To assist myself grasping worldviews, and just another step in the process, in getting to know a brilliant man named Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. I think my addictive personality is showing. These are simply fascinating to me.
Great, because you don't understand at all how most atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and non-Christians in general think. That's why you're doing such a piss-poor job of "debunking atheists". You need to learn how to reason, my nig.
Thanks for the interesting link. I will look into it more. By briefly looking at things on that blog tells me he may "get" it to you but does he "get" Christianity?
He said: "I found atheism to be an unnecessary, rationalized contraction of total reality, a self-enforced myopia used to focus upon myself, rather than on that which is actually true. I changed my focus to the pursuit of valid evidence and the unfettered appreciation of actual truth."
So by you admitting that "This guy gets it." are you admitting that you do not "get it" since you remain to be an atheist?
Yes, indeed I agree that Jesus weeps to your rebellion and prideful dishonor towards God. "Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!"
If you feel *Jesus wept* because of my inability to convert Atheists to Christianity then you misunderstand my purpose according to the Bible. The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
I wept also but I have faith that you will understand completely one day and hopefully we can have a cool beverage and laugh about these days in heaven. Unless your pride gets in the way that is.
He said: "I found atheism to be an unnecessary, rationalized contraction of total reality, a self-enforced myopia used to focus upon myself, rather than on that which is actually true. I changed my focus to the pursuit of valid evidence and the unfettered appreciation of actual truth." Yeesh. What a load. That's what a theist would say about atheism. I've never heard of an atheist saying that. This has got to be a strawman by that guy Kip's linked to...
The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
I don't know Dan... I'm not really moved by some Jewish Zombie (No offence, but it's true!) weeping for me... let alone your weeping. Convince us with logic and evidence without using the Bible. (Remember... the Bible IS illogical)
By briefly looking at things on that blog tells me he may "get" it to you but does he "get" Christianity?
He claims to be a student of Jesus and Judeo-Christianity.
So by you admitting that "This guy gets it." are you admitting that you do not "get it" since you remain to be an atheist?
By "get it", I meant he understands the atheist worldview since he used to be one. He doesn't resort to the kind of fallacies and irrationality you do. I'm looking into each of his arguments to see if they're sound, but for now it looks like one big straw man.
The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
1) The Bible is no more evidence for your religion than the other religions' holy books are to them. The Koran could just as easily be the Word of God. If you actually study the Bible, or better yet, read it pick apart by a skeptic, it becomes obvious that it was written by mortal men, not inspired by a source of infinite wisdom.
2) I had to do a Google search to find out who Dr. Greg Bahnsen is. Christian apologists rarely impress me, but since I haven't read Bahnsen's works I can't give him fair judgement.
3) I'm in the middle of interviewing "the guy who gets it" via email about his conversion. He makes an interesting case, but he hasn't convinced me that Christianity is true.
I wept also but I have faith that you will understand completely one day and hopefully we can have a cool beverage and laugh about these days in heaven. Unless your pride gets in the way that is.
Did the tone of my comment make me come off proud? I actually try to be humble and open-minded in my life, but pride has no bearing on my rejection of the Christian religion.
Now, I realize you're a good guy whose heart's in the right place, so thank you for your compassion over the welfare of my soul. (*rolls eyes*) But I care about defending the Truth. I know your religion and your god means a lot to you, indeed, it helped you straighten up your act, but now it's time to move on. You can't base your life on a myth. It's unhealthy to the person believing the myth, it breaks ones heart to know that they won't reap the reward (Heaven) for dedication to the myth, and it's immoral to let the myth continue to spread.
Wiki says he died years ago. He actually was a PHD.unlike most of that ilk using Dr. as a title. It's sad that seemingly intelligent people still threaten those under them. This one with a test and toasted toosties in the hot spot if they don't toe the party line and vote GOP
It's like a proton where you split an atom and something new comes out. And then it's a liquid and you can use it to clean yourself. So that make it worthwhile and you do it.
Obviously, there's a problem of sunlight on stains. But I cannot understand why someone would use sunlight like that.
I guess it's all a matter of drumming, and so it's explained.
Drumming: now that's something I can get behind. When I have troubles that are not accessible to reason, drumming helps. After a while, I don't have the feeling that "I" am drumming, but rather that I'm privileged to join part of the Dance.
I have been trying to get good at Rock Band drumming for a while, but my feet and hands want to do something different all the time. I'm actually better at the plastic guitar than the drums, but I almost always play the drums and not the guitar.
This is an interesting point though about feet where the hands and feet have their own mind. It feels like you have a will when you don't and they sort of go their own way and shift.
That's what I was talking about earlier and using the liquid to clean yourself. The liquid is uncomfortable, but the sunlight burns stains in and makes them visible. So the liquid becomes preferable.
So it all comes down to drumming. That eliminates the liquid and the sunshine.
Yes. No. Enough sleep. Am I making a bunch of spelling mistakes?
I have been trying not to sleep too much because it's too hard to living without the dreams coming. I can't tell the difference, and I get angry. It's not good obviously, but as long as I'm awake, I am fine. No one bothers me.
I know that Christians are taught to be like children. Maybe we have been going about this all wrong trying to explain our rational worldview. Maybe Susie Smartypants can help you!
I have been trying not to sleep too much because it's too hard to living without the dreams coming. I can't tell the difference, and I get angry.
I had a satanist girlfriend in the past who said the very same thing. She hated those awful dreams. I have a poster for you that might help. Don't you think it's time for a wholesome life yet?
