March 9, 2012

Dei Sub Numine Viget

Since Martin Wagner refuses to post my comments on their blog, for understandable reasons, I challenge his dogma / religion after all. So I am posting this here reluctantly. Normally, I would not advertise for Matt, as he is already getting PAID to do these debates. Only in 'merica'.


Right in the beginning of opening your mouth, you are trying to push a falsehood. You actually lie, as it has been pointed out from the very beginning of our conversations since 2006, you were never a Christian. You boastfully claim you were "for 25 years" but you never actually were.



Who determines who is, and who is not a Christian? Well, it's in the name, Christ that's who.

Scripture, Christ, was very clear "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. " ~John 10:28

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." ~1John 2:19

If you WERE a Christian, then Jesus is a liar. Jesus is not a liar. Therefore you were never a Christian. QED

Before the Atheists cry foul, this is not a no true Scotsman fallacy either, because the qualifications were set and established in Scripture. Because it was set in Scripture, it makes it a reasoned assertion. Scripture lists that specific objective rule. Namely, that Christians do not fall away. QED

Matt, you were the "illegal alien" of  Christianity. You got to use our resources, but were never a Christian citizen, in that analogy.  

Since we have been over this for many, many years now. It makes you a liar to claim you were, KNOWING full well of the conversations in the past we and others have had with you, and knowledge of Scripture.

That being said, you lost the core debate also. Here is why. "Inalienable rights" is the language used. THAT language you cannot sidestep. You failed at that attempt, evidenced by the debate.

You said it was ONLY in the preamble. LIE!

Arkansas state constitution lists in Article II, Section 24. "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences"

Nebraska state constitution Art. I, CI-4 "All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences."

New Hampshire state constitution Part I., Art. V. "Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience..."

Oregon's Bill of Rights, Article I, Sect. 2 " All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences..."

Vermont's constitution is specific to Christians. Art. III " Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God."

Look at Virginia Bill of Rights, Sec. 16 "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." ~source

It originates from the Christian God. That refutes your absurd claim of "which god?" also. As if you didn't know. Because, as you well know, it is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

Remember the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and over 50 million baby murders and counting, and other atheist regimes? God gave us rights to, Life, Liberty , etc. Atheists, with over 50 million baby murders and counting, wants to erase the first right and ...go from there.

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan

The ENTIRE NATION went to war over the rights of others. It was our bloodiest war ever. To say it was a mere small manner (a mistake of a few founding members) would be eliminating reality entirely, to make such a claim. The Civil war was by no mean civil. We had to fight for their rights. You, being from the south, may disagree with that. But it was a battle to the death that YOU Matt, and your kind (families from the south), was wrong and the rights of others was restored. Lincoln went against his entire core beliefs, of limited government, to Federally FORCE the south's hand to free slaves.

You may be bitter about that subject, Austin, but truth cannot be altered.

 'Let God stand up and take the credit, "until then I am going to give credit to humans" ~said Matt the secular humanist. O'rly? Duh!

"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~Greg Bahnsen (bit.ly/stillevidence)

So, long winded rant aside that needs not be rebutted (as I know what digs I took in my rebuke), without another unnecessary debate arising.

I do have a few questions, how do you KNOW your reasoning is valid?

He, I believe in the Q&A, admitted he doesn't. So he has no argument.

Second, is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

Towards the end, I was purely entertained with uber nugget of "Atheism is not an "ism" ~Matt

Just wow! Matt then ended it with a straw man in the last 30 seconds. Nice. You lost.

Dei sub numine viget- "Under God's power she flourishes" — motto of Princeton University.

112 comments:

  1.      A christian is someone who believes that stuff. This fellow believed that stuff for 25 years. Therefore he was a christian. QED
         The authors of the passages that you cite knew full well that christians were "leaving the fold." So they made up the baloney about "not really being christian." They did not want the remaining faithful to listen to the ex-christians and possibly decide that christianity had no merit. That would infringe on their power.
         "You said it was ONLY in the preamble. LIE!"
         I suppose, then, that you have an example of where it is in the main body of the U.S. Contritution. We'd all be happy to see it.
         "Arkansas state constitution lists in..."
    Oh, apparently you don't.
         "Lincoln went against his entire core beliefs, of limited government, to Federally FORCE the south's hand to free slaves."
         No, that's not true. It's only a common misconception. Lincoln went to war to show that several states could not depart from the Union the way the Union departed from the British. The emancipation of the slaves was an afterthought and would not have happened (at least at that time) if those states hadn't tried to secede.
         "I do have a few questions, how do you KNOW your reasoning is valid?"
         And you go right into Presuppositional Baloney? It has no merit. But it does tend to wear people down. I suppose that's why liars like Sye is and you are becoming like it so much. If you made it as clear as this that you were going to be dishonest, I am not surprised that he didn't post your "challenge."
         Oh, by the way, you might want to check your Latin. You got the translation wrong. I'll give you a hint. The word for light is "lvx." "Nvmen" means something quite different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matt did NOT get paid to do this debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that? Obviously the evidence disagrees with you. Are absolutely certain he wasn't? If so, how?

      Delete
    2. You're talking to Matt's wife, Dan.

      Delete
    3. Ok great. So the moterator lied when he said there sponsors did pay them? I am open to the truth, whatever that is.

      Delete
    4. I do most events for free. I agreed to do this debate for free. At some events, the organizers offer some honorarium. On some occasions, after agreeing to do the event for free, some individuals have voluntarily donated some money to help compensate for my time.

      That happened here. You can look at that as "getting paid" for doing this debate, but if you're implying that I'm doing this for a living - you're well off the track.

      Not that I'm sure why it's any of your business.

      Delete
    5. Your straw man was obvious Matt. Getting paid does not automatically mean you make a living off of it. That was your subconscious(?) injection. I never said you did, I said you got paid, you did.

      Although, many people DO make a good living, financially, giving speaches and lectures to various venues. We will have to take it on faith if you claim that is not the case with you. Only in 'merica'

      Since I have you here, would you be willing to debate Sye in this type of structure? He would be at a disadvantage to have him calling into your show as you are known to cut people off when things get heated.

      Delete
    6. No, and this will be my last post here. I came here to clear up confusion on a point.

      I have no interest in wasting time on hateful, dishonest people who misuse fallacy labels like "straw man". Arrange a formal debate and I'll consider it.

      In your case, since you decided to make an issue of it, I'll be expecting payment.

      Delete
  3. Before the Atheists cry foul, this is not a no true Scotsman fallacy either, because the qualifications were set and established in Scripture.

    Because it was set in Scripture, it makes it a reasoned assertion. Scripture lists that specific objective rule. Namely, that Christians do not fall away. QED


    Well, there are many Christians that disagree with you. Come back when you all agree on this. Furthermore, while
    claiming that only Christ can decide if someone is a Christian or not, you seem to be taking on that role yourself based on one or two sentences in the Bible. Strangely enough, atheists are more forgiving and humble here - if someone says they're a Christian, we generally take them at their word, and we don't erase someone's history if they change what they believe. That sounds more like something Stalin would have done.

    However, I won't cry foul. If you say that any Christian who expresses any doubts or questions what they believe
    is immediately struck from the ranks of Christianity retroactively and becomes an atheist, then all those polls that put Christians at roughly 80% of the US population are actually wrong, and there's really a lot more of us atheists than the numbers suggest. So much for a "Christian Nation". Also, that pretty much makes Thomas Jefferson an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> Well, there are many Christians that disagree with you. Come back when you all agree on this.

      So truth is a consensus? I don't understand.

      >> if someone says they're a Christian, we generally take them at their word,

      So do I, its just the very second they claim there is no God then, per the established criteria, they were never a Christian in retrospect.

      Also, doubts and questions does not mean they're Atheist. Atheism is the criteria they've never been a Christian yet. That is good news though.

