EAllusion wrote:With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.
Not sure if I'm walking into a trap.........

EAllusion wrote:With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.
MrStakhanovite wrote:EAllusion wrote:With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.
Not sure if I'm walking into a trap.........
EAllusion wrote:I've read It Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Without hyperbole, it's one of the worst works of apologetics I've read and plays a role in setting the standard for what I think of as bad apologetics. It's fundamentalist boilerplate similar to what you'd find from likeminded sources - with a standard focus on design arguments and anti-evolution material, resurrection arguments, etc. - , but exceptionally poor in its execution. If I recall, at one point Geisler argues something to the effect of "If there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Either someone created something or no one did. If you believe something exists, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
With that, I'm going to recommend strongly that Stak read it so he can see Geisler's take on Hume and Kant. It's epic.
In the late 20th Century, Geisler entered the anti-Mormon arena. In 1997 he co-authored When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretation, with Ron Rhodes. Forty-seven of the articles listed in the index, regarded Mormonism. In 1998, he helped put together a book entitled The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, published by Harvest House publishers in Eugene, Oregon.
We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons. Joseph Smith
"I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." Brigham Young
...the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the priveledge of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. Joseph Smith
One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth. Let it come from where it may. Joseph Smith
Kant commits the same error as Hume--he violates the Law of Noncontradiction. He contradicts his own premise by saying that no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it, namely that the real world is unknowable!
mikwut wrote:For example, when that same video production could be done from the other side of belief, for example the likes...John Polkinghorne, Particle Physics Professor Univ. of Cambridge...
MrStakhanovite wrote:I didn't know you could talk about religion at the Toastmasters.
Some Schmo wrote:MrStakhanovite wrote:I didn't know you could talk about religion at the Toastmasters.
It's been my experience (as an officer of our club) they let us do what we want. Most of the rules have to do with fees and taxes. The rest are guidelines.
If that's a rule, I'm not aware of it and neither is our group. I'm not aware of any topic restrictions, come to think of it. Just about everyone in our charter has mentioned his/her relationship to god/church in a speech at one point or another. That's pretty much what prompted my speech topic.
EAllusion wrote:I've read It Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Without hyperbole, it's one of the worst works of apologetics I've read and plays a role in setting the standard for what I think of as bad apologetics. It's fundamentalist boilerplate similar to what you'd find from likeminded sources - with a standard focus on design arguments and anti-evolution material, resurrection arguments, etc. - , but exceptionally poor in its execution. If I recall, at one point Geisler argues something to the effect of "If there is no God, then why is there something rather than nothing? Either someone created something or no one did. If you believe something exists, then you don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
mentalgymnast wrote:So far I'd have to agree with you. I've read up through pg. 46 so far and feel like I'm reading a training manual for evangelical door to door messengers. Circular reasoning, appeal to authority, and a number of other logical fallacies in play so far.
Oh well. I paid for the book, I guess I'll keep reading it to see what I can get out of it. So far I'm not overly impressed.
Regards,
MG