October 17, 2009

2012 Possible Future Scenario?

Thanks to G, I watched this logical possibility of our future presented by Chris White.

Will it be like the Dani'El situation, or will it really happen? Once again, only time will tell. If the Atheists are aware and recognize things as it is happening then maybe, just maybe, they too will be persecuted as Christians. Nothing would make me happier because that would mean that the current atheists that I know will not be deceived by the deceiver and will be saved. Hallelujah!



Mark 13:32-37 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."

All of this would not, and could not, happen if everyone just kept the oath of the Constitution they took. Are you an Oath Keeper?

For a list of the orders you are not to follow [read this]

75 comments:

  1. No one knows! No one knows!The babble says no one knows but by the velcro that holds yer under thing-a ma-giggies up,we'll keep telling everyone when by gum. Yes sir any day now. It's the signs I tell yer it's the signs.
    Who needs an A-game when you post this crap?
    Dax

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, f**k. I don't even know what to say anymore.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,
    I think you're taking the wrong lessons from the "Daniel" situation.

    The right lesson is not to believe any of this nonsense, and just get on with living your one miracle of a life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What Dax, Reynold, and Oranges said. Dan- shall I send you to the Bible Code people too, so you can join them in predicting the nuclear destruction of NY for the two hundredth time? Or maybe the JW's were right, and the world ended in 1925, but no one noticed? What I have noticed is that people have been predicting the end of the world for a long time, based on this or that scripture, and it hasn't ended yet.

    Time to wake up, Dan. It doesn't bother me if you remain a Christian, but puleeze don't peddle second-hand vainglorious delusions of prophetic power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>Time to wake up, Dan.

    This kind of stuff never effects my salvation. I am watchful and looking for the signs but I never have lost sleep over this stuff. I am confidently prepared for anything God throws at me. If the world ends in a couple of days, a couple of years, or a couple of decades, I am ready...are you?

    I merely find it entertaining and hope if it does come true that it will not be the atheists I know who are leading the mob to "kill" the Christians. Not because I am scared or anything like that, but because I care about you guys and don't want the harm of God's wrath on anyone here.

    Plus, I am buying time since I don't have that much to post blogs, today is after all the baby's due date.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan,

    It might be better to post nothing than to post THE MOST IDIOTIC RETARDED BULLSHIT ON THE INTERNET.
    Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan: I wish you and Patty the best for a healthy baby and mother, and rest assured: I will never lead a mob to kill you. I might give you a painful hug, though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. zilch said...
    "Dan: I wish you and Patty the best for a healthy baby and mother, and rest assured: I will never lead a mob to kill you. I might give you a painful hug, though."

    My sentiments, exactly.
    Except....I'd give you a big noogie.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good luck with the new baby Dan!

    ReplyDelete
  10.      "This kind of stuff never effects my salvation."
         I would suggest that nothing has ever effected it. It doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Too far fetched for you Heather?

    I take it you don't believe in end times or are you saying that it is contradictory of Revelation of the Bible?

    Expound a little. Oh and btw, welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The reality isn't that the world is going to end, the reality is that fundamentalist Christians are just a bunch of masochists.

    Y2K didn't work out for you, so now you're all hoping that they Maya were right; talk about idolatry and believing in false Gods.

    Again, this just all comes down to you being a masochist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Andrew

    Ya 2012 is a freaking joke but, what's the point of your insults toward Christians? why masochist?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Having watched the video, I can tell you, there's this guy, who told everyone he was talking to this channeled entity, and when when he was done conversing with this channeled entity, he came back with some stones with 10 rules carved on them.

    Of course, everyone believed him (Moses) because, of course, he was talking to a channeled being.

    Ahhhhh, how your own nonsense works against you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Andrew

    Sorry but I don't see the link with "masochist"

    "Ahhhhh, how your own nonsense works against you."

    Was that addressed to me? Precise what you mean...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hugo,

    special note on the word "fundamentalist". with your comment, you've detached that qualifier and left yourself with me jabbing just Christians in general, which I was obviously not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hugo,

    MASOCHIST:
    someone who obtains pleasure from receiving punishment

    From my comment, surely you can deduce that I'm drawing on the natural generalization and stereotype that all fundamentalist Christians are always hopped up about the end of the world. Almost to the point that they want it to happen.....

    I thought that point was implicit, i.e. implied but not directly expressed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Andrew

    Thx for the explanations, I understand what you meant. But obviously you are wrong in saying that fundamentalist Christians who await for the coming end of time want to suffer; they are convinced of their own salvation so it's not them who is going to suffer, but the others, the non-believers.

    Anyway, your comment was just a pointless insult, that was my point, and your explanations confirmed it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, Hugo, actually it wasn't pointless at all. If what I have presented was mere conjecture (with no basis whatsoever), what you've presented is merely more of the same. You said:

    "they are convinced of their own salvation so it's not them who is going to suffer, but the others, the non-believers."

