Posts

Showing posts from June, 2016

The Miracle of Deconversion

In a recent post at Debunking Christianity ("I've Changed My Mind Many Times, Especially About Religion") John Loftus argued that his deconversion from Christianity to atheism was the result of his own laudable open-mindedness: I am now a strong atheist who has come to the conclusion there is no need to take the obfuscations of Christian philosophers seriously because all philosophical apologetics is special pleading, all of it. Philosophy itself is used to obfuscate the Bible and the theology based on it not to clarify them, because if they were truly clarified believers would see clearly the Christian emperor has no clothes on. Clarifying the Bible and the theology based on it rather than obfuscating them would strip away the blinders from the eyes of believers. Then believers could see the evidence-based truth. They would see their faith is a delusion on a par with Mormonism, Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and even Scientology, as well as seeing they’ve been indoctrinated …

Bowen-Hinman Debate: Answer to Bowen no 1 (Talmud)

This is not finished needs proofing but i have computer problem so I'm,postimng early;



Worthy opponent, fellow people, let's start!


Bowen:
Here is how I would summarize Joe Hinman’s first argument:
1. There are MANY references to Jesus in the Talmud that were censored but that were preserved in some texts.
2. There are A FEW references to Jesus in the Talmud that were not censored.
3. ALL of the references to Jesus in the Talmud speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure.
4. IF (1), (2), and (3) are true, THEN the external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.
THEREFORE:
5. The external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.


Hinman: I don't Object to that understanding of the argument.

Bowen:
In order to show that premise (1) is true, I would ex…