Saw this today on Facebook and my blood started to boil. First of all, it was “liked” by one of my family members — a person who won’t discuss our differences. It really ticks me off to see her “like” a statement about truth, when she won’t defend that same statement.
Secondly, the quote says that a preacher would rather offend thousands than to fail to preach the truth to even one individual. Sadly, preachers don’t realize that they’re doing both the entire time.
Finally, if you bother to check out Answering Religious Error, it’s like shifting into another dimension. Each post is wrangling over some trivial detail, seemingly oblivious to the deluge of information that makes their entire stance irrelevant. I say “seemingly” rather than “completely,” because apologists of this stripe often do know some of the information that contradicts their stance, but they try very hard to keep their followers from discovering it.
I’ve gotten some flak over the years for the name of my blog, but I view “finding truth” as something aspirational — I’m not claiming to have found it. But “Answering Religious Error” definitely comes across as arrogant, especially when they’re so demonstrably wrong.
Finding Truth 
Very true, Peter. But Nick and other moderate Christians like him are selective when they accept majority consensus opinion: only when it agrees with their preconceived beliefs.
Nick is avoiding directly answering my charge of flip-flopping.
LikeLike
Gary, there is an interesting post over at Logan’s site Denial is Incredibly Powerful.
As is often said the difference between faith and science is that one seeks evidence to support its conclusion whilst the other seeks the conclusion that best explains the evidence. Any objective student of history will testify which has the superior record of finding truth. But as said above, denial is incredibly powerful.
Since I started on this journey in February, I have been interested to see how in the fields of science, archaeology and history so many folk started out with an attitude of proving the Bible to be true only to eventually conclude much to their shock that the evidence pointed elsewhere.
But it takes quite a bit to knock out faith as it is based on multiple supports. There is an interesting post on this aspect over at SIRIUSBIZINUS Here.
But perhaps there is another alternative? The Trickster God theory, this is considered over at Isaiah 53, Here. However neither Christians or atheists find this explanation satisfactory.
In the end unless the person of faith is prepared to consider they might be mistaken then they will find some way to explain away contrary evidence. But having said this it can work both ways.
LikeLike
My god, it is amazing how far Christians will go to prop up their Bronze Age holy book! I am discussing the (lack of) evidence for the Exodus with Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek. He believes that the reason there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus in the Sinai is because all the Forty Years of wandering really took place somewhere else: Saudi Arabia!
Check it out:
http://crossexamined.org/yet-another-reason-to-believe-our-finite-universe-points-to-the-existence-of-god/#comments
LikeLike
On the matter of believing what one wants to believe, a while back we were talking about the Shroud of Turin. What seems to get lost in the debate is that the Gospel’s imply there were at least three pieces of cloth involved, strips of linen (note plural) plus a separate piece for the face.
But I am sure that someone has devised a way explain away this apparent anomaly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi all, since this is the last post Paulie commented on, I’ll try here . . . I’m worrying about you buddy! Drop me a line sometime. .. 🙂 Thanks!
LikeLike
Me too, Pauli – just need to know you’re OK —
LikeLike
Hello to every one, the contents existing at this website are genuinely amazing for people experience,
well, keep up the nice work fellows.
LikeLike