Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[lilpixieofterror]

We need to make our version of Dante's Inferno in the poop deck! Except not as nasty as the stuff in Dante's Inferno. More watching cutesy children's programming and listening to Christian music. And dial up. In a hut with dim bulbs. And some people might not get running water or electricity!

Might be fun. I'll actually have to read Dante's Inferno first though...

[Gary]

Gary still doesn't get the point. I say he ignores expert opinion because he does. I have provided numerous books and references in many fields and Gary never interacts with them. When it came to the Dark Ages, I showed him books as did Rogue that contradicted his position written by authorities in the field and he ignores them.

Gary. You might not know this, but when reasonable people are given evidence against their position, they show that either the evidence is false, or it's misunderstood, or there is better contrary evidence, or they just ignore it and whine on.

You choose the last path every single time.

You're an anti-intellectual who wants to convince himself that we should take you seriously.

We don't. You're outright hysterical.

Wrong.

Your accusation is that I reject the scholarly consensus. However, when I ask for specifics, you refuse to give it.

Just because I am not willing to read a stack of book by Christian apologists does not mean that I reject the overwhelming majority consensus. On every supernatural claim of the Bible that we discuss, you want me to read a stack of books. What you are really saying is that until I read all the books regarding the supernatural claims of the Bible I have no right to reject Christian supernatural claims. This is a fallacious argument. Just as I do not need to read books by "leprechauns are real" experts to not believe in leprechauns, I do not need to read books by "dead body resurrection" experts to not believe in resurrections.

Now, if I claimed that the early Christians did not BELIEVE in a resurrection, that the idea of a resurrection of Jesus did not develop until the late second century, THEN you would have the right to claim that I am rejecting majority consensus. But I have made no such claim. What ancient peoples believed and did is fair game for scholars and scholarship. Proving that a guy who had been brain-dead for three days and then flew off into outer space is NOT scholarship, it cannot be studied. It cannot be studied because it is a superstition.

[Christianbookworm]

Might be fun. I'll actually have to read Dante's Inferno first though...

Why read it? Just look up the gist on the internet!

[lilpixieofterror]

It's amazing that Gary who refuses to answer questions and deal with contrary data accuses everyone else of evasion.

Projection much?

100 irony meter's, just went up in smoke.

[rogue06]

ooooh. Expert opinion again from an agnostic editor.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...s=books&sr=1-2

Watch it be ignored!

I recommended that one to Gary along with several others back at post #106. That where I posted a review by an atheist of another recommended book which I'll re-post so Gary can quickly scroll past it again

Source: The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews �God�s Philosophers�

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena.

The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.

The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood.

About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.

And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph.

DarkAges.gif

It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.


Source

[*Emphases in original*]

© Copyright Original Source

Again, O'Neill says a great deal more concerning the topic which can be seen by following the link provided. And keep in mind, this is an atheist source not from a Christian apologist.

[lilpixieofterror]

Wrong.

Your accusation is that I reject the scholarly consensus. However, when I ask for specifics, you refuse to give it.

Just because I am not willing to read a stack of book by Christian apologists does not mean that I reject the overwhelming majority consensus. On every supernatural claim of the Bible that we discuss, you want me to read a stack of books. What you are really saying is that until I read all the books regarding the supernatural claims of the Bible I have no right to reject Christian supernatural claims. This is a fallacious argument. Just as I do not need to read books by "leprechauns are real" experts to not believe in leprechauns, I do not need to read books by "dead body resurrection" experts to not believe in resurrections.

"Reading is hard! Give me a pop up book that says I'm wrong!"



Watching you show the world how big of a tool you are, is quite amusing. Keep digging...

Now, if I claimed that the early Christians did not BELIEVE in a resurrection, that the idea of a resurrection of Jesus did not develop until the late second century, THEN you would have the right to claim that I am rejecting majority consensus. But I have made no such claim. What ancient peoples believed and did is fair game for scholars and scholarship. Proving that a guy who had been brain-dead for three days and then flew off into outer space is NOT scholarship, it cannot be studied. It cannot be studied because it is a superstition.

