Saturday, February 25, 2012

Reaction to My Critique of Anderson and Welty’s “The Lord of Non-Contradiction”

It’s not very common to find Christian apologists acknowledging my critiques of theistic apologetics (let alone actually interacting with them). So when it does happen, and I learn about it, my interest is piqued. Typically theistic apologists ignore my writings, suggesting that even if they are aware of them and have taken some time to examine any of them, they are left only with a blank stare and perhaps some sneering reaction against me personally. There are occasions when apologists confronted with my critiques of theistic defenses will indicate that they’ll examine the matter more deeply at some unspecified future time, but fail to deliver on such promises. I’m reminded of several occasions when Chris Bolt, for example, would promise to look further into the matter at some unspecified future time.
In response to my blog in which I correct numerous errors on the part of John Robbins, for instance, Bolt replied with a comment saying “I will try to give it a better read when I have more time.” On another occasion, Bolt commented: “I must hand it to you Dawson, you are very thorough. :) I do plan to continue to read your work as time allows.” But Bolt never seems to come back with any increase in his understanding.

There’s also the time when Christian apologist Dustin Segers not only stated that he would do “further research” on the primacy of existence after I had corrected his perverse attempts to refute it, but also deleted the post on his blog where he had published his attempted refutation of the primacy of existence. (For a synopsis of these events, see here.) From what I can tell, Segers has never made good on this promise. In fact, he has since removed comments from his blog altogether. (Segers’ blog can be accessed here.)

The net result of the intellectual default on the part of theistic apologists is that my position and my criticisms against theism all go unrefuted. That’s fine with me. After all, I don’t think my position can be refuted, and I think theists recognize this deep down. That’s why they tend to avoid my blog.

But there has been a little reaction to my prefatory critique of Anderson and Welty’s paper The Lord of Non-Contradiction. A commenter over at James Anderson’s blog asked for Anderson’s reaction to my criticism. The commenter, commenting under the moniker “above,” posted a link to my blog and wrote:
Hello James,
Your article The Lord of Non-Contradiction is very interesting and insightful. I recently run across another blog where someone allegedly tried to undermine your argument along with providing an anti-pressupositionalist account for himself… I was wondering if you responded to this guy in any of your work, either on his criticism of your article or his attack on pressupositionalism. I would be really interested to read any response you might have.
Let me briefly recap the criticisms I have so far published of Anderson and Welty’s argument:

1. Anderson and Welty’s argument integrally depends on the necessary-contingent dichotomy, but this dichotomy is false, which can only mean that the argument itself is faulty. I point out that the necessary-contingent dichotomy is false precisely because it rests on a false theory of concepts, and I cited Leonard Peikoff’s essay arguing this fact.
2. Anderson and Welty’s argument makes numerous vague appeals to “intuitions” without explanation or clarification of what this could mean. I give several reasons why this is a liability for their argument.

3. Presuppositionalist Brian Knapp points out that Anderson and Welty’s argument “is not transcendental in nature” and fails to “challenge” the non-believer’s “autonomy.” This seems to vie against the tagline on Anderson’s own original blog (where he first posted a link to his paper “The Lord of Non-Contradiction”), which reads: “Faltering Attempts to Think God’s Thoughts After Him.” (Anderson has since moved his blog to a new address, and has curiously abandoned this tagline.)

In the comments section of my blog entry critiquing Anderson and Welty’s argument, I offered two additional criticisms:

4. Anderson and Welty’s failure to answer the question, which they themselves raise in their paper, “What is truth?” Instead of offering any enlightening remarks which would “shed much light on what truths or propositions are,” Anderson and Welty seem to be content with what they style “a useful term of art.”

5. Anderson and Welty characterize “propositions” as “the primary bearers of truth-value,” but offer no argument for this. They assert that “propositions are regarded as primary truth-bearers because while sentences (i.e., linguistic tokens) can have truth-values by virtue of expressing propositions, propositions do not have truth-values by virtue of anything else." In response to this, I pointed out that propositions are composed of concepts, and that propositions are therefore not conceptually irreducible. I point out that concepts, rather than propositions, are the primary bearers of truth, and that truth is an aspect of identification. This is in keeping with Ayn Rand’s recognition that “Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration” ("Art and Cognition," The Romantic Manifesto, 77). This is because definition is the final step in concept-formation. Peikoff points out that “the truth of a proposition depends not only on its relation to the facts of the case, but also on the truth of the definitions of its constituent concepts” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 100). This latter point seems at least somewhat compatible with Anderson’s own point that while propositions are “truth-bearers,” facts are “truth-makers” (see Anderson’s blog entry Are the Laws of Logic Propositions?).

And though I have further criticisms of Anderson and Welty’s argument that I have not posted on my blog, there’s already some food for thought to consider here for those who might want to put stock in their argument. If any of my points are rationally sustainable, then I’d say that Anderson and Welty’s argument is fatally compromised.

My critique of Anderson and Welty’s argument can be strengthened even further by pursuing the implications of my fifth point above – namely that propositions are not the primary bearers of truth, but are in fact composed of concepts, which can only mean that it is not true that “propositions do not have truth-values by virtue of anything else," as Anderson and Welty have asserted. Since concepts are more fundamental than propositions, a proposition can only have truth-value by virtue of the truth-value of the concepts which happen to inform it.

But if propositions are in fact composed of concepts, then we’re ready to seal the coffin on Anderson and Welty’s argument for good. I have already argued that an omniscient mind would not have its knowledge in conceptual form. And although he found the relevance of my argument puzzling, Christian apologist Peter Pike attempted to interact with this argument, but endorsed its conclusion, affirming outright that “God’s knowledge… is not conceptual.” If propositions are composed of concepts, while the Christian god’s own knowledge is not conceptual in nature, it’s hard to see how any knowledge characterized as “propositional” in nature could imply the Christian god.

A more general point to be reminded of is the fact that Anderson and Welty’s argument leaves us where all other theistic arguments leave us: with no alternative but to imagine the god whose existence they claim to have proven. Even if we accept all the flimsy premises of their argument, we still have nothing but our imagination to “apprehend” the god they claim to worship and serve. At the end of the day, their argument makes their god no more real than Allah, Zeus, or even Lord Krishna himself. I still must imagine it if I’m going to consider it at all. I’m guessing that those who want the law of non-contradiction to be managed by a “lord” or “king” will have no trouble finding ways to ignore this unsettling fact.

In response to the comments which “above” had posted on his blog, Anderson stated:
I have interacted with Dawson Bethrick before, but that was many years ago.
This is true. Anderson and I have had a few brief exchanges. Back in 2004, I contacted Anderson directly in response to a paper he had published showcasing several theistic arguments by Alvin Plantinga and Cornelius Van Til. On another occasion, in 2006, Anderson left several comments in response to my blog Frame’s Summary of Van Til’s OMA, in which he misconstrued my position as affirming the view that “the way the world really is turns out to be a product of our minds.” (I have sorted out Anderson’s confusions and corrected his misunderstandings in my paper A Reply to Anderson: On Realism, Conceptualism and the Objectivist Theory of Concepts. To my knowledge, Anderson has not interacted with this.)

Anderson continued:
I did not find our exchanges very profitable (and my guess is he’d say the same).
On the contrary, I value my interactions with Anderson very highly. I’ve enjoyed my correspondence with him (and would love his kind permission to publish it in full on my webpage Katholon.com), and I appreciate the opportunity his comments on my blog have afforded me in clarifying and vindicating my position. My interactions with Anderson have in fact served to confirm the truth of my worldview, which is probably why he does not find our exchanges “very profitable” (for his position, they haven’t been profitable at all).

Anderson wrote:
He’s firmly wedded to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which I find hard to take seriously (go here to read some pretty devastating criticisms of Rand).
It is evident to me that Anderson does not take Objectivism seriously, and apparently does not want to give it much of a hearing to begin with. Indeed, he doesn’t even seem very willing to examine it firsthand. Consider what Anderson is telling us he does not take seriously:
- the view that reality exists independent of conscious activity (cf. wishing doesn’t make it so)
- the view that a thing is what it is independent of consciousness
- the view that reality is fundamentally distinct from what we imagine
- the view that facts hold epistemological primacy in all legitimate knowledge
- the view that reason is man’s only means of acquiring and validating knowledge
- the view that moral values have a biological basis
- the view that man has a right to exist for his own sake
- etc.
Because Objectivism rejects any expression and variant of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, it therefore rejects supernaturalism (see for example here). This can only mean that Objectivism rules out the claim that Christianity is true (see for instance here). Objectivism rejects Christianity for the same reason it rejects any form of supernaturalism: like other forms of supernaturalism, Christianity is premised on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics (and explicitly so), which means any claim that Christianity is true is ultimately self-contradictory (see here). But instead of directly interacting with the Objectivist philosophy, Anderson recommends articles on Objectivism at Bill “the Maverick Philosopher” Vallicella’s blog. I have to say I’m a bit embarrassed for Anderson here, as Vallicella’s objections to Objectivism are not only weak, but indicative of a conspicuously poor understanding of Objectivism. (I have documented many of the stark deficiencies of Vallicella’s criticisms of Objectivism on my website. See my paper The “Maverick Philosopher” on Objectivism.) In steering his readers to Vallicella’s blog entries on Objectivism, Anderson is sending them down a path of more ignorance. I’m guessing that Anderson himself does not realize this, otherwise I don’t expect that he would endorse such errors himself.