I sleep great at night, I wish you the same...someday.
I'm looking into each of his arguments to see if they're sound, but for now it looks like one big straw man.
Straw man.
First, if he was 40 years long the way he describes atheists, he must have been a very unpleasant person indeed. His viewpoint on atheists is actually pretty vile. As is his viewpoint on 'the left'. Read his posts and see what he labels easily as 'fascism'.
On logic, his "First principles" use very crude definitions of reason, leading to fuzzy and outright false extrapolations in his "Second Level Effects of the First Principles". Those contain numerous logical fallacies (although less obvious as Sye's arguments).
Evolutionstheorie künstlich Regeln, eine Art von Ursache, bevor es eine Chance hat, zu sprechen von der Evidenz. Die Ursache der Intelligenz. Dies ist der Grund, warum sie Taube Loch selbst und Wissenschaftler oft tragen, mit Stolz, den Titel des metaphysischen Naturalismus. Wer nun die Gefahren von Wissenschaftlern, die philosophischen Positionen wie diese?
Clos- Susi is very cute. Perhaps she would debate Ray Comfort for $10,000. I bet she would win.
Dan: that last post of yours is ungrammatical and makes no sense. Did you babblefish it? If you tell me what you are trying to say in English, I'll translate it into good German for you.
Evolutionstheorie streicht künstlich eine Art Ursache durch, bevor sie eine Wahrscheinlichkeit hat, durch den Beweis zu sprechen. Die Ursache der Intelligenz. Deshalb tragen sie Taubeloch selbst und Wissenschaftler häufig, mit Stolz, den Titel metaphysischem Naturalismus. Sieht jemand jetzt die Gefahren der Wissenschaftler, die philosophische Stellungen wie dieses nehmen?
Better?
Susi is very cute.
Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!
"Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!"
In my opinion, better to put makeup on her for her little show and teach her about the wonders of this life and how to treat other people than to fill her head with a bunch of nonsense about an invisible being in the sky that kills and burns anyone who doesn't agree with Him or even believe in him.
Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!
I think kittens, puppies and Kaitlyn's avatar are cute. I think it's scary that someone says "cute" and you start thinking about sex and "whores".
I had a satanist girlfriend in the past who said the very same thing. She hated those awful dreams. I have a poster for you that might help. Don't you think it's time for a wholesome life yet?
I sleep great at night, I wish you the same...someday.
I used to be nervous and sleep badly. Then I took Zoloft and cut sugar out of my diet. Now I sleep great. Did you really have a Satanist girlfriend? I thought Satanists were only in movies. Or maybe some goth teenagers. (Some, not all!) And Kaitlyn seems pretty wholesome to me. Leekspin? Oh, leekspin!
You ought to check out what the fundies are doing with kids in videos of Jesus camp, etc.
Homeschoolers are always hollering about wanting the controversy taught in public schools, yet I'm sure they don't teach evolution to their own kids so they can decide on their own.
No, but he sang "Love evolved to spread our genes", why not rape to spread our genes? It works for seals. Survival of the fittest? Silly elitist Atheists, your days are numbered.
The kids and I enjoyed dancing to it though, another opportunity for truth...thanks.
Homeschoolers are always hollering about wanting the controversy taught in public schools, yet I'm sure they don't teach evolution to their own kids so they can decide on their own.
I do. What do you know about my life? Are you looking in my house!? BE HONEST!!!!!
I think kittens, puppies and Kaitlyn's avatar are cute. I think it's scary that someone says "cute" and you start thinking about sex and "whores".
I admit that was a little harsh. I didn't think she looked cute at all because cute is associated with the things you mentioned. I lashed out and I owe Zilch an apology.
Zilch,
Sorry dude. I was not inferring anything gross at all.
Politely and kindly I should of just said: I don't think she is cute with all that makeup and hair the way it is.
Can I blame you Atheists for that? No, I didn't think so. It's hard to be Christ like at times. This time was a big fail on my part.
"I do. What do you know about my life? Are you looking in my house!? BE HONEST!!!!!"
My apartment has windows people use to spy on me, and I hear my speakers flicker even when they are off. There's electronic surveillance equipment creating an interference bubble. I want to find all the mics and cameras, but I can't without destroying the entire apartment. The key is to be quiet.
I want to find all the mics and cameras, but I can't without destroying the entire apartment.
Didn't Ozzy say that "Paranoia will destroy you"
Remember that being a Christian all fear should leave you. You are no longer afraid of anyone, for any reason. (Matthew 10:28)
Bonus: No fear of Hell.
We fear God sure but it's more of a respect towards him fear. Fear to disappoint but that may even be unwarranted, in Christ we can do all things. Especially live a clean wholesome life in this world.
Someone once said to me that in order to get a handle on your morals is imagine if all what you do is plastered all over the morning news paper. If it makes you cringe then maybe you are doing something immoral or embarrassing.
If my life was plastered all over the morning news paper then there would be just a loss of subscribers from boredom but nothing really embarrassing to try to hide from.
My life can be an open book, I wish the same confidence for you Kaitlyn. No one should live like you appear to be living.
Dan- apology accepted. Perhaps I'm just too innocent, but for me, "cute" doesn't necessarily have sexual connotations at all. Hey, I must admit, I even find you cute at times.
And I have to agree about Susi's makeup- it just looks silly. However, I'm funny about makeup- I don't like it on grownups either. But that's television and/or bad taste.
