic and philosophical arguments more and more. I'm not sure how to respond if someone was to ask me stuff like that, because it's an articulate way of them getting god in the back door, and it then puts the atheist on the defensive for a change.

 

Kevin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to get ready for those arguments is to know them. Here is a good website.

 

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

 

Asimov introduced me to this site so give credit to him. Find the fallacies they use and call them out on them.

 

Thankyou Taylork45 for the link.

 

Kevin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

What exactly is a "logical christian argument"? Pascal's Wager? Do christians actually have new, not yet completely destroyed, pretend logical constructs that they are employing to great effect? I would love to hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is a "logical christian argument"? Pascal's Wager? Do christians actually have new, not yet completely destroyed, pretend logical constructs that they are employing to great effect? I would love to hear it.

 

Manata manages this by getting the atheist to define morals/reality/reasoning etc. Stuff that will deflect the argument from proof, since this is where the xtian lacks any evidence.

 

Kevin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shiva H. Vishnu

What exactly is a "logical christian argument"? Pascal's Wager? Do christians actually have new, not yet completely destroyed, pretend logical constructs that they are employing to great effect? I would love to hear it.

 

Manata manages this by getting the atheist to define morals/reality/reasoning etc. Stuff that will deflect the argument from proof, since this is where the xtian lacks any evidence.

 

Kevin:

 

Can I get more on this, or a link or something? I'm extremely curious as to what constitutes a modern logical argument for christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I get more on this, or a link or something? I'm extremely curious as to what constitutes a modern logical argument for christianity.

 

Here's a link to Manata's blog.

 

http://www.presstheantithesis.org/blog/

 

I wouldn't know how to answer his questions, since I don't even understand them.

 

Kevin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Kev.

 

If you're really interested in hearing the opposition to this approach, get hold of Zach. I'm pretty sure that he has went toe to toe with Manata in the past. I think Neil has, too.

 

Here's a link to Manata's blog.

 

http://www.presstheantithesis.org/blog/

 

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, when a Christian does use logic, theyll use it in a variety of ways. But in the end... whatever tactic is used, i can guarantee they did not answer the question directly. They tap dance around it. That's why you gotta be adamant and keep them in check. Make them stick to the main point. No matter how logical they try to be, theyll never be able to use logic to defend an illogical religion. We've tried that and that's why we're all Ex-C's.

 

If you wanna see a good example of keeping a person in check, check out our debates in Specious Love of God and Resurrecting the Ressurection of Jesus threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading stuff from the link you posted, and I haven't seen any thing supprising or new. Just the same old Psudo-logic that I myself used to study.

 

The logical arguments for the existance of god haven't changed in the last two hundred years. As far as I can tell Kant was the last person to present and argument that wasn't entirely old.

 

One thing I've always found telling is that the logical arguments for the existance of god always focus on God as a general Deistic idea, and then before you know it they have replaced that concept with the bible god. The point is, that it is entirely imposible to defend the bible's version of god on logical grounds but they don't want you to see that so they just engage in a little quick symantic trickery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Kev.

 

If you're really interested in hearing the opposition to this approach, get hold of Zach. I'm pretty sure that he has went toe to toe with Manata in the past. I think Neil has, too.

 

Here's a link to Manata's blog.

 

http://www.presstheantithesis.org/blog/

 

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/

 

Thanks Fwee. Boy do I dislike Cook and Manata! Zach's far too polite to them.

 

Kevin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zach, I and others have gone round and round with Manata. The problems with Presuppositionalism is that it could apply to any god or supernaturalism. Their tactic is to try an make a disbeliever of their particular superstition (Christianity "Reformed") explain everything about reality. They do this because they have absolutely no proof of the reality of Yahweh, Jesus, etc. Presuppositionalism is in the base analysis the argument from ignorance. RE: (1) There are a lot of things we can't explain! (2) Imagine that! (3) Therefore Jesus/Yahweh exist and that is our explanation!

 

 

Dealing with Manata and Gene Cook is nothing more than playing semantical gymnastics with their mental masturbatory excerice to justify an irrational belief system.

 

News flash, the "Talking Snake Theory" of reality is not factual!

 

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Manata was on here for several months almost two years back. I forget the name he was posting under. There was a lot of discussion about TAG instigated by him, i.e. Transcendental Argument for God. The strategy of Manata and others like him was laid out by Cornelius Van Til, who used to teach at Westminster Seminary.

 

Their strategy is basically to keep asking "how do we know this" whenever you say anything (or else to define it), and eventually to drive you to be unable to demonstrate how we can have knowledge. Then they push to presuppose that if we are going to have knowledge, there must be something whose truth is guaranteed, which we can be sure we know. That something turns out to be the Bible (as interpreted by Reformed theology).

 

Bruce and others above have shown ways of attacking this strategy. Asimov, I look forward to inspecting the link you showed Taylor45.

 

BTW I caught Manata in an error of logic, when he didn't know the difference between "if... then" and "only if." I noticed he didn't come back much at all after that. Heh heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard the term "smart Christian" before... what is that? It sounds like a mythological creature to me. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussing With Smart Christians, What's the approach?

 

A true contradiction in terms-such a person cannot exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard the term "smart Christian" before... what is that? It sounds like a mythological creature to me. :HaHa:

That's an oxyMORON, Han. :HaHa: And it's not a myth. It's an unpleasant creature that can only function with it's head up its ass. Here in America, we frequently use the more common colloquialism -- Shitheads. They breed like rabbits and never seem close to being extinct. Vile creatures, these Shitheads. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Mr Grinch, don't talk bad about my fellow bunnies! :vent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

:HaHa:

 

 

 

 

You know, rabbits has the meaning of life figured out. They eat healthy, they never speak (so no problems of misunderstanding there), they're cute and fluffy, and most importantly they LOVE sex! So what so bad about bunnies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So basically, if you don't take a position, ie defining your terms, etc, you have the superior position.

 

Sun Tzu in 'The Art of War"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. More a matter of not letting your opponent build a strawman in the first place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, when a Christian does use logic, theyll use it in a variety of ways. But in the end... whatever tactic is used, i can guarantee they did not answer the question directly. They tap dance around it. That's why you gotta be adamant and keep them in check. Make them stick to the main point. No matter how logical they try to be, theyll never be able to use logic to defend an illogical religion. We've tried that and that's why we're all Ex-C's.

 

If you wanna see a good example of keeping a person in check, check out our debates in Specious Love of God and Resurrecting the Ressurection of Jesus threads.

 

ok i am offended, i answered the questions the best i could without dancing. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Their strategy is basically to keep asking "how do we know this" whenever you say anything (or else to define it), and eventually to drive you to be unable to demonstrate how we can have knowledge. Then they push to presuppose that if we are going to have knowledge, there must be something whose truth is guaranteed, which we can be sure we know. That something turns out to be the Bible (as interpreted by Reformed theology).

 

 

thats quite easy to beat. just say that there is no knowledge. then quote socrates "i seem wise because i know nothing." then say "because we cannot prove our existance, then we cannot prove anything else." then end with a "you know nothing." put that way it cannot be taken as an insult XD

 

if you want a few smart christians look into the thories of aquinis or however its spelled. also another one is at http://forums.philosophyforums.com goes by the name of philosophy. i have yet to beat her in a debate. a brilliant person. so yes smart christians do indeed exist, though rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.