tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post2067070710118219609..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: The Arrogance of AtheismD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86758265409319582742015-09-03T13:19:14.386-04:002015-09-03T13:19:14.386-04:00Hey GE. Reply a bit late here. I just wanted to ...Hey GE. Reply a bit late here. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your insight here.<br /><br />cheers, Scottzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-85605144387895306172011-03-31T11:53:34.629-04:002011-03-31T11:53:34.629-04:00on the "the arrogance of atheists" I wou...on the "the arrogance of atheists" I would like to quote from a misrepresented Kali from supernatural <br />"you westerners and your arrogance, you think you're the only religion in the world well we were here first and it's our world too" (might be paraphrasing)<br /><br />now I was admonished by a christian at work because he perceived me as a atheist not sure why though hmm... anyway he gave me a very long speech about how I was going to hell holding up the next customer then ended it with strangely enough "you will burn you whore of babylon" well I was shocked and thanks to the phrase "the customer is always right" I merely wished him a nice day and swore silently<br /><br />my point is I am constantly faced with witnessing at my home and at work and although I can politely brush most of it off and I know you honestly want me to end up in your version of heaven it puzzles me that you would brush off every single religion that isn't yours sometimes even when they believe in and pray to Jesus (which is more to do with semantics) while doing it<br /><br />but I never actually find atheists preaching in the street or coming to my home or work solely with the purpose of "converting" me most will probably get into a discussion on science if I choose but no one has aggressively said to me "you must not believe in god/s" <br /><br />so which is arrogant? assuming your particular way of worship is better than every one else or your deity is the only one that should be worshiped and above everyone else's deity? because that seems pretty damned arrogant to me hell you're even fighting amongst yourselves you know "we are true Christians" "no we are" seriously you worship the same freaking guy! <br /><br />and don't give me but the bible states that and this <br />give me an actual reason why your deity should be worshiped above older (sometimes) more gentler deity(s) without using the bible as a source just try?<br /><br />what turns me away from religion are religious people particularly fundamentalists (of any religion) they keep promising a "better afterlife" and well "you should have morals and need god/s to have them" but then bicker amongst themselves like school children<br /><br />maybe if you want to preach morals show us an example if we're supposed to be "rebellious sinners against god"! <br /><br />just sayinconniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138148157614208065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-87950669342238694442010-10-07T01:44:33.469-04:002010-10-07T01:44:33.469-04:00Dan wrote: “Atheists have no basis for assuming th...Dan wrote: “Atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.”<br /><br />Reynold responded: “Come to think of it, you also never back up your claim that atheists have no justification for reasoning either. You just keep saying that our worldview is reduced to ‘absurdity’ without saying why, exactly.”<br /><br />Reynold is correct. Dan does not provide any arguments for his claim that “atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid,” because this is not a conclusion from prior reasoning for Dan. In other words, he has no argument for it, he has not logically inferred this from any facts, and he himself did not accept it on the basis of argument. It is essentially a faith claim that he uses to protect a larger, more vulnerable faith-based belief structure. <br /><br />Very likely, Dan read this and similar statements that he repeats without support in some apologetics primer (the presuppositionalist literature makes this kind of claim ad nauseum, also without support), and Dan just recites it as if it did not need any support. Again, he himself accepted it on faith, so he does not sense any need to defend it with an argument.<br /><br />What we should note about the claim “atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid” is that it essentially lays on Dan the burden to prove a negative. The burden to prove a negative can be notoriously difficult to satisfy, especially with all the complexities and variables that come with the kind of claim he likes to repeat.<br /><br />Also, so far, Dan has not been able to show one thing that is “absurd” about the position that I have defended. Indeed, consider what it is that he is calling “absurd”: a worldview which recognizes the fact that existence exists independent of consciousness; that the task of consciousness is to perceive and identify reality, not to “create” it; that reason is the proper means of knowledge for man; that achieving and preserving values is the goal of morality. Dan must think all of these are absurd positions, since he has made the claim that “the atheist worldview” is “absurd.”<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-28091358985216347282010-10-07T01:28:42.066-04:002010-10-07T01:28:42.066-04:00Dan: “We are certainty to judge but we judge actio...Dan: “We are certainty to judge but we judge actions, not motives, as I pointed out in that post about it.”