I don't know if anyone else has seen the plans for what the Ground Zero Mosque will look like*, but do you notice something very peculiar about it?
Take a look.
 |
| See it yet? |
If you don't see them then you're in denial. There are obvious pentagons and broken, yes broken, Stars of David. See the broken pieces and chaos?
Coincidence? Hardly, considering what this building is, and where its located. I don't believe in coincidences anyway.If we put our art interpretation hats on we can get close to the artists intentions of the design. Now what does the Star of David represent? Specifically the origins links to King David's shield. Shields are used in War. Broken, or fallen Jews is the symbolization here.
Look at the design shape and angles on top. What does that remind you of? Anything familiar?
Look at the larger, smaller, thicker, and thinner Stars of David, pentagons, odd shapes, and broken pieces. See them? Look at the pattern.
What does it reasonably look like?
I tell you what it looks like to me, it looks like billowing smoke!
Also, it doesn't take any stretch to link Jews to money as many comedians joke about continually. Because of the vicinity to Wall Street, the World Trade Center was the center of the universe as far as money was concerned. They wanted to point out the Jews were destroyed symbolically.
To me it looks like the artist wanted to display a building that looks like the World Trade Center with crashing and broken Stars of David and billowing smoke rising high into the air. Its simply a victory!
A Victory Mosque.
Of course there is an easy explanation for all of this.
 |
UPDATE: This will be a nuisance and a real security threat to New York and the neighborhood and everyone KNOWS it. It was right for the Attorney General to recognize to move the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial away from this particular area because of the security threat so there is not even a question as to the sensitive nature of this area. It will raise costs for New Yorker's (read all of us) to have to defend such a place if its built. Its not a smart move AT ALL!! This will be quite literally spitting on New York, and America, if this gets built.
it's not exactly a mosque.
ReplyDeleteand it's not on Ground Zero.
You're not going to happy with any design, are you?
Adam,
ReplyDeleteO'rly? You must be in denial to think that its not on ground zero. The debris field fell onto that building, it most certainly is at ground zero. Just take a look
Also, its fitting to see people like yourself try to write off the design. I believe I have shown a convincing argument to any rational unbiased person.
The intentions were THAT location with THAT design in THAT context to show...a victory. Much as the same as Jerusalem, unless you are calling that also a mere coincidence that they built the Mosque right on the very most sacred spot to Christians and Jews combined. Riiight!
What?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should look up what the words "Ground Zero" mean.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteNow you claim not to believe in coincidences? You were trying to sell your unusually high rate of comment disappearance as a coincidence. Are you openly admitting that I was correct? But I don't see what you claim to see. Maybe you really do think you see it. But then you have a known bias. And it is true that people will think they see patterns in that which is truly random. That is how the stars were grouped into constellations.
Adam:
The building is not on ground zero. It can be argued that it is suspiciously near ground zero. But I tend to agree with the assessment that nothing would placate Dan.
I'm honestly not sure it looks like broken Stars of David and billowing smoke. However, I think we can probably all agree on the act that building a mosque (or a "cultural center") there is extremely insensitive. If this had gone by quietly with no opposition, maybe it would have been acceptable to build it. But if they want peace and healing this is the opposite of the way to go about it. I will definitely agree that the healing of wounds is not their intention.
ReplyDeletePentagrams, billowing smoke, jews... A bit far fetched, Dan. I think the Star of David connection is probably a valid one however. It's pretty noticeable so it's probably intended. Maybe it's meant to symbolize the Abrahamic religions?
ReplyDeleteBut what's up with the woman wearing skirt, isn't that a little too revealing, lol.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDelete[in a loud voice]
LOOK! LOOK! A HUGE MOSQUE! AT GROUND ZERO! IT EVEN LOOKS ANTI-SEMITIC! AND BURNY!
freddie wonders if Dan will ever go back and answer the outstanding questions on the Presupp debate posts...
Besides, every single church in America and in my country as well is a "victory church". The native americans did not believe in Jesus. Then the immigrants came, slaughtered them and built their own places of worship, Christian churches. The idea that a place of worship built in a conquered area as a symbol of victory is silly however. You could just as easily put up a flag or a statue or whatever. Places of worship are built because there are people in their vicinity who would like to get on their knees for some hardcore worshippin'. When the pagans in my country were converted into christians, there was a need of christian churches because there were now christians living here. It's not meant to symbolize anything primarily, it's primary function is to serve the community.
ReplyDeleteBesides, muslims haven't 'won' anything. Woop-de-doo, 'they' killed some 3k people, including American muslims, and brought a few buildings down. Then America went into their countries and killed around 100k people(Civilian death count of the Iraq war). Who's the winner here? Stop being so paranoid of everything. The muslims aren't coming to get you. Most of them are normal people, although their religion is currently going through somewhat of an immature phase much like Christianity in the Middle-ages.
I think it's hilarious when Americans try to explain terrorism by saying they hate freedom or something. It's so childish and black & white, it's like muslims are a cartoon villain. Though their actions against civilians are completely unjustified, they have valid reasons to dislike America.
Pvboy,
ReplyDelete>> You were trying to sell your unusually high rate of comment disappearance as a coincidence.
Nope, I don't believe in coincidences. Everything has a purpose. The purpose of the missing comments exposed your lack of being man enough to admit making a mistake in your accusations. God wanted to show that I gave you WAY too much credit for being a stand up guy. God revealed truth in the past weeks and I am thankful for it. I reached out my hand to you and you smacked it back. You are a coward.
As for the location, that is ground zero. Period. The term ground zero has a conceptual epicenter, a geographical vicinity. As in a blast radius there is a zero point of the blast and the damage path around it. The Mosque, truth refuses to call it anything else, is literally in the ground zero radial of damage. An area as far as 5 miles can be part of ground zero, BTW. In this picture the Mosque is in the deep purple band (good band at that, I digress) which is point ZERO damage radius. Its literally ground zero. Claiming it isn't is not logical but expected from you Pvblivs. Like God, I cannot forgive unrepentant sinners, or violators, but I want to forgive. You are just not allowing it because of your stupid pride. *pshaw
Lol. Here are facts inconvenient to Dan's world view:
ReplyDeleteThere are frikkin' strip clubs at ground zero. Not to mention falafel carts, a few bars, a lingerie store and a hair restoration clinic.
Also, this 'mosque' is just a small area inside the building. That building will also contain a basketball court, a kitchen capable of serving food to a hundred people, a library and a swimming pool.
Does Dan know that residents of the area where the building is going to be built (including Mayor Bloomberg) actually want it to be built?
Does Dan know that Muslims pray in a non-denominational chapel inside the frikkin Pentagon? Does he know that Muslims already pray inside the soon-to-be Park51 building? Does he know that that star is a ubiquitous theme throughout Islam and Muslims societies in general?
---
Somewhere show me where the Bible instructs believers to go forth and be 'tards for Jesus...
Well, it's on Ground Zero in the sense that it is very close to the site. It's not on Ground Zero in the sense that it's not being built exactly where the towers stood. It's a purely semantical argument.
ReplyDeleteFreddie,
ReplyDelete>>freddie wonders if Dan will ever go back and answer the outstanding questions on the Presupp debate posts...
Worry your little head no more Freddie, As I already said to Dawson, "I am forced to resolve to the response of "To reason with you against your point is futile." Not because I am unable to, but because you are unwilling to accept any counter argument. Sad."
I showed a logical and reasonable response to an argument of his, and he NEVER conceded to the point. He really just provided evidence for Proverbs 18:2. Humility is truth, if one cannot be humble in a discussion then there is no point in discussing anything, anymore. His pride is too much in the way. He is simply dogmatic in his beliefs.
He reminded me of Pharaoh. God removed His grace and allowed Pharaoh's heart to be as wicked as it wanted to be. No matter what evidence Moses gave, Pharaoh's heart prevented him from seeing the truth. God still revealed Himself no matter how much He was denied. Dawson is as wicked as it gets, his heart is too hard to accept truth. I will depend on God to handle Dawson but I have done my part.
Dan I'm also waiting for you to response to my comment about your claim of free will. I still can't understand how we can have free will when your god says we can do as we wish, but if we do anything he didn't want us to, no matter how mild the infraction, we're going to burn in hell.
ReplyDeleteUsing intimidation to manipulation/control of people is abusive. Doing it by threat of eternal mental and physical suffering even worse. Actual inflicting it on people for exercising the free will you claim he's giving to us is sick. Why would an omnipotent being apply a plan that leads to suffering and abuse when it operates as should be expected when he could have hardwired us to have the wisdom, and inclination to operate according to his warm and fuzzy philosophy in the first place?
I'd like to hear your response Dan.
~Atomic Chimp
Danny-girl:
ReplyDelete"The purpose of the missing comments exposed your lack of being man enough to admit making a mistake in your accusations."
If the missing comments had a purpose, then you caused them to be missing deliberately. Now, it is quite possible that you had the purpose in mind of having someone call you on your deception so that you could say "not man enough to admit making a mistake." But you know your charge is simply not true. I have admitted making mistakes before. I even admitted, on my own blog, that I was wrong when I thought Stormbringer sent someone to clutter my blog with spam. I really thought he was behind it. But the timing turned out to be coincidence.
"God wanted to show that I gave you WAY too much credit for being a stand up guy."
I am considering the possibility that there is a god and he is trying to show me that I have been giving you too much credit. But consider, if your god deliberately deleted those comments to get my reaction, then he forged evidence. My accusation is based on that evidence. The fact is that I remain a stand-up guy. Are you man enough to admit that you had no valid cause to use the derogatory term "Puboy"? I rather doubt it. But I will see what message "god" has for me. (Incidentally, I only use "Danny-girl" to draw your attention to the fact that your use of "Puboy" is non-productive. Again, I may be giving you too much credit.)
"I reached out my hand to you and you smacked it back."
I see no evidence that you "reached out [your] hand to [me.]" But, as you well know, I am a man of the highest integrity and I make my judgements based on the evidence. I will give extra attention to identifying your attempts to reach out in your upcoming comments. They will be the measure of your statement.
"You are a coward."
Oooooh, and already you're off to a bad start. I do not consider that a worthwhile effort to reach out. You might want to try again. By the way, if I were a coward, I would have taken the path of least resistence and acquiesced to your demands that I "admit [I was] wrong" when the evidence is still to the contrary.
"An area as far as 5 miles can be part of ground zero,"
For someone with your agenda, an area as far as 10,000 miles away (measured as a direct line path that can go through the planet's interior that covers every spot on the planet) can be considered part of "ground zero." However, the number of people that take that particular location to be part of ground zero are relatively few and are decidedly not unbiased.
"In this picture the Mosque is in the deep purple band (good band at that, I digress) which is point ZERO damage radius."
That picture is of the damage radius of a nuclear blast. Are you suggesting that someone dropped an A-bomb on the towers? Or would you rather try again and find something on the blast radius of the actual explosion? I'll wait.
"[It's] literally ground zero. Claiming it isn't is not logical but expected from you Pvblivs."
Even Fox News (not known for giving a fair hearing to ideas it considers "leftist") identifies the site as being near ground zero rather than at ground zero. EXAMPLE
Interesting, really. I'd never picked you as an art critic, Dan...
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can see how it's possible for those with a heightened sensibility to such matters to interpret this design much the way you have.
What I do find particularly ironic is you, as a Christian, taking up the anti-Muslim chorus. Yes, I get the rivalry thing, but the difference is that you and certain other Christian types will see this as a personal affront (as might others who may have personal connections to the atrocity); whilst those of us who treat all religion as groundless superstition will see it as merely an attempt for one-upmanship by one sect over another, cunningly disguised as postmodern architecture (that's if we buy into the interpretation you offer here, which I must say is reminiscent of those who see penises in Disney movies...)
At the end of the day, Dan, Christians and Muslims are indeed tarred with the same brush, and justly so. It's just that the Muslims are using more violent measures in the modern version of their religious war.
Wem,
ReplyDeletefor your points:
1. I know, so?
2. I know, so?
3. I know, so?
4. Yes, so?
5. Yes, so?
6. Yes, so?
7. Yes, so?
Thanks for the Ignoratio elenchi, have a nice weekend!
Dan, you wrote,
ReplyDelete"To reason with you against your point is futile." Not because I am unable to, but because you are unwilling to accept any counter argument. Sad."
Now, here is the ultimate irony - you applying this to anyone attempting to argue against your presupp wall of maximally ignorant impenetrableness.
Some of us, of course, still continue to hammer away, not because we expect to have any effect upon you personally, but because we find your blog an easy opportunity to solidify our arguments and also for the possibility that waverers will fail to be convinced by your schtick should they go on to read moderately sound counterarguments...
Dan's too good not to be a troll.
ReplyDeleteThere are frikkin' strip clubs at ground zero.
ReplyDeleteThey are VICTORY strip clubs! Oh noes!
I see no evidence that you "reached out [your] hand to [me.]" But, as you well know, I am a man of the highest integrity and I make my judgements based on the evidence. I will give extra attention to identifying your attempts to reach out in your upcoming comments. They will be the measure of your statement.
ReplyDelete"You are a coward."
Oooooh, and already you're off to a bad start. I do not consider that a worthwhile effort to reach out. You might want to try again. By the way, if I were a coward, I would have taken the path of least resistence and acquiesced to your demands that I "admit [I was] wrong" when the evidence is still to the contrary.
"An area as far as 5 miles can be part of ground zero,"
For someone with your agenda, an area as far as 10,000 miles away (measured as a direct line path that can go through the planet's interior that covers every spot on the planet) can be considered part of "ground zero." However, the number of people that take that particular location to be part of ground zero are relatively few and are decidedly not unbiased.
"In this picture the Mosque is in the deep purple band (good band at that, I digress) which is point ZERO damage radius."
ReplyDeleteThat picture is of the damage radius of a nuclear blast. Are you suggesting that someone dropped an A-bomb on the towers? Or would you rather try again and find something on the blast radius of the actual explosion? I'll wait.
"[It's] literally ground zero. Claiming it isn't is not logical but expected from you Pvblivs."
Even Fox News (not known for giving a fair hearing to ideas it considers "leftist") identifies the site as being near ground zero rather than at ground zero. EXAMPLE
Danny-girl:
ReplyDelete"The purpose of the missing comments exposed your lack of being man enough to admit making a mistake in your accusations."
If the missing comments had a purpose, then you caused them to be missing deliberately. Now, it is quite possible that you had the purpose in mind of having someone call you on your deception so that you could say "not man enough to admit making a mistake." But you know your charge is simply not true. I have admitted making mistakes before. I even admitted, on my own blog, that I was wrong when I thought Stormbringer sent someone to clutter my blog with spam. I really thought he was behind it. But the timing turned out to be coincidence.
"God wanted to show that I gave you WAY too much credit for being a stand up guy."
I am considering the possibility that there is a god and he is trying to show me that I have been giving you too much credit. But consider, if your god deliberately deleted those comments to get my reaction, then he forged evidence. My accusation is based on that evidence. The fact is that I remain a stand-up guy. Are you man enough to admit that you had no valid cause to use the derogatory term "Puboy"? I rather doubt it. But I will see what message "god" has for me. (Incidentally, I only use "Danny-girl" to draw your attention to the fact that your use of "Puboy" is non-productive. Again, I may be giving you too much credit.)
"I reached out my hand to you and you smacked it back."
I see no evidence that you "reached out [your] hand to [me.]" But, as you well know, I am a man of the highest integrity and I make my judgements based on the evidence. I will give extra attention to identifying your attempts to reach out in your upcoming comments. They will be the measure of your statement.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteBTW, that's Miss. Daniella if your nasty.
Thinkin' nasty thoughts, better be a gentleman. Nasty, nasty boys, don't mean a thing. Oh you nasty boys don't mean a thing to me.
Hey! Who's that thinkin' nasty thoughts? Nasty boys!
>>Now, it is quite possible that you had the purpose in mind of having someone call you on your deception so that you could say "not man enough to admit making a mistake."
