The full version of George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God has been converted to a PDF file and is available here.
A link to the file of Smith's book was posted by Smith himself in this forum.
I have also added a link to it from the main page of my blog under "Recommended Resources."
For those who have not read Smith's book, it's an enjoyable read. So take a look.
by Dawson Bethrick
A link to the file of Smith's book was posted by Smith himself in this forum.
I have also added a link to it from the main page of my blog under "Recommended Resources."
For those who have not read Smith's book, it's an enjoyable read. So take a look.
by Dawson Bethrick
344 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 344 of 344@Ydemoc
"Trinity wrote: "I really dont know what else to call you but it's interesting that you have to steal my argument to argue against me."
Yes where has Nide ever used the primary argument from existence? WHERE! The dichotomy between metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism could not be greater. There is fundamentally nothing we have in common with his world view.
Also why does he keep telling me about his dreams? I don't care. I am not the one that has trouble telling the imaginary from the real.
Justin,
Yep. The axioms (not some hidden, imaginary being) are there with every breath Trinity takes, whether or not he knows it, believes it or wishes otherwise. And to posit anything beyond, above, or before the axioms assumes them. The same cannot be said for his god.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Let me clarify: When I said "the same cannot be said of his god" well, Trinity can say it until the cows come home, but that won't and doesn't make it so.
Ydemoc
For clearification
Nide's world view - based on metaphysical subjectivism. Thus invalid
Rational world view - based on metaphysical objectivism. Note one does not need to be or agree with everything objectivism conveys to accept this core principle.
@Nide
We asked you once what the relationship was between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness. You refused to answer. This is interesting as how this question is answered is what fundamentally separates your world view from ours. You refused to interact with this topic yet claim we barrow from your world view, interesting.
Justin,
I have been rational extremely rational.
The thing is , actually, you're the one who's shoving things in my face.
The same thing you charge me with you yourself are doing.
You are asking me to believe in something you have never seen. It's pretty much a faith claim. The burden is on you.
Where is the proof for your claim that all Knowledge is based on perception?
What would you do if you woke up one day and you were floating?
Honestly, Justin, I think our exchange has ran it's course.
@Nide
“I have been rational extremely rational.”
Sure....
“The thing is , actually, you're the one who's shoving things in my face.”
Yes Nide, I went your blog. Made an endless string of unsupported assertions, non sequitur and concept stealing arguments. Then when what I proposed was not taken on my say so I charged everyone with having the burden of proof. Project much Nide?
“The same thing you charge me with you yourself are doing.”
Nide I explained all of man's CONCEPTUAL knowledge is gained through the senses. Apart for instinct everything we learn is through interacting with the reality. Knowledge is knowledge of reality. If you think you know something about it for it to be justified you would have to had compared it to reality to find out. How do you propose to do so without senses? This illustrates another stolen concept fallacy in your thinking, the concept proof presupposed evidentiary inputs. If not through our senses just how are we going to get those inputs? I am not the one proposing some extraordinary super natural way of somehow gaining knowledge, so if there is some such way the burden is on you. This is no different in principle then if you were to claim there are square circles. We have no burden, you would have it all. Just as the very definition of a circle implies that it has no corners evidentiary inputs presupposes some way of getting them. If not scenes what then?
“You are asking me to believe in something you have never seen. It's pretty much a faith claim. The burden is on you.”
I am not asking anything of you. Just pointing out flaws in your thinking. Remember Nide, if you had never come to this blog I would not know of you. Anyway, one does not see the process of integrating concepts from sensory inputs, that is the actual mechanism of thinking. Are you asking for proof of one of proof's necessary preconditions. Watch those stolen concepts Nide..
“Where is the proof for your claim that all Knowledge is based on perception?”
Actually if you read my post carefully you would see I made a distinction between instinctive knowledge and conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is defined as the end product of integrating precepts from one's senses. It is implied in the meaning of it. Your question is like asking me for a proof that a circle has no right angles. Well, what is a circle? A is A remember. So conceptual knowledge by its very nature relies on the senses. If there is some other way, please enlighten us.
“What would you do if you woke up one day and you were floating?”
You keep asking questions like this and I keep answering them the same way. First off I do not have any obligation to take arbitrary what ifs seriously and I could leave it at that. However if I wish to imagine a counter factual ans ask what would I do. I would reevaluate my understanding of my environment, what else could I do? Seriously what is your point here?
“Honestly, Justin, I think our exchange has ran it's course.”
No one is keeping you here Nide.
@Ydemoc
I propose a division of labor
You take Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. I'll take Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Dawson is busy so we will leave only Sundays to him. What do you think? :)
Trinity wrote: "I have been rational extremely rational."
By your own words, you have not recognized and accepted reason as your *only* source of knowledge, your *only* judge of values, and your *only* guide to action. (Modified for clarity from "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 25)
No, Trinity, you have not been "extremely rational." Consider what Peikoff writes regarding rationality:
"This means the application of reason to every aspect of one’s life and concerns. It means choosing and validating one’s opinions, one’s decisions, one’s work, one’s love, in accordance with the normal requirements of a cognitive process, the requirements of logic, objectivity, integration. Put negatively, the virtue means never placing any consideration above one’s perception of reality. This includes never attempting to get away with a contradiction, a mystic fantasy, or an indulgence in context-dropping. (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 221)
And consider how Dawson elaborates on this:
"Since man is neither omniscient nor infallible, he requires a normative cognitive process. This requirement is satisfied by the faculty of reason. It is reason which works in accordance with the nature of man’s distinctive consciousness: beginning with perception of objects and allowing him to form concepts on the basis of that perceptual input, and integrating those concepts into a sum of knowledge. Reading tea leaves, consulting astrological ephemerides, praying to invisible magic beings, etc., will not provide man with knowledge of reality. So a primary virtue, one which makes a broad assortment of subsequent virtues possible, needs to take these facts into account, which the virtue of rationality, as I have defined it, does indeed do.
Incidentally... a god would have no need for reason since it is supposed to be both omniscient and infallible. On this basis, it should be clear that such a being would have no need for a cognitive process by which knowledge is acquired and validated, since it would already possess all knowledge (it’s omniscient) and would not need to validate anything (it’s infallible)."
(continued)
So, no, Trinity, you have not been rational.
Trinity wrote: "The thing is , actually, you're the one who's shoving things in my face."
Trinity moves into a neighborhood, buys a house there where he knows there are other houses blocking his view. He taunts his neighbors for paying such a high price for their views, while he got a home with a blocked view, but at a much cheaper price. Neighbors tell Trinity that they are quite satisfied with with the price they paid for their homes. After a while, Trinity's taunts turn into complaints about other neighbors' homes blocking his view, despite the cheap price he paid for his house. If this doesn't exemplify the "you owe me my happiness" mentality, I don't know what does. Is another example of you being "extremely rational"?
Trinity wrote: "The same thing you charge me with you yourself are doing. You are asking me to believe in something you have never seen."
No one is asking you to do anything. All you have to do is just chill and enjoy your home, while we enjoy our views. Just don't come knocking on our doors with complaints about our homes blocking your view.
Trinity wrote: "It's pretty much a faith claim."
No, it's not. But what's wrong with faith claims? And what's with the weasel phrase, "pretty much"?
Trinity wrote: "The burden is on you."
What burden?
Trinity wrote: "Where is the proof for your claim that all Knowledge is based on perception?"
Let's untangle this mess to find out what Trinity is asking:
"With the knowledge I (Trinity) have that I have learned, I am asking you (Justin) to show me conclusive evidence so that I can perceive with my senses and evaluate with my mind's ability to reason that this so-called conclusive evidence that everything everyone has learned is ultimately based on perception."
Do I have this about right? I might not. Justin, did I miss anything that you might want to add?
Trinity wrote: "What would you do if you woke up one day and you were floating?"
The only way I would worry about something like this (assuming science hadn't found a way to do this, i.e., having a rational basis for believing this) is if I believed in a god (or a devil) that I believed could make something like this happen. But before anything like this ever happened to me due to some supernatural source, I think that I would probably have more pressing things to worry about than floating, like, oh, maybe neurosis?
Trinity, your kinds of questions about waking up and floating only tell us that you can really have no certainty under your banner of god belief, for do you deny your god could make such a thing happen? At any time, and any place? You don't deny that your god (or Satan) has this power, do you?
When you are sleeping and the Trumpets blow, and you are caught up in the air. No man knoweth the hour... right Trinity?
Wow. What could be more uncertain that that?
(I wrote this pretty quickly, so any errors I made, I blame my neighbors)
Ydemoc
Justin,
The division of labor thing, that's funny.
Ydemoc
Everyone,
I made a few errors in what I wrote above, especially in my "neighbor-house-view" idea. It's not as clear as I wanted it to be.
Ydemoc
Justin,
I ask the if questions because their hilarious. Think about it what would you do if you woke up one day and you were 100 feet tall?
God has made himself directly known to all our senses.
How sweet is air? Breath, Ydemoc, Breath.
God has always been and has always known everything. Justin is your head spinning?
Isn't memory part of the cognitive process?
Justin your sane right?
So, Are you actually sane or do you convince yourself that you are?
Can you tell us by what method or process one can know they are not insane?
Gadget are you insane if not how do you know your not?
Justin maybe it's me but I think your a little crazy.
So, Yea, I want conclusive evidence for evolution, existence always being, all knowledge is based on perception.
And if you can't provide it then you should keep your claims to yourself and just go.
@Nide
“I ask the if questions because their hilarious. Think about it what would you do if you woke up one day and you were 100 feet tall?”
I find them pointless and they do not advance the discussion.
“God has made himself directly known to all our senses.”
Must have missed it. In fact in 40 years I have missed it. Could you direct me to where I might find it?
“How sweet is air? Breath, Ydemoc, Breath.
God has always been and has always known everything. Justin is your head spinning?”
Uh no. Just once again trying to tease some meaning out of your non sequiturs.
“Isn't memory part of the cognitive process?”
Yes I would say it is.
“Justin your sane right?”
I believe myself to be sane.
