Originally posted by @dj2beckerI get how it might be spiritually untenable for you and for the poster who took time to have a discussion about it with me, but I don't get how it can be described as "intellectually untenable".
It is intellectually untenable for the reasons discussed. What more do you want?
As far as I am aware, the term - and the philosophical stance it refers to - is not controversial in any way, unless you calling it "intellectually untenable" is just your way of saying you disagree with/disapprove of the stance strongly.
Originally posted by @secondsonYou have been using this refrain a lot, I've noted. I think it's a kind of deflection. I am an agnostic atheist and you have questioned me and I think I've expressed my stance reasonably lucidly ~ and it's all been on-topic.
What is this? So after 14 pages you want to get on topic?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfDo these men qualify as capable reviewers of evidence?
I've looked at Christianity very closely for many years of my life. I eventually realized that it just doesn't work for me. Good for you if it works for you.
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.
“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:
“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...”
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Thanks, I'll read what you have copy pasted when I have a moment.
Do these men qualify as capable reviewers of evidence?
Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literal ...[text shortened]... In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...”
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009I acknowledge that you've found some text on the internet about three people who were Christians and you have posted it here on this thread. Do you have a link from where you took it?
Gotta figure these three know how to properly weigh evidence and to look at evidence with an open mind.
13 Feb 18
Originally posted by @fmfWhat's so lucid about your stance? You've given yourself a label, but it has no meaning. You live in what you perceive to be an empty universe.
You have been using this refrain a lot, I've noted. I think it's a kind of deflection. I am an agnostic atheist and you have questioned me and I think I've expressed my stance reasonably lucidly ~ and it's all been on-topic.
Just you and matter. No hope of life everlasting. Only the memory of you for those you will eventually leave behind, which will fade into oblivion.
Your belief system is void of substance. Nothing authentic. Just a vague, vacuous and purposeless game of words.
In other words, what you think you are, an agnostic atheist, isn't anything at all. It means nothing. It's pointless. It does nothing. It is nothing. It will take you nowhere because that's what it means.
"I'm an agnostic atheist". What a load of nothing!
13 Feb 18
Originally posted by @secondsondont judge others. Only God does that 😉
What's so lucid about your stance? You've given yourself a label, but it has no meaning. You live in what you perceive to be an empty universe.
Just you and matter. No hope of life everlasting. Only the memory of you for those you will eventually leave behind, which will fade into oblivion.
Your belief system is void of substance. Nothing authentic. ...[text shortened]... you nowhere because that's what it means.
"I'm an agnostic atheist". What a load of nothing!
13 Feb 18
Originally posted by @secondsonNo, I don't. And I've said nothing to suggest I do. Which post of mine are you referring to.
What's so lucid about your stance? You've given yourself a label, but it has no meaning. You live in what you perceive to be an empty universe.
13 Feb 18
Originally posted by @secondsonSo what? You are referring here to how your religion makes you feel better about life. This is not really an 'argument' against the philosophical position of agnostic atheism. It's just a snapshot of what makes you tick.
Just you and matter. No hope of life everlasting. Only the memory of you for those you will eventually leave behind, which will fade into oblivion.
13 Feb 18
Originally posted by @secondsonWell if your religious beliefs give you purpose, make you feel your life has substance and you deem all these perceptions of yours to be "authentic" [as opposed to those of others], then that's fine. It's what your religion is for, I suppose, and the same goes for all the other religions.
Your belief system is void of substance. Nothing authentic. Just a vague, vacuous and purposeless game of words.
Originally posted by @secondsonIf your beliefs mean something to you, if they do something [to your way of thinking], if you believe they will take you somewhere, I think that's harmless and nice for you. You seem pretty convinced that a god has revealed itself to you; I don't think that your religious outlook affects the definition and meaning of the term "agnostic atheism". You seem to think it does.
In other words, what you think you are, an agnostic atheist, isn't anything at all. It means nothing. It's pointless. It does nothing. It is nothing. It will take you nowhere because that's what it means.
"I'm an agnostic atheist". What a load of nothing!