I am posting this to eradicate any confusion that "Not collecting Stamps" must indeed be a hobby since I just found out that atheists are instructing to be effective Evangelists.Presented, of course, by the dingle berries over at Atheist Experience that has always denied that atheism is a religion. Yea, riiight.
Incidentally, I guess these are all true also:
- "bald" is a "hair color" (Bald is a hair style)
- "off" is a "television channel" (Off is a choice)
- "abstinence" is a "sex position"
In the past I have said that Atheists are organizing as a religion. Then I posted something about a Court decision that said that Atheism is a religion! Then we all read the article about Richard Dawkins when Carl Packman said "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion"
A while ago, Atheists organized and declared war, they started to campaign on buses. I also said this should be a wake up call for us Christians to fight back.
So it's time to WAR! If you want to fight for souls, then bring it on! Bring your "A" game. You don't have a fighting chance to takes souls away from God. They are His for the keeping. Echoed by John 10:28. We will continue to preach the Word in season and out of season. (2 Timothy 4:2) All the Glory will go to God and Satan and his cronies, such as yourselves, will be cast into the eternal fire.
Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing Hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)It's not too late even. That is how merciful God is. Even in your pure wickedness against God, He wants to see you repent of your ways and come back to Him. We all do. Stop fooling yourselves to think that Atheism is not a Religion. At this point you are being quite silly. Atheism is Definitely a Religion!
tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion2
So what if atheism is a religion? I don't get it...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post, Dan.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe defining feature of a religion is that it entails a belief in some supernatural entity and the prerequisite dogma on how the entity should be worshipped.
This invalidates all of your idiotic circumlocutions.
You are a master at building an argument out of thin air, just as you have tried, and failed to do with presuppositionalism.
My concern as an atheist has nothing to do with souls, which do not exist, but with keeping your irrational belief systems from being taught in public schools and maintaining the separation of church and state. I am in favor of your right to continue in your ignorant ways. It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg.
If you are going to try to define what I think, you will fall on your face.
Dan is thetype of fundie that twist the biblefor his own purpose. He has no clue on Christian history. He is like a blind man looking in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
DeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteAnd if your god is a malicious entity who actively desires to torment spirits but has no power over anyone who did not give him that power in life, you are the one in trouble. And that fits better. Why would a powerful benevolent being be insisting upon worship? But a being who is powerless over me might seek to trick or to frighten me into giving him that power.
Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing Hell says that men will "...."
ReplyDeleteThe message is: Worship God or He will torture you.
So it's time to WAR! If you want to fight for souls, then bring it on!
ReplyDeleteYou can have the souls, I just want people to stop shoving their gods in my face.
People with megaphones yelling on street corners, knocking on the door early in the morning, getting weird laws passed, trying to sell me their 'free' book about Krishna... etc...
Religion:
ReplyDelete1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2. An institution to express belief in a divine power
"he was raised in the Baptist religion"
How could lack of religious beliefs be religion?
Atheism ≠ Religion
ATVLC,
ReplyDeleteThe message is: Worship God or He will torture you.
Well technically Satan will torture you, which makes being condemned to hell something like extraordinary rendition. I guess that would give god a conscience as clean as Dick Cheney's.
As long as he's happy.
Well technically Satan will torture you, which makes being condemned to hell something like extraordinary rendition.
ReplyDeleteI used to think that too but read your Bible. Satan is going to be thrown into the fire too. It's God that does the torturing.
The whole, "Your souls are God's for the keeping" bit something that definitely drove me away from Christianity. It's not something I would use in an argument for religion.
ReplyDeleteYour God makes you appear lame, Dan. He may be righteous, but he inspires you to battle in spectacularly ineffectual arenas.
ReplyDeleteAtheism isn't a religion, and you are a dork.
Fundamentalists would love to see science classified as a religion.
ReplyDeleteIf Dan is like so many other fundies he thinks if atheism = science then = religion, then there is no reason not to teach religion in science class in public schools.
The sate of Kansas already tried this. They redefined science to include creationism (religion) but backed off when they realized that their definition would also have to include teaching astrology as science.
Dan is merely trying to pull off another brand of reconstructionism by redefining time honored and valid definitions of science and atheism.
This is found a lot in fundie circles where they claim people must have "faith" to "believe in" evolution in their effort to blur the line between presuppositionalist and evidentialist lines of logic.
It is very unfortunate that the ACA (Glasser) has chosen to use the word "evangelize," and I have written to him about this, but his response is that they have used the term in a secular sense that means "carry the message."
Be that as it may, I, as an atheist do not subscribe to his methods and that is why most atheists consider themselves free thinkers, not abiding by any particular "dogma."
Apart from the fact that you're wrong about atheism being a religion, I, like Kaitlyn just don't get it. I mean, is it meant to be some sort of insult? or is it just that you have nothing to attack so you need to further develop your atheist strawman in order to knock it down again?
ReplyDeleteFreddie wrote I, like Kaitlyn just don't get it. I mean, is it meant to be some sort of insult? or is it just that you have nothing to attack so you need to further develop your atheist strawman in order to knock it down again?
ReplyDeleteInstead of following up on this at SMRT, I guess maybe I'll spam Dan's humble (silly) thread here at DA.
I think with regards to the former, yes, it's supposed to be an insult. It's childish, like making fun of someone's name and repeating it merely because it pisses that person off.
I do think Froggie nailed part of it, too. Turning atheism into a religion supports the fundamentalist theist's idea that atheism requires faith, entails a belief system - and can thus be refuted by "the one true religion".
It's an attempt to validate the theist's belief system.
---
Seeing as Dan is unable to thoughtfully post on the subject, I'm going to do him the favor and take a stab at it myself. For years I've argued against atheism being a religion or requiring faith; by definition, atheism primarily is the absence of both.
But atheists are organizing & fighting back against Christian bigotry - and this starts to blur the lines a bit. By establishing and evangelizing values that are "common" to atheists, activists do threaten to create an atheistic identity - something which represents a belief system.
As much as I sympathize with atheists who've been demonized by religious bigots for well over a thousand years, I think they're coming close to validating fundamentalist Christian dogma. Atheism is slowly becoming a belief system, rather than simply an absence of theism.
WEM,
ReplyDelete"Atheism is slowly becoming a belief system, rather than simply an absence of theism."
Heretic! :)
You have a lot of explaining to do to convince me that because a group organizes to carry it's message, why it would become a belief system.
I hope to hell you were just trying to be "funny."
I'm not saying that evangelizing = belief system, but it most certainly blurs the lines, Froggie.
ReplyDeleteInstead of merely saying "I don't believe that", atheists (characterized stereotypically [by me] by the New Atheism movement) are now making positive statements about how reality works. Not only are they doing this, but they're wearing the label "atheist" as an identifier.
Again, I'm not saying atheism has suddenly become a belief system. But it sure seems that it's moving in that direction. It might be that certain atheists smell blood in the water; Christianity is struggling, and due to its persecution of atheists, now is certainly a good time to point and laugh - publically.
That's much more than a mere lack of belief, imho.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAtheism is a lack of belief in a god. That's it. It is a lack of religion. Now, you may be right that some atheists are in fact making the case that to be an atheist is not a bad thing, that religion is false, and that religion does not have a corner on morality. So what? Having an argument makes you religious? Deriving morals, learning about science, and thinking for yourself is a religion??? Do we have to wear any hats? Are we prohibited anything in our diets? Dan, you are desperately reaching here, bud.
"As much as I sympathize with atheists who've been demonized by religious bigots for well over a thousand years, I think they're coming close to validating fundamentalist Christian dogma. Atheism is slowly becoming a belief system, rather than simply an absence of theism."
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that this is all semantics, "atheist", "humanist", "rationalist"...whatever you want to call it, how do we live if not under the yoke of some supernatural intelligence? What is the good life and just city? How do we account for life, account for morals, etc. We are bound to more or less come to a concensus (which itself will evolve over time) on much of this. I think the "movement" has gained momentum, particularly in America because of George W. Bush and the wackaloons, like Dan, who want to see this country slip back into the dark ages. Science and reason were shit on for eight years. Atheism is the starting point, but it is devoid of content. You are right, WEM, that if we decide to label ourselves as "atheists" with a set of tenents that most accept in terms of morality, origins, etc., this at least clarifies the position...but calling this a religion is a bit far-fetched. These tenents are not immutable, nor are they claimed to have been dictated by any transcendent being. I don't see where "faith" would come into this. Without faith, how is this a religion? To have faith we need dogma. I just don't see it in the humanist position.
Okay Dan. Obviously, as Humpty Dumpty said in Through the Looking Glass, the question (about the meaning of words) is who is master. If you are master of the meanings of words, please tell us exactly what "religion" means. If any belief or non-belief is a religion, then we are all religious, and the word doesn't do much- it doesn't separate any group of people from any other group, and is therefore pretty useless.
ReplyDeleteDan clearly doesn't understand the what's going on. His argument is:
ReplyDeleteAtheists talk about how to evangelize, therefore, it must be a religion...because only religions evangelize. Nonsense.
Technically, evangelize is a term for Christian proselytizing...so, does that mean that we're teaching Atheists how best to lead people to Christianity?
No, we're borrowing a term (something your religious history demonstrates a fondness for) as a play on words.
Does it mean we're proselytizing? Sure, though we're not trying to convert someone TO a doctrine...unless you consider rationality a doctrine.
You're actually kinda slow on the uptake here, Russell's lecture is from several months ago and I've been openly acknowledging that I have no objection to being called an evangelical atheist.
There are also, in this same colloquial usage, individuals who are 'evangelical' on behalf of their political views, favorite sports team, favorite food, favorite TV show, their belief that drugs are harmful or that drinking and driving is a bad idea....it's our nature: if you disagree, and you actually care, you express why.
However, I don't go knocking on doors. I don't walk up to strangers at the airport and say "Have you stopped believing in Jesus yet?" I don't attempt to restrict the rights of others to adhere to the dictates of their own conscience...
And, even when I was a Christian, I recognized the stupidity of implying that "Look, atheism is just another religion" somehow says something positive about Christianity.
Here... "Hey, Dan just admitted that Christianity isn't any different from atheism!"
