Discussions with Bob, the rationalist

[OzSpen]

Nope dont care to.. it would be off topic to do so.. ..

I do think you need to know the difference between an illogical fallacy (new language to me) and a logical fallacy.

 

[reba]

I wonder which of us amuses the other most.

 

[jasonc]

I wonder which of us amuses the other most.

Red herring.

 

[OzSpen]

I wonder which of us amuses the other most.

You think it's amusement. You were the one who went off topic. Now you want to pass the buck and consider I'm amusing you. I'm dead serious about your inability to know the difference between an illogical fallacy (your language) and a logical fallacy.

I suggest you become informed about the nature of logical fallacies. Could I be wasting my suggestion?

 

[Kidron]

Kidron,
I agree that there are several ways of defining religion, but it was you who stated in #17 that 'Explain to him that Christianity is not a religion'.
I showed from James 1:26-27 (ESV) that Christianity is a religion and there can be worthy and worthless religion.
I notice you didn't comment on the exegesis I provided to demonstrate that Christianity is a religion.
Oz

-
The reason that Christianity is not a religion is because its something that God did for us.
A religion, is something that we do.
Are these the same?.....They are not, Yet, its the same word, OzSpen.

So, the way you are understanding it, is the idea of (Christian) righteous discipleship (works) carried out in appreciation for what God did for us, and that is slightly related to the idea of world religion that is performed by man, as in both cases the religious man is doing some works.
Whereas Christianity, is not what we do, so, that is why its not a religion.......Christianity is what God did for us, and God didnt do what He did for us because He is Religious....He did it for us because "God Is Love"
.
Preaching is us telling others what God did for us.
Jesus said to go and tell them what I DID and how they can get WHAT I DID FOR THEM ON A CROSS.
So, is this the same as us doing what HE did for us, that you call "religion"?
That is to say, God came down from Heaven and bled out on a Cross and we are saved by what HE DID< and we lead others to accept WHAT HE DID as the Holy Spirit enlightens them?.
Is that us doing What God did?
This is not the definition of religion as you are trying to prove by using that word in that verse.

Buddhism on the other hand is what you are defining as "religion".
As this is a way of trying to become one with God or become a state of "Godness", that is based on what we do to try to reach it. (Buddhism).
So, THAT is religion, which is the exact opposite of Christianity, and that is why Christianity is not a religion, tho men occupied with these type pursuits are defined as being religious.

 

[jasonc]

She already knows.Not all are able to debate and have it in them to argue with extremely educated atheists. I have been intidimated by those.Try debating man who read physics books as a hobby and had the math and science education to under Steven Hawkings.

 

[OzSpen]

-
The reason that Christianity is not a religion is because its something that God did for us.
A religion, is something that we do.
Are these the same?.....They are not, Yet, its the same word, OzSpen.

That's not correct according to James 1:26-27 (ESV). Religion/religious does apply to Christianity.

 

[Runner]

I am a regular listener to Dr. Frank Turek (crossexamined.org), who fancies himself as a world-class debater of folks like Bob. Surely ammunition of the sort you are seeking would be found at Turek's site if anywhere. On the other hand, even as a believer I find a large percentage of Turek's arguments facile and unconvincing. Literally all of my friends are highly educated, highly intelligent, hardcore nonbelievers. They wouldn't waste five minutes with someone like Turek (or you) and they certainly wouldn't reconsider their beliefs on the basis of anything Turek (or you) would have to say. As someone else has suggested, you "reach" them, if at all, by way of example, simply by living your life around them. If something eventually clicks, perhaps in a time of despair for them, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.

I obviously don't know Bob, but anyone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia isn't interested in anything you have to say. He is humoring someone he thinks is a fool. Asking "How would you progress in your discussion with him so that you can get him to consider the existence of God and then move toward the Cross" is like asking "How can I train my poodle to make martinis and hit a golf ball 300 yards?" If I were seriously going to make someone like Bob my pet project (my very, very long pet project), Christianity wouldn't even be part of the discussion. I would challenge him to seriously explore all the evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death and perhaps the evidence for Intelligent Design. He would be highly unlikely to do it, of course, because it is a massive undertaking and he is already a member of a church in which he is quite comfortable.

 

[GodsGrace]

OzSpen

I do believe Runner has said it all...

(but there's always hope and you never know when one might be searching...)

 

[Kidron]

That's not correct according to James 1:26-27 (ESV). Religion/religious does apply to Christianity.

-
Unfortunately., to not address any of my points and just say..."this is not correct according to".....is really only proving my point, OZ

So, lets leave it like this.
You have a very singular and strict mental interpretation of the word "religion", and i'll respect your right to have it.