“So, Are you actually sane or do you convince yourself that you are?”
questioning my sanity does not a good argument for god make:)
“Can you tell us by what method or process one can know they are not insane?”
Even people with schizophrenia know to some extent that something is amiss. I don't hear voices and see things that are not there. But again questioning my sanity is just a way of defecting attention away from where it rightly belongs, square on your burden of proof for god. This line of questioning does not speak well to your moral character.
“Justin maybe it's me but I think your a little crazy.”
If you truly think I am insane and you are presumingly not, the logical thing for you to do is stop interacting with me.
“So, Yea, I want conclusive evidence for evolution, existence always being, all knowledge is based on perception.”
Nide, I dont care if you believe in evolution or not. It is a vast and complex subject of study, if you are interested go read up on it. Existence aways existing is a necessary corollary to the axiom. Seriously this is mental child's play. Think about it, if existence didn't always exist then what is the alternative. That at some point it did not exist. Now we observe existence that does not require proof, the total absence of existence on the other hand is without precedent. That would require proof, and just how does one go about proving non existence? Lastly if you propose that existence did not at some point exist and you also reject the notion that it somehow made its self then you are saying something made it. Well that thing would have to..... you guessed it exist! Thus you are presupposing existence. You are having a really hard time integrating axiomatic concepts.
“And if you can't provide it then you should keep your claims to yourself and just go.”
My god the greed of Christians knows no bounds. Listen up, this is Dawson's blog, not yours. It is at his discretion as to weather he blocks your ID and IP address or not. You are no one to be telling anyone here to leave.
@Nide
Missed one
"all knowledge is based on perception.”
as Ydemoc and I have said, perception as the source of inputs for CONCEPTUAL knowledge is implied in its very definition. If you are getting conceptual knowledge from some other source please tell us about it. Further asking for proof of the very preconditions of proof, precepts from senses integrated into concepts used in arguments is a stolen concept fallacy!
Nide you may feel free to string your concepts together in any old grammatically incorrect manor but I will refrain from doing so as I strive to be rational. A suggestion, before saying something to us ask yourself, is what I am about to say contradict or call into question the very concepts my statement would rely on for its meaning.
Justin,
Let's be rational. I'm not here to play mind games and here you are once again trying to switch the burden. It's rude.
My point is you could be insane would you at least agree to that?
@Nide
I have no onus/burden with you Nide, so no I am not switching anything. The day you showed up here you implicitly accepted that massive burden of arguing your world view. If I had gone over to choosing hats or CARM and said god does not exist and you guys are all wrong, then the shoe would be on the other foot, but you don't see me doing that do you. Frankly if you left I would think of you no longer. As for your question no I would not agree that I could be insane, further I have no need to prove this to you. You either accept you are interacting with another rational volitional being or you do not. I frankly don't care how you choose to answer that. I could care less if you think I am insane. I on the other hand will continue to interact with what ever you post here for as long as you post here with the goal of improving my writing skills.
@Ydemoc
have you noticed the unoriginality of his writing. Looking back over what he has written I see a pattern of him borrowing phrases and lines, words that hitherto he had not used until one of us did so. Not that it really means much but it is an interesting observation.
Justin,
This is why I think your crazy.
Can you point out the words and phrases I have borrowed from you and the others?
@Nide
I am surprised with you. You didn't take the more obvious opening. I earlier said
I have in the past and will continue to argue that god belief is contradictory and incompatible with knowledge.
Key words here, I will argue....
in other words I have the burden of proof, but you let that one slide right by. Wonder why? Do I have to start arguing your side as well?
@Nide
earlier I tried to engage Dawson in a discussion on the utility of Aristotelean logic and how there might be things in existence for which it was not applicable. Forget quantum mechanics, you could have hopped on that and said see the trinity can be real, it just cant be described correctly with Aristotelean logic. You let that one slide right by as well. Ydemoc in the interest of making this discussion go some where I think I am going to just have to start arguing Nide's case as clearly he is either unwilling or unable. What do think:)
Justin,
The burden has always been on you. No need to "argue" for me you've doing it the whole time. Thanks.
So, Go ahead I didn't hear you what's the proof for God's existence?
Trinity wrote: "God has made himself directly known to all our senses."
This is a very interesting comment *today* by Trinity, for on August 05, 2011 1:56 PM, Trinity wrote: "Also, The unbeliever can't come to the knowledge of God with his senses. Unless he is regenerated by the holy spirit and it is granted to him."
Trinity, were you confused then or are you confused now? You're having a terrible problem with consistency, Trinity.
Then, on September 03, 2011 10:11 PM, Trinity responded to several questions of mine regarding faith. In one of his responses, he stated: "Paul talks about the save being eternally with God In the new heavens and earth the saved will see Gof [sic] they don't need faith."
Then a little later in the same comment thread (September 04, 2011 12:10 AM), Trinity wrote: "Why would Satan have faith he has direct access to God"
Located within these inconsistent statements above is a tacit admission that direct access to something does not require faith.
So why would man need faith when he has direct access to reality? Trinity doesn't explain, that I can recall. But when he has direct access to *his* reality (god) he doesn't need faith either! This is quite something, isn't it?
No, faith is not required when one has direct access to reality -- faith is not required. In fact, faith is a blockade of, an impediment to, a destroyer of knowledge.
And these inconsistent responses by Trinity raise many, many questions about Trinity's thinking, shaped and influenced as it is by his belief system, which seems to have turned his mind into mush. It's as if "anything goes as long as I, Trinity, maintain my ultimate belief, even if what I say makes no sense to a bunch of atheists. If they don't like what I say, if what I say doesn't mesh with reality, well then: Reality be damned!!"
We have asked Trinity to explain such convoluted thinking, time and time again; but every response given by Trinity to our inquiries always leads to more inconsistent statements on his part.
Let this post stand as a record, a monument if you will, to the damage that theism can do to the minds of those that choose to rely on faith, and who take their storybook fables so seriously.
Ydemoc
Justin wrote: "have you noticed the unoriginality of his writing. Looking back over what he has written I see a pattern of him borrowing phrases and lines, words that hitherto he had not used until one of us did so. Not that it really means much but it is an interesting observation."
Indeed I have. And have you noticed he didn't answer my question concerning all the knowledge that was in place prior to his bible being written down? Talk about borrowing!
But I think my post above addresses, again, his bible-believing mentality.
Ydemoc
@Nide
"
The burden has always been on you. No need to "argue" for me you've doing it the whole time. Thanks."
Actually Nide, a person never needs a reason and thus a burden of proof to not believe something that is not perceptually self evident. That is what we call arbitrary.
"So, Go ahead I didn't hear you what's the proof for God's existence?"
Well, that makes it sound like you don't think I can do it, wonder why that is? Of course the truth is I cant. I know of many many arguments for god, I also know the reasons why each and every one of them fail to some fallacy or other. The difference between us Nide is that I would present them in proper form and argue them until I lost. Not throw pointless questions like what if you woke up on the moon, not an endless parade of non sequiturs, not ad hominems and other obvious fallacies. Incidentally the best argument I have heard is the kalam cosmological argument in its current form as proposed by Williams Lane Craig. However even this one falls to the stolen concept fallacy thus rendering it invalid. I don't think I could do better then Mr Craig but I sure could do a lot better then you.
Sure Justin.
Ydemoc,
Really? How about saving knowlegde we do distinguish.
Men know enough but not enough to be saved.
Where is the inconsistency?
It's simple. God is reality. He's real.
Get it now?
Your logical right put it together?
Goodnight.
P.S. Justin the burden is on you.
@Nide
P.S. Justin the burden is on you.
by golly Nide said so it must be true! Meanwhile back in reality I continue to live my life without any belief in god and no logical obligation to justify that fact to anyone.
Trinity wrote: "Really?"
Yes. Really.
Trinity wrote: "How about saving knowlegde we do distinguish."
How about it? Why don't you tell me about this ex post facto division of knowledge? It should be interesting. Can you tell me how this faculty works that does such distinguishing? Can you tell me what the distinguishes features are that separate saving knowledge from regular ol' knowledge? Where did you get the ability to "distinguish" such things? Where did you get the concept "distinguish"? Can you tell me the method by which you integrate and retain these two forms of knowledge that you speak of? How do you know this saving knowledge you have is from your godly source and not some other god, or the devil, or your own imagination? Please tell me, I'd like to know. Could you also please answer each question, by quoting me and then supplying your answer beneath my quoted material? It helps to keep track of what answers go with what questions.
Trinity wrote: "Men know enough but not enough to be saved."
"Men know enough" what? But not enough "what" to be saved?
Trinity wrote: "Where is the inconsistency?"
As soon as you clarify your remarks, I'm sure they will pop up, right on schedule. As it is now, your remarks do not even rise to the level of being inconsistent. As statements stand now, they are much closer to being nonsense.
Trinity wrote: "It's simple. God is reality. He's real."
By making such a statement, you performatively contradict yourself by virtue of implicitly affirming the primacy of existence by making any statement at all about reality; but on the other hand, the content of what you are peddling in your statement asserts the primacy of consciousness. These two things cannot co-exist; you've contradicted yourself, therefore your statement is incoherent. Please try again later.
Trinity wrote: "Your logical right put it together?"
I just did. It's incoherent.
*for some of the above, I referred to Dawson's writings*
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
nice post. Reminds me of our joke about grand theft concept:)
Justin,
But dont you see the conflict?
You said that you are sane. The burden is on you.
Once again the same thing you charge me with you yourself are doing.
You told me that I'm just going to have to accept that your sane.
We both would agree that if I told you that I saw an aligator flying the burden would be on me to prove it.
Let's be consistent here Justin. What's the proof that your sane?
Gadget,
Does God exist?