What I found cute about Susi is the way she delivered the message. She is still young enough to get away with being a smartypants and look cute doing it. When you or I try it, we just look childish.
Anyway: your German text is now better, although there's still one grammatical error (the "sie" in the third sentence, which means "they" or "she", has no referent- I suspect a typo). I don't agree with the sentiment, however (big surprise, eh?).
Kaitlyn: are you putting us on, or putting us off?
"Remember that being a Christian all fear should leave you. You are no longer afraid of anyone, for any reason. (Matthew 10:28)"
And does this work in practice? You'd go out in the 'yard' with prisoners? And wouldn't be afraid? You could break the ice by telling them you debunk atheists!
It's not Christians who still fear Hell but false converts as they should. When I realized I was one then, ouch, I was frightened to the core. I had a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17) and feared Him (Proverbs 9:10) because it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31) when opposing Him.
God did reveal to me I was being a false convert. That is no longer the case. Amen. It was revealed to me that I am soundly saved and He will not let go of me anymore. I am written in the Book of life. Amen again
I am sure you realize you are not a Christian. I know with certainty that I am, and it's humbling me daily. I wish you the same someday.
How many "false" christians have said (like Dan says) that they were certain they were not false. (I'm pretty sure that one's not zero.) After labelling someone a "false convert," it is easy to go back and say they were never certain.
After labelling someone a "false convert," it is easy to go back and say they were never certain.
Great point, I just knew I would have to explain this reasoning.
If someone is certain they are a Christian then how do they know this? Well they presuppose the authority of God's Word. So if that Word tells that they are in fact a stony ground hearer, like my case, then the authority of the Bible said that I am, in fact, not a Christian. If, as a Christian, I am to rely on the Bibles authority then I must, logically and honestly, admit that I am not a Christian and rely on the description of a Christian.
My buddy has a friend that claims Christianity but he goes to porn shops and porn website all then time. Or use Ted Haggard as the example even (unrepentant sinning). Does the Bible describe this "fruit" as a Christian? Nope, so then he is not a Christian no matter how much he asserts that he is or was. You cannot be certain of Christianity without honoring the authority of God's Word.
So there is zero professed Christians (false converts) that, under the authority of the Bible, are certain of their Salvation.
That's all very nice, but it evades the point. If you or someone like you were later to decide that christianity was not true, fundamentalists would still use the "false christian" label. No, I am talking about people who were convinced and acted the part, but who later left christianity. I am talking about people that you would only identify in retrospect "reasons why their faith was not true."
No, I am talking about people who were convinced and acted the part, but who later left christianity. I am talking about people that you would only identify in retrospect "reasons why their faith was not true."
Acted was the proper word. If the Bible declares there is no such thing as an ex Christian then the "authority " still stands.
So you use it without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. Great we are through then, God exists.
Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.
Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.
I think what you mean is that Christianity could potentially provide an explanation for these things if it were true. The same could be said about Islam or Judaism or any other number of theistic "worldviews." The fact that any one of them could potentially provide an explanation for these things should show you that your argument fails. I am sure you will not recognize that though.
So you use [logic] without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. [sic]
Dan, you're so full of crap. Until you met Sye the Douchebag, you, too, used logic -- well, you tried -- without any consideration whatsoever as to its origin. I doubt many of us, if any, ever gave the origin of logic a second thought -- a first thought -- before our initial encounter with Sye. As many others have pointed out, it is dishonest to dispute premises upon which all parties agree.
Anyway, until you're able either to promote the TAG crap on your own, I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd stop copy/pasting Sye's bullshit. It's disingenuous at the very least, and your clumsiness makes the attempts all the more pathetic.
As far as the so-called "account" for logic that you demand, and that you claim TAG provides, you seem to ignore the various atheist-friendly 'accounts' for logic which have been provided... either that, or you don't understand them. Likewise, persons such as myself have often illustrated how the TAG "account" does not presuppose the existence of any god (much less the Christian god), but it instead falls prey to the same presupposition that plagues everyone: that they have a valid ability to reason. It is only through this presupposition that things like logic and mathematics can be formulated, and that conclusions such as the existence or non-existence of deity can be drawn.
Additionally, even if TAG were valid, it would apply to any proposed system which included a deity to "account" for logic, etc. Thus, any [internally consistent] proposed religion would be able to use TAG to justify itself, even if such a religion is mutually exclusive of other religions [for which TAG would likewise apply]. Thus, TAG is insufficient, even if we grant for the sake of argument that it is valid; it does not provide discriminating criteria upon which the "correct" deity can be distinguished from every proposed deity.
No response, Dan? Are you intentionally ignoring this thread, considering your position therein, or were you biding your time before offering a well-reasoned response?
You must know that the manner in which you drop one thread in favor of a new one with [poorly] rehashed arguments suggests that you ditch good topics when things aren't going your way... or has this, too, escaped your notice?
Really, I'm interested in a response here, but if you've moved on, so be it.
Do you wish I would sell my kids to free up time to answer your precious comments? I have always said that squeaky wheels gets my attention so since you are emulating a mouse I will turn my attention to you. Some comments stand alone so I don't respond to all of them. I move on but never move out. All comments come to me so even if someone wanted to continue "Battle of Wits?" we could.
I doubt many of us, if any, ever gave the origin of logic a second thought -- a first thought -- before our initial encounter with Sye. As many others have pointed out, it is dishonest to dispute premises upon which all parties agree.