<br /><br />Yes, you stated this already. Your worldview teaches that we should not morally evaluate motives. I saw you affirm that already. And the reason which the bible gives for this teaching is that one should be afraid to be judged in return. The injunction “Judge not, lest ye be judged” is followed (in Mt. 7:2) by the rationale that “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” The underlying implication to all this is that the believer is expected to <i>fear</i> being judged. And it is this <i>fear</i> which is intended to motivate him not to judge others. He’s not to judge others because others might judge him back, and he’s already riddled with a constellation of private guilt, and he doesn’t want any more of it to come out into the open. It’s part of the biblical formula for creating a community of fear.<br /><br />Dan: “How can you rebuke without judging first?”<br /><br />Indeed, good question. But that’s part of the biblical devotional program: it requires believers to navigate between conflicting instructions, which keeps the believer continually off balance, and his guilt on a perpetual low simmer.<br /><br />Dan: “Also, in context that verse referred to the people that were judging others while in sin. Read Matthew 7:5 ‘Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye’." <br /><br />Tell me, Dan, according to Christianity, who is without sin? I John 1:8 says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” <br /><br />Dan: “You simply quote mined and cannot see clearly because of the beam in your own eye.”<br /><br />Dan, either the NT gives the injunction against judging, or it doesn’t. I read it very plainly in Mt. 7:1. I did not have to “quote mine” to find this. Believers have thrown it in my face since I could remember. I simply see no justification for any injunction against practicing moral judgment, and what’s curious: you’ve not given one. <br /><br />Dan: “Exactly what Matthew 7:5 is instructing YOU.”<br /><br />Did you notice that you’re disobeying Mt. 7:1 by judging me, Dan?<br /><br />Dan: “My worldview says to pump a copious amount of lead into someone that ‘attempts’ to harm my family.”<br /><br />Really? Where? Does Jesus ever say this?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-88320753427656275052010-10-07T01:27:25.218-04:002010-10-07T01:27:25.218-04:00I wrote: “Your bible does in fact endorse the spec...I wrote: “Your bible does in fact endorse the specific teaching ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’”<br /><br />Dan: “Its a conditional point.”<br /><br />What’s the condition? Where does the passage put a condition on this teaching?<br /><br />Dan: “Its to be read IN context,” <br /><br />Please elaborate. Specifically, what contextual elements have I overlooked, if that’s what you’re accusing me of doing? Mt. 7:1 appears in the midst of a sermon in which Jesus is essentially listing the bullet points of his moral teaching. This teaching is just one of them, and has precious little to inform it (and even what little there is – cf. Mt. 7:2 – is quite damning – see my following comment).<br /><br />Dan: “now you're just quote mining.”<br /><br />Now you’re grasping for anything to neutralize the teaching in Mt. 7:1.<br /><br />Dan: “Sad.”<br /><br />Dan, either you stand by the teaching “judge not, lest ye be judged,” or you don’t. This teaching is given in the NT and put into Jesus’ mouth. You have claimed that it really means “people ought not to judge other's motives,” even though the passage nowhere says this or anything about people’s motives for that matter. You seem to have added your own contribution to what the text says.<br /><br />If you’re right, that Christianity teaches that “people ought not to judge other’s motives,” then I’m glad that our courts are not influenced by this teaching. The United States just convicted Pakistani-born terrorist Faisal Shahzad on all charges against him, including “the <i>intent</i> to kill, injure and intimidate and to damage and destroy nearby buildings, vehicles and other property” (count #4, emphasis added; <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/04/ny.pdf" rel="nofollow">source</a>). Shahzad was judged in part on his <i>motives</i> (he didn't actually kill anyone) - namely the motive to kill people and destroy values. I as an onlooker in turn judge these motives to be evil. This is what moral judgment is all about: it is the freedom to pass judgment on anyone’s chosen actions. <br /><br />According to the bible, however, we shouldn’t do this. And why not? Because Jesus says so? No, that’s not the entirety of the story; it’s even worse. <br /><br />Dan: “Its very apparent now that you are beyond reason and have been given over.”<br /><br />Ah, the dark side of the Force, eh? Well, this is your realm, Dan, the realm of fiction and fantasy. <br /><br />Dan: “You have hastily generalized the verses”<br /><br />How so?<br /><br />Dan: “The entire Bible is about judging, even self!”<br /><br />The bible is about judging – specifically <i>condemning</i> - *man*. It is not about men having the moral authority to judge. Even in the case of oneself: one is not allowed to judge oneself innocent; the only “judging” that the bible allows is going along with the bible’s judgments. Indeed, man’s judging is irrelevant because the bible has already judged all men – even before they were born – as moral reprobates, whose “righteousness is as filthy rags,” whose “limitations” disable his thinking, whose “sin nature” blinds his moral awareness. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61914493004195592162010-10-06T21:01:01.865-04:002010-10-06T21:01:01.865-04:00Dan