    Really? Wow, do tell. I didn't realize you were the voice of Christians everywhere?

    If you believe there is something to the contentions surrounding 2012, by all means, lets here it. Otherwise, it's clear to see that those perpetuating the end of the world myths surrounding it are in many cases, FUNDIES. Not rational atheists and sound minded individuals, etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  20. PS, Hugo,

    just re-read Dan's first paragraph, and and do some thinking....

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andrew:
    "I didn't realize you were the voice of Christians everywhere?"

    LOL
    My point was only that I don't think that anybody wants the end time to arrive to suffer... everybody, except masochists, want to avoid pain, no?

    "If you believe there is something to the contentions surrounding 2012, by all means, lets here it."

    Nope, nothing special will happen in my own opinion... expect realistic things that are planned of course, like elections in the USA, or the solar activity cycle reaching a maximum, things like that...

    "Otherwise, it's clear to see that those perpetuating the end of the world myths surrounding it are in many cases, FUNDIES. Not rational atheists and sound minded individuals, etc. etc."

    Yes of course it's fundamentalist Christians who perpetuate the idea of the end of time coming. What's your point? What does this have to do with calling Christians, especially fundamentalists, masochist?

    Again, according to the definition that we agree on, masochists want to be tortured, they like pain, why do you say that this is what fundamentalist Christians are looking for?

    just re-read Dan's first paragraph, and and do some thinking....

    The first paragraph was:
    Thanks to G, I watched this logical possibility of our future presented by Chris White.

    Hum, you meant the second I guess... Anyway, I think what he wrote is non-sense as I don't think anything will happen, what else do you want me to say about it?

    Plus, I don't see how Atheists could be persecuted like Christians, and I don't see why he thinks that Atheists will be saved by believing in the 2012 thing... so ya, I really have nothing to say about it because it means nothing in my own opinion, and that's why I had not said anything about it up to now...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hugo, (I'm a bit amused now)
    I'm not sure you're quite getting me here...? It almost seems like you're looking for an argument with me or something, which I'm happy to deliver.

    Look, I hop in to comment on Dan's blog here and there. I have been doing so for over a year now - he can attest to that, along with the long standing commenters such as Zilch and Stan. My point, I often times try to get a rise out of Dan, although others I try for an actual argument.

    In this case, I think Dan understands the context of my comment.

    Having said all that, in a funny way I honestly do think there are some Christians who hope for the end of the world, but would flinch at the final site. i.e. they want the scar, but not the suffering that comes along with it. This is a bit masochistic without all the juicy parts.

    Now, if want to argue particulars, fine, but come on - I'm being as serious as the post, and I'm sure you can see that now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andrew,
    I am not starting to be a bit amused, I have been all along! I have not stopped laughing since you wrote "Ahhhhh, how your own nonsense works against you."

    I am sure you'll understand why very soon, if not already.

    Nope, I don't have any points to make right now. Perhaps I could point that I do agree that "there are some Christians who [...] want the scar, but not the suffering that comes along with it. This is a bit masochistic...", because they "want" to be persecuted; it reinforces their faith and the prophecies of their holy book.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Recently, Stan decided to not comment here anymore by the way...

    ReplyDelete
  25. PS,
    the Moses comment was not directed at you of course. It was merely an analogy to the video - quite fitting to I think.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stan just said that he was tired of writing here, no specific reason I think...

    I was already tired of writing here after only a week of reading Dan's circular reasoning, but I realized that other people have been discussing with Dan for more than a year already, so I thought I might take Stan's "job" for a few more weeks at least ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, Hugo, if you make a point to stop by once a month (maybe once every two), it's not so bad...

    But, if you stay any longer then a few days in a row, you'll stab your eyes out with hot pokers and become a masochist just like them.

    I have a stream of fundy blogs I like to poop on here and there - you know how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ya if you just come by to tell Christians that they are masochist I guess you can call that poop, lol ;)

    Anyway, don't worry about my sanity, it's mainly for entertainment purposes that I comment on such blogs. However, I do learn stuff too, and my "non-faith" just becomes stronger every time. Not that I choose to of course, it's only that each and every single argument presented is always unconvincing for different reasons, so the next time I see it, I know what to reply even more quickly.

    Dan taught me about Presuppositionalism and how giving an account to logic, for example, can be so important for people like him. He's bad at using it, but he KNOWS where it comes from, go figure...

    So now I guess you understood why I thought it was funny to see you imply that I was a Christian? ;)
    And of course, I remained vague on purpose to tease you...

    ReplyDelete
  29. A.) I didn't imply you were a christian...? Or ever think you were one.

    B.) Masochism was clearly a hyperbole considering the post and the context. Nonetheless it could be defended in a limited sense, but I would never do so. It was meant for a reaction.

    You seemed to come off as though you wanted to argue it, and now we've gotten off on the wrong foot.