Just...wow! That is rich. Is that reverse psychology to get me to stop? Forget it. Man up. Remember these days in front of God. Your unfounded accusations will be revealed to you. I cannot do anything more for you but feel sorry for you.
>>But the timing turned out to be [a] coincidence.
Well I guess he gets your special pleading then. I guess I am not worthy. The elephant is in this room.
>>I am considering the possibility that there is a god and he is trying to show me that I have been giving you too much credit.
Sorry dude, that decision is not yours to make. Reasoning = Fail
>>But consider, if your god deliberately deleted those comments to get my reaction, then he forged evidence.
From a moral standard you're using that does not comport with your worldview. Got it.
>> The fact is that I remain a stand-up guy.
Keep saying it, it may become true someday. Also, I think you're saying it to convince yourself.
>>I see no evidence that you "reached out [your] hand to [me.]"
Of course YOU didn't. that is your M.O. Just a series of mistakes and accusations. I said you owed me a lemon-aid but instead invited you over here to make you the best lemon-aid from my lemon trees. Remember? Of course not.
>> I do not consider that a worthwhile effort to reach out. You might want to try again.
Nope, I gave up on you after slapping my hand away. That is all you get now.
>> Are you suggesting that someone dropped an A-bomb on the towers? Or would you rather try again and find something on the blast radius of the actual explosion? I'll wait.
*yawn. Any logical or reasonable person, not yourself, would understand the "blast area" of that map that I used as a mere example, for visual aid, to reference the debris field fallout zone. You're retarded.
Now you reference Faux News for evidence as an appeal to belief of your logic? A fallacy! *pshaw. Whatever dude.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Just...wow! That is rich. Is that reverse psychology to get me to stop? Forget it."
Whether you stop lying or not is entirely up to you. But you said that the posts were removed for a reason. I am following the logical consequences of that claim and speculating on reasons that fit.
"Your unfounded accusations will be revealed to you."
Given that I produced evidence in support of those allegations, they were not unfounded, even if, by some unlikely chain of events, they turn out to be incorrect. There are alternative explanations for the evidence. For example, someone might have hacked your account and tagged comments as spam to make it look like you were doing it. I just don't have any reason to believe that an alternative is more likely than you doing it deliberately.
"Well I guess he gets your special pleading then. I guess I am not worthy. The elephant is in this room."
ReplyDeleteI suspect you mean "special consideration." But no. I had to withdraw my accusation because there was compelling new evidence that told me it was wrong. When you tried to swamp my blog, you still were only able to get one comment sent to spam -- something which is a surprisingly regular occurance on your blog. And I wasn't even counting comments that didn't show up as published first. You had quite a few comments (all from critics) show up as published, stick around a while, and then vanish. At no point in that did I see any evidence that you were getting an average of more than one comment per minute at the time.
"From a moral standard you're using that does not comport with your worldview. Got it."
ReplyDeleteWhile I do have moral standards, I didn't indicate them there. Whether you consider forging evidence to be acceptable or not, what you described would be forging evidence.
"Nope, I gave up on you after slapping my hand away. That is all you get now."
Or ever have. Saying "you're a coward" is what you consider the highest standard of "reaching out" to a non-christian. Got it.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>also for the possibility that waverers will fail to be convinced by your schtick should they go on to read moderately sound counterarguments..
Nice to hear I have you shaking in your boots. So again, why do you fight so hard for the "other" side? Obviously, for one that believes in evolution, religion is an evolutionary necessity. History shows that with Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes. So the question is Why? Why fight against religion, something that has benefited mankind for thousands of years now? Why fight against nature. Again your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
"Any logical or reasonable person, not yourself, would understand the 'blast area' of that map that I used as a mere example, for visual aid, to reference the debris field fallout zone. You're retarded."
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, more of that "reaching out" you were telling me about. "In this picture the Mosque is in the deep purple band (good band at that, I digress) which is point ZERO damage radius. Its literally ground zero." Those were your words. You were referencing the scale of the diagram. You are asserting that it should count as part of ground zero because it would be in the range of an atomic blast. But now you have to puff yourself up because I actually examined your source material.
"Now you reference Faux News for evidence as an appeal to belief of your logic?"
I reference Fox News as a source that you cannot dismiss as being "liberal" as you are wont to do. They are generally inclined to support your perspectives. But even they recognize that that is not ground zero. I could have quoted any of the other major media saying it wasn't ground zero. I simply chose the one I thought you most likely to accept.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> Ah, yes, more of that "reaching out" you were telling me about. "In this picture the Mosque is in the deep purple band (good band at that, I digress) which is point ZERO damage radius. Its literally ground zero." Those were your words. You were referencing the scale of the diagram. You are asserting that it should count as part of ground zero because it would be in the range of an atomic blast. But now you have to puff yourself up because I actually examined your source material.
You believe the ring should be smaller. Yes? Got it. If we examine the ring location, the only conditions (criteria) being debris degree amount, that building would STILL be in the ring since the debris did hit that and the surrounding buildings in large amounts. Here is the photo of the revised radius. I stand on what I said.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"You believe the ring should be smaller. Yes? Got it."
I believe that "ground zero" means that ground that is zero distance from the attack -- not the blast radius, not a danger area, but the "zero" in "ground zero." Otherwise, there is no reason for the name. But you interpret things in strange ways. So, I find it plausible that you took a map of how far away you can be from ground zero and still be in danger from the explosion and took that radius of danger as a definition of ground zero instead.
If you want my definition, ground zero is the site of the explosion and nothing else. But in the interest of productive communication, I try to consider what you might sincerely mean when using the term. When you present a map of the danger zone from an A-bomb, I get the impression that you are not sincere.
You previously said to Adam, "I believe I have shown a convincing argument to any rational unbiased person." To test that hypothesis, we would first need to identify an unbiased person, preferably several, and then see if that person is convinced by your argument. Obviously, we cannot allow, whether that person is convinced by your argument to determine either rationality or bias. These are determinations which must be made in advance.
Nice to hear I have you shaking in your boots. So again, why do you fight so hard for the "other" side? Obviously, for one that believes in evolution, religion is an evolutionary necessity. History shows that with Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes. So the question is Why? Why fight against religion, something that has benefited mankind for thousands of years now? Why fight against nature. Again your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
ReplyDeleteBut only the way you tell it, Dan. You might want to do a bit of brushing up on how to construct straw men if you think this drivelly summation holds any water.
Seriously, how could you have got from what I wrote that I'm fighting 'hard' against religion? Why do religionists interpret any criticism as an act of aggression? Oh, that's right - religious faith is meant to be immune to criticism, no matter how irrational - and yes, absurd - it looks from the outside.
Even if I were seriously engaged in the war of ideas (I wouldn't presume to think that I'm anywhere near the Dawkinses, Hitchenses, AC Graylings and Stephen Frys of the world) then your blog would still be only a minor and occasionally amusing diversion. Arguing with my Catholic brother, on the other hand - now, that's actually a challenge...
THAT location: 2 blocks from ground zero
ReplyDeleteTHAT design: contemporary abstract star motif
in THAT context: surrounded by bars and strip clubs.
Lol!
Most Americans think this monument to murder is a bad idea. Leftists, Jew haters and God haters love it.
ReplyDeleteThere's an article you might like to see over at The True Free Thinker about Islamophobia. http://xrl.in/6heh
So whata you want, "Stormbringer"?
ReplyDeleteThe government to regulate religion?
This is America.
You, Fred Phelps, these people and whoever are free to practice their religion.
Sorry, Stormbringer.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize you were a Poe.
I fell for it!
~Adam
No, Adam, I want you to actually think instead of posting such pathetic accusations.
ReplyDelete"Most Americans think this monument to murder is a bad idea. Leftists, Jew haters and God haters love it."
ReplyDeleteWas there a poll or survey conducted to determine the stance of the public? And if there was, did it actually use the phrase "monument to murder," making for a loaded question? I would really love to know the source for your "information."
PVboy, since you're a proven liar and paranoid as well, this is the only response you'll get from me. It's not much, either, since you've obviously read my own report on this issue.
ReplyDeleteBesides, you'll resort to screaming, "Lies! Mommie, they're all lying again!" when things do not go your way. So, my answer is no answer.
Stormbringer:
ReplyDeleteSo your saying that you just made up your "information." I rather suspected as much. There's no need for you to respond. Although you make the accusation against me, you're the established liar. As for paranoid, I put this question to any readers: Which one of us prescreens comments to ensure that no readers ever see undesirable ones? Yes, yes, I know that you'll be happy to tell people how I delete spam and comments that are insult-fests with no substance. I freely admit that I do that. I also admit that I delete duplicates. But I don't prescreen. If I were to delete arguments against my position, for example, people would notice. You afford yourself the luxury of making sure no one sees those types of arguments on your blog before you get to them.
To the readers:
Does anyone care to back up Stormbringer's claim with a source? I didn't really expect him to do so. I'm surprised that he even bothered to acknowledge that I asked for a source. I'm not really surprised that he decided to project his own tendencies onto me.
Storm,
ReplyDelete>>Most Americans think this monument to murder is a bad idea. Leftists, Jew haters and God haters love it.
This is not pigeonholing either, its very true, at least to what I have noticed thus far. To me (read us) its plain common sense and being respectful to the situation.
Pro Mosque Muslims, Leftists, Jew haters and God haters in this situation are equivalent to the Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church crew picketing soldiers at funerals. Its just disrespectful.
Also, you always get extra points in referencing Mariano's blog. Nice work!
Dan:
ReplyDelete"This is not pigeonholing either, its very true, at least to what I have noticed thus far."
Actually, it's poisoning the well. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is <insert emotionally-charged term here>." To me, the proposed building generates a big round of "ho hum." Some guy wants to build a building, possibly with religious connections, on his own private property. And people should stick their collective noses in this, why? Now, I realize there are people out there that think muslims should not be allowed to build religious buildings. I'm sure there are people out there who think muslims should not be allowed to own property, or even draw breath. They might even be in the majority. But I'm not going to take Stormbringer's word on it. I want to see a source.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie,
Worry your little head no more Freddie, As I already said to Dawson, "I am forced to resolve to the response of "To reason with you against your point is futile." Not because I am unable to, but because you are unwilling to accept any counter argument. Sad."
I wasn't worried. Are you saying you're prepared to accept any argument (counter or otherwise) that you've been presented with? It would seem you're holding us to a different standard than you hold yourself.
I showed a logical and reasonable response to an argument of his, and he NEVER conceded to the point.
Link to the exchange please.
He really just provided evidence for Proverbs 18:2. Humility is truth, if one cannot be humble in a discussion then there is no point in discussing anything, anymore. His pride is too much in the way. He is simply dogmatic in his beliefs.
"Hello, is that Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot, you're black."
He reminded me of Pharaoh. God removed His grace and allowed Pharaoh's heart to be as wicked as it wanted to be. No matter what evidence Moses gave, Pharaoh's heart prevented him from seeing the truth. God still revealed Himself no matter how much He was denied. Dawson is as wicked as it gets, his heart is too hard to accept truth. I will depend on God to handle Dawson but I have done my part.
Lol, quitter!
Yup. When Dan's world view is exposed to the light of day, Dan scurries back under his rock.
ReplyDeleteDan, I admire your patience with the little unreasoning atheist deniers of reality here.
ReplyDeleteCan't do it much myself.
I learned long ago that since atheists are forced to deny the existence of absolutes, including logical absolutes, they cannot reason correctly on a great many things.
Here I see they treat you badly all while trying to spin there square wheels of illogical nonsense.
You're right though.
A Ground Zero mosque is like building a temple of Japanese Imperialism at Pearl Harbor.
All the inane drones blowing hot air here are too blind to see it though.
So whatta you want Gary?
ReplyDeleteHow far away do you want to force other religions to be?
The Park51 community center is not a mosque and it's not at 'ground zero'.
Freddie,
ReplyDelete>>Link to the exchange please.
Fine, but I thought I did.
>>Lol, quitter!
I wouldn't say quit but maybe it would be better to say "cut losses". Be that as it may, how is quitting wrong according to your worldview?
Thanks Gary, blessings to you and your family
ReplyDeleteI guess a circle jerk requires fewer people than I thought...
ReplyDeleteDan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie,
>>Link to the exchange please.
Fine, but I thought I did.
You posted your response but not what led to it. Thanks for the link, having read the exchange it seems that you conceded BB's point about the contrast but attempted to caveat your concession with "Its a conditional point." - from there it turned into a case of whose Bible interpretation was better *shrugs*
>>Lol, quitter!
I wouldn't say quit but maybe it would be better to say "cut losses". Be that as it may, how is quitting wrong according to your worldview?
Lol, who claimed it was wrong?
Gary said...
ReplyDeleteDan, I admire your patience with the little unreasoning atheist deniers of reality here.
You believe in talking donkeys but the atheists are deniers of reality?
Can't do it much myself.
Why am I not surprised?
I learned long ago that since atheists are forced to deny the existence of absolutes, including logical absolutes, they cannot reason correctly on a great many things.
Ah, then you can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and show how it exists independently? We'll wait...
Here I see they treat you badly all while trying to spin there square wheels of illogical nonsense.
If you want illogical nonsense just check out Dan's attempt to prove there's such a thing as a square circle .. now that was fun.
You're right though.
About what?
A Ground Zero mosque is like building a temple of Japanese Imperialism at Pearl Harbor.
Not happening you mean? couldn't agree more...
All the inane drones blowing hot air here are too blind to see it though.
Maybe if you stopped blowing and opened your eyes?
Dan, you replied to Freddie,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say quit but maybe it would be better to say "cut losses".
Great to see that famous 'Christian charity' shining through! What happened to the shepherd with the lost sheep, eh?
Be that as it may, how is quitting wrong according to your worldview?
Well, Dan, it's wrong because it stops us from achieving our potential, which according to our worldview, we can only do in this life, 'cause it's all we get.
Surely that's simple enough for you to follow. But no doubt you'll put some loony presup spin on it anyway...
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>I guess a circle jerk requires fewer people than I thought...
One suffices in your case. :7)
Freddie,
ReplyDeletehow is quitting wrong according to your worldview?
>>Lol, who claimed it was wrong?
Saying "Lol, quitter!" in a derogatory way, as you did, denotes a disapproval. Care to explain?
DD,
ReplyDelete>>What happened to the shepherd with the lost sheep, eh?
You are confusing me with Jesus. (John 10:27, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, John 8:31-32, 1 John 2:27, John 14:26)
>>Well, Dan, it's wrong because it stops us from achieving our potential, which according to our worldview, we can only do in this life, 'cause it's all we get.
Yea, I cannot fault you for that if that is indeed your worldview. It makes sense.
>>Surely that's simple enough for you to follow.
Yea, easy to see that from your perspective. Is that where the term "no rest for the wicked" came? Its becoming clearer.
You are confusing me with Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought one of the goals of your faith was to try to emulate Christ.
Sounds like you need to take a chill pill, Dan. Or maybe just try to get a bit more sleep. Your inner child seems to be getting the better of you, shaking his little fist and stamping his little foot and working himself up into an almighty tantrum.
Previously, Dan said that he only judges people's actions and not their motives. I remember this was in response to someone quoting the "judge not lest ye be judged" line. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the exchange. Perhaps it's just sufficiently buried that I can't find that needle in the haystack.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my point is that Dan does jusge motives. He makes declarations about what is "in people's hearts." He does it by calling the building a "victory mosque" and by endorsing the image that says "it's jihad, stupid." So much for pretending that claiming to know someone's heart is "attempting to put one's self in the place of god." Indeed, his claims of my "not being man enough" to admit an "error" (which you have given no satisfactory evidence of being an error) is attributing a motive to me.