Atheists have no basis for assuming that their...<b>Dan</b><br /><i>Atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.</i><br />So we have to use "viciously circular" reasoning like you do then? But you claim that you don't like it when <i>we</i> supposedly do that...<br /><br />Come to think of it, you also never back up your claim that atheists have no justification for reasoning either. You just keep saying that our worldview is reduced to "absurdity" without saying why, exactly.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22512393815639135422010-10-06T19:32:35.553-04:002010-10-06T19:32:35.553-04:00Dawson,
>>“Where Christianity teaches ‘judg...Dawson,<br /><br />>>“Where Christianity teaches ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’, Objectivism teaches: ‘Judge, and be prepared to be judged’. Which worldview is suited for the cowardly, Dan?”<br /><br />Dan: “Hasty generalization much?”<br /><br />>>No, not a hasty generalization. The points of contrast between our two worldviews that I isolated above are specific points of contrast.<br /><br />You're kidding right?<br /><br />>>Your bible does in fact endorse the specific teaching “judge not, lest ye be judged”<br /><br />Its a conditional point. Its to be read IN context, now you're just quote mining. Sad. Its very apparent now that you are beyond reason and have been given over. <br /><br />You have hastily generalized the verses and thrust of the Bible for whatever reason you may have. News FLASH!!! The entire Bible is about judging, even self! We are certainty to judge but we judge actions, not motives, as I pointed out in that post about it. How can you rebuke without judging first? Also, in context that verse referred to the people that were judging others while in sin. Read Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." You simply quote mined and cannot see clearly because of the beam in your own eye. Exactly what Matthew 7:5 is instructing YOU.<br /><br />Your eisegesis method of interpretation is obvious to all.<br /><br />You're wrong, no matter how articulate you are about your argument or how much you believe you intellectually dwarf everyone you come across. You will STILL be wrong about this, and about God. You have revealed that you don't know for certain, yet claim that you do. You're right about one thing, I cannot articulate things to your satisfaction. I concede. I cannot help your reprobate mind although, as we all know, that was never my job or purpose in the first place. I have done my job.<br /><br />>>Let's consider what you're saying: if a man comes into your house in order to rob you, and ends up killing one of your family members (“God willing” on your worldview), your worldview says that you are not allowed to morally evaluate the criminals desire for the unearned?<br /><br />>>your worldview says that you are not allowed to morally evaluate the criminals desire for the unearned?<br /><br />You're kidding right? Funny, (read ironic) how you are judging my worldview with a standard that does not comport with your worldview. That aside, that is not at all what my worldview says. My worldview says to pump a copious amount of lead into someone that "attempts" to harm my family.<br /><br />For any future points you make 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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31623918424723609312010-10-06T12:10:46.386-04:002010-10-06T12:10:46.386-04:00I wrote: “For now, I’m interested in getting my vi...I wrote: “For now, I’m interested in getting my vision restored to 20/20. I’ve needed glasses since I was in the fourth grade, and every year my eyes get worse and worse. Without my glasses, the world around me is quite fuzzy and blurry.”<br /><br />Dan: “Funny that you picked this one. I don't believe in coincidences at all. I too have worn glasses my whole life. Since soundly being saved I have not worn my glasses even once. I read this screen all the time, I read my Bible every day, albeit large print edition. But I have not ‘had to’ wear them at all for years now. For any reason either.”<br /><br />Good! If your god is real and not imaginary, then I’m on my way to no longer needing glasses!<br /><br />Dan: “If you knew me better you would know how skeptical I am of these professing faith healers.”<br /><br />I’m guessing you have some human beings in mind. I’m not talking about them.<br /><br />Dan: “But I do not doubt God's healing powers.”<br /><br />That’s good. I’ve been told by some believers that doubt overpowers and debilitates their god. Hopefully your god can rise above human doubt.<br /><br />Dan: “NOW, you do understand that you, as an atheist, is storing up wrath against you from God.”<br /><br />I’m happy to take that chance, Dan. Consider me warned. (By the way, you’ll find that threats don’t work on me.)<br /><br />Dan: “You as an unrepentant sinner will NEVER see the glory of God's healing hand.”<br /><br />Why not? Is that because your god is really only imaginary? Or are you just not going to pray my prayer request and give your god a chance to fail?<br /><br />Dan: “So you must depend on mankind to restore that vision of yours, since that is all you have and believe in.”<br /><br />As I thought, another impotent god.<br /><br />Dan: “Self and mankind is your god. Lasik is your worldview's saving route.”<br /><br />I’ll take those over an imaginary deity any day, Dan. Can you really fault me for this?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45717887797434876482010-10-06T12:07:38.247-04:002010-10-06T12:07:38.247-04:00Dawson,