Recently Nide has embarked on a new strategy in his dialog with me. He has asked me to prove that I am sane. You might be confused and wonder just what he hopes to accomplish with this line of questioning. Well ladies and gentleman allow me to introduce you to a standard tactic of the presuppositionalist. The basic tactic is to ask a series of general questions that most people have not given much thought to but take for granted in the hopes of eliciting the response, “gee I don't know, I just believe it” or something to that effect. At this point the presuppositionist will say “ah AH! Well you just have faith in that (whatever it happens to be), that is no different then the faith I have in god, I am just as justified. “ Furthermore they will likely advance that sense you already have faith in the given proposition you should also have faith in god. The real goal however is to make the presuppositionalist more comfortable with the total nonsense he/she has embraced. In our current guise Nide is expecting me to say, gee Nide I cant prove I am sane I just take it as an article of faith that I am. Sorry Nide that is not how this is going to play out.
The first problem that comes to mind with this strategy is basically two wrongs don't make a right. Even if I were to take my sanity on faith this would not make Nide's faith in god any more justified. We would just both be wrong. Perhaps Nide would be comfortable with that, the thought being “well he is no better” or some such. This however does nothing to advance the case that god exists and thus as a strategy to get there it fails even if it wins, which is to say it cant win. A is A.
The second problem is what if I am insane? What of it, you still would have to show god exists, only now your problem might be far more difficult depending on my insanity.
There is however more. Nide has challenged me saying that I have a burden to prove I am sane. Now regardless of whether I can meet that burden or not I have a to wonder is this a fair claim of Nide to be making on me. He seems to equate it to my claim that he prove god's existence. After all the strategy is to show that we both have faith in each respective proposition. I will show that the two are not equatable and nor is the question a fair one.
contined.....
First what is insanity. From wikipedia we have a general idea
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental illness such as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.[2]
What we get from this is that insanity is a general vernacular term without a precise referent. It is better to use the actual clinical terms of the various mental illnesses. Note that some of the mental illnesses do not preclude the ability for rational thought. For example compulsive hand washing. Some one with this could still think rationally and reject arbitrary claims to the existence of god. For others such as schizophrenia the person has a distorted grip on reality and thus would have difficulty with rational thought. The point is the actual clinical diseases of the mind have precise definitions and referents. The same can not be said of god. Its definition is self contradictory and the referents........ oh yes there are none.
So how common is serious mental illness? According to the National Institute of Health it runs close to 4% of the US population. Remember that not all of these render the victim incapable of rational thought, only that under clinical definitions they are seriously mentally ill. So the odds that I would be as Nide says “insane” run at about one in twenty five. Now logically the reasonable position to take in such a population would be to start with a resumption of sanity, and in fact this is just what the over whelming majority of us do. Do you go around asking people to prove they are sane before interacting with them. No like any other rational reasonable person you give people the benefit of the doubt until they start talking to there invincible magic sky daddy (prayer). Even after witnessing such behavior people have an amazing ability to compartmentalize their mind and be completely rational in other endeavors so it might still be possible to have a rational discussion with them.
In fact in criminal cases the standards for an insanity defense are very high and most such pleas fail. That is most are judged to be sane. What we have here then is the obvious conclusion that insanity is an aberration, a rare condition and not the norm. Thus there is no reasonable burden of proving sanity. The onus is on the one claiming an insistence of insanity. This is how our courts and mental health institutions function. There has to be a metal competency hearing before someone can be committed to a mental hospital. Which brings up yet another point, how is Nide going to judge my proof. Is he a qualified psychologist?
Thus sanity and insanity in its various forms of mental illness are quantifiable conditions where evidence comes to bear. Very different from religions faith. For the record Nide I have never been diagnosed with a mental illness. However mental illness does run in my family, hell I might be completely around the bend tho to think so is an arbitrary assertion at this time. You still are going to have to prove god if you want me to accept the claim that he exists.
continued...
So a recap.
Nide asks me to prove that I am sane.
1. I have no such burden, there is a presumption of sanity
2. Nide is not a qualified medical practitioner in the relevant field so how would he evaluate my proof?
3. Even if I do suffer from some mental illness this does not mean I am incapable of rational thought. Also Nide still has the burden of proving god's existence
4. Even if I concede that I have no reason to believe that I am sane but just presume that I am this does not justify Nide's belief in god, we are both wrong
Ok Nide, here is the ball back, your case for god rests on its own merits or not at all. There is no strength in your case to be found in the weaknesses of others. Better luck next time sparky.
Justin,
Nice post.
Justin wrote: "1. I have no such burden, there is a presumption of sanity"
I would also add that this presumption doesn't rest on faith.
If I were insane, would I need to take my insanity on faith, too? "Hey, everyone! Look at me! I'm insane! I'm completely nuts! I'm bonkers!"
"But how do you know you're not sane?" asks the Christian.
"What!?! How do I know I'm not sane?! I take my insanity on faith, silly! The same way you do with your god belief! Without faith, I wouldn't be insane!! Wheeeeee! Hahahahahaha!"
This from Wikipedia:
"In English, the word "sane" derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning "healthy". The phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" is often translated to mean a "healthy mind in a healthy body". From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning. A Latin phrase for "sane" is "compos mentis" (lit. "of composed mind"), and a euphemistic term for insanity is "non compos mentis". In law, mens rea means having had criminal intent, or a guilty mind, when the act (actus reus) was committed."
I might add that, and I think Dawson may have touched on this in previous comments, the concept "insanity" can only be derived in contradistinction to what? A departure from what? Sanity.
(continued)
Trinity, using skepticism to try and undercut Objectivism and bolster his faith. What a silly man. Not surprising though, since they are, after all, kissing cousins:
"In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have . . . taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence. . . .
The mystic is usually an exponent of the intrinsic (revealed) school of epistemology; the skeptic is usually an advocate of epistemological subjectivism." ("Consciousness and Identity," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 79)
“We know that we know nothing,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—“There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved." (Galt's Speech, "For the New Intellectual," p. 154)
More can be said on this later.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Thank you
Justin wrote: "1. I have no such burden, there is a presumption of sanity"
I would also add that this presumption doesn't rest on faith.
Of course.I tried to explain that first. The word insanity does not really have any meaning to medical practitioners. Second if we take sanity to mean a lack of serious mental illness then by those very same medical practitioners 96% of the population is sane. It also goes with out saying that as the various serious illnesses have definable symptoms the lack of these in a given individual would mean most likely they are sane and that is the safe bet (presumption). Thus it is rational in the absence of evidence to the contrary to presume one is sane. Further even if someone was mentally ill that does not mean they can not think rationally. A friend of mine was and is manic depressive and she is also an atheist. Her reasons when explained to me for rejecting Christian claims were valid and sound.
The tactic here is once again to shift the burden and focus of the discussion away from Nide onto irrelevances. The basic facts are Nide came to a forums populated by a regular group of Atheists that are objectivists or are interested in objectivism. He declared that our rejection of god was in error. He further made the bombastic claim that we were all Christians and just didn't know it. That we borrowed from his world view. Yet after what is it now months? We have no coherent rational explanation from him as to why his claims should be taken seriously.
Nide as the old 80s commercial goes "wheres the beef?" You asserted to Ydemoc that he was borrowing from your world view. Ydemoc and I maintain that there is a fundamental division between our world view and yours. This is the fundamental physical relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness. We hold that it is objective. We understand your world view to presume it to be subjective. These two paradigms are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. If you claim we barrow from you, you can not dodge this dichotomy and be taken seriously. So how bout it, what is the relationship between the two, subjective or objective? If we are borrowing are we both objective then?
For the sane,
"Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”
Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.
The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing."
(Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 9)
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
yup, notice how the matrix analogy does the same. The claim that everything is an illusion, or the brain in the vat idea. The concept illusion and or dream presupposes a objective reality that you compare them to in order to isolate and identity them as illusions or dreams. Thus claiming that objective reality is an illusion or dream commits one to a stolen concept fallacy. Philosophical scepticism will always fall on its own sword.
Now purely for your enjoyment, some humor
Earlier today I asked one of my roommates if my reply on the matter of sanity was coherent and to the point. In his reply to me he let it be know that he believes that he could write a shell script that could accurately model Nide' posts. That in his opinion Nide fails the Turning test. This leads me to a question. Can Nide prove that he is not a shell script? Additionally I have a co worker who is a devout Christian. I have had some amiable discussions with him on various topics. After showing him this blog he expressed his desire that Nide stop embarrassing him and start arguing. None of this invalidates Nides arguments of course, to try would be an ad hominem fallacy. Oh wait, what arguments? Still waiting on those. Anyway Ydemoc hope you enjoy you Sunday of not being in church as much as I am enjoying mine...... not being in church:)
Justin,
You wrote: "Anyway Ydemoc hope you enjoy you Sunday of not being in church as much as I am enjoying mine...... not being in church:)"
Thanks, Justin. And I will enjoy my Sunday of not being in church. I will be watching a little football, a little baseball, and in between, playing a little basketball.
When my Christian relative sometimes asks me if I want to go to church with him, I always tell him: The gym is my church, the basket is my alter, and the ball is my savior. He doesn't appreciate that too much, and he hasn't asked me to go to church lately.
Ydemoc
Justin,
And you enjoy your Sunday, too!
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Nide sure has a thing for me having the as he says "burden". While I maintain that no one has a burden to prove or justify their lack of belief in a non perceptually self evident proposition, I do accept that someone does have a burden if they are actually making a ontological claim to fact. An example would be the claim god exists. I made a claim a while back
"I have and will continue to argue that god belief is contradictory and incompatible with knowledge"
Now that is an ontological claim to fact if ever I heard of one! Has Nide asked me for a syllogism or proof of the assertion? Nope. He chooses to focus on irrelevances with his line of philosophical skepticism. Is it that he fears I just might have such a valid argument? Hint..... Nide, yes I do:) Of course he will contest a key premise that conceptual knowledge is gained thru the senses. Ydemoc you have shown quit nicely however that to question that premise is fallaciously complex as it commits the stolen concept fallacy. That fallacy flies right past Nides radar.