      Plus, Jefferson was not a Christian, he was a Diest.

      Delete
    2. "So truth is a consensus? I don't understand."

      You can't even begin to discuss truth unless you are speaking the same language. "Christian" is a word in the English language, and it has a generally accepted meaning. If you want to use your own definition you can do so, but, as is so often the case, it will make communication with you impossible. However, don't expect everyone else to bend over backward to accept your definition of a word.

      Delete
    3. Max,

      >>"Christian" is a word in the English language, and it has a generally accepted meaning.

      Sure, as defined as, "A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."

      What are those teachings?

      "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. " ~John 10:28

      "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." ~1John 2:19

      Do you accept THOSE teachings? No? Then you're not a Christian. QED

      Delete
    4. But wait look at that again "A person who has received christian baptism". Matt was received a christian baptism and thus under that definition is a christian QED.

      This is quite frankly dishonest and pedantic argument. Since you ignored that definition to claim that matt is not a christian is a falsehood. To speak a falsehood is a lie. "When you lie to someone(sin by breaking the 9th Commandment) you are not lying to that person but to God Himself." Thus you are not only a liar but have sinned in the eyes of god according to your own admission. QED

      Delete
    5. "Do you accept THOSE teachings? No? Then you're not a Christian. QED"

      Correct. And Matt did accept those teachings for 25 years, so he was a Christian at that time. To say he wasn't really a Christian at that time is not consistent with the accepted definition.

      Delete
    6. This is Dan you're talking to...that won't make a bit of difference. The personal experiences of a real person must, by definition be discounted if they go against what his holy book says. Never mind that this is the same holy book with talking animals, people raising from the dead, etc.

      Delete
    7. Harker,

      >> Matt was received a christian baptism and thus under that definition is a christian

      You do not know this? Baptism is not some public dunking in water as you may think. Baptism of the Spirit is what is we're talking about. It still stands that although he may have dunked himself in a tub, that does not mean that he is a Christian. So nice try with all the 9th Commandment rant but you have yet to provide evidence of his spiritual baptism that makes him a Christian. I have provided evidence to the contrary. Ball is in your court but be careful now that you're aware of this truth of spiritual baptism. Acts 1:4-5 might help you out with that KNOWLEDGE.

      Delete
    8. Honestly you come off as very disingenuous and I should not be surprised that you chose to equivocate on the term baptism as well when backed towards a corner. Once again I am using colloquial definitions and then you commit a shifting ground fallacy. No different then if I threw you out as not a christian because you don't drink hemlock and handle vipers. So I think I've gotten all I can out of this conversation.

      And hey if you get to do the 1,2,3 QED thing I think it only fair I get to give it a whirl.

      Delete
    9. So Jesus went to his cousin John to get baptised because? Then two thirds of the trinity showed up and made a big fuss about being pleased with the other third.
      I was given to understand that the act of immersion in water was merely the outward sign of the acceptance of the spirit. Sort of an attempt to rally the troops.
      Dax

      Delete
    10. Not a "No True Scotsman" argument? Really? The argument that it's backed up in scripture (what isn't, honestly?) doesn't mean it's special. Every single case of this fallacy has a "because" statement. It always follows this pattern, "he's not a true scotsman because X". Your reason for thinking this means it is precisely the NTS, not independent from it.

      Delete
  4. So going by your definition of christian you're really arguing that you can't call any living person a christian. Since you never know if someone will change their mind in a few minutes,hours,days,years you can only say they seem like they are a christian. Same thing really with dead people, what if they just never publicly admitted they didn't believe and just pretending to still believe or a death bed change of heart moments before death. So from this you can never claim that anyone is a christian just that they seem to be Christians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that is not the "only" criteria to know if someone is a Christian but yes that is one of the things to look for. The very second they proclaim as part of their worldview, atheism, rest assured they were never a Christian. To see if they are a Christian, as I list out in a post called Fallen Away?, you must examine their fruit.

      It goes both ways too. If someone says they believe in God could they proclaim atheism as part of their worldview? Of course not. Now, as I said, I used to be an Atheist, but the criteria is not the same. To be a Christian, you die still believing. Period.

      Delete
    2. Also, yes that verse " Judge not, that ye be not judged" in Matthew 7 is for Christians judging other Christians for their amount of Christianity.

      I took it on faith that Ted Haggard was a Christian, until he was doing meth off a male hookers butt, then I am in full loving compliance to rebuke him in his wickedness.

      As for the secret Atheist, its the reason why we're not God. God knows that heart and motives, we don't. He is the Judge. Look at Matthew 7:23, even professing Christians that get all the way to Heaven to be in front of Christ will be rejected as a Christian, because of their wickedness.

      Delete
    3. I'm not arguing about whether or not you can judge them (I honestly don't care). It just seems to me that under your definition you can never really call anyone a christian as no mater what fruits might fall from their tree today they might denounce it all tomorrow and thus by your definition they weren't ever a christian. thus you should always use self professed christian or a similar term as you can never really say that anyone is a christian.

      Delete
    4. It's not my definition at all. Scripture is clear. Some, because of a belief in a lie, think they are getting to heaven. Those probibly are self delusions, because God does poses the capabilities to give us certainly.

      Enacting God's will and bowing to His will are not the same. So yes, we trust they're Christians, until that rotten fruit rears its ugly head. This is why God says 'be aware.' In other word, to judge, rebuke, and reprove. Christianity is not a popularity contest either, its a very personal relationship. We all die alone in front of our Maker.

      Delete
    5. So I guess my last comment is why should anyone speaking to a crowd use your definition instead of the colloquial definition? What's the point of talking with a definition held by a minority view if you're talking colloquially?

      Isn't this a distortion of what someone else is saying?

      If I say you're a liar because you claim you're not a murderer but you swatted a mosquito once so that makes you a murderer.

      Isn't that a pedantic and disingenuous view of things?

      Delete
    6. Dan, what would you say of yourself if you decided tomorrow that the evidence didn't support being a Christian? Would you state that you'd never been one, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

      Delete
    7. You're not cussing at me Alex? See, there is a God. That would be impossible, as a scenario, because I would have to discount all knowledge, evidence, and reasoning to do so, as you have. :7p

      All evidence is evidence of God, even one's ability to reason about evidence, as you fully know. So yes, if there were a time in my life I wanted to lie to myself, then I could postulate anything, even that I was a Christian at one time. Would that make it true?

      Delete
    8. Dan, the ONLY way you could be certain your version of your particular god had given you an accurate 'revelation' would be if you were omniscient and could check its validity.

      So, are you omniscient?

      And, no, I'm not 'cussing' at you, but that doesn't mean you're not still a loathsome ahitbag who has claimed atheists are the cause of childhood cancer

      Delete
    9. You've had a couple of days now to think of your answer. Are you omniscient, yes or no?

      Delete
    10. No I am not, in that same breath I have access to God that certainly is.

      Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

      Delete
    11. yet you take the word of this 'being' on faith. you do not know that the truth has been revealed to you

      Delete
    12. >>you do not know that the truth has been revealed to you

      Well, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, certainly has been revealed to us. I am just resistant, and humble, to believe we will have all knowledge. I welcome it, but do not demand it. I am trying to take a healthier approach to the subject. I do not wish to be on the same plane, or level, of God. All knowledge is incomprehensible to little ol me. I cannot wait to speak to Him about it all.

      Delete
  5. I do have a few questions, how do you KNOW your reasoning is valid?

    He, I believe in the Q&A, admitted he doesn't. So he has no argument.

    Second, is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?