I wrote: “Where Christianity teaches ‘jud...Dawson,<br /><br />I wrote: “Where Christianity teaches ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’, Objectivism teaches: ‘Judge, and be prepared to be judged’. Which worldview is suited for the cowardly, Dan?”<br /><br />Dan: “Hasty generalization much?”<br /><br />No, not a hasty generalization. The points of contrast between our two worldviews that I isolated above are <i>specific</i> points of contrast. I am not trying to draw a generalization from an insufficient sample. Your bible does in fact endorse the specific teaching “judge not, lest ye be judged” (it puts this teaching into Jesus’ mouth at Matthew 7:1 – check it out for yourself), while Objectivism does in fact endorse the specific teaching “judge, and be prepared to be judged” (it does this in John Galt’s speech, <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>, which was, at that date, the most definitive exposition of Rand’s philosophy).<br /><br />Just pointing out the facts of the matter, Dan.<br /><br />Dan: “The Bible teaches to judge.”<br /><br />So the bible gives contradictory teachings. What’s new?<br /><br />Dan: “Just not people's motives.”<br /><br />Where does it specifically say this?<br /><br />Let's consider what you're saying: if a man comes into your house in order to rob you, and ends up killing one of your family members (“God willing” on your worldview), your worldview says that you are not allowed to morally evaluate the criminals desire for the unearned?<br /><br />Clearly Christianity is a worldview that is woefully insufficient for human life. No wonder the West is in such a mess today!<br /><br />Dan: “You are not clairvoyant or omniscient to do so.”<br /><br />Why suppose that I need to be? Objectivism teaches that we should never fail to practice moral judgment. Your worldview, well, it apparently depends on which verse you read. On your worldview, we can judge rocks, but not people's motives. I'm just wondering why. But your god doesn't give any explanations; it just gives commandments which are supposed to be obeyed, regardless of whether or not they are understood.<br /><br />Dan: “You're wrong, or your worldview is, if that is what you believe to be truth. Evidence of an absurd worldview, yet again.”<br /><br />By telling us that the practice of uncompromising moral judgment is absurd (i.e., “incongruous, irrational, ludicrous, nonsensical,...”) just tells us who you are, Dan.<br /><br />I wrote: “Yes, if I were hasty in evaluating your intentions, I apologize.”<br /><br />Dan: “Great, now you see why you shouldn't judge peoples motives.”<br /><br />No, I don’t. Can you explain why you don’t think I should judge people’s motives?<br /><br />Are you saying that we should do whatever we can to avoid mistakes? How would we ever learn? Who's afraid of being judged, Dan? I'm not.<br /><br />Dan wrote: “Second, absurd means incongruous, irrational, ludicrous, nonsensical,...”<br /><br />I responded: “I see, like miracles. Got it.”<br /><br />Dan: “YES! Sing it with me: The naturalist doesn't believe its even possible to have evidence of the supernatural. Its limited and biased, very ‘scientific’.”<br /><br />Your worldview likens the universe to a <a href="http://www.katholon.com/Cartoon_Universe_of_Christianity.htm" rel="nofollow">cartoon</a>, Dan. That’s the epitome of the absurd.<br /><br />Dan wrote: “As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth.”<br /><br />I asked: “For which truth?”<br /><br />Dan: “Any truth.”<br /><br />How do you know?<br /><br />Dan: “in reality its merely apparent truth, which is not truth.”<br /><br />How do you know?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31079769217528243562010-10-06T12:00:00.252-04:002010-10-06T12:00:00.252-04:00Dawson,
I asked: “Again, if we ‘clearly see’ some...Dawson,<br /><br />I asked: “Again, if we ‘clearly see’ something, then what justifies saying it’s ‘invisible’?”<br /><br />Dan: “You really are looking for a Bible study. Don't you have local churches for that?”<br /><br />No, I’m not. I’m simply asking what justifies calling something “invisible” if it’s said to be “clearly seen.” <br /><br />In your latest attempt to resolve this contradiction, you cited Hebrews 11:1, which equates faith with “the evidence of things <i>not seen</i>.” <br /><br />Things “<i>not seen</i>” are not things that are “<i>clearly seen</i>.” Note the negated verb in the Hebrews passage. So Hebrews 11:1 is obviously talking about something different. Also, the Hebrews passage does not provide an explanation for how something can be both “invisible” <i>and</i> “clearly seen.”<br /><br />So Hebrews 11:1 does not undo or “justify” the clear contradiction found in Romans 1:20.<br /><br />The contradiction remains.<br /><br />Which means: the passage of the NT on which presuppositionalism most depends, contains a contradiction. That's bloody brilliant.<br /><br />I’m glad this isn’t my problem.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70479823228027988172010-10-06T10:41:23.083-04:002010-10-06T10:41:23.083-04:00So I took a moment to conclude that the fact that ...<i>So I took a moment to conclude that the fact that you are, attempting, to engage me in a conversation about logic cogitates that you believe that I am a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation.</i><br /><br />Actually, Dan, all it would require for me to engage you in conversation about anything would be an assumption that you understand how to use language, and quite frankly, after reading this confused rambling, I'm more convinced than ever that I assumed incorrectly...DormantDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345423282928392517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-14613213657881931802010-10-06T09:10:30.284-04:002010-10-06T09:10:30.284-04:00Truth is absolute. Conformity to actuality. What m...