On a completely different subject. I was trying to ask this earlier of the group in general. I conceptualize the various logics, Aristotelean, boolean, etc.... as akin to game rules. What is permissible in one set of game rules might be a contradiction in another. We use the various logics as a framework to both filter our perceptual inputs and give the concepts integrated from them their form and logical support. Thus is seems worth exploring the idea that our seemingly hardwired tendency to think in terms of Aristotelean games rules might blind us to aspects of reality. This could explain why we have such difficulty with quantum mechanics. Now I am not saying this is the case, just that I throw it out there for us to discuss. Now sense Nide seems unwilling to pursue this I will ask it. Could it be that our rejection of the trinity as a logical absurdity be us having the equivalent of Aristotelean tunnel vision?
"What!?! How do I know I'm not sane?! I take my insanity on faith, silly! The same way you do with your god belief! Without faith, I wouldn't be insane!! Wheeeeee! Hahahahahaha!"
Justin,
See why I think atheist are insane
That's your fellow, Ydemoc, up there confirming the truth of my claim.
Anyway, You asked: "Could it be that our rejection of the trinity as a logical absurdity be us having the equivalent of Aristotelean tunnel vision?
Well, I reject your claim that the trinity is an absurdity but are you making an assertion because then the burden will be on you you to prove it?
However, I think you may have soemthing going here. Actually, this is something I been thinking about. Since Jesus was fully God and fully man that means he would have to be omniscient and not omniscient. So, yea Aristotle is missing something somewhere.
You asked: "Can Nide prove that he is not a shell script?
The burden is on you. I live by faith. You made the claim that you were sane. Instead of proving it you went off on a tanget.
So, are you sane or not?
The thing is you really been begging the question. It's unavoidable. The second you
attempt to give a proof or expalantion that already assumes your sane.
So, there you have it since you have to take your sanity for granted. I am under no obligation to give a proof for God. Because proofs assume God. God has to be taken for granted.
How about you are you a shell script?
To the unknown,
Does God exist?
@Nide
"What!?! How do I know I'm not sane?! I take my insanity on faith, silly! The same way you do with your god belief! Without faith, I wouldn't be insane!! Wheeeeee! Hahahahahaha!"
Nide, this is what is called sarcastic humor, I am feel sorry for you if you are blind to it.
“Well, I reject your claim that the trinity is an absurdity but are you making an assertion because then the burden will be on you you to prove it?”
According to the trinity you have an entity that is both A and not A at the same time within the same respect. Fully man and fully god. This violates the Aristotelean game rule know as law of identity, so yes within the confines of Aristotelean logic the trinity is absurd.
“However, I think you may have soemthing going here. Actually, this is something I been thinking about. Since Jesus was fully God and fully man that means he would have to be omniscient and not omniscient. So, yea Aristotle is missing something somewhere.”
You think me missed something, oh brother, try applying it to quantum mechanics.
“The burden is on you. I live by faith. You made the claim that you were sane. Instead of proving it you went off on a tanget.”
If I was actually claiming you are a shell script, then yes I would have the burden as you rightly point out. However I am not claiming you are a shell script. If you were I would break into the server in question and delete your ass. However unfortunately I believe you are all to human. I brought up the question as it was humorous and also to illustrate the disingenuous nature of your question. And guess what you feel for it, you say I have the burden, so like wise if you are insinuating I am insane it is up to you to demonstrate that. In the absence of any evidence there is a presumption that we are both people and sane at that.
“So, are you sane or not?
The thing is you really been begging the question. It's unavoidable. The second you
attempt to give a proof or expalantion that already assumes your sane.”
As I pointed out, insanity has no real medical meaning. There are actual precisely defined metal illnesses and there existence within the mind of a given person does not automatically rule out the capacity for rational thought. Yes even a schizophrenic can be rational. One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century suffered from schizophrenia. So no even if I suffered from some serious mental illness this does not mean I cant be rational within any given context.
“So, there you have it since you have to take your sanity for granted. “
No I do not take it for granted. I have reasons for doing so. Namely I do not exhibit any of the symptoms of clinically defined mental illnesses. As stated before insanity has no real medical meaning. If you think I do exhibit the symptoms of any mental illness it is up to you to provide evidence. However as I said earlier as well, you are not qualified to make that determination. Furthermore I have never been diagnosed with a mental illness so that claim that I am is arbitrary, where as the claim that I am sane is backed up by evidence. The fact that function in society, have no criminal record, do not exhibit self destructive or violent behavior, etc.....
“I am under no obligation to give a proof for God. Because proofs assume God. God has to be taken for granted.”
Thats right Nide you have not obligation to give a proof for God. Yup you are absolutely correct, 100% percent, without question under any obligation. Man your ability for understatement is profound!!!
@Nide
like wise you are also under no obligation to accept my claim that I am without mental illness, nor am I under any obligation to accept the existence of god on your say so. The difference is while I could care less if you think I am sane or not, it seems to really chap your hid that I don't take the existence of god as a fact on your say so.
sorry about spelling errors in my above post. said metal instead of mental and once said feel instead of fell, but I am not going to repost. Context should make my meaning clear. This is one thing I will never criticize you on Nide. I cant spell worth damn.
@Nide
"....
“I am under no obligation to give a proof for God. Because proofs assume God. God has to be taken for granted.”
As to the second part of this sentence. Nide while no proof can be given for existence as proof presupposes existence, it is entirely possible to construct an argument that illustrates that existence is an implicate premise in any argument. Thus it should be possible to do the same of god if he is an actual precondition. If such an argument was successful then and only then could you say god can not be called into question because you would have to presuppose him to make the question. However we don't have that argument from you yet, only the assertion stated over and over.
Argument from existence
Premises
1. Conceptual knowledge is hierarchical in nature. Complex concepts rest upon and derive their meaning from earlier simpler concepts.
2. The most basic concept of them all is existence. It denotes everything that is, was and will be.
3. from premises 1 and 2 any argument would have to presuppose the concept existence even if left unstated
Conclusion, any argument that calls into question existence or argues against it would have to implicitly have it as one of its premises thus committing the argument to the stolen concept fallacy.
OK Nide, your turn :)
@Nide
Note my argument does not question the existence of existence or deny it either, thus no stolen concept fallacy here. Unless you can provide a similar argument that god is a precondition of cognition I am going to continue to reject your assertion out of hand as arbitrary.
You seem to also be implying that insane people whatever that means (no clinical definition) are incapable of rational thought. Care to argue for that? Lets start with what you mean by insanity precisely.
Additionally if you think I am incapable of rational thought, why the heck are you talking to me? Seriously? The fact that you keep coming back strongly implies that you think I have at least the capacity for rational thought. Which is incidentally what I think of you. You have the capacity tho hitherto you have not show much.
Anyway I await an argument from you that ends in god is a precondition for argumentation.
October 23, 2011 4:08 PM
@Nide
from my roommate, and I quot
"No, no I am not saying you are a shell script, only that you have the reasoning abilities of one"
ouch..... I really don't think he respects you.
@Ydemoc
months ago I told him about that link. Don't think he will ever go there however. Remember he is by his own words someone that thinks we should be conformists. A conformist will never look into anything that challenges their beliefs. There is no error correction. While on the other hand the both of us have read the bible. Damn can you imagine applying that attitude to writing code?
@Ydemoc
thats ok, like I tell people just starting out with computers, Rome was not built in a day:) I had a Mac back in 2002. I needed a mobile Unix/Linux system and much to my chagrin a Mac was at that time the best mobile UNIX solution. I even remember hyper card. I was not around when they invented the one and zero but I knew the guys that did! lol.
@Ydemoc
hey you deleted the post I responded too! :)
Justin,
I wanted to clarify and add a few things -- that's why I deleted it. I was hoping to squeeze it in again before that happened. Oh well...
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
well I understand your motivation. I too am trying to hon my writing skills. In fact I am a little envious of how well you write. I am playing catch up in that department. Keep up the good work :)
Ydemoc,
"Right. Because he starts with the error. And everything he believes is "grounded" in error. And he may never find out if he doesn't check his premises."
The burden is on you. I don't have to check anything.
By the way Does God exist?
Justin,
Of course you are capable of rational thought. God is rational.
See the "proof"?
1.God is logic
2.Proofs require Logic
C.Since God is logic without him you can't prove anything.
You said: "According to the trinity you have an entity that is both A and not A at the same time within the same respect.
He's God and Man. This would hold if he was God and not God and Man and not man.
Besides God is not a syllogism He's the source of them.
By the way the burden is on you. Since you say. Jesus is A and not A. He was both God and Man. If you want to apply it to attributes then maybe you might have something.
@Nide
hey an argument!
"
1.God is logic
2.Proofs require Logic
C.Since God is logic without him you can't prove anything.
seems valid, Ydemoc is this Modus ponens?
Anyway the key contention here is premise number one. That will have to be argued for. It seems to be a fallacious equivocation.
"
You said: "According to the trinity you have an entity that is both A and not A at the same time within the same respect."
Yes the qualities of god are not compatible with the qualities of man. For example god in infinite but man is not, thus the same being is said to be both infinite and non infinite. That is A is A and not A at the same time within the same respect. However Nide what I wanted to explore is not weather the trinity violated the law of identity for clearly it does but whether we are allowing our selfs to be straight jacketed by Aristotelean logic. After all quantum physics provides real world examples of things that appear or can be interpreted as violating the law of identity.
oh and I accept the burden of showing the trinity violates the law of identity, I will work up a right a proper syllogism later.
Justin,
You wrote: "Keep up the good work :)"
And you also! You have mentioned a lot of interesting stuff that you have read, some stuff I wasn't even aware of.
By the way, some moons ago, when I would go to Portland for work, I would often go into Powell's. That was always something to look forward to.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
I love Powell's. Back in the early 90s I spent a lot of my time there reading books for free in the the coffee room because well I was dirt poor. I got lot of my texts on logic and books by Ayn Rand there.
Trinity wrote: "He's God and Man. This would hold if he was God and not God and Man and not man."
Well, isn't Jesus claimed to be:
a) god and not god (i.e., man)? Isn't man not god?
b) man and not man (i.e., god)? Isn't god not man?
You seemed to be affirming what you are trying to argue against.
Am I missing something? Justin?