    C.) Again, the comment about Moses was for Dan (NOT you), and a direct analogy to the video. I commented before seeing that you had. As you can see, both the comments were made at 3:33....

    Anyway, Hugo,
    hello, my name is Andrew, and I'm a neo-pragmatist. I tend towards the philosophy of Rorty, Davidson and Wittgenstein, and would consider myself a theist, but not a christian per se.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm starting to realize now why I don't come here that often. Looks like I'll see you guys in a couple months... Or so.

    You boys have fun now, don't go usin' up all yer logic in one place.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A) Ok, my mistake... but... ;)

    Hugo, 3:26: why masochist?
    Andrew, 3:29: Ahhhhh, how your own nonsense works against you. (was not adressed to me, but 3 minutes after... can be confusing...)
    Hugo, 3:33: -irrelevant-
    Andrew, 3:33: Hugo, special note on the word "fundamentalist". with your comment, you've detached that qualifier and left yourself with me jabbing just Christians in general, which I was obviously not."

    ...

    Andrew, 4:15: "I didn't realize you were the voice of Christians everywhere? "

    I was supposed to not think you considered me a Christian at that point? ok... lol

    B) Sure

    C) Nice to meet you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Take care Andrew... not much to see here I agree!

    ReplyDelete
  33. And wait a minute.... You learned presuppositionalism... From Dan, ha-ha. I realize you're kidding, but...

    Dan, are you trying out SyTenB's bag of presuppositional tricks now? Where was I for that one?

    How does that go again?
    God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

    and how do you know that?
    because without him nothing would exist.

    And how do you know that?
    because of the impossibility of the contrary.

    Bwaaahahahahahahaha

    Oh yeah, and we top that off with, "all proofs for God are necessarily circular, but all other circular arguments are invalid except one that is for the christian God."

    Boy, I'm way behind, Dan...

    ReplyDelete
  34. No no I was not kidding! I had never heard the exact term "presuppositionalism " before honestly, but it's so dumb that I understood quickly why I had not!

    I had heard that kind of arguments before of course, when people say that God is the source of logic, morale, etc... and I thought it was a kind of "first cause" argument, but people try to avoid the circular reasoning usually; Dan does not... and he embraces presuppositionalism without shame or even question.

    I saw a quote of Dr. Craig bashing presuppositionalism so when "rational" Christians reject it quickly it's clear that it does not deserve too much attention...

    And yes, your summary is very accurate...

    I would like to know why you consider yourself a theist Andrew. We should discuss that somewhere else...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why I consider myself a theist, well... That's a big question...

    I think you and I (along with most atheists in general) reject the same sort of Christianity, viz, a conception based on Platonist reasoning - or better put, "realism".

    The general foundation of a Platonist position is in the appearance/reality distinction. Wherein, behind all appearances is some underlying fundamental reality. An atheist may argue that he uses science to break past appearance to fundamental reality (that science is the key to truth), and in this way he becomes a materialist. A theist may argue that behind his religious dialogue is an actual being per se that is the ultimate authority, and this makes him a fundamentalist.

    You can see why these two types of people have been fighting it out for so long, begging the question the each other for decades. Both sides believe they have the path to underlying truth, but neither side can offer anything up that isn't ultimately circular.

    Anyway, I reject Platonism all together.

    I'll hit you up later, Hugo, I gotta hit the sack.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey can I join the conversation? Welcome back Andrew.

    >>Y2K didn't work out for you,...

    Actually it did for some people. Many people made barrels full of cash off the Y2K scare, mostly IT guys. Plus the movie 2012 and all the "left behind series," books and movies is making someone a boat load of cash also, so things have "worked out" from a capitalist point of view.

    Oh as far as the all Christians are masochists comment.

    That just isn't true, just because I like to be tied up and spanked every once in a while doesn't mean we all do. :7)

    >>I often times try to get a rise out of Dan...

    The method you chose to do such a thing at the beginning was a complete failure on your part. That might of worked with you, but not this dude. :7)

    >>Having said all that, in a funny way I honestly do think there are some Christians who hope for the end of the world, but would flinch at the final site.

    I struggled with that one for a bit. I want the evil to end today at this very second, If God needs to destroy the world to do so then so be it. But you are right to a point, when I am getting separated from my family and persecuted I will be pretty frazzled and would get pretty violent. Give me strength not to, if that is your wish Lord.

    >>But, if you stay any longer then a few days in a row, you'll stab your eyes out with hot pokers and become a masochist just like them.

    The plan is working, Mwahahahahhaha...

    >>Dan, are you trying out SyTenB's bag of presuppositional tricks now? Where was I for that one?

    There are plenty of posts about it but the latest is...Uniform Universe?

    Oh and the next post, if I get to it, might deal with human dignity asking why atheists cannot account for it. It should be a hoot.

    Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel.

    ReplyDelete
  37. SOLUTION:

    All of this would not, and could not, happen if everyone just kept the oath of the Constitution they took. Are you an Oath Keeper?