K

 

[Free]

I am a regular listener to Dr. Frank Turek (crossexamined.org), who fancies himself as a world-class debater of folks like Bob. Surely ammunition of the sort you are seeking would be found at Turek's site if anywhere. On the other hand, even as a believer I find a large percentage of Turek's arguments facile and unconvincing. Literally all of my friends are highly educated, highly intelligent, hardcore nonbelievers. They wouldn't waste five minutes with someone like Turek (or you) and they certainly wouldn't reconsider their beliefs on the basis of anything Turek (or you) would have to say. As someone else has suggested, you "reach" them, if at all, by way of example, simply by living your life around them. If something eventually clicks, perhaps in a time of despair for them, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.

Living by way of example is only a part of it, although it is an essential part so that those to whom one preaches the gospel see a consistency between what is preached and what is lived. The whole point of apologetics is to clear away misconceptions about God, the Bible, history, and human nature, so that one can see the cross and their need for it. This is a very effective way of reaching people and in many cultures is essential before the gospel can even be presented.

Living the Christian life on its own is not likely to convince. They will think it's great that you live well but that won't stop them from believing that you believe in fairy tales.

I obviously don't know Bob, but anyone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia isn't interested in anything you have to say. He is humoring someone he thinks is a fool. Asking "How would you progress in your discussion with him so that you can get him to consider the existence of God and then move toward the Cross" is like asking "How can I train my poodle to make martinis and hit a golf ball 300 yards?" If I were seriously going to make someone like Bob my pet project (my very, very long pet project), Christianity wouldn't even be part of the discussion. I would challenge him to seriously explore all the evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death and perhaps the evidence for Intelligent Design. He would be highly unlikely to do it, of course, because it is a massive undertaking and he is already a member of a church in which he is quite comfortable.

I don't think starting with Intelligent Design would work at all as there are those who quite strongly believe the appearance of design does not mean that something is designed. Better would be the cosmological and moral arguments, objectivity of truth, historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and the reliability of the Gospels.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I'm in discussion with Bob who calls himself a rationalist. He insists that he is not an atheist but a secularist. He supports the Rationalist Society of Australia.

When I discuss his secular life he says that his belief is that no religion should intrude in any part of life. Schools and government should be secular in a multicultural society.

He will not engage with the Bible so he won't engage with me when I use 'Bible fairy tales' (his lingo).

How would you progress in your discussion with him so that you can get him to consider the existence of God and then move towards the Cross?

Oz

If I felt the need to continue the conversation, I'd probabley start with some wisdom in Jesus's teachings, and possibly from the bible as a whole. I had a friend at work that he and I got in a simular conversation about Christianity. He said why he didn't like Christianity, largely from some experiences he's had and judgments placed on him by harsh relatives and strangers who claimed to be Christian. In that conversation at first I focused on the redemption quality of Jesus and God and said that there is a large subject of being redeemed. I tried to take in his critisms of Christianity or religion as a whole, but for the most part I stuck close to lesions and wisdom I had gained through study and contemplating the bible, or the wisdom of someone else who studied the bible too. And though I don't remember how the whole of the conversation went, on the third day of work when we met again, he asked we stop the conversation, because he was feeling hostility because of the conversations. Not hostility from me, but hostile in himself. He didn't want to continue the conversation to the point where it became a yelling match, or where he lost his composure.

Though I don't think I won him over, this conversation was a lesson for me because it was civil and stayed on the path of teaching bible concepts instead of both of us being angry at Christians who did him wrong. So it's now a conversation model I hope to be able to try again someday.

 

[Runner]

I don't think starting with Intelligent Design would work at all as there are those who quite strongly believe the appearance of design does not mean that something is designed. Better would be the cosmological and moral arguments, objectivity of truth, historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and the reliability of the Gospels.

You are preaching straight out of the Frank Turek Manual, and it would go nowhere with someone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia. Intelligent Design certainly has its critics (believe me, I am neck-deep in ID), but at least the discussion takes place within the same intellectual framework in which a rationalist lives and breathes. He may not be convinced by ID - he may reject it entirely - but he may be intrigued enough to dive deeper. Ditto for the evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death, which spans a wide range of phenomena. "Cosmological and moral arguments, objectivity of truth, historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and the reliability of the Gospels," however, mean nothing, nada, zilch to a member of the Rationalist Society.

One of Turek's pet phrases (he screams it at the beginning of every broadcast) is, "KNOW WHY PEOPLE ARE SO EASILY TALKED OUT OF CHRISTIANITY???? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!!" The fallacy here, of course, is that people aren't "talked into" Christianity at all. They are led to it by the working of the Holy Spirit. (To be fair to Turek, what he really means is something more like "Know why people like Bob think Christianity is too silly even to consider? Because they've never been shown it isn't completely silly. Here are ways you can show them it isn't completely silly and perhaps they'll at least consider it.")

