Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_KimberlyAnn]

I do not identify with any extant Christian denomination. I utterly reject the unscriptural and illogical doctrine of the trinity, which rules out most Christian sects.

You find the doctrine of the Trinity illogical? It may well be, but it seems to be the most viable, Biblical option, at least according to scripture, "logical" or no.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? Is not that illogical? You consider yourself a Christian, don't you? Do you believe that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day?

KA

[_cinepro]

He then makes the argument that nothing in the books is particularly profound yet they are attributed to a divine author whereas no one ever attributes the divine to truly profound works of scientists, as an example Isaac Newton.

Harris will be delighted to know that LDS attribute every scientific advance since 1830 to the renewed spirit of the Lord being back on the Earth. Any advance that has in some way contributed to perceived LDS Church growth or efficiency is also obviously a result of divine intervention (radio technology, telephones, computers, television broadcast, films and home video, internet).

Obviously, Satan has done everything he can to try and hijack these divinely inspired gospel-delivery mechanisms for his own nefarious purposes (i.e. pornography), which only proves their divinely inspired origin.

[_Calculus Crusader]

You find the doctrine of the Trinity illogical? It may well be, but it seems to be the most viable, Biblical option, at least according to scripture, "logical" or no.

Hi KA. I disagree that the doctrine of the trinity is "the most viable Biblical option." When I read the Bible, it is clear to me that the Son is neither coequal nor coeternal with the Father. Moreover, I think the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? Is not that illogical? You consider yourself a Christian, don't you? Do you believe that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day?

KA

I do believe Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected. However, I do not think the Resurrection is illogical. You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection.

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

[_marg]

I do believe Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected. However, I do not think the Resurrection is illogical. You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection.

It doesn't require formal logic to reject any claim that is based upon unreliable premises.

[_Daniel Peterson]

marg, you don't know enough to be worth talking with. Your knowledge is inversely proportional to your dogmatic certainty.

[_marg]

marg, you don't know enough to be worth talking with. Your knowledge is inversely proportional to your dogmatic certainty.

And what dogmatic certainty is that?

[_KimberlyAnn]

You find the doctrine of the Trinity illogical? It may well be, but it seems to be the most viable, Biblical option, at least according to scripture, "logical" or no.

Hi KA. I disagree that the doctrine of the trinity is "the most viable Biblical option." When I read the Bible, it is clear to me that the Son is neither coequal nor coeternal with the Father. Moreover, I think the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? Is not that illogical? You consider yourself a Christian, don't you? Do you believe that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day?

KA

I do believe Jesus Christ was bodily resurrected. However, I do not think the Resurrection is illogical. You can derive a contradiction from the doctrine of the trinity using formal logic; that is not the case for the Resurrection.

I'm no logician by any means, CC, but I do wonder, though you may not derive a logical contradiction for the Resurrection, how do you get around the impossibility of the proposition? I realize you're not claiming widespread resurrection and are focusing only on one exception, but still, bodily resurrection remains outside of what we know is possible. Faith is the only basis for belief in the Resurrection, I'd imagine.

Also, do you believe that all people are eventually destined for either heaven or hell? If so, how would one falsify that claim?

Finally, if you do not believe Jesus to be coequal or coeternal with the Father, what do you believe His relationship to the Father to be? Is Jesus not God in the flesh, but rather a subordinate son/prophet/teacher? Or, do you hold to the Mormon view of the Godhead?

Sorry to beleaguer you with so many questions, CC, but I'm curious.

KA

[_marg]

marg, you don't know enough to be worth talking with. Your knowledge is inversely proportional to your dogmatic certainty.

by the way, good thread to post this in Daniel. You are illustrating nicely what Sam harris points out in the video. That one of the 3 typical arguments against atheism is to call it a dogmatic belief and therefore atheists are dogmatists. Do you even have any idea what my position is with regards to god belief?

[_Some Schmo]

marg, you don't know enough to be worth talking with. Your knowledge is inversely proportional to your dogmatic certainty.

And what dogmatic certainty is that?

Goodness... the shear irony of the person delivering that message! How funny.

Danny boy, do you go out of your way to appear the hypocrite? It sure seems like it. But then, I imagine you think you really know a lot, to which I can only respond with...

ROTFLMAO