I would warn readers that Vallicella’s writings about Rand and Objectivism are often colored with a condescending, derisive attitude of “How dare you!” Rand was not an academic philosopher, but she wrote on philosophical topics and in fact developed her own approach to philosophy which does not defer to academics as though they were monolithic in their views or infallible in their verdicts. Many academics (the less intellectually mature ones, at any rate) will take umbrage at what they perceive in Rand as reckless defiance, nose-thumbing insolence, and unconstrained radicalism. Often it is the case that academics are recoiling against Rand’s endorsement of reason, laissez-faire capitalism, individual rights and her intransigent denouncements of communism, socialism, fascism, racism and all other expressions of collectivism. And of course, theists are reacting against Rand’s atheism. Since Rand and her philosophy are non-theistic, she must be condemned, even if her philosophy is true.

Anderson continued:
Dawson, on the other hand, doesn’t take contemporary analytic philosophy very seriously (or at least he didn’t when we interacted way back when). So it’s difficult for us to have a useful philosophical discussion.
I have always found the methodology of analytic philosophy suspicious, and Dr. David Kelley (who earned a Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton University) confirmed the legitimacy of my suspicions when in a lecture for the Institute for Objectivist Studies some years ago, he outlined several of its distinctive features, arguing that
implicit in analytic philosophy's methods is a commitment to the primacy of consciousness, a commitment evident in the way many philosophers elevate formal logic and linguistic theory over the data of the senses. This commitment to the primacy of consciousness also results in a tendency to explore arbitrary thought experiments and to stipulate arbitrary definitions, as well as in the widespread overuse of formal deduction and the concomitant lack of attention to induction. And the commitment is evident, too, in the belief common among analytic philosophers that it is meaningful to speak about the "logical possibility" of "other worlds," that is, other realities. Only the primacy of consciousness, which holds that language and thought can exist prior to or apart from any awareness of reality, can explain the use of all these methods.
A review of my interaction with Bill “The Maverick Philosopher” Vallicella’s criticisms of Objectivism will indicate what you might expect from someone who employs the methods of analytic philosophy to argue his way to preferred conclusions and justify rash dismissals. It’s a sad sight to behold, and makes me question the maturity level of such thinkers.

Anderson elaborated on this:
To take one example, I think that any philosophy which rejects the distinction between necessary truths and contingent truths (note: rejects the distinction itself as incoherent, not merely the claim that there are both kinds of truths) has fallen at the first hurdle. If we can’t even agree on that elementary logical distinction, where do we go from there? If Objectivists like Dawson have to reject the necessary-contingent distinction altogether in order to refute our argument, well, so much the worse for Objectivism, I say.
This is misleading, to say the least. I do not “reject the necessary-contingent distinction altogether in order to refute [Anderson and Welty’s] argument.” I rejected it long before their argument came over the horizon, and independently of my criticisms of theistic arguments. Anderson’s characterization here suggests that I happened upon his argument, checked it out, and then sought last minute for some way to reject its conclusion, focusing at the eleventh hour on the necessary-contingent distinction as some means of “escape.” There is nothing to justify this characterization. Objectivism’s rejection of the necessary-contingent dichotomy has a long-standing pedigree, with Peikoff’s full analysis of the issue being first published in May 1967. Indeed, I note in my treatment of criticisms of Objectivism by “The Maverick Philosopher” (I always get a laugh out of that moniker!) that Objectivism rejects the necessary-contingent dichotomy. This is nothing new for me.

I also think it’s misleading to characterize the necessary-contingent dichotomy as a distinction that is “elementary,” implying that it is somehow fundamental. It’s not, and I’d be surprised if any philosopher seriously thinks it is fundamental. If it is considered to be fundamental, it’s probably been accepted at face value simply because other philosophers have already taken it for granted. But this would be a poor basis upon which to infer its alleged fundamentality. Indeed, as I have already indicated in my initial reaction to Anderson and Welty’s paper, Objectivism rejects the necessary-contingent dichotomy because it rests on a false theory of concepts. That it rests on a theory of concepts to begin with, only indicates that this “logical distinction” cannot be either “elementary” or fundamental.

Contrary to what Anderson states, I’d say that any argument which hinges on a false dichotomy is one which “has fallen at the first hurdle.” If Anderson and Welty’s argument can not proceed without the necessary-contingent dichotomy, then we are justified in rejecting their conclusions if there are good grounds to reject the necessary-contingent dichotomy. Objectivism provides those grounds, and though I’ve seen numerous challenges to Objectivism’s analysis of the necessary-contingent dichotomy, I’ve never seen one that can prevail over rational scrutiny. If Objectivism has the rational principles which a philosophy needs to slash off an entire category of false ideas, so much the better for Objectivism.

Anderson continues:
All this to say, I’m not too concerned about Dawson’s critique of our article because the constituency for which we’re writing (in this case, contemporary analytic philosophers) don’t take his philosophical outlook very seriously in the first place.
In other words, the audience which Anderson and Welty intend for their argument is an audience which already accepts the premises of their argument. Perhaps it’s also intended only for those who already accept their conclusion as well. Anderson seems to be saying: “If you don’t accept the premises of the argument, well, we weren’t writing for you in the first place. If you accept the primacy of existence (cf. the fact that wishing doesn’t make it so), the fact that concepts are more fundamental than propositions, and reject false dichotomies, we aren’t going to take your philosophical outlook very seriously anyway, and thus won’t be too concerned with your critiques of our argument.”

Really, that’s no skin off my back. But it does leave a person like myself in the advantage, for I have interacted with Anderson and Welty’s argument, but they have not interacted with my criticisms of their argument. So in that regard, who’s ahead?

Anderson says he does not intend his remarks to be taken “as an insult, although it may sound like one.” Rather, “it’s just offered here as an explanation for why you won’t find me engaging at length with his critique.” From what I can tell, Anderson hasn’t engaged my critique at all. And no, this does not come across as an insult. It’s actually what I’ve come to expect from theists.

The commenter stated:
I have to admit I found his criticisms rather inept but I wanted to cross-reference that with you in case I was not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Like you said, it was hard to take him seriously and I wondered if I was being unfair. It seems like I wasn’t after all.
This statement gives me the impression that the commenter was only interested in psychological validation from Anderson by way of the latter’s confirmation that my criticisms should not be handled too closely – i.e., dismissed with innuendo and slur instead of examined with critical care and concern for intellectual legitimacy. Perhaps the commenter wanted someone he considers as an authority figure to calm his anxiety that maybe the “Lord of non-contradiction” isn’t all it’s been touted to be. I get this impression primarily from the commenter’s statements due to their lack of content to inform his findings in regard to my criticisms of Anderson and Welty’s paper. He says he “found [my] criticisms rather inept,” but provides no indication of how he arrived at this assessment. What is “inept” about questioning an argument’s premises and rejecting false ideas?

The commenter also wrote:
His facination [sic] with ibjectivism [sic] is indeed strange.
Indeed, it seems so strange, perhaps even perverse, in some individuals’ minds, when a person embraces a philosophy which teaches that reality is absolute, that there is a fundamental distinction between what is real and what is imaginary, that knowledge is conceptual in nature, that man’s means of acquiring and validating knowledge is something called reason, that morality is about achieving and protecting one’s own values (as opposed to some “duty” imposed by some mystical source to sacrifice them), that man has a right to exist for his own sake, that it is better for men to abide by the principle of “my best effort for your best effort” in their transactions with each other, etc. Indeed, how bizarre!

All this confirms a truth I’ve been aware of for a long time now, namely that the only alternative to Objectivism is some form of subjectivism.

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: , ,

166 Comments:

Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Good to see you back with another great post. As an added bonus, you've provided plenty of links to archived material, which I look forward to re-reading.