See how stupid that sounds?
Matt D.
ReplyDeleteThank for a timely response.
I am the "Dale" that sent you the message.
Keep up the great work.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI thought that explanation would be best coming from the source.
Kaitlyn said...
ReplyDeleteSo what if atheism is a religion? I don't get it...
Thanks for the post, Dan.
Kaitlyn,
According to Russell Glasser you nailed this one!
Matt D wrote Here... "Hey, Dan just admitted that Christianity isn't any different from atheism!"
ReplyDeleteSee how stupid that sounds?
I wonder if he'll understand this :D
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to play fast and loose with your claims, could you at least bother to define 'religion' for us?
**crickets**
ReplyDeleteoooohhhhh, DDDDAAAAAAANNNNNN....
Dan,
ReplyDelete"A while ago, Atheists organized and declared war, they started to champaign on buses."
Yes, our right to do this is guaranteed in writing by our founding document. Mmmmmk?
Radical Right Wing Fundamentalists like yourself despise the first Ammendment. For years people of your ilk and your militant arm, the KKK intimidated atheists into being quiet. Those days are gone.
If it wasn't for the first ammendment all the christian sects would be in perpetual civil war over control of the government.
Recent studies show that the number of admitted atheists is growing at a huge rate. Within fifty years the lunatic fringe of Christianity, the Right Wing Radical Fundamentalists will be all but extinct.
I really really wish I had faith that it'll happen, Froggie. But Christianity is remarkably well-entrenched, and there are too many people who want their power to remain part of the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThere's also huge number of idiots (ie. those who assert that their beliefs are absolutely correct) who will fight tooth and nail to prevent people/society/humanity from proving them wrong.
A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined, and more people say they have no religion at all.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/...igious_america
WEM,
ReplyDeleteThe flood gates have just began to open. There is a huge backlash against the fundamentalists that sponsored Bush in his destructive administration.
We are entering the second Renaissance.
We definitely see the silly beliefs of fundamentalism going up in the smoke of logic and reason.
Froggie beat me to some of what I wanted to say especiallly about the courts, so I'll just add that if Dan uses what Russell is doing to define atheism as a "religion" then pretty much every salesman, debater, person who tries to get you to vote for a particular party or person, etc. are all members of their own religions.
ReplyDeleteHere's some context from the Atheist Experience site, dan.
When I titled my lecture "How atheists can be effective evangelists," of course I was intentionally invoking the obvious religious connotation of the word. I would say this was partly a joke -- I like to use a little bit of clever wordplay in the titles of my posts and lectures whenever any occurs to me, and I picked the image of an atheist evangelist precisely because the words are so jarring together.
For some more context, you could read their site yourself, or I'll just put it right here:
A while ago I came up with a strategy for dealing with the "Atheism is a religion" charge on the show. My reply can be summed up in two words: "So what?"
That's a bit glib, sure, but let's look at the accusation. The problem with the charge is that "Atheism = Religion" is a huge equivocation fallacy. It relies on the fact that "religion" is poorly defined and has many different meanings. So when somebody tells you that atheism is a religion, the appropriate follow-up question is "What do you mean by that?"
This puts the ball more squarely in their court, and lets you evaluate the MEANING of the word rather than quibbling over the word itself. One perfectly acceptable definition of religion is: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
Gosh! Fighting prejudice is a religion! I certainly don't have a problem fighting prejudice, I guess I am pro-religion!
Get the message, Dan?
Dan's been down this tired road before, and I suspect his reiteration of this drivel is not so much to encourage renewed discussion on the subject, but serve do two other, though somewhat related, purposes:
ReplyDelete1. To sensationalize and encourage visits to his ego-driven site.
2. To give him a weak excuse for ignoring especially damning posts on other topics.
In the case of (1), few of his regular visitors can have failed to notice that his posts of late are nothing but restatements of ancient controversy, and that his 'new take' on the subject is weak, poorly written, and quite undefended by its author. Bearing this in mind, the likeliest conclusion -- all other things being equal -- is that he seeks to drive up site visits, for whatever [nefarious] purposes.
In the case of (2), again, few of Dan's regular visitors can have failed to note that when the going gets tough, Dan posts something new [and outrageous].
He started this blog ostensibly to foist his own beliefs in an environment in which he can avoid the censorship to which he was subjected on a number of pro-atheism sites -- irrespective of any legitimate reasons for the censorship (note: I am an ardent supporter of free speech, but the blog owner necessarily gets to determine what speech is or is not "free," or allowed). What Dan clearly found, however, was that his own knowledge and experience was woefully inadequate when faced with well-reasoned, calculated responses from his opponents, and rather than "bone up" on legitimate techniques to support his own claims, he instead spams his own blog with irrelevant or tired material -- especially when active, relevant topics are available, in which his arguments are suffering.
This is almost certainly why Dan has resorted to Sye's douchey bullshit -- TAG, by design, it seems, obfuscates the truth, and stifles reasoned discussion; this is something we have all witnessed first-hand, I'd wager. Dan sees this as an advantage -- however temporary -- and has elevated Sye to so-called "Rockstar" status as a result, veritably worshiping every statement he makes. Only the completely ignorant observer of Dan's behavior will find himself unaware that Dan reflexively quotes Sye (usually unattributed) whenever he is today faced with a question or argument for which he has no answer.
Hmph.
--
Stan
Stan wrote Hmph
ReplyDeleteHats off to you for an excellent post.
I had stopped visiting Dan once it became clear that he's not interested in conversation. He may occasionally give the appearance of larning new things, but they'll be discarded if they conflict with his current opinions/beliefs.
It's clear to me now that Dan's blog is as much of a wankfest as Ray Confort's is. I wish it were otherwise, but how else should a skeptic conclude, especially when the evidence is overwhelming?
It's time I stopped posting here. Wish me luck.
As to Atheism being a religion...
ReplyDeleteSure, it is... and no, it is not.
It is not a religion in that not-collecting-stamps is not a hobby, as has been noted for some time now, and yet it is a religion with respect to [U.S.] Constitutional protection(s).
As others before me have stated, many opinions are voiced in an "evangelical" manner -- I am a fan of the Green Bay Packers, for instance, and whenever I see someone wearing Vikings or Bears regalia, I proudly display my colors, and attempt to engage in a conversation devoted to football.
(The observant NFL fan will note the intentional omission of the Detroit Lions from the above -- I never see anyone wearing Lions gear, for good reason. If I did, I'd rather pity them than engage in meaningless conversation about their not-team.)
Anyway, the point stands that my status as a Packers fan does not make me a member of the Packers religion (which, due to the fanatical nature of many Packers fans, no doubt exists). I am also not a member of the recycling religion despite the fact that I recycle, and that I will take home recyclables rather than throw them into a non-recyclable trash bin. Indeed, I proselytize for recycling, and for the eminent superiority of the Green Bay Packers, yet Dan has not yet accused me of being a member of any religion associated with either.
So again, no, Atheism is not a religion, in the sense of religion that denotes adherence to a particular set of doctrines, or worship of a deity.
But yes, with respect to [U.S.] Constitutional protection(s), Atheism is a religion, for in this context a religion is nothing more than a personal set of beliefs. Citizens' rights have been upheld in various Supreme Court rulings, such that the Constitutional definition of a religion is personal, not [necessarily] institutional. Sure, those religions with which we are most familiar are institutional, but this need not be the case, and the various rulings have borne this out.
Thus, again, Atheism is a religion in at least one context, and is not a religion in at least one other context.
For those who recall my personal story concerning my wearing of a baseball cap (red, with "CANADA" in white embroidery across the front) in a U.S. courtroom, without incident. I merely had to state to both bailiff (in private) and judge (in public) that my hat was worn as a matter of religious expression.
Make fun of this! I couldn't care less -- and it's funny. It is a nonetheless valid illustration of how religion is treated individually by the Constitution, even if the "religion" in question involves little more than a mischievous refusal to remove a head-covering in a courtroom. If I were ever called to be a witness in a court proceeding, I'd staunchly refuse to affirm the truth of my testimony on a bible, though I would so affirm on nothing, or on the document of my choosing (I'm thinking the Principia Discordia, or the The Illuminatus! Trilogy -- the latter of which I used when I was the officiant of a friend's [quite legal] wedding).
So again and finally, Dan, Atheism is not a religion in the deity-worship/adherence-to-doctrine sense, but it is a religion in the screw-you-I-qualify-for-federal-funding-too sense.
--
Stan
It's time I stopped posting here. Wish me luck.
ReplyDeleteI'll wish you luck as much as I pray for you. I believe in the usefulness of neither. Instead, I'll see you elsewhere, and we'll have good times.
:)
--
Stan
Hats off to you
ReplyDeleteUmmm, no. I'm sure you meant to say, "Hats on to you" (emphasis mine).
Blasphemer!
Watch yourself, or you'll fall prey to the ways of Stan, the half-truth teller, and you'll therefore suffer the ill fate of smoldering in Stanville for the first half of eternity.
--
Stan
Actually, I thin Jesus is trying to found a church based on Dan, and when he saw Dan's head he said, "On this rock, I will found my church".
ReplyDeleteI wonder where Dan is. Perhaps he's finally managed to starve his wife to death, or, maybe he's in jail for beating his kids.
He's probably over at Sye's... on his knees... in "prayer"?
ReplyDelete--
Stan
(Preemptive explanation:
Lighten up, Dan, it's a joke)
My HD crashed yet again so I have one on order. Until then I will use Patty's Mac.
ReplyDeleteLook, I think this is quite funny to see atheists get binded up, or as Google suggests blinded, being called religious.
I especially liked when Froggie went crying to his mommy, Matt D. Thanks for the chuckle dude.
Kazim pointed out nicely: One perfectly acceptable definition of religion is: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
So then you can understand that you are religious.
I liked what BrainFromArous said... "Oh, you can also point out that the term "evangelist" comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (a reward for bringing welcome news) which had no specifically religious meaning."
So I guess you are denying that you are doing such a thing? Great at least we all agree on something.