    For a list of the orders you are not to follow [read this]

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Dan
    "All of this would not, and could not, happen if everyone just kept the oath of the Constitution they took"

    Is that a solution for the 2012 "problem" ?

    Phew... that's great, so it means it's only an American thing after all? Thanks Dan, what a relief!

    ReplyDelete
  39. >>Phew... that's great, so it means it's only an American thing after all?

    Hmm good point, more thought needed.

    I know that a United America is unstoppable and cannot be overtaken. If America is united to uphold our constitution and protect us Christians then there will be no problems. if, read when, our dollar crashes and we lose our economy and we get split up among the other nations then we Christians will be in trouble. The beginning of the end is when the FED (Federal Reserve System) was started. That is when we handed our country over to the enemy and we are under their control. They are no more federal then federal express yet they own our country. The creation of the Fed ended our constitution. *sigh

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm not sure whether or not this is really worth arguing... But, is armagedon a theist notion, or an atheist notion? What I'm eluding to is the general idea that there is going to be an end of times with death and destruction of some sort, and a final judgement.

    ---

    It's a legitimate point to talk about Y2K with respect to the computor issue and the resulting histaria. Certainly there were regular folks who over reacted to media hype, but ultimately what we were dealing with was a "REAL" problem, not God's wrath or some mythical second coming.

    I would argue (and I think this is pretty obvious) that much of the hype is perpetuated while considering religious dogma sorrounding the end of the world. i.e. people associate this turn of the century issue with God's final judgement, etc. etc.

    I would further argue that (as a thought experiment) were we a society without such armagedon myths, the Y2K scenario would never have been hyped.

    So what I'm getting at is root cause. Which is, I beleive, religious dogma.

    Why not take all the nervouse energy that one puts into supporting end of the world myths and actually try to do somethig positive>

    ReplyDelete
  41. Of course, I'm just arm waving here, as this is quite the nebulous topic with all sorts of cultural contingencies at play.

    I'd rather not argue it simply because we'll get deadlocked in biased commentary - much like I've jsut delivered. i.e. it's politics, not philosophy. And I have no real interest (personally) in debating politics.

    I'll wait, Dan, for nice new juicy post from you. Consider to this point that I've just given you a long HELLO-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hugo,
    on my theism, perhaps this is a good place to start (the link below), to perhaps give you an idea of my position. If you'd like to discuss, I'm open to any forum..... I've neglected my own blog as of late due to being busy...

    Two Horns of Realism and Non-realism

    ReplyDelete
  44. Andrew et al,

    >>I would argue (and I think this is pretty obvious) that much of the hype is perpetuated while considering religious dogma surrounding the end of the world. i.e. people associate this turn of the century issue with God's final judgment, etc. etc.

    You did make me think of something important to point out.

    It is not just the Bible the describes the end times.

    Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and other mediums, are predicting it. The famous Mayan calendar ends on December 21st, 2012. A general consensus of many people of different tribes and religions and mediums believe it and even SCIENCE itself predicts an end times for mankind.

    So this phenomena is not isolated to Christians by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure atheists want to place the blame solely on us, yet again, but that just is not the case.

    The others may comport with the Bible even if they don't believe in the Bible. Imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Andrew Louis,

    I owe you an apology.

    I mistook you for a different Andrew, I had one here sending a sick website to me many times and I mistook you from him.

    So please disregard this comment:

    "The method you chose to do such a thing at the beginning was a complete failure on your part. That might of worked with you, but not this dude. :7)"

    in response to your

    >>I often times try to get a rise out of Dan...

    Completely different person. You were much kinder. Still, welcome back.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Again, Dan, you are right about other cultures Armageddon Myths. But once again, here in the west the Maya prediction (and other BS mediums) are used as evidence to support their own Armageddon mythology. Which is a bit of false idol worship if you think about it. And folks like Edgar Casey and Nostradamose are nothing but false prophets who should be looked at by those in christian circles with a high degree of suspicion. But, of course, they're not. Fundies use folks like that to further evidence their failed cause.

    So really, these points fail your intended purpose. If you accept the validity of their claims then you should also accept the validity of their religious beliefs as well (in the case of other religions, or simply the Maya), but I’m assuming you’d cast aside Mayan culture and religious belief all together.

    In the end what you’re left with, is you using whatever nonsense you can to try to support your mythology.

    ReplyDelete
  47. >>If you accept the validity of their claims then you should also accept the validity of their religious beliefs as well

    The only way that I would entertain the validity of their claims is two fold, one if coincides with the Bible, and two is if they came true. Although if one then two will be true. After all good tree will bear good fruit.

