41. SeanMcDowell - Where Should I Start?

Our guest Sean McDowell from Worldview Ministries gives us 4 reasons why we should look to Christianity first when starting a religious quest.
For more info about our guest, visit seanmcdowell.org.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• apologist
• apologetics
• one minute apologist
• sean mcdowell
• worldview
• atheist
• new atheism
• christ
• theism
• invention
• god
• jesus
• josh mcdowell
• bobby conway
• christianity
• world
• evangelism

[Mathenaut]

This is so deceptive.

[Hufflewaffle]

If you are truly interested it makes sense to study ALL world religions both present day and historical. Study religion as a subject, learn about the psychological aspects, the social functions, the anthropological aspect, but study it with as unbiased an attitude as you can muster. Then come back to this video and watch it again.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS I just got back from dinner--I do have a life you know. A request is a kind of categorical proposition that is used in a valid categorical syllogism. As such, it is invalid. Furthermore, if it was valid, I provided you with what I would count as proof of your god--as you requested--which means your P2 is false. So it is not a valid syllogism, nor is it sound. I'm going to have my dessert now...:)

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 That is a categorical proposition actually, since the proposition is my specific request. This is stupid. It took you more than an hour to come up with this stupid semantically driven objection? And it has perfect logical form. You can answer in another hour if you want, but I'm not answering again, I just feel like I'm validating your pathetic efforts at argumentation.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS First of all, P1 is not a categorical proposition. A categorical proposition is a statement that makes a straightforward proposition--not "show me something," or asking a question. Your attempted syllogism is invalid, as it does not have the correct logical form and is nonsensical. BTW--it is "you're a dumbass," --and I mean that sincerely.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 No the other religious texts don't stand up to scrutiny, that is a completely unfounded claim. Blind prejudice my ass, you don't know how many texts I've read before I came to the Bible, you just assume I believe it because I was raised that way.

There are no irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible, failed prophecies or known embellishments. This is an argument that gets into interpretation, something I don't want to get into.

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 SHOW me where my syllogism went wrong dipshit; don't just sit there and accuse it of being wrong. Anyone can do that. Saying 'stupid is as stupid does', although you probably thought was clever when you wrote it, is not even applicable here -the funny thing is, that that statement in and of itself is circular, yet you try to accuse me of faulty logic. You chose the wrong example to try and prove a point. LOLOL

[M3PanoS]

@atheistprophet5760 SHOW me where my syllogism went wrong dipshit; don't just sit there and accuse it of being wrong. Anyone can do that. Saying 'stupid is as stupid does', although you probably thought was clever when you wrote it, is not even applicable here -the funny thing is, that that statement in and of itself is circular, yet you try to accuse me of faulty logic. You chose the wrong example to try and prove a point. LOLOL

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS The other religious texts I mentioned stand up as well, if not better to the test of historicity and any other verifiable test.The only thing keeping you from being rational on this subject is your "blind prejudice." It is not about the authors themselves, it is the fact that they wrote inconsistent, contradictory, and misquoted from the Old Testament.They copy/pasted from other religions, the multitudes of failed prophecies, known embellishments, hyperbole, etc.-therefore, UNRELIABLE.

[atheistprophet5760]

@M3PanoS Lololol--like Forrest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does"--you do not even know how to construct a proper syllogism. It is clear you are using ad hominem instead of addressing the argument because you have no argument, and/or do not know what an argument is in logical terms.

I told you what would constitute proof for your particular god, as opposed to any other god, as well as any sound valid argument or verifiable evidence. BTW link to site works now.