David so dominated that he had no opponent at all, catch my drift? ;-)
12
comments:
Anonymous
said...
I actually think Jeff did alright professor Loftus. David kept talking about how evil the Catholic church was, and it was clear over and over again that he thought Jeff’s beliefs were childish and should be laughed at. I think if they got into details about how the Vatican was a moral monstrosity it would have been hard for Jeff to defend it, but they didn’t. So it really looked like David was attacking Jeff when it was not necessary. I was also impressed with how polite Jeff was. I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to be as tolerant as he was, and I am used to Christians talking to me like I don’t know anything. That’s definitely not the impression I got from Jeff. To be honest, Jeff did pull the reduction ad hitlerum argument though, even though he seemed to abandon it later on.
I actually think Jeff did alright professor Loftus. David kept talking about how evil the Catholic church was, and it was clear over and over again that he thought Jeff’s beliefs were childish and should be laughed at. I think if they got into details about how the Vatican was a moral monstrosity it would have been hard for Jeff to defend it, but they didn’t. So it really looked like David was attacking Jeff when it was not necessary. I was also impressed with how polite Jeff was. I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to be as tolerant as he was, and I am used to Christians talking to me like I don’t know anything. That’s definitely not the impression I got from Jeff. To be honest, Jeff did pull the reduction ad hitlerum argument though, even though he seemed to abandon it later on.
Yeah, I didn't find it so one-sided either. But I didn't actually find it to be interesting or productive either, and the part where the host interrupts the show to read people's tweets was where I tuned out. Lame.
And the comparison to Bill Donahue definitely doesn't work here. This guy was actually polite. Donahue is one of the most pompous douchebags alive.
Silverman is a buffoon. Christians do not believe in an "invisible magic man in the sky."
And the Catholic was correct about Pol Pot and Stalin. (But he forgot Mao.) As for Hitler, I'm not sure what he was but his praise of Julian the Apostate (i.e., "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged the Christians and Christianity") demonstrates he was no Christian.
It sounded like Jeff the Catholic had a hard time composing a thought, but I took notice at the very beginning of his comments when he seemed to criticize atheists who make fun of religions and/or their rituals.
He could have been baited into a discussion on the source of his principles.
It sounded like his principle is thus: An entity who ridicules religious people and their sacred beliefs should be criticized, but an entity who burns people in hell for eternity for not having the right beliefs should be praised.
"Most Christians do believe in an ineffable, supernatural, father diety who resides in heaven.
So yes."
Uh no. God is not a man and He does not live "in the sky." Moreover, ineffable != invisible (there is nothing wrong with invisibility btw) and supernatural != magic.
Wouldn't it be most accurate to say something like, "theists believe in an anthropomorphized disembodied consciousness"?
I mean, of course he's not a "man", because he's disembodied. Pascal Boyer's book "Religion Explained" does a pretty thorough job of explaining why people believe in that, instead of a "magic man in the sky". Though "magic man in the sky" is certainly a reasonable approximation of Old Testament theology.
Wouldn't it be most accurate to say something like, "theists believe in an anthropomorphized disembodied consciousness"?
“Disembodied” sounds as though God once had a body - perhaps the one he used to walk in in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps “incorporeal” would be a better word to use.
Christians such as William Lane Craig believe in the trinity of which one element Jesus is truly man, a man who experienced a real resurrection then rose bodily up into the sky on his way to heaven and who will very shortly (usually within the next forty years - for 2,000 years it's always been about forty years) return to earth as a real man.
So using WLC’s ineluctable God-given logic, God (in the form of Jesus) is an invisible (‘cos not even Hubble can see him) man in the sky who, while here on earth, did many magic tricks.
What part of the above does O’Brien not believe and why?
"Christians such as William Lane Craig believe in the trinity of which one element Jesus is truly man, a man who experienced a real resurrection then rose bodily up into the sky on his way to heaven and who will very shortly (usually within the next forty years - for 2,000 years it's always been about forty years) return to earth as a real man.
So using WLC’s ineluctable God-given logic, God (in the form of Jesus) is an invisible (‘cos not even Hubble can see him) man in the sky who, while here on earth, did many magic tricks.
What part of the above does O’Brien not believe and why?"
I do not believe in the trinity, nor do I believe God and Jesus are "in the sky." (Of course, I don't equate miracles with "magic tricks" either.)
12 comments:
I actually think Jeff did alright professor Loftus. David kept talking about how evil the Catholic church was, and it was clear over and over again that he thought Jeff’s beliefs were childish and should be laughed at. I think if they got into details about how the Vatican was a moral monstrosity it would have been hard for Jeff to defend it, but they didn’t. So it really looked like David was attacking Jeff when it was not necessary.