Dan:
This is me reaching out my hand to you. Will you concede that you judge people in ways you said was only your god's province? Will you try to give an argument why it's OK for christians to do it? Will you try to give an argument that it's OK for people in general to judge motives? Will you deny what you have done? Will you deny having said that you don't judge people's motives? Or will you display all the "humility" it takes to snub me? (You've already denied my humanity.) I still have hope for you. And I will be the bigger man and try to help you grow as a man.
Me: Well, Dan, it's wrong because it stops us from achieving our potential, which according to our worldview, we can only do in this life, 'cause it's all we get.
ReplyDeleteDan: Yea, I cannot fault you for that if that is indeed your worldview. It makes sense.
Could it be that this discussion is actually getting somewhere? Or am I mistakenly seeing a glimmer of comprehension in what is in fact just another instance of giving up?
The point, I think, that Freddie and myself and others have been driving at is that giving up on people is actually anathema to the Christian ethic you claim to uphold.
You seem quite content at times to throw up your hands and declare, however indirectly, that those who disagree with you are a lost cause - but I suspect this is more for the purpose of claiming an unwarranted intellectual victory ("If you can't see the emperor's clothes, there's really no point in continuing the discussion!") than because you genuinely feel you can't get through.
You accuse atheists of having no basis upon which to construct morality, for example; yet you seem to adopt a rather lax stance towards some aspects of the morality your worldview claims to impart.
And another thing - you really do need to learn the difference between explanation and assertion. Simply repeating the mantra, "god has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil" doesn't cut it as an explanation for anything.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteFirst you are going to have to describe how it is possible to judge the secrets of men because that is what motives are.
In this case, I am judging the actions of the designers of this building. Its obvious. Can I be wrong about the truth? No. Considering ALL the evidence (location and what this building is, and design) it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion about this design. I will not twist logic to "make it fit" into some false box.
>>However, my point is that Dan does [judge] motives.
Evidence?
>>He makes declarations about what is "in people's hearts."
Evidence?
>>He does it by calling the building a "victory mosque" and by endorsing the image that says "it's jihad, stupid."
If that is your evidence then epic fail. That is not evidence of either of those. That is evidence of their own declarations by their direct actions. Here, this is an example of judging motives: My kid says to me, gently, that he loves me and I turn and say "Yea right, you just want a cookie" That is wrong on so many levels. Now, if I clarified that the only way to get a cookie is for you to love me and then in a few seconds he said "I love you, Dad" then I MAY have grounds for saying something like that. Otherwise...
To judge is to evaluate: form a critical opinion of. I am not looking at the person's thoughts, that I am buying gum from, to think he is a terrorist that wants to harm me. I will judge his actions, not his motives (something that is not seen or known). Direct evidence of what is said and demonstrated is what we can judge on. We can even judge a look. If someone looks at my wife, in a hateful way, in some dark parking lot she is to determine that man is a threat. A non threatening small smile would not get that suspicion. She cannot judge his motives.
[hate the 4,000 character limit!]
[Pvb cont'd]
ReplyDeleteNow in case you believe I hate Muslims (judging motives again) let me give some evidence to the contrary: I actually saved a Muslim's job years ago by learning and taking over his job so he could visit his sick family in Pakistan. We didn't have to hire someone else and it allowed him to come back later. Now, he was hilarious and we had a great time working together. Another man at the same job wore a turbine everyday to work and I questioned him a great deal about his faith and religion. We ate lunch together and broke bread together often. I never suspected either of them wanted to kill me, or anything stupid like that. Granted it was in the 90's. Be that as it may, their actions were pure and kind. They are great guys. If it were one of those friends of mine that designed that building I would ask strait to his face "What is your problem? You hate us now?" His actions would have been altered.
The difference is you judged my motives when posts were being placed into spam. You have NO WAY OF KNOWING if I was doing that. You were completely wrong. You were not judging my actions because when it was REVEALED that you had the SAME THING happen to you, you wrote it off and still believed I did something devious. That was unacceptable. You're wrong to judge motives. My actions did not show that I was being a deviant. Your actions certainly showed that you are a deviant, by judging people's motives with your deviant ideas.
In the end these are petty and small things that I should be judged of you (1 Corinthians 4:3-5)
God will be the one to judge the "secrets of men." (Romans 2:16)
>>Indeed, his claims of my "not being man enough" to admit an "error" (which you have given no satisfactory evidence of being an error) is attributing a motive to me.
With you, doesn't that turn into an infinite regress anyway? "No satisfactory evidence" does not equate to evidence. No satisfactory evidence =/= evidence. The "satisfactory" part is your problem, not mine. People may even be accommodating if you show some yourself, but it certainly is not a requirement. You actions have been appalling lately and I am surprised I am even addressing anything else you say anymore. I really must love you, evidenced by my patience with you. I am sure you will judge that motive negatively also. *sigh
Dan:
ReplyDelete"With you, doesn't that turn into an infinite regress anyway?"
No, it does not. With or without my parenthetical remark, you are attributing a motive to me ("not being man enough.") Any time you attempt to ascertain someone's reasons for doing something, you are judging motives.
"You actions have been appalling lately...."
No, they haven't. My actions have, as always been quite respectable. Your actions (unless the evidence is and remains highly misleading) have been of dubious merit.
"The difference is you judged my motives when posts were being placed into spam."
Your motives, that is why you were placing comments into spam. I probably did. It is very likely that I attributed a reason why you would do that. But then, I don't say I don't do that. You do say that you don't judge motives. You also claim that it is wrong to judge motives. I don't actually agree with that. What disappoints me is not the mere fact that you judge motives. I don't know of anyone who doesn't. It is the fact that you do so while claiming it is wrong to do so. If you change your mind and say that it is acceptable, I cannot find fault with it. But it would mean that you had completely detached from "judge not."
"To judge is to evaluate: form a critical opinion of."
ReplyDeleteThat is one form of judgement. Another is to make a determination of fact ("to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess.") If cookies in the cookie jar are disappearing and you conclude that one of your children is taking them, you are judging his actions. If you conclude that the child is greedy, you are judging his motives. If the child says you should apologize because he says elves are coming in in the middle of the night and taking cookies, he is making an unreasonable demand (unless he can show evidence of these elves.)
I think you may be confused over what a motive is. Your action (or action incorrectly attributed to you) of removing comments is not a motive. A motive is the reason why somebody does something. A motive is not an action we suspect someone of doing but might be wrong about.
freddies_dead said...
ReplyDeleteYou believe in talking donkeys but the atheists are deniers of reality?
Here we have the atheist trying to look smart but merely looking like the smart ass he really is.
If your "talking donkey" is a reference to yourself, yes I do.
Why am I not surprised?
Because, you foolishly threw the bible into the conversation.
Then you presupposed, without proof, that your antagonist is as dumb as you are.
Ah, then you can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and show how it exists independently? We'll wait...
Here's the question that you cannot answer without assuming the existence of logical absolutes: Are your beliefs true or not?
If that's too much for you, then answer this: If there is no absolute truth, why are you here arguing as though there were?
Maybe if you stopped blowing and opened your eyes?
While your eyes are physically opened your mind is shut like a trap.
While you're here blowing feckless imitations of rebuttals, maybe you could take your atheists standard blinders off?
Like all atheists you glue your blinders on good and then loudly proclaim, "I see no evidence for a God!"
Real smart that.
Um, you know there was a talking donkey in the Bible, right?
ReplyDeleteAnother man at the same job wore a turbine everyday
ReplyDeleteAnd he thinks he's capable of educating kids?
Wem,
ReplyDeleteBwahahahhaha I guess turbin is no better but that was the intentions, just fast fat fingers. Can I blame it on spell check and haste? Probably not. Turban is what I was searching for...of course. Funny though.
First, show me a infallible teacher and then I will concede to your point.
Gary wrote to Freddie,
ReplyDeleteHere we have the atheist trying to look smart but merely looking like the smart ass he really is.
If your "talking donkey" is a reference to yourself, yes I do.
Allow me to indulge in immoderate chortling at this remark.
You should read your bible occasionally, Gary. It has some great stories to while away the long evenings. You might want to start with the one about a dude named Balaam...
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie,
how is quitting wrong according to your worldview?
>>Lol, who claimed it was wrong?
Saying "Lol, quitter!" in a derogatory way, as you did, denotes a disapproval. Care to explain?
Derogatory? and you know this was my intention how? Omniscient Dan? Thought not... It was a statement of amusement at you giving up ... again. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gary said...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead said...
You believe in talking donkeys but the atheists are deniers of reality?
Here we have the atheist trying to look smart but merely looking like the smart ass he really is.
If your "talking donkey" is a reference to yourself, yes I do.
Oh dear, yet another theist who doesn't seem all that familiar with his own theology
Why am I not surprised?
Because, you foolishly threw the bible into the conversation.
Foolishly expecting you to have read it perhaps?
Then you presupposed, without proof, that your antagonist is as dumb as you are.
It seems my presupposition was a little hasty and you have kindly given us evidence that you are, in fact, significantly dumber even than I.
Ah, then you can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and show how it exists independently? We'll wait...
Here's the question that you cannot answer without assuming the existence of logical absolutes: Are your beliefs true or not?
They are true based on the evidence at hand. Ooops, was that me answering your question without the need for absolutes? Now maybe you can demonstrate the truth of your claim for the existence of absolute truth?
If that's too much for you, then answer this: If there is no absolute truth, why are you here arguing as though there were?
Where have I argued in such a way?
Maybe if you stopped blowing and opened your eyes?
While your eyes are physically opened your mind is shut like a trap.
Are you omniscient then? Next weeks winning Euromillions lottery numbers might convince me...
While you're here blowing feckless imitations of rebuttals, maybe you could take your atheists standard blinders off?
Would there be any point? After all you'd still have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears chanting "goddidit" over and over so you wouldn't have to confront any rebuttals, feckless or otherwise.
Like all atheists you glue your blinders on good and then loudly proclaim, "I see no evidence for a God!"
Real smart that.
You've got evidence then? Please, present it.
He doesn't, and he knows he doesn't. That's why he spends so much time not responding to the actual arguments being made here.
ReplyDeleteAdam Nardoli said...
ReplyDeleteUm, you know there was a talking donkey in the Bible, right?
Um, you do know that this thread isn't about the bible right?
DormantDragon said ...
ReplyDeleteAllow me to indulge in immoderate chortling at this remark.
Be my guest.
You should read your bible occasionally, ... You might want to start with the one about a dude named Balaam...
Duh, no kidding.
Do you guys ever understand comments made here or what?
Gary:
ReplyDelete"'Um, you know there was a talking donkey in the Bible, right?'
"Um, you do know that this thread isn't about the bible right?"
The thread is not specificly about the bible. However, you called people "deniers of reality." Freddie correctly pointed out that some of the claims of the bible (which you claim to believe) necessarily deny reality. Your first reaction was to start using a "sailor mouth." That, in itself, is probably very telling. And, no, I am not saying that you served in the Navy.
Trolling for Jesus. Totally unexpected...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead said
ReplyDeleteyet another theist who doesn't seem all that familiar with his own theology
Oh dear another atheist that doesn't understand English. Maybe re-read what I actually said?
Foolishly expecting you to have read it perhaps?ROTFL
..you have kindly given us evidence that you are, in fact, significantly dumber even than I. I'm glad you admit your lack of understanding. As for me, you're inability to even grasp what I said is revealing.
you can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and show how it exists independently?
Well how about I allow you to answer for yourself.
-Is is absolutely wrong to rape children? We await...
They are true based on the evidence at hand. And you can prove this right?
..me answering your question without the need for absolutes? No.
I'm disappointed in your glaring lack of insight.
You assumed absolutes even in that pitiful answer.
you can demonstrate the truth of your claim for the existence of absolute truth?
Still waiting -Is it absolutely
wrong to rape children?
..If there is no absolute truth, why are you here arguing as though there were?
You're still committing the same error.
Where have I argued in such a way?You can't see it? Sheesh
You assume absolutes everywhere but don't even see it.
-Is is absolutely wrong to rape children?
... chanting "goddidit" over and over so you wouldn't have to confront any rebuttals..
Do you always precede your antagonist by assuming what he is saying before he says it?
Obviously yes.
Proof: I said nothing of the bible -you did. I said nothing like "goddidit". You did.
You've got evidence then? ..present it.
Of course I do.
Logical absolutes are evidence. Do you deny the existence of logical absolutes?
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> Freddie correctly pointed out that some of the claims of the bible (which you claim to believe) necessarily deny reality.
You're both wrong then (Pvb and Freddie). You are confusing reality with naturalism, specifically metaphysical naturalism, and for that you are both wrong. To claim to have evidence to counter a talking donkey is just not honest and not grounded in reality itself. There was a talking donkey as the evidence shows. If you care to refute it with some evidence I would be more then willing to entertain that claim. Otherwise the claim stands. A Book, written as an historical narrative, has eye witnesses to a talking Donkey, please refute it. Also, please do not confuse 'refute' with 'deny' as your atheistic worldviews do so often.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteYour posts are going through we are just having trouble with Blogger (Google) in fixing their screwed up code to say so. As long as it doesn't warn you that its over the 4,000+ limit then you're fine.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIf you can produce a talking donkey (not just a religious text that claims one) I will concede error. Oh, and Francis the talking mule was special effects. The determination that the bible is inaccurate is based on the fact that it goes against the evidence. You can't (well, obviously you can since you do) cite your religious text as evidence that there was a talking donkey and then say that it supports your "holy book" being accurate.
Do you guys ever understand comments made here or what?
ReplyDeleteGary, maybe you should cast an editorial eye over your comments and consider what they're actually saying, before accusing others of not understanding them.
It's quite obvious that you support Dan's worldview, a worldview propped up - however tenuously - by the bible. Your comment indicated a lack of knowledge of the content of the bible. What's to misunderstand?
By all means, claim that you weren't revealing your full hand with your attempt at a humourous put-down, but then don't expect not to receive ridicule in return.
Gary said: Proof: I said nothing of the bible -you did.
ReplyDeleteIt's your favorite book in your profile.
Dan, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteA Book, written as an historical narrative, has eye witnesses to a talking Donkey, please refute it.
Dan, I put it to you that you don't know that the various stories in the bible were written as historical narratives, any more than historians of Ancient Greece know that the stories of Perseus and Heracles were written as historical narratives.
Also, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is highly subjective, and that multiple witnesses to the same event will recount radically different versions of it.
Furthermore, donkeys are not generally known for their verbosity. However, human beings have a long history of making up fanciful stories. The probability of Balaam's talking donkey being a fanciful tale is very high, compared to the probability of its being a report of a factual incident. You could refute this supposition directly if you could produce a real-life donkey with the faculty of speech, but I rather suspect you can't do that.
Also, please do not confuse 'refute' with 'deny' as your atheistic worldviews do so often.
My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'refute' as:
1. prove the falsity or error of (a statement or the person advancing it)
2. rebut or repel by argument
3. deny or contradict (without argument)
I think you'll agree that I have fulfilled at least the second two of these definitions with the above comment. As you cannot prove the falsity or error of the supposition that Balaam's donkey is an imaginative creation (especially since I have provided supporting inferences), I would say that the first definition of 'refute' here holds equally for both of us, and that you resort to flat-out denial at least as often as any atheist.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>If you can produce a talking donkey (not just a religious text that claims one) I will concede error.
Assuming that evidence in the Bible is not evidence because you don't believe the Bible is true is question begging. Please try again
DD,
ReplyDelete>>My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'refute' as:
Odd choice of reference, but I would say that Oxford is wrong then.
Anyway since you chose a UK reference here is another from University of Aberdeen:
REFUTE: To refute a proposition or theory is to establish or prove that it is false. Lately many people have taken to using ‘refute’ as a synonym for ‘deny’, but avoid this usage in philosophy. To deny that God exists is not, in philosophical usage, to refute (or disprove) the proposition that God exists.
Slam Debunked
We have contemporary eyewitness accounts of alien abductions. Why are those less credible than stories in the Bible?
ReplyDeleteDan, I can't prove there wasn't a talking donkey. That's not the point. Let's try it this way...