Bottom line is your god of self is being promoted as the "true" god no matter how much you deny this. I believe you are all upset to be called religious since that is the exact thing that you wanted to run away from at first. Believe me I can relate to that one. I used to scream "it's not religion, it's relationship" as to not be associated with that false religion of RCC. I had a hang up on the word. I have since moved on.
A friend over at CARM so eloquently wrote to me a while ago:
"That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.
We have to separate the biblical Jews from religious Jews. One had hope in the Messiah's coming. They acted as a result of this promise. King David loved God because of the promise given to him by faith. The religious Jew (Judaism), as in the case today, denies Jesus and attempts to bring to God their religious efforts.
A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.
Don't let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)
Atheism is a religion and if you want to follow the pastors of Richard Dawkins and Dan Barker, even Alister Crowley and Anton LaVey who both promote the religion of "self", go right ahead. I just want to make it clear that you do not have a lack of belief, but a belief. That you follow a doctrine that is "peer reviewed" and acceptable. The high priest Charles Darwin would be proud of all of you. Seek his approval if you wish, but it will lead to destruction.
Granted the US is absolutely in agreement with y'all since the adopted a godless country and we now live in a secular society, so be proud of Satan's work. You're in good company since the Bilderberg Group, who founded the EU, wants to have a one world government and agrees with your religion. God just gets in the way. All predicted in God's Word. The more your religion is followed the closer we are to Christ's return. So please post those billboards, follow the words of John Dunphy, collect that money, and organize. It will be efforts in vein.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that you are being deliberately vague about your definitions. This appears to be a result of being able to declare atheism to be a "religion" in one sense but wanting to apply the term in a different sense in which it does not fit. Atheism is a religion in the sense that it holds a specific belief about gods (that there aren't any.) It is not a religion in the sense of worshipping any god.
I especially liked when Froggie went crying to his mommy, Matt D. Thanks for the chuckle dude.
ReplyDeleteChrist, you're a condescending jerk sometimes. How's if I turn that on you and call Sye TenB your mother? You sure seem to rely on him often enough.
In the meantime, try growing up.
Kazim pointed out nicely:
A statement whose meaning you disregard, typical of evangelicals:
One perfectly acceptable definition of religion is: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
Dan, read carefully please. It's only if you stretch the definition of religion so much that even a secular activity like fighting prejudice becomes a religion.
So then you can understand that you are religious.
More like we can understand how theists like you like to stretch and twist word definitions to your advantage.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteyou're a condescending jerk sometimes
Nanny, nanny, boo-hoo. Lighten up, blasphemer.
How's if I turn that on you and call Sye TenB your mother?
I do rely on that man's nourishing logical teat at times. It does my body good. :7)
"nourishing, logical"?
ReplyDeleteWell, if you call that useless circular reasoning of his logical, I guess you can say that. I prefer someone who can actually understand logic, Stephen Law.
By the way, "blasphemy" is a victimless "crime".
Dan is merely trying to deflect the conversation and ignore the fact that he got his ass kicked clear up betwenn his shoulders on this Post.
ReplyDeleteThe supposed debunker is debunked and totally debuted..
Hee hee.
New studies show peoplre of this ilk, the lunatic fringe aka, the Irrational Right Wing Fundamentalists are in decline.
It is obvious that their plans to try to get their horseshit taught in public schools lay in defeat at the hands of the federal Court at Dover, PA.
They can't winn an argument to save their sorry asses.
This blog is a great example of why.
What surprises me more than anythng though is that although the population is supposedly overwhelmingly Christian, you never see any of them come around to support people like Dan or Sye.
That is a good indication that most religionists are far more moderate than people like Dan will admit.
Infact, by the nimbers, Atheists and agnostics now outnumber evangelical fundamentalists and they will soon be laughed off of the public square. Good riddance.
Their days are numbered, that's for sure.
I check this blog every once and a while to see if you're still a dumb cunt.
ReplyDeleteYep.
Love the way you're now into copying that Shit-Sye's conversation-stopping techniques.
If you like this blog please feel free to donate. Consider helping us expand this much needed ministry. Your gift is appreciated!
I HAVE TO KNOW: do you have a job? Do you survive on money from people as stupid as you?
And if atheism was a religion, so what? What is your point?
Gorth,
ReplyDelete"I HAVE TO KNOW: do you have a job?"
No, Dan does not have a job, but he will tell you that he wears the pants in the family! Hee hee.
I check this blog every once and a while to see if you're still a dumb cunt.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. Seriously. The deadpan delivery, the intensely offensive -- hilarious.
--
Stan
Pvblivs said... And if your god is a malicious entity who actively desires to torment spirits but has no power over anyone who did not give him that power in life, you are the one in trouble.
ReplyDeleteWait, God is Jared the Goblin King? I see!
Raising kids can be a full time job - and that often requires one parent to stay at home. So what if Dan doesn't have a job? I applaud the fact that he would devote his life to his family.
ReplyDeleteWait, God is Jared the Goblin King? I see!
ReplyDeleteSuch a pity. SUCH a pity.
So then you can understand that you are religious.
ReplyDeleteUnder a completely toothless meaning of "religion," yes.
Bottom line is your god of self is being promoted as the "true" god no matter how much you deny this.
No. And this is an illustration of why atheist sites keep banning you. It's not because they're afraid to face your great points, it's because you are a black hole of semantics.
You are a single point approaching infinite density into which people can pour in statements, but no apparent understanding can possibly escape. You have a perspective in mind, and anything you "hear" gets filtered through this perspective so that you don't actually process what people are really saying.
Let me paraphrase this discussion.
Atheist: "Atheists don't worship any gods."
Black hole: "They certainly do. Atheism is a religion just Christianity."
Atheist: "Don't be ridiculous, atheism is not a religion."
Black hole: "But look here, there is a completely legitimate definition of religion that does not include worshiping a god."
Atheist: "Let me see that. ...Okay, fine, I guess I can agree to meeting that definition of 'religion.'"
Black hole: "See? SEE? I TOLD you you worship a god!"
You're wasting everyone's time. One of my all-time favorite classic Sesame Street sketches involves Ernie trying to convince Bert that there are six cookies on a plate, when there are clearly only five. He keeps shuffling the cookies around on the plate, forming different patterns to make it look like there are six. But Bert keeps counting them, and there are still five. Like you, Ernie seems to think he change reality by coming up with new patterns to describe it.
You just look so proud of yourself every time you think of a new order to put your semantic cookies in. But until you actually come up with something new, everyone else still counts five cookies, and they wonder why you pretend like you think they're too stupid to notice.
Dan: you say-
ReplyDeleteMy HD crashed yet again so I have one on order. Until then I will use Patty's Mac.
Becoming an atheist is sort of like going from Windows to Mac: lots of stuff is the same, but you don't waste as much time trying to get the system to work; and it's more fun.
Actually, becoming an atheist is more like going from a Mac to a PC -- there's much less hand-holding, but the internal workings are much less obscure, and you're free to construct your own philosophy by evaluating the components, picking the best pieces and ignoring the bad ones.
ReplyDeleteWheeeee, let's start a completely DIFFERENT kind of religious war! :)
"No. And this is an illustration of why atheist sites keep banning you. It's not because they're afraid to face your great points, it's because you are a black hole of semantics."
ReplyDeleteBam! Truer words were never written!
Ha!!!!!
Dan's ability to weasel out of a damning statement is monumental!
His new fvorite method to avoid a valid comment is to state, "How do you account for...."
This cracks me up! hehe.
Zilch said:
ReplyDeleteBecoming an atheist is sort of like going from Windows to Mac: lots of stuff is the same, but you don't waste as much time trying to get the system to work; and it's more fun.
Kazim corrected:
Actually, becoming an atheist is more like going from a Mac to a PC -- there's much less hand-holding, but the internal workings are much less obscure, and you're free to construct your own philosophy by evaluating the components, picking the best pieces and ignoring the bad ones.
But you're both wrong.
Using a Mac is most like Theism -- Kazim wins that point -- but using a PC is more like Deism, or Agnosticism. In fact, I'd say that using an OEM PC (e.g. Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq) is Deism, while building one's own PC might be Agnosticism.
Atheism, then, is using Linux.
Macs are largely (if not completely) proprietary, and while many things can be done cross-platform, many things cannot. The entire system is based on a specific blueprint, and although many things are easy within that system, and some things quite fun, there are many things which go unexperienced because of the strict nature of that system, and many more things which cannot be experienced, even if one were so inclined to attempt to do so.
OEM PCs, similar to Macs, are prepackaged, and are fairly simple to maintain. They allow some further customization, but the base model is always recognizable. Depending on the OEM, some parts may be proprietary, but much of the system can be customized if the user wished to take the effort to do so. As with Macs, most of the software is licensed, and the code is "closed-source." The degree of freedom is far larger with respect to the software, and even the hardware, but only insofar as the developer has provided room to maneuver. There are many open-source applications available, though if the user again chose to seek them out.
Custom PCs, a hue once more removed, are built to the user's taste and/or budget (or, more probably, a combination of the two), and no two are generally exactly alike. Their hardware components are as diverse as their software components, but typically they run faster and better than their OEM counterparts. Most often, these PCs are specialized to perform a particular set of tasks, whether for entertainment, for utility, or for further specialized aspects of each (or either).
Linux-running PCs, lastly, come in all varieties. They may be a former Mac, a former OEM PC, or a Custom PC, but in each case the software now used is almost exclusively open-source. Every last detail of the system is customizable and configurable by the user. Inexperience with this sort of system can cause unrecoverable scenarios to play out, but so, too, are those users who opt for this type of system more resourceful, knowledgable, and capable than their non-Linux-using PC or Mac brethren. While these systems will generally not run the prepackaged software provided for any of the above systems directly, invariably an open-source version (often with more and better features) is available, which provides compatibility with its closed-source clone. Likewise, most applications can be run virtually, through various forms of emulation, such that the Linux PC can behave like its PC or Mac rival, without any of the undesired aspects in either.
What's more, Linux can be run as a "trial" -- by using a "live" CD. In this way, the actual system is unaffected by the visiting OS, for a smoother transition. Note that none of the other system options provide for this possibility.
So what do we have, then?