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Nope you have not missed anything. I just want to make it up all pretty as a syllogism. I however think Nide is wasting energy on this. I think it is far more interesting to explore if reality really does furnish us with things that are A and not A at the same time and within the same respect. If true, that is mind boggling.
By the way, Nide's first premise god is logic. Well by the transitive property logic would be god. They would be conceptually synonymous. Logic however is a conceptual framework, not a being. We do not say it is god to look both ways before crossing a busy street, we say that is logical. A being is a being and a method is a method, A is A. So I see this fallacious equivocation a far more pertinent violation of the law of identity at this time. Wonder how Nide will argue it.
Justin wrote: "I got lot of my texts on logic and books by Ayn Rand there."
Interesting. I would go in there looking for Ayn Rand stuff, too. When I was in Portland, it was usually only for about a week at a time. But I liked the city. I would often go play basketball (I had a lot of free time during the day) at the YMCA -- the one that is pretty centrally located.
Ydemoc
Justin wrote: "I think it is far more interesting to explore if reality really does furnish us with things that are A and not A at the same time and within the same respect. If true, that is mind boggling. "
I would say so! Could we even get to that point where we are able to recognize that that's where we are if reality does furnish us with things that are A and not A at the same time and in the same respect? I don't see how we could. At that point it seems that we would have a really hard time identifying anything, being anything, doing anything.
But maybe Trinity can tell us how we could get there. Trinity?
Ydemoc
Trinity?
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Apparently Rick Warden tried this same or similar vain of argumentation that quantum mechanics violates the law of identity and got spanked by far more knowledgeable people on the subject.I am going to go check that out.
Ydemoc?
Ydemoc?
Justin,
Why are you assigning A to God and A to Jesus?
Wouln't you have to Assign B to Jesus?
A and B maybe?
Are you playing tricks?
Justin have you ever taking a formal logic class, for example, at a university?
Justin only for you one of my professors is a logician he will have the last word.
In the mean time you may answer those questions if you want.
@Nide
"Why are you assigning A to God and A to Jesus?"
they are the same being/entity are they not? If they are two different and separate entities then yes it would be improper to ascribe contradictions in identity if they differ.
"Are you playing tricks?"
Nope. I strive to be honest in my thinking, If however I am in error, please help me out and show where and how I made my misstep,
"Justin have you ever taking a formal logic class, for example, at a university?"
20 years ago in California. Much more has been learned on my own in the intervening years. Most of what I know Nide is self taught. I taught myself C++. I taught myself calculus, hell I even taught myself how to read. Formal education is a good thing but not the only way to understanding. I could see how you might disagree, but that is an attitude I have come to expect from authoritarians.
"Justin only for you one of my professors is a logician he will have the last word."
I am not an authoritarian Nide. I do not bow to someone else just because they have a title or some such. Their argument is either valid and sound or it is not. Beyond that criteria I could care less who the massager is. Remember reality is the final court of appeal not your professor. If he has something valuable to contribute to this discussion I eagerly await it.
@Nide
I realize it may take time, but are you going to argue for god equaling logic? If you do and succeed you have it, You do realize that? Your argument is valid. It is the premises that need to be worked on
I would have worded it differently
1. If god is logic,then proof presupposes god
2. God is logic
3. Therefore proof presupposes god
there it is in proper Modus ponens form for you, all cleaned up.
Justin,
I know virtually nothing about QM, but how could one even get to knowledge about a violation of anything if a thing is not what it is? If the law of identity didn't hold, how would they know *what* was being violated, and what a *violation* even is?
If the Law of Identity didn't hold, wouldn't that hold dire implications for theism? I mean, if A is not A, then Jesus isn't even Jesus, let alone god -- if we could even get to the point of identifying anything -- which I don't see how we could.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Lord wiling this won't make you fall out of chair.
But we can't apply logic to God. The bible says God is omnipresent he is "here" and "there" at the same time and in the same way. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it doesn't or can't exist.
If you insist oh well. I am under no obligation to accept your claim. The burden is on you.
It's interesting because yesterday you made a claim to that effect. Did you provide a proof I don't remember if you did?
Calcus 1 was a breeze. Calc 2 not so much does that mean it doesn't or can't exist?
The argument is not that God exists but that we all know he does exist. I'm simply confirming it no proof is required.
@Ydemoc
Yes, precisely, I have raised that very same objection. I notice that tho electrons can have multiple states of being at once and within the same respect, it is a limited range. Only certain values can simultaneously been had. So I suspect that it is not such much that identity is violated then it is just stretched beyond what we are used to thinking of it in our macroscopic world.
October 23, 2011 8:33 PM
Trinity,
By the way, Dawson asked a very interesting question sometime back in this blog:
"With regard to the Trinity, how many consciousnesses are we talking about? Is the Trinity one consciousness, or three consciousnesses? How could one discover this? Or could it be discovered?"
I ask the same concerning the claim of Jesus being both man and god: How many consciousnesses are we talking about?
More to come...
Ydemoc
“Lord wiling this won't make you fall out of chair.”
Well there is a distinct risk of that, I have had a little to drink tonight :)
“But we can't apply logic to God. The bible says God is omnipresent he is "here" and "there" at the same time and in the same way. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it doesn't or can't exist.”
I will grant you that we can not rule out that possibility in principle. There may indeed be things that exist beyond our comprehension. The problem for you is by what means do we gain knowledge of them if they are in fact beyond our comprehension. Claims to knowledge about Such things will always be arbitrary and thus not justified as knowledge.
“If you insist oh well. I am under no obligation to accept your claim. The burden is on you.”
man we have covered a lot of ground tonight, could be be more specific, there are things I have said that I do accept the burden of proving, but what is it that you have in mind?
“It's interesting because yesterday you made a claim to that effect. Did you provide a proof I don't remember if you did?”
see my statement above.
Calcus 1 was a breeze. Calc 2 not so much does that mean it doesn't or can't exist?
Good for you and I mean it. It kicked my ass, took me a long time to master cal.
The argument is not that God exists but that we all know he does exist. I'm simply confirming it no proof is required.
Come on Nide, do you expect me to take that seriously? Further what does this accomplish? You wont be seeing me in church on Sundays wont see me giving thanks to god or proclaiming his existence. I sure am not going to live my life according to what is taught in the bible and if my actions happen to coincide with its teaching it is coincidental. So you can go around saying “well Justin knows god he is just denying it” but in real world results what does this get you. Affirmation, nope. Group support, nope. Respect, nope. In fact it gets you jack and …..... I told you argument or nothing. If god is beyond comprehension that I guess I will never have a reason to believe.
"1 was a breeze. Calc 2 not so much does that mean it doesn't or can't exist?"
that does not even come close to logically following. But if you mastered in a short period of time I respect that accomplishment of yours.
Trinity,
"Attempts to defend against this discovery [that Jesus is a walking contradiction, i.e. "wholly man" and "wholly god"] by arguing that this is actually a case of “A and B” instead of “A and non-A,” ignore the fact that the paired qualities which results from designating Jesus Christ as both “wholly God” and “wholly man” are made up of diametrically opposed contradictories, e.g., supernatural and non-supernatural. This is not analogous to, say, a park bench which is composed of various materials, such as wood and steel. It is rather a case of affirming that an entity consists wholly of a set of qualities along with their negations. So the “A and B” defense fails, and the contradictions informing the person of Jesus Christ remain.
Perhaps the “best” response to this criticism that I have seen, at least in terms of entertainment value, is Paul Manata’s peanut butter sandwich analogy. In his comments to this blog, Manata presented the following mock dialogue to make his last-ditch defense against my points:
Bithrack [sic] said: "the idea that a single entity can have two entities."
Christian dummy thinks: "is a sandwich an entity?"
everyone answers: "yes"
Christian dummy asks: "can a sandwich have penut butter and jelly, i.e., two entites?"
everyone answers: "yes"
christian dummy says: "so a single entiity (sandwich) ca have two entities (penutbutter and jelly)?
atheist dummy: "no fair! leave me alone and stop making the wisdom of this world (me) turn into foolishness before God! [SIC]"
(continued)
"The problem with this defense should be obvious: a sandwich made of peanut butter and jelly is not “wholly” peanut butter and “wholly” jelly; it’s not even “wholly” peanut butter and “wholly” jelly and “wholly” bread. The same will be the case with any conglomerate entity composed of two or more ingredients: the resulting entity is not going to be wholly one substance and wholly another substance, both of which make up the entity in question. A chair consisting of a wooden seat and back and metal legs is not “wholly” wood and “wholly” metal. On the contrary, it is part wood and part metal. Similarly with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich: it is part peanut butter, part jelly, and part bread (make mine whole wheat, I’m on a diet!). So as an attempt to salvage the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ from my criticism with analogies of everyday things, seems to be doomed by virtue of missing some very significant and relevant facts.
With defenses like this proposed to salvage Christianity from such clear-cut defeaters, it appears that it will be impossible for Christians to overcome the inherent contradictions inherent to their object of worship. For purposes of the present inquiry, the question becomes:
How can a worldview consisting of worship of something that is inherently self-contradictory on multiple levels have anything to do with the foundations of logic, whose task is to safeguard non-contradictory identification?
The presuppositionalist literature does not seem to anticipate this objection, nor does it explain how something that is inherently self-contradictory can serve as the foundation of the laws of logic." ("Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God? Part II: Reasons Why Logic Cannot Presuppose the Christian God, #3: Contradictions in Christ," Dawson Bethrick, Incinerating Presuppositionalism, July 6, 2009)
Ydemoc
@Everyone,
it has been fun, Nide, Ydemoc, assorted lurkers, but I am going to drink some more wine and go to sleep. I have a long work day ahead of me tomorrow. If your god is real may he look after you Nide, good night all.
My point is Jesus existed and yea I know you dont accept my claim.
But The bible says, for example, Jesus got hungry and tired and also that people worshipped him.
So, yea he had to be aware of his humanity and deity.
Trinity:
3 persons all fully God and yet God is one he's indivisible.
It's wondrous. Enjoy
Trinity wrote: "But The bible says, for example, Jesus got hungry and tired and also that people worshipped him."