ReplyDeleteI used to have a talking dog. He was a fan of fine arts and we would often discuss the works of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, he died a few years ago. I never took any footage of him talking, so all you've got is my eyewitness testimony to go on. Do you believe me? Why/Why not?
Brummer,
ReplyDeleteFirst, do you believe that you will be tortured in hell for all of eternity for lying?
"First, do you believe that you will be tortured in hell for all of eternity for lying?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that certainly came out of the blue. :P No, I don't believe that.
Dan
ReplyDeleteAssuming that evidence in the Bible is not evidence because you don't believe the Bible is true is question begging. Please try again
You've gotten it backwards. You're the one who's question begging here. You're using the bible as evidence because you believe in the bible.
Where's the independent verification?
Brummer,
ReplyDeleteFirst, do you believe that you will be tortured in hell for all of eternity for lying?
>>Well, that certainly came out of the blue. :P No, I don't believe that.
Well, then I don't believe you had a talking dog. You see the people involved with the Bible did believe they would go to hell for lying and painstakingly left truth in the Bible as it happened. It would of been far more credible for a man to discover the tomb empty but that would not have been the truth. The Bible is truth, your dog, and the cake, is a lie.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>You've gotten it backwards.
Nope.
>>You're the one who's question begging here.
Nope.
>>You're using the bible as evidence because you believe in the bible.
Nope. Strike three. I am using the Bible as evidence because I believe in God. God revealed things to us so that we can be certain of Him. God revealed (Special and Natural) to us Him.
>>Where's the independent verification?
God verifies the Bible independently and the Bible verifies God independently. Nature verifies God independently and God verifies His Creation (Nature) independently. God verified miracles independently and the miracles verified the existence of God. The resurrection independently verified that Jesus Christ was Lord and the Lord verified independently in His world that He is God. etc. etc.
"Well, then I don't believe you had a talking dog. You see the people involved with the Bible did believe they would go to hell for lying and painstakingly left truth in the Bible as it happened. It would of been far more credible for a man to discover the tomb empty but that would not have been the truth. The Bible is truth, your dog, and the cake, is a lie."
ReplyDeleteIf I had said yes, would you have seriously believed me? Would the discussion have gone like this:
Me: I had a talking dog.
You: Do you believe you go to hell for lying?
Me: Yes.
You: Whoa, you had a talking dog! That's awesome!
You just.. can't believe that. If you did, anyone could scam you.
Fraud: Buy this splinter of the cross Jesus was crucified on, it'll heal all your ailments! Only 9999$!
You: Do you believe you go to hell for lying?
Fraud: Of course! None goeth to the father except through Jesus!
You: SOLD.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYa I figured their code or their servers were screwing up somewhere, but I saw no posts being added at the time - I just kept getting a URI error message - sorry about that
Adam Nardoli
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness I'm so impressed!
So you were smart enuff to look at my profile huh.
Wow, how impressive.
You bozos just don't get it do you -this thread is not about the bible or its contents. Hello anyone home?
Its called "Ground Zero Mosque Plans"
You want to argue the bible?
Ask Dan to start a new thread and set forth you "proofs" that it is false and we shall have at it.
Never heard the term - "off topic" have you.
You guys are will do anything but address the current issue huh.
Now who is "scurrying" to escape having to rebut?
Dan
ReplyDeleteAmazing bunch of clowns gathered here.
They can't understand the term off topic, are constantly changing the subject, constantly going elsewhere for evidence of their assumptions, constantly refuting nothing, never answering the actually questions posed to them, always skirting away from arguments like 1st year elementary kids, ...
Unreal.
I do think you should hold them to topic though - else this thread will never end and it will go nowhere - like their "arguments".
Atheists are uncannily like JW's - always avoiding direct answers, always baiting and switching and always arguing with ignorance and of course their number 1 trait - denying reality.
Adam Nardoli
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness I'm so impressed!
Thanks.
So you were smart enuff (sic) to look at my profile (comma) huh.
Wow, how impressive.
Thank you. When you started complaining about atheists, I just knew what your favorite book would be. I was right.
You bozos just don't get it do you -this thread is not about the bible or its contents. Hello anyone home?
Wait... you were being sarcastic when you were praising me? Oh. :-(
Its called "Ground Zero Mosque Plans"
And YOU were the one who posted the atheist-baiting comment. Remember?
The hexagram, aka, the Star of David and King Solomon's Seal, has a long history in Middle Eastern religious art showing up in ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and Muslim buildings and artifacts. There is an interesting article on the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site detailing its long and varied history. You may wish to re-interpret the artist's intention in light of this information.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it doesn't take any stretch to link Jews to money as many comedians joke about continually.
all I can say is, Wow!
Adam Nardoli
ReplyDeleteGee, let'S take a look at your own profile...
"Woot!"
That's it?
ROTFL
Now that is so deep, and revealing.
When you started complaining about atheists, I just knew what your favorite book would be. I was right.I'm sure of one thing -you are extremely impressed with your yourself ... over nothing.
Keep on squealing and whining like a little brat while still avoiding to answer simple questions
And YOU were the one who posted the atheist-baiting comment. Remember? And YOU ARE the one who can't figure out what off topic means.
ALL you poor deluded atheists do is scurry around like rats when cornered -in this case, stubbornly trying to change the subject
-perhaps to avoid having to think?
Hey, I'm glad you liked my profile!
ReplyDelete"And YOU ARE the one who can't figure out what off topic means."
Off topic? As in near all of your comments?
Adam Nardoli wrote to Gary the Gnu Troll: Off topic? As in near all of your comments?
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest that Gary's comments are better characterized by non sequitur, rather than off topic. After all, our host can barely stick to a topic without shifting the goal posts. Why should we expect any better from his guests?
I think I see the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
ReplyDeleteGee, where'd freddies_dead go?
ReplyDeleteApparently he has no answer that will not sink his own ship.
Hey Troll, er Gary...
ReplyDeleteGuess which person here was the first to bring 'God' into the thread. Go on, guess. Even better, search the page to find the name.
Guess who was the one to turn the thread away from the original discussion?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIt's quite the reverse. Assuming the bible is evidence when it is the very thing you are trying to prove is question begging. Now, if I were to claim the bible's assertion of a talking donkey was, itself, evidence that donkeys don't talk, that would be question begging.
"You see the people involved with the Bible did believe they would go to hell for lying and painstakingly left truth in the Bible as it happened."
Or they falsely claimed that they believed.
"God verifies the [b]ible independently and the [b]ible verifies [g]od independently."
I'm not sure you know what the word "independently" means.
Whateverman said...
ReplyDeleteHey Troll, er Gary...
Guess which person here was the first to bring 'God' into the thread. Go on, guess. Even better, search the page to find the name.
Guess who was the one to turn the thread away from the original discussion?
Hey nowhereman, er whatever...
It was Dan. October 8, 2010 8:48 AM
And? ... your point?
Do you have an answer for the freddies_dead question or will you continue your own trolling yourself?
Gary said: "Do you have an answer for the freddies_dead question..?"
ReplyDeleteF_D has asked a lot of questions. To which question of you referring?
After asking Gary who mentioned "God" first in this thread, he responded as follows: It was Dan. October 8, 2010 8:48 AM
ReplyDeleteAnd? ... your point?
You've repeatedly claimed it was Dan's critics who brought off-topic discussion into the thread. A quick search shows that Dan first brought up God and the Biblical considerations.
"Off-topic" is this blog's host's MO.
As for answering Freddies' question, there's no need to.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteIt's quite the reverse. Assuming the bible is evidence when it is the very thing you are trying to prove is question begging.
Since none of you "skeptics" seems to have an answer to the question given to freddie, relating to moral absolutes, I'll put in some answers to other off topic questions that freddie raised.
Still, Dan I suggest you just start a new thread on the bible rather than perpetuate the long list of subject changes going on in this thread.
Your assertion, Pvblivs, on the bible proving the bible would be correct if the bible were a single book.
It isn't.
It's a collection of books that indeed, verify each other. That means independently.
Just because they were joined in a "canon" doesn't mean they are not independent of each other.
The agreement between the books of what is called the "bible" (from Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books")is in fact one of the most remarkable things of any canon in history seeing they were written over a period of around 1500 years by people who did not, for the most part, know each other or know of the existence of the other writers except those before them.
So much for the old "circular verification" argument.
Gary said: "Since none of you "skeptics" seems to have an answer to the question given to freddie, relating to moral absolutes..."
ReplyDeleteCan you copy and paste this question?
Gary said: "It's a collection of books that indeed, verify each other. That means independently.
ReplyDeleteJust because they were joined in a "canon" doesn't mean they are not independent of each other."
Could it be that the people who choose the canon, chose books that seemed to verify their ideas and excluded books that didn't?
Adam Nardoli said...
ReplyDeleteCan you copy and paste this question?
Too lazy to search the thread?
Whatever, here are the 2 questions I challenged freddie to answer.
1. If there are absolutes, why are you here arguing as though there were?
Atheists say there are no moral absolutes and no absolute truth.
Thus,
2. Is is absolutely wrong to rape children?
Be my guest at answering either or both.
Well heck, if we're gonna totally go off on a tangent, I'll take a stab at answering them:
ReplyDelete1) The only absolutes I'm aware of are systemic; they're absolute because we have defined them to be so. Beyond that, if there are moral or ethical absolutes, I'm unaware of those. Every moral judgement I've encountered is relative to the situation at hand.
2) I shy away from calling it "absolutely wrong", because I'm skeptical of the existence of moral absolutes. I would say, however, that I haven't encountered a situation in which such behavior would be "good". I could try to imagine one, if you'd prefer...
Whateverman said...
ReplyDeleteYou've repeatedly claimed it was Dan's critics who brought off-topic discussion into the thread. A quick search shows that Dan first brought up God and the Biblical considerations.
"Off-topic" is this blog's host's MO.
I only wish you were kidding.
I said nothing of Dans "off topics" - its his blog and his thread - or doesn't that ring a bell in your head?
He can do what he wants.
I was responding to freddie - not you. He brought up a talking donkey in the bible.
Nevertheless, you and others attempted to derail my request to stay on topic - or at least close - as though I was speaking to all.
So not only are you wrong on this but so are your buddies.
And I see you enjoy perpetuating the only criticism you can think of and that has no bearing on my challenge to freddie whatsoever.
Pretty pathetic from start to finish.
As for answering Freddies' question, there's no need to.
Really? Why?
Come on give it a go.
We're all anxious to see how one who claims there are no absolutes, absolutely claims there are no absolutes.
Or at least gives a viable reason for child rape that demonstrates that moral absolutes do not exist.
Good luck.
Adam Nardoli
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the people who choose the canon, chose books that seemed to verify their ideas and excluded books that didn't?
My goodness, for once a valid question!
The canon was chosen, not by one single person but by many and that over many centuries.
Believe it or not there were not that many books, written by those who were called prophets among the Hebrews, to choose from.
It wasn't a overwhelming task of finding books that agreed. They all agreed generally - the task was deciding which ones had the evidence of genuine inspiration and coherence with the Mosaic canon - the Torah.
In any case - you may raise many questions on this. Yet, none of them will prove that inter-dependence and mutual validation are erroneous. It won't change anything at all of the basic message and truth of it.
Whateverman
ReplyDeleteWell heck, if we're gonna totally go off on a tangent, I'll take a stab at answering them:
May as well, this thread is already so impregnated with tangents and subtangents its very hard to read or follow.
1) The only absolutes I'm aware of are systemic; they're absolute because we have defined them to be so. Beyond that, if there are moral or ethical absolutes, I'm unaware of those. Every moral judgement I've encountered is relative to the situation at hand.
You haven't answered the question at all!
We do not pick which moral values are absolute. They are self-defined and that's why we invented rather the word 'absolute' to categorize what we already knew intuitively.
You are lying to yourself by saying you don't know of any moral absolutes as do all who pretend there are none.
Relative eh?
So there are circumstances in which child rape is good?
2) I shy away from calling it "absolutely wrong", because I'm skeptical of the existence of moral absolutes. I would say, however, that I haven't encountered a situation in which such behavior would be "good". I could try to imagine one, if you'd prefer...
Yes, go ahead and try.
You won't find any. None, zilch, zero nada.
I think you're merely searching for a way out of the indestructible fact of moral absolutes.
Relativism is circular. It is thus self-destructive by definition.
It must itself be relative and thus of no validity whatsoever.
Worse still, you're basing your here reasoning upon what foundation?
Obviously, you're assuming an absolute somewhere.
Again, the related question - do logical absolutes exit?
We both agree that "child rape" is wrong but just because we agree does not make it "absolutely" wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou've jumped to extremes but to see if morals are absolute we need to examine both extremes. And shades between.
Is it absolutely wrong to tell a white lie or a lie that saves a life?
I don't think it's wrong to lie to save a life, but some commenters on this blog have argued in the past that it IS absolutely wrong to lie in any circumstance.
Gary said: "Believe it or not there were not that many books, written by those who were called prophets among the Hebrews, to choose from."
ReplyDeleteThat the Hebrews often agreed with the Hebrews is no surprise, especially when unagreeing texts were suppressed and people with different opinions threatened or killed.
But I'm more familiar with the events in the choosing of the New Testament canon.
You are saying they did choose books that seemed to verify their ideas and excluded books that didn't?
ReplyDelete"Yes, go ahead and try.
ReplyDeleteYou won't find any. None, zilch, zero nada."
I'll give it a shot. Granted, my situation is not realistic at all.
Aliens are holding the earth hostage, and you're the one they've chosen for their scientific study of human morality. They demand that you rape a child. If you refuse, the aliens will destroy all humanity, you and the child included. If you agree, the earth will be saved and the child's memory of the rape will be completely erased and his or her body healed. This is assuming the aliens are not lying.
I think you could object to the above situation by saying I'm making it too convenient by positing that the rape will not inflict any longterm physical or mental damage, as usually is the case with rape. I'm not saying it's obviously the case that you ought to rape the child. It's a grey area, you literally can't make a 'good' choice. But that's my try at solving your riddle at least. I hope even suggesting something like that won't make me sound like a monster.
"We do not pick which moral values are absolute. They are self-defined and that's why we invented rather the word 'absolute' to categorize what we already knew intuitively.
You are lying to yourself by saying you don't know of any moral absolutes as do all who pretend there are none."
Sure, if you ignore that fact that other people at other times intuitively knew completely different moral absolutes. I could say I intuitively know that owning another human being as property is wrong, but this a rather recent development in human morality. For thousands of years, people seemingly had no intuitive moral knowledge that slavery was wrong.
You can say everyone who doesn't agree with you is lying to themselves. But that does nothing to further the discussion, and I could accuse you of the same but I don't think it's very honest.
I was going to choose a commandment by the Christian God, h_brummer, though I think yours is actually a bit more practical/realistic.
ReplyDeleteGary:
ReplyDelete"Your assertion, Pvblivs, on the bible proving the bible would be correct if the bible were a single book.
"It isn't.
"It's a collection of books that indeed, verify each other. That means independently.
"Just because they were joined in a 'canon' doesn't mean they are not independent of each other."
No, they are still not independent of one another. If a the members of a group of suspects all support each others' alibis, it is still not independent corroboration. They may be telling the truth, but they are interdependent, not independent. Since the whole bible is in dispute, no part of it constitutes and independent verification.
"The agreement between the books of what is called the 'bible' ... is in fact one of the most remarkable things of any canon in history seeing they were written over a period of around 1500 years by people who did not, for the most part, know each other or know of the existence of the other writers except those before them."
The agreement is not so remarkable as you claim. As committees determined which books would or would not be part of the canon, there was an opportunity to enforce this "agreement." Books that were not satisfactorily in agreement were discarded as "non-canon." Now, if you were to show that there were many pairs of books where neither writer knew what the other wrote and that even the discarded texts shared the remarkable agreement, it would indeed be surprising.
