Comments on: Apologetics http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html The Life and Thoughts of a Modern Day American Heathen Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:30:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1083 Hrafnkell Haraldsson Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:06:44 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1083 Makarios, I agree with Joseph Campbell. They claim complain that the Bible does not get treated like other ancient literature but they don't really want that. They want it privileged. They're happy to take archaeological evidence that backs their claims but they don't really need it, since they insist it's all true whatever the evidence suggests. Makarios, I agree with Joseph Campbell. They claim complain that the Bible does not get treated like other ancient literature but they don't really want that. They want it privileged. They're happy to take archaeological evidence that backs their claims but they don't really need it, since they insist it's all true whatever the evidence suggests.

]]> By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1075 Hrafnkell Haraldsson Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:05:05 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1075 Gran, I agree. And yep, Against the Galileans has been in my library for about 20 years now :) Also Celsus' "The True Doctrine" and Porphyry's "Against the Christians". If you want a real trinity, those three are it. Gran, I agree. And yep, Against the Galileans has been in my library for about 20 years now :) Also Celsus' "The True Doctrine" and Porphyry's "Against the Christians". If you want a real trinity, those three are it.

]]> By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1079 Hrafnkell Haraldsson Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:03:30 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1079 Pom, I can offer an even better one: James K. Hoffmeier asserts that “the absence of evidence proves little. It is, in fact, negative evidence.” Hoffmeier appeals to historian David Hackett Fischer, who claims that “evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms – it is not evidence at all.”[1]<br /><br />[1] James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 19-20 and citing David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 47. Pom, I can offer an even better one: James K. Hoffmeier asserts that “the absence of evidence proves little. It is, in fact, negative evidence.” Hoffmeier appeals to historian David Hackett Fischer, who claims that “evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms – it is not evidence at all.”[1]

[1] James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 19-20 and citing David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 47.

]]> By: Makarios http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1077 Makarios Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:23:36 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1077 Joseph Campbell once remarked that the biggest mistake that Christians make is reading the Bible as prose rather than poetry. Joseph Campbell once remarked that the biggest mistake that Christians make is reading the Bible as prose rather than poetry.

]]> By: Granamyr/Danielle http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1078 Granamyr/Danielle Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:51:21 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1078 Good post, H. Having once been an avid defender of Christianity I can personally attest to the truthfulness of your statements. It's all, and I mean *ALL* circular argumentation.<br /><br />No archeological evidence contradicts the Bible? We don't need it, but it's there. Here's a simple logic fail for Christians:<br /><br />Noah's Ark. 8 people 4,000 years ago and some animals re-populated the whole Earth and became all, ALL of the current cultures, religions, languages and customs of humanity today? And yet, huh...they don't seem to draw their cultural roots back to 8 Jews. Never mind the fact that...we know there were other people on the Earth living and thriving when the Bible says only 8 were alive and everything underwater. Sorry. History fail.<br /><br />I love too how they think a rejection of their claims implies an assertion that one's own claim is "the truth". So they try and catch you in some hypocritical move when you shove the burden of proof back into their lap. Sorry, unless I'm making a positive negative statement and not merely a statement of fact or disbelief, I don't have a burden. <br /><br />Btw, I just read a portion of Emperor Julian's "Against the Galileans" Priceless. If you haven't read it...do so. <br /><br />This on top of the sheer horror of the Creator drowning *everyone* but 8 because...well, they apparently F'd up in some way. Good post, H. Having once been an avid defender of Christianity I can personally attest to the truthfulness of your statements. It's all, and I mean *ALL* circular argumentation.

No archeological evidence contradicts the Bible? We don't need it, but it's there. Here's a simple logic fail for Christians:

Noah's Ark. 8 people 4,000 years ago and some animals re-populated the whole Earth and became all, ALL of the current cultures, religions, languages and customs of humanity today? And yet, huh…they don't seem to draw their cultural roots back to 8 Jews. Never mind the fact that…we know there were other people on the Earth living and thriving when the Bible says only 8 were alive and everything underwater. Sorry. History fail.

I love too how they think a rejection of their claims implies an assertion that one's own claim is "the truth". So they try and catch you in some hypocritical move when you shove the burden of proof back into their lap. Sorry, unless I'm making a positive negative statement and not merely a statement of fact or disbelief, I don't have a burden.

Btw, I just read a portion of Emperor Julian's "Against the Galileans" Priceless. If you haven't read it…do so.

This on top of the sheer horror of the Creator drowning *everyone* but 8 because…well, they apparently F'd up in some way.

]]> By: Pom http://aheathensday.com/2009/08/apologetics.html/comment-page-1#comment-1073 Pom Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:44:27 +0000 http://uncajoe.org/domains/aheathensday.com/?p=1008#comment-1073 Funny. The idea that because it hasn't been disproved that it must be true. This is the epitome of backward thinking. The burden of proof lies with the claimant(s). It's not the job of anyone to disprove anything. If it can't be proven - it isn't. It's really simple as that.<br /><br />Did you know - it really pisses apologists off when you tell them they <i>should</i> apologize? lol Funny. The idea that because it hasn't been disproved that it must be true. This is the epitome of backward thinking. The burden of proof lies with the claimant(s). It's not the job of anyone to disprove anything. If it can't be proven – it isn't. It's really simple as that.

Did you know – it really pisses apologists off when you tell them they should apologize? lol

]]>