    These are weasel words. Dan doesn't use them to make an intellectual point. He uses them to shut down argument, especially after a series of comments that he can't respond to. However, like Dan's phrase "are you absolutely sure of that? How do you know?", it applies to Dan as well. He can't answer these questions any better than the rest of us. Furthermore, not being 100% sure does not mean the position is invalid. I'm quite happy to state that there is a small chance that evolution is incorrect, but the weight of evidence behind it is so large that it is the best explanation we know. I'm also quite happy to state that there is a small chance that god exists and creationism is correct. However, due to the overwhelming lack of evidence for both those things I can be quite comfortable in stating they don't exist.

    Doubt is not a bad thing. Doubt creates progress and learning. Doubt allows discussion of opposing views. Unfortunately, Dan and his tribe have constructed a rigid knowledge structure that is binary - you either know 100%, or nothing. There is only one authoritative source - the Bible. If something disagrees with the Bible the "something" has to be wrong. If other Christians disagree with Dan on Bible interpretation, then they must be wrong so he re-defines the word "Christian" to only include people who agree with him. Scientists keep coming up with annoying facts and ideas that don't fit the knowledge structure, so science is bad. People who behave differently or have different views on sex don't fit the model and need to stop because they're obviously wrong too. (That's the fun part of being absolutely right about things - since everyone else has to be absolutely wrong (QED) it's naturally your job to force them to stop if you get the power to do so.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,

      I am certain about some things, like God's existence, the same way I can know anything else. Revelation. Now, how do you know things for certain?

      >> He can't answer these questions any better than the rest of us.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how? I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.

      >>Furthermore, not being 100% sure does not mean the position is invalid.

      Are you even certain about this?

      >> Unfortunately, Dan and his tribe have constructed a rigid knowledge structure that is binary - you either know 100%, or nothing.

      Well, you know too. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

      Is scientist always right, and how do you know if they are? Because atheism is a positive metaphysical position. Its a religious position.

      Science itself is not bad, I love science, I just have a problem with the religious position of nateralism. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

      That being said the worst tragedies of the world was achieved with the tool of science. So science can certainly be used for bad.

      >> People who behave differently or have different views on sex don't fit the model and need to stop because they're obviously wrong too.

      Sin is wrong yes. I am sure you would agree that pedophiles are wrong, yet your worldview cannot account as to how/why that is absolutely wrong.

      >> since everyone else has to be absolutely wrong (QED) it's naturally your job to force them to stop if you get the power to do so.

      Yes, we are forcing our morality on someone to say stealing is wrong. When we put a speed limit sign in a school zone, we are pushing our morality. Your point? My point is that we have a source for that morality, you do not. All you have is your arbitrary opinion, or moral relativism.

      Delete
    2. So the source of speed limits is the Bible? Could you cite a passage to defend that position?

      Also since you're on the subject of certainty, would you say a weather forecast is completely useless because there's a small chance it could be wrong?

      Delete
    3. This "not 100% sure" thing seems to come up a lot when I discuss these things. It seems like an inability to understand the scientific process and knowledge in general. I don't mean to suggest people aren't bright, only they've can't or don't look at things that way. I've tried to use computers as an analogy. Over recent years I've replaced my computer several times. Each successive one has gotten better, faster, more useful. The older ones did many things the wrong way, the technology was not ideal. the knowledge we used to build them was incomplete. But it wasn't completely useless. We have built on that knowledge and are still learning from the mistakes. That's how scientific understanding works. It's also why I like the insult of someone "not even being wrong".

      Delete
    4. I am certain about some things, like God's existence, the same way I can know anything else. Revelation. Now, how do you know things for certain?


      I don't. I know things from what I can observe, measure, and analyze, or through what others observe/measure/analyze. I assume there are sources of error in this process, and use methods to try and minimize that error. I accept that there may still be errors in what I know, and I'm willing to change my views if better evidence comes along. I also know that this approach has a track record of being the most effective way of solving problems we've come up with.

      You, on the other hand, claim 100% infallibility, but are unable to prove that infallibility. Even if you were to prove that Revelation was absolutely true, you are using the same approach to knowledge that I do just by reading this sentence. So you
      get the same errors I do.

      >> He can't answer these questions any better than the rest of us.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how? I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.


      Doesn't matter. I live in the real world, my goals are in the real world, and evidence generally works in the real world. You can keep on with this post-modernist "we can't know anything for certain so all views are equally valid" crap, but I want to fix things for my children and you're getting in the way. Revelation had 2000 years to demonstrate how it might fix things and it didn't - we don't have time to wait for it any longer.



      >> Unfortunately, Dan and his tribe have constructed a rigid knowledge structure that is binary - you either know 100%, or nothing.

      Well, you know too. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.


      In my view, God has not revealed himself at all. I'll be quite happy to accept his existence when I see better evidence.

      Delete
    5. Continued...

      Is scientist always right, and how do you know if they are?

      Science says that what is currently understood is the closest we can get to truth at this time. However, when a new bit of evidence is uncovered, we change what is currently understood to include that evidence, and our experience is that the new understanding is closer to the truth than the old understanding. The fact that the old understanding is now wrong doesn't invalidate the process or mean that we should just ignore all scientific knowledge.

      Science itself is not bad, I love science, I just have a problem with the religious position of nateralism. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence.

      "Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence"? Sure, I'll play. Let's take Revelation. When does it happen? How does the information arrive in your head? Is it affected by objects? Is there a change in brain structure when it happens? Is there any measurable energy involved? Can you predict when it will happen? Is the information transmitted ever different from just reading the Bible and coming to a conclusion?

      The reason science sticks to naturalism is that it's the only place that evidence ever shows up. Come up with some evidence to back your claims, and science will be more than happy to participate. But expect the hard questions or stay home.

      Also, if you truly love science, take the link to Answers in Genesis off your blog page. Science will go where the evidence leads. If your view is that science is great so long as it doesn't question certain things, then you're not doing science.

      Sin is wrong yes. I am sure you would agree that pedophiles are wrong, yet your worldview cannot account as to how/why that is absolutely wrong.

      Two different things. Sin is an offense against a supposed supernatural entity. If you don't believe in that particular entity, sin against that entity is meaningless. (I'm pretty sure you don't care what Wiccans would find 'sinful'.) This is a pretty useless way to define morality.

      The real world is not absolute. Pedophilia is generally considered wrong, but I challenge you to define a absolute moral statement that covers all possible outcomes that even you would find acceptable. The best basis for considering it immoral is that it often violates consent or the ability to understand consent. But what about two teenagers each two days before their 18th birthdays? What about an adult and a mentally challenged person with a physical age in their 20's but no real understanding of what sex means? Are these examples of pedophilia and wrong on that basis? The fact that I can't provide a claim that "X is wrong in all cases because..." doesn't mean that morals don't exist; furthermore, trying to apply such a rule in the real world can often cause harm while a more flexible rule may provide a fairer result.

      Yes, we are forcing our morality on someone to say stealing is wrong. When we put a speed limit sign in a school zone, we are pushing our morality.

      My point is that we have a source for that morality, you do not. All you have is your arbitrary opinion, or moral relativism.


      Of course morals are relative. But in your "100% absolute" world, morals are either absolute or OMG-hedonism-sex with children-random killing!11!!. There is a middle ground, you know.

      Stealing is generally wrong because it hurts the victim. Human societies that discourage stealing seem to work better. Is stealing wrong in all cases? Would stealing something to protect a Jew from the Nazis be OK? A lot of people who disagree with stealing would agree with the previous sentence. Similarly, would you charge a fireman speeding to a school to save kids from a fire? If God said that exceeding speed zone limits was a sin and absolutely wrong, then yes you would.

      Delete
    6. I asked "Now, how do you know things for certain?"

      >>I don't

      Great, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty. I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?

      >>I know things from what I can observe, measure, and analyze, or through what others observe/measure/analyze.

      But you're not certain of that, right?

      >> I assume there are sources of error in this process, and use methods to try and minimize that error. I accept that there may still be errors in what I know, and I'm willing to change my views if better evidence comes along.

      OK great, so you know nothing.