Theists/Mac users:
- Proprietary
- Simple
- Potentially entertaining
- Limited
- Additional features are limited by manufacturer, proprietary, and come at a cost
- Require little to no knowledge/experience on the part of the user
- Virtually no use of the command-line
- Difficult to crash so long as proprietary software is run exclusively; easy recovery
- Not especially susceptible to virus infection, regardless of user knowledge
- Early exposure is key to later reliance; widely used in education
Deists/OEM-PC users:
- Semi-proprietary
- Semi-customizable
- Somewhat limited
- Additional features are limited by system specs, and typically come at a cost
- Little to no knowledge/experience is required on the part of the user
- Generally entertaining
- Generally utilitarian
- Command-line used almost exclusively as a means to fix an error
- Easy to crash, depending on user knowledge; recovery tends to lose data
- Very susceptible to virus infection, depending on user knowledge/preparation
Agnostics/Custom PC users:
- Non-proprietary (with exception of OS)
- Fully customizable (with exception of OS)
- Virtually unlimited, based on system configuration
- Additional features are limited by system specs, may or may not come at a cost
- Considerable knowledge/experience is required to get system to initially function
- Typically more capable with regard to processor speed, graphics, memory, storage
- Command-line used for large variety of tasks
- Easy to crash, depending on user knowledge; recovery often loses data
- Very susceptible to virus infection, depending on user knowledge/preparation
Atheists/Linux users
- Arbitrary hardware configuration
- Fully customizable, within hardware specifications
- Limited only by user, or by other users of similar systems
- Additional features are limited by availability, and are almost exclusively free
- Extensive knowledge/experience is highly beneficial, but not exactly required
- Typically more capable than a clone running proprietary software -- actual performance dependent on hardware configuration
- Command-line use required for many tasks
- Easy to crash, depending on user knowledge; full recovery typically possible
- Virtually impervious to virus infection, even without actual anti-virus software
What's the overall difference? Theism is the most expensive, the most proprietary, and the least compatible. Deism is quite inexpensive, but is still quite proprietary, and is likewise limited with respect to compatibility. Agnosticism is the safest, provided sufficient knowledge, and its price depends on the income of the user. Atheism is the smartest, and its price depends entirely on the hardware selected -- it can run anything on anything, but requires the most knowledge and experience to use effectively.
Hence, Zilch and Kazim, it is most appropriate for Dan to use the Mac, and most appropriate that I run Ubuntu. For the record, I am a former Mac user, and a former Custom PC user. While I have owned many OEM PCs, they were always extremely customized, to the point that the OEM configuration was unrecognizable.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously much, much nerdier than even I am. Clearly you should be reading my blog on software development.
http://castlesofair.blogspot.com/
(Note: Any off-topic posts there pertaining to religion or atheism will be instantly deleted. Sorry, but this blog is partly for professional purposes.)
Wheeeee, let's start a completely DIFFERENT kind of religious war! :)
ReplyDeleteI somehow knew this would happen, Kazim...
Stan: yes, I'm willing to admit that you are probably right. As you say, Macs are simple and idiotproof, which is what I need. I'm not totally incompetent with other systems: our home computer I'm typing on right now is a Windows machine, and I have Ubuntu on my eeepc. But I find Windows buggy and it drives me crazy trying to keep the anti-virus software up to date; and Linux is just too much work.
Basically, life is short, and I have lots of other stuff I need to do. Despite my latent nerdiness, I just can't afford to spend that much time messing around with computers, so Mac is better for me, despite its admitted annoyances.
Btw, Mac deniers, and especially Mac fundies, should both watch this.
I find it hilariously amusing that when Dan finds himself in an indefensible situateion he has claimed his hard drive has failed.
ReplyDeleteHe changes hard drives like I change my underwear. Not likely.
Dan, you can only use the failure of your hard drive on a limited basis. This is the second time recently.
How far do you think you can push this excuse? I mean.. really?
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteBecoming an atheist is sort of like going from Windows to Mac: lots of stuff is the same, but you don't waste as much time trying to get the system to work; and it's more fun.
I like that but I see it differently. It's more like going from Win XP to Dos. Just dark and depressingly inefficient to complete everyday tasks like "account for Logic". :)
Analogy is a work in process.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously much, much nerdier than even I am.
Wow Stan, you are a nerd I guess that makes me the nerdinator. :)
Froggie,
If you actually care I did revive that same HD earlier. I used different methods to revive the MBR and was up and running. I am mealy a wanna be geek but I can hold my own. Now I cannot resurrect it so I am waiting for HD. I guess I am not as Christ like as I hoped. That too is a work in progress.
Thank you Kaitlyn. You are very kind and right. You help me feel more like a "true man" now that I have a woman fighting my battles. Um...wait :)
ReplyDeleteOops Patty is home and I hafta find my apron to make dinner. :)
I said it before that I am in touch with my feminine side to do these caregiver tasks, my only problem is I think she is hot!
I like that but I see it differently. It's more like going from Win XP to Dos. Just dark and depressingly inefficient to complete everyday tasks like "account for Logic". :)
ReplyDeleteAnalogy is a work in process.
Actually, becoming an atheist is like switching off the computer and realizing there's more to life than a colorful but ultimately meaningless array of pixels staring you in the face.
I like that but I see it differently. It's more like going from Win XP to Dos. Just dark and depressingly inefficient to complete everyday tasks like "account for Logic". :)
ReplyDeleteNeither you nor Sye has "accounted" for logic at all. You've just made assertions without proof. If your god is repsonsible for logic, then please list the bible verses that spell them out.
Please explain why the Greeks with no knowledge of your god were able to devise the rules of logic.
Logic is just an abstract methodology for understanding the world around us, like, say, mathematics is. God is not needed for either one. Belief is irrelevent for both.
Stephen Law has taken apart Sye pretty well.
I like that but I see it differently. It's more like going from Win XP to Dos. Just dark and depressingly inefficient to complete everyday tasks like "account for Logic". :)
ReplyDeleteIf we need DOS to account for logic, then we're sunk. And since when is accounting for logic an everyday task, Dan? I don't need to account for logic, myself: I just use it. Let me know if you ever do find an account for logic. Hint: "goddidit" is not an "account", but merely a rug to sweep questions under.
Analogy is a work in process.
According to Douglas Hofstadter, always someone worth listening to, analogy forms the core of human thought. Check it out.
Hint: "goddidit" is not an "account", but merely a rug to sweep questions under.
ReplyDeleteExactly. How do you account for rug?
Sorry, I mean, how do you account for God?
P.S. Frodo says:
ReplyDeleteActually, becoming an atheist is like switching off the computer and realizing there's more to life than a colorful but ultimately meaningless array of pixels staring you in the face.
That too- although if arrays of pixels are meaningless, what are we all doing here? Ash nazg durbatulûk, and it's all one ring: whether in the form of pixels or peoples. I'm an equal-opportunity medium.
And Stan: I am working on Linux. Forgive me my trespasses, Jobs!
Reynold,
ReplyDeletePlease explain why the Greeks with no knowledge of your god were able to devise the rules of logic.
Do you actually believe that they devised them or observed them? Isn't that like claiming the ancient people devised breathing methods or heart beat rates?
As Sye said "The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything."
So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?
Logic is a set of rules for determining whether an argument is valid. But it is not only that. It is in a broader sense, also a tool for the analysis of reasoning and argument to determine the correctness of views and understandings in a multitude of subject matter. The term "logic" comes from the Greek "logos" which means reason, and it is a tool for correct reasoning, and not merely reasoning about arguments, although it certainly is that.
ReplyDeleteThe proof of Logic’s existence, is that without it you couldn’t prove anything. Proof of God requires logic. One must be able to account for God, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for God, and are therefore unable to prove anything.
ReplyDeleteSo you account for logic with "God did it"? How do you account for God?
Mhmm Dan-who-wears-the-trousers what a silly post.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm a little behind on the hot action here, d'ya think you could just give me your personal definition for "religion" with where you got it from?
Also your definition of "god" (as in your "god of self" type reference).
Cheers
Sarah
(Oh and a fiver to your charity of choice if you post a pic of yourself in that fetching apron you described :p)
CC,
ReplyDeleteAs I'm a little behind on the hot action here, d'ya think you could just give me your personal definition for "religion" with where you got it from?
I asked that same question and got as much attention as a hobbit in a room full of big folk.
Dan has weaseled out of every argument presented and ends up back at saying,
ReplyDelete"So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?"
Dan, Dan, Dan.
How do you account for the fact that you can decide to go to the refrigerator and pull out a carton of milk?
Goddidit?
Listen up here, I'm serious.
No. At the risk of assuming too much, you do know that you have a brain, right?
Think about driving a standard transmission car through heavy traffic on a six lane highway.
you are processing thousands of sensual clues per second.
The eyes and ears suck in these clues and are shooting millions of electrical pulses to the brain each second where those potentials are directed to the proper areas, processed, and turned into electrochemical signals that enable you to first, choose the proper action, and then send E/M signals back to the various muscles used to execute the proper action.
You want to say that a brain that complicated can't come up with basic rules of logic then so be it, but it is totally obvious that we did come to understand the
rules of logic. Any attempt to show that a God is needed to account for this natural process cannot be proven and that is why Sye always has to fall back to the explanation that he knows that God is needed due to personal revelation.
Since personal revelation is non quantifiable that leaves the revelationist with a personal belief that he is communicating with a supernatural entity.
At that point the argument loses any semblance of reality, and even if reality is an illusion, it is a very persistent one.
I see you are still making our arguments for us, Dan. I hadn't stopped in for a while, and hoped for better from you.
ReplyDeleteDan said:
ReplyDelete"As Sye said "The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything."
So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?"
Dan, Dan, Dan.....how short your memory is. Just a few days ago I called you out on repeatedly asking this type of question and you wrote this:
"Yea, that might be frustrating but I mean well. Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I don't know how to get said answers. I will do my best to refrain until I know what I am talking about though. That shouldn't take long ;p"
A brief flirtation with honesty there amid a sea of semantics...
So am I to take it that you now have all the answers? If so please refute all of the previous answers to your 'how do you account for logic...' question. I posted and linked to them several times on the Absolute Authority thread.
You keep asking the question but keep ignoring the answers!!!!