I suppose one answer to the OP would be, "Do or say whatever you want. If the Holy Spirit has decided this is the time to open Bob's heart and mind, it scarcely matters what you say. Just walk him through the Four Spiritual Laws." This, of course, isn't good enough for the Tureks of the world. They have to show they are more clever than Bob (which generally they aren't), that they can talk him into belief (which 99.9% of the time they can't, at least in the case of someone who is a card-carrying member of the Rationalist Society of Australia).

 

[Free]

You are preaching straight out of the Frank Turek Manual, and it would go nowhere with someone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia. Intelligent Design certainly has its critics (believe me, I am neck-deep in ID), but at least the discussion takes place within the same intellectual framework in which a rationalist lives and breathes. He may not be convinced by ID - he may reject it entirely - but he may be intrigued enough to dive deeper. Ditto for the evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death, which spans a wide range of phenomena. "Cosmological and moral arguments, objectivity of truth, historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and the reliability of the Gospels," however, mean nothing, nada, zilch to a member of the Rationalist Society.

I've never listened to Turek. You seem to be quite familiar with the Rationalist Society of Australia, but I simply cannot see how ID could be even close to being as convincing as the others I have given. It would be something to bring up, just not something to start with. As for "evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death," is there any?

Or one could start with the problems with naturalism, most notably, determinism. Their own site says, "Welcome to the Rationalist Society of Australia, Australia's oldest freethought association." If, as they also state, "that the natural world is the only world there is," then there is no such thing as "free thought." There are a few reasons for this, one of which is given by Alvin Plantinga in the link below.

OzSpen Here is an interview with Alvin Plantinga that you may find interesting: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...nal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1

 

[GodsGrace]

I've never listened to Turek. You seem to be quite familiar with the Rationalist Society of Australia, but I simply cannot see how ID could be even close to being as convincing as the others I have given. It would be something to bring up, just not something to start with. As for "evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death," is there any?

Or one could start with the problems with naturalism, most notably, determinism. Their own site says, "Welcome to the Rationalist Society of Australia, Australia's oldest freethought association." If, as they also state, "that the natural world is the only world there is," then there is no such thing as "free thought." There are a few reasons for this, one of which is given by Alvin Plantinga in the link below.

OzSpen Here is an interview with Alvin Plantinga that you may find interesting: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...nal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1

Free, ID would prove that there's a God. Who or What created this intelligent design? You know, if there's a watch, there must be a watchmaker.

The whole problem is that they don't believe God exists. This is the crux of the problem as far as I'm concerned. There's not too much use in arguing for the resurrection, for example, if they don't even believe in God.

My thoughts.

Wondering

 

[Free]

Free, ID would prove that there's a God. Who or What created this intelligent design? You know, if there's a watch, there must be a watchmaker.

The whole problem is that they don't believe God exists. This is the crux of the problem as far as I'm concerned. There's not too much use in arguing for the resurrection, for example, if they don't even believe in God.

My thoughts.

Wondering

But as I stated, atheists and such have already stated that the appearance of design doesn't mean that a thing is designed. So if you think arguing for the resurrection is of not much use, then we must consider that ID is of not much use. The whole point of this discussion is how to persuade one that God exists and no argument is likely to work when taken on its own. It is the totality of all the best arguments that is most likely to be persuasive.

The best approach is not trying to prove God exists, but using all the arguments to show why belief in God is rational. If someone can simply be convinced that belief in God is rational, the step is much smaller, albeit much more difficult, to convince them that God actually exists.

 

[GodsGrace]

But as I stated, atheists and such have already stated that the appearance of design doesn't mean that a thing is designed. So if you think arguing for the resurrection is of not much use, then we must consider that ID is of not much use. The whole point of this discussion is how to persuade one that God exists and no argument is likely to work when taken on its own. It is the totality of all the best arguments that is most likely to be persuasive.

The best approach is not trying to prove God exists, but using all the arguments to show why belief in God is rational. If someone can simply be convinced that belief in God is rational, the step is much smaller, albeit much more difficult, to convince them that God actually exists.

Oz clearly said that presenting the gospel won't work with this Bob right now. If someone doesn't believe the bible is real, why should he believe the resurrection is real?

When I try to present the idea that Christianity is rational, I always go to the Apostles. What is our faith based on anyway? Is it based on the resurrection?

No. It's based on our faith on the persons who tell us that it happened. It's based on our faith in the Apostles. If the Apostles were men to be trusted, then we could believe what they proclaim in their gospels, in Acts, etc. If we cannot trust and have faith in the Apostles, then we can believe nothing.

So, are they dependable? Could we trust them?

Yes.

Why do you think they could be trusted?