You are treading very, very close to that question I asked you not to long ago. Do you remember? The question that resulted in you calling me "sick"?
Trinity wrote: "So, yea he had to be aware of his humanity and deity."
As a man, when he was aware of his humanity, was he aware of his anatomy?
Trinity, why wasn't one of his miracles something like air conditioning? Can you tell me? Why were his miracles strictly limited to the knowledge and beliefs people had at the time?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
How could Jesus have been "fully" man, i.e., "fully" human if, according to your beliefs, he didn't have a sinful nature? Isn't having a sinful nature one of the characteristics of being "fully" human? (Inspired by Keith's comment from the comments section of the above blog post of Dawson's)
Ydemoc
Like Justin would say your question about Jesus' anatomy is uncalled for and doesn't advanced the discussion. It's rude.
You asked: "Trinity, why wasn't one of his miracles something like air conditioning? Can you tell me? Why were his miracles strictly limited to the knowledge and beliefs people had at the time?
Yea, because Jesus had a purpose he didn't become a man to make air conditioners appear out of nowhere.
Read the Gospels you will learn much.
Justin,
I want to clear something up.
When I say God is logic. I mean he is logical. It's a reflection of his actions. I am not equating them.
It's pretty interesting Ydemoc:
He who knew no sin became sin yet was without sin.
God took on a human body. Sinful flesh.
Is the light coming on?
I had alluded to an earlier question I asked Trinity about Jesus's anatomy.
Trinity responded: "Like Justin would say your question about Jesus' anatomy is uncalled for and doesn't advanced the discussion. It's rude."
Can you tell me how you think it's rude and how it doesn't advance the discussion? Because I think just the opposite.
I had asked: "Trinity, why wasn't one of his miracles something like air conditioning? Can you tell me? Why were his miracles strictly limited to the knowledge and beliefs people had at the time?"
Trinity responded: "Yea, because Jesus had a purpose he didn't become a man to make air conditioners appear out of nowhere."
Is this your best answer? Do you not think that had Jesus had knowledge of air conditioning, that he couldn't and wouldn't have given them to "comfort the afflicted," especially those who were afflicted by heat stroke in the hot desert?
I guess your satisfied with the mundane miracles he allegedly did perform. Miracles that do not extend outside the sphere of knowledge and beliefs held by those people at that time. However, I find this quite suspect. I mean, why not any rabies vaccine among his alleged miracles? His purpose wasn't to come and turn water into wine, but he allegedly did so, didn't he, as sort of a sideshow demonstration of his powers? Then why not produce air conditioning, or an automobile, or even a hang glider? This would have been an incredible feat. A true miracle, breaking the conceptual chain and we know about how knowledge is hierarchical in nature. It would've gone a long way in saving as many souls as possible, for "god so loved the world," right? Or is the reason he didn't do this is because he really didn't "love the world"?
Trinity wrote: "Read the Gospels you will learn much."
Oh, I do read them. And it's a good thing I don't take them seriously, for if I did, they would only dumb me down.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc you need repent.
You "gotta" get saved.
Lord open Ydemoc's eyes.
Goodnight. We can continue next time.
Trinity wrote: "He who knew no sin"
Jesus was god. But god knew no sin, even though god had to know sin in order to be omniscient. He had to know what rape, murder, lying, etc. were, even before he created the universe. But yet he knew no sin?
Trinity wrote: "[Jesus, God] became sin yet was without sin."
Jesus became adultery, lying, murder and rape, yet he was without rape, murder, lying, and adultery, etc. And this is the god that you say is logical?
Trinity wrote "God took on a human body. Sinful flesh."
Here we have an example of the mind-body dichotomy, me thinks. Are evil thoughts ever morally justifiable? Did god ever have evil thoughts?
Trinity wrote: "Is the light coming on?"
No. And that's another miracle Jesus could've performed: Artificial lighting. The incandescent bulb. Can you imagine him saying, "I am the light of the world" and then producing from under his robe, something as dazzling as a working light bulb? Those people would've flipped! And we'd still be wondering to this day how the heck he did it! It might have been a little showy, a la Old Vegas, but still...
Alas, he didn't do this, nor any other miracles outside the knowledge and beliefs of the time. And this I find quite curious. Quite curious indeed.
Ydemoc
To All,
Much like the bible's inconsistencies, both with respect to reality and internal to itself, its adherents consistently suffer from the same malady.
For example, consider what Trinity wrote (under the name r_c3210) in an exchange he and Dawson had in a comment thread dated July 09, 2011 10:52 AM.
In this exchange Dawson asked:
“Does Christianity have its own theory of concepts – i.e., an integrated, systematic explanation of the nature and formation of concepts as the building blocks of human thought?”
In response, r_c321 (Trinity) responded: “Absolutely, Genesis through Revelation you have a lot of work to do so get started.”
Now let's fast forward to a comment by r_c321 (Trinity) who posted under yet another name, "Hezekiah Ahaz." His remarks are dated September 06, 2011 7:48 PM. In this thread, Hezekiah Ahaz wrote:
"You insist that Christianity has no theory of concepts. Well,
the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to
make sense of man's experience. The bible gives you the foundation for those experiences."
Yes, like the bible itself, its adherents do indeed have a very difficult time keeping their stories straight.
Ydemoc
To All,
And just one more little nugget from r_c321 (Trinity, Hezekiah), as it pertains to my above comment. On July 10, 2011 at 6:21 a.m., he wrote:
"Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
That's says a lot about the human thought process and how concepts are formed."
Again, it's interesting, given that a few months later he says, "Well,
the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to
make sense of man's experience."
Ydemoc
Ydemoc
Hello Ydemoc,
How are you?
By the way
Do you love me?
Are you obssesed with me?
P.S. Does God Exist?
Trinity,
My questions to you continue to grow in number:
57. Could you please tell me, according to you, what stands between me and direct perception of your alleged non-imaginary deity?
57a. Why is it that whenever I directly perceive something, there is nothing else that stands between me and my direct perception of that something?
57b. If there is an impediment between me and my direct perception of something, with that something being your god, Satan, or anything else, how could one call whatever it is I am impeded from perceiving "directly perceivable" as you have done in your comments? (e.g., "God is existence," "God has made himself directly known to all our senses.")
Also, let us not forget all the questions that have gone unanswered up to this point, including, as I recall:
54. Why do *you* suppose your god's alleged ability to save lost souls is only limited to this life and not the next? Or do *you* maintain that your god has the ability to save a soul even after a person has died without being saved? Or, if you don't believe this is possible for your god to do, why do you suppose this is? In other words, why do you think your alleged god made death the cutoff point, and after death it's too late to be saved if you weren't saved in this life?
55. Did your god plan to have death come into the world? If so, is death a reflection of your god's thinking and actions? If not, then how can any Christian maintain that god "created all facts," and/or "controls everything that comes to pass."
56. If Jesus was a man as well as the Holy Spirit, god, and himself, why isn't it called "The Quadrinity" instead of "The Trinity"? Why not a "Quadrune God" instead of a "Triune God."
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Not only are you a creep but also a stalker.
If you object the burden is on you or if you don't then good I would love to take the burden.
By the way
What do you do for a living?
I had asked Trinity the following:
"57. Could you please tell me, according to you, what stands between me and direct perception of your alleged non-imaginary deity?
57a. Why is it that whenever I directly perceive something, there is nothing else that stands between me and my direct perception of that something?
57b. If there is an impediment between me and my direct perception of something, with that something being your god, Satan, or anything else, how could one call whatever it is I am impeded from perceiving "directly perceivable" as you have done in your comments? (e.g., "God is existence," "God has made himself directly known to all our senses.")
Also, let us not forget all the questions that have gone unanswered up to this point, including, as I recall:
54. Why do *you* suppose your god's alleged ability to save lost souls is only limited to this life and not the next? Or do *you* maintain that your god has the ability to save a soul even after a person has died without being saved? Or, if you don't believe this is possible for your god to do, why do you suppose this is? In other words, why do you think your alleged god made death the cutoff point, and after death it's too late to be saved if you weren't saved in this life?
55. Did your god plan to have death come into the world? If so, is death a reflection of your god's thinking and actions? If not, then how can any Christian maintain that god "created all facts," and/or "controls everything that comes to pass."
56. If Jesus was a man as well as the Holy Spirit, god, and himself, why isn't it called 'The Quadrinity' instead of 'The Trinity'? Why not a 'Quadrune God' instead of a 'Triune God.'"
Trinity then decides to answer these questions, not addressing them, but by lashing out with basless accusations. His response was:
"Not only are you a creep but also a stalker. If you object the burden is on you or if you don't then good I would love to take the burden. By the way What do you do for a living?"
This is a baseless accusation. But why would Trinity call me a creep and a stalker? Is there anything I've said or asked that would lead him to make such allegations? If so, let him produce the quote, and then let us ask if creeps and stalkers, along with the quote he uses to justify calling me such names are not a part of his god's plan.
(continued)
For if I am a creep and a stalker, and "everything" is a part of god's plan, I don't see how creeps and stalkers could *not* be a part of his god's plan.
Furthermore, what could Trinity possibly have against creeps and stalkers? What could be more "creepy" and "stalker-ish" than believing in a book of fables which tells us that there is a magic being (or is it three?) that knows, watches, and controls *everything* we do! Talk about creepy! Biblegod is the ultimate "Peeping Tom"!
As for the last question on what I do for a living? Well, that has been asked by him and answered by me in previous comments. I gave him plenty of leads, without specifying exactly what it is I do. As I have disclosed, what I do for a living sometimes bears on the style I employ when responding to much of his (Christ)inanity, but as for my ability to do so and the fundamental content of my replies, what I do for a living has no relevance, for they are grounded by existence, identity, consciousness, and the primacy of existence principle.
Now, if he would be so kind as to respond to the questions above, that would be lovely.
And if he would do so with something non-tangential and intelligible underneath quoted text, that would be lovely, too.
Ydemoc
Argument for Ydemoc,
1.If you ask about another man's anatomy and you go searching for something someone has said in the past your a creep and stalker.
