from Johnny 2/21/05

Hi Brady,

Brady wrote: “The four guidelines I outlined were nothing more than four of the most popular logical fallacies used by atheist when discussing the resurrection. You find it unreasonable that you are required to work within the rules of inductive and deductive logic. How can it be ‘unreasonable’ to require participants to follow the rules of reason? Which of the fallacies were you planning to use? I find that interesting. Is this your ‘new’ approach? Most atheists at least try to hide the fact that they committed a fallacy. Is your new approach to just come out and admit you are committing fallacies? Well, regardless of whether you are going to readily admit it or try to hide it, a fallacy is still a fallacy and if your argument(s) rely on fallacies, then you are already admitting my thesis is true.”

 Well of course you believe that arguments by skeptics are fallacious. What else would anyone expect? You a Christian.

Brady wrote: Once again, my thesis is: The only rational position is to affirm the Resurrection of Jesus. To rely on fallacies is by definition not rational, ergo you concede the point. You might want to rethink this.

Same as before.

Brady wrote: So, back to our previous question: Do you have objective, inductive criteria for determining history or should I suggest one?

Just like at other Christian web sites, I have every right to develop my arguments any way that I choose to develop them. It is not up to you to judge whether or not my arguments are fallacious. That is up to readers to decide for themselves.

Regarding "Do you have objective, inductive criteria for determining history or should I suggest one?," that is best left to modern historians. I suggest that we contact the chairmen of departments of history at leading universities and ask them what the proper criteria are for determining history. Of course, you will not agree to that because you know that the majority will agree with me. You have no choice but to rely upon what you call ancient, primary sources. If you give me the chance, I will easily demolish your primary sources with a simple, briefly stated opening argument that will be less than one page long. I won't state my argument unless you agree to post it at your web site.

From Brady 2/21/05

Johnny wrote: Well of course you believe that arguments by skeptics are fallacious. What else would anyone expect? You a Christian.

First of all, I never said that arguments by all skeptics are fallacious; I haven’t seen all their arguments. I said that YOUR last post contained many fallacies, and it did. Guess what? Your current post does too.

Johnny wrote: Just like at other Christian web sites, I have every right to develop my arguments any way that I choose to develop them. It is not up to you to judge whether or not my arguments are fallacious. That is up to readers to decide for themselves.

Johnny, I don’t care how you develop your arguments. But as the person with whom you are having this discussion, I have every right to point out each and every fallacy that you commit, and I will do just that. Offering arguments and evaluating competing arguments is what a discussion is all about. It is the reader who will decide if your argument is cogent or if my analysis of your argument is accurate. You have the same right to analyze my arguments. Of course, you may have to learn logic and what a fallacy consists of, to make such an analysis.

Johnny wrote: Regarding "Do you have objective, inductive criteria for determining history or should I suggest one?," that is best left to modern historians. I suggest that we contact the chairmen of departments of history at leading universities and ask them what the proper criteria are for determining history. Of course, you will not agree to that because you know that the majority will agree with me

Works for me. Go get one. They have to follow the same rules of logic that everyone else does. Go to who ever you want, get the criteria and establish a baseline.

Johnny wrote: You have no choice but to rely upon what you call ancient, primary sources. If you give me the chance, I will easily demolish your primary sources with a simple, briefly stated opening argument that will be less than one page long.

While you are at the university, tell to professor that you want to do history without reference to any of the primary sources. Please be sure he has a strong heart, we wouldn’t want him to have a heart attack from extended hysterical laughter.

Johnny wrote: I won't state my argument unless you agree to post it at your web site.

You have to be kidding! Of course I will post it. I couldn’t make up stuff like this.

Maybe I need to make a disclaimer to my web site readers at this point: Johnny Skeptic is a real person, who really believes what he writes. These are not phony posts that my friends or I make up.

Regards,

Brady

Addendum

From Johnny 2/21/05

Hi Brady,

If you are afraid to debate me, please tell me how to contact another Christian who does not make up rules in order to prevent skeptics from presenting arguments in manners of their own choosing. Your requirements are unfair and quite uncommon among Christians. You can't possibly be as confident as you claim you are.

Johnny

From Brady 2/21/05

Johnny,

You seem to think that big, bad Christians made up the rules of logic to stop skeptics from making wonderful arguments that disprove Christianity. If you read any logic text book, you will find that this is not the case. You say that "my requirements (i.e. the rules of logic)," are uncommon among Christians. But you will notice that it is the Christian that is insisting on using rules of logic and the skeptic that is trying to run as far as he can from having to use logic or from having his skeptic arguments analyzed by the rules of logic. If you can't put together a rational argument (i.e. one based on logic, that's what "rational" means), perhaps you should try to find some dumb Christians who won't be able to question the nonsense you write.

Regards,

Brady