True we all take it (logic) for granted, it is worth exploring where exactly it comes from and Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Bahnsen, and others state a compelling case. It's quite new to me and I am playing catch up. Oh and to claim it "dishonest" to explore such a thing doesn't make it so. That action is disingenuous on your part (see?).
It's disingenuous at the very least, and your clumsiness makes the attempts all the more pathetic.
So? We are not all expert skaters from the very beginning. Did your Mom rag you for not being able to walk, right away, as a baby? Did she yell at you for not knowing calculus in second grade? We all have starting points. You are being disingenuously hypocritical. One thing for sure is that I like it. I like the fact TAG even stopped myself to attempt to answer such questions. I cannot account for logic other then God.
but it instead falls prey to the same presupposition that plagues everyone: that they have a valid ability to reason.
Way to go captain obvious. Psst, hey, I will let you in on a secret, all worldviews have presuppositions. THe problem is you cannot reason why your reason is consistent or valid.
You must presuppose God in order for anything to make sense. Like what I wrote in the Josh post:
"Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally."
Otherwise maybe you can tell us how you can be certain of your logic? To really piss you off I will quote Sye: "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."
It is simple how do you account for the laws of logic existing before space/time? They transcend the universe and allow us to understand said universe. It just makes "logical" sense. It is reasonable to account for logic with God. It simplifies the description to even allow Occam's Razor to apply.
I will admit that I have a lot to learn still. Are you saying that you stopped learning?
When you make a statement like "until you're able either to promote the TAG crap on your own,..." So are you claiming all knowledge on any given subject before you engage in any discussions? Otherwise you need to stop talking all together then. Unless you are being disingenuous. Pfft.
I asked Reynold this but he couldn't answer. I said: So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?
Hope this was worth the wait.
Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case. The Creator is the the creator of the universe the one we use to account for logic. It just so happens that same Creator is described in His Word called The Holy Bible. I suppose you can write that off as just another coincidence but how can you be certain of that...or anything for that matter?
"[H]ow do you account for the laws of logic existing before space/time?" Did you notice your contradiction? The very concept of "before" implies time. So there is no such thing as "before time." One might say that logic exists independent of time, as I say that it exists independent of any god. "Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case." There is just as much evidence for those gods as there is for yours -- none. You have not made a case for the christian god in particular. You just assume it. All worldviews do have presumptions, things which are implicit to the worldview and thus not accounted for. Logic is one of my presumptions. It's one of yours as well. You only pretend to account for it with your god. You have to use it to do the "accounting" and thus demonstrate that you have it as a presumption.
Dan: I asked Reynold this but he couldn't answer. I said: So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"? They're the first ones to work them out, without any help from your "god".
Hope this was worth the wait.
Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case. The Creator is the the creator of the universe the one we use to account for logic. It just so happens that same Creator is described in His Word called The Holy Bible. I suppose you can write that off as just another coincidence but how can you be certain of that...or anything for that matter? If your god is the basis of logic then please show that. List the bible verses where the laws of logic are laid down.
Until then, you've got nothing.
As for being able to "account" for laws of logic, they don't need "accounting" for any more than the rules of mathematics do.
How can your god "create" ideas? What makes you so certain that the laws of logic wouldn't exist independently of your god?
As I said before on Ray's blog if god picked out the laws of logic that made sense, then they exist independently of him and he's not necessary for them to exist. He'd just be the first one to figure them out.
If any "law of logic" your god picked out became "logical" or "sensible" because he decreed it, then the laws of logic are arbitrary based on his will.
Don't dodge this by saying what Sye used to say: "Neither". They're a part of his nature. That's just a fancy way of agreeing with the first option and doesn't help your case.
I know, this is kinda late to be commenting on this, but LOL at Christianity being a cure to the fear of being a nonChristian! That's like saying deism is a cure to the fear of being a non-deist! The only difference is that in the end Christianity is a cure of fearing God's wrath, kinda like the sun-worshippers who gave their gods human sacrifices to save them from their paranoia of their gods...
Great, because you don't understand at all how most atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and non-Christians in general think. That's why you're doing such a piss-poor job of "debunking atheists". You need to learn how to reason, my nig.
ReplyDeletePerfect example: This guy gets it.
Until then, you'll remain a total failure; The bottom of the religious apologetics pickle barrel.
*Jesus wept.*
Can't stop laughing at "Jesus wept." :D
ReplyDeleteKip,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting link. I will look into it more. By briefly looking at things on that blog tells me he may "get" it to you but does he "get" Christianity?
He said: "I found atheism to be an unnecessary, rationalized contraction of total reality, a self-enforced myopia used to focus upon myself, rather than on that which is actually true. I changed my focus to the pursuit of valid evidence and the unfettered appreciation of actual truth."
So by you admitting that "This guy gets it." are you admitting that you do not "get it" since you remain to be an atheist?
Yes, indeed I agree that Jesus weeps to your rebellion and prideful dishonor towards God. "Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!"
If you feel *Jesus wept* because of my inability to convert Atheists to Christianity then you misunderstand my purpose according to the Bible. The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
I wept also but I have faith that you will understand completely one day and hopefully we can have a cool beverage and laugh about these days in heaven. Unless your pride gets in the way that is.
so many everywhere corrupting changing shifting i cannot speak shouted out by the many so loud my borken no not never
ReplyDeleteHe said: "I found atheism to be an unnecessary, rationalized contraction of total reality, a self-enforced myopia used to focus upon myself, rather than on that which is actually true. I changed my focus to the pursuit of valid evidence and the unfettered appreciation of actual truth."