Assuming your conclusion is true. That's a fallacy. Nice try Gary, but might I suggest you stop with the logical fallacies, before you claim to be a 'man of reason'?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Wrong.

Your accusation is that I reject the scholarly consensus. However, when I ask for specifics, you refuse to give it.

Just because I am not willing to read a stack of book by Christian apologists does not mean that I reject the overwhelming majority consensus. On every supernatural claim of the Bible that we discuss, you want me to read a stack of books. What you are really saying is that until I read all the books regarding the supernatural claims of the Bible I have no right to reject Christian supernatural claims. This is a fallacious argument. Just as I do not need to read books by "leprechauns are real" experts to not believe in leprechauns, I do not need to read books by "dead body resurrection" experts to not believe in resurrections.

Now, if I claimed that the early Christians did not BELIEVE in a resurrection, that the idea of a resurrection of Jesus did not develop until the late second century, THEN you would have the right to claim that I am rejecting majority consensus. But I have made no such claim. What ancient peoples believed and did is fair game for scholars and scholarship. Proving that a guy who had been brain-dead for three days and then flew off into outer space is NOT scholarship, it cannot be studied. It cannot be studied because it is a superstition.

I refuse to give specifics...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post255207

Where was your great reply to those specifics that I supposedly don't give that I gave in that post?

Oh yeah!

"Look! I found a YouTube vid that shows Christians have done stupid things! Checkmate!"

[lilpixieofterror]

Why read it? Just look up the gist on the internet!

Because I'm not Gary and lazy. Besides it's online for free and isn't a large book. I could likely finish it up in a day or two.

[Gary]

Ok, after doing some checking around, it seems many scholars now believe that the term "Dark Ages" for the Middle Ages in not correct.

I will withdraw my claim. I will admit I was wrong on this issue.

Now, Nick. Will you please admit that you have falsely accused me regarding my alleged rejection of the scholarly consensus on the claims of the Bible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ok, after doing some checking around, it seems many scholars now believe that the term "Dark Ages" for the Middle Ages in not correct.

I will withdraw my claim. I will admit I was wrong on this issue.

Now, Nick. Will you please admit that you have falsely accused me regarding my alleged rejection of the scholarly consensus on the claims of the Bible.

Care to show me where I specifically did that?

[Gary]

Care to show me where I specifically did that?

You insinuate that I am a stubborn idiot because I will not read all the Christian books you continually refer me to. However, if I agree with the consensus position of the overwhelming majority of scholars regarding all the beliefs and practices of early Christians, why do I need to read YOUR books?? Please admit that the only reason you want me to read your books is to convince me that the supernatural claims of the Bible are fact.

I have already stated that I accept the possibility of the supernatural. However, I reject the need to believe in the supernatural simply because it's probability of being true is so very, very low, based on cumulative human experience, and my own personal cumulative experience. If I disagreed with the majority consensus on any issue of history, then yes, I should read books to see how I might be wrong. But I do not.

I do NOT need to read books on the supernatural because there are no such entities as "experts on the supernatural".

[Apologiaphoenix]

You insinuate that I am a stubborn idiot because I will not read all the Christian books you continually refer me to.

No. I say you are one because you do not read any scholarly books. Instead, you prefer to stay on the internet where the best material is not found and any crackpot can get a web site.

However, if I agree with the consensus position of the overwhelming majority of scholars regarding all the beliefs and practices of early Christians, why do I need to read YOUR books??

To know why people say what they say rather than what they say. This is like saying "If I look in the back of the math book and write down the correct answers to the questions, why do I need to read the rest of the book?"

Please admit that the only reason you want me to read your books is to convince me that the supernatural claims of the Bible are fact.

I have said that I want you to read both sides. Why would I want you to read not only Mike Licona but Bart Ehrman? Why would I say read N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan?