"Since none of you skeptics seems to have an answer to the question given to [F]reddie..."
Just so you know, "Freddie" is a proper name. As such, it is capitalized according to English grammar.
As regards your question: I suspect that no one touches it because they see that it is deliberately loaded and that you are prepared to turn any answer into a "straw-man" position. I, and others, see morals as systemic. That is, they are tied to systems that humans apply. Certain actions are morally wrong according to these systems. They are, therefore, morally wrong but not "absolutely morally wrong." The phrase "absolutely morally wrong" is inherently incoherent. However, the way you have phrased your question allows you to say either that the responder believes in absolutes (if he affirms a particular action is "absolutely morally wrong") or that he considers a particular action acceptable (if he denied it being "absolutely morally wrong.") In reality, we find your particular example systemically morally wrong. So you would be misrepresenting based on any answer. And I have no doubt that that was the point of the question.
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>You've repeatedly claimed it was Dan's critics who brought off-topic discussion into the thread. A quick search shows that Dan first brought up God and the Biblical considerations.
No, the derailment began with Pvb that brought up the point: "You were trying to sell your unusually high rate of comment disappearance as a coincidence."
Pvb wanted to bring things to a personal level again. Its his M.O. lately.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>You've gotten it backwards.
Nope.
You're the one who's question begging here.
Nope.
You're using the bible as evidence because you believe in the bible.
Nope. Strike three. I am using the Bible as evidence because I believe in God.
And just where does one learn of "god" in the first place, Dan? Where does one find out that it's worshipping "Christ" that "saves" you?
The Bible!
God revealed things to us so that we can be certain of Him. God revealed (Special and Natural) to us Him.
And what is this "Special" revelation? The Bible!
Where's the independent verification?
God verifies the Bible independently and the Bible verifies God independently. Nature verifies God independently and God verifies His Creation (Nature) independently.
And just where does one first learn that "nature verifies god"? The Bible! My question still stands.
God verified miracles independently and the miracles verified the existence of God.
And where are those miracles written about? The Bible.
The resurrection independently verified that Jesus Christ was Lord
And where does one read of this "resurrection" in the first place? The Bible. Without the bible, there's nada "evidence" for this "resurrection" in the first place. No other records mention it, the day turning into night, the risen saints, etc that were all supposed to have happened at that time.
and the Lord verified independently in His world that He is God. etc. etc.
Etc. etc...Baloney!
All you did was help show my point. You need to believe in the bible to make all of your above points. You do use circular reasoning, only you're too dense to see it.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>You do use circular reasoning, only you're too dense to see it.
As it has been said to you, multiple times now:
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.
Lol.
ReplyDeleteCircular arguments are illogical, regardless of whether someone labels them vicious or not.
And when illogical arguments are made in support of a deity who's supposed to be the source of logic...
Hypocrisy, thy name is Dan.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteI am doing my best to work a new post here but, as many times in a given conversation, multiple points are brought up. I love a good conversation and its flow. You brought up many great points yourself.
I do resurrect and highlight conversations at times where points, I feel, need to be focused.
Most of the time, I treat the conversations like the thrust of this blog's namesake. We seek to debunk each Atheist, individually, in their personal worldview. I am interested in the conversation with the Atheist in their errors of thought and work to expose those errors, personally.
Admittedly, I do treat this blog at times like a conversation at a BBQ though. It tangents at times, evidence here, but I am interested in seeing that individual saved more then anything else. I am interested more in the fate of the individual instead of merely making points against a mass belief system, if that makes any sense.
This subject is a extremely personal and real thing for me. I cannot be cavalier to others. Its not about staying on topic, its about seeing the person get saved. My atheistic parents (Mom already, and my Dad turns 80 this month and just had a pace maker installed) and siblings will, most likely, end up in hell.
As you can probably see, this subject weighs very heavily in my soul. I really don't care about the topics, I care about them.
Blessings.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"No, the derailment began with Pvb that brought up the point: 'You were trying to sell your unusually high rate of comment disappearance as a coincidence.'"
Specificly as a counter to your claim of "I don't believe in coincidences anyway." That's not off-topic That is countering your argument because you don't apply it consistently. But then, I'm not the one who came up with "Pvboy." And I am not the one making this personal. I am simply countering your claims.
Not to mention that the first tangent was Dan bringing Biblegod into this discussion .
ReplyDeleteWem,
ReplyDelete>>Circular arguments are illogical, regardless of whether someone labels them vicious or not.
Bzzzt! Not so my uneducated friend, you may want to brush up on and sharpen your arguments before posting here. Unless that is your "A" game.
Allow me to help:
"Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?
First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q):
p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1
Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?
For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premises already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premise, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge. " ~ Fallacy Files
Also, you need to understand all forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premises already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed." [Emphasis mine]
The trouble is that you start from premises not known or believed by your audience -- that the bible is true, that the bible is the word of your god, that your god exists, that your god is invariably truthful. These are things that we do not take as premise. You can, if you wish, try to argue the truth of those as conclusions. But there is no form in which we already believe them. Your argument has no force because you fail to meet the specifications you apply. I assure you, if you reach your desired conclusion from premises we already believe, we will stop accusing you of circular reasoning.
h_brummer
ReplyDelete...Aliens are holding the earth hostage, and you're the one they've chosen for their scientific study of human morality. They demand that you rape a child. If you refuse, the aliens will destroy all humanity...
The rape itself would ever and always be wrong - no matter the consequences.
You're basically using an "end justifies the means" argument. Doesn't work.
It's a grey area, you literally can't make a 'good' choice.
Well you can make the "good" (in the most basic meaning of that word) choice - in spite of the consequences.
The consequences could never be your responsibility.
I hope even suggesting something like that won't make me sound like a monster.
The scenario, as hypothetical, is in line with the question, so no.
..if you ignore that fact that other people at other times intuitively knew completely different moral absolutes.
This is where you really get into trouble because the statement is simply historically false.
The amazing fact is that the basic moral values of cultures, old and new, globally, all reflect the same base values!
The ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Norse ... all had the same basic values.
The differences were not at all in fundamental levels.
The only examples we have of truly contradicting moral values is in cultures that went off the deep end into Satan and demon worship.
...I intuitively know that owning another human being as property is wrong, but this a rather recent development in human morality. For thousands of years, people seemingly had no intuitive moral knowledge that slavery was wrong.
This is only partly true.
You have to realize that 1000's of years ago, there was often little difference between the idea of "slave" and our more modern concept of "employee".
But this is getting off the absolute values topic into a specific and highly contextual area. So, I have no further comment on slavery for now.
You can say everyone who doesn't agree with you is lying to themselves.
Which is not what I'm doing at all.
I'm pointing universal moral values that have ALWAYS existed and have never changed but in the small details - and that in every culture throughout history.
One may disagree all they want, but that changes nothing of the reality of moral absolutes.
The human mind has no power to invent a new moral value at all.
Go ahead and try.
The best you can do is invent either pure nonsense or attempt to define some superficial value that ends up being in fact already extant. You'll only define an absolute in different terms and contexts.
We can only describe values that we intuitively know are absolutes -using the best of our understanding and the innate moral sense. A sense that no one can rid themselves of without enormous effort and grave consequences - and even then!
The values themselves are as solid, timeless and absolute as 1+1 = 2 -exactly as my questions reveal.
Thanks for attempting an honest answer.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI fully understand your position and sentiments on this.
I usually have the same.
However, I like the way the prophets & Christ rebuked and quite literally insulted many opponents - mostly the religious hypocrites.
The only atheists I've ever encountered that would indeed listen to reason and honestly examine the evidence became theists or at least deists anyway!
Most are so blinded by acute, yet willful, cognitive dissonance caused by inane relativism, that they cannot see the most glaring of realities.
Atheism is denial of reality at its core.
Even the scoundrel Voltaire stated, "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....."
So few of them come to debate with anything more than intentions of bitching and whining like little sucks in their angst against God.
When I detect that spirit in them I don't care what they think because no amount of argument or the clearest of truths will ever get through their thick skulls and blinded hearts... until they wish so.
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." -James M. Gillis
Gary, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteSo few of them come to debate with anything more than intentions of bitching and whining like little sucks in their angst against God.
When I detect that spirit in them I don't care what they think because no amount of argument or the clearest of truths will ever get through their thick skulls and blinded hearts... until they wish so.
Aww, diddums... You do know that you don't have to engage with anyone you don't want to, right? But it's a bit much to descend to pouty little pronouncements like this.
Sure there are some atheists who are just out for a bitch-fest, just like there are some Christians who are there for the same. Pop over to Ray Comfort's blog and check out the likes of Carl and Call-Upon-Jesus if you don't believe me. Whiny little sucks are far from being an exclusively atheist preserve.
Difficult though it may be for you to comprehend, there are some atheists - like myself - for whom throwing off the intellectual and emotional shackles of religion was a great liberation, a joyful experience that we want to share. If we get angry at religionists, it's largely because the religion you peddle, with the weird arguments you invent to advance it, blinds people to so much of the world's richness, and inhibits appreciation of so much of our human experience.
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." -James M. Gillis
And such is the wonder of a world without gods, Gary. Gotta say, if this is meant to be an insult, it's quite the misfire. Gillis is essentially saying here, "Look, religion lets you circumscribe the world according to your simple little human mind - isn't that great?"
To deny that God exists is not, in philosophical usage, to refute (or disprove) the proposition that God exists.
ReplyDeleteSlam Debunked
Uh, no, Dan. You're jumping the gun with your little victory dance here. You haven't even come close to actually addressing the comment I made.
If you actually read my comment, Dan, before diving into the dictionary definitions debate ('cause we all know that definitions are fluid things, especially for you), you will notice that I offered far more than a simple denial of the existence of gods. I offered reasons for supposing that bible stories are not reliable accounts of facts.
Go ahead and demonstrate that my reasoning was unsound, or even offer some counter-arguments, if you think you can - just remember that, just as denial is not the same as refutation, assertion is not the same as explanation or demonstration.
I can't help thinking, Dan, that if you'd been around at the time, you would have been one of those people who thought that the first broadcast of the War of the Worlds radio play was news of a real alien invasion.
ReplyDeleteA proposition you have asserted several times now but failed to establish is that the various books of the bible were written as factual history, rather than legend, folklore or hagiography. Biblical scholars tend to come down on the side of the latter for the vast majority of the bible's content.
Certainly there may have been a factual core around which some of the biblical stories were built, but acknowledging as much is a long way from establishing that everything recorded in the bible is literal historical fact, as you seem to assume.
In short, there are many good reasons to doubt the historical veracity of the bible - a few of which I offered in my comment about the story of Balaam and the talking donkey - and not much support for the supposition that it's all factually true.
A quick apology as it seems Gary has gotten all hot under the collar which my tardy response, unfortunately I was quite busy with other things yesterday.
ReplyDeleteGary said...
freddies_dead said
yet another theist who doesn't seem all that familiar with his own theology
Oh dear another atheist that doesn't understand English. Maybe re-read what I actually said?
Reread it - you accused atheists of denying reality, I pointed out your hypocrisy. My English comprehension is just fine, yours, not so much...
Foolishly expecting you to have read it perhaps?
ROTFL
I know. It really was foolish of me to expect you to at least have a passing knowledge of your own theology. I'll try to adjust my expectations in future.
..you have kindly given us evidence that you are, in fact, significantly dumber even than I.
I'm glad you admit your lack of understanding. As for me, you're inability to even grasp what I said is revealing.
Your own inability to grasp my response to your original rant reveals so much more...
you can demonstrate that "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and show how it exists independently?
Well how about I allow you to answer for yourself.
-Is is absolutely wrong to rape children? We await...
Ah, the pathetic appeal to emotion, the answer is of course no, instead it is systemically wrong to rape children. Perhaps you could explain how the concept "raping babies" could be viewed as good or bad if babies did not, in fact, exist? Not absolute, systemic.
They are true based on the evidence at hand.
And you can prove this right?
That depends on whether you accept the evidence.
..me answering your question without the need for absolutes?
No. I'm disappointed in your glaring lack of insight. You assumed absolutes even in that pitiful answer
I did? Where?
you can demonstrate the truth of your claim for the existence of absolute truth?
Still waiting -Is it absolutely wrong to rape children?
Asked and answered but you've reminded me to point out how this question displays the moral bankruptcy of the worldview you profess to hold (and also shows how you will cherry pick when to actually stick to it) as, should your God command you to rape a baby, not only would you do it, you would call it 'good'. You have no recourse to moral absolutes when your morality is dictated by the whims of an amoral deity.
..If there is no absolute truth, why are you here arguing as though there were?
I'm actually arguing as if there are systemic truth but of course you don't seem to comprehend that.
You're still committing the same error.
No error on my part, I'm merely asking you to support your claim that "absolute truth exists", any chance of you doing that without a fallacious appeal to emotion this time?
Where have I argued in such a way?
You can't see it? Sheesh
You can't point it out? Double sheesh.
You assume absolutes everywhere but don't even see it.
No, you keep claiming I'm assuming absolutes but have so far failed to back up your claim.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete-Is is absolutely wrong to rape children?
I'll refer you to my previous two answers to this appeal to emotion.
... chanting "goddidit" over and over so you wouldn't have to confront any rebuttals..
Do you always precede your antagonist by assuming what he is saying before he says it?
Obviously yes.
Proof: I said nothing of the bible -you did. I said nothing like "goddidit". You did.
You accused atheists (I'm an atheist) of denying reality - I pointed out your hypocrisy by using an example from your professed worldview (uless you don't believe what the Bible tells you perhaps?), dry your eyes and wipe the enraged spittle from your lips and move on.
You've got evidence then? ..present it.
Of course I do.
This should be good...
Logical absolutes are evidence.
Then you can provide evidence of their existence?
Do you deny the existence of logical absolutes?
Shifting the burden of proof so soon? Can you not support your claim?
"The rape itself would ever and always be wrong - no matter the consequences.
ReplyDeleteYou're basically using an "end justifies the means" argument. Doesn't work."
Yes, the ends can justify the means. Take the age-old example of lying when a nazi knocks on your door and asks if you're hiding any jews. Acts like lying aren't wrong independent of their context. The same should apply for rape, but it takes far more imagination to invent a scenario where rape could be even partly justified.
"The ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Norse ... all had the same basic values.
The differences were not at all in fundamental levels."
That's not unexpected in a naturalistic worldview at all. We're all the same species after all, we often bolster our differences even though they are very small. Our DNA is basically 100% similiar. We're a social species, and it's been for our benefit to develop behaviour that makes it possible for us to cooperate and live in communities. So, yeah, you can find some moral 'absolutes' in different cultures such as "killing people for fun is wrong'. Even that moral principle has exceptions however. Think of the brutal fights at the Colosseum, for example. Are you not entertained?
But I'd say the differences are too big to posit an innate knowledge of moral absolutes given by the Christian God. The spartans would throw children off a cliff if they were found unfit to become soldiers. Where was their knowledge of moral absolutes? Or all the cultures that practiced human sacrifice? Or the cultures that stoned adulterers, homosexuals and women who weren't virgins on their wedding night? Even if you think it was justifiable to execute those people back then, stoning was an unnecessarily cruel and painful way to do it. You can brush them off as anomalies or devil worshippers, but these anomalies should be explained given that we should all hold to the same values imbued on us by a god.
I'd like to ask you a question. If our innate moral knowledge is given by God, why does my moral intuition tell me that Hell is absolutely immoral? To accept Christianity, I would have to fight against my innate morality. Why is that even possible?
You have to realize that 1000's of years ago, there was often little difference between the idea of "slave" and our more modern concept of "employee".
ReplyDeleteI often beat my employees to death 'cos like the Bible says they are "my money".
The only atheists I've ever encountered that would indeed listen to reason and honestly examine the evidence became theists or at least deists anyway!
Really, because the only theists I've ever encountered that would indeed listen to reason and honestly examine the evidence became deists or atheists anyway!