    You're right though we are not to depend on them, or anything for that matter, that man has to offer. I, other then atheists, look objectively towards evidence that shows a Creator, like prophecies.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yes Dan you are right, the Bible says it all. It all started with Noahs of course, because on Noah's ark there were all sort of animals. But everyone knows that Bulls hate red, so they were hard to control. That left space for the Reptilians to hide into the ark and start plotting their New world order. Of course they were almost like humans so they had to build Secret societies. That's why JFK was assassinated by the CIA, because he knew about that. But to fool the public even more, they created the NASA to hide a civilization on Venus. This led to the Fake moon landing and of course many Alien abductions. But thanks to the Eye who sees all that was wrongfully put on bills by the reptilian Federal Reserve, we can now find clues about the WTC controlled demolition, which was the latest camouflage for New world order plans. This is evident by the fake Building 7 demolition that gave reasons for the USA to start World war 3 that would pave the way for Jesus second coming as predicted by the
    Mayan calendar. That of course is all going to be fully unveiled on December 21st 2012 when our Solar system will be aligned with galaxy center. This will cause some DNA transformation in some humans, revelling their true Reptilians nature. Obama is trying to camouflage this by instating Death panels to kill old people who know the truth and of course scare the masses with a possible H1N1 vaccine genocide. This almost succeeded once, when Saddam Hussein's WMDs were found but then lost.

    Conclusion, Barack Hussein Obama is the devil and he wants the descendants of Noah to die.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hugo,
    In his wonderful sarcasm, highlights the point beautifully, Dan. I understand fancying yourself with these mysteries, but really, it’s all rather silly don’t you think? There are greater depths to Christianity that you could be highlighting as apposed to this nonsense. i.e. when you talk like this, most atheists just think you’re crazy, and you do nothing to build bridges between you and him – you’re merely pushing them away from you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What do atheist and Christians have in common, and/or, what do they agree upon? What fundamental assumptions are the cause of all the unrest, and how do you overcome those?

    ReplyDelete
  51. >>What do atheist and Christians have in common, and/or, what do they agree upon? What fundamental assumptions are the cause of all the unrest, and how do you overcome those?

    No Andrew that is your religion's goal not mine.

    The Bible is clear (2 Timothy 4:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Third time is the charm. Or is that the word of the Devil?

    That was wonderful, Hugo, although you did leave out Hillary Clinton. Messy buttercups as my Mom would say. That's merci beaucoup for the rest of you. May I quote you at wrsmrt?

    Andrew asks:

    What do atheist and Christians have in common, and/or, what do they agree upon?

    Atheist and Christians have in common that they like ice cream. They agree that ice cream is a Good Thing.

    What fundamental assumptions are the cause of all the unrest, and how do you overcome those?

    The fundamental assumptions that are the cause of all the unrest are that some think that vanilla is better than chocolate, and others think that chocolate is better than vanilla. You overcome these assumptions by showing people that all flavors of ice cream are good for someone, and that it's not really your business what flavor other people like anyway. Unless you're giving a party.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  53. But,

    So that our children will not become diabetics, don't serve either flavor in public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @zilch

    Oh ya I think I heard about that Hillary Clinton prophecy, is it the one saying that a lady will be found hanging from a tree at the white house? My masso-therapist told me about it. He also told me about the benefits of homeopathy, so he's clearly a highly valuable source of information...

    Merci pour le commentaire. No problem you can quote that small piece of text at wrsmrt. I see that it's a forum, is there a post in particular where you wanted to display it? I would be curious to see that. The link you posted pointed to something I couldn't access because I am not a registered user...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dan,
    you said:
    "The Bible is clear (2 Timothy 4:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14)"

    How do you know that's true?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hugo- I posted your rant here. I don't think you need to register to look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. >>How do you know that's true?

    I presuppose the claims of the Bible and the fact that it is against God's nature to lie.

    ReplyDelete
  58. A presupposition is something that you suppose prior to having any knowledge.

    In a sense then, you are acquiescing to an authority. i.e. you argue then, from authority, which is obviously fallacious; in which case no one should really listen to you.

    On what grounds do you presuppose it to be true? i.e. surely you wouldn’t presuppose that truth comes out of a random persons mouth – you first listen, then judge and reason, etc. etc. Unless of course there is some historical basis by which you can call the person generally truthful.

    I guess what I’m saying is, it’s not really a fair answer to suggest that you presuppose it, because in this case we all know that - since your evidence base from your previous justifications had run dry - you settled upon the presuppositional argument. i.e. you were not always a presuppositionalist.

    Be that as it may, let me cut to the chase; you presuppose God as your first cause, which of course gives authority to what you believe to be God’s word in the bible. However, surely there was a point in your life where you had no knowledge of God, or perhaps better put, no position either which way on the topic. Perhaps you were raised Chistian (for example) and you always took it for granted (I don’t know). Either way, whether you grant something or presuppose it, it amounts to nothing more than a rhetorical position of a logically undefendable reality, i.e. it’s an admission that your position is not defendable.

    This is all well and good, however, all this being the case, and you being unable to rationaly defend your position, for what reason should I consider that anything you say is true if your defense is always nothing more than an assumption?