ReplyDeleteYeesh. What a load. That's what a theist would say about atheism. I've never heard of an atheist saying that. This has got to be a strawman by that guy Kip's linked to...
The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
What?
PS: Now look what you guys have done; you've broken Kaitlyn!
ReplyDeleteI don't know Dan... I'm not really moved by some Jewish Zombie (No offence, but it's true!) weeping for me... let alone your weeping. Convince us with logic and evidence without using the Bible. (Remember... the Bible IS illogical)
ReplyDeleteDan said...
ReplyDeleteBy briefly looking at things on that blog tells me he may "get" it to you but does he "get" Christianity?
He claims to be a student of Jesus and Judeo-Christianity.
So by you admitting that "This guy gets it." are you admitting that you do not "get it" since you remain to be an atheist?
By "get it", I meant he understands the atheist worldview since he used to be one. He doesn't resort to the kind of fallacies and irrationality you do. I'm looking into each of his arguments to see if they're sound, but for now it looks like one big straw man.
The mere fact that you are an Atheist means you have been debunked without any effort on my part evidenced by the Bible,Dr. Bahnsen, and "This guy that gets it."
1) The Bible is no more evidence for your religion than the other religions' holy books are to them. The Koran could just as easily be the Word of God. If you actually study the Bible, or better yet, read it pick apart by a skeptic, it becomes obvious that it was written by mortal men, not inspired by a source of infinite wisdom.
2) I had to do a Google search to find out who Dr. Greg Bahnsen is. Christian apologists rarely impress me, but since I haven't read Bahnsen's works I can't give him fair judgement.
3) I'm in the middle of interviewing "the guy who gets it" via email about his conversion. He makes an interesting case, but he hasn't convinced me that Christianity is true.
I wept also but I have faith that you will understand completely one day and hopefully we can have a cool beverage and laugh about these days in heaven. Unless your pride gets in the way that is.
Did the tone of my comment make me come off proud? I actually try to be humble and open-minded in my life, but pride has no bearing on my rejection of the Christian religion.
Now, I realize you're a good guy whose heart's in the right place, so thank you for your compassion over the welfare of my soul. (*rolls eyes*) But I care about defending the Truth. I know your religion and your god means a lot to you, indeed, it helped you straighten up your act, but now it's time to move on. You can't base your life on a myth. It's unhealthy to the person believing the myth, it breaks ones heart to know that they won't reap the reward (Heaven) for dedication to the myth, and it's immoral to let the myth continue to spread.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteBahnsen-Tabash is here:
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/does-god-exist-a-debate-bahnsen-tabash-1of-3/6111891
Wiki says he died years ago.
ReplyDeleteHe actually was a PHD.unlike most of that ilk using Dr. as a title.
It's sad that seemingly intelligent people still threaten those under them. This one with a test and toasted toosties in the hot spot if they don't toe the party line and vote GOP
Anyway, back to the video...
ReplyDeleteIt's like a proton where you split an atom and something new comes out. And then it's a liquid and you can use it to clean yourself. So that make it worthwhile and you do it.
Obviously, there's a problem of sunlight on stains. But I cannot understand why someone would use sunlight like that.
I guess it's all a matter of drumming, and so it's explained.
Drumming: now that's something I can get behind. When I have troubles that are not accessible to reason, drumming helps. After a while, I don't have the feeling that "I" am drumming, but rather that I'm privileged to join part of the Dance.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I hear you.
ReplyDeleteI have been trying to get good at Rock Band drumming for a while, but my feet and hands want to do something different all the time. I'm actually better at the plastic guitar than the drums, but I almost always play the drums and not the guitar.
This is an interesting point though about feet where the hands and feet have their own mind. It feels like you have a will when you don't and they sort of go their own way and shift.
That's what I was talking about earlier and using the liquid to clean yourself. The liquid is uncomfortable, but the sunlight burns stains in and makes them visible. So the liquid becomes preferable.
So it all comes down to drumming. That eliminates the liquid and the sunshine.
Uh, Kaitlyn? Are you getting enough sleep? Just wondering...
ReplyDeleteYes. No. Enough sleep. Am I making a bunch of spelling mistakes?
ReplyDeleteI have been trying not to sleep too much because it's too hard to living without the dreams coming. I can't tell the difference, and I get angry. It's not good obviously, but as long as I'm awake, I am fine. No one bothers me.
Sorry if my grammar isn't so good.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI know that Christians are taught to be like children. Maybe we have been going about this all wrong trying to explain our rational worldview. Maybe Susie Smartypants can help you!
Darrin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that debate. Yea! Now I have to scrub my days plans. Oops my addictions are showing.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteI have been trying not to sleep too much because it's too hard to living without the dreams coming. I can't tell the difference, and I get angry.
I had a satanist girlfriend in the past who said the very same thing. She hated those awful dreams. I have a poster for you that might help. Don't you think it's time for a wholesome life yet?
I sleep great at night, I wish you the same...someday.
Kip,
ReplyDeleteI'm looking into each of his arguments to see if they're sound, but for now it looks like one big straw man.
Straw man.
First, if he was 40 years long the way he describes atheists, he must have been a very unpleasant person indeed. His viewpoint on atheists is actually pretty vile. As is his viewpoint on 'the left'. Read his posts and see what he labels easily as 'fascism'.
