Christians Believing Badly

[NormATive]

http://thinkchristian.reframemedia.c...ible-scenario/

Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

[Tassman]

well, I just reached behind me, a book I cited back in October
PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN EVOLUTION 2003 Roger Lewin, Robert A. Foley ISBN 0632047046
and on page 375 there seems to be a problem with the Omo finds, a little dispute about "provenance"

I don't feel like typing this , this late, so I just whip out the ole smart phone and pic it
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3669[/ATTACH]

What's the point you are attempting to make here?

[Tassman]

Assuming God chose two hominids among thousands to infuse with spirit is presumptive to the extreme. I'd call that conjecture, not inference.

Assuming that Plantinga thought the hominid stock from which the first couple was pulled was "less than human" (because they lacked the image of God) isn't presumptive to the extreme. That's just inferring that the non-divinely imprinted hominids were lower than the divine image bearers.

ever http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

As a Christian, I for one, believe both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit. The chief difference being humans are made in God's image. [Having the given ability to design and understand design.]

Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?

[Tassman]

Sounds a bit like L. Ron Hubbard's story of Xenu and the Thetans who possessed humanoids on planet Teegeeack (Earth) 75 million years ago. No?

NORM

Doesn't it though! And yet, even though Scientology arose relatively recently, many thousands believe it all despite there being no scientific evidence supporting it whatsoever - as per the Genesis mythology.

[Adrift]

ever http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

[37818]

Why would you believe that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit"? Based upon what evidence? And where is your evidence that "humans are made in God's image"?

Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

[whag]

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

[Adrift]

Conjecture is baseless. Infering there was an enspiriting of a hominid species into Adam isn't conjecture. Adam being tasked to establish dominion over animals would thus be higher than any spiritless species.

I think I met your reference challenge, but maybe I failed. Do you take issue with the hominid hierarchy and enspiriting?

Here's Plantinga's epistemological view from 1991. It's changed somewhat, but I'm pretty sure he still has a historical Adam view, seeing continuity between evolution and the first couple but also seeing A&E as distinct from, and more significant than, their animal ancestors.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

[Juvenal]

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

[Adrift]

I can't be positive, but I'm pretty sure you were supposed to post this response to Whag while quoting Tassman.

Are you messing with me? You're messing with me, aren't chu.

And don't forget to cross-post your response to your response in Mickiel's thread of threads.

I can only handle so much crazy in one day, and Mickiel threads are over my quota.

[whag]

I don't understand why you're replying to me. I was attempting to clarify for Tassman that you are not a theist who is attempting to support or defend the view that you believe Plantinga put forward. My bad, I'll let you two figure it out.

You needn't clarify. I think he knew I wasn't a theist being my friend. Tass just has a unique way of expressing himself sometimes (I think he's questioning Plantinga's A&E postulation through me), but I'm pretty sure he knows I'm a skeptic.

Stop fomenting discord between us. Now I wanna bop his nose and call his mother rude names.

[Tassman]

Dude. Are you serious? Are you so looking for someone to argue with that you can't tell the person you're replying to is also an atheist? He's not making claims for things he actually believes, he's hypothesizing based on conjecture, speculation, inference, (whatever you want to call it) of what he thinks the philosopher Alvin Plantinga might mean about a hypothetical view that he proposed about Adam and Eve.

Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal.

[Tassman]

Based on the writing known as Genesis. As a Christian, with the understanding of it to be God's word.

So your belief that "both humans and animals have bodies, souls and spirit" is a faith belief, unsupported by substantive evidence. OK. But I see no reason to believe it; quite the reverse.

[whag]

Yes, I understand that my friend whag is a skeptic. I was responding to Plantinga's hypothesis which whag was presenting, not to him personally. Sorry whag if it came across as personal.

I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

And, yes, Plantinga's teleology is full of holes. I think the best approach in terms of level of persuasiveness isn't the one where a first couple is imagined.

[Adrift]

I knew what you meant. He's just trying to create discordant feelings between us. *smooch*

Nope, I honestly thought that Tassman was that silly.