Ydemoc

February 26, 2012 12:20 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

thanks for the post Dawson I just finished reading it.

February 26, 2012 6:05 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"that man’s means of acquiring and validating knowledge is something called reason, that morality is about achieving and protecting one’s own values (as opposed to some “duty” imposed by some mystical source to sacrifice them), that man has a right to exist for his own sake, that it is better for men to abide by the principle of “my best effort for your best effort” in their transactions with each other, etc. Indeed, how bizarre!"



It's too bad Dawson that Rand didn't believe anything of this


How hilarious nobody wants to take Dawson seriously. That's really funny.


By the way I have been really busy over on my blog.


Lately, I have been dealing with steve and his faith in induction. I found him over on Sye's blog embarrasing himself.


Come by sometime.








Love In Christ.

February 26, 2012 1:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

Hello there, glad to see you active again on your blog. Hope all is well with you in Thailand.

February 27, 2012 3:25 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc wrote: “Good to see you back with another great post. As an added bonus, you've provided plenty of links to archived material, which I look forward to re-reading.”

Thanks! It’s good to be back. I’ve been busier than a swarm of fruit flies on a fallen cactus bud. Literally, I feel like I’m being pulled in 30 different directions. Keeping busy, that’s what I like. I’ve been very productive. Yes, the archived material comes in handy. I’ve already done a lot of the work already. Why not link to it? I’m glad that my treatment of “The Maverick Philosopher’s” screeds and my argument about an omniscient mind not having its knowledge in conceptual form, are coming in handy. See, it’s good to do your homework! No one can say I haven't done mine. It's something I've given myself.

_____________________

AJ wrote: “thanks for the post Dawson I just finished reading it.”

You’re welcome, AJ. I hope you enjoyed it. Now if any theists point to Anderson and Welty’s paper, you can send them my direction. The matter’s been settled.

____________________

I wrote: "that man’s means of acquiring and validating knowledge is something called reason, that morality is about achieving and protecting one’s own values (as opposed to some “duty” imposed by some mystical source to sacrifice them), that man has a right to exist for his own sake, that it is better for men to abide by the principle of “my best effort for your best effort” in their transactions with each other, etc. Indeed, how bizarre!"

Nide responded: “It's too bad Dawson that Rand didn't believe anything of this”

Whether she did or didn’t is really neither here nor there so far as the points in my paper are concerned. Their truth does not hinge on any particular individual applying them. I’m puzzled why you don’t get that.

Nide wrote: “How hilarious nobody wants to take Dawson seriously. That's really funny.”

Actually, it’s not that no one takes me seriously, it’s that theistic apologists do their best to avoid me. Big difference. And yes, that’s funny. Only it’s no joke. It’s a reality.

Nide wrote: “By the way I have been really busy over on my blog.”

Good for you. When you get up to 825 comments on one blog, let me know.

Nide wrote: “Lately, I have been dealing with steve and his faith in induction. I found him over on Sye's blog embarrasing himself.”

Ah, another fish, eh? What’s wrong, is your net not big enough? He seems to have gotten away.

Nide: “Come by sometime.”

I have, but it really smells bad over there. Can you do something about that?

Regards,
Dawson

February 27, 2012 3:26 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Justin wrote: “Hello there, glad to see you active again on your blog. Hope all is well with you in Thailand.”

Hi Justin,

Thanks! Yes, glad to have been able to rummage up some time to get just one post up in the last two months. That alone was a big challenge. So far everything’s fine, but unbelievably busy with all the projects I’m working on.

I have more blogs still baking in the oven. When they’re ready, I’ll pull ‘em out. Don’t want to post anything that’s “half-baked,” you know. Okay, bad joke, I know! I just need to flex my English before I lose it altogether.

Regards,
Dawson

February 27, 2012 3:31 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

This is Steven (H.A. drops the "n").

Dawson, even though I come from a very different academic background, and have my own serious issues with Objectivism, I find your work highly engaging and entertaining.

Oh, and I'm not a fish. ;) I'm more enjoying batting the mouse around, while it still moves. Eventually, I'm sure, it'll lie on the floor squeaking "How do you know? How do you know?" and it'll be time to move on to other things.

(I figure, as always, the objective is not to convince the person you're arguing with, but to make sure any onlookers think the person you're arguing with is off their gourd.)

February 27, 2012 10:38 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said:"Whether she did or didn’t is really neither here nor there so far as the points in my paper are concerned. Their truth does not hinge on any particular individual applying them. I’m puzzled why you don’t get that."


No, I do get it. I get that Rand was being arbitrary.


BB said:"Actually, it’s not that no one takes me seriously, it’s that theistic apologists do their best to avoid me. Big difference. And yes, that’s funny. Only it’s no joke. It’s a reality."


If you say so bud.


BB said:"Good for you. When you get up to 825 comments on one blog, let me know."


I think you are forgetting something 3/4 of those comments are mine. Thanks to me.



BB said: "Ah, another fish, eh? What’s wrong, is your net not big enough? He seems to have gotten away."


It's ok he's an appetizer. The biggest fish has been fried. Do you smell it?


BB said:"I have, but it really smells bad over there. Can you do something about that?"


You sure it's not you that you are smelling?


Regards.

February 27, 2012 2:08 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

It's ok he's an appetizer.

Strange -- coming over here and snarking on me and leaving me unresponded to in your own blog?

Classy, and no doubt effectual.

February 27, 2012 2:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 27, 2012 2:38 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Steven,

If you really want to send Trinity into a tizzy, ask him if -- given his belief that Jesus was fully-man as well as fully-god -- ask him if he thinks Jesus ever had an erection. This is just one question among many that, after all these many months, he has yet to answer.

Ydemoc

February 27, 2012 2:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Youv'e been answered Steve.

Watch out for ydemoc. He's a creep. A peeping Tom.

February 27, 2012 3:03 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

And you've been answered. ;)

And yes, Ydemoc, I've noticed that he's not really into "answering" questions, except with other vaguely-related questions.

Eventually, I'll get bored and wander on. In the meantime, it's amusing to see the kind of knots he ties himself into -- like admitting his own argument is "necessarily circular" when he started out arguing with me claiming my argument was false because it was circular.

February 27, 2012 10:35 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Whether she did or didn’t is really neither here nor there so far as the points in my paper are concerned. Their truth does not hinge on any particular individual applying them. I’m puzzled why you don’t get that."

Nide replied: “No, I do get it. I get that Rand was being arbitrary.”

No, you don’t “get” that, you’re manufacturing it, otherwise you’d be able to provide evidence and solid reasoning to back up your characterization. You just want to attack Rand personally. My point is that, no matter what character deficiencies you want to cook up against Rand, the principles of her philosophy stand on *their own* merits, not on her character. Again, you seem not to be getting this.

Think of an algebra teacher who drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home. The principles of algebra remain what they are independently of his behavior. I know it’s hard for you to grasp this point, but try. I’m confident you can. Forget about Rand the person.

Instead, let’s look at philosophy. Let’s look at principles of rational thought. I know you don’t want to do this since you are ever-inclined to make everything *personal*. This is common among presuppositionalists, and it’s a consequence of adopting an irrational worldview. You resist going to the mat on *ideas*. You hate ideas. You hate the human mind. You hate yourself. You hate your own mind. That’s why you think you needed to “repent,” isn’t it? There was something *wrong* with you that you believe only an invisible magic being can “correct.” If you had a sound mind, you’d know it, and you wouldn’t feel some need to exchange it for a massive set of lies.

Meanwhile, you throw around the word ‘arbitrary’ as though you thought it aptly labeled some real defect in a position. But coming from a theistic worldview, what could ‘arbitrary’ possibly mean, and what could a theist possibly have against something that is ‘arbitrary’? Blank out. You borrow the concept from a rational philosophy, invoke it from the position of an irrational worldview, and use it to characterize the rational philosophy from which you borrowed it. Now that’s arbitrary!

I wrote:"Actually, it’s not that no one takes me seriously, it’s that theistic apologists do their best to avoid me. Big difference. And yes, that’s funny. Only it’s no joke. It’s a reality."

Nide replied: “If you say so bud.”

It’s not my doing, Nide. It’s the intellectual default of the apologists on display that I’m pointing to here. It obtains whether or not I say anything about it.

I wrote:"Good for you. When you get up to 825 comments on one blog, let me know."

Nide replied: “I think you are forgetting something 3/4 of those comments are mine. Thanks to me.”

What makes you think I’m forgetting that you’ve participated in my blog comments? I know this quite well. I continually have to rescue your e-mails from my spam bin.

I wrote: "Ah, another fish, eh? What’s wrong, is your net not big enough? He seems to have gotten away."