On logic, his "First principles" use very crude definitions of reason, leading to fuzzy and outright false extrapolations in his "Second Level Effects of the First Principles". Those contain numerous logical fallacies (although less obvious as Sye's arguments).
Clos,
ReplyDeleteEvolutionstheorie künstlich Regeln, eine Art von Ursache, bevor es eine Chance hat, zu sprechen von der Evidenz. Die Ursache der Intelligenz. Dies ist der Grund, warum sie Taube Loch selbst und Wissenschaftler oft tragen, mit Stolz, den Titel des metaphysischen Naturalismus. Wer nun die Gefahren von Wissenschaftlern, die philosophischen Positionen wie diese?
Clos- Susi is very cute. Perhaps she would debate Ray Comfort for $10,000. I bet she would win.
ReplyDeleteDan: that last post of yours is ungrammatical and makes no sense. Did you babblefish it? If you tell me what you are trying to say in English, I'll translate it into good German for you.
Sorry Zilch,
ReplyDeleteEvolutionstheorie streicht künstlich eine Art Ursache durch, bevor sie eine Wahrscheinlichkeit hat, durch den Beweis zu sprechen. Die Ursache der Intelligenz. Deshalb tragen sie Taubeloch selbst und Wissenschaftler häufig, mit Stolz, den Titel metaphysischem Naturalismus. Sieht jemand jetzt die Gefahren der Wissenschaftler, die philosophische Stellungen wie dieses nehmen?
Better?
Susi is very cute.
Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!
"Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, better to put makeup on her for her little show and teach her about the wonders of this life and how to treat other people than to fill her head with a bunch of nonsense about an invisible being in the sky that kills and burns anyone who doesn't agree with Him or even believe in him.
Dan, have you seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbIa9fZuTFA
ReplyDeleteHe says we are the children of evolution and not creation. You can't disagree it's impossible because then the message doesn't make sense anymore.
Just pick up the metronome, and you'll see what I mean. It can't go any other way.
Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores. That makeup and hair was not for a little girl her age. She looked disgusting to me. It was also sad to pimp her in an endeavor that will help her to stay away from God. Yuck!
ReplyDeleteI think kittens, puppies and Kaitlyn's avatar are cute. I think it's scary that someone says "cute" and you start thinking about sex and "whores".
Dan writes:
ReplyDelete"Don't you think it's time for a wholesome life yet?"
I don't know. Isn't my life already wholesome? What do you know about my life? Are you looking in my apartment!? BE HONEST!!!!!
http://www.leekspin.com/
ReplyDeleteBahnsen- The groundhogs are delivering his mail these days.
ReplyDeleteI had a satanist girlfriend in the past who said the very same thing. She hated those awful dreams. I have a poster for you that might help. Don't you think it's time for a wholesome life yet?
ReplyDeleteI sleep great at night, I wish you the same...someday.
I used to be nervous and sleep badly. Then I took Zoloft and cut sugar out of my diet. Now I sleep great. Did you really have a Satanist girlfriend? I thought Satanists were only in movies. Or maybe some goth teenagers. (Some, not all!)
And Kaitlyn seems pretty wholesome to me.
Leekspin? Oh, leekspin!
"Cute? Sure if you like illegal whores."
ReplyDeleteYou ought to check out what the fundies are doing with kids in videos of Jesus camp, etc.
Homeschoolers are always hollering about wanting the controversy taught in public schools, yet I'm sure they don't teach evolution to their own kids so they can decide on their own.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeletehave you seen this video
No, but he sang "Love evolved to spread our genes", why not rape to spread our genes? It works for seals. Survival of the fittest? Silly elitist Atheists, your days are numbered.
The kids and I enjoyed dancing to it though, another opportunity for truth...thanks.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteHomeschoolers are always hollering about wanting the controversy taught in public schools, yet I'm sure they don't teach evolution to their own kids so they can decide on their own.
I do. What do you know about my life? Are you looking in my house!? BE HONEST!!!!!
Chris Mackey,
ReplyDeleteI think kittens, puppies and Kaitlyn's avatar are cute. I think it's scary that someone says "cute" and you start thinking about sex and "whores".
I admit that was a little harsh. I didn't think she looked cute at all because cute is associated with the things you mentioned. I lashed out and I owe Zilch an apology.
Zilch,
Sorry dude. I was not inferring anything gross at all.
Politely and kindly I should of just said: I don't think she is cute with all that makeup and hair the way it is.
Can I blame you Atheists for that? No, I didn't think so. It's hard to be Christ like at times. This time was a big fail on my part.
"I do. What do you know about my life? Are you looking in my house!? BE HONEST!!!!!"
ReplyDeleteMy apartment has windows people use to spy on me, and I hear my speakers flicker even when they are off. There's electronic surveillance equipment creating an interference bubble. I want to find all the mics and cameras, but I can't without destroying the entire apartment. The key is to be quiet.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteI want to find all the mics and cameras, but I can't without destroying the entire apartment.
Didn't Ozzy say that "Paranoia will destroy you"
Remember that being a Christian all fear should leave you. You are no longer afraid of anyone, for any reason. (Matthew 10:28)
Bonus: No fear of Hell.
We fear God sure but it's more of a respect towards him fear. Fear to disappoint but that may even be unwarranted, in Christ we can do all things. Especially live a clean wholesome life in this world.
Someone once said to me that in order to get a handle on your morals is imagine if all what you do is plastered all over the morning news paper. If it makes you cringe then maybe you are doing something immoral or embarrassing.