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>The trouble is that you start from premises not known or believed by your audience -- that the bible is true, that the bible is the word of your god, that your god exists, that your god is invariably truthful. These are things that we do not take as premise.
Argumentum ad populum? Denial of a premise does not equate to adequate justification for denial of a premise. Reason and logic allows for
>>Your argument has no force because you fail to meet the specifications you apply.
Rich. Would you like a mirror?
DD,
ReplyDelete>>Difficult though it may be for you to comprehend, there are some atheists - like myself - for whom throwing off the intellectual and emotional shackles of religion was a great liberation, a joyful experience that we want to share.
Or help convince themselves that they are right, knowing they are not.
>>If we get angry at religionists, it's largely because the religion you peddle, with the weird arguments you invent to advance it, blinds people to so much of the world's richness, and inhibits appreciation of so much of our human experience.
Wow, you place too much faith in human's ability to convince others. The ironic thing is that you are all so feverish to counter arguments all the while complaining how ineffective we are in our arguments. If that were so then there would be no need for a counter.
This is not a matter of intellectual chess, this is a "play" for keeps and that is how I view every conversation.
Adam,
ReplyDelete>>Really, because the only theists I've ever encountered that would indeed listen to reason and honestly examine the evidence became deists or atheists anyway!
That may be true, because people that seek to place themselves in the judge's seat and place God on trial often do become atheists. Its very destructive to one's soul. Its only when the goal is truth then they realize that God has been that Judge all along and humble themselves to that realization.
I am sure slick people on QVC can reason as to why you should buy the widget and people often buy their nonsense. People listen to reason and honestly examine the evidence presented by the QVC salesperson and buy their garbage. When the goal turns to TRUTH ALONE do they realize that they do not in fact NEED the garbage being peddled and don't FALL for the sales pitch. Atheists are no different. Atheists try to reason a way out of God's authority and BUY INTO the false notion that they need self only and FALL for the pitch of man instead of seeking TRUTH of God. Atheists are merely slick QVC salespeople. That should be a post.
Back to on topic:
ReplyDeleteUPDATE: This will be a nuisance and a real security threat to New York and the neighborhood and everyone KNOWS it. It was right for the Attorney General to recognize to move the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial away from this area because of the security threat so there is not even a question as to the sensitive nature of this particular area. It will raise costs for New Yorker's (read all of us) to have to defend such a place if its built. Its not a smart move AT ALL!! This will be quite literally spitting on New York, and America, if this gets built.
DormantDragon
ReplyDeleteDifficult though it may be for you to comprehend, there are some atheists - like myself - for whom throwing off the intellectual and emotional shackles of religion was a great liberation, a joyful experience that we want to share.
Your "liberation" from "religion", however you misdefined it,was to slavery of a different kind -far worse- but you won't know it till the end of your life.
And such is the wonder of a world without gods, Gary.
My, you have thought this through so deeply that you fit exactly my description of the average atheist -a blind wannabe leader of the blind.
Dan, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteOr help convince themselves [atheists] that they are right, knowing they are not.
You don't know that I'm wrong, Dan. If you did, you'd provide an actual demonstration of the fact, rather than hand-waving and assertion. I am an atheist because I have found no compelling reason to believe in gods, and many compelling reasons not to; if you actually can demonstrate your god's existence in a way that is unambiguous and not open to alternative interpretation (nor vulnerable to Occam's razor), please do so.
Wow, you place too much faith in human's ability to convince others.
Convince others of what, Dan? Don't you run this blog for the purpose of convincing people of your god's existence?
The ironic thing is that you are all so feverish to counter arguments all the while complaining how ineffective we are in our arguments. If that were so then there would be no need for a counter.
Except for the fact that you don't ever acknowledge that you might be wrong. That's an aspect of intellectual honesty many atheists have, but which Christians like yourself only ridicule as a lack of certainty.
By all means, keep telling yourself how much you "know for certain" that your god exists and that you're going to a magical paradise after you die, if that's what gets you through the night. Just don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your unsupported assertions.
This is not a matter of intellectual chess, this is a "play" for keeps and that is how I view every conversation.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Dan, if you really cared about the fate of atheists, you would offer more convincing, concrete arguments for the existence of your god.
However, as you haven't thus far offered any such arguments, two conclusions are possible - either you don't have such arguments (whether through lack of research or impossibility remains to be seen) or you actually don't care what happens to unbelievers. Based upon recent comments of yours, I'm currently leaning towards the latter, until demonstrated otherwise.
Your "liberation" from "religion", however you misdefined it,was to slavery of a different kind -far worse- but you won't know it till the end of your life.
ReplyDeleteThen how do you know this, Gary? Who let you in on the secret? I want names, dates, times - all the facts you can muster. If you could link to video footage of a visitation from beyond the grave, that would be ace.
My, you have thought this through so deeply that you fit exactly my description of the average atheist -a blind wannabe leader of the blind.
ReplyDelete10 out of 10 for the cop-out there, Gary. I'll pay attention when you can actually offer an argument.
Freddie's Dead, I have to say thanks for pointing out explicitly that moral truths are contingent on the existence of sentient, self-aware beings who can be moral agents, rather than being absolute. That's a great counter to the position often maintained by theists, that human truths are universal.
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead ...
ReplyDeletemostly just ... drivel drivel drivel ... more "escape logic" drivel
...I pointed out your hypocrisy. bla bla..
You are a sorry little fellow indeed responding with such salient codswallop. You are the hypocrite here -and you prove it by pretending that my choice not to get into the bible is somehow hypocrisy.
Wow
Ah, the pathetic appeal to emotion,
You have to resort to defining your opponents argument under your own terms of reference?
Wow again.
the answer is of course no,
Really? Why?
Systemic means nothing unless you wish to explain your logical foundations.
I already know that you have none that you have not a priori assumed were absolute! And that all while denying absolutes!
This would be so funny if you were just joking and trying to look like an idiot for fun!
Not absolute, systemic.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
That depends on whether you accept the evidence.
Indeed, escape is your prime axiom, as we see with this non answer.
I did? Where?
This is ubiquitously where atheists lose.
You're assuming some absolute by just being here arguing over them.
...should your God command you to rape a baby, not only would you do it, you would call it 'good'.
Oh, so now you once again imply that something is absolutely wrong while using the meaningless term (in this context) "systemic" to hide the underlying absolute.
You have no recourse to moral absolutes when your morality is dictated by the whims of an amoral deity.
Yet another old and futile argument. Where do you get this crap? Pee Zee Myers? Richard Dawkins? Pee Wee Herman?
I'm actually arguing as if there are systemic truth but of course you don't seem to comprehend that.
Go ahead fred, explain "systemic truth".
Oops, now go run to google to find an explanation and bring it back.
Then we can strip it to the roots to expose why its yet another meaningless philosophical escape mechanism.
Are you absolutely sure your truth is "systemic"?
Atheists are always assuming absolutes in every argument they spew out against absolutes!
They want proof, then they destroy the possibility of proof by defining real truth out of existence!
They ask for proof, yet the very concept of proof depends on the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.
It is impossible to argue without it!
Atheists are also using "beg the question" arguments whenever they claim things such as "I can reason that my reasoning is valid."
Well no you cannot. You cannot test your brain with your brain freddie! Not unless you admit of at least one absolute!
You claim there is no absolute truth.
So, is this claim of yours the absolute truth?
No, you keep claiming I'm assuming absolutes but have so far failed to back up your claim.
This deserves nothing but the most vehement rebuke as it too assumes an underlying absolute
i.e. your absolute certainty that there are no absolutes!
You're unreal fred, just freaking unreal.
Why don't you just give up and admit you're absolutely wrong?
That would be your "first step into a larger universe".
Gary, you posted,
ReplyDeleteYou claim there is no absolute truth. So, is this claim of yours the absolute truth?
Absolute truth is the position that must be demonstrated here. It seems to me that in order to show absolute truth, one must have absolute knowledge.
Contingent truth, however, is relative and can be easily demonstrated. To use your example, according to human standards, rape of a child (or of any person, according to libertarian morality) is wrong in every case, even if it is being used to offset a greater harm - in such a case, it may be held to be the lesser of two evils, but could not be construed as "right" from the point of view of the human agents involved.
However...would this truth hold as universal if there were no conscious agents in the universe?
h_brummer
ReplyDeleteends can justify the means. ...lying when a nazi knocks on your door and asks if you're hiding any jews. Acts like lying aren't wrong independent of their context.
That's in a context of war, persecution etc. Using deception to fool an enemy that's seeking your life is not necessarily lying in the biblical sense.
That however leads us down a very rocky road of how to judge whether some form of deception is a "true lie" so to speak.
As soon as you start down the "situation ethics", "end justifies means" road you will get in trouble sooner or later.
That's not unexpected in a naturalistic worldview at all.
Actually yes it is unexpected because in a mindless, purposeless nature there is no reason at all why morals should even exist at all.
Where does the moral sense come from? A moral sense cannot be the results of non rational, non purposeful processes.
The irrational cannot produce the rational. Inanimate matter cannot produce valid reason.
We're a social species, and it's been for our benefit to develop behaviour that makes it possible for us to cooperate and live in communities.
Be careful. You have to apply this to the opposite conclusion as well.
i.e. Aggressive, violent behavior is just as justifiable using "survival of the fittest" logic.
Which is exactly what the Nazis did.
And this is exactly what is happening today under atheist Darwinian mindsets - rape is now just an evolutionary adaptation.
...Even that moral principle has exceptions however. Think of the brutal fights at the Colosseum, for example. Are you not entertained?
I hope you're kidding. No, I'm not entertained by violent, vicious, merciless, useless bloodshed.
But I'd say the differences are too big to posit an innate knowledge of moral absolutes given by the Christian God.
Again, the differences are not great at all, except in the conditions I noted previously.
The spartans would throw children off a cliff if they were found unfit to become soldiers.
The real question here is why do you believe they were wrong?
Obviously, you're assuming some "higher" or "better" value system.
But, to do that you're automatically assuming the existence of a rule by which moral standards themselves can be measured!
The Rule is the Moral Law - the absolute Rule of Right and Wrong.
If there is none, we can no more condemn the Spartans than we can the Nazis or Mao, Stalin or any vicious serial rapist-killer.
...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...
ReplyDeleteWhere was their knowledge of moral absolutes?
Moral agents can only exist where there is a moral law. Here you're again assuming one exists outside of individual or cultural preferences!
However, while all moral agents are necessarily under some external moral law, they, by design, are also free to disobey. Just like us under civil rule.
There are also many varying degrees of understanding of that law, and many more degrees still of understanding how that law ought to be applied and how infractions ought to be punished.
You can brush them off as anomalies or devil worshippers,
Human sacrifice is, historically, always related to some form of devil worship - and still is today - even in America.
but these anomalies should be explained given that we should all hold to the same values imbued on us by a god.
Yes indeed, but this is exactly my above point. None of us are forced to submit to the Moral Law.
If you decide to burn your neighbor's house down, nor the Moral Law nor God will stop you. That's free will.
The more you truly understand that law, the more responsible you are for breaking it willingly.
All humans are born with the moral sense - but some of its details and specifics need to be learned by us.
We will not be judged on the mere existence of the Moral Law. We will be judged rightly according to how much we knew of it, how much we understood it and how much we should have known and understood if we'd done our duty to.
If you pass on the red light for fun and you know what it means you are far more guilty than the one who goes through it because a red light hanging in the middle of an intersection was never explained to them.
If our innate moral knowledge is given by God, why does my moral intuition tell me that Hell is absolutely immoral?
That's a normal reaction if you in fact don't understand the why's, how's and what's about legal sanctions.
Hell is a legal sanction. It is a penitentiary for those who refuse to stop breaking the law and refuse the means to obtain legal pardon for laws already broken.
You may as well say all punishments, for all crimes is immoral.
It also results from when we do not understand the nature of crimes committed against an almighty, all knowing all governing creator.
If you slap a dog, little would come of it even if someone sued you.
But if you slap the president of the USA, believe me, you'll be paying for it the rest of life -one way and another!
To accept Christianity, I would have to fight against my innate morality. Why is that even possible?
Because you do not understand well.
Why?
1 - probably partly because of bad examples (bad examples are no excuse for breaking the law) seeing as you've just shown that you have a moral sense by which you can judge much yourself without being told!
2 - partly because you don't understand it rightly
3 - partly because you don't fully understand the gravity of willful, persistent rebellion against the highest authority that ever has and ever will exist.
Once you understand these things, it all begins to become clear why Christianity is true and why ONLY Christianity - whether called by that name or not - is the one true life.
Adam Nardoli
ReplyDeleteI often beat my employees to death 'cos like the Bible says they are "my money"....
Nerdoli - you are such a pathetic little wimp and possess all the intellectual depth of a plasmodium.
EOL for you.
DormantDragon h
ReplyDeleteAbsolute truth is the position that must be demonstrated here.
It seems to me that in order to show absolute truth, one must have absolute knowledge.
Ridiculous argument to say the least. 1+1 = 2 is an absolute. Prove it isn't. If you can't then absolute truths exist.
Contingent truth, however, is relative and can be easily demonstrated.
Go ahead, make my day.
...according to human standards, rape of a child ...is wrong in every case, ...from the point of view of the human agents involved.
And you can't see why that is a useless argument?
So what shall we construe of the human agents that disagree entirely with the inherent wrongness idea and enjoy child rape - since so many actually do?
NAMBLA mean anything to ya?
Are you a former member or promoter? If not why not?
The best you can do is offer the same old lame responses as fred and pretend its all relative and either way is neither good no evil - its fine as long as one is "ok with it" by their own moral standard which may be opposite to yours.
Keep trying, you may figure out some day that your whole relative is also relative to itself and thus meaningless.
However...would this truth hold as universal if there were no conscious agents in the universe?
I suggest you think that inane statement over again when your head clears.
Gary said: "You have to realize that 1000's of years ago, there was often little difference between the idea of "slave" and our more modern concept of "employee".
ReplyDeleteWhen a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Gary, are you a proponent of Christian riposte?
ReplyDeleteDD,
ReplyDelete>>Convince others of what, Dan? Don't you run this blog for the purpose of convincing people of your god's existence?
Not at all!
>>As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Dan, if you really cared about the fate of atheists, you would offer more convincing, concrete arguments for the existence of your god.
If it were that easy then there would be no such a thing as a non believer.
>>However, as you haven't thus far offered any such arguments, two conclusions are possible - either you don't have such arguments (whether through lack of research or impossibility remains to be seen) or you actually don't care what happens to unbelievers.
You completely left out the third and real reason. Its because my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
1 + 1 = 10
ReplyDeleteHow does the saying go?
There are 10 types of people in this world; Those that understand binary and those who don't!
:-)
To put it another way, to assume the existence of absolute truth is to assume truths that hold in all possible worlds.
ReplyDeleteTo assume contingent or relative truth is to assume truths that hold - or appear to us to hold - in this world, the one in which we exist. Truth is thus relative to the way things are - if things were different (and as far as we know, they could be) then truth, as a measure of the correspondence of our ideas to reality, would also be different.
If one assumes absolute truths, one assumes that there are at least some things that could not be other than they are in the world as we experience it. Yet classical theists, who often assume absolute truth, also contend that there is an omnipotent god for whom all things are possible.
Leaving aside for now the argument that such a being is logically incoherent, does it not appear from the above that absolute truth could not exist if there exists a being who could have made the universe other than it is?
Whose worldview is self-contradictory now, hmm?
You completely left out the third and real reason. Its because my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
ReplyDeleteBut I put it to you that you don't know that what you speak is the truth, Dan. All you appear to do is to repeat assertions without support. That may well have been enough to convince you, but many people prefer to understand why such assertions are held to be true.
As a presupper, one of your main contentions is that I already know your god exists, but am living in denial. My worldview, according to you, is therefore contradictory. But the only way it could be actually contradictory is if a god exists.