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
Please explain why the Greeks with no knowledge of your god were able to devise the rules of logic.
Do you actually believe that they devised them or observed them? Isn't that like claiming the ancient people devised breathing methods or heart beat rates?
What makes you think that the laws of logic are anything like heart beat rates?
The greeks didn't "make" them, but they did figure them out. It's an abstract tool, Dan...not a physical object that "needs" to be created like "heart beat rates" idea.
I notice, again, that you've dodged the problem being that there are no laws of logic in the bible, therefore on what basis to you assume the biblical god had anything to do with them?
As Sye said "The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
That's not "proof", that's circular reasoning. He's starting out with the conclusion he wants to "prove" and he's using it as part of the proof in the first place. That's useless because any diety can be "proved" that way whether they exist or not.
Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything."
You have not accounted for them either. You and Sye have asserted without evidence that your god is responsible.
So, without him these non-physical abstract ideas would not have existed? Got any evidence for that?
Bible verses listing the Laws of Logic would be a good start. Too bad there's none there that list the laws of logic.
So, how do you account for the laws of logic?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteThe greeks didn't "make" them, but they did figure them out.
OK so we both agree some dudes observed the Laws of Logic. Just like some dudes observed the Law of Gravity. So then you take it back? You still cannot account for the Laws of logic?
I notice, again, that you've dodged the problem being that there are no laws of logic in the bible, therefore on what basis to you assume the biblical god had anything to do with them?
Are you saying that presuppositional apologetics or TAG are not Biblical? I will do a post about it refuting that completely, if that is indeed your position.
As Sye said "The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
That's not "proof", that's circular reasoning.
Can you have a worldview without circular reasoning? Please answer that one and you will have your answer.
You have not accounted for them either. You and Sye have asserted without evidence that your god is responsible.
Now you are being completely disingenuous. A more accurate statement would be : You and Sye have provided ample evidence, that I don't accept or completely deny, that God is responsible.
So, without him these non-physical abstract ideas would not have existed? Got any evidence for that? Bible verses listing the Laws of Logic would be a good start. Too bad there's none there that list the laws of logic.
Be careful of what you ask for because you just may get it. I think you just pushed me to a new post.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe people who make the transcendental arguments for the existence of God are intentionally or unintentionally lying to you. They are trying to push an agenda and therefore won't bother to mention the various problems with the TAG argument including the fact that it fails to sway even the most well-studied philosophers.
I care about you Dan, and I just thought you should know the truth as hard as it may be for you to hear.
Take care again,
- Kaitlyn
Thanks Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteI write not because I fully grasp it, but so that I may one day better grasp it. Feedback is welcome.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThis is a serious question. Why do you feel that "Logic" is something that needs to be "accounted for," but "God" does not need to be accounted for?
I'd be really interested to know the distinction.
Logic cannot be accounted for without God and God is accounted for through general revelation (the world around us) and special revelation (His Word).
ReplyDeleteWhat? That doesn't make the distinction. Logic is also revealed to me through the world around me, as well as through Special Revelation (my high school teacher explained it to me).
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you need to account for God?
"Why don't you need to account for God?"
ReplyDeleteClearly, it is because the bible says God exists.
And the bible is God's word.
And the bible says god exists.
And the bible is God's word.
And the bible says god exists.
And the bible is God's word.
And the bible says god exists.
And the bible is God's word.
And the bible says god exists.
Error: Divide by zero.
I would also like to point out that the book The Catcher in the Rye could be used the same way to prove the existence of Holden Caulfield.
ReplyDeleteHolden Caulfield wrote his autobiography. We can be certain of this because The Catcher in the Rye tells us so. Ergo, Holden is real because he says he is.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
The greeks didn't "make" them, but they did figure them out.
OK so we both agree some dudes observed the Laws of Logic. Just like some dudes observed the Law of Gravity. So then you take it back? You still cannot account for the Laws of logic?
Dan, you're being stupid here. I already said that the laws of logic are not physical things that need to be created, or "accounted for". Gravity is a physical force.
We can observe how things work, and we can make abstract generalizations in our head for what we see and think about. Read Kazim's latest answer for the "accounting" of the laws of logic if you so desperately want one.
I notice, again, that you've dodged the problem being that there are no laws of logic in the bible, therefore on what basis to you assume the biblical god had anything to do with them?
Are you saying that presuppositional apologetics or TAG are not Biblical? I will do a post about it refuting that completely, if that is indeed your position.
I'm not talking about TAG, Dan...I'm talking about the laws of logic here. If you ever do a post about this, it had better list those verses that show that your god "created" those laws, and NOT a change of subject like TAG.
As Sye said "The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
That's not "proof", that's circular reasoning.
Can you have a worldview without circular reasoning? Please answer that one and you will have your answer.
As far as I know, atheists don't start out with the proposition that "there is no god". A lot of atheists at least used to be believers. All it requires is that you look around you to see if you can find any "gods" or not, pretty much.
You have not accounted for them either. You and Sye have asserted without evidence that your god is responsible.
Now you are being completely disingenuous. A more accurate statement would be : You and Sye have provided ample evidence, that I don't accept or completely deny, that God is responsible.
Bullshit, Dan, bullshit. You and Sye have just run around in circles assuming that your conclusion also counts as evidence towards it.
So, without him these non-physical abstract ideas would not have existed? Got any evidence for that? Bible verses listing the Laws of Logic would be a good start. Too bad there's none there that list the laws of logic.
Be careful of what you ask for because you just may get it. I think you just pushed me to a new post.
Let's see if you can actually list those verses then. You haven't done it so far...
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteLogic cannot be accounted for without God and God is accounted for through general revelation (the world around us) and special revelation (His Word).
---------
And that it true because dickweed says it's true.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteNice post. One comment, where I think you don't answer one of Dan's question correctly.
Dan asks: "Can you have a worldview without circular reasoning? Please answer that one and you will have your answer."
You answer: "As far as I know, atheists don't start out with the proposition that "there is no god". (...)"
Your answer is a bit besides the point. Let me extend Dan's question:
"Can you have a [absolute] worldview [where you can guarantee that all your knowledge is invariantly 100% true and where you can prove logic applies with invariable 100% certainty] without circular reasoning [or other fallacies]?"
And the answer should be: of course not, and neither can Sye or Dan. We are part of the 'world', so our 'worldview' is limited by it. I will never be able to guarantee (100% cynic proof) that I'm not part of "Wachowski's matrix", and neither can Sye or Dan (because if so, the machine would be responsible for the bible and the acclaimed miracles thereof). I can only say that I'm certain beyond any reasonable doubt (that's not 100%, that's 99% rounded down).
Dan goes on with saying:
Please answer that one and you will have your answer."
I don't think that's the answer he expected.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"God is accounted for through general revelation (the world around us)"
If flowers and rocks are talking to you about God, I recommend stop taking whatever drugs you happen to be taking.
"and special revelation (His Word)."
I keep asking you for proof that God talks to you, but you can never provide it.
"If flowers and rocks are talking to you about God, I recommend stop taking whatever drugs you happen to be taking."
ReplyDeleteDan...could you send those drugs to me ;> That sounds like a Saturday night!
"Logic cannot be accounted for without God and God is accounted for through general revelation (the world around us) and special revelation (His Word)."
ReplyDeleteI get it, sort of like general and special relativity....without all that messy evidence and math.
So, why do you have a rickroll link on your sidebar? When "this is a good argument" turns out to be a fake that avoids closing, it suggests you don't believe your claims. I would reccommend removing the "reason why atheists are completely wrong" link, or point it to an argument instead of a piece of garbage posing as music.
ReplyDeleteMe: This is a serious question. Why do you feel that "Logic" is something that needs to be "accounted for," but "God" does not need to be accounted for?
ReplyDeleteMe again: What? That doesn't make the distinction. ... Why don't you need to account for God?
After a few days, I think we can safely conclude that Dan has decided not to waste any effort on answering this question. I think I'll just make a follow-up remark about his previous effort.
Dan is using an equivocation fallacy AGAIN, using two different meanings of "accounting for" something.
When he asked "How do you account for logic?" what he meant was "Where does it come from/what is the cause/etc." But when he tried to answer the question "How do you account for God?" he punted. Instead, he pretended the question was "How do you know that God exists?" He replied that God is a necessary explanation, that he knows of God through divine revelation, etc.
But that WASN'T THE DAMN QUESTION. It's his own question! If the question were merely "How do you know LOGIC exists?" then "It's evident from the world around us" would be a perfectly acceptable answer. But through this and other conversations about the transcendental argument, it is clear that what is meant by "account for logic" is "Please thoroughly detail the process by which logic came to be." And if the answer is "That question makes no sense" then the response is "Then you are henceforth not allowed to use logic. You can only use logic if you have explained its origin."
This is claim is breathtakingly disingenuous, for somebody who uses "God" as the one-size-fits-all answer for every question. Following the same approach, you can't explain things with "God" unless you have completely ACCOUNTED FOR (not claimed necessity of) the existence of a god.
So let's hear your explanation.
Utterly brilliant, Kazim. You have clearly and neatly disentangled the 'account for logic' fallacy.
ReplyDeleteI'm learning from you.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDelete"and special revelation (His Word)."
I keep asking you for proof that God talks to you, but you can never provide it.
OK let me try again then:
"and special revelation (His Word)."
OK? :)
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI would reccommend removing the "reason why atheists are completely wrong" link, or point it to an argument instead of a piece of garbage posing as music.
We've know each other for so long. Your hearts been aching but your too shy to say it. Inside we both know whats been going on. We know the game and were gonna play it.
Never gonna give you up. Never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you.
It's all about love Pvblivs, that is why Atheists are wrong. Pshaw! I thought it was a poignant song.
Voices in your head are "proof" only to you. Kaitlyn was obviously asking if you could prove it to anyone else.
ReplyDeleteKazim,
ReplyDeleteIf the question were merely "How do you know LOGIC exists?"...
That is not what is being asked. Can you furnish a justifying analysis or explanation for the laws of logic? I can. Can you with your worldview?
How do you explain your "assumptions" about logic? Is there a assumed starting point? If so how can you be certain of that starting point?