If my life was plastered all over the morning news paper then there would be just a loss of subscribers from boredom but nothing really embarrassing to try to hide from.
My life can be an open book, I wish the same confidence for you Kaitlyn. No one should live like you appear to be living.
Dan- apology accepted. Perhaps I'm just too innocent, but for me, "cute" doesn't necessarily have sexual connotations at all. Hey, I must admit, I even find you cute at times.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to agree about Susi's makeup- it just looks silly. However, I'm funny about makeup- I don't like it on grownups either. But that's television and/or bad taste.
What I found cute about Susi is the way she delivered the message. She is still young enough to get away with being a smartypants and look cute doing it. When you or I try it, we just look childish.
Anyway: your German text is now better, although there's still one grammatical error (the "sie" in the third sentence, which means "they" or "she", has no referent- I suspect a typo). I don't agree with the sentiment, however (big surprise, eh?).
Kaitlyn: are you putting us on, or putting us off?
"My life can be an open book, I wish the same confidence for you Kaitlyn."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean?
"No one should live like you appear to be living."
What?
"Remember that being a Christian all fear should leave you. You are no longer afraid of anyone, for any reason. (Matthew 10:28)"
ReplyDeleteAnd does this work in practice? You'd go out in the 'yard' with prisoners? And wouldn't be afraid? You could break the ice by telling them you debunk atheists!
Not only that, Clos, but there's one additional fear Christians have that atheists don't:
ReplyDeleteFear of not being a true Christian
aka. Christians still fear Hell
Wem,
ReplyDeleteFear of not being a true Christian
aka. Christians still fear Hell
It's not Christians who still fear Hell but false converts as they should. When I realized I was one then, ouch, I was frightened to the core. I had a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17) and feared Him (Proverbs 9:10) because it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31) when opposing Him.
God did reveal to me I was being a false convert. That is no longer the case. Amen. It was revealed to me that I am soundly saved and He will not let go of me anymore. I am written in the Book of life. Amen again
I am sure you realize you are not a Christian. I know with certainty that I am, and it's humbling me daily. I wish you the same someday.
Dan wrote I am sure you realize you are not a Christian. I know with certainty that I am
ReplyDeleteA question for you, Dan: how many "false" Christians are certain that they're not false?
Take your time answering this one; it's a tough question...
how many "false" Christians are certain that they're not false?
ReplyDeleteZero
How many "false" christians have said (like Dan says) that they were certain they were not false. (I'm pretty sure that one's not zero.) After labelling someone a "false convert," it is easy to go back and say they were never certain.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDeleteAfter labelling someone a "false convert," it is easy to go back and say they were never certain.
Great point, I just knew I would have to explain this reasoning.
If someone is certain they are a Christian then how do they know this? Well they presuppose the authority of God's Word. So if that Word tells that they are in fact a stony ground hearer, like my case, then the authority of the Bible said that I am, in fact, not a Christian. If, as a Christian, I am to rely on the Bibles authority then I must, logically and honestly, admit that I am not a Christian and rely on the description of a Christian.
My buddy has a friend that claims Christianity but he goes to porn shops and porn website all then time. Or use Ted Haggard as the example even (unrepentant sinning). Does the Bible describe this "fruit" as a Christian? Nope, so then he is not a Christian no matter how much he asserts that he is or was. You cannot be certain of Christianity without honoring the authority of God's Word.
So there is zero professed Christians (false converts) that, under the authority of the Bible, are certain of their Salvation.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteThat's all very nice, but it evades the point. If you or someone like you were later to decide that christianity was not true, fundamentalists would still use the "false christian" label. No, I am talking about people who were convinced and acted the part, but who later left christianity. I am talking about people that you would only identify in retrospect "reasons why their faith was not true."
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteNo, I am talking about people who were convinced and acted the part, but who later left christianity. I am talking about people that you would only identify in retrospect "reasons why their faith was not true."
Acted was the proper word. If the Bible declares there is no such thing as an ex Christian then the "authority " still stands.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteWe just assume logic
So you use it without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. Great we are through then, God exists.
Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.
Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.
ReplyDeleteI think what you mean is that Christianity could potentially provide an explanation for these things if it were true. The same could be said about Islam or Judaism or any other number of theistic "worldviews." The fact that any one of them could potentially provide an explanation for these things should show you that your argument fails. I am sure you will not recognize that though.
So you use [logic] without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. [sic]
ReplyDeleteDan, you're so full of crap. Until you met Sye the Douchebag, you, too, used logic -- well, you tried -- without any consideration whatsoever as to its origin. I doubt many of us, if any, ever gave the origin of logic a second thought -- a first thought -- before our initial encounter with Sye. As many others have pointed out, it is dishonest to dispute premises upon which all parties agree.
Anyway, until you're able either to promote the TAG crap on your own, I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd stop copy/pasting Sye's bullshit. It's disingenuous at the very least, and your clumsiness makes the attempts all the more pathetic.
As far as the so-called "account" for logic that you demand, and that you claim TAG provides, you seem to ignore the various atheist-friendly 'accounts' for logic which have been provided... either that, or you don't understand them. Likewise, persons such as myself have often illustrated how the TAG "account" does not presuppose the existence of any god (much less the Christian god), but it instead falls prey to the same presupposition that plagues everyone: that they have a valid ability to reason. It is only through this presupposition that things like logic and mathematics can be formulated, and that conclusions such as the existence or non-existence of deity can be drawn.