Wondering

 

[Runner]

I've never listened to Turek. You seem to be quite familiar with the Rationalist Society of Australia, but I simply cannot see how ID could be even close to being as convincing as the others I have given. It would be something to bring up, just not something to start with. As for "evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death," is there any?

Or one could start with the problems with naturalism, most notably, determinism. Their own site says, "Welcome to the Rationalist Society of Australia, Australia's oldest freethought association." If, as they also state, "that the natural world is the only world there is," then there is no such thing as "free thought." There are a few reasons for this, one of which is given by Alvin Plantinga in the link below.

OzSpen Here is an interview with Alvin Plantinga that you may find interesting: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...nal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1

A good way to think about this is to ask how a Muslim, Hindu or atheist would go about effectively “witnessing” to you? The type of person who joins an organization like the RSA is not a garden-variety nonbeliever. He is as committed to his worldview as you are to yours. “There is no God” and “Christianity is silliness” are, for him, axioms – they are not theories he is going to be talked out of.

Having now spent some time on the RSA website, including their section on Christian Apologetics, I have confirmed they are who I thought they were. The eat arguments such as you are suggesting for lunch (or at least think they do, which is all that matters).

I happen to be extremely familiar with Alvin Plantinga. I happen to just have finished Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response by Kevin Diller. Plantinga’s key point is that a belief in God is “properly basic,” meaning it has “epistemological warrant” or justification. He is really not an apologist per se. (Barth, one of the preeminent theologians of the 20th Century, had no patience with apologetics and regarded it as pretty much a waste of time). I don’t know how Plantinga would deal with someone like Bob, but I found it interesting in the interview that when he was pressed for evidential support for theism he went directly to – yep – Intelligent Design.

My essential point being, there are two ways to approach someone like Bob: (1) present the basic Christian message and hope the Holy Spirit opens his heart and mind, or (2) jolt him out of his worldview, so Christianity becomes at least worthy of consideration. You are not going to jolt Bob out of his worldview with clever philosophical arguments, traditional “proofs” of God, or evidence for the reliability of the Bible. Bob doesn’t care about any of this any more than you care about being shown the truth of Hinduism. As soon as you start talking about Christianity in any way, shape or form, he simply labels you a credulous fool.

In my experience. jolting Bob out of his worldview has 0% chance of success. Whether he becomes a Christian depends on the Holy Spirit, not on how clever you are. Ergo, present the basic message and move on. However, if I were to attempt to jolt Bob out of his worldview, so that Christianity might at least become an option, I would challenge him with the latest advancements in physics, consciousness studies, Intelligent Design and, yes, paranormal research – including after-death communications, near-death experiences, ghosts, apparitions, deathbed visions, possession, mediumship, channeling, instrumental trans-communication, all forms of PSI, miracles, reincarnation studies, yada yada yada. Some of the paranormal research is not consistent with Christianity, and some of it may even be demonic – but immersion in it will certainly challenge a materialistic worldview. Once that hurdle has been overcome, Christianity may start to make sense.

The problem is, not 1 in 100,000 characters like Bob is going to do the massive amount of work necessary to convince him his worldview might be wrong. Which is why I say, present the Four Spiritual Laws (or whatever) and move on. People like Frank Turek and William Lane Craig are really “apologizing” to Christians, making them feel better about their worldviews; their arguments don’t dent the worldview of someone like Bob.

But, hey, go ahead and confront Bob with Plantinga or arguments about the supposed inconsistency between determinism and free will (which is already addressed on the RSA site). Let us know how that turns out. My bet is, you’ll be the one getting an education.

 

[Free]

Oz clearly said that presenting the gospel won't work with this Bob right now.

I never said anything about the gospel.

If someone doesn't believe the bible is real, why should he believe the resurrection is real?

The few arguments I gave were in a progression. One typically wouldn't start with the resurrection but progress towards it. And there is more than just the Bible that can be used to support the resurrection.

When I try to present the idea that Christianity is rational, I always go to the Apostles. What is our faith based on anyway? Is it based on the resurrection?

No. It's based on our faith on the persons who tell us that it happened. It's based on our faith in the Apostles. If the Apostles were men to be trusted, then we could believe what they proclaim in their gospels, in Acts, etc. If we cannot trust and have faith in the Apostles, then we can believe nothing.

So, are they dependable? Could we trust them?

Yes.

Why do you think they could be trusted?

Wondering

Our faith is based on the person of Christ and who he is depends on the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

 

[GodsGrace]

I never said anything about the gospel.


The few arguments I gave were in a progression. One typically wouldn't start with the resurrection but progress towards it. And there is more than just the Bible that can be used to support the resurrection.


Our faith is based on the person of Christ and who he is depends on the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

Oz mentioned the gospel, not you.
Did I say to start with the resurrection? I don't even believe using the bible is of any use.
What makes the scriptures be trustworthy?

Wondering