<i>Truth is absolute. Conformity to actuality. What more do you need, or require?</i><br /><br />Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Dan, you need an actuality for your concept to conform to. <br /><br />If you recall, a while ago I posted in response to a question of yours regarding truth, that truth was a measure of the relationship of an idea to a reality existing independently of consciousness. <br /><br />You have yet to demonstrate that your god exists independently of imagination, and until you can do so, the truth value of your god-concept is very much in dispute.DormantDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09345423282928392517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41089990171150751592010-10-06T06:00:29.208-04:002010-10-06T06:00:29.208-04:00Dawson,
>>For now, I’m interested in gettin...Dawson,<br /><br />>>For now, I’m interested in getting my vision restored to 20/20. I’ve needed glasses since I was in the fourth grade, and every year my eyes get worse and worse. Without my glasses, the world around me is quite fuzzy and blurry.<br /><br />Funny that you picked this one. I don't believe in coincidences at all. I too have worn glasses my whole life. Since soundly being saved I have not worn my glasses even once. I read this screen all the time, I read my Bible every day, albeit large print edition. But I have not "had to" wear them at all for years now. For any reason either. <br /><br />If you knew me better you would know how skeptical I am of these professing faith healers. But I do not doubt God's healing powers. I cannot explain my eye sight, except I wore glasses my whole life, when I was soundly saved forever, I have not needed them. I chalked it up to my eye strength at first and it could be written off as such but I believe that God heals now.<br /><br />NOW, you do understand that you, as an atheist, is storing up wrath against you from God. You as an unrepentant sinner will NEVER see the glory of God's healing hand. My guess, of course, I am sure it can be backed up Biblically though. <br /><br />So you must depend on mankind to restore that vision of yours, since that is all you have and believe in. Self and mankind is your god. Lasik is your worldview's saving route.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42623338245785017992010-10-06T05:46:17.205-04:002010-10-06T05:46:17.205-04:00Dawson,
>>Where Christianity teaches “judge...Dawson,<br /><br />>>Where Christianity teaches “judge not, lest ye be judged,” Objectivism teaches: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Which worldview is suited for the cowardly, Dan?<br /><br />Hasty generalization much?<br /><br />The Bible teaches <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/should-christians-judge-atheists_29.html" rel="nofollow">to judge</a>. Just not people's motives. You are not clairvoyant or omniscient to do so. You're wrong, or your worldview is, if that is what you believe to be truth. Evidence of an absurd worldview, yet again.<br /><br />>>Yes, if I were hasty in evaluating your intentions, I apologize.<br /><br />Great, now you see why you shouldn't judge peoples motives. Just ask Pvboy where it gets you.<br /><br />Dan: “Second, absurd means incongruous, irrational, ludicrous, nonsensical,...”<br /><br />>>I see, like miracles. Got it.<br /><br />YES! Sing it with me: The naturalist doesn't believe its even possible to have evidence of the supernatural. Its limited and biased, very "scientific".<br /><br />Dan: “As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth.”<br /><br />>>For which truth?<br /><br />Any truth. You assume the facts are present to conclude truth, in reality its merely apparent truth, which is not truth. Re: 1+1=8 again.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25530267038904264702010-10-06T05:28:23.241-04:002010-10-06T05:28:23.241-04:00Dawson,
>>Again, if we “clearly see” someth...Dawson,<br /><br />>>Again, if we “clearly see” something, then what justifies saying it’s “invisible”?<br /><br />>>You haven't answered this question, Dan.<br /><br />You really are looking for a Bible study. Don't you have local churches for that?<br /><br />Its justified by Hebrews 11:1. <br /><br />For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:<br /><br />Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.<br /><br />Look at Hebrews 11:3~Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.<br /><br />Pretty clear to me. You're smart enough to figure it out, the question is are you willing?<br /><br />Hebrews 10:38 is chilling. "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."<br /><br />Thanks Dawson. I love the Bible!D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66334504311064922882010-10-06T04:52:59.897-04:002010-10-06T04:52:59.897-04:00Re: John 14:13-14