2. You have asked about another man's anatomy(continually) and have gone searching for things someone(I) have said in the past.
C. Therefore, you are a creep and a stalker.
Feel free to provide a counter example but I highly doubt you will be able to.
Trinity claims I am a "creep" and a "stalker" for looking up things he has said in the past, as well as for asking if Jesus ever had an erection.
His claims are utter nonsense, much like the bible and the invisible magic being he believes in. My quest for knowledge, and how I go about it have been quite appropriate given the nature of the subject matter being discussed on this blog.
As for looking up what Trinity said in the past, well, there is nothing wrong with doing so -- it comes with the territory, especially in light of Trinity's recent comments which are inconsistent with his past comments. He has been all over the map, and I was simply exposing his inconsistencies for the purposes of learning how a believer might defend them. Is this stalking? You have got to be kidding. But instead of defending or clarifying his inconsistencies, he resorts to name calling. Why is that? What is he afraid of?
Does Trinity not look up past comments that people have made? Or is all his knowledge somehow beamed into his brain via revelation?
As to Jesus having an erection, I also find this an appropriate question given Trinity's claims of Jesus being fully man and fully god. And, for what it's worth, he still hasn't answered the question.
Since Trinity finds it so offensive that I would ever ask a question like that, let me ask another very legitimate question that also might offend him: Since his god is, allegedly, all-knowing, does his god know what it is like to have a vagina? If Trinity thought I was a creep and a stalker before, one can only imagine the name-calling that will ensue after that little inquiry.
Furthermore, as I wrote before, I find it amusing and ironic that Trinity would make claims of me being a "stalker" and a "creep," for "what could Trinity possibly have against creeps and stalkers? What could be more 'creepy' and 'stalker-ish' than believing in a book of fables which tells us that there is a magic being (or is it three?) that knows, watches, and controls *everything* we do! Talk about creepy! Biblegod is the ultimate 'Peeping Tom!'"
Let me also add that, according to what Trinity has written (yes, in the past), this invisible magic being cannot learn. So any watching and controlling it does of every human being is not done to gain knowledge, but instead it is done because that's just one of the ways this invisible magic being apparently gets its jollies (if such a being could even have "jollies).
Anyway, here is the argument Trinity put forth. Let me just say at this point, Trinity should have checked his premises:
"1.If you ask about another man's anatomy and you go searching for something someone has said in the past your a creep and stalker.
2. You have asked about another man's anatomy(continually) and have gone searching for things someone(I) have said in the past.
C. Therefore, you are a creep and a stalker."
(continued)
That is Trinity's argument!?! As I said, Trinity needs to check his premises. Observe:
1.If I ask about another man's anatomy and go searching for something someone has said in the past, I am a researcher.
2. I have asked about another man's anatomy(occasionally) and have gone searching for things people have written and said in the past, (Trinity, Dawson, Justin, Ayn Rand, Einstein; Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Van Morrison, Tom Waits; Andy Kaufman, Steve Martin, Richard Pryor; Jesus - allegedly; your god - allegedly, Moses - allegedly, Allah - allegedly, et al.).
C. Therefore, I am a researcher.
************************
From "The Day in the life of a Researcher," The Princeton Review
"If you’re curious about what people think and how they make decisions, you may want to become a researcher. Researchers collect, organize, analyze, and interpret data and opinions to explore issues, solve problems, and predict trends.
While researchers often conduct interviews and administer questionnaires, they also use information sources including libraries, newspaper clippings, encyclopedias, magazines and periodicals, case laws, legislative records, historical documents, and public opinion polls."
From Wikipedia:
"A researcher is somebody who performs research, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts."
Am I a professional researcher, in that I get paid for what I do? No, nor do I need to be paid in order to do research. I ask the questions that I ask to further my knowledge and understanding. I do it as a hobby.
Trinity wrote: "Feel free to provide a counter example but I highly doubt you will be able to."
I just did -- it appears your doubt is misplaced. Your doubt would serve you much better if you applied it to individuals and the storybook that inform your belief in invisible magic beings.
Ydemoc
Creep Stalker,
Is that your rebuttal you ever hear of a counter example?
By the way you have a sick mind.
Get help
Trinity wrote: "Is that your rebuttal you ever hear of a counter example?"
Why, yes I have! I gave you an argument that showed your premises were flawed. You want me to give you a counter-example? A counter-example of what exactly? You need to be more clear.
Trinity wrote: "By the way you have a sick mind."
Well, many find value in what you call my "sick mind." I would venture to guess that, even you, have enjoyed people of my profession, many of whom have "sicker" minds than I do, and make a very good living with their "sick" minds.
Trinity wrote: "Get help"
If I needed it, I would. But I don't need it, for I don't believe in invisible magic beings.
Ydemoc
Sick boy, Creepy Stalker, and many other funny names,
However, you do believe in other invisible things. So, quit complaining the burden is on you.
Creepy Stalker,
Well, The last thing I would ever do is tell you if I was hungry etc.
You're weird and God only knows what thoughts might enter into your already sick brain.
Besides my work here is finished I "burned" the house down.
I am only around for the laughs have any good jokes?
Trinity wrote: "Sick boy, Creepy Stalker, and many other funny names,
However, you do believe in other invisible things. So, quit complaining the burden is on you."
Like on many other occasions, I'm, uh, not exactly clear what it is you're attempting to utter.
Can you give me a complete thought with proper sentence structure? That might help.
You have risen to the occasion in the past and on those occasions I have answered you. In this case, I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say.
Are you typing on a handheld device? Or are you on a desktop or laptop? If you are on a handheld, that might explain your difficutly with sentence structure and grammar.
If there is something else going on, why not let us know, and we can factor that in to our thinking as it pertains to your inconsistent ability to properly construct and punctuate a sentence?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
I didn't ask you if you were hungry. I asked if there was something that was keeping you from properly typing out your sentences.
Ydemoc
Trinity wrote: "You're weird and God only knows what thoughts might enter into your already sick brain."
Look, I already told you that what you call "weird" and a "sick brain" is a highly valued asset in my profession.
Trinity wrote; "Besides my work here is finished I "burned" the house down."
No, you really didn't. But if it makes you feel better to think so, no one is stopping you from doing so.
Trinity wrote: "I am only around for the laughs have any good jokes?"
You probably need a few good laughs.
Ydemoc
Stalker,
Because I don't believe in grammargod he's an invisible magic being who arbitraly set the laws of writing and grammar.
But wait I know how to write. It's interesting because he knows how to write. See the "proof"?
Trinity wrote: "Because I don't believe in grammargod he's an invisible magic being who arbitraly set the laws of writing and grammar."
Just to be clear, your inability (on many occasions) to properly construct a sentence has nothing to do with any kind of physical conditions of any sort, is that right? -- be they using a handheld device, the inability to type well, etc.
Trinity wrote: "But wait I know how to write. It's interesting because he knows how to write. See the "proof"?"
You sometimes display the ability to properly construct a sentence so that it comes across clear to everyone who reads it. But you're horribly inconsistent, and I was just wondering what the reason was for your inconsistency.
Even though in this particular post, your grammar and clarity is much improved, I still don't know who the "he" refers to in your last sentence. I could take a guess, but that wouldn't be prudent of me to do so, given that precision is important when discussing philosophy and theism. Wouldn't you agree?
Ydemoc
grammargod
By the way I don't have arms I speak things into existence
Trinity wrote: "By the way I don't have arms I speak things into existence"
Is this true? That you use "voice to text" to construct your thoughts and post them onto this blog?
Ydemoc
Grammargod,
No, I stare at the screen and the words appear. It's magic.
Where's Dawson?
I need a good laugh.
I had asked Trinity if there was anything physically limiting him from writing with proper grammar and clarity.
He responded with: "By the way I don't have arms I speak things into existence"
I responded: "Is this true? That you use "voice to text" to construct your thoughts and post them onto this blog?"
Trinity then wrote: "No, I stare at the screen and the words appear. It's magic."
Well, now see, you wrote very clearly, and yet you are being sarcastic, so it's really not as clear as it could be. I cannot tell if you truly are physically limited in some fashion or not.
Trinity wrote: "Where's Dawson?"
I do not know. Last he reported on this blog was that he was in Thailand, dealing with the flooding there.
Trinity wrote: "I need a good laugh."
Yes. You probably do.
Ydemoc
Grammargod,
Use your grammargod powers to figure it out.
Is it a physical impossibilty to go back 2000 years?
Grammar god can you research all of Dawsons funny qoutes and post them?
Trinity wrote: "Use your grammargod powers to figure it out.
You are being evasive. If you are hampered in some fashion, why not tell us straight-up? That way we don't have to waste any more time harping on you about your grammar and sentence structure; instead, we can just focus on your ideas and assertions, asking you to clarify them when necessary.
Trinity wrote: "Is it a physical impossibilty to go back 2000 years?"
Why do you ask?
Trinity wrote: "Grammar god can you research all of Dawsons funny qoutes and post them?"
That would would require quite a bit of extended time and effort, and I'm not sure I'm up to the task based just upon your request. Sorry.
But nothing is stopping you from going through all his writings and doing this. You might actually learn a few things about how he not only thoroughly and articulately debunks theism, but does it with a lot of class and humor -- which you seem to be craving this evening.
Ydemoc
Craving Dawson's Humor?
Really gotta put it that way grammarboy?
What goes on in your mind grammarboy?
Trinity wrote: "Craving Dawson's Humor?"
That is not the way I put it. You put it that way. You were asking about humor in general, and then you wrote, "Where's Dawson?" followed by "I need a good laugh," and then in your next post you ask me if I could research all of Dawson's funny quotes and post them, I took that as you being interested in Dawson's humor. But my comment about craving humor was referring to your expressed interest in humor in general.
Trinity wrote: "Really gotta put it that way grammarboy?"
No. I had other options available to me in expressing that particular thought. Given your misreading of what I wrote, perhaps I should taken more care to be clear.
Trinity wrote: "What goes on in your mind grammarboy?"
Many processes.
Ydemoc
Grammargod,
Said: "Many processes"
Does that include pornographic
processes?