    Simply put:
    With the obvious lack of rational proof, WHY should once become a Christian? You might be tempted here to quote bible verses, or spout out some other presuppositional argument, but none of that gives us cause to change what we believe. There are plenty of atheists who live rather fruitefull lives, why should one change that.

    Perhaps you’ll settle in with Pascal’s Wager, in which case I’m deffinately out of here….

    What I’m looking for, Dan, as I don’t want to hide my cards, is a practical response. i.e. what does Christianity give to our lives (and I stress lives, here in the living) that atheism cannot? No reason to resort to the beyond, heaven or hell etc., what does it do for us in the here and now?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @zilch
    I was able to see your post. Thx for the comment, I am flattered!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Interesting comment Andrew!

    I am wondering if your question is useful however, isn't a bit dishonest to ask a Christian to give meaning to Christianity in the living life when all they care about is eternal salvation?

    I've heard theists of various confessions mention the fact that they simply "don't care" about this current life. Of course the quotes are important because they always want to impose their living style as well...

    In other words, I feel like your question could be turned the other way around. What if Dan asks atheists what their worldview has to offer after we are dead?

    The answer is quite simple and quick of course... it's 'nothing', but does that make it bad? In my opinion no of course, but in Dan's opinion yes. And since you said you're a theist yourself Andrew, do you think that's a "bad" point of atheism? The non-belief in an afterlife?

    I still need to go check your blog by the way...... :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hugo,
    Fair enough…. I’ll quote Albert Camus here who famously stated:
    ”The only true philosophical question is whether or not one should commit suicide.”

    -----

    Here’s the problem; the afterlife is part of the presupposition, and also (as I’ve already stated) Pascal’s Wager. If you’re not familiar with the Wager, Blaise Pascal was a 17th century French philosopher who posed essentially the following:

    Even though one cannot prove through reason the existence of God, one should bank on (wager) that he does exist, as, if we’re right, we have everything to gain. If we’re wrong, so what, nothing happens, hence we loose nothing. On the other hand if we choose not to believe, and we’re wrong, we have everything to loose, but if we’re right, we loose nothing at all.

    The problem with this position (as with any presuppositional argument) is that it works just as well with any religion. i.e. if this is your argumentative tactic, then it follows you should rightly believe in every world religion as a means of “covering your basis”. But of course, Dan (and Christians in general) don’t do that, do they. Therefore it doesn’t follow as a rational reason and/or justification to believe, as it doesn’t follow from the persons reason who uses it. It’s pure balderdash.

    The practical example is different, however…. For example, I can give you many practical reasons why we should live in a democratic society vs. a communist society that has nothing to do with afterlives. Of course, this isn’t to say that one is necessarily better than the other (some people prefer one over the other in an ideal sense), it’s only to give suggestion why one should choose to believe and communicate in a certain way.

    My very broad/general belief is that Christianity is a language game – in the same way democracy is a language game, and science also. i.e. it’s a mode of communicating and/or talking about human life and experience – on a side, science and reason continually fail as a mode of satisfying needs of the “spirit” (note the scare quotes on spirit for it’s rash general usage there). As a pragmatist I blur the subjective/objective appearance/reality distinctions, and rather view language not as representing some underlying reality, but simply as “more behavior”, and as a tool. In this way when we communicate we’re not seeing other individuals representing reality, but revealing to us certain dispositions and intentional behaviors. e.g. if you were to say to an English speaking person who had never herd of Christianity before in his life, “The devil has control of my life”, he wouldn’t know what the heck you were talking about. On the other hand, say this to a Christian and he/she immediately comprehends your idea, viz, in a very general sense he sees you as communicating the idea that you don’t have control over your physical impulses etc etc. Just what “THE DEVIL” is in that statement is irrelevant to what is being represented, and that you both understand each other.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Of course there are many philosophical details I’m leaving out here, I cautioned that I was being broad. Nonetheless if Christianity has validity at all in our daily lives it should not be relative to an “afterlife” per se, but relative to the benefits we gain from taking part in the dialogue. At this point then, (relative to this suggestion) it would be the place of the atheist to suggest to me, “Andrew, you just have to many unnecessary words in your language.” Although, I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a Christian either, I’ll stick to theist.

    Finally, (I’ll be brief) it should be understood that a theistic dialogue is not meant to serve the same materialistic purposes as science, and therefore there shouldn’t be a conflict between the two (by materialistic I mean philosophical materialism). Both serve they’re own purposes, and fulfill our needs and interests in different ways. We shouldn’t see religion (necessarily) as saying ANYTHING scientific, as of course it isn’t science.

    So my question to Dan then, remains open. Why should we take part in a Christian lifestyle, without resort to what has been stated already? And, in what way is it not possible for an atheist to achieve those same things?