BTW don't assume that I cannot answer just because I allow a couple of days to pass by. I have a great deal of things on my plate right now, including getting things ready for a photo shoot at our house for a magazine article. So please show some patience, unless you just want to insecurely dig while waiting for the answer.
Dan said:
ReplyDeleteThat is not what is being asked. Can you furnish a justifying analysis or explanation for the laws of logic? I can. Can you with your worldview?
Yes Dan. Several people have answered this question and you have NEVER offered a single line of refutation to their answers. You have just ignored the answers every time. You ignored me when I said this earlier in this thread too...
BTW I don't expect you to change at this stage, but I'm just gonna keep popping in to remind you of this each time you ask the same question.
Now lets say that you do manage to refute an athiestic account for logic. This would not automatically prove your position. It would only knock one possible explanation off the list, a list that needs to be completely cleared in order for your position to be declared correct. For example you would also have to refute the account given by David B. Ellis at Stephen Law's blog:
1. There are necessarily true propositions (logical truths). That is, propositions which cannot, under any circumstances, be false.
2. If a proposition would not be true if God didn't exist then it is, by definition, not necessarily true.
3. Therefore, necessarily true propositions do not require that God exist to be true (by the impossibility of the contrary).
Not to mention Stephen Law's other two accounts and the Invisible Pink Hammer account and the computer programmer account and the FSM account....etc
As I said before, ideally you need a proof that disproves all other possible accounts. But you do not have such a proof hence, like the rest of us, your position is just your opinion.
Enjoy your photo shoot...
Dan:
ReplyDeleteA site or program that takes control away from the user and won't give it back is called malware. Loading up the song might have been humorous; but when I have to reset my system, I get irate. That link crossed the line into harmful. That is also the general impression I have of (fundamentalist) christianity.
Oh, and Dan -- Can you account for your god in the same sense that you are asking for an accounting for logic? Essentially, you would need to answer the question of what caused your god?
ReplyDeleteIf the question were merely "How do you know LOGIC exists?"...
ReplyDeleteThat is not what is being asked. Can you furnish a justifying analysis or explanation for the laws of logic?
I know that. That's the contradiction in your justification of God. I asked "How do you justify the existence of God?" and you pretended to answer the question by saying "personal revelation." That's not a justification by your own argument, so let me just parrot back your own words to you:
Can you furnish a justifying analysis or explanation for your god?
I can. Can you with your worldview?
No you can't. All you can do is make up yet another entity and then declare that that thing needs no explanation. You're caught in your imaginary trap just as much as you think I am.
How do you explain your "assumptions" about logic? Is there a assumed starting point? If so how can you be certain of that starting point?
How do you explain your assumptions about your god? Is there an assumed starting point? If so how can you be certain of that starting point?
So please show some patience, unless you just want to insecurely dig while waiting for the answer.
Insecure I may be, but so far I haven't been particularly impressed by your answers being worth the wait. Usually you ignore the thrust of the question and just repeat what you already said, as if saying it louder will give it merit.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteLoading up the song might have been humorous; but when I have to reset my system, I get irate.
I understand. The secret is when you try to click out of it you get that pop up message with the lyrics. If you keep clicking through the lyrics you get a "confirm" screen and it asks "Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" Click OK to end the nightmare. Just another lesson for us to be patient?
You are right though, being Rick Roll'd is an aggravating practical joke. But, so is claiming the non-existence of God. At least my "little joke" is harmless to the soul. Can you say the same for atheism?
Oh, and Dan -- Can you account for your god in the same sense that you are asking for an accounting for logic?
Sure. He revealed Himself to us all in many ways that we can be certain of it.
Essentially, you would need to answer the question of what caused your god?
Not, if God stands outside of space/time.
"'Oh, and Dan -- Can you account for your god in the same sense that you are asking for an accounting for logic?'
ReplyDelete"Sure. He revealed Himself to us all in many ways that we can be certain of it."
Ooh, you didn't even try, there. "That is not what is being asked. Can you furnish a justifying analysis or explanation for the laws of logic?" That sets your standard. Even if I believed your god existed, it would not meet the criterion you set. For an accounting of logic, you demand a cause for logic, not simply a demonstration of existence. By the same token, you would need to show a cause for your god.
"'Essentially, you would need to answer the question of what caused your god?'
"Not, if God stands outside of space/time."
As an abstract, logic is similarly unbound. If your god requires no cause (to you) then logic should require no cause either.
"Just another lesson for us to be patient?"
No. Patience is only worthwhile when there is reason to believe that a desired outcome will result. In this case, it was acting like malware and there was no reason to see if the site would ever "let go." There are enough malware sites that don't.
Atheism is not a practical joke. At worst, it is an error. It does not seek pleasure through the harm or discomfort of others. There exist atheists who do; but there exist christians who do as well. Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that christianity is the trap. An evil being wants us to give him control in life because, if we do not, we are beyond his power.
Essentially, you would need to answer the question of what caused your god?
ReplyDeleteNot, if God stands outside of space/time.
Oh! I see! Fantastic. Then we're done.
Now you're claiming that things that are outside of space and time don't need an explanation.
The very first paragraph of Matt Slick's formulation of the transcendental argument states: "Logical absolutes... are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature."
So by your own argument, logical absolutes do not need to be explained.
Thank you for playing.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteFor an accounting of logic, you demand a cause for logic, not simply a demonstration of existence. By the same token, you would need to show a cause for your god.
My worldview explains this but yours cannot.
Bahnsen said: What matters are actual worldviews not possible worldviews.
As an abstract, logic is similarly unbound. If your god requires no cause (to you) then logic should require no cause either.
God is autonomous and Logic is dependent on God. Although it is immaterial.
Atheism is not a practical joke. At worst, it is an error.
We agree, but I would say at best it is an error with dire consequences. At worst it is pure evil deceiving the limited masses.
It does not seek pleasure through the harm or discomfort of others.
Not true if Christianity is true, which it is and has been shown over and over. It's funny how you just described Satan. Satan does seek pleasure through the harm or discomfort of others. Coincidence again?
An evil being (Satan?) wants us to give him control in life because, if we do not, we are beyond his power. Coincidence again?
But of course you were speaking of God as the "evil being" so let's explore that one:
So God is an evil being that, if we do not give him control, he is out of power? So you think that God is here to trick you? Into what? Are you admitting to an afterlife with that claim? If not then, according to you, God wouldn't be in power of anything and Christianity would only be a means of making the world a better place through love, self sacrifice, and charity. Are those things evil to you?
Kazim,
ReplyDeleteP-Essentially, you would need to answer the question of what caused your god?
D-Not, if God stands outside of space/time.
K-So by your own argument, logical absolutes do not need to be explained.
Oh! I see! Fantastic. Then we're done.
How do you equate "what caused your God" and "don't need an explanation"? I don't get it, are they equal?
If Laws of Logic are indeed outside space/time then how can you "account for them" other then God?
Like Einstein said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
"My worldview explains this..."
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't yet. Instead, you presuppose your god and convince yourself that it is an explanation. But it isn't. Really, you are calling on me to explain my worldview according to my worldview. I can't do this. I simply accept my worldview. My example (trying to get you to see presuppositional apologetics for the lie that it is) calls on you -- for purpose of illustration -- to explain your worldview according to your worldview. You can't do that either. But you accept your worldview and seem to think that qualifies as an explanation, although you disallow anyone doing that with a worldview other than yours. That is a double-standard.
"God is autonomous and Logic is dependent on God. Although it is immaterial."
Convince me. Don't just keep repeating a lie. It is a premise in my worldview that logic is autonomous.
"Not true if Christianity is true, which it is and has been shown over and over."
It hasn't been shown true at all. No evidence has been given for it. You may say that the clouds and the trees are testemony to your god. But other religions claim them as testimony to their gods. You may say your holy book proves your god. But other religions claim their holy books prove theirs.
"Are you admitting to an afterlife with that claim?"
It's certainly a possibility. However, the church leadership can also serve as the evil being. Once you are dead, the possibility of obtaining your time, money, and effort is gone. But there can also be a spiritual realm with no god. There could just be one or more would-be dictators in that spiritual realm.
"Christianity would only be a means of making the world a better place through love, self sacrifice, and charity. Are those things evil to you?"
Christianity pays lip service to these ideas when it is not in power. When it is in power, we get the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, and other forms of oppression. Those things are evil.
How do you equate "what caused your God" and "don't need an explanation"? I don't get it, are they equal?
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. So now, something which is outside of space and time DOES require an explanation. Splendid.
Now explain where your god came from, please.
If Laws of Logic are indeed outside space/time then how can you "account for them" other then God?
I will. As soon as I hear how you account for God.
And around we go...
Now you're claiming that things that are outside of space and time don't need an explanation.
ReplyDeleteSurely the bold claim that something stands outside space and time requires more of an explanation than something that stands within it. After all, Dan, have you been there?
Yes, we've all been here before, haven't we? If any of you gluttons for punishment have a couple of hours of free time, and want to see another presup (the obviously intelligent, but insufferably smug Rhology) get his posterior handed to him on a scientific platter, check out this thread at the always informative blog ERV.
ReplyDeleteAlso recommended, and less time consuming: Rejecting Atheism.
cheers from raining-nonstop-for-the-last-four-weeks-enough-is-enough Vienna, zilch
Dan, how's this:
ReplyDeleteFrom now on, atheism is to be considered a religion.
Because of the above, all atheist organizations will be entitled by law to the same tax breaks that Christian organizations have enjoyed for decades.
You STILL want to call us a religion??
Dan advises me to:
ReplyDelete"Bring your "A" game. If you have one."
I doubt I'll need it for this blog.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteMy example (trying to get you to see presuppositional apologetics for the lie that it is) calls on you -- for purpose of illustration -- to explain your worldview according to your worldview.
Well if Presup apologetics is a lie, if that is actually the case, I want to know about it. That is the purpose for these posts. TAG, to me, appears to be something reasonable, logical and fits common sense. If it indeed a lie, it will show it.