Nide replied: “It's ok he's an appetizer. The biggest fish has been fried. Do you smell it?”

Nide, you’ve caught no fish in your nets. You’re a poor “fisher of men.”

I wrote: "I have, but it really smells bad over there. Can you do something about that?"

Nide replied: “You sure it's not you that you are smelling?”

Yep, I’m sure. The smell goes away when I close the window on your blog.

Regards,
Dawson

February 28, 2012 3:32 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB: "No, you don’t “get” that, you’re manufacturing it, otherwise you’d be able to provide evidence and solid reasoning to back up your characterization. You just want to attack Rand personally. My point is that, no matter what character deficiencies you want to cook up against Rand, the principles of her philosophy stand on *their own* merits, not on her character. Again, you seem not to be getting this."


No, I am getting it. The evidence is there for all to see.

BB said: "Think of an algebra teacher who drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home. The principles of algebra remain what they are independently of his behavior. I know it’s hard for you to grasp this point, but try. I’m confident you can. Forget about Rand the person."


For one this is a false analogy.

What does Rand's "ethics" and algebra have to do with each other?

Dawson's genius shining through again.


BB Said: "It’s not my doing, Nide. It’s the intellectual default of the apologists on display that I’m pointing to here. It obtains whether or not I say anything about it."


And this is in spite of the false analogy you just gave me?


BB said: "What makes you think I’m forgetting that you’ve participated in my blog comments? I know this quite well. I continually have to rescue your e-mails from my spam bin."


HAHAHAHAHAAH



BB said: "Nide, you’ve caught no fish in your nets. You’re a poor “fisher of men.”

ok.

BB said: "Instead, let’s look at philosophy. Let’s look at principles of rational thought. I know you don’t want to do this since you are ever-inclined to make everything *personal*. This is common among presuppositionalists, and it’s a consequence of adopting an irrational worldview. You resist going to the mat on *ideas*. You hate ideas. You hate the human mind. You hate yourself. You hate your own mind. That’s why you think you needed to “repent,” isn’t it? There was something *wrong* with you that you believe only an invisible magic being can “correct.” If you had a sound mind, you’d know it, and you wouldn’t feel some need to exchange it for a massive set of lies."


How do you know that their lies?

The thing is Dawson you don't have a mind your just a brain firing off neurons. Your a bio-chemical robot.
A product of evolution no different than a horse or a dog. As democritus says atoms in a void.


BB said: "Meanwhile, you throw around the word ‘arbitrary’ as though you thought it aptly labeled some real defect in a position. But coming from a theistic worldview, what could ‘arbitrary’ possibly mean, and what could a theist possibly have against something that is ‘arbitrary’? Blank out. You borrow the concept from a rational philosophy, invoke it from the position of an irrational worldview, and use it to characterize the rational philosophy from which you borrowed it. Now that’s arbitrary!"

And smoking yourself to death is rational?

Objectivism is stupid. I know that may be a little hard to swallow. Oh well too bad.

I'm glad these aren't my problems.

February 28, 2012 8:49 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

(p1) Hello Dawson and to all the readers and commenters

Hey Dawson, thanks for another great blog. Its always fun to read your stuff. I’ve posted a link to it on my twitter feeds.

Nide typed “Lately, I have been dealing with steve and his faith in induction.”

Recently I came across an argument against the logical possibility of God composed by Geoffrey Berg that depends upon induction being invalid. His book is called “The Six Ways of Atheism” ,and here’s a link to a press release about his book that lists his main argument too.

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/geoffrey-berg-7997.html

Here is his main argument.

SYNOPSIS OF THE ARGUMENT OF UNIVERSAL UNCERTAINTY TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The Argument:

The argument of Universal Uncertainty stated as a logical paradox in relation to God is ‘GOD CANNOT EXIST BECAUSE ‘GOD' CANNOT KNOW THAT IT IS GOD'. This means that an entity with God's other properties cannot have the final property of certain knowledge nor even in the long term certain power consummating it as God. I put this forward as a logically irrefutable proposition.

The premises for the argument are two:

1. an uncertain God is a contradiction in terms and ridiculous

2. uncertainty is logically universal within the Universe (‘Universe' = ‘the totality of existence') in the sense that everything must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to its environment.

If the premises are true this argument is undeniable within reason.

The First Premise: That an entity riddled with uncertainty cannot be the God of Christian, Jewish or Islamic religion is obvious. If the entity seemed like God in other ways but could not be certain of its own permanence (that it would not die), and could not be certain of the extent of its own power and knew therefore it lacked omniscience, it would be but a mockery of God. Furthermore, it could not then ever be certain whether a yet greater entity exists beyond its understanding. How could men pray to God not knowing whether even if it once existed it was not now dead or dying? Who would pray to a God itself uncertain of its own ability to answer prayers? It is bad enough that people are told to have faith in the existence of God, but isn't it a bit much if ‘God' also has to have faith in its own authentic existence as God? It has all the absurdity of the blind leading the blind.

The Second Premise: All that remains is to establish reasons for the inevitable universality of some uncertainty, at least three of which are available but any one of which would be sufficient in itself to prove the point.

a) The past cannot predict with certainty the future: The future cannot be known with certainty. Even if something has occurred 5 or 805 or countless times there is no guarantee it will hold true the next time. Even if an entity has been correct in all its previous predictions that does not ensure the correctness of all or even any of its future predictions. The universe or part of it may change unaccountably. For instance it may suddenly change from being a predominantly rational place into being a predominantly irrational place.

b) A question of limited intelligence: If you are a person of limited intelligence it might be that because you have limited intelligence you cannot know that you are a person of limited intelligence and more obviously it is quite likely that you would not know how your intellect is limited. Thus it is perfectly possible for any entity to be limited in its insight and because it is limited in its insight not have the least idea that it is limited in its insight. Such can be the case with people or with ‘apparent gods'. Even more important, nobody or no thing can know that it is not limited in its intellect (because if it were limited part of its limitation would quite likely be to fail to understand that it is limited!). So those that cannot ‘see' any limitations to their intellect obviously cannot know for sure whether there are any limitations to their intellect.

February 28, 2012 11:08 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

(p2)
c) Power is a more difficult concept than it seems: Following from a) above power may only be a temporary phenomenon in any entity's hands. Following from b) above no entity that exercises seemingly limitless power can be certain of the extent of its true power.



However apart from those two points how can any entity be certain that it is not somehow only wanting and doing those things which it has power to do and not wanting those things which it in fact has not got power to do?

Incidentally, how can any entity be sure it has free will? How can it tell the mechanism doesn't work like this - something is going to happen and as a related part of that thing going to happen it (the candidate God) is also automatically made to want it to happen, and seeming to arrange its happening?

Note: Underlying these reasons for universal uncertainty is the reality of the nature of knowledge and even power. Knowledge and power are not in themselves tangible, concrete qualities. Application of them may give concrete results but of themselves they can only ever be perceived by mental processes. That mental recognition results either from logic or experience. An entity that is potentially God, being unique and absolute, cannot use experience in the same way as we, who are neither unique nor absolute, can to approximately fit circumstances. Anyhow experience only yields provisional knowledge as environments are all liable to fundamental change from time to time. Therefore rational means are the only reliable means to absolute knowledge even for an entity of God's apparent power. How even any potential God can be absolutely certain of future developments and of its own ability to for ever know them is a critical logical flaw in monotheism.

In essence most knowledge is a fleeting abstraction which none can possibly be sure of grasping, least of all for ever. There is no route nor sure mechanism for anything to be certain of gaining and maintaining overall knowledge.

Summary of this Argument:

God having to have faith it is in fact God is ridiculous. Many other possible explanations of a God-like entity's situation can be imagined - any apparent God might only be and can never know that it is not only a temporary local potentate.

The concept of God is a logical impossibility. This is because some qualities that God must have to be God - including certainty and certain knowledge - cannot be logically reconciled with the fundamental position of any entity in relation to the totality of existence (i.e. the Universe) where ultimately uncertainty must prevail. As it is essential to our or any existence that the Universe must exist, it is therefore God that cannot logically (that is without self-contradiction) exist.

Geoffrey H L Berg MA (Cantab)

Geoffrey Berg hereby grants permission to newspapers and internet bloggers to reproduce the text in full or in part of the ‘Synopsis Of The Argument Of Universal Uncertainty To Disprove The Existence of God' for the benefit of their readers.