    ReplyDelete
  63. The issue with placing religion under a scientific and/or rational lens, is that it asks us to turn metaphors into metaphysics.

    One of my favorite quotes comes from Nietzsche (an atheist) who stated, and I paraphrase:
    What we call truth is nothing more than a mobile army of metaphors.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dan say:

    I presuppose the claims of the Bible and the fact that it is against God's nature to lie.

    I say:

    I presuppose the evidence of the Universe and the fact that it is against the Nature of the Universe to lie.

    Mine's simpler.

    Hugo- you might want to check out wrsmrt. It gets pretty silly, but there are some very good discussions there too.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Andrew,

    Hugo said, >>"I am wondering if your question is useful however, isn't a bit dishonest to ask a Christian to give meaning to Christianity in the living life when all they care about is eternal salvation?"

    and beat me to the punch.

    I was going to also say ask you what is the purpose for any religion? Sitting here to think about them all don't they all address the afterlife?

    So the religion of atheism addresses the afterlife.

    Like the parachute analogy, Christianity is not here to make life easier but save you from the impending doom.

    I guess I could answer your well organized question question with simply one word.

    HOPE!

    Christianity gives us hope verses the atheistic worldview which is just random chance atoms fizzing in a purposeless universe that cannot be rationalized or justified or accounted for.

    That too would be a good post. I need to get some of these out. All is quiet here in the Marvin home, maybe I can work on a post.

    ReplyDelete
  66. HOPE!

    Great, that’s a good start. So a religious dialogue gives us hope. Can an atheistic dialogue provide for us hope?

    Once again, you can argue afterlife until you’re blue in the face, but that’s just more Pascal’s Wager. So what? Why should one worry about the afterlife.

    You ask, what is the purpose of any religion? I have my own answer for that, but of course, that’s what I’m trying to get out of you. What I think I’m hearing is that, it’s to prepare you for the afterlife, and, for HOPE!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan:
    I guess I could answer your well organized question question with simply one word.

    HOPE!

    Christianity gives us hope verses the atheistic worldview which is just random chance atoms fizzing in a purposeless universe that cannot be rationalized or justified or accounted for.

    That too would be a good post. I need to get some of these out. All is quiet here in the Marvin home, maybe I can work on a post.

     
    You do realize that believing that something is true just because you want to believe it is a fallacy, right? Everyone knows that whether one wants to believe in something has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of a matter.

    ReplyDelete
  68. DAN: Hugo said […] and beat me to the punch.

    Well I guess I am "starting" to know you ;)

    DAN: …So the religion of atheism addresses the afterlife.

    If you want to consider Atheism as a religion you'll have to indicate what Atheists believe in, which you cannot, because you always fail to understand what Atheists believe. And the explanation is quite simple, Atheism is the lack of a belief so how can you talk about the beliefs of people who share a non-belief?

    Of course Atheists tend to share common beliefs, but they also share beliefs with Theists as well. Actually, ALL the Theists I know personally have a worldview much much closer to mine than yours Dan… Should I tell them that they are all going to hell according to you?

    DAN: "Like the parachute analogy, Christianity is not here to make life easier but save you from the impending doom.

    I went to read that parachute analogy. What a shame! lol
    My thought while reading it was this:
    Dan does not understand what an airplane is but he thinks his parachute will save him from the fall. And of course people are laughing at him because he's wearing his parachute upside down, forgot to fasten his seatbelt and refuses to watch out the window to try to understand how the plane can fly.

    DAN:"Christianity gives us hope verses the atheistic worldview which is just random chance atoms fizzing in a purposeless universe that cannot be rationalized or justified or accounted for.

    The atheistic worldview I adhere to is concerned with explaining the world we live in. Up to now, the hypothesis of a God is useless in doing so.
    The Christian worldview on the other hand, while failing at explaining the real world, does provide hope, it's true, but I still do not see any use for it, nor does it have any merit as it's wrong to explain the things we know about. So why trust something that is wrong now for the things that could happen later? It's ridiculous…

    Plus, once again, Dan showed is complete lack of understanding of a worldview that does not include the concept of a god by claiming that it cannot account for [insert your flavour of the day].
    Quite amusing from a guy who has a blog called "Debunking Atheists"!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Reynold,

    >>Everyone knows that whether one wants to believe in something has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of a matter.

    Agree, that is why it is was so good and necessary that God provided a plethora of evidence. You know "so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

    On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on non evidence, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said evidence, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance).

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hugo,

    >>Atheism is the lack of a belief so how can you talk about the beliefs of people who share a non-belief?

    Yea we all have been down this road before. A=no theism=God, so atheism is a belief of no Creator. This is evidenced by their belief in certain scientists claims of evolutionary materialism and their philosophical materialism beliefs.

    These beliefs are so strong in the atheist that they take things on faith that is how the universe is designed, sorry constructed.

    The atheistic worldview dogmatically promotes their beliefs and evangelizes and is recognized by our courts as a religion.

