Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_marg]

This is not difficult. Stating that the Resurrection does not violate formal logic is not the same as claiming to have a deductive argument for the Resurrection.

What are you stating? Or what is your argument?

[_Ray A]

Ya, by the way you jumped to an erroneous conclusion regarding "paranoia" and deletion of posts.

Pity I don't follow this board as close as I used to. And by what rule did it deserve Telestial status?

Sometimes it's not how long you search for information, but how well you do search and then evaluate.

How well do you even read anything? Have you searched and evaluated the Book of Mormon yet?

[_marg]

Pity I don't follow this board as close as I used to. And by what rule did it deserve Telestial status?

It was Terrestial. If you can't follow the board, you could do a search on Pirate's posts.

As far as my reading, I'm currently reading the Idiots Guide to European History, as well as rereading Vanick's book. What are you reading currently?

[_Ray A]

It was Terrestial.

Which is my point.

As far as my reading, I'm currently reading the Idiots Guide to European History, as well as rereading Vanick's book. What are you reading currently?

Maybe instead of re-reading Vanick, you might actually try reading the source itself, i.e., the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

Maybe instead of re-reading Vanick, you might actually try reading the source itself, i.e., the Book of Mormon.

Well are you telling me the Book of Mormon is a true historical book if not, if it is fiction according to you, why should I read it? If the reason I should read it is to determine whether or not J. smith wrote the book, how can I discount all the evidence that a Spalding manuscript was used by reading the Book of Mormon? How can I discount Rigdon may have contributed by reading the Book of Mormon? I do acknowledge Ray that to discuss word print analysis it is important to read it, or to discuss details it is important.

[_Ray A]

How can I discount Rigdon may have contributed by reading the Book of Mormon? I do acknowledge Ray that to discuss word print analysis it is important to read it, or to discuss details it is important.

Vitally important.

Good night.

[_marg]

How can I discount Rigdon may have contributed by reading the Book of Mormon? I do acknowledge Ray that to discuss word print analysis it is important to read it, or to discuss details it is important.

Vitally important.

Good night.

Unfortunately you ignored my other questions which were important, good night, it's very late for me.

[_Chap]

What the heck is the point of saying 'God-fighters' in Greek?

To those who know Greek it adds nothing. To those who don't know Greek it adds nothing.

So why do it?

1. I like Greek.
2. It is properly descriptive.
3. Theomachoi is more compact than fighters-against-God.

I see. Well, based on that I begin to suspect that you may be a bit of a bgdgwlk.

That's a word in a language I made up myself, called "Ghluj". Why use words in Ghluj when no-one else on this board understands that language (apart from DCP. who hacks into my computer whenever I forget to wrap it in tinfoil at night)? Well:

1. I like Ghluj.
2. It is properly descriptive.
3 Bgdgwlk is more compact than person-who-might-be-suspected-by-the-uncharitable-of-being-more-interested- in-showing-off-than-communicating-with-the-people-he-is-addressing.

[_ludwigm]

What the heck is the point of saying 'God-fighters' in Greek?
To those who know Greek it adds nothing. To those who don't know Greek it adds nothing.
So why do it?

1. I like Greek.
- - - -Who cares? I like dogs and cats more than some people I know.
And I like lilac.
2. It is properly descriptive.
- - - -Not so properly than the native language of the others.
3. Theomachoi is more compact than fighters-against-God.
- - - -Ten characters plus one page explanation - versus twenty chr.
Might be a big gain.

- Sophie Gengembre Anderson: The Time Of The Lilacs - see full resolution at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Lilacs.jpg

[_antishock8]

CC is a chupacabra.

Ha. I used another language. I'm totally winning this thread now. Chupacabra. He had no idea that I was going to drop that on him. I bet he's reeling, and I bet like... Half the people on this board... Yeah, I bet like half think I'm way smarter than before. Take that chupacabra.

----------

SO. The bottom line is CC's religion is as ridonculous as Mormonism. Now he's upset that others think that's the case and have started to pile on. His "formal logic" is to start calling people names and claim that his "formal logic" allows him to clearly understand the ridonculous in his religion in ways that others don't... Because they're stupid. Oh, and anything that he can't explain using his "formal logic" is a "literary device" (ha).

This has to be one of the most powerful Christian apologists I've ever had the pleasure to witness in action. It's a watershed moment in apologia.