Protestantism

[Robbie]

St. John is clear. Christ is God. You are like Arius.

St John may be clear ad_O but not evleryone is clear.
I share your point of view but it is an opinion & i wouldn't shout anyone down who had a different one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

It's about Protestantism.

Yes, but ad’s tagline is “Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism” so torri was merely asking him what he meant by it. Short of starting new thread on it, that doesn’t seem so unreasonable to me.

I’d be interested in the answer too.

Since you have been unable to link science with any view on religion.

A fallacy two-for-one deal: the straw man and the non sequitur. Neither torri nor anyone else attempts to “link science with any view on religion”, and the “since” is redundant. Science is referenced only when theists attempt to claim scientific validity for their faith beliefs (creationism for example), when it always shows them to be wrong.

The discussion is as valid as anything you care to say about religion......or rationality for that matter.

And another straw man fallacy to follow. The discussion may well be “valid” for those who liked that kind of thing, but torri never suggested otherwise. All he actually did was to ask a question about ad’s tagline.

Anybody wanting evidence of this forum being turned into an antitheist only chat room just has to come to statements like yours.

Asking a question isn’t evidence for anything; it’s just asking a question.

If you genuinely want to be part of a genuine religion ethics forum....Engage please.

Tu quoque time: this from someone who’s never yet managed to engage with the arguments that undo him? Anyways, I suspect that, like me, torri would find it difficult to engage with the frankly weird menagerie of characters and assertions about them that ad seems to find meaningful. That though doesn’t mean that someone can’t ask a question about something else he said, namely his tagline. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Yes, but ad’s tagline is “Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism” so torri was merely asking him what he meant by it. Short of starting new thread on it, that doesn’t seem so unreasonable to me.

I’d be interested in the answer too.

A fallacy two-for-one deal: the straw man and the non sequitur. Neither torri nor anyone else attempts to “link science with any view on religion”, and the “since” is redundant. Science is referenced only when theists attempt to claim scientific validity for their faith beliefs (creationism for example), when it always shows them to be wrong.

And another straw man fallacy to follow. The discussion may well be “valid” for those who liked that kind of thing, but torri never suggested otherwise. All he actually did was to ask a question about ad’s tagline.

Asking a question isn’t evidence for anything; it’s just asking a question.

Tu quoque time: this from someone who’s never yet managed to engage with the arguments that undo him? Anyways, I suspect that, like me, torri would find it difficult to engage with the frankly weird menagerie of characters and assertions about them that ad seems to find meaningful. That though doesn’t mean that someone can’t ask a question about something else he said, namely his tagline.

Thread title ok Torrid Don though is just shutting down any discussion by a form of going nuclear.
Since it seems to be the New Atheist craze of the month I'm joining the chronic migration from this board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Thread title ok Torrid Don though is just shutting down any discussion by a form of going nuclear.

That's not what "going nuclear" means, and no he wasn't: he was just asking what ad's tagline meant. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Since it seems to be the New Atheist craze of the month I'm joining the chronic migration from this board.

There isn't a "chromic migration" and you've announced your retirement more time now that Frank Sinatra.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

That's not what "going nuclear" means, and no he wasn't: he was just asking what ad's tagline meant. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

There isn't a "chromic migration" and you've announced your retirement more time now that Frank Sinatra.

I said it's a form of going nuclear....where you immediately go to a step you hope stops further discussion and that's what Torrid Don seemed to be about. I disagree with you about Chromic migration. Antitheist shenanigans HAVE drained the colour from the boards IMHO, and whose the chief culprit eh,eh,eh,

[Sebastian Toe]

Since it seems to be the New Atheist craze of the month I'm joining the chronic migration from this board.

Indefinitely?

[torridon]

Thread title ok Torrid Don though is just shutting down any discussion by a form of going nuclear.

Eh ?

How is that going nuclear ?  Rather than muzzling ad-o I invited him to open up his views on the subject of protestantism which after all is the title of the thread.  Seems like he doesn't want to step up to the mark so we will have to remain in the dark.

[ad_orientem]

Eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eh ?

How is that going nuclear ?  Rather than muzzling ad-o I invited him to open up his views on the subject of protestantism which after all is the title of the thread.  Seems like he doesn't want to step up to the mark so we will have to remain in the dark.

I am quite prepared to accept what you said was not a shut down argument because you think all alternatives are irrational . I think you would agree that Empiricisn which is traditionally the opposite of Rationalism is not an irrational position. By the same token theism is not irrational and maintains like Rationalism a logical order to the universe.