That, as has been pointed out to you many, many times, is the very thing that is subject to dispute, the very idea that you consistently fail to demonstrate as factual.
But if it really is your position that the truth of the proposition "god exists" cannot be demonstrated by you in a manner that will be convincing to an unbeliever, then the argument is, for all practical purposes, over.
Gary, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteSo what shall we construe of the human agents that disagree entirely with the inherent wrongness idea and enjoy child rape - since so many actually do?
Yes, and a surprising number of those people appear to be Christians, too. But I would suppose, personally, that they either have a problem with empathy, or that they somehow imagine that the children in question are demonstrating consent.
And just by the bye, did you know that in the middle ages, and well into the early modern period, the ages of consent were 12 and 14 for girls and boys respectively?
NAMBLA mean anything to ya?
Are you a former member or promoter? If not why not?
Probably something to do with the fact that I'm a woman who lives in Australia... I had heard the acronym before, but had to google it to remind myself what it stands for. Personally, it's not to my taste, but if I had lived in Ancient Greece, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.
I suggest you think that inane statement over again when your head clears.
So...you don't have a counterargument, then. That's okay.
Moral agents can only exist where there is a moral law.
ReplyDeleteUm...I think you might have this backwards, Gary.
"Argumentum ad populum?"
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I quoted you your own standard of what is required for a useful argument, highlighted a particular aspect of your standard, and showed how your argument fails to meet that standard. It's not my fault you can't meet your own standards.
"Denial of a premise does not equate to adequate justification for denial of a premise."
I need no reason to deny that something is a useful premise beyond the fact that I don't already believe it. We are talking about things you know your audience doesn't already believe. You might be able to convince us that these things are, in fact, true. But, to do so, you will need to start from things which we already believe.
"'Your argument has no force because you fail to meet the specifications you apply.'
"Rich. Would you like a mirror?"
Not unless you have an example of my failing to meet my own standards. Good luck with that.
Gary, you replied to me,
ReplyDeleteThe best you can do is offer the same old lame responses as fred and pretend its all relative and either way is neither good no evil - its fine as long as one is "ok with it" by their own moral standard which may be opposite to yours.
From this, I gather you didn't carefully read my comment, because you jumped straight to the bog-standard accusation of moral relativism that religionists seem to love to hurl at atheists.
Moral relativism in the way you mean it was not my point at all. My argument was that our moral standards are contingent upon the nature of human beings as we exist. Such moral standards as we have can only hold for human beings, and would not exist if there were no humans - these standards are not, therefore, absolute in the sense of holding true in all possible worlds.
It is classical theists who suppose that human moral standards are somehow independent of human beings; that they are, rather, dictated by a being who, as he is defined by classical theism, is actually nothing like a human - yet is somehow intimately concerned with human actions, motivations and feelings.
DormantDragon ...
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, to assume the existence of absolute truth is to assume truths that hold in all possible worlds.
Exactly. Explain to me in what kind of world 1+1 = 5.6
To assume contingent or relative truth is to assume truths that hold - or appear to us to hold - in this world, ...would also be different.
1. Hypothetical worlds postulated for the sake of finding some hypothetical way to postulate relative "truth" is insupportable by any rule of logic.
If one assumes absolute truths, ... an omnipotent god for whom all things are possible.
You've misunderstood - as do all atheists and indeed many theists - the term "omnipotence".
The laws of God's own nature do not allow him to do that which is logically impossible. God cannot do many things. He cannot make 1+1 = 34 for example.
Asks the foolish man: "So if God is all powerful can He create an unmovable rock ? But if the rock is unmovable, then God can't be all powerful, can He?"
Answers the wise man: "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that." -CS Lewis
Better think that through.
...does it not appear from the above that absolute truth could not exist if there exists a being who could have made the universe other than it is?
No, you've erred in "omnipotence" and now you're erring in concluding that another universe could hold irreconcilable laws of logic.
Again, postulating other worlds with entirely different laws of logic is unsupportable and unfalsifiable - so stop chasing your tail for nothing in some imaginary unknowable world.
You are in this universe with these intractable laws of logic. They are not going to change and are indeed absolute.
Whose worldview is self-contradictory now, hmm?
I wish you could see just how far off the deep end you're willing to go just to get rid of God.
DormantDragon ...
ReplyDeleteYes, and a surprising number of those people appear to be Christians, too.
Seeing that Xianity, by default, forbids all such acts, no one practicing such can be Xian.
Relativism, on the other hand and by default, treats all such behavior as neither good nor evil, right nor wrong. Its relative to the social collective - making all values vain.
ages of consent were 12 and 14 for girls and boys respectively?
Sure. And?
Personally, it's not to my taste, but if I had lived in Ancient Greece, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.
So personally - personal taste removes moral wrong?
Was that aspect of a certain period of ancient Greece right or wrong?
Did their legalizing the abuse of children for the pleasures of the adults make their actions right?
You're still chasing your tail.
AGAIN - You could not even argue here if logical absolutes did not exist.
Relativism by definition is self-contradicting. The sooner you understand and accept that the sooner light will start shinning through for you.
Gary wrote Relativism by definition is self-contradicting.
ReplyDeleteChristian morality is relative to the Christian God.
Next?
DormantDragon
ReplyDeleteI said - "Moral agents can only exist where there is a moral law."
Um...I think you might have this backwards, Gary.
No, you do. You assume law is made by moral agents in this statement. That's where all relativists go wrong at the root - assuming that it is they that invented "law" itself. Not so.
"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum..."
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike CS Lewis
If God exists, then necessarily, law comes not from flesh, blood and mere neurons, not from the subjects of law, not from sentient mortal beings but is eternal, necessary and comes from God's own immutable nature.
"You are nothing but a pack of neurons" - thus becomes among the most foolish statements ever uttered.
Why should I care what a pack of neurons does?
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all." - CS Lewis, The Abolition of Man
No atheist can ever possibly win in any argument against absolutes.
The very existence of logical absolutes, by which reason, science, math science and indeed debate are made possible, is always assumed in their own arguments as all of you have demonstrated more than adequately right here in this thread!
ROTFL!
Thus, as I said in the beginning atheists live in denial of reality.
DormantDragon ...
ReplyDeleteIt is classical theists who suppose that human moral standards are somehow independent of human beings; that they are, rather, dictated by a being who, as he is defined by classical theism, is actually nothing like a human - yet is somehow intimately concerned with human actions, motivations and feelings.
Why should any creator of moral agents not be intimately concerned with their actions?
Indeed, how could he not be concerned without being irresponsible himself?
Has anyone noticed that Gary almost never makes an argument? He makes assertions and answers replies with insults and more bald assertions.
ReplyDeleteDD,
ReplyDelete>>Yet classical theists, who often assume absolute truth, also contend that there is an omnipotent god for whom all things are possible.
Obviously you don't understand that hasty generalization is a logical fallacy. It is impossible for God to lie. It is impossible for God to lie, so he is consistent with truth, which has absolutes. His standard of right and wrong does not change. Hebrews 6:18 tells us He can’t lie = he can’t break a unconditional promise what he says He will fulfill. He is the truth and there is no darkness in him. He cannot go back on His Word.
>>Leaving aside for now the argument that such a being is logically incoherent, does it not appear from the above that absolute truth could not exist if there exists a being who could have made the universe other than it is?
Logically incoherent, huh? Read my next post again then.
>>Whose worldview is self-contradictory now, hmm?
Still yours.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>As a presupper, one of your main contentions is that I already know your god exists, but am living in denial. My worldview, according to you, is therefore contradictory. But the only way it could be actually contradictory is if a god exists.
And Bingo was his name-o.
>>But if it really is your position that the truth of the proposition "god exists" cannot be demonstrated by you in a manner that will be convincing to an unbeliever, then the argument is, for all practical purposes, over.
Again, read the new post again.
Sin has obscured your understanding.
"If the Bible's picture is true, God is all powerful, God is all good, there is evil and it makes sense that you wouldn't understand that, because evil obscured the understanding of men when it come to the ways of God. The Bible tells that we can EXPECT that to be the case. It is the case so its perfectly consistent."
In contrast your worldview is inconsistent. You're just a little girl sitting on her daddy's lap.
"[T]he question is about ultimate trust. Do you trust your own reasoning abilities so much that you can say that you are not in that locked dark room, Mr. Atheist? Or do you rather trust, although you can't understand it, although its a mystery to you, that you can put yourself in the hands of an all good, all powerful God and say 'His wisdom is above my wisdom, and I trust Him for the outcome.'"
@Gary,
ReplyDeleteExactly. Explain to me in what kind of world 1+1 = 5.6
In any world where a mathematical system had been formulated such that these symbols reflected an observed reality. If you think this is ridiculous, try counting in binary, ternary or hexadecimal.
1. Hypothetical worlds postulated for the sake of finding some hypothetical way to postulate relative "truth" is insupportable by any rule of logic.
But you people postulate hypothetical worlds all the time, where different laws of physics and different morality obtain. You tend to name them 'heaven' and 'hell' and occasionally 'purgatory'.
You've misunderstood - as do all atheists and indeed many theists - the term "omnipotence".
The laws of God's own nature do not allow him to do that which is logically impossible. God cannot do many things. He cannot make 1+1 = 34 for example.
That would depend entirely upon what base he was using.
This is such a twinkie defence - to say that your god is omnipotent but can't do things that are impossible from the point of view of the logic that obtains within this universe. Are you really saying that your god could not have created the universe to be other than it is? If so, how could you possibly establish the truth value of such an assertion?
Again, postulating other worlds with entirely different laws of logic is unsupportable and unfalsifiable - so stop chasing your tail for nothing in some imaginary unknowable world.
Pot, meet kettle...
You are in this universe with these intractable laws of logic. They are not going to change and are indeed absolute.
And that is exactly my point - the laws of logic obtain in this universe because they were formulated from within this universe.
It is of course possible and sometimes quite fascinating to speculate as to how a universe might have been different, but it is speculation, just like religious believers are always speculating when they imagine what god must be like. It is no more possible to actually demonstrate an alternative universe than it is for you to actually demonstrate any of the features you claim for your god, but this doesn't mean that discussion of either concept is in all cases fruitless.
It seems that you are mistaking my claim - that the truth obtaining in this universe is contingent upon the particular characteristics of this universe - for the claim that the truths obtaining in this universe are somehow unimportant or somehow mutable. To say, "things could have been different" is not the same as to say they ought to have been different, or that because they could be different, the way they are is of no consequence.
Much of your attempt at argument appears to be against a position that I do not in fact hold, but which seems to be part of your mental picture of what an 'atheist' is supposed to be like.
Gary: I said - "Moral agents can only exist where there is a moral law."
ReplyDeleteDD: Um...I think you might have this backwards, Gary.
Gary: No, you do. You assume law is made by moral agents in this statement. That's where all relativists go wrong at the root - assuming that it is they that invented "law" itself. Not so.
Everyone knows that humans invented law, Gary, if by law we are referring to the systems of rules under which human societies operate.
But morality, on a more general scale, only exists because there are entities such as ourselves who are capable of making choices about how we behave. Amoebas have no morality. Many of the lower animals have no morality either, for the simple fact that they have no ability to consciously choose how they will act.
Some of the higher animals have what might be called (somewhat arrogantly, I often feel) 'proto-morality' - in other words, a consensual set of expectations that provide a check upon an individual's behaviour in the context of a social group - and human morality is an extension of this basic process.
So, morality does not exist absent moral agents.
And you do realise that in the above, you implicitly denied that your god is a moral agent, right?
"But the only way it could be actually contradictory is if a god exists."
ReplyDeleteActually, a god existing wouldn't make DormantDragon's worldview inconsisent. It would make his worldview incorrect, but not contradictory.
My worldview is consitent. DormantDragon's worldview is consitstent. Dan's worldview is probably consistent. Now these varied worldviews are not consistent with each other. But each is internally consistent. Dan falsely claims that non-christians' worldviews are not consistent because he adds elements of his own worldview that do not belong in these other worldviews to render the composite inconsistent.
Just by the bye, if anyone is interested, I am currently reading a nifty article that discusses the concept of mathematics in terms of absolute and contingent truth. You can find it here.
ReplyDeleteI submit that if God were unable violate the laws of logic, he/she/it would not be supernatural.
ReplyDeleteBTW, there's proof that the laws of logic aren't universal or absolute: Quantum indeterminacy. The natural world readily violates the law of non-contradiction.
Dan falsely claims that non-christians' worldviews are not consistent because he adds elements of his own worldview that do not belong in these other worldviews to render the composite inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting idea, Pvblivs. I had not thought of it in those terms before, but I can see where this explanation has merit.
I submit that if God were unable violate the laws of logic, he/she/it would not be supernatural.
ReplyDeleteNice call, Whateverman. Of course, you can probably expect a bit of hand-waving and shouting from those here who think that logic is an independent immaterial entity or a manifestation of the nature of god, rather than a conceptual tool with its roots in human experience.
Me: Yes, and a surprising number of those people [who abuse children] appear to be Christians, too.
ReplyDeleteGary: Seeing that Xianity, by default, forbids all such acts, no one practicing such can be Xian.
Ah, the good old "no true Scotsman" play. Guess it was only a matter of time before it surfaced here.
Seriously, what is so difficult about the juxtaposition of Christian beliefs with moral depravity, that you feel the need to distance yourself, indeed define those others differently? Are you afraid, Gary, that simply having a recognisably Christian faith is not enough to prevent someone from being a monster (or in your case, just a bit of a tool)?
Just because a person has similar beliefs to one's own, doesn't mean one must condone their every action. I happen to agree with Stalin's belief that there is no god; does it follow that I must think he was right to kill millions of his own people? Hardly.
Relativism, on the other hand and by default, treats all such behavior as neither good nor evil, right nor wrong. Its relative to the social collective - making all values vain.
Since I have already explained that I am not a moral relativist, you are again trying to argue against a position I do not hold.
Me: Personally, it's not to my taste, but if I had lived in Ancient Greece, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Gary: So personally - personal taste removes moral wrong?
Was that aspect of a certain period of ancient Greece right or wrong?
Did their legalizing the abuse of children for the pleasures of the adults make their actions right?
How like a fundy, to take what was clearly a flippant response to your poorly-thought-out attempt at a low blow, and treat is as representative of my beliefs.
For what it's worth, I think any abuse of children is always wrong.
However, had I lived at a certain period and a certain place in Ancient Greek history, it may not have occurred to me that an older man having sex with a teenage boy actually constituted abuse, rather than an initiation or a rite of passage. With the 20-20 vision offered by hindsight, and given modern sensibilities and our greater understanding of psychology, we can look back and say, yes, this was an abusive act regardless of its intentions.
However, on the face of it, subjecting a teenage boy to statutory rape was certainly not any more abusive than pressing the same teenage boy into service in the army. It's funny how it's always the sexual 'sins' that garner so much attention, innit?
DormantDragon
ReplyDeleteExactly. Explain to me in what kind of world 1+1 = 5.6
In any world where a mathematical system had been formulated such that these symbols reflected an observed reality. If you think this is ridiculous, try counting in binary, ternary or hexadecimal.
As a informatics specialist I find this somewhat amusing. It isn't even worth answering. But I will since I'll suppose you simply write without thinking through enough.
1. you're conflating symbol of reality with reality.
I'm not referring - as I wrongly supposed you'd understand - to the symbols we use as representations of reality but to reality. Use whatever symbol you choose in any universe for 1 unit. Add other unit and you will always get 2 units.
But you people postulate hypothetical worlds all the time, where different laws of physics and different morality obtain. You tend to name them 'heaven' and 'hell' and occasionally 'purgatory'.
Not worth answering. You'd have to prove your point and thus far never do.
That would depend entirely upon what base he was using.
to say that your god is omnipotent but can't do things that are impossible from the point of view of the logic that obtains within this universe.
Yet more thoughtless responses.
the laws of logic obtain in this universe because they were formulated from within this universe.