      >> I also know that this approach has a track record of being the most effective way of solving problems we've come up with.

      But, of course, that is not even known.

      >>Even if you were to prove that Revelation was absolutely true, you are using the same approach to knowledge that I do just by reading this sentence.

      This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that I am using the same approach. Are you?

      >> live in the real world,

      Are you certain?

      my goals are in the real world,

      >>How are you certain?

      >>and evidence generally works in the real world.

      but you are not even certain that is true. Right?

      >>God has not revealed himself at all.

      But you just admitted that you do not know things. How do you know He hasn't?

      >>I'll be quite happy to accept his existence when I see better evidence.

      Problem is, if you can’t know anything, then you cannot know what God can or cannot do, yet the very first thing out of your mouth after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.

      Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

      Erm, ‘evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

      >> The fact that the old understanding is now wrong doesn't invalidate the process or mean that we should just ignore all scientific knowledge.

      First you cannot claim "fact" about anything without knowledge, and second if something that is not ever known then "scientific knowledge" is an oxymoron.

      >> Let's take Revelation. When does it happen? How does the information arrive in your head? Is it affected by objects? Is there a change in brain structure when it happens? Is there any measurable energy involved? Can you predict when it will happen? Is the information transmitted ever different from just reading the Bible and coming to a conclusion?

      I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

      >>The reason science sticks to naturalism is that it's the only place that evidence ever shows up.

      But that is not known for certain. Its ASSUMED. Its the paradigm, or starting point, but that starting point is injected. Its not scientifically evidenced.

      >>If your view is that science is great so long as it doesn't question certain things, then you're not doing science.

      Like Naturalism? That is my point. I question naturalism, is that "doing science?"

      (to be cont'd)

      Delete
    7. (cont'd)

      >>The real world is not absolute.

      Is that absolutely true? Are you absolutely certain of that?

      >>Pedophilia is generally considered wrong, but I challenge you to define a absolute moral statement that covers all possible outcomes that even you would find acceptable.

      I just wanted to quote this one again, with huge cartoon eyes. O.O

      >> The best basis for considering it immoral is that it often violates consent or the ability to understand consent.

      You cannot even claim THAT as being wrong in that worldview of yours. Right? Cannot get an "ought" from a "is" after all. Why OUGHT we not violate consent? Why OUGHT we be compassionate? I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

      >>The fact that I can't provide a claim that "X is wrong in all cases because..." doesn't mean that morals don't exist

      Erm, that is my point and argument, dude. Morals DO exist, OUTSIDE and separate, of your professed worldview. So raping babies for fun, murdering babies, or even eating babies, COULD be moral in your worldview. Not mine. There is an absolute standard of morality that you cannot account for in your atheistic worldview.

      >>Stealing is generally wrong because it hurts the victim.

      You cannot account for "hurting the victim" as 'right'. Are you a vegan? What about "hurting the cow victim?" If you are a vegan, what about "hurting the carrot victim?" The inconsistencies of your worldview is the point here. These things are absurd but comport to my worldview, not so much with yours. We do have a moral standard, your worldview discounts that standard, all the while using it. Hurting others may be moral, and how do you KNOW that is not the case.

      >> Human societies that discourage stealing seem to work better.

      But you're not certain of that. The exact opposite may be the case. You cannot claim that "working better" is the goal, in your worldview, even.

      >> If God said that exceeding speed zone limits was a sin and absolutely wrong, then yes you would.

      You're confusing what an Absolute standard is. Yes, we do have an absolute Authority (tinyurl.com/absoluteauthority), that authority does not change.

      " In such cases the human authority must be disobeyed, but this is not an exception or an exemption to an absolute, for the absolute is defined in such a way that obedience is to be rendered only when human commands do not violate clear scriptural prohibitions and instructions."

      Delete
    8. Great, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty. I'll show you what I mean:

      Which you then completely fail to do. I've already quite happily stated that I'm not 100% certain of anything. You seem to think that just repeating "are you sure" ad nauseam proves some kind of point. It doesn't - it just makes you look like a dick.

      I'm not the one who has to prove the validity of my approach to knowledge. Humans have used it for thousands of years. You used it growing up, and your kids are using it now. In fact, you spent an entire blog post talking about unschooling and how that was so beneficial. So it was fine for your kids a few posts back and now it has no valid basis?

      You're the one who has to defend your knowledge source - and you can start by actually answering the questions on Revelation I asked.

      So raping babies for fun, murdering babies, or even eating babies, COULD be moral in your worldview. Not mine.

      Really? But drowning hundreds of thousands of babies in a flood is moral in your worldview, but not mine. Deliberately creating parasites to torture other creatures is moral in your worldview, but not mine. Supporting slavery or race segregation until forced to change is moral in your worldview, but not mine.

      Pedophilia is generally considered wrong, but I challenge you to define a absolute moral statement that covers all possible outcomes that even you would find acceptable.

      Rolling your eyes isn't really an answer. What *exactly* is God's guidance on pedophilia from your point of view? You skated over my other examples, so go ahead and give the full thing.

      Delete
    9. >>I've already quite happily stated that I'm not 100% certain of anything

      OK great, so you don't know anything. At least we're on the same page.

      Some definitions for you:

      knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

      know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.

      The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

      Delete
    10. OK great, so you don't know anything. At least we're on the same page.

      Nope. Once again, you're just repeating a claim without any rationale or reasoning. It does not follow that refusing to claim 100% certainty means that one knows nothing. Either back it up or stop saying it.

      Also, dictionary definitions. Yep, that makes it all clear. There are many things I "understand as fact or truth" but still refuse to claim 100% certainty - I'm quite sure the sun will probably rise tomorrow, but there is the small chance it may explode overnight, so I'm not prepared to say it with 100% certainty.

      The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.

      That's fine. I'm willing to accept 99.999% certainty as truth. So I don't need divine revelation. Cool. Also, there is no evidence that Christians perform better on exams or in other learning situations, so it doesn't appear that Divine revelation is helping all that much.

      It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

      Sure - "some things". It is not the Christian position that everything is revealed. There are many Christians who are also good scientists who will have a view of knowledge similar to mine and seem quite content with it.

      Also, I don't see any response to God's moral guidance on pedophilia. Perhaps I should assume that God hasn't actually said anything on the topic?

      Delete
    11. Also, I don't see any response to God's moral guidance on pedophilia. Perhaps I should assume that God hasn't actually said anything on the topic?

      Dan has moved on, so I thought I'd do some digging on my own on this.

      I was surprised to find out that God has no position on pedophilia - it's not referenced in the Bible at all. Furthermore, there are a number of passages where God specifically instructs the faithful to (while performing genocide, BTW) kill all the males and married women, and keep all the young virgins for themselves. While not encouraging pedophilia, it certainly suggests a tacit "wink wink nudge nudge" stance on the practice.

      Obviously, the only thing preventing a rash of Christian fundamentalist child rapes is the fact that it's illegal. Good thing we atheists and other moral relativists are here to provide moral guidance on this and maintain those laws.

      Delete
    12. Oh so your 'rational' is kill all the babies so the Christians cannot have relations with them someday? Riiiiight!

      What makes this, or anything, "wrong" in an atheistic worldview. IF girls can have children at age 9 even, why is it wrong according to the Atheistic worldview if procreation is very "natural"?

      Anyway the Bible says plenty about it. I cheated and went to Gotquestions.org though.

      "Fornication is something that is present on the lists of the "lusts of the flesh" (Galatians 5:16-21) and also on the list of the evil things that come out of the heart of man apart from God (Mark 7:21-23).

      Pedophiles are people who fall under the characteristic of being "without natural affection" (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:2). The phrase "without natural affection" is translated from one Greek word, and it means “inhuman, unloving and unsociable.” One without natural affection acts in ways that are against the social norm. This would certainly describe a pedophile."