Does Rationalism have to get to atheism through Protestantism I think not....has it in the past? Perhaps in certain cases where methodology has been mistaken for philosophy...which is what I keep telling you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I am quite prepared to accept what you said was not a shut down argument because you think all alternatives are irrational .

First, if you’re “prepared to accept” that why did you accuse him of it at all?

Second, yet again it wasn’t an argument at all; it was actually a question. That you replied in standard straw man mode doesn’t change that.

I think you would agree that Empiricisn which is traditionally the opposite of Rationalism is not an irrational position.

No it isn’t. What you’re thinking of is philosophical empiricism, which holds that the only proper knowledge is that validated by the senses, whereas the rationalist holds that knowledge can come from reason alone.

By the same token theism is not irrational and maintains like Rationalism a logical order to the universe.

Theism is precisely irrational when the arguments made for it are themselves irrational. That’s why the range of fallacies on which you depend so unrelentingly undermine your claim of an objectively true “God”. Theists of many stripes might well maintain that there is a “logical order to the universe” but that’s entirely a separate matter from the claims they make about the cause(s) of that order.   

Does Rationalism have to get to atheism through Protestantism I think not....has it in the past? Perhaps in certain cases where methodology has been mistaken for philosophy...which is what I keep telling you.

Wrongly of course because you keep getting wrong the terms you attempt. Does rationalism get you to atheism at all though? Pretty much, yes – when rational enquiry invalidates the reasoning made by those who would argue for “God” then finding to no reason to believe in god(s) – ie, atheism – is unavoidable.

How’s the retirement going by the way? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

First, if you’re “prepared to accept” that why did you accuse him of it at all?

Second, yet again it wasn’t an argument at all; it was actually a question. That you replied in standard straw man mode doesn’t change that.

No it isn’t. What you’re thinking of is philosophical empiricism, which holds that the only proper knowledge is that validated by the senses, whereas the rationalist holds that knowledge can come from reason alone.

Theism is precisely irrational when the arguments made for it are themselves irrational. That’s why the range of fallacies on which you depend so unrelentingly undermine your claim of an objectively true “God”. Theists of many stripes might well maintain that there is a “logical order to the universe” but that’s entirely a separate matter from the claims they make about the cause(s) of that order.   

Wrongly of course because you keep getting wrong the terms you attempt. Does rationalism get you to atheism at all though? Pretty much, yes – when rational enquiry invalidates the reasoning made by those who would argue for “God” then finding to no reason to believe in god(s) – ie, atheism – is unavoidable.

How’s the retirement going by the way?

As I said .....peppered with confusion of methodology with philosophy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

As I said .....peppered with confusion of methodology with philosophy.

What's weird about this is that, having tried to establish your (mis)understanding of the terms you abuse by quoting Wiki and RationalWiki only to find that those very same quotes blew up in your face, you've returned to your original mistake like a dog returning to its vomit.

Oh well.

How's the retirement going by the way?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

What's weird about this is that, having tried to establish your (mis)understanding of the terms you abuse by quoting Wiki and RationalWiki only to find that those very same quotes blew up in your face, you've returned to your original mistake like a dog returning to its vomit.

mere assertion... People can read wiki and irrationalwiki for themselves.

[Bubbles]

This is Protestantism in a nutshell. It is essentially gnostic and iconoclast. It removes anything physical from its so-called praise, including the creation which God himself created. They should just be honest, go all out and start believing in the demiurge.

What nonsense!

It's just another version of Christianity, probably closer to the early church where people met in people's homes and wasn't cluttered up with tons of " dogma and stuff"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

mere assertion... People can read wiki and irrationalwiki for themselves.

And BAM!, he's straight in with the fallacy of the non sequitur. People reading these sources for themselves does not make the fact that they blew you out of the water into "mere assertions" (just the opposite in fact), and it's not mere assertion in any case when your own citations have been quoted back to you (see tagline below for example).

Does your fallacy problem affect other areas of your life too? When you leave a note for the milkman, do you for example say: "Two pints please, seeing as  milk must be healthy because lots of people think it is", or perhaps would a message on your door to a courier firm say, "I knew I'd miss this delivery because I told myself I'd be out when you came if I had two Weetabix for breakfast and I did have two Weetabix for breakfast, therefore...."?