Let me level with you a little Pvblivs. I was suspicious of anything using Man's intellect to show God as you know. As I have posted before that I don't think that man can understand through the intellect. I thought that TAG may have had a specific role in apologetics by reaching out through the intellect. I would never, ever use the presup apologetic method to open air preach at all. It would be too complicated to have a flowing dialogue. But from what I am studding about it, the Bible itself is in it's entirety, presuppositional apologetics. I am researching that also. I did think, for atheists, it would help them since they are stuck in their intellect, to understand how wrong they truly are. I am not searching for epiphany moments as a gauge but I see far more people understanding using the basic message (good news) of the Bible. I saw a nitch market for Presup apologetics with atheists, but my education on this subject is still in it's infancy stage. I am still exploring it. So thank you for helping me and I appreciate your help. It is not in vein, I am trying my best to understand it, good or bad.
Christianity pays lip service to these ideas when it is not in power. When it is in power, we get the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, and other forms of oppression. Those things are evil.
I am glad that we all agree that mankind involved in anything, just corrupts. That goes for anything, a society, a company, or science. We cannot help to bring evil into the mix and oppress. Just look at the world around today. The corruption is so thick around the world it turns my stomach. That is what I have come to realize in my short life here so far. I cannot find Christ-like behavior anywhere in any society. America sure has failed along with the rest of them. A dictatorship would even work with a perfect uncoruptable leader. If there was someone that cannot lie, cheat, and steal ever then that would make the perfect ruler. With mankind that is an impossibility as we all know. The only way is with God at the helm. Then the system would run smoothly, expecially since evil is eradicated and God knowing our thought life. It is the only thing that keeps me hopeful for mankind. That is, to never depend on mankind, to save mankind.
Kazim,
ReplyDeleteD-If Laws of Logic are indeed outside space/time then how can you "account for them" other then God?
K-I will. As soon as I hear how you account for God.
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could do this. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
captain howdy,
ReplyDeleteFrom now on, atheism is to be considered a religion.
Fantastic!! Wahooo!
Because of the above, all atheist organizations will be entitled by law to the same tax breaks that Christian organizations have enjoyed for decades.
I couldn't agree more, atheists deserve it. They work hard for their beliefs. Why should we have proprietary over such things we are after all "equal". Why should our society, or any society, favor one religion over another? That would be unfair. Great, we agree
You STILL want to call us a religion??
YES, desperately so! I want everyone to be treated fairly and not segregated.
Now that is settled, we must allow other points of views into our schools since this is no longer considered a "secular society."
A secular society would favor one religion of atheism over others and that would be very unfair.
We must remove a non-God mentality in science and universities and throughout society. We must immediately remove an evolutionary paradigm for science to allow other theories surface. What a great day that will be when that comes to fruition and it will, very soon.
Was that indeed your "A" game? It seems that you are afraid to bring it.
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful God could do this. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
ReplyDeleteSo your standard for "accounting for" something is met if you observe that it is self-evident?
Very well. Logic is also self-evident, hence no god is required to explain it. Your move.
It is self-evident that an all knowing, all powerful hobgoblin could do this. If you care to offer a refutation, the floor is yours.
ReplyDeleteSee, Dan, giving something a name and then claiming it to be self-evident does nothing. Do you care to refute the existence of the self-evident "all powerful" hobgoblin? Maybe the all powerful dildo? I mean, to me, it is self-evident that a giant vibrating dildo that transcends space/time fashioned us with the intent of having something to fuck. Prove me wrong!
Clos,
ReplyDeleteDo you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
ReplyDeleteDan, do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we could be certain of them, even if those things revealed are incorrect?
Dan, do you admit that it is possible that a human (with limited knowledge and power) could be so deluded to believe an omniscient, omnipotent being had revealed some things to him, such that he could believe himself certain of them?
Dan, given that there are obviously those persons who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect), how can you show that you are not one of those persons?
Dan, as you have so often parroted, mere logical possibility of X is not adequate justification for X. Just because it is logically possible for a hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient being to reveal things (true or false) such that we could be certain, does not mean that such a being exists, or has done so. As with the last question above, the only thing we can determine is that the mutually exclusive nature of various competing claims regarding deity/doctrine and revelation necessarily mean that one (or more) is incorrect. There is no available method for determining the veracity of any one such claim -- except where that claim fails to comport with reality. For [semi-] transcendental claims, then, certainty is not obtained, and thus the prudent approach is skepticism, and a staunch refusal to treat any such claim as bearing on reality; hence, [weak] atheism and/or agnosticism.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteDan, do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we could be certain of them, even if those things revealed are incorrect?
Nope, God isn't into deception. The being that has universal knowledge wouldn't use deception. It would be illogical. A being with infinite power wouldn't need to deceive. His omnipresence shows his goodness.
Dan, do you admit that it is possible that a human (with limited knowledge and power) could be so deluded to believe an omniscient, omnipotent being had revealed some things to him, such that he could believe himself certain of them?
Possibly a false one, sure. I could see someone believing that a being is "speaking" to them through their dog to kill people (Son of Sam)
Keep in mind that the two are separate. If God wants to be known, He can and will bear that fruit.
Dan, given that there are obviously those persons who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect), how can you show that you are not one of those persons?
All I can do is have people that know me compare the pre-Christian Dan to the Christian Dan of today. The pure miracle of my own heart changing is a testimony of God. The radical transformation is too great and too swift to be anything else other then God Himself. I may not even be able to explain it, but the results is a miracle. I know with certainty that I am soundly saved forever. I wish you knew me before. It would even give a radical skeptic, such as yourself, some pause. Ask Patty. It was a night and day difference, more like dark to light.
Just because it is logically possible for a hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient being to reveal things such that we could be certain, does not mean that such a being exists, or has done so.
If there is evidence of it happening then sure. The evidence is overwhelming to be anything to the contrary. You cannot ignore the evidence. Deny it sure, but not ignore it.
As with the last question above, the only thing we can determine is that the mutually exclusive nature of various competing claims regarding deity/doctrine and revelation necessarily mean that one (or more) is incorrect.
I agree
There is no available method for determining the veracity of any one such claim -- except where that claim fails to comport with reality.
Sure there is. God Himself and His Word is the method for the claims. People that claim Christianity are bound by the authority of His Word for the description. Someone that is blowing up abortions clinics while claiming Christianity is not under the authority of the Bible and is not a Christian. That person is under the rule of "self" and following a lie is in his/her nature.
For [semi-] transcendental claims, then, certainty is not obtained, and thus the prudent approach is skepticism, and a staunch refusal to treat any such claim as bearing on reality; hence, [weak] atheism and/or agnosticism.
I agree (I think). That is the result of following "self" and things become subjective. You really underestimate the Authority of God's Word. Without God all we have are radical skepticism and subjectivity.
Holy shit! This is the biggest wall of nonsense I've seen in a while!
ReplyDeleteNope, God isn't into deception. The being that has universal knowledge wouldn't use deception. It would be illogical. A being with infinite power wouldn't need to deceive. His omnipresence shows his goodness.
What the? Omnipresence SHOWS his goodness? Deception is ILLOGICAL for beings with universal knowledge? Are you low-functioning?
All I can do is have people that know me compare the pre-Christian Dan to the Christian Dan of today. The pure miracle of my own heart changing is a testimony of God. The radical transformation is too great and too swift to be anything else other then God Himself. I may not even be able to explain it, but the results is a miracle. I know with certainty that I am soundly saved forever. ... like dark to light.
You think you're saved and it changed you. Big deal. Can you think of a religion that doesn't have glowing testimonials? Some books change people. It's not magic.
RE: The possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal fiction such that we could nonetheless be certain of its fact:
ReplyDeleteNope, God isn't into deception. The being that has universal knowledge wouldn't use deception. It would be illogical. A being with infinite power wouldn't need to deceive. His omnipresence shows his goodness.
O RLY?
So you expect us to admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal true things, but you refuse to admit the corollary?
Incidentally, no one is talking about your god, or any particular god -- so the attributes and policies you claim for your god don't apply; we're only talking about the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being could be an asshole, and I daresay it's self-evident that it is possible. It's clearly every bit as possible as the claim of certainty through revelation.
Likewise, it would not be illogical for such a being to deceive -- there is nothing stated in the hypothetical which prevents the logical possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being could be a prankster, could be left-handed, or could enjoy the aroma of burnt animal flesh. Indeed, if anything, it is illogical that such a being would have any wants or desires whatsoever.
Of particular interest in this portion of your response is the following:
A being with infinite power wouldn't need to deceive.
I agree, but I think we can expand this statement as follows:
A being with infinite power wouldn't need [insert any fucking action or object here].
You know, like create, punish, tinker, etc.
As to omnipresence showing goodness... What are you smoking? Omnipresence neither exhibits goodness, nor was it part of this discussion.
RE: Your explicit admission that humans can be so deluded as to believe they are channeling the thoughts/desires of an omniscient, omnipotent being:
Thanks! I'm glad we agree here.
RE: How you can know that you are not deluded, since there are obviously deluded persons:
You told me that you watched Oprah, and your life was changed, but said nothing to the question. How can you know that you are not deluded; how can you know that you are not one of those persons who only believes he has received divine revelation, yet is not fundamentally different than Son of Sam?
A changed life is evidence only of a life-changing event, not of your sanity.
For the bulk of your response from this point on, you resorted to pedantic question-begging and special pleading, which even one such as yourself should be able to plainly see, but your response to my final statement was a breath of fresh air.
My statement, again, was as follows:
For [semi-] transcendental claims, then, certainty is not obtained, and thus the prudent approach is skepticism, and a staunch refusal to treat any such claim as bearing on reality; hence, [weak] atheism and/or agnosticism.
Your response:
I agree (I think). That is the result of following "self" and things become subjective. You really underestimate the Authority of God's Word. Without God all we have are radical skepticism and subjectivity.
You evidently don't understand the ramifications of my statement. Christianity makes transcendental claims, and therefore would be subject to the "prudent approach" I described, to which you both agreed in [qualified] statement, and disagreed in bumbling idiocy.
Anyway, Dan, you have failed to show that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not be an asshole, you have conceded the fact that humans can be deluded such that they believe they have direct contact with omniscient, omnipotent beings, and you have failed to show that you are not one of those persons. All we have, then, is your claim that there is a god, that this god has such-and-such qualities, and that you're right because you say so and because you believe yourself to be right.