I was also impressed with how polite Jeff was. I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to be as tolerant as he was, and I am used to Christians talking to me like I don’t know anything. That’s definitely not the impression I got from Jeff. To be honest, Jeff did pull the reduction ad hitlerum argument though, even though he seemed to abandon it later on.
I actually think Jeff did alright professor Loftus. David kept talking about how evil the Catholic church was, and it was clear over and over again that he thought Jeff’s beliefs were childish and should be laughed at. I think if they got into details about how the Vatican was a moral monstrosity it would have been hard for Jeff to defend it, but they didn’t. So it really looked like David was attacking Jeff when it was not necessary.
I was also impressed with how polite Jeff was. I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to be as tolerant as he was, and I am used to Christians talking to me like I don’t know anything. That’s definitely not the impression I got from Jeff. To be honest, Jeff did pull the reduction ad hitlerum argument though, even though he seemed to abandon it later on.
Yeah, I didn't find it so one-sided either. But I didn't actually find it to be interesting or productive either, and the part where the host interrupts the show to read people's tweets was where I tuned out. Lame.
And the comparison to Bill Donahue definitely doesn't work here. This guy was actually polite. Donahue is one of the most pompous douchebags alive.
Silverman is a buffoon. Christians do not believe in an "invisible magic man in the sky."
And the Catholic was correct about Pol Pot and Stalin. (But he forgot Mao.) As for Hitler, I'm not sure what he was but his praise of Julian the Apostate (i.e., "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged the Christians and Christianity") demonstrates he was no Christian.
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=hitler+julian+the+apostate&btnG=Search+Books
Finally, there is nothing illegal about excommunication or the threat thereof.
O'Brien; Christians do not believe in an "invisible magic man in the sky.
Most Christians do believe in an ineffable, supernatural, father diety who resides in heaven.
So yes.
It sounded like Jeff the Catholic had a hard time composing a thought, but I took notice at the very beginning of his comments when he seemed to criticize atheists who make fun of religions and/or their rituals.
He could have been baited into a discussion on the source of his principles.
It sounded like his principle is thus: An entity who ridicules religious people and their sacred beliefs should be criticized, but an entity who burns people in hell for eternity for not having the right beliefs should be praised.
"Most Christians do believe in an ineffable, supernatural, father diety who resides in heaven.
So yes."
Uh no. God is not a man and He does not live "in the sky." Moreover, ineffable != invisible (there is nothing wrong with invisibility btw) and supernatural != magic.
Wouldn't it be most accurate to say something like, "theists believe in an anthropomorphized disembodied consciousness"?
I mean, of course he's not a "man", because he's disembodied. Pascal Boyer's book "Religion Explained" does a pretty thorough job of explaining why people believe in that, instead of a "magic man in the sky". Though "magic man in the sky" is certainly a reasonable approximation of Old Testament theology.
"Wouldn't it be most accurate to say something like, 'theists believe in an anthropomorphized disembodied consciousness'?"
That's closer to the truth. I'm not sure that it is entirely adequate but it is not a distortion, unlike Silverman's description.
"Though 'magic man in the sky' is certainly a reasonable approximation of Old Testament theology."
Some of the OT, perhaps, but not all of it. In any event, I think it is a reasonable approximation of Mormonism.
David Silverman will be debating James White on "Is the New Testament evil?" It should be an interesting one.
Wouldn't it be most accurate to say something like, "theists believe in an anthropomorphized disembodied consciousness"?
“Disembodied” sounds as though God once had a body - perhaps the one he used to walk in in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps “incorporeal” would be a better word to use.
Christians such as William Lane Craig believe in the trinity of which one element Jesus is truly man, a man who experienced a real resurrection then rose bodily up into the sky on his way to heaven and who will very shortly (usually within the next forty years - for 2,000 years it's always been about forty years) return to earth as a real man.
So using WLC’s ineluctable God-given logic, God (in the form of Jesus) is an invisible (‘cos not even Hubble can see him) man in the sky who, while here on earth, did many magic tricks.
What part of the above does O’Brien not believe and why?
"Christians such as William Lane Craig believe in the trinity of which one element Jesus is truly man, a man who experienced a real resurrection then rose bodily up into the sky on his way to heaven and who will very shortly (usually within the next forty years - for 2,000 years it's always been about forty years) return to earth as a real man.
So using WLC’s ineluctable God-given logic, God (in the form of Jesus) is an invisible (‘cos not even Hubble can see him) man in the sky who, while here on earth, did many magic tricks.
What part of the above does O’Brien not believe and why?"
I do not believe in the trinity, nor do I believe God and Jesus are "in the sky." (Of course, I don't equate miracles with "magic tricks" either.)
Post a Comment