I asked: “Does your god stand b...Re: John 14:13-14<br /><br />I asked: “Does your god stand by its promises, or not?”<br /><br />Dan: “Yes, He certainly does at least for me in my life, much like Matthew 17:20 as we depended on so desperately in a time of our lives. He clarifies it as you see in Matthew 17:21.”<br /><br />We can look at Mt. 17 later. For now, I’m interested in getting my vision restored to 20/20. I’ve needed glasses since I was in the fourth grade, and every year my eyes get worse and worse. Without my glasses, the world around me is quite fuzzy and blurry.<br /><br />Your god, according to the gospels, is known not only for doing what is asked of it, but also for restoring vision to those with vision problems. I’m guessing I don’t need to point out the verses for you.<br /><br /><br />Dan: “Prayer, with fasting, works.”<br /><br />Great! Let’s put it to the test then. I want to get rid of my glasses once and for all. So, since you are on such good terms with your promise-keeping god (you get daily revelations, right?), I want you to pray to your god to restore my vision to 20/20 as soon as possible (which should be immediately upon your request, given its omnipotence and faithfulness in keeping its promises).<br /><br />I’ve tried it myself, but so far, it hasn’t worked. And your little anecdote shows that you’ve got the knack down. So what do you say? Would you mind giving your god an opportunity to demonstrate its existence in an unmistakable way in my life?<br /><br />You quoted Martin Luther: ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” <br /><br />How did he know? How do you know this is true?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5932113923117198342010-10-06T04:46:01.764-04:002010-10-06T04:46:01.764-04:00Dan: “It is the ultimate act of rebellion against ...Dan: “It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.”<br /><br />I’m happy to “rebel” against your god, Dan. It will be very angry in your imagination, but hopefully you do not allow this anger to determine your actions for you.<br /><br />I asked: “Dan, what does a Christian mean by ‘absurd’? I’ve asked this before, but you seem reluctant to answer me for some reason.”<br /><br />Dan: “Dude! First, you are hypercritical of my intentions and motives. People ought not to judge other's motives.”<br /><br />Where Christianity teaches “judge not, lest ye be judged,” Objectivism teaches: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Which worldview is suited for the cowardly, Dan?<br /><br />Dan: “Do you concede that some things may get lost in the fray?”<br /><br />Yes, if I were hasty in evaluating your intentions, I apologize.<br /><br />Dan: “Second, absurd means incongruous, irrational, ludicrous, nonsensical,...”<br /><br />I see, like miracles. Got it.<br /><br />Good thing my worldview is not absurd.<br /><br />Dan: “Atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid,”<br /><br />This one, does. That basis is: the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts.<br /><br />Dan; “yet they make that assumption.”<br /><br />In other words, they use their minds. Even without your approval. How bothersome!<br /><br />Dan: “As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth.”<br /><br />For which truth?<br /><br />Dan: “Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.”<br /><br />So, given your definition of “absurd,” you’re saying “without presupposing God [whether it exists or not], the position of the atheist is reduced to incongruity [with what?], irrational [what’s your definition here?], ludicrous [got any specifics?], nonsensical [what could “nonsensical” possibly mean according to a worldview which believes in the supernatural?].”<br /><br />You see, Dan, you’ve been burying your meanings under debris and corpses. I’ve been digging them up and exposing them to the light.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-39700062550524441312010-10-06T04:45:05.104-04:002010-10-06T04:45:05.104-04:00I asked: “Are you saying that there are times when...I asked: “Are you saying that there are times when I speak the truth, and times when I don’t?”<br /><br />Dan: “Of course! So its situational.”<br /><br />Okay, because this is not what you had stated earlier.<br /><br />Dan: “Is there a God?”<br /><br />Only in the minds of its imaginers.<br /><br />Dan: “If you answer to the affirmative then you speak the truth, if not...”<br /><br />I affirmed a truth, Dan. You just don’t realize it yet.<br /><br />I asked: “If so, then how do you determine when I’m speaking either truth or falsehood?”<br /><br />Dan: “Well, how many times does it take someone to lie to be called a liar? 1, 5, 1000? if someone lies, it makes them a liar.”<br /><br />This does not answer my question. If I make a statement, what is the process that you perform in order to determine whether or not I’m speaking the truth? Or, should I ask: do you perform a process to make such determinations in the first place?<br /><br />I asked: “In my discussion with you, do you think I've lied to you?”<br /><br />Dan: “Yes, by denying God's existence.”<br /><br />Oh, I assure you, Dan, I was not lying here. <br /><br />Dan: “Again, it is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.”<br /><br />Yes, that is what Christianity <i>claims</i>. But it is false. The primacy of existence assures this.<br /><br />Dan: “Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.”<br /><br />Whether or not someone is suppressing truth when he denies your god, depends on the specifics of the case. If he privately believes it’s real, but is angry at it, for instance, then he’s evading truth by granting validity to an invalid idea. If he recognizes the fact that the primacy of existence means there can be no gods, then he’s square with the truth. No unrighteousness in that case.<br /><br />As for accountability, we are accountable to reality, for it cannot be faked or cheated. Again, the primacy of existence assures this.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31302792180578223542010-10-06T04:23:35.242-04:002010-10-06T04:23:35.242-04:00Dawson,
Re: John 14:13-14