Ergo, your claim is vacuous. The [weak] atheist and the agnostic are the most honest among us, for only they admit the possibility of being incorrect, and only they admit that there is no transferable method for determining the veracity of any claim regarding deity. While your personal method may yield results to you, it fails for myself, and all I can therefore surmise is that you are merely deluded. The difference between us is the fact that I am unafraid of admitting that I may be wrong. This difference boils down to the fact that only one of us is truly honest (hint: it's not you).
--
Stan
@Dan--
ReplyDeleteSo, on the one hand, you say that:
"Why should our society, or any society, favor one religion over another? That would be unfair. Great, we agree."
Then, in the very same breath, you say:
We must remove a non-God mentality in science and universities and throughout society. We must immediately remove an evolutionary paradigm for science to allow other theories surface. What a great day that will be when that comes to fruition and it will, very soon."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So on the one hand, you call for society to treat all religions--including atheism--equally, while on the other hand, you want to purge the sciences and public schools (and society in general) of all "non-God mentality"...??
"Was that indeed your "A" game? It seems that you are afraid to bring it."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, like I just demonstrated, an "A" game is hardly necessary for this blog.
You've called for equality in society of all religions--including the "religion" of atheism--and then the very next moment called for all atheistic thought to be purged from society. Why do I need an "A" game for that??
From reading your posts and comments, I have to say that this blog doesn't look like the home court for the Los Angeles Lakers to me. It looks more like the home court of the Harlem Globetrotters.
But Captain Howdy- the Harlem Globetrotters are pretty entertaining, aren't they? And did anyone ever tell you that you look a lot like Frank Zappa?
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteOmnipresence neither exhibits goodness, nor was it part of this discussion.
I agree, that should have been left out. It was accidentally left in during the construction of my "masterpiece". I was going to expound on that ideal but decided against it and I deleted everything after that statement. It was standing their bare, cold, and alone. Oops
As for the rest...I am trying. I may be failing, but I won't give up. I will approach you in different ways, hopefully one will stick.
God existing is not subjective at all. God's revelations have objectively shown that He indeed exists. Besides rejection of evidence is not equal to "no" evidence. You of all people should know this.
Ergo, your claim is vacuous.
But, of course, you fully concede that you could be wrong.
While your personal method may yield results to you, it fails for myself, and all I can therefore surmise is that you are merely deluded.
But, of course, you fully concede that you could be entirely wrong.
The difference between us is the fact that I am unafraid of admitting that I may be wrong.
But you could be wrong and you are, because I am unafraid also. Hopefully you won't be afraid of admitting that you were wrong...again.
Since you are unafraid of admitting that you may be wrong, you stand in faith as much as any of us. You have faith that no God exists. That is your presupposition. I am sure that you will be very afraid, in that case, that you were indeed wrong. Ergo, your claim is vacuous. :7)
This difference boils down to the fact that only one of us is truly right (hint: it's not you).
Dan:
ReplyDelete"But, of course, you fully concede that you could be wrong."
It's called intellectual integrity. I believe that there is no moster of Loch Ness -- although I concede that I could be wrong. If you were honest, you would also concede that you could be wrong. Stan attributes this unwillingness to so concede to fear. I am inclined to agree. Ironicly, it is the claims of those who admit they could be wrong that have any merit. Until you admit that you might be wrong about your god, your claims are vacuous.
"God existing is not subjective at all. God's revelations have objectively shown that He indeed exists. Besides rejection of evidence is not equal to 'no' evidence. You of all people should know this."
But you claim that the flowers and trees are "revelations." The existence of nature does not establish a god, let alone yours specificly. I am also aware that you claim your holy book. But other religions claim theirs.
captain howdy,
ReplyDeleteD-"Why should our society, or any society, favor one religion over another? That would be unfair. Great, we agree."
Then, in the very same breath, you say:
D-"We must remove a non-God mentality in science and universities and throughout society. We must immediately remove an evolutionary paradigm for science to allow other theories surface. What a great day that will be when that comes to fruition and it will, very soon."
CH-So on the one hand, you call for society to treat all religions--including atheism--equally, while on the other hand, you want to purge the sciences and public schools (and society in general) of all "non-God mentality"...??
Yes. Since the religion of Atheism is "no God" (no belief in God) then they cannot use that as the paradigm in their experiments. They indeed must accommodate for ID, or my favorite, Biblical Creationism.
CH-You've called for equality in society of all religions--including the "religion" of atheism--and then the very next moment called for all atheistic thought to be purged from society. Why do I need an "A" game for that??
Oops that was an epic fail on your little "a" game. When you said "the very next moment called for all atheistic thought to be purged from society" You were quite wrong. I never said that Atheism should be purged from society. God has indeed been purged from schools and science and that is favoring the religion of Atheism. We must accommodate to allow God in school and science to be fair to all religions. Right now it is Atheists who are doing the purging in society.
Are you willing to concede that you were wrong since you misrepresented my position, or are you going to prove Stan wrong in his claim that Atheists are unafraid of admitting they are wrong?
Thus rendering both of you wrong.
"Yes. Since the religion of Atheism is "no God" (no belief in God) then they cannot use that as the paradigm in their experiments. They indeed must accommodate for ID, or my favorite, Biblical Creationism."
ReplyDeleteBut schools do not teach that there is no god. A god could certainly have used a concept of evolution as a tool. So the door is not open to biblical creationism. Evolution (your unspoken contrast to creationism) no more implies atheism than a round Earth does.
God has indeed been purged from schools and science and that is favoring the religion of Atheism. We must accommodate to allow God in school and science to be fair to all religions. Right now it is Atheists who are doing the purging in society.
ReplyDeleteBull. If "atheism" was being taught in schools, then teachers would be actively saying that there is no god.
Instead, they're not supposed to say one way or the other. Stra nge way to promote a "religion".
You, as evangelicals generally seem to do, are "confusing" neutrality in regards to your views as hostility.
Unless they actively kow-tow to your belief system, you people regard it as an attack, it seems.
"CH-You've called for equality in society of all religions--including the "religion" of atheism--and then the very next moment called for all atheistic thought to be purged from society. Why do I need an "A" game for that??"
ReplyDeleteYou: "Oops that was an epic fail on your little "a" game. When you said "the very next moment called for all atheistic thought to be purged from society" You were quite wrong. I never said that Atheism should be purged from society."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your exact words were:
"We must remove a non-God mentality in science and universities and throughout society." So according to you, you're not calling for atheism to be purged from society, you're asking for all "non-God mentality" to be purged from society. Explain how "atheism" and "non-God mentality" are different.
This is what I need an "A" game for, Meadowlark?
And besides, under the terms of our little "agreement" you don't get to replace the science textbooks with Bibles or turn society into a theocracy until we atheists get tax-exempt status. Where is our tax exemption? You can start calling us a religion when we start enjoying the same tax-exempt status you cultists do.
captain howdy,
ReplyDeleteExplain how "atheism" and "non-God mentality" are different.
From what I gather there is nothing different, that is why we must now allow just that viewpoint to dominate our schools, science, and system of government since it violates the constitution.
And besides, under the terms of our little "agreement" you don't get to replace the science textbooks with Bibles or turn society into a theocracy until we atheists get tax-exempt status.
Fair enough, but I don't want to turn (force) people into a theocracy I want to give people a fighting chance to be able to chose God and to hear the good news instead of the current secular indoctrination of the United States.
Dan--
ReplyDeleteMe: Explain how "atheism" and "non-God mentality" are different.
You: From what I gather there is nothing different, that is why we must now allow just that viewpoint to dominate our schools, science, and system of government since it violates the constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, to recap: You've insisted that all "non-God mentality" be purged from society, and then denied that you are calling for atheism to be purged from society, even tho you've just admitted there is no difference between atheism and "non-God mentality". Come on, Dan. Is this the best you can do?
Dan, it's simply a fact that your God has one thing in common with everybody else's God: They all need somebody else to do their talking for them. If God is really there, why can't he tell me all these wonderful things directly, rather than having to go thru a self-appointed spokesman like you?
It's simply a fact that God appears not to be there. Maybe the reason he appears not to be there is because he really isn't there. That's all atheism says, really.
Seems to me that Captain Howdy has you there, Dan.
ReplyDeleteAs well, you had said:
Fair enough, but I don't want to turn (force) people into a theocracy I want to give people a fighting chance to be able to chose God and to hear the good news instead of the current secular indoctrination of the United States.
What are you talking about Dan? Don't you know there are hundreds of radio stations, TV shows, billboards, thousands of churches, etc. in your country?
They don't even pay taxes.
What do you mean exactly by giving a "fighting chance" then, if all of that isn't good enough? It can only mean to me that you want your religion to be taught in even more places. (schools, perhaps?)
Care to elaborate?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteIt can only mean to me that you want your religion to be taught in even more places. (schools, perhaps?)
I am not sure if I even care if people are "taught" the Bible. The importance to me is Salvation. If people are saved they can study whatever they wish. Salvation is the primer here. If we are saved then great I back off completely but if people are being blinded by false teachings then I get loud. If "hundreds of radio stations, TV shows, billboards, thousands of churches," keep preaching the Word then we are doing our job but Salvation is paramount to my desires.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
It can only mean to me that you want your religion to be taught in even more places. (schools, perhaps?)
I am not sure if I even care if people are "taught" the Bible. The importance to me is Salvation.
Uh, and just where do people learn about "salvation", Dan?
If people are saved they can study whatever they wish.
See my first comment above.
Salvation is the primer here. If we are saved then great I back off completely but if people are being blinded by false teachings then I get loud.
In schools they don't teach for, or against, the existence of your god one way or another.
About false teachings, well, that's why pro-science people don't like creationism/ID being taught in schools.
If "hundreds of radio stations, TV shows, billboards, thousands of churches," keep preaching the Word then we are doing our job but Salvation is paramount to my desires.
As I said in my previous post, in this country, people are being given somewhat more than a "fighting chance" to hear about your religion. Hell, it's damned near impossible to get away from it. I don't see what you were whining about.
BTW, did everyone see my newest post?
ReplyDeleteOuch!