Nathan's Comments

Things Findo Thinks : Question Begging and Atheist Chicken.

Thu, 2 Jun 2011 04:08:00 +0000

Sorry guest, my point was that the only way to scientifically test post death realities is to die. And you can't take other people's word for it. So it's neither fully serious or fully a joke. But at least I put my name to what I write.

Things Findo Thinks : Question Begging and Atheist Chicken.

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:42:59 +0000

And this thread so beautifully reminds me why I'm cutting down on time spent antagonizing the intellectually ridiculous nu-atheists.

Things Findo Thinks : Question Begging and Atheist Chicken.

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:38:30 +0000

"Is Heaven "real"? Is Jesus/God "real"? Surely if these things are "real" then there would be someway of verifying their existence" I propose a test, you off yourself, and see what happens. It's a modified pascal's wager. If you're wrong, then, you lose. If you're right, well, in the scheme of things in the grand scale of eternity you've really lost nothing, given the amount of time you're investing in the argument for the non-existence of God your life clearly isn't that fulfilling. If you're right you also get the satisfaction of knowing you were right for zero minutes, and at least some sort of kudos for your martyrdom. You in?

Things Findo Thinks : Question Begging and Atheist Chicken.

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:27:12 +0000

While I have no problem with evolutionary theory, aren't we all just talking apes, essentially. with a few generations over a Spanish of time in the mix. Throw God and some literary genre considerations into the mix and I'm not sure your obstacle is all it seems. But you atheists generally read the bible like idiots anyway, you may be the exception, who knows. I don't care. It seems that we agree that discourse on this matter is largely pointless.

Things Findo Thinks : The problem of evil, naturally.

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:18:18 +0000

Also...

Why? why isn't it good enough for you? we have been running society like this since the dawn of time. Do you need a philosophical reason how a computer works??

This is such a bizarre analogy for an atheist to be using. Computers work because they are designed and programmed to function a particular way. We have also been using religion to set both the high bar for ethical living, and the low bar for conduct we punish, since about the beginning of time (at least since the first religion was invented, which was pretty early on). I really don't see what your point is - unless you think computers somehow evolved, by themselves, and thus nobody needs to spend any time thinking about why they work? There are actually plenty of philosophical questions underpinning the way computers work. Economic decisions made through different philosophical convictions have led to the development of plenty of technology. And in some sense to understand the way a computer works (as is the case for understanding how to make apple pie) first you must understand how the universe works, and work inwards from there (you can go outwards from the computer too)... So anyway. Your analogy is pretty stupid and completely dodges the question.

Things Findo Thinks : The problem of evil, naturally.

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:10:23 +0000

"Well, Christianity doesn't say that, btw - but it's not really relevant. " Hell yes it does. And so do many religious people in history. To say christianity has never been about "do this or go to hell" is plain wrong.

Since Andrew hasn't responded to that - I will. Christianity is precisely not about obeying a moral code in order to avoid hell. It is about the moral code being demonstrably impossible to obey, which is why Jesus steps in and takes the punishment for people's sins. That's pretty much the foundation of any form of "Christianity" out there - how we're then to live (ie morality) and what impact that has, is a matter of some debate (see the protestant reformation) - but the only thing Christianity says you have to do to not go to hell is "follow Jesus"... There certainly are Christian teachers and other religious people who have strayed away from this foundational truth, but I think you'll find that most Christians consider this to be a foundational belief, and a distinction between Christianity and the other monotheistic religions (Islam and Judaism).

Godless Business : Is the universe necessary?

Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:23:31 +0000

"This is preciously the purpose of faith – belief in contempt of the evidence" That's really not what faith is. It's certainly not how faith is defined by the Bible. Faith is not belief in spite of evidence, or belief against the evidence - it is defined in the Bible as the hopeful belief of things unknown. For most reasonable minded Christians faith does not leave us blocking our orifices in the face of scientific claims, but rather science reveals to us the mechanisms of God's workings - it's not like knowing how something works explains away the need for agency - especially if we're dealing with the question of a pre-existant God. Sure, blind faith is dumb, and dangerous. But not all faith is blind. It's just a blatant fallacy to suggest that blind faith is synonymous with faith. And it's a dangerous case of poisoning the well when it comes to listening to the claims made by Christian philosophers and thinkers... "Apologists seem to abandon this rational approach when it finally and inevitably fails them." You seem to be making a broad brushed off hand dismissal of "apologists" as if having an agenda is a reason not to listen to people is similarly bizarre. Sure, take somebody's bias into account. But it seems like you're saying "that person is an apologist therefore I will not listen" - at that point you leave yourself listening only to the agnostic voices (unless you're not as keen to apply the same approach to apologists for atheism).

Things Findo Thinks : Bad Sound Bites: thousands of denominations

Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:45:24 +0000

Don't the Catholics also sign up the Apostle's Creed?

Things Findo Thinks : Daily Mail Fail: inventing Australian states

Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:47:15 +0000

Flabbergasting.

Stuff Christians Like - Jon Acuff : Putting the wrong Bible verse on things.

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:07:50 +0000

I haven't scrolled through to the next pages so apologies if I've missed this already - but a real clanger is when you take some words Satan says to Jesus and make them your church slogan "If you, therefore, will worship me, all will be thine" - Luke 4:7

Things Findo Thinks : Deserving ridicule?

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:25:27 +0000

So I'll happily ridicule those who ridicule others for not agreeing with their view of the world. I'm not so happy to ridicule others who use different standards of evidence with different burdens of proof that are ultimately philosophical convictions that can be arrived at through logic and reason. But I'd much rather just deal with evidence, and the question of what makes evidence persuasive.

Things Findo Thinks : Deserving ridicule?

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:23:17 +0000

I think ridicule for ideas you disagree with is ok. It's pretty much the driving force of satire. Isn't it? I just don't think ridicule is done with much class, and it too often falls into an ad hominem attack. The ridiculous thing in all of this is that the public New Atheist movement (I'm trying very hard not to lump that mob all together) wants Christians to stop ridiculing them and to start buying into their evidence based reality - and they aim to achieve that by ridiculing the Christians. Doesn't seem to be an approach backed up by any evidence whatsoever. What makes ridicule the best means by which to achieve change? I don't think any empirical testing would suggest that ridicule is better than persuasion. Ridicule seems to me to be a last resort taken up by this mob with vehemence as a first resort. I think it's perfectly acceptable to ridicule somebody who refuses to be persuaded by evidence. But it's ridiculous to decide that you are in possession of the only worthwhile and persuasive evidence and then to ridicule those who disagree with your view on the matter.

Stuff Christians Like - Jon Acuff : Feeling bad that you didn't blog about Halloween.

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:29:13 +0000

Next year can we find heretical writings and burn them as well? Just to get into the spirit of the reformation. I could get into Reformation Day.

Stuff Christians Like - Jon Acuff : Feeling bad that you didn't blog about Halloween.

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:27:16 +0000

Yeah, living in suburban Brisbane (Australia) I saw actual trick or treaters wandering the streets. I reckon I'll be blogging about Halloween at some point, in a fourth category the "Halloween is an American cultural icon we don't want/need in Australia" category.

Things Findo Thinks : WLC does impersonations

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:21:46 +0000

Agreed. And they don't like being called on it either...

http://goannatree.blogspot.com/ : Christian Scholars Directory: Australian and New Zealand Theological Colleges

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:49:09 +0000

Did you do that on purpose? Queensland Theological College...

St. Eutychus : The eyes have it

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:46:56 +0000

This is an excerpt of a comment I made in response to AndrewR six days ago:

'I reckon eye contact is the bastion of people with either mediocre content or limited preparation.' strongly suggests a dichotomy between good well prepared content and eye contact. Not at all. That statement says nothing about well prepared people and eye contact. It says that poorly prepared people rely on eye contact. You are implying something that the statement does not suggest, and certainly isn't enforced by the context.

My recent post Guide to writing good fiction

St. Eutychus : The eyes have it

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:39:37 +0000

You seem to expect us to assume a number of things, yet get annoyed when we assume certain other things.