      That being said, you are appealing to a moral law that your worldview cannot account for, besides your arbitrary opinion.

      Delete
    13. "Fornication is something that is present on the lists of the "lusts of the flesh" (Galatians 5:16-21) and also on the list of the evil things that come out of the heart of man apart from God (Mark 7:21-23).

      Which list includes: "fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings". According to one modern commenter, this list also makes dancing immoral.

      Pedophiles are people who fall under the characteristic of being "without natural affection" (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:2). The phrase "without natural affection" is translated from one Greek word, and it means “inhuman, unloving and unsociable.” One without natural affection acts in ways that are against the social norm. This would certainly describe a pedophile." And apparently, depending on the translation, also includes "lovers of money".

      It's odd that such a serious moral lapse doesn't rate a specific prohibition. Graven images we have problems with, but there's no "Thou shalt not have sex with children". The first set are simply laundry lists of sins that include just about everything, and the second set is obscure and disappears in translation. This is the sum total of God's moral guidance on pedophilia? This looks more like an exercise where you've decided something is immoral and you cherry pick verses that sorta kinda match. The same verses could be used to declare that introverts engaged in slow dancing is equivalent to pedophilia. And the big problem for your moral system is that humans make these judgements, not God. And once that happens, you're in my worldview.

      However, let's say you're right. We can fix it by having an adult marry a child. It's a holy institution, and obviously a man will truly love his bride, so all your verses quoted above don't apply. Girls in biblical times were apparently marriageable at puberty, so getting married at 12 was quite common.
      Mary herself was 14 or 15 when she became pregnant. God didn't have problems with it then, and he's your only moral source, so why would it be wrong now?

      Delete
    14. Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

      Delete
    15. I'm asking you to defend your moral viewpoint, which seems to be a bit of a struggle for you since you keep sidetracking into talking about mine. But carry on...

      Delete
    16. Mike, it's because Dan's worldview denies the Primacy of Existence. That means that he cannot give an account for a truly objective moral standard - he's left defending 'might makes right' and similar abhorrent views as William Lane Craig's defence of genocide.

      In his inherently subjective worldview peadophilia could be moral depending on the whims of the God he believes exists. Indeed, under his worldview, it could be immoral on Tuesday's and Thursday's but celebrated on Sunday's and Wednesday's if God so chose.

      Delete
    17. First Poe, I already addressed your PoE assertion here. Second,...

      >>In his inherently subjective worldview peadophilia could be moral depending on the whims of the God he believes exists.

      Pedophilia is wrong because our consciences says it. We still have consciences, and those who deny it are able to do very evil things. Its not some commandment in a book that directs you, or drives you, its your conscience that was installed by the ONE that made you in His image.

      I am apprehensive to give this to Atheists, because it's not for them and they may use it as a weapon to Ray, but it was a great speech about the commandments and such, how that is not what we should be talking about. It was a wonderful internal critique that we all can benefit from.

      It also is perfect for this subject we are on. Even the Atheists are conditioned to look for verses about pedophilia and are frustrated, or elated, when they do not find them. It's written on their hearts and maybe that is how we have failed all of you, in explaining that. Anyway, for your perusal. I highly recommend it. It was a gut punch that felt so good. Truth, and internal critique to ensure it, are the goals after all.

      Delete
    18. It is ironic that in a discussion about conscience and morals that you point to Ray Comfort - a man who deliberately lies about evolution to make money. Don't worry - I won't follow the link. Even atheists have standards.

      I can't think of anything less absolute than this idea of conscience. Absolute morals must be clearly evident to all - otherwise it's just individual whim, which is exactly what you've been criticizing me for.

      So I'll ask again - if it was moral to marry a 12 year old in Jesus' time, is it moral to do it now? A moral system that is absolute should have no problem with this question.

      Delete
    19. First Poe, I already addressed your PoE assertion here. Second,...

      And by 'addressed' you mean you affirmed the PoE while attempting to deny it ... thanks for trying though.

      Pedophilia is wrong because our consciences says it.

      I'm thinking paedophiles may well disagree with you ... and, before you respond, I suspect that it's not fear of God (through their consciences) but rather it's the fear of punishment by the earthly authorities that makes them hide their actions.

      We still have consciences, and those who deny it are able to do very evil things. Its not some commandment in a book that directs you, or drives you, its your conscience that was installed by the ONE that made you in His image.

      Then He did a very poor job with these 'consciences' as the people supposedly made in His image seem quite capable of ignoring their consciences whenever it suits them.

      I am apprehensive to give this to Atheists, because it's not for them and they may use it as a weapon to Ray, but it was a great speech about the commandments and such, how that is not what we should be talking about. It was a wonderful internal critique that we all can benefit from.

      Comfort is an idiot and a hypocrite - telling others to keep the commandments while he ignores them in favour of lining his own pockets with the money of the gullible.

      It also is perfect for this subject we are on. Even the Atheists are conditioned to look for verses about pedophilia and are frustrated, or elated, when they do not find them.

      Conditioned? Not really, we'd just like the Christians - who claim to have an absolute standard of morality outlined in their bible - to reconcile the atrocities committed by (and in the name of) your God with what their (supposedly God given) consciences tell them is good or bad. Unsurprisingly, instead of condemning the actions (that they claim their conscience tells them are wrong), we find them handwaving and justifying those very same actions - genocide, slavery, paedophilia etc...

      It's written on their hearts and maybe that is how we have failed all of you, in explaining that.

      That you think it needs explaining merely demonstrates that either your God isn't very good at stuff - like communicating or designing consciences - or, most likely, He simply doesn't exist.

      Anyway, for your perusal. I highly recommend it. It was a gut punch that felt so good. Truth, and internal critique to ensure it, are the goals after all.

      I'm not sure whether Ray Comfort would know 'truth' if it showed up and kicked him in the balls.

      Delete
    20. >>t is ironic that in a discussion about conscience and morals that you point to Ray Comfort

      I pointed to something that REFUTED Ray silly. You didn't listen to it. ""Sad, you are" ~Yoda

      Delete
    21. Dan - In that case I misunderstood your previous comment; it referenced Ray and the initial link mentioned "the way of the master". If the clip isn't by Ray I will perhaps have a look.

      Delete
    22. OK. First off, the clip fell over itself trying to be conciliatory to Ray; since the speaker was disagreeing with Ray on the finer techniques of evangelizing to the heathen, I doubt many atheists would really see this as anything to attack him on.

      It was instructional. My key take-away is that based on this clip, evangelicals are stuck in "we're going up the Congo teaching the ignorant savages" mode. They seem to think that the most flimsy logic and outright carnival barker style will have an impact on their potential converts. This may work on some, but most atheists arrive at atheism through reason; most have long experience with religion and (as polls show) often know more about religion than theists. This is one reason why Ray is considered especially vile - he approaches a group that probably has spent as much time as he has pondering the nature of religion and morals, yet uses methods that wouldn't convince a 3rd grader. (But then, converting people isn't really Ray's goal.)

      However, back to conscience. So, since the bible verses don't count, we are left with this 'conscience' that God puts in everyone, even non-Christians. This conscience is absolute, and those of us who have different views from what you accept are 'denying' God by ignoring this conscience.

      So presumably marrying a 12-year old in biblical times was OK because the folks then would have had clear consciences about it. Similarly, marrying a 12-year old now would be wrong because today's consciences would see that as pedophilia. So God's moral law is absolute (in the sense that it has to be followed), but God can change his mind over time.

      Well, that's good. Because God has changed his mind a lot. Pedophilia, slavery, interracial marriages, genocide, apostasy, heresy - we don't treat these like we did 2000 years ago. So I don't have to worry too much about marriage rights for gay people - eventually God will change his mind and it will be OK, just like the other times. Presumably your conscience will be modified to suit the new rules.