>>Does your god ...Dawson,<br /><br />Re: John 14:13-14<br /><br />>>Does your god stand by its promises, or not?<br /><br />Yes, He certainly does at least for me in my life, much like Matthew 17:20 as we depended on so desperately in a time of our lives. He clarifies it as you see in Matthew 17:21.<br /><br />We were witness to this from our <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/10/40-day-fast.html" rel="nofollow">40 day fasts</a>. Headaches showed up again, we took an MRI saw the growth, prayed and fasted. Headaches disappeared. Prayer, with fasting, works. As an Atheist I said that little prayer in the back of a gospel tract when I was handed one by a very sweet, blessed, lady. I said to God that I would like to marry a girl like her someday and prayed that he search my heart and change me to save me. I didn't think anything of it. Went out, Fornication Friday! I think I even got high that night. False convert for sure. Here I sit 15 years later soundly saved and married to a woman much like that sweet lady. I am in awe. <br /><br />”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” Martin LutherD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59763043036051290392010-10-06T03:57:41.048-04:002010-10-06T03:57:41.048-04:00Dawson,
>>Are you saying that there are tim...Dawson,<br /><br />>>Are you saying that there are times when I speak the truth, and times when I don’t?<br /><br />Of course! So its situational. Is there a God?<br /><br />If you answer to the affirmative then you speak the truth, if not...<br /><br />>>If so, then how do you determine when I’m speaking either truth or falsehood?<br /><br />Well, how many times does it take someone to lie to be called a liar? 1, 5, 1000? if someone lies, it makes them a liar.<br /><br />>>In my discussion with you, do you think I've lied to you?<br /><br />Yes, by denying God's existence. Again, 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.<br /><br />>>What do you mean by “’wash away’ said lie”? You mean like laundry detergent?<br /><br />Exactly! Laundry detergent cannot wash away lies. So if you EVER lied, then you are a liar. There is a way to "wash away" sins though...<br /><br />>>That would of course explain your habitual caginess.<br /><br />Yummy, a word never heard before. Gobble, gobble.<br /><br />>>Dan, what does a Christian mean by “absurd”? I’ve asked this before, but you seem reluctant to answer me for some reason.<br /><br />Dude! First, you are hypercritical of my intentions and motives. People ought not to judge other's motives. Do you concede that some things may get lost in the fray? To rectify that: squeaky wheels...<br /><br />Second, absurd means incongruous, irrational, ludicrous, nonsensical,...<br /><br />Atheists have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. As you did in assuming that all facts are present for truth. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-54809306613323250722010-10-06T03:36:42.735-04:002010-10-06T03:36:42.735-04:00I wrote: "Given the nature ascribed to it, it...I wrote: "Given the nature ascribed to it, it clearly couldn’t value anything. At best, it could only be utterly indifferent to everything that exists, including itself. I’m guessing that you don’t understand this."<br /><br />Dan: "I understand, but I don't think you do. For omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible."<br /><br />Perhaps you did not understand my question. None of what you say here explains how an omnipotent, eternal and indestructible being could value anything. <a href="http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Value.htm" rel="nofollow">This link</a> explains what you're up against.<br /><br />Dan: "I am sure you would concede, maybe not, that God certainly recognizes good and evil."<br /><br />Given what I've read about your god in the bible, no, I wouldn't concede this at all. It is portrayed as being ultimately indifferent to values. This is one area where the biblical view of god is at least somewhat internally consistent.<br /><br />Dan: "God took favor to, and saw value with, Abraham, Job, Moses, the prophets, and even the disciples to preach the word."<br /><br />I realize that the bible often portrays its god as occasionally acting as if it valued things, but a portrayal is not an account. The narratives in the bible do not explain how an immortal, eternal and indestructible being *could* value anything in the first place.<br /><br />I'm guessing you've never critically examined this issue yourself.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-84804148968349755152010-10-06T03:11:45.396-04:002010-10-06T03:11:45.396-04:00Dawson,
Dan: “Hopefully, God see's value in y...Dawson,<br /><br />Dan: “Hopefully, God see's value in you.”<br /><br />>>I thought we were all guilt-ridden wretches, that our “righteousness is as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).<br /><br />Valid point.<br /><br />>>What “value” did your god see in you?<br /><br />No clue. Maybe the keen ability to debunk? :7) <br /><br />>>Given the nature ascribed to it, it clearly couldn’t value anything. At best, it could only be utterly indifferent to everything that exists, including itself. I’m guessing that you don’t understand this.<br /><br />I understand, but I don't think you do. For omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.<br /><br />I am sure you would concede, maybe not, that God certainly recognizes good and evil. God took favor to, and saw value with, Abraham, Job, Moses, the prophets, and even the disciples to preach the word.