Not at all. I expect that once I have explained something in response to a query I won't get the same query over and over again. My recent post Guide to writing good fiction

St. Eutychus : Mark Driscoll ruined Facebook

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:45:03 +0000

Aaron, Having read your blog and noticed that you're pushing for "Jesusness" - I've got to ask where you think Jesus commands us to call our fellow Christians "the device used in giving an enema or bodily irrigation". Can you point me to a verse please?

St. Eutychus : The eyes have it

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:44:30 +0000

part two...

This just demonstrates the problem - if we (apparently incorrectly) understood that eye-contact was the subject, and not the under-prepared as this paragraph indicates, then it explains why we would come to such an apparently 'silly' understanding.

Let me spell this out for anybody still following along... The post was about whether or not eye contact should be a major factor in critiquing a sermon. I argued that eye contact is seen to be important (and indeed preachers like Mark Driscoll - who many would describe as dynamic - purposefully and deliberately minimise notes in order to maximise eye contact). I argued that the ideal listener does not need eye contact, and suggested that anything we do to accommodate the less than ideal listener is pandering. I pointed out that non verbal communication (of which eye contact plays a part) is important and has been estimated to be 80% of our communication. This hardly seems to be disparaging non verbal communication, or eye contact. I tried to demonstrate that in preaching eye contact is less important than other non verbal factors because - at least for me - listeners should be looking down, and taking notes. Others disagree on this point. That's fine. I argued that in our culture when a speaker uses eye contact we assume they are confident. I think this confidence is in themselves, I think as preachers our confidence should be in the word, and in our message. I argued that assessing preachers on their use of eye contact rather than their content is essentially confusing the medium with the message. Our first question when giving feedback should be about what is said, rather than how it is said. Then I argued that eye contact is a tool that underprepared people use in order to seem more competent. I used the word bastion to imply that it is a tool they rely on. It is their "home base". It is where they stand. It is their fortress. I did not say anything about how other people might use eye contact. I did not feel I had to, I had acknowledged its importance as part of the non verbal communication armoury - non verbal communication accounting for 80% of communication... I was simply making the point that comparing speakers who don't make eye contact with those who do is not always doing justice to the person who faithfully and dilligently prepares a sermon. Because those who don't will almost always seem more dynamic from outward appearances (though not if you actually listen). Then, I finished with a question - because I've realised that's how you get comments, essentially asking why it is we see eye contact as more important than the 10% of communication (and arguably smaller percentage for preaching) it accounts for. I choose the 10% figure now because I can think of about seven other things that contribute to the "non verbal" pie. I think verbal is actually the wrong word - I think what is meant at that point is "actual words" = 20%, "delivery of words"=80%...

No, it's more like saying "nail guns are the bastion of weak carpenters". I dare you to go to a nearby construction site and try your defence that "of course that says nothing about strong carpenters like yourself using nail-guns " and see how it works.

Even then, real carpenters know how to use hammers.

You seem loathe to tell us what you consider an 'appropriate' amount.

That's really not what the post is about.

That may be so, but perhaps when you're the preacher, and presumably a mature Christian, you should not allow your own preferences to be a stumbling block to those weaker Christians who need 'pandering' with normal non-verbal communication.

I have not argued that I will not make eye contact. In fact, given that I want new people to come to any church I'm at - which I thought would be assumed - and given that I acknowledged the importance of eye contact for new people - in my fourth sentence - it's safe to assume that I will be aiming to communicate the gospel with whatever tools I have at my disposal. I would have thought the subtext is clear - I am addressing those people who seek to make eye contact an issue when critiquing a sermon - most people who provide me with feedback are thinking about what the sermon did for them, not how it would come across for a newcomer. I simply said that if I receive feedback on my eye contact I will point out that this sort of feedback is erroneous and that people should be paying attention to what is said, rather than how it is said. If a newcomer approaches me and tells me that they don't think I spoke dynamically I will explain to them that as Christians our confidence is in God's word, not ourselves, and the reason I look down at my notes and the Bible is not because I can't look up and deliver something dynamic, it's because the discipline of looking at God's word is important. My recent post Guide to writing good fiction