    The Faith of the Atheists are strong indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. DAN: "Yea we all have been down this road before. A=no theism=God, so atheism is a belief of no Creator."

    Yes and no. And yes, we have been down this road already. But fellow atheists made me understand that it's not that simple.

    Yes, in the general sense, being an atheist means that someone has a "belief of no Creator". You are correct. But that is an over simplification of the question.

    At the same time, it is a straw man argument. Why? Because atheism equals non-theism. One can define atheism as being "someone who does not believe the claim -God exists-." It's that simple.

    However as I said already, that is an over simplification, as well.

    Ok. So now we have two positions. One being a person who believes in God, and think that anybody who does not believe in the same god is wrong. That's you, Dan.

    On the other hand, we have this atheist who think that "atheism is a belief of no Creator". This person is what Dan thinks an Atheist look like. I will call this guy Nad. It's the opposite of Dan, ok Dan? Just in case you did not get it yet... So whenever Dan says a strawman argument, I will call say that Nad said "this", or "that". That will be fun!

    DAN: This is evidenced by their belief in certain scientists claims of evolutionary materialism and their philosophical materialism beliefs.

    The first point here is that Nad's worldview is defined by a belief in "certain" scientists claims of evolutionary materialism.

    I would like to know what that "certain" claims are. I wonder what Dan or Nad's opininion is...

    DAN:`These beliefs are so strong in the atheist that they take things on faith that is how the universe is designed, sorry constructed.

    Here Dan teaches us about how Nad believe that the universe was constructed, not designed. That's because Dan, who believes in a creator God, thinks that Nad believe in a purposeless universe that constructed itself out of random chance.

    Apparently, Nad also has faith in the explanation he has for the origin of the universe. He does not have knowledge; he only has faith. Therefore, it is clear from Dan's point of view that Nad, and himself, both believe things only because they have faith in them. There is no difference. They only have different beliefs.

    Obviously I would not be like Nad. I do not believe in thins that I do not have evidence for. We already see a difference between another atheist and Dan's portrait of an Atheist, Nad.

    The atheistic worldview dogmatically promotes their beliefs and evangelizes and is recognized by our courts as a religion.

    Dan here shows a lack of understanding of what a court has decided and whether his beliefs are true or not.

    Nad here promotes the atheistic worldviews as hard as he can. He wants everybody to believe what he believe, because that is what they must believe. Nad is entangled in a dogma. He can't see nothing else. His atheistic worldview blocks him from seeing the grandness of God; the true love of God; the presence of God in his life,in his thought.

    The court decision you talk about is only a way to recognize the fact that if people have to be called by a religion title, well, yes, they must use the term atheist. You cannot not answer the question.

    The Faith of the Atheists are strong indeed. "

    Nad has faith once again. His faith is so strong that Dan won't tell you a single word about it but rather post a link. Great.

    Please tell me what Nad agrees with on that page exactly and we might discuss it. But up to now, I disagree with both Dan and Nad.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Hogo,

    There you go again with your pseudo thinking.

    >>Because atheism equals non-theism

    Bzzt you cannot convert one word and not both.

    >>One can define atheism as being "someone who does not believe the claim -God exists-."

    Bzzt but that is skewing the proper definition. The bias is in "not believe in the claim" as if it may or may not be true. That is a presuppositional definition if I ever saw one.

    First, (a)--prefix meaning "not," "without" from L. a-, short for ab "away from" (cf. avert), or its cognate, Gk. a-, short for apo "away from, from," both cognate with Skt. apa "away from," Goth. af, O.E. of.

    theist--from Gk. theos "god"

    For grins, I also looked both atheist and atheism up.

    Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

    Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".

    BTW you need to replace the name of Nad with a more accurate name, Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  73. DAN: Hogo,

    That's me?

    DAN: There you go again with your pseudo thinking.

    Starting with a personnal attack; great job Dan, lol, you are starting to improve.

    DAN: "The bias is in "not believe in the claim" as if it may or may not be true."

    What are you talking about? Each and every single claim a person makes can be either true or not true.
    I would argue that the default position is to not believe a claim, so not true.

    DAN:That is a presuppositional definition if I ever saw one.

    You're the one advocating "presuppositional" beliefs. I certainly don't encourage that.

    Then you went on a linguistic fiesta. I could not care less. I know how to use dictionaries, thank you. You just showed your incapacity at debating ideas, concepts, logical proofs, and so on...

    First, (a)--prefix meaning "not," "without" from L. a-, short for ab "away from" (cf. avert), or its cognate, Gk. a-, short for apo "away from, from," both cognate with Skt. apa "away from," Goth. af, O.E. of.
    theist--from Gk. theos "god"
    For grins, I also looked both atheist and atheism up.
    Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"
    Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".


    I don't care what definition you use. Each and every individual is different; no matter what you think. We do share common beliefs and values for the most part; but we are all individuals by ourselves.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>