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31395591311381382892010-10-06T03:09:42.159-04:002010-10-06T03:09:42.159-04:00I wrote: “This is about what Romans 1:20 says. It ...I wrote: “This is about what Romans 1:20 says. It says that something ‘invisible’ is ‘clearly seen’. I see this to be an outright contradiction. How do you explain it away?”<br /><br />Dan: “Explain it away? Or explain it.”<br /><br />Those are two of your choices, Dan. There are others. Which will it be?<br /><br />Dan: “Its simple. Love, logic, and even atoms are all invisible to us. We clearly see all of them.”<br /><br />Again, if we “clearly see” something, then what justifies saying it’s “invisible”? <br /><br />You haven't answered this question, Dan.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19427420046834519472010-10-06T03:01:10.771-04:002010-10-06T03:01:10.771-04:00Dan:”If you cannot account complete access to the ...Dan:”If you cannot account complete access to the facts, or even knowledge if facts are complete, then no knowledge can be claimed.”<br /><br />Not necessarily. We can in many cases know that we do not have sufficient data to draw a reliable conclusion. Knowing that we don't have enough facts to draw a reliable conclusion, is knowing. Watch Forensic Files some time. It’s an epistemological feast.<br /><br />Dan: “Its understandable within the atheistic worldview, but not logical.”<br /><br />To what does your “its” refer here? I just got done saying that the inferential aspect of the knowledge process needs to be regulated by logic. Also, you didn’t know what my answers to your questions were going to be until I gave them. And yet you’ve declared, sight unseen, that whatever my response might happen to be, it’s “not logical,” because why? Because it originates from an “atheistic worldview.” This is simply an ill-conceived bias.<br /><br />I wrote: “The Blarkist can easily claim the same thing. Pointing to ‘revelation’ is what people who do not understand how their own minds work do.”<br /><br />Dan: “Ignoratio elenchi.”<br /><br />The fact that an arbitrary method of evasion can be practiced by equally arbitrary positions (such as both Christianity and Blarkism), is not irrelevant to the matter, Dan. Do you understand what <i>ignoratio elenchi</i> even means?<br /><br />Dan: “Even if the Blarkist worldview could (it cannot) the atheistic worldview, yours the one we are discussing, cannot.Dawson,”<br /><br />We are discussing your worldview as well (only I realize you’re trying desperately to avoid discussing it). And so far as I know, atheistic worldviews (including Objectivism) do not appeal to revelations dispensed by imaginary beings.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-16491123655919777082010-10-06T02:59:07.790-04:002010-10-06T02:59:07.790-04:00Dan asked: “Great then, how do you know that your ...Dan asked: “Great then, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?”<br /><br />I reminded him: “I explained this already, Dan. Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself?”<br /><br />Dan: “For clarity in context of this one point, what else?”<br /><br />That’s not why, Dan. Be honest. You don’t know what else to do but to keep asking “How do you know?”<br /><br />Dan: “But I understand, you want to put my criticisms out of sight and out of mind. :7)”<br /><br />Dan, I’ve been tireless in interacting with just about everything you say to me. I’ve answered your questions, I’ve corrected your mistakes, I’ve exposed your evasions. I know what criticisms of a position are, and you’ve not really offered any against mine. So enough with the cuteness. Show some gratitude instead. I’m trying to help you understand things that you should learn, but are reluctant to take from me (since I’m an atheist).<br /><br />Dan: “The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.”<br /><br />Now Dan, please explain WHY you think this, if in fact you do think it – I’m not convinced you do – but explain anyway. Give it your best shot. But try to be thorough. Try not to rely on canned slogans which don’t explain anything in the first place.<br /><br />Dan: “How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?”<br /><br />It’s possible only by means of a conceptual process of identification, beginning with perceptual awareness of the world around us, and proceeding on to forming one’s first concepts (including the axiomatic concepts), and integrating those baseline concepts into higher and higher abstractions. All knowing is a process of identification and integration, and the key component to this is concept-formation. That’s why I keep stressing the need for a good theory of concepts (Christianity doesn’t even have a bad theory of concepts – it’s simply in the dark on concepts altogether). In a nutshell, that’s about the briefest answer I could possibly give to your question.<br /><br />I wrote: “truth is knowable by human beings, so long as human beings have access to the facts which inform the truth.”<br /><br />Yes, we need access to facts in order to know the truths which they inform. For instance, I do not have access to any facts about the surface temperature on an asteroid that is orbiting Alpha Centauri. So I cannot give you a truthful statement about the temperature on that asteroid. Does that help explain my response above?<br /><br />Dan: “Obviously the next question would be how do you know that you have access to the facts?”<br /><br />We know that we have access to the facts if we acquire awareness of them through some objective means, either by direct perception, or by inference in keeping with the primacy of existence and regulated by logic.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.com