      But it's funny how God's Absolute Law seems to follow whatever is socially acceptable at the time. It's almost as if it wasn't absolute at all...

      Delete
  6. D.A.N, there is an interesting consequence of your particular definition of a Christian. Since someone who has fallen away was never really a Christian, it is entirely possible that you yourself are currently not a Christian. We don't know the future with certainty and it is always possible that you will lose your faith someday. If that were to happen, it would mean that you never were a true Christian.
    I recommend that you change the description of your blog to read "We are probably Christians, ministers, theologians..." and "We, as possible Christians, are here proclaiming truth..." This would be much more accurate and less presumptuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No wait. You've moved the goal posts. I am absolutely certain of my justification and salvation, and now I am working on that sanctification part. A life long endeavor, btw (http://bit.ly/JustandSanct)

      Yes, you're right as YOU do not know for certain of MY salvation. This is why we cannot judge that as one Christian to another, revealed in Matthew 7. I am certain of it nevertheless.

      I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

      Delete
    2. So what? Does that mean that such a being exists? Does that mean that such a being has actually revealed things to us? Doesn't look it from my point of view, but then you'll just say that I'm "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" or some other bible bullshit in order to avoid the fact that the possibility of something is NOT the same as that same incident (this "revelation") having happened.

      Delete
    3. "I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?"

      No. Because such a being cannot logically exist having, as it does, two contradictory and mutually exclusive traits. Even if it COULD exist, then you would need to be omniscient to confirm it had told you the truth.

      There's your challenge, Dan - prove that being omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is possible (show your working), and then explain how you could trust such a being without being able to check its statements for truth.

      Delete
    4. >> No. Because such a being cannot logically exist having, as it does, two contradictory and mutually exclusive traits.

      Here we were all to believe that knowledge was power. I caanit see how you're confusingly believing them as exclusive.

      I accept that challenge but you're going to have to give me the rational behind your obvious misunderstanding.

      Delete
    5. And of course Dan's presupp bullshit requires that rather than simply answer Dan's challenge (should be quite easy when he believes an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal the answer to him) he makes demands on Alex to provide his rationale first. Of course, as soon as Alex gives his rationale Dan will take issue with it rather than give his response to the actual challenge he claims to have accepted.

      Whatever has compelled Alex to believe that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive traits is, of course, irrelevant when it comes to Dan giving his argument. Indeed, Alex could say he believes it because it was told to him by a trustworthy polar bear and no matter what Dan says about the validity of such a rationale will get us no closer to why Dan believes that it is not only possible to be omniscient and omnipotent but also how he can be absolutely certain such a being isn't lying to him without being omniscient himself.

      Stop dodging Dan, give your argument.

      Delete
    6. Dan, it's very simple, but let me spell it out for you.

      If you are all powerful you can do literally anything. If you are all knowing you know everything....including what you will do next (and you will know what you are going to do next with 100% accuracy each and every time) - which means that you cannot change your mind.

      And if you cannot change your mind, then there is something you CAN'T do, meaning you're not all powerful.

      If you CAN change your mind, then you don't know what you are going to do next, meaning you're not all knowing.

      You can't be both at the same time.

      So, Dan, please explain how you would know for certain that the revelation from your logically impossible daddy figure was true, without being able to check the validity of the revelation for yourself.

      Do you have the bollocks to admit, as Sye did the last time he appeared on the podcast, that you would just accept the statement on faith?

      Delete
    7. Alex, we seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. As Sye pointed out Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

      As an example God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

      So it does not follow that you claim if God cannot do all things he is not all powerful. God cannot contradict His own character, but that does not negate His omnipotence as demonstrated.

      It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

      Delete
    8. Is it 'logically impossible' to change your mind, Dan?

      Yes, or no?

      Is it 'logically impossible' to not know what you will do next with 100% certainty?

      Yes, or no?

      Delete
    9. >>Is it 'logically impossible' to change your mind, Dan?

      My mind? No.

      >>Is it 'logically impossible' to not know what you will do next with 100% certainty?

      Me? No.

      Delete
    10. Are you saying that it is 'logically impossible' for your god to change his mind? Remember, the Bible regularly presents situations where your god is thoroughly surprised by events and reflects this surprise in his subsequent actions.

      Please tell me, Dan, why it is 'logically impossible' for your god to do something as trivial as changing its mind.

      Delete
    11. And try to do it without dodging this time.

      Delete
    12. I am able to answer on my time schedule, not yours.

      >>Are you saying that it is 'logically impossible' for your god to change his mind?

      That is your injection remember, I don't know. This is a cute strawman though. Is it logically impossible to change a mind to you? Obviously you do by your comment:

      >>"If you are all powerful you can do literally anything. If you are all knowing you know everything....including what you will do next (and you will know what you are going to do next with 100% accuracy each and every time) - which means that you cannot change your mind."

      How do you KNOW this? Are you certain of this knowledge claim?

      ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther

      God does show a willingness for our behalf. Does God know we will pray for something? Sure. Does He do something other then His plan in doing so? No, I don't believe so. We are, after all, part of His plan.

      Our prayer is "Thy will be done" We are grateful that He doesn't listen to our requests at times. He, after all, knows the bigger picture. I trust that.

      Delete
    13. Or, to put it another way - 'No Alex, I can't answer without dodging'

      Pathetic, Dan.

      Delete
    14. And this -

      "How do you KNOW this? Are you certain of this knowledge claim?"

      I know this because I understand logic, Dan. You, on the other hand, despite all of your grandiose claims that your god is the sole source of all reasoning, seem embarrassingly ill-equipped to deal with even the simplest of concepts.

      In fact, considering the way you and your idol Syecular regularly trump that only presubullshitters can possibly understand and use logic, it's hilarious just how often the two of you are shown up by it! Remember when Dawson asked Syecular to present a Christian route to a theory of concepts, over on my blog? Sye made an absolute arse of himself!

      Why can't you people ask your logically impossible sky pal to reveal a method for not making a fool of yourself every time you attempt to deploy logic in an argument?

      Delete
    15. Looks like Dan has cut and run, displaying his usual 'debating' tactic when cornered.

      Delete
    16. Amazing, I've seen Dan flee the scene before, but never with such a flourish of failure!

      Delete
  7. Hypocrisy of Martin AND Kazim at AE:

    He said: "But there’s a difference between a dissenting comment (“I think you’re wrong, because…”) and turning up, talking smack and flinging a bunch of childish insults, and calling people cowards when they don’t give you the attention you’re demanding. But then, you kind of have to be an adult to recognize when you aren’t acting like one."

    The banned comment of mine was:

    "I think you’re wrong, because you're a coward Martin. That is the entire point.

    Ohhhhh you can say: "But then, you kind of have to be an adult to recognize when you aren’t acting like one."

    But you will not allow me to comment or counter. I am very surprised these are getting through, as you have not allowed them in the past. People asked for me to comment and think I ran away, but the whole time it was you who was censoring. I call it for what it is, truth. You're a coward. "

    SO INSTEAD they posted this: "Dan did not understand me and is now banned. Again."

    So I wear my button with pride.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guess what Dan left out?

      The first time Dan contacted us in 2006, he was allowed to comment literally for months before we kicked him, and if he’d shown any indication that he’d reached adulthood in the intervening years, he’d have been allowed back. But we are, in the end, not his parents. So long then

      Delete
    2. Wow! Things are getting thick with irony. Look what Reynold left out:

      Martin slanders without allowing others to play:

      " Immaturity seems to be the stock in trade of a certain breed of fundamentalist. I’m not sure what is most pitiful about Dan, the fact that he’s so obsessed with heaping insults upon me, or that he believes I am actually wounded by them. His pervasive anger, not any kind of imagined treatment I am giving him, is what makes him such an unhappy man. Talking rationally to Dan was a lot like trying to explain calmly to a five-year-old why he couldn’t have cookies before supper, with the child only able to reply, “NO!! COOKIE NOWWW!!!”"