Robert> If Nide rejects induction due to the idea that existence is not real or that his God could at any time intervene to change states of affairs, then he must also accept that, if it were the case that his God existed, then prior to any act of creation God could not inductively reason, as there would be no existence or experience from which to infer to any knowledge, that it was God and that its knowledge and powers were unlimited. Failing to know with certainty that its powers/knowledge were unlimited, God could not be truly omniscient and thus could not be God. But God is alleged to be a necessary being such that it necessarily knows it is omniscient. Since God could not have known it was God, it could not be a necessary being and hence must be impossible.

February 28, 2012 11:09 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

(3) If it is replied that God, like Lucky Charms is Magically Delicious, just knows and just knew everything prior to any act of creation, then the God notion falls to the constructive argument of evil of natural disasters from hard fatalistic determinism. Since God would have known that certain Super Nova’s would generate Gamma Ray Bursts that would have destroyed all life on any planet within range of the Super Nova prior to creation, then God necessarily created world destroying evil. But an all good being would not fatalistically predetermine that a world thriving with life would be destroyed by a Gamma Ray Burst from a Super Nova. Hence God would not exist.

If it is asserted that induction indeed does work independently of any consciousness, then notions of God fall to the argument for the fact of existence.

I do not see any way for Nide to rationally escape this trilemma.

Times up. Best Wishes to All

February 28, 2012 11:10 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Think of an algebra teacher who drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home. The principles of algebra remain what they are independently of his behavior. I know it’s hard for you to grasp this point, but try. I’m confident you can. Forget about Rand the person."

Nide wrote: “For one this is a false analogy.”

How so? Do you ever provide support for your assertions?

Nide asked: “What does Rand's ‘ethics’ and algebra have to do with each other?”

You mean, you don’t know?

Just answer the question: If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no?

Nide: “Dawson's genius shining through again.”

Against the contrast of stark dimness from your quadrant of the internet, yes I suppose so.

I wrote: "It’s not my doing, Nide. It’s the intellectual default of the apologists on display that I’m pointing to here. It obtains whether or not I say anything about it."

Nide: “And this is in spite of the false analogy you just gave me?”

Just so long as you recognize that their intellectual default obtains independent of my say so.

Nide asked: “How do you know that their lies?”

I think you meant to ask, “How do you know that *they’re* lies?” Is that correct? If so, then the answer is simply: I know this by systematic application of reason to the content of Christianity’s source texts. But you might prefer John Frame’s approach: “We know without knowing how we know” (see here).

Nide wrote: “The thing is Dawson you don't have a mind your just a brain firing off neurons. Your a bio-chemical robot.”

What an amazing thing my brain’s firing off of neurons has managed to produce!

Nide: “A product of evolution no different than a horse or a dog.”

So you’re saying that the distinctions which the concepts ‘man’, ‘horse’ and ‘dog’ do not exist? Even evolutionists do not agree with you here.

Nide: “As democritus says atoms in a void.”

I’ll go with existence exists, thank you.

Nide asked: “And smoking yourself to death is rational?”

I don’t accept the premises of your question. The phrase “smoking yourself to death” is tendentious and misleading, suggesting that the person who died from smoking sought to kill himself by the action, when in fact that is not the case. Try again.

Nide: “Objectivism is stupid.”

Coming from that shining star of brilliance, Nide himself, this can only tell me I’m on the right track.

Nide wrote: “I'm glad these aren't my problems.”

It has been said that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Would you agree with that?

At any rate, I’m guessing you have nothing to offer insofar as rescuing Anderson and Welty’s argument from my points of criticism is concerned. Is that right?

Regards,
Dawson

February 28, 2012 11:55 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Robert,

Is Geoffrey Berg certain about his argument?

February 28, 2012 12:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "How so? Do you ever provide support for your assertions?"

I am talking in relation to Rand.

Rand claimed she was rational but from the way she ended her life we know she wasn't.


BB said: "You mean, you don’t know?


Yea.



BB said: "Just answer the question: If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no?"


I don't see what this has to with Rand.


BB said: "Against the contrast of stark dimness from your quadrant of the internet, yes I suppose so."



Ok.


BB said: "I think you meant to ask, “How do you know that *they’re* lies?” Is that correct? If so, then the answer is simply: I know this by systematic application of reason to the content of Christianity’s source texts. But you might prefer John Frame’s approach: “We know without knowing how we know” (see here)."


Thanks for the correction. I do need a little brushing up on the grammar.


I'm not John Frame tell him that.


You are just a brain. Brains don't reason.


BB said: " I’ll go with existence exists, thank you."


Yea, matter in motion.


BB said: "I don’t accept the premises of your question. The phrase “smoking yourself to death” is tendentious and misleading, suggesting that the person who died from smoking sought to kill himself by the action, when in fact that is not the case. Try again."


So, in other words that person had no idea that smoking is harmful and could lead to death?


BB said: "Coming from that shining star of brilliance, Nide himself, this can only tell me I’m on the right track."


What track might that be?

BB said: " It has been said that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Would you agree with that?"


Some atoms in the void actually have been useful for me. Some of them have great tools that I can refurbish and use for apologetics.


"Steve and his faith in induction"

Was inspired by you. Congrats


BB said: "At any rate, I’m guessing you have nothing to offer insofar as rescuing Anderson and Welty’s argument from my points of criticism is concerned. Is that right?"


I haven't looked at their argument.

The standard PA argument is sufficient. I mean look it even made Alex Botten change his website.


Bahnsen is my homeboy.



Enjoy.

February 28, 2012 1:04 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "So you’re saying that the distinctions which the concepts ‘man’, ‘horse’ and ‘dog’ do not exist? Even evolutionists do not agree with you here."

That's because they don't believe in evolution.

In your world there are no concepts just atoms in the void.

February 28, 2012 1:17 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Rand claimed she was rational but from the way she ended her life we know she wasn't.”

Who is “we” here? And how do “we” know that Rand was not rational? Please, be specific. Present the details of your inference.

I asked: "Just answer the question: If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no?"

Nide: “I don't see what this has to with Rand.”

It doesn’t need to have anything to do with Rand. What is your answer to my question? Yes, or no? Why do you continue to evade?

Nide asked me how I know something, and after correcting his poor grammar and answering his question, I stated: “But you might prefer John Frame’s approach: ‘We know without knowing how we know’ (see here)."

Nide replied: “I'm not John Frame tell him that.”

It’s not my problem. Frame is of your camp, remember? One of Van Til’s most prominent students. Quite an epistemology! Sounds like self-inflicted blindness.

Nide: “You are just a brain.”

Well, I have a brain. That’s more than can be said about your god. It’s brainless, isn’t it?

Nide: “Brains don't reason.”

Just because yours doesn’t, doesn’t meant that others don’t.

Nide: “So, in other words that person had no idea that smoking is harmful and could lead to death?”

Not necessarily. It could very well be the case that the person knew full well the dangers involved, but chose to take the risk anyway. Sort of like whenever we get into an automobile, cross a street, board a train or eat in a restaurant. The risks are there, and we accept them all the time. That is not an indication of irrationality, not on Objectivism’s premises. But if you don’t have an internal critique, then it seems your attempts to argue presuppositionally are DOA – defeated on arrival.

I wrote: "Coming from that shining star of brilliance, Nide himself, this can only tell me I’m on the right track."

Nide: “What track might that be?”

The right track. Can’t you read?

I wrote: "It has been said that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’. Would you agree with that?"

Nide replied: “Some atoms in the void actually have been useful for me. Some of them have great tools that I can refurbish and use for apologetics.”

That’s great. Let me know when you finally have an argument.

Nide: “The standard PA argument is sufficient.”

So can you present the “standard PA argument”? I’d like to see it. Premises and conclusion, please.

I wrote: "So you’re saying that the distinctions which the concepts ‘man’, ‘horse’ and ‘dog’ do not exist? Even evolutionists do not agree with you here."

Nide replied: “That's because they don't believe in evolution.”

I see, so the folks who deny the distinctions between men, horses and dogs are borrowing from the Christian worldview. Got it.

Nide: “In your world there are no concepts just atoms in the void.”

You really do live in a fantasy of your own making, don’t you? Indeed, I had forgotten how blithely you just walk into walls around here.

Regards,
Dawson

February 28, 2012 1:51 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 28, 2012 2:15 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 28, 2012 2:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide: “Brains don't reason.”

I am face palming after reading that:)

February 28, 2012 2:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Are you in control of your brain?

February 28, 2012 2:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

you question assumes the mind body dichotomy.

February 28, 2012 2:46 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,


Answer the question.


By the way before you evolved from the swamp did numbers exists?

February 28, 2012 2:52 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

Answer the question.

I think this should be the autopost follow-up to anything you say, given the way you evade everyone else's questions.