Or how about when the postman can't deliver a parcel and leaves you a note saying, "No answer when I rang" and you e-mail them in high dudgeon with: "So you think the moon is made of cream cheese and elephants fly south for winter then do you, you polisher of dung" and so on?

Must be exhausting when your only means of communication is with very bad arguments. Maybe though that's why you're so proud of the Titanic-sized mistake you've been peddling here for years – which is a actually a double straw man by the way, a think of beauty indeed. First you have to re-define terms to suit your ends - "materialism" for example suddenly becomes, "the belief that the material is necessarily all there is or ever can be", and then you have to pretend that there are actually people who subscribe to your personal meanings so you can tilt at the windmill you've just built from Scotch mist.

All very odd indeed, but there you go.

So, how's life treating you in the "Bide a Wee While Retirement Home for the Terminally Mendacious" then? Cocoa to your liking I hope?       

         

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally, I just looked up "Protestantism" on Wiki and it says this:

"Protestantism is a form of Christianity which originated with the Reformation, some movements such as the Hussites or the Lollards are also considered Protestant today, although their origins date back to years before the launch of the Reformation. Others, such as the Waldensians, were later incorporated into another branch of Protestantism; in this case, the Reformed branch a traditions secular have created a monster in Western culture and in western society called Santa Claus have empowered it and exalted with meaning all over the world to date, creating extremism of violence and terrorism in the world, to bring evil in the peoples and not'respect cultures social in our day as the preponderance of Christianity and of the'Islam a movement against what its followers considered to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church movement against what its followers considered to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church.[1] It is one of the three major divisions of Christendom, together with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.[2][3] The term derives from the letter of protestation from German Lutheran princes in 1529 against an edict of the Diet of Speyer condemning the teachings of Martin Luther as heretical.[4]"

Somebody's having fun I think!

[ad_orientem]

What nonsense!

It's just another version of Christianity, probably closer to the early church where people met in people's homes and wasn't cluttered up with tons of " dogma and stuff"

And what on Earth do you know about the early Church, eh? Bugger all, I'd bet.

What you display here is exactly what I dislike about Protestantism the most. Reducing everything down to what you believe are bare essentials. Now we get to my signature. The rationalism of Protestantism raises human reason above Scripture and tradition. It accepts them only as far as they come within the limits of human comprehension. It makes rationality or intelligibility the measure of credibility. That has been the problem with western Christianity since the Middle-Ages: scholastic, cerebral even though we have a revealed faith. Eventually everything is so broken down, wittled away until you're left with nothing except atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

And what on Earth do you know about the early Church, eh? Bugger all, I'd bet.

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”

The Courtier’s reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

[floo]

The Catholic Church has created it crazy traditions over the centuries, many of them not to the good of their worshippers, like the celibacy of priests and ban on contraception.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

We have good friends who are RC, but "RC lite" compared with the likes of ad who seems not only to have drunk the Kool Aid but to be doing underwater lengths in an Olympic-sized pool of the stuff. He tells us apparently sincerely that not only are there living "saints", but that they "sit" on "thrones" on one side or another of "God" or some such, and he seems entirely indifferent to the quiet "Um, isn't all this stuff madder than a monkey on a tricycle?" from the little boy looking askance at this emperor's finery. Naturally therefore for him Protestantism must be in error come what may.

I find people like this intriguing - we have such different life experiences, yet (presumably) we share rationality other areas but religious faith. Ad for example presumably wouldn't jump off a high ladder in the belief that Saint someone-or-other would enable him to float gently to the ground, yet in in one huge area of his life that's not practically investigable anything his church tells him it seems pretty much goes.

For him presumably, "yes but why do you believe any of this stuff?" would be as impossible to process as someone saying, "yes, but why do you think gravity is real?" would be for me. It's just so obviously, axiomatically true that someone else questioning it is just bewildering.

Ah well indeed.     

 

[ad_orientem]

Firstly, for the impteenth I'm not RC. Secondly, Zzzzzz!

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Firstly, for the impteenth I'm not RC. Secondly, Zzzzzz!

Fair enough. For the avoidance of doubt, what label would you use?

More to the point though, would I be right in thinking that you belief the "saints", "thrones" and al the rest of it to be literally true?

[floo]

Firstly, for the impteenth I'm not RC. Secondly, Zzzzzz!

And the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Church is what exactly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

And the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Church is what exactly?

Hats. Definitely hats.

[floo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_differences_between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church

It is incomprehensible as far as I am concerned.