      It still stands, he is certainly a coward.

      Delete
    3. No. If he was, why would he and they have let you ramble on for months on their blog?

      Delete
    4. Here is what happened in 2006, if you care.

      I wanted to witness to people badly. I thought why not target the hardest people to witness to, someone reluctant and if I could "convert them" then I would start a ministry of sorts. I used it as a sign, no kidding, I am laughing right now as to how green I really was. I was not a jerk either. I was not jaded or anything. I really cared and tried hard to pull them from their chosen path. Like you know, all my friends and family were Atheists. I thought that these were my people. I was trying to win the hearts and minds of Atheists using a kind befriending attitude. It's funny looking back on it now though.

      Anyway, somehow I stumbled upon AE and they welcomed me in because I quoted Ray Comfort one time i think. Like a lion looking at a bunny, they saw me coming.

      Long story short, they knuckle raped me for everything. They all pounced with pure precision on anything I said or used. They were bullies that were well versed to anything I thought was a great argument. They were brutal and relentless. I felt horrible, I internalized it thinking that I needed to get better or something. I was trying to be a kind Christian person in a hostile environment. Anyway they put the most horribe things up about me as their post titles. One time Martin even posted my IP address as a post and said "find this kid."

      I was angry. They did not let me post anything to counter those posts after that. They would not let me call them out at posting my IP address. People were still asking questions to me and I don't remember all the details but Martin would say I am too scared to comment, all the while he was moderating my comments and not letting them through. Just last month they finally let some of the comments through because people at my facebook group were asking all about it and that I was talking smack about them.

      It's one of, if not the main reason, I started this blog. The rest is my fueled anger towards Martin and his cowardly actions. I owe him for some of my passion I suppose. Anyway, I know how sad and pathetic he is as a bully. I just pitty and poke at him now. Ask if he posted my IP address as a post. If he denies it I will post the screen shot of it. Yea, we have a past. It is what it is.

      Delete
    5. Let's see that screen shot anyway. I want to see it. Because from what I'm reading, you're coming off like someone who expected a bunch of push-overs for conversion and was not at all prepared for anyone to argue back.

      The general whininess of your post is making you look like the coward so far.

      Delete
  8. Dan:

         "I think you’re wrong, because you're a coward Martin. That is the entire point."
         You opened up your comment with childish name-calling? No wonder it wasn't allowed through.
         "Your straw man was obvious Matt. Getting paid does not automatically mean you make a living off of it. That was your subconscious(?) injection. I never said you did, I said you got paid, you did"
         It's a rather plain implication from "I challenge his dogma / religion after all. So I am posting this here reluctantly. Normally, I would not advertise for Matt, as he is already getting PAID to do these debates." Even though you did not use the direct words, I have no doubt that your intent was to have your audience "understand" that he made a living doing this, not that he occasionally receives a token amount that doesn't even cover his transportation expenses. That wasn't Matt's injection. It was the only sensible interpretation of what you said (even though you didn't use the specific words.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's see:
    Remember the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and over 50 million baby murders and counting, and other atheist regimes?
    Like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc?

    God give us rights to, Life, Liberty , etc.
    Where in the bible does it do that, please?

    Try to match up the american Bill of Rights with the corresponding bible verses and you may have a case.

    Dan...all those examples you gave? Those were given by people. Not god. Where in the bible, which is supposed to be god's word, are the rights of people laid out?

    Those people may have thought that their rights came from god, but without biblical justification, they're wrong.

    Now you want to talk about hypocrisy?
    Atheists, with over 50 million baby murders and counting, wants to erase the first right and ...go from there.
    Aren't you and William Lane Craig the guys who see absolutely fuck-nothing wrong with the killing of babies and pregnant women so long as biblegod commands it??

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wait, Dan is claiming:
    My point is that we have a source for that morality, you do not. All you have is your arbitrary opinion, or moral relativism.
    No...the ultimate in moral relativism, or "subjective morality" is maybe the better term here, is to claim that there is nothing wrong with genocide so long as the right person (biblegod) commands it.

    No Dan, you people do NOT have a "source" of morality, any more than a child's "source" of morality is their parents watching them.

    True morality would at least try to take into account the impact of one's actions on others and on society in general, instead of ignoring all that and just focussing on who gives the orders.

    Whenever a xian says something like Dan did above, what he's really admitting is that without biblegod to watch over them, it is theists who have no reason to act "moral".

    Why? The theist disregards and dismisses every reason that an atheist could give for being moral (consideration for others, making a better world for friends, family and humanity in general, etc) and say that without their god, there is no reason to be moral (or no "source" of morality), whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  11.      "Like you know, all my friends and family were [a]theists."
         I call bull. If you had friends or family that were atheists, you would not use the "you really believe but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" lie.
         "I was trying to win the hearts and minds of [a]theists using a kind befriending attitude."
         I rather doubt it. I have never seen a kind, befriending attitude from you. Until I do, I cannot believe that you exhibited one. At one time I did see an attitue of candor and honesty coming from you. You really believed what you were saying. Now, I see hostility, condescension, deception, and vanity.
         A kind, befriending attitude is more likely to win over people than the way that you act. But... people who hold a different position from you will still argue against your position. It's not like those tracts where everyone responds with "why didn't I see that before?" People can argue against your position and still think you a decent person. Well... if you behaved better.
         "They were bullies that were well versed to anything I thought was a great argument."
         You gave an argument on a debating site and they argued back and you call them bullies for it? I suppose that if you go into a boxing ring that you are the only one allowed to throw a punch, too? Please note: I have no talent for boxing. I will not get into a boxing ring because I know exactly what it is a forum for.
         "People were still asking questions to me and I don't remember all the details but Martin would say I am too scared to comment, all the while he was moderating my comments and not letting them through."
         Bluntly put, I don't believe you. From just what I've seen here, when he blocked you, I believe he was up front and told people that he blocked you. But you do tend to "remember" things in such a way as to put christianity in a more favorable light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>At one time I did see an attitue of candor and honesty coming from you. You really believed what you were saying.

      Imagine when I was brand new at this back in 2006, even before this blog. You do not have to believe me, but it would be a stretch to think I was starting out with a "hostile" attitude and became more "honest" back to "hostile" but that is up to you to decide.

      >>You gave an argument on a debating site and they argued back and you call them bullies for it?

      Howard huge difference between debating and as an example how Alex acted. They were more towards the scale of the side of "Alex" that you are familiar with. I fully admitted I was new to the 'process' now I am used to the "Alex" treatment. It comes with the territory. Back then I was unaware that people were that jaded, bitter, and angry towards Christians. Now I am surprised when I do not get that.

      >>Bluntly put, I don't believe you. From just what I've seen here, when he blocked you, I believe he was up front and told people that he blocked you.

      You're wrong. I understand. That is what he wanted others to think. Would that same "honest and forthright" person post an IP address of a green Christian that they were berating? Even his fellow Atheists, Trisha I believe, said 'That is way uncool dude' and he took it down immediately, but not before I got a screen shot of it though. Again, you don't have to believe me, you probably think I am still placing you in spam anyways. Whatever.

      Delete
    2. Personally I'm not for the ban, based on what I know of it. It's not my call or my site. I think the blog would be big enough. But I'm confident simple "dissent" is not the reason for your exile. You must be aware that you have a snippy, petulant tone, right? You seem to argue more about other people's motivations and personalities than you do about the actual topic. I can be grating and sardonic myself. But you should be at least self aware enough to realize why people would tire of you.

      Delete
    3. you should be at least self aware enough to realize why people would tire of you

      Self-awareness is not what Dan lacks; intellectual honesty is. No matter why people reject his nonsense, he's going to portray it as some flaw in their character. For him to do differently, he'd have to be willing to concede his ideas might be flawed.