Trinity wrote: "Trinity wrote: "What goes on in your mind grammarboy?"
I wrote: "Many processes."
Trinity responded: "Does that include pornographic processes?"
Why do you keep asking me about pornography? You seem to be fixated on this, why is that?
Furthermore, what do you mean by your question? What is your basis for asking it?
I have explained myself enough regarding the appropriateness of the questions I asked you, which you still haven't answered.
Since you claim a non-imaginary deity created and knows ***EVERYTHING***, and since EVERYTHING means ***EVERY THING*** this would have to include what I asked about. Answers you give -- and even the evasions you engage in -- in response to such questions I've posed to you, tell me that such such questions have far reaching implications for theism.
And even your discomfort with such questions tells me much about the power of such questions as it pertains to the theistic mindset.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that my questions are a part of your non-imaginary deity's plan?
Ydemoc
The problem is, grammarboy, you have a sick mind and God doesn't.
So, you can't project your sickness on to God.
I know that's what you would love to do and which you, actually, have done in the past.
Anyway, there is something else I am surprised you haven't picked on.
That is, I said God is logic but logic can't be applied to him it's interesting.
P.S. Can you walk on water?
Trinity wrote: "The problem is, grammarboy, you have a sick mind God and doesn't."
Did your non-imaginary deity plan for me to have, as you call it, a "sick mind"? Did your non-imaginary deity not plan to have it written in his book, "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" Psalm 137:9
Did your non-imaginary deity not plan for human beings to experience happiness over that kind of sickness?
Or how about Hosea 13:16: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Trinity wrote: "So, you can't project your sickness on to God."
I don't need to. You're non-imaginary deity projects enough of it's own sickness through it's all too human storybook.
Trinity wrote: "I know that's what you would love to do, and actually have done in the past."
How do you know what I love to do? And how do you know what I've done in the past? Hmmmm. The fact that you claim to know these things about me comes across, according to your own words, as "creepy" and "stalkerish" !! (According to my standards, I don't think what you wrote nor what I have written comes across as creepy and stalkerish. But, by your own standard, you would have to maintain it does come across that way -- that is, if you care anything about consistency.)
Trinity said: "Anyway, there is something else I am surprised you haven't picked on. That is, I said God is logic but logic can't be applied to him it's interesting."
I believe Dawson already addressed and demolished this incoherency.
Trinity wrote: "P.S. Can you walk on water?"
Why do you ask?
Ydemoc
Let's say the writers kid was dashed against a stone care to comment?
Your'e a reasearcher right?
Ever ask yourself why someone would say such a horrible thing?
How about if your loved one was dashed against a stone what then?
here something for you to pick on:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html
Grammar boy sorry for the arbitrary writing I am in a rush.
Trinity wrote: "Let's say the writers kid was dashed against a stone care to comment?"
I would say that the same god who inspired the writer to write, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones," was the same god who *originally* knew that the writer's kid would be dashed against rocks, and did nothing to stop it then, nor did this deity refrain from including such horrible human actions in its creation when it allegedly "manufactured" existence. I would call that quite sick.
By the way, it would be Jesus who inspired this action and verbiage in the so-called "holy writ", would it not? Since Jesus is God, in your view?
Trinity wrote: "Your'e a reasearcher right?"
As I stated before, I do this as a hobby, not as a career. However, the things I learn and write on Dawson's blog are very valuable to me and could, at any time, come in handy with what I do for a living.
Trinity wrote: "Ever ask yourself why someone would say such a horrible thing?"
Yes! Have you!?! Have you ever asked yourself why *I* ask the questions I *ask* you, the ones you were so offended by that you deemed them "sick,"-- and you still haven't answered them?
Trinity wrote: "How about if your loved one was dashed against a stone what then?"
Well, if my loved one was dashed against the rocks, I would certainly want to avenge such an action. However, I would not call it justice nor any less "sick," if I was to go and kill ***someone else's children*** because of something that their relative did to my loved one.
Furthermore, I think someone would have me committed (and rightfully so) if I was to write how happy I was (or how happy someone would be) to dash little babies heads against rocks. Like many passages in the bible, it sounds like something John Wayne Gacy would write!
Trinity wrote: "here something for you to pick on:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html"
I went there, again. I read it in full. There are many, many things that can be objected to about what they have written on this site. I wanted to do a line-by-line critique, but that would take a lot of time. Perhaps I will take a look at it again and dribble out my objections as I go along.
In the meantime, I will point out a couple of troubling passages from gotquestions.org. The first is a question they ask the reader:
"Was His reaction to the sins of the Canaanites and the Amalekites a vicious form of "ethnic cleansing" no different from atrocities committed by the Nazis? Or is it possible that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for ordering the destruction of these nations?"
What's interesting about these questions is that a Christian would no doubt maintain that his non-imaginary deity also had a morally sufficient reason for allowing the Holocaust!
One more passage from gotquestions.org:
"Finally, and most importantly, God may have provided for the salvation for those infants who would not have otherwise attained salvation if they had lived into adulthood. ... If those infants and children had lived into adulthood, it is very likely they would have turned into something similar to their parents and been condemned to hell after they died."
Well then let's just throw a giant party then for all those kids whose head were dashed against the rocks! They are in Heaven, uh, maybe? Hey, so are all aborted fetuses, right Christians? God must have a morally sufficient reason for allowing abortions! Hey, how about three cheers for Andrea Yates! Her kids are in Heaven!
And according to Christianity, she still has a shot at getting there, too! How about that!?! Kill a kid, go to Heaven!
Talk about worshiping death.
Trinity wrote: "Grammar boy sorry for the arbitrary writing I am in a rush."
No problem.
Ydemoc
Grammar guy,
Look Dawson is back and with a new entry!!!! How exciting!!!!!!!!
Anyway.
First let me applaud your caricature "kill a kid go to heaven". It's pretty sinful.
Not only does your outrage at sin show that you are full sin but that you desperately need to repent.
I'm really tired of your mispresentations. You qoute things out of context and attempt to paint this "horrible" picture without having all the facts. I really mean it this time atheist are a bunch of asses. I'm not kidding take it like you want to. Were all just a bunch of animals anyway who cares what I say or do to the next one.
Since God is Good he has to have a Good reason for what he allows and does.
Are you good?
if so
Are you "gooder" than Andrea Yates?
If so
You think God thinks you're good?
Really, Are you good person?
Worshipping death?
At least be honest. Read in Context do the research.
The problem is not God. It's you and me.
P.S.
Trinity,
I read your comments. Perhaps I will respond tomorrow.
Ydemoc
Trinity wrote: "Look Dawson is back and with a new entry!!!! How exciting!!!!!!!!"
I know. It's always a pleasure to read Dawson's work.
Trinity wrote: "Anyway. First let me applaud your caricature 'kill a kid go to heaven.'"
Thanks.
Trinity wrote: "It's pretty sinful."
I should say so! Imagine a mother killing her family, or tribes of desert dwellers smashing babies' heads against rocks and then justifying it after the fact by saying it's okay because, well, the little tots will be in heaven anyway. That should smooth things over!
Trinity wrote: "Not only does your outrage at sin show that you are full sin but that you desperately need to repent."
Quite the contrary.
Given the fact the biblical conception of sin and its associated collective guilt are quite vile and worthy of rejection; and given the claims of an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving non-imaginary deity looking on approvingly as his plan unfolds according to his good pleasure; and considering that this deity has neglected to intervene to prevent such evil things as "dashing babies heads against rocks" and ripping open pregnant women, I do find that those who take such stories seriously, then rationalize such actions away -- these people are quite immoral.
Trinity wrote: "I'm really tired of your mispresentations."
Please, tell me what I've misrepresented that doesn't already misrepresent itself by standing in opposition to reality?
Trinity wrote: "You qoute things out of context and attempt to paint this "horrible" picture without having all the facts."
Since when do bible believers care about facts? Believers see every thing first through the filter of bible belief, and then select facts that fit what the bible tells them to believe, while pretty much ignoring everything else. They are about as anti-fact as you can get.
Trinity wrote: "I really mean it this time atheist are a bunch of asses."
As opposed to "not meaning it" when you've leveled similar insults in the past?
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "I'm not kidding take it like you want to."
Okay.
Trinity wrote: "Were all just a bunch of animals anyway who cares what I say or do to the next one."
I do.
Trinity wrote: "Since God is Good he has to have a Good reason for what he allows and does."
Who told you "God is Good"? How are you able to differentiate between the actions of a non-imaginary evil being and a non-imaginary all-good deity, if the supposedly all-good non-imaginary deity tells his followers to rip open pregnant women and instructs them on how to beat slaves? Doesn't that sound like something the non-imaginary evil being would do?
Trinity wrote: "Are you good?"
I do my best to "evaluate the facts of reality by my own consciousness according to a rational standard of value." (Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," p. 21 - modified in this context for clarity)
Trinity wrote: "if so Are you "gooder" than Andrea Yates?"
Absolutely.
Trinity wrote: "If so You think God thinks you're good?"
The imaginary is not real, so this question is incoherent.
Trinity wrote: "Really, Are you good person?"
See above.
Trinity wrote: "Worshipping death?"
Yes. The Christian ideal is not this life, but the next. I know of instances where people have died and Christians have worn expressions of joy on their faces because they are convinced that the deceased is no longer living here on this earth, but in heaven. Did not Jesus tell his followers to "hate even his own life" and if you "cling to your life, you will lose it"? Even Jesus himself was worshiped because he was sacrificed for the non-ideal (sinners). And gotquestions.org even tries to rationalize its way out of difficult passages involving infanticide, brushing it away with basically, Oh, don't worry, the little babies are, maybe, in heaven. Do I really need to give more examples of death worship?
Trinity wrote: "At least be honest. Read in Context do the research."
I have honest and I do the research.
Trinity wrote: "The problem is not God. It's you and me."
Well, I almost agree with you here. The problem is indeed not the imaginary, that is, until believers start taking the imaginary so seriously that their actions begin infringing upon my life. Then it's a problem.
Ydemoc
Post a Comment