I have already stated that I accept the possibility of the supernatural. However, I reject the need to believe in the supernatural simply because it's probability of being true is so very, very low, based on cumulative human experience, and my own personal cumulative experience. If I disagreed with the majority consensus on any issue of history, then yes, I should read books to see how I might be wrong. But I do not.

And you know this because? I've even said to read the agnostic John Earman on this. You refuse.

I do NOT need to read books on the supernatural because there are no such entities as "experts on the supernatural".

And once again also, I don't use the natural/supernatural distinction so this is just hot air.

And you accused me of bearing false witness but could not provide one case where I did what you said. Instead, you went by insinuation.

It's amazing you accuse me of false witness while bearing it yourself.

The reason you don't know this is like so many preachers, you don't want to discuss the issues. You just want to be on a soapbox.

[One Bad Pig]

Gary still doesn't get the point. I say he ignores expert opinion because he does. I have provided numerous books and references in many fields and Gary never interacts with them. When it came to the Dark Ages, I showed him books as did Rogue that contradicted his position written by authorities in the field and he ignores them.

Gary. You might not know this, but when reasonable people are given evidence against their position, they show that either the evidence is false, or it's misunderstood, or there is better contrary evidence, or they just ignore it and whine on.

You choose the last path every single time.

You're an anti-intellectual who wants to convince himself that we should take you seriously.

We don't. You're outright hysterical.

No, sometimes he shifts the goalposts in response.

[Gary]

No. I say you are one because you do not read any scholarly books. Instead, you prefer to stay on the internet where the best material is not found and any crackpot can get a web site.



To know why people say what they say rather than what they say. This is like saying "If I look in the back of the math book and write down the correct answers to the questions, why do I need to read the rest of the book?"



I have said that I want you to read both sides. Why would I want you to read not only Mike Licona but Bart Ehrman? Why would I say read N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan?



And you know this because? I've even said to read the agnostic John Earman on this. You refuse.



And once again also, I don't use the natural/supernatural distinction so this is just hot air.

And you accused me of bearing false witness but could not provide one case where I did what you said. Instead, you went by insinuation.

It's amazing you accuse me of false witness while bearing it yourself.

The reason you don't know this is like so many preachers, you don't want to discuss the issues. You just want to be on a soapbox.

You are lying. Anyone who has followed our discussion has seen you make this accusation against me over and over. You expect me to read all your Christian propaganda on the reality of YOUR supernatural claims, before you will accept me as qualified to discuss the truth claims of your supernatural-based religious beliefs.

Nonsense.

If non-supernaturalist skeptics such as myself had to read all the books by the "experts" of every supernatural-based religion on earth before we are deemed qualified to reject all supernatural claims, we would never live long enough to read them all, which is exactly your goal: Send us off on a wild goose chase reading books on superstition while you continue to brainwash gullible young children and adults with your supernatural nonsense.

I don't need to read books about superstitions to know that superstitions are not reality.

Period.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You are lying.

Back it. You have to demonstrate that not only am I making a claim that is false but that I know it is false. I know in my writings repeatedly I have told people to read both sides. In fact, the scholars I pointed to in my debate were for the majority part non-Christian.

Anyone who has followed our discussion has seen you make this accusation against me over and over. You expect me to read all your Christian propaganda on the reality of YOUR supernatural claims, before you will accept me as qualified to discuss the truth claims of your supernatural-based religious beliefs.

No. I expect you to read both sides.

Nonsense.

If non-supernaturalist skeptics such as myself had to read all the books by the "experts" of every supernatural-based religion on earth before we are deemed qualified to reject all supernatural claims, we would never live long enough to read them all, which is exactly your goal: Send us off on a wild goose chase reading books on superstition while you continue to brainwash gullible young children and adults with your supernatural nonsense.

No. It's not. I make it to you because you do not read. I also know that if I was arguing against a position, I would read on that position to make sure I was representing it fairly. You don't and you're not.

I don't need to read books about superstitions to know that superstitions are not reality.

Period.

Q.E.D.