      Delete
  12. Dan:

         "Would that same 'honest and forthright' person post an IP address of a green [c]hristian that they were berating?"
         Possibly. One can be honest and still exercise poor judgement. But you say you have a screenshot. And I see that you have been called on to produce it in evidence. Yet you haven't done so.
         "Imagine when I was brand new at this back in 2006, even before this blog."
         I expect that you used the Chick tracts as a model. That's not overtly hostile. But it is expecting everyone to change beliefs on your say-so.
         By the way, I notice that you changed your Latin translation. I still don't particularly like it. But that's the trouble with translating figures of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll just say this:
    Right in the beginning of opening your mouth, you are trying to push a falsehood. You actually lie, as it has been pointed out from the very beginning of our conversations since 2006, you were never a Christian. You boastfully claim you were "for 25 years" but you never actually were.
    It's only a lie if the guy knew that he wasn't a real xian all that time.

    If he actually thought he was a xian, then even if by your standards he was wrong, he at least was not lying.

    You have made the accusation, Dan...You have to prove that he somehow knew that he was not a xian during the time that he said he was.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      >>It's only a lie if the guy knew that he wasn't a real xian all that time.

      Yes, I agree and that is why I am accusing him of that now, as I, and I am sure many others, pointed out we had conversations about it back in 2006-2008 exhaustively. The things I pointed to in this post, were the same things I said back then. He knows this, he knows he was never really a Christian, certainly by now, by the results of his reasoning. That is why I accused him of lying. He is either lying or denying, either way he KNOWS he was not one.

      Delete
  14. I'm sorry Dan, but I don't buy that arrogant "he knows he was never a christian" bit. You have just repeated your accusation. You had better start backing it up. Good grief, man. Even I used to be a christian. Are you going to start that bullshit up with ME?

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan:

          He, and just about everyone here other than you, does not accept you NTS definition of "christian." He was a christian. But he fell away. Now, some liars will say that "true christians" do not fall away and declare that he was never a christian. But it is simply not true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who decides who is, or who is not, a Christian? You? Arbitrary assignment- FTW!

      Delete
    2. as a 7 year old I used to be a police officer too. Wahoo, pretending!

      Delete
    3. We've been over this Dan, the meaning of words is by general consensus, otherwise communication is impossible. Pvblivs is not making up an arbitrary definition, you are. If you don't feel like using the common definition like everyone else, there's no point in trying to have a conversation.

      A Christian is someone who believes the teachings of Jesus. Matt believed those teachings for 25 years. Retroactively declaring him not a real Christian because he no longer believes is not consistent with the accepted definition. He was a Christian while he accepted those beliefs.

      Although your attempted redefinition of words is amusing. Truly a feat worthy of your hero, William Lane Craig.

      Delete
    4. Max,

      >>A Christian is someone who believes the teachings of Jesus.

      Quote mine-FTW!

      That reminded me of what the Bible even said "The demons also believe—and they shudder"

      No, you cannot cherry pick and say it ONLY mean that. If that was the case then I can say that "Christian" ONLY means a man's name from this list:

      noun
      7.a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
      8.a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
      9.a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
      10.the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
      11.a male given name.

      The point is that even your chosen definition says:

      "7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity."

      adherent of Christianity. adherent of Christianity. adherent of Christianity.

      It was my point all along. Matt lies about this.QED

      Delete
    5. I used to profoundly believe the Bible to be true, are you saying that I was 'pretending' when did? Are you, basically, calling me a liar?

      Delete
    6. >>I used to profoundly believe the Bible to be true, are you saying that I was 'pretending' when did?

      Certainly not. That is when you were internally truthful. :7)

      >>Are you, basically, calling me a liar?

      Now? Are you suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING?

      Delete
    7. Dan, you're a scratched record.

      No amount of SUDDEN CAPS is going to alter the fact that you're fatally out of your depth, and that this blog has failed miserably in its stated goal of 'debunking atheists'.

      Delete
    8. If you barely assert something enough, do you believe it will 'magically' come true?

      Cognitive Dissonance-FTW

      Delete
  16. Dan:

         "adherent of [c]hristianity. adherent of [c]hristianity. adherent of [c]hristianity."
         Which he was, for 25 years. And yet you lie about this. Have you sold off you very essence to an evil spirit? It's really looking like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pvb,

      You're too smart for these responses of yours. Matthew 7:21-23 is perfectly clear that people will go and try to be a Christian, but ONLY Christ will determine who is one. If that is the case and as the verses that I provided expressly says that Christians do not fall away in unbelief, and the ones that do were NEVER Christian then I have successfully made the case that Matt was never a Christian and he knows this even if he claims otherwise. To be adherent to Christianity you cannot ignore these verses.

      Delete
    2. "If that is the case and as the verses that I provided expressly says that Christians do not fall away in unbelief"

      It says no such thing. I didn't see the word Christian anywhere in those verses. Its an anachronism to say Jesus is defining a word that did not exist yet, and that he never used at any point. The word "Christian" was created years later to describe people who followed his teachings.

      We've been through all the dictionary definitions, and none of them account for this assertion, that people who later stop believing the teachings retroactively never were Christians.

      Your argument seems to be based on statements by Jesus that people he saves never fall away, right? Do any dictionaries define Christian as, "someone saved by God," or anything along those line? No. Did Jesus ever refer to those he saves as Christians? No. The word Christian means someone who believes the teachings of Jesus. Their status, saved or not by God, is not at all related to the meaning of the word. If they once believed and do not anymore, they are former Christians, according to the accepted definition.

      The word Christian refers to their personally held beliefs not their salvation, and none of the verses bible verses you provided say otherwise. At no point is Jesus ever using the word Christian to describe people he saves.

      Delete
  17. Like Pvblvis said, he was an adherent of Christianity for 25 years, so he used to be a Christian. None in the list of definitions you provided says people who lose the faith retroactively never were Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  18. here's the thing, Dan...if you stopped believing your fairytales tomorrow you'd realise that the only source for your claims about Christians is a book that you no longer hold to be authoritative - you would realise that you were an ex-christian as the book claiming no such thing can exist is wrong.

    as another ex believer I know what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan:

         A simple "yes" would have sufficed. I do not hold the bible as authoritative. (You know this.) Therefore, referring me to its passages serves no purpose. A group knowing that many people left for good reason will want to prevent its remaining members from listening to the ex-members and will come up with excuses like the passages you cite.
         "then I have successfully made the case that Matt was never a [c]hristian and he knows this even if he claims otherwise."
         No, you would have to argue that Matt continues to hold the bible as authoritative. If he no longer holds the bible as authoritative, he rejects the premise that christians do not fall away. Furthermore, he can use himself as a counterexample to your deceptive claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that was some conspiracy theory garbage. Yea, the people that wrote the Bible just knew that would all happen just as they planned, and 9/11 was an inside job. Whatever cuckoo.

      Delete
  20. Dan:

         Try reading what I wrote again. By the time those passages were written, many people had already left for good reason. The leaders were trying to keep the members they had left. I wasn't accusing them of predicting anything. They were dealing with things that had already happened.
         "and 9/11 was an inside job."
         Well, maybe, but that is rather off-topic. I will not try to dissuade you from your conclusion on that point. But I think it is worthy of a blog post that you declare it of your own authority.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Yea, the people that wrote the Bible just knew that would all happen just as they planned, and 9/11 was an inside job."

    One would imagine they did actually Dan, considering you lot claim the Bible's author to be your god.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Alex:

         Here's the thing. He doesn't believe in his god anymore. He's just hoping he can make some money at it. Unfortunately for him, the only supporters that come by are Sye and Norman. Sye is interested in his own money. And Norman's daddy won't let him use the credit card.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I don't think Dan believes at all any more.

      Delete

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