I think I see HA's argument, in its pure form:

I am asking questions for God.
People don't answer all my questions.
Therefore God.

Note that "answering" and "reading" and "being responsive to other people's comments" don't enter into it at all. He's the Serdar Argic of apologetics!

February 28, 2012 3:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I did answer your question. I pointed out that it harbors a premise that I don't agree with, thus the question is fallaciously complex. I reject the mind body dichotomy as invalid. Consciousness is not an entity onto itself, it is an attribute of an entity, or a process of said entity. Consciousness is the brain “in action”. Asking if my Consciousness controls my brain is like asking if digestion controls the stomach. The question is not coherent, digestion is a function of the stomach. I doubt you will comprehend this however, you still don't understand that identity applies to change, processes and patterns as well as to the physical constitutes of what is changing, or the processes, or the pattern's... etc..

Now your second and irrelevant question, but hey its interesting. What this question makes abundantly clear to me is that after months of discussing this you still fail to distinguish a concept from it’s referent. Numbers are a class of broad concepts who’s referent is groupings of things. Now prior to “coming out of the swamp” there was no class of beings on Earth that had the brain functions capable of forming and integrating concepts like numbers. However the referents of the concept “numbers” sure as heck were there. There were groups of things, just no one at that time to realize that.

Now what is your next pointless question?

February 28, 2012 5:52 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

My question is simple.

Are you in control of your brain?

I didn't mention anything about consciousness.

Why did it take you so long to answer?

Hard one wasn't it?


That's your world view Justin.


Try not to evade this time.

February 28, 2012 6:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Great reply to Trinity. He's really just here to pester and -- by his own admission -- borrow whatever useful bits of knowledge that he thinks will help him in his futile attempt to make the arbitrary come true.

He really is as Dawson described: "You [Trinity] really do live in a fantasy of your own making, don’t you? Indeed, I had forgotten how blithely you just walk into walls around here."

Ydemoc

February 28, 2012 6:12 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

It did not take long, you are not the only thing I have to attend to during my day, so don't flatter yourself. By asking “me” a question you are implicitly presupposing my consciousness. Once again you fail to understand the hierarchical nature of concepts. With your attempt to now exclude consciousness from your question you not only have a fallaciously complex one, but now a concept stealing one as well. The only answer I can honestly give your question is that it is semantically meaningless.

February 28, 2012 6:20 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

thank you:)

February 28, 2012 6:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

There are no concepts in the void your just a brain controlled by the laws of physics.

Your no different than anything else that came out of the swamp.


Justin you ever been to a chimps funeral?

February 28, 2012 6:30 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Justin you ever been to a chimps funeral?"

Who cares? At least going to a chimps funeral would be connected to reality. Chimps exist. Funerals exist. Humans going to funerals exist.

Can the same be said of celebrating the alleged death and imaginary "resurrection" of some imaginary deity every "Easter"? Clearly not.

But it's just your imagination, running away with you.

Ydemoc

February 28, 2012 6:43 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc go back to your cave.

February 28, 2012 6:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc go back to your cave."

Very good, Boy Blunder! Caves exist also.

Ydemoc

February 28, 2012 7:18 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc that's what your brain is firing off.

Just some more matter in the void.

Actually, it's all made of skittles.

That's what I should have told my professor.

Skittle heads. HAHA

February 28, 2012 7:24 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "Who is “we” here? And how do “we” know that Rand was not rational? Please, be specific. Present the details of your inference."

The rational people.


BB said: "It doesn’t need to have anything to do with Rand. What is your answer to my question? Yes, or no? Why do you continue to evade?"


Right after you tell me what math and rand have to do with each other.


BB said: "It’s not my problem. Frame is of your camp, remember? One of Van Til’s most prominent students. Quite an epistemology! Sounds like self-inflicted blindness."


Tell him that dawson in fact here is his contact info:

http://www.rts.edu/Seminary/Faculty/bio.aspx?id=502



BB said: "Well, I have a brain. That’s more than can be said about your god. It’s brainless, isn’t it?"


You don't need a brain to think only a mind.



BB said: "Just because yours doesn’t, doesn’t meant that others don’t. "


Brains don't reason only minds do. It's your worldview dawson go complain to the swamp you came from.


BB said: "Not necessarily. It could very well be the case that the person knew full well the dangers involved, but chose to take the risk anyway. Sort of like whenever we get into an automobile, cross a street, board a train or eat in a restaurant. The risks are there, and we accept them all the time. That is not an indication of irrationality, not on Objectivism’s premises. But if you don’t have an internal critique, then it seems your attempts to argue presuppositionally are DOA – defeated on arrival."

Some risks are unavoidable. Others like Smoking your lungs out definetely is.


BB said: "The right track. Can’t you read?"

Sometimes.


BB said: "That’s great. Let me know when you finally have an argument."


Can't you read dawson?


BB said:"I see, so the folks who deny the distinctions between men, horses and dogs are borrowing from the Christian worldview. Got it.

Good boy!!!


BB said: "You really do live in a fantasy of your own making, don’t you? Indeed, I had forgotten how blithely you just walk into walls around here."


Are you admitting that there is more than just the physical world?


There are no walls in here I think you are the one hallucinating.





Oh boy this is too easy.




Dawson just wanted to know if you would like a t-shirt with "Bahnsen is my homeboy" logo on it?



Oh almost forgot this one.


BB said: "So can you present the “standard PA argument”? I’d like to see it. Premises and conclusion, please."



Sure.


The proof of the Christian God is that without him you couldn't prove anything.




Blessings.

February 28, 2012 7:57 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

Dawson just wanted to know if you would like a t-shirt with "Bahnsen is my homeboy" logo on it?

I know you made Dawson the offer, not me, but my response would be "Only if you wanted a shirt with "The Only Priest Worth Listening To Is Graham."

The proof of the Christian God is that without him you couldn't prove anything.

Of course, this is making one huge hidden assumption, even if it the rest of it were valid: That you can prove something. As we've discussed other places, by your standards, the only things you can prove are those you assume going in. Hardly a useful standard.

February 29, 2012 3:33 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "Who is ‘we’ here? And how do ‘we’ know that Rand was not rational? Please, be specific. Present the details of your inference."

NIde responded: “The rational people.”

This is insufficient. I specifically asked for details, and you answer with an indefinite generality. You seem unable to distinguish between the two. You offer no explanation whatsoever. Also, you fail to clarify what *you* (given your worldview’s commitment to irrationalism) could possibly mean by ‘rational’ here. Additionally, you fail to name the specific individuals for whom you’ve appointed yourself spokesman. Lastly, you provide no indication of the steps of any inference you may have performed in arriving at your assessment. You just evade as though you knew how to do nothing else. Some real problems here.

No wonder folks like James Anderson don’t comment on my blog these days – they’d be embarrassed to be associated with you, Nide. You’re like expert-apologist repellent: one post, and they keep away. Like I said, a bad smell.

I wrote: "It doesn’t need to have anything to do with Rand. What is your answer to my question? Yes, or no? Why do you continue to evade?"

Nide responded: “Right after you tell me what math and rand have to do with each other.”

I will explain that to you right after you answer my question. Here it is again:

If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no?

Why have you no answer to this question?

I wrote: "It’s not my problem. Frame is of your camp, remember? One of Van Til’s most prominent students. Quite an epistemology! Sounds like self-inflicted blindness."

Nide replied: “Tell him that dawson in fact here is his contact info:”

I’m telling *you* Nide. I’m sure Frame knows what he has written. Do you disapprove of Frame’s expressed position on knowing?

I wrote: "Well, I have a brain. That’s more than can be said about your god. It’s brainless, isn’t it?"

Nide: “You don't need a brain to think only a mind.”

How do you know this? What is your proof that I can think without a brain? Also, you again evaded one of my questions: Is your god brainless? Yes or no? Just answer the question.

I wrote: "Just because yours doesn’t, doesn’t meant that others don’t."

Nide: “Brains don't reason only minds do.”

Again, just because yours doesn’t, doesn’t mean that others don’t.

[Continued…]

February 29, 2012 4:12 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Not necessarily. It could very well be the case that the person knew full well the dangers involved, but chose to take the risk anyway. Sort of like whenever we get into an automobile, cross a street, board a train or eat in a restaurant. The risks are there, and we accept them all the time. That is not an indication of irrationality, not on Objectivism’s premises. But if you don’t have an internal critique, then it seems your attempts to argue presuppositionally are DOA – defeated on arrival."

Nide: “Some risks are unavoidable.”