Additionally, even if TAG were valid, it would apply to any proposed system which included a deity to "account" for logic, etc. Thus, any [internally consistent] proposed religion would be able to use TAG to justify itself, even if such a religion is mutually exclusive of other religions [for which TAG would likewise apply]. Thus, TAG is insufficient, even if we grant for the sake of argument that it is valid; it does not provide discriminating criteria upon which the "correct" deity can be distinguished from every proposed deity.
--
Stan
No response, Dan? Are you intentionally ignoring this thread, considering your position therein, or were you biding your time before offering a well-reasoned response?
ReplyDeleteYou must know that the manner in which you drop one thread in favor of a new one with [poorly] rehashed arguments suggests that you ditch good topics when things aren't going your way... or has this, too, escaped your notice?
Really, I'm interested in a response here, but if you've moved on, so be it.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteDo you wish I would sell my kids to free up time to answer your precious comments? I have always said that squeaky wheels gets my attention so since you are emulating a mouse I will turn my attention to you. Some comments stand alone so I don't respond to all of them. I move on but never move out. All comments come to me so even if someone wanted to continue "Battle of Wits?" we could.
I doubt many of us, if any, ever gave the origin of logic a second thought -- a first thought -- before our initial encounter with Sye. As many others have pointed out, it is dishonest to dispute premises upon which all parties agree.
True we all take it (logic) for granted, it is worth exploring where exactly it comes from and Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Bahnsen, and others state a compelling case. It's quite new to me and I am playing catch up. Oh and to claim it "dishonest" to explore such a thing doesn't make it so. That action is disingenuous on your part (see?).
It's disingenuous at the very least, and your clumsiness makes the attempts all the more pathetic.
So? We are not all expert skaters from the very beginning. Did your Mom rag you for not being able to walk, right away, as a baby? Did she yell at you for not knowing calculus in second grade? We all have starting points. You are being disingenuously hypocritical. One thing for sure is that I like it. I like the fact TAG even stopped myself to attempt to answer such questions. I cannot account for logic other then God.
but it instead falls prey to the same presupposition that plagues everyone: that they have a valid ability to reason.
Way to go captain obvious. Psst, hey, I will let you in on a secret, all worldviews have presuppositions. THe problem is you cannot reason why your reason is consistent or valid.
You must presuppose God in order for anything to make sense. Like what I wrote in the Josh post:
"Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally."
Otherwise maybe you can tell us how you can be certain of your logic? To really piss you off I will quote Sye: "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."
It is simple how do you account for the laws of logic existing before space/time? They transcend the universe and allow us to understand said universe. It just makes "logical" sense. It is reasonable to account for logic with God. It simplifies the description to even allow Occam's Razor to apply.
I will admit that I have a lot to learn still. Are you saying that you stopped learning?
When you make a statement like "until you're able either to promote the TAG crap on your own,..." So are you claiming all knowledge on any given subject before you engage in any discussions? Otherwise you need to stop talking all together then. Unless you are being disingenuous. Pfft.
I asked Reynold this but he couldn't answer. I said: So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?
Hope this was worth the wait.
Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case. The Creator is the the creator of the universe the one we use to account for logic. It just so happens that same Creator is described in His Word called The Holy Bible. I suppose you can write that off as just another coincidence but how can you be certain of that...or anything for that matter?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"[H]ow do you account for the laws of logic existing before space/time?"
Did you notice your contradiction? The very concept of "before" implies time. So there is no such thing as "before time." One might say that logic exists independent of time, as I say that it exists independent of any god.
"Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case."
There is just as much evidence for those gods as there is for yours -- none. You have not made a case for the christian god in particular. You just assume it.
All worldviews do have presumptions, things which are implicit to the worldview and thus not accounted for. Logic is one of my presumptions. It's one of yours as well. You only pretend to account for it with your god. You have to use it to do the "accounting" and thus demonstrate that you have it as a presumption.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI asked Reynold this but he couldn't answer. I said: So you account for logic with "Greeks did it"?
They're the first ones to work them out, without any help from your "god".
Hope this was worth the wait.
Oh yea one more thing, the only God there is is the God of the Bible. If you want to argue the Qur'an's god or the Hindu's god(s) then present your case. The Creator is the the creator of the universe the one we use to account for logic. It just so happens that same Creator is described in His Word called The Holy Bible. I suppose you can write that off as just another coincidence but how can you be certain of that...or anything for that matter?
If your god is the basis of logic then please show that. List the bible verses where the laws of logic are laid down.
Until then, you've got nothing.
As for being able to "account" for laws of logic, they don't need "accounting" for any more than the rules of mathematics do.
How can your god "create" ideas? What makes you so certain that the laws of logic wouldn't exist independently of your god?
As I said before on Ray's blog if god picked out the laws of logic that made sense, then they exist independently of him and he's not necessary for them to exist. He'd just be the first one to figure them out.
If any "law of logic" your god picked out became "logical" or "sensible" because he decreed it, then the laws of logic are arbitrary based on his will.
Don't dodge this by saying what Sye used to say: "Neither". They're a part of his nature. That's just a fancy way of agreeing with the first option and doesn't help your case.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete...
ReplyDeleteI know, this is kinda late to be commenting on this, but LOL at Christianity being a cure to the fear of being a nonChristian! That's like saying deism is a cure to the fear of being a non-deist! The only difference is that in the end Christianity is a cure of fearing God's wrath, kinda like the sun-worshippers who gave their gods human sacrifices to save them from their paranoia of their gods...