Wrong again. My do you ever think things through before writing?
You're once again assuming what you cannot prove.
Who in this universe formulate these laws?
You haven't gotten anywhere near answering my the primary problem of the atheist no absolutes position.
Are you absolutely sure their are no absolutes?
DD:
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that humans invented law, Gary, if by law we are referring to the systems of rules under which human societies operate.
Wrong, utterly wrong.
You're once again arguing on the superficial and not seeing at all
the underlying.
The worst of all this tail chasing atheists engage in is they seem utterly incapable of recognizing their own cognitive dissonance.
You keep attempting, by mere assertion, to prove there are no absolute truths while presenting your erroneous ideas as absolute truths!
Humans are born with an innate moral sense and you cannot get rid of it - only distort it's meaning - as you and all the others here keep doing.
Again, are you absolutely positive there are no absolutes?
Whateverman
ReplyDeleteI submit that if God were unable violate the laws of logic, he/she/it would not be supernatural.
You can submit all you like, that makes nothing true. You do not understand either supernatural nor logic.
BTW, there's proof that the laws of logic aren't universal or absolute: Quantum indeterminacy. The natural world readily violates the law of non-contradiction.
You don't know much of quantum physics, or you've read all the wrong people on it.
The "LAWS" of quantum physics are laws or mere suggestions. Which is it?
If they are mere contingencies they are not laws at all.
Keep trying to prove there are no absolutes all while assuming in everything you say that there are.
Dormant
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I think any abuse of children is always wrong.
Right, upon what foundation?
You have none. All your responses prove that you're morals are relative and thus all your foundations are also relative - making the whole indefensible.
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
DD:
ReplyDeleteYou're either amazingly dishonest or very confused.
Just because a person has similar beliefs ... I happen to agree with Stalin's belief that there is no god; does it follow that I must think he was right to kill millions of his own people? Hardly.
Once again you demonstrate your post-modernist nonsensical reasoning and failure to grasp the root of your errors.
The simple answer to your question is no.
What you clearly miss though is that you have no basis to think he was right or wrong either!
You have no grounds whatsoever for either disagreeing or agreeing with Stalin's actions! No one does - unless there is a God who owns moral character.
Thus you have only personal reasons - entirely subjective - for any disagreement at all.
Furthermore Stalin, by your relativist position - though you deny its still keenly obvious - would have no obligation whatsoever to either justify his actions or care what you or anyone else thought of it.
Indeed, Stalin could think his actions were are well and wonderful and no one could argue against it!
Since I have already explained that I am not a moral relativist, you are again trying to argue against a position I do not hold.
1. I'm responding not just to you, but the sake of others as well who will read this.
2. You claim the contrary but spend all your time here trying to prove a relativist world view!
So, obviously, you appear either a staunch relativist - which all atheists are logically obliged to be since under atheism there are no ultimate foundations for ethics - or by denying relativism, you appear very confused to anyone reading you.
As always atheists are highly confused individuals living in perpetual and willful cognitive dissonance which further blinds their minds to the light.
"Bragging to themselves of being so intelligent, they have become fools"
For all atheist relativists here.
ReplyDeleteOnce more time the question you cannot answer without revealing the truth.
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
Or to re-word,
Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?
Some claim I've made no argument. That's amazing since only one of you has yet even attempted anything like a reasoned answer to the above questions.
Questions which are themselves containers of the argument.
Some pretty amazing run around, escape the simple logic mechanisms have been presented here by the incredibly self-contradicting atheist elements. Yet none has answered the base question as yet.
Do you atheists ever find a moment to get honest with yourselves?
Whateverman wrote I submit that if God were unable violate the laws of logic, he/she/it would not be supernatural.
ReplyDeleteGary the Gnu Troll responded with this: You can submit all you like, that makes nothing true. You do not understand either supernatural nor logic.
Lol! This from someone who thinks logic is prescriptive, yet can not demonstrate it in any way.
Fact: by any definition in a dictionary you care to use, supernatural entities are able to operate outside the bounds of logic.
-----
Whateverman wrote BTW, there's proof that the laws of logic aren't universal or absolute: Quantum indeterminacy. The natural world readily violates the law of non-contradiction.
Gary the Gnu Troll responded as follows: You don't know much of quantum physics, or you've read all the wrong people on it.
Lol! You clearly know less about quantum mechanics than I do.
Fact: in the dual slit experiment, both of the following contradictory statements are objectively true: "The electron went through the slit" and "The electron did not go through the slit".
Ergo, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level.
God isn't capable of circumventing "the laws of logic" despite the fact that the natural world does it quadrillions of times each second?
Game. Set. Match.
Whateverman
ReplyDeleteLol! This from someone who thinks logic is prescriptive, yet can not demonstrate it in any way.
The salient fact that you happen to be so stupid that you cannot see the obvious is demonstrates well what I've said.
Fact: by any definition in a dictionary you care to use, supernatural entities are able to operate outside the bounds of logic.
Absolute rubbish.
-----
Ergo, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level.
Ergo you still don't understand quantum physics!
despite the fact that the natural world does it quadrillions of times each second?
And to you that is logical?
Why do you continue to use logic against logic?
It's utterly fascinating that your use of logic against logic doesn't ring a bell or open a doubt in that pitiful world-view of yours!!
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid"
But this all I've seen here to date!
Amazing.
The denial of reality atheists engage in here, as everywhere in debate, is a wonder to behold - especially that they deny that too!!
ROTFL
It's amazing how Gary can't see how outclassed he is.
ReplyDeleteGotta work on those trolling skills, Gary. You're much too transparent.
ReplyDeleteYou keep attempting, by mere assertion, to prove there are no absolute truths while presenting your erroneous ideas as absolute truths!
ReplyDeleteHumans are born with an innate moral sense and you cannot get rid of it - only distort it's meaning - as you and all the others here keep doing.
Again, are you absolutely positive there are no absolutes?
Informatics, huh, Gary? Clearly in your field there is no room for philosophy. You have no argumentative skill whatsoever. You make blind assertions without support, without even attempting to back them up with reason or explanation, or endeavouring to understand your opponent's position in order to effectively dispute it.
With regard to the bluster and hand-waving above, no, of course I'm not certain there is no absolute truth. But then, I'm not the one claiming absolute truth exists.
As far as I know, all truth I have thus far encountered is contingent upon reality existing as we perceive it. If you are claiming truths that hold in all possible worlds, you must demonstrate the truth of this assertion, not merely assert it and fall back on your lack of imagination. That you can't conceive of how a universe could be different, does not demonstrate that such is impossible.
It is in fact quite possible to conceive of a universe in which all things are fluid, ever-changing, and in which the logical rules of identity and such expressions as 1 + 1 = 2 would be functionally meaningless.
What you clearly miss though is that you have no basis to think he was right or wrong either!
ReplyDeleteYou have no grounds whatsoever for either disagreeing or agreeing with Stalin's actions! No one does - unless there is a God who owns moral character.
Thus you have only personal reasons - entirely subjective - for any disagreement at all.
Furthermore Stalin, by your relativist position - though you deny its still keenly obvious - would have no obligation whatsoever to either justify his actions or care what you or anyone else thought of it.
Gosh, Gary - I never realised it before, but you must be right!! I have never experienced anything like what people call empathy, and it has never occurred to me that pain and suffering are bad things for everyone, not just me. I live my life in a vacuum, independent of every other living organism, and I can't possibly imagine how I could be responsible for anything I consciously decide to do, even if it affects someone else.
Yeah, right.
You're mistaken, Gary, if you think that being answerable to a disembodied consciousness called god is the only form of moral responsibility that exists.
I have explained that I am not a moral relativist. I'll spell it out again for you, because you don't appear to understand what the expression "not a moral relativist" means. This means that I don't take any and all actions to have the same moral value. Clearly, different behaviours have different effects in the world, some of which are objectively beneficial to sentient beings, some of which are objectively harmful, and others which are neutral (though there don't appear to be many of the latter). I do believe there are sound reasons for behaving in certain ways, contingent though they are upon human beings existing as we do in this particular world.
You seem to be one of those people who stereotype all unbelievers as moral relativists, because you can't conceive of how it could be possible to behave in a moral fashion absent belief in some controlling deity who tells you what to do. But your failure of imagination, Gary, does not constitute a sound basis for argument.
Gary, you posted:
ReplyDeleteWhateverman
Lol! This from someone who thinks logic is prescriptive, yet can not demonstrate it in any way.
The salient fact that you happen to be so stupid that you cannot see the obvious is demonstrates well what I've said.
Do you see how this is clearly not an argument, but an ad hominem attack?
Fact: by any definition in a dictionary you care to use, supernatural entities are able to operate outside the bounds of logic.
Absolute rubbish.
Again, a baseless assertion from Gary. Can you demonstrate that Whateverman's statement is "absolute rubbish"?
Ergo, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level.
Ergo you still don't understand quantum physics!
Do you, Gary? We've seen no evidence of such.
despite the fact that the natural world does it quadrillions of times each second?
And to you that is logical?
Why do you continue to use logic against logic?
It's utterly fascinating that your use of logic against logic doesn't ring a bell or open a doubt in that pitiful world-view of yours!!
Whateverman isn't using logic against logic, Gary - he's demonstrating that the rules of logic were formulated based upon perceptions of the way the world works at a higher-than-quantum level, a world of discrete objects that maintain an identity for a perceptibly long time, the world in which human beings function.
The fact that our rules of logic appear to break down at the quantum level is evidence that logic was formulated long before we became aware of what is going on in the world at a quantum level.
It's amazing, and not a little ironic, that someone who reveres logic as a reflection of the mind of his god should be so woefully bad at employing it.
He's trolling, DD. I say don't pay any attention to him until he decides to act like an adult.
ReplyDeleteDan's blog seem to bring out the worst in some people...
And yes, I think that applies to me as well.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems to switch off the rational side of a lot of folks. I learned that fairly early on, and have tried to avoid it with varying degrees of success (and occasional outright failure). Unfortunately, it's all too easy to forget when one is ranting about a pet peeve, that merely dissing the opposition isn't particularly convincing and just tends to make one look a bit pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAs to Gary being a troll...I'm tossing up whether it's that or whether he's just a really angry individual. It's hard to tell sometimes, but his posts don't strike me as deliberately inflammatory, only poorly thought-out and based on the position that he knows he's right, dammit, and anyone who says otherwise is a moron. He might think this position is so unassailable that he doesn't need to offer an actual argument for it, and the angrier his posts get, the more I lean towards this conclusion.
That, or he doesn't actually know any arguments for it, and that's what makes him so angry...
ReplyDeleteGary said...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead ...
mostly just ... drivel drivel drivel ... more "escape logic" drivel
Well thanks for giving us a heads up as to what your attempt at a rebuttal is going to be.
...I pointed out your hypocrisy. bla bla..
You are a sorry little fellow indeed responding with such salient codswallop.
Pointless ad hom.
You are the hypocrite here -and you prove it by pretending that my choice not to get into the bible is somehow hypocrisy.
Wow
Wow indeed - it seems you're not even aware of what the word 'hypocrite' means. It had nothing to do with you not getting into the bible and all to do with you claiming atheists deny reality while assuming the truth of a book which claims donkeys can talk.
Ah, the pathetic appeal to emotion,
You have to resort to defining your opponents argument under your own terms of reference?
Wow again.
I defined your argument based on the logical fallacy you employed - they're not solely 'my' terms of reference.
the answer is of course no,
Really? Why?
I explained, you ignored.
Systemic means nothing unless you wish to explain your logical foundations.
Logic is founded on the primacy of existence, the law of identity and the theory of concepts.
I already know that you have none that you have not a priori assumed were absolute!
Omniscient are you? I don't assume any of them are absolute and hold them tentatively true pending evidence to the contrary.
And that all while denying absolutes!
I have not once denied absolutes, merely asked you to provide evidence that they exist. Care to try?
This would be so funny if you were just joking and trying to look like an idiot for fun!
Pointless ad hom.
Not absolute, systemic.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Translation: "I have no way to refute your argument"
That depends on whether you accept the evidence.
Indeed, escape is your prime axiom, as we see with this non answer.
Escape from what?
I did? Where?
This is ubiquitously where atheists lose.
You're assuming some absolute by just being here arguing over them.
Translation: "I can't actually point them out but I'm sure they must exist ... somewhere"
...should your God command you to rape a baby, not only would you do it, you would call it 'good'.
Oh, so now you once again imply that something is absolutely wrong while using the meaningless term (in this context) "systemic" to hide the underlying absolute.
If there's an underlying absolute please produce an argument that demonstrates it's existence rather than merely asserting that it must be.
You have no recourse to moral absolutes when your morality is dictated by the whims of an amoral deity.
Yet another old and futile argument. Where do you get this crap? Pee Zee Myers? Richard Dawkins? Pee Wee Herman?
Translation: "I can't refute this either so I'll blather some more."
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteI'm actually arguing as if there are systemic truths but of course you don't seem to comprehend that.
Go ahead fred, explain "systemic truth".
Oops, now go run to google to find an explanation and bring it back.
Quite simple, truth relates to propositions we make about subjects i.e. 'the Sun is yellow' or 'grass is green'. Already we can see that truth, therefore, is relative to the relationship of the proposition to the subject it is making a statement about and can only be determined from within the system in which the proposition is formed.
Then we can strip it to the roots to expose why its yet another meaningless philosophical escape mechanism.
Strip away Gary, but don't forget to show how "absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition.
I'll help you out a little by pointing out that to be absolute something must:
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
So all you have to do now is:
A.) State a truth/law that you consider absolute.
B.) Demonstrate for us how that truth/law satisfies 1 – 4 above.
C.) Show how that truth/law is not “Systemic”
Are you absolutely sure your truth is "systemic"?
What does my 'sure-ness' have to do with this?
Atheists are always assuming absolutes in every argument they spew out against absolutes!
Except you've been unable to point to even one instance to back up your assertion.
They want proof, then they destroy the possibility of proof by defining real truth out of existence!
How does pointing out that truth is systemic invalidate the concept of 'proof'?
They ask for proof, yet the very concept of proof depends on the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.
Can you demonstrate the truth of this claim please?
It is impossible to argue without it!
Can you demonstrate the truth of this claim please?
Atheists are also using "beg the question" arguments whenever they claim things such as "I can reason that my reasoning is valid."
Can you show where anyone on this thread has used this argument?
Well no you cannot. You cannot test your brain with your brain freddie! Not unless you admit of at least one absolute!
Can you demonstrate the truth of this claim please?
You claim there is no absolute truth.
Not entirely true as I have never claimed such, I have, however, asked you to demonstrate it's existence - something you've failed to do so far.
So, is this claim of yours the absolute truth?
What claim? Show that 'absolute truth exists' is a valid proposition and I'll concede the point.
No, you keep claiming I'm assuming absolutes but have so far failed to back up your claim.
I can see you trying to shift the burden of proof...
This deserves nothing but the most vehement rebuke as it too assumes an underlying absolute i.e. your absolute certainty that there are no absolutes!
Have you finished battering the strawman atheist yet? I'm not sure who you're rebuking as I've never claimed that there are no absolutes, merely requested that you demonstrate their existence.
You're unreal fred, just freaking unreal.
Why thank you, now can you answer the request?
Why don't you just give up and admit you're absolutely wrong?
Maybe because you haven't actually demonstrated that I am?
That would be your "first step into a larger universe".
I'm quite at home here in reality, I would suggest that you join me.
Nice work, Freddie. You articulated that far better than I could.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I ought to be inclined to be more charitable to people like Gary and Dan. They have, after all, had a great deal of violence done to their human integrity by their religious indoctrination. It's no wonder that their reasoning ability is fractured.
ReplyDeleteI got off lightly with my Catholic upbringing (which is, in practice, a bit less toxic to the rational faculties than evangelical protestantism) but I can sympathise to some extent with just how difficult it is to make sense of the world from inside the faith cage.