The risks that I indicated in my comment are not of the unavoidable type. Are you suggesting that there’s no alternative to getting into a car, crossing a street, boarding a train, or eating in a restaurant? If you can’t figure it out, I’ll spell out the alternatives to these actions: not getting into a car, not crossing a street, not getting into a train, not eating in a restaurant. All of these risks are accepted by choice. Just like smoking. So you have to do better if you want to press your point. You need to develop an argument. I’ll be standing by.

I wrote: "That’s great. Let me know when you finally have an argument."

Nide: “Can't you read dawson?”

Yep. And I’ve read your comments. Let me know when you finally have an argument. I’ll be happy to look at it.

I wrote: "I see, so the folks who deny the distinctions between men, horses and dogs are borrowing from the Christian worldview. Got it.”

Nide: “Good boy!!!”

Good. You agree that I got another one right.

I wrote: "You really do live in a fantasy of your own making, don’t you? Indeed, I had forgotten how blithely you just walk into walls around here."

Nide: “Are you admitting that there is more than just the physical world?”

“…admitting…”? The concept ‘world’ is a generality referring to a totality in some understood context. But to be understood the parameters of this totality need to be specified. If the earth constitutes a single world, there are other worlds, such as Venus, Jupiter, Triton, etc. So in that case, there would be more than one world. It all depends on the definitions assumed. As is typical, you haven’t made yours known.

Nide: “There are no walls in here I think you are the one hallucinating.”

Yes, there are many walls. They are the worldview-defeating solids beyond which your mind is unwilling to venture.

Nide: “Oh boy this is too easy.”

Ain’t it, though?

Nide: “Dawson just wanted to know if you would like a t-shirt with ‘Bahnsen is my homeboy’ logo on it?”

Don’t tell me, you’ll bring me one once you fetch my coffee, right?

I asked: "So can you present the ‘standard PA argument’? I’d like to see it. Premises and conclusion, please."

Nide: “Sure. The proof of the Christian God is that without him you couldn't prove anything.”

I was hoping for an *argument* since you specifically stated “argument.” You know, at least two premises formally arranged in a valid syllogism supporting a conclusion. Or, don’t you have one? Just admit it if you don’t. It will come out in the wash anyway, so stop with the evading. It’s doing you no good.

Regards,
Dawson

February 29, 2012 4:12 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "This is insufficient. I specifically asked for details, and you answer with an indefinite generality. You seem unable to distinguish between the two. You offer no explanation whatsoever. Also, you fail to clarify what *you* (given your worldview’s commitment to irrationalism) could possibly mean by ‘rational’ here. Additionally, you fail to name the specific individuals for whom you’ve appointed yourself spokesman. Lastly, you provide no indication of the steps of any inference you may have performed in arriving at your assessment. You just evade as though you knew how to do nothing else. Some real problems here."

So, what? Take up your complaint with somebody else.
But here is a hint: they are def. not "objectivist".


BB said: "No wonder folks like James Anderson don’t comment on my blog these days – they’d be embarrassed to be associated with you, Nide. You’re like expert-apologist repellent: one post, and they keep away. Like I said, a bad smell."


Judging from his comments, It really seems to me that he has no time to deal with the stupidity of "objectivism" people have better things to do.


BB said: "If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no? Why have you no answer to this question?"


Because this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The point you are trying to make is useless to the matter.


BB said: "I’m telling *you* Nide. I’m sure Frame knows what he has written. Do you disapprove of Frame’s expressed position on knowing?"


Maybe.




BB said: "How do you know this? What is your proof that I can think without a brain? Also, you again evaded one of my questions: Is your god brainless? Yes or no? Just answer the question."

Remember those refurbished tools Dawson?

It's perceptually self-evident. Thanks

Like I said you don't need a brain to think only a mind.
God has a mind. What part don't you get?

BB said: "Again, just because yours doesn’t, doesn’t mean that others don’t."

You must have some magical powers.

Dawson the visible magic being. HAHAHAHA



BB said: "The risks that I indicated in my comment are not of the unavoidable type. Are you suggesting that there’s no alternative to getting into a car, crossing a street, boarding a train, or eating in a restaurant? If you can’t figure it out, I’ll spell out the alternatives to these actions: not getting into a car, not crossing a street, not getting into a train, not eating in a restaurant. All of these risks are accepted by choice. Just like smoking. So you have to do better if you want to press your point. You need to develop an argument. I’ll be standing by."

The king of the evident. Yea, but you don't need to smoke to survive.

Are you really this dumb dawson?

Try not to fall.



BB said: "“…admitting…”? The concept ‘world’ is a generality referring to a totality in some understood context. But to be understood the parameters of this totality need to be specified. If the earth constitutes a single world, there are other worlds, such as Venus, Jupiter, Triton, etc. So in that case, there would be more than one world. It all depends on the definitions assumed. As is typical, you haven’t made yours known."

Ok. is the physical universe all there is?



BB said: "Yes, there are many walls. They are the worldview-defeating solids beyond which your mind is unwilling to venture."


Well, at least you admit that I have a mind.
Minds can think unlike the brain that you have; evolved from the swamp.


BB said: "Don’t tell me, you’ll bring me one once you fetch my coffee, right?"

Yea sure.


cont.

February 29, 2012 8:57 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "I was hoping for an *argument* since you specifically stated “argument.” You know, at least two premises formally arranged in a valid syllogism supporting a conclusion. Or, don’t you have one? Just admit it if you don’t. It will come out in the wash anyway, so stop with the evading. It’s doing you no good."


Look through the archives I remember giving one.

But here it is.


1. God is logic
2. Logic is necessary for proofs.

C. Without God nothing can be proven.



Blessings.

February 29, 2012 8:57 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 29, 2012 8:58 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 29, 2012 9:47 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said "God is logic"

this premise appears to lack coherence. God is an entity, a volitional and singular being, logic is both a method and a standard not a thinking entity onto itself but something employed by thinking entities... or not as the case maybe:)

February 29, 2012 9:49 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Dawson I emailed you something yesterday, did you receive it?

February 29, 2012 9:55 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wrote: “So, what? Take up your complaint with somebody else. But here is a hint: they are def. not ‘objectivist’.”

It must be really hard to go through life without the ability to keep your sight on the bouncing ball for even a little time, Nide. I was pursuing this portion of our dialogue to give you a chance to make good on your claim that “Rand was being arbitrary.” Clearly I’ve simply called your bluff. Look how you’ve backed down. Or, more like, shriveled up and slinked away. Like a worm writhing in the sunlight.

Nide: “Judging from his comments, It really seems to me that he has no time to deal with the stupidity of ‘objectivism’ people have better things to do.”

Which comments are you judging this from? Anderson is an apologist for his religious beliefs. I have posted criticisms of his latest wham-dinger of an argument for his god. Has he a defense, or not? I seriously doubt someone of Anderson’s academic pedigree would want to be “fighting the good fight” side by side with you. That’s just my suspicion. Maybe I’m wrong, but until I see it, it seems quite a stretch. For one thing, I’d be asking him for his assessment of many of your “apologetic” efforts.

I asked: "If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or ‘stupid’ as a result of this? Yes or no? Why have you no answer to this question?"

Nide: “Because this has nothing to do with the matter at hand.”

Oh, it does, Nide. And you know it does. That’s why you won’t answer.

Nide: “The point you are trying to make is useless to the matter.”

On the contrary, the point I am making with my question is extremely useful to my overall angle on this. That’s why you won’t answer. My question clarifies the matter, and you don’t want that.

Here’s my view: My view is that algebra is NOT false or stupid because some algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home.

Now, either you agree with me that the truth of algebra obtains independent of the algebra teacher’s personal behavior, or you live in some kind of nightmare world where no objective standard whatsoever exists. More and more it appears to be the latter. You won’t even answer a direct question which cuts to the heart of the matter. You fear exposure that much!

I asked: “Do you disapprove of Frame’s expressed position on knowing?"

Nide replied: “Maybe.”

I see. You’re not certain here either, eh?

I suspect that Frame’s statement “We know without knowing how we know” is more autobiographically revealing than he probably intended. The context of this statement involved the question of how Abraham knew that the voice commanding him to prepare his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice was from “God.” Frame’s words in that section of his paper essentially translate to: “We have no rational way of securing these stories and tales as genuine history, or the claim that a god exists as truth. But we accept this as knowledge anyway, and we know this without knowing how we know it. It’s a mystery!”

Suppose anytime Sye TenB challenges a non-Christian to “account for” how he knows whatever he knows on whatever topic is being discussed. Why shouldn’t the non-Christian just reply with Frame’s words, “We know without knowing how we know”? If Christians are okay with John Frame making this kind of statement about their own worldview, how can they have any objection against other people making essentially the same kind of statement on behalf of theirs? Or, do they want to special plead their case?

[Continued…]

February 29, 2012 2:16 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "How do you know this? What is your proof that I can think without a brain? Also, you again evaded one of my questions: Is your god brainless? Yes or no? Just answer the question."

Nide replied: “It's perceptually self-evident.”

Then help me perceive it. I have never perceived myself thinking without a brain, for I’ve always had a brain since I started thinking. So what did you perceive to give you the impression that I can think without a brain? Please, help me out here.

Nide: “Like I said you don't need a brain to think only a mind.”

Yes, you did say this, and Marshall Applewhite said there was an alien spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet. People claim all kinds of things. I’m giving you an opportunity to make good on your claim. So far, you’ve not been able to. Now, perhaps you’re just imagining that I can think without a brain. But again, we have seen in the past that your worldview does not equip you to distinguish between what is real and what you imagine. Fortunately, mine does.

Nide: “God has a mind. What part don't you get?”

The part where you said I can think without a brain. Pointing to figments of your imagination, especially brainless ones, does not help.

I wrote: "The risks that I indicated in my comment are not of the unavoidable type. Are you suggesting that there’s no alternative to getting into a car, crossing a street, boarding a train, or eating in a restaurant? If you can’t figure it out, I’ll spell out the alternatives to these actions: not getting into a car, not crossing a street, not getting into a train, not eating in a restaurant. All of these risks are accepted by choice. Just like smoking. So you have to do better if you want to press your point. You need to develop an argument. I’ll be standing by."

Nide replied: “Yea, but you don't need to smoke to survive.”

We all do a lot of things that are not required for our survival. You do not need to comment on internet blogs to survive. At any rate, you seem to agree that the actions I listed in my message are risks that are accepted *voluntarily*. Indeed, I don’t need to get into a car in order to survive. If I don’t get into a car, I’m not going to die as a result. I don’t need to cross a street in order to survive. If I don’t cross a street, I’m not going to die. Same with the rest. So again, you have some unfinished work here, Nide. You want to say Rand was irrational. Okay, where’s your case???? I’m waiting.

Nide: “Are you really this dumb dawson?”

So far, I’m doing pretty good I’d say.

Nide: “Ok. is the physical universe all there is?”

“Physical universe” as opposed to what? I think you’re already aware of what my worldview says: “Existence exists – and only existence exists” (Peikoff, ITOE, p. 109). Do you think something other than existence exists? If so, what? Do you think non-existence exists?

Nide provided an argument:

1. God is logic
2. Logic is necessary for proofs.
C. Without God nothing can be proven.


Okay, sorta like this one:

1. Blarko is logic.
2. Logic is necessary for proofs.
C. Without Blarko, nothing can be proven.

Neither argument eliminates my need to rely on my imagination. Thus both are equally palpable.

I’d say that’s quite a deficiency. But I know you don’t care, since you have accepted the primacy of consciousness, while I haven’t. So we’re back to the root issue: you need to “validate” the primacy of consciousness, which is impossible. But you still have yet to understand this.

Regards,
Dawson

February 29, 2012 2:17 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

It's kind of amusing -- over on Nide's own blog, he's admitted, in his own posts, to circular reasoning and begging the question -- the same things he claims disqualify my answers to his questions. Yet, somehow, this doesn't invalidate his own answers.

I have rarely seen quite so blatantly stated a double-standard. It's impressive, in its own sad, twisted way.

February 29, 2012 3:04 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Stevie wonders said: "It's kind of amusing -- over on Nide's own blog, he's admitted, in his own posts, to circular reasoning and begging the question -- the same things he claims disqualify my answers to his questions. Yet, somehow, this doesn't invalidate his own answers. I have rarely seen quite so blatantly stated a double-standard. It's impressive, in its own sad, twisted way."


This is coming from a brain out of the swamp of evolution.

Yea, an steve admitted he's nothing more than a brain.

nananana get real steve.

February 29, 2012 3:21 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said:"It must be really hard to go through life without the ability to keep your sight on the bouncing ball for even a little time, Nide. I was pursuing this portion of our dialogue to give you a chance to make good on your claim that “Rand was being arbitrary.” Clearly I’ve simply called your bluff. Look how you’ve backed down. Or, more like, shriveled up and slinked away. Like a worm writhing in the sunlight."


It's perceptually self-evident. You're just afraid to open your eyes.


BB said:"Which comments are you judging this from? Anderson is an apologist for his religious beliefs. I have posted criticisms of his latest wham-dinger of an argument for his god. Has he a defense, or not? I seriously doubt someone of Anderson’s academic pedigree would want to be “fighting the good fight” side by side with you. That’s just my suspicion. Maybe I’m wrong, but until I see it, it seems quite a stretch. For one thing, I’d be asking him for his assessment of many of your “apologetic” efforts."


And what makes you think I care? Why are you even telling me this?

Remember bahnsen is my homeboy. I could see him smiling down from heaven.


Stop wasting time asking me useless question. thanks


BB said: "Oh, it does, Nide. And you know it does. That’s why you won’t answer."

Actually, no i dont.


BB said: " On the contrary, the point I am making with my question is extremely useful to my overall angle on this. That’s why you won’t answer. My question clarifies the matter, and you don’t want that. Here’s my view: My view is that algebra is NOT false or stupid because some algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home. Now, either you agree with me that the truth of algebra obtains independent of the algebra teacher’s personal behavior, or you live in some kind of nightmare world where no objective standard whatsoever exists. More and more it appears to be the latter. You won’t even answer a direct question which cuts to the heart of the matter. You fear exposure that much!


But Rand's ethics were useless and stupid becuase she couln't keep them. Get the point?


BB said: "I see. You’re not certain here either, eh?
I suspect that Frame’s statement “We know without knowing how we know” is more autobiographically revealing than he probably intended. The context of this statement involved the question of how Abraham knew that the voice commanding him to prepare his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice was from “God.” Frame’s words in that section of his paper essentially translate to: “We have no rational way of securing these stories and tales as genuine history, or the claim that a god exists as truth. But we accept this as knowledge anyway, and we know this without knowing how we know it. It’s a mystery!”



Like I said go take it up with frame. You have his phone number. Another useless complaint and question.


BB said: "Suppose anytime Sye TenB challenges a non-Christian to “account for” how he knows whatever he knows on whatever topic is being discussed. Why shouldn’t the non-Christian just reply with Frame’s words, “We know without knowing how we know”? If Christians are okay with John Frame making this kind of statement about their own worldview, how can they have any objection against other people making essentially the same kind of statement on behalf of theirs? Or, do they want to special plead their case?"


Which christians are you talking about?


Cont.

February 29, 2012 3:39 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "It must be really hard to go through life without the ability to keep your sight on the bouncing ball for even a little time, Nide. I was pursuing this portion of our dialogue to give you a chance to make good on your claim that “Rand was being arbitrary.” Clearly I’ve simply called your bluff. Look how you’ve backed down. Or, more like, shriveled up and slinked away. Like a worm writhing in the sunlight."

Nide responded: “It's perceptually self-evident. You're just afraid to open your eyes.”

My eyes are open, Nide, and without any fear of what I might see. Help me see what you claim to be seeing yourself. If you think it is self-evident, then identify specifically what you’re saying. I’m reasonable. Work with me. Help me see what you say you see. Remember, the issue here is your claim that “Rand was being arbitrary.” Since Rand died 30 years ago, you could not be observing Rand “being arbitrary” directly. So you must see how this seems to be a completely stretch, based on an utter misunderstanding of what “perceptually self-evident” means, to say that “it’s perceptually self-evident” that “Rand was being arbitrary.” You seem to be so unclear on the basic issues as to require complete remedial training in the area of worldview fundamentals.

BB said:"Which comments are you judging this from? Anderson is an apologist for his religious beliefs. I have posted criticisms of his latest wham-dinger of an argument for his god. Has he a defense, or not? I seriously doubt someone of Anderson’s academic pedigree would want to be “fighting the good fight” side by side with you. That’s just my suspicion. Maybe I’m wrong, but until I see it, it seems quite a stretch. For one thing, I’d be asking him for his assessment of many of your “apologetic” efforts."

Nide wrote: “And what makes you think I care?”

I don’t recalling making any statement to the effect that I think you do care. Your worldview’s inherent radical skepticism ultimately leads to a fatalistic, nihilistic attitude about reality. Your statement here is not expected. Indeed, it’s what one should expect from someone who’s own position provides no reason to value anything in life. So much for being “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (I Pet. 3:15).

Nide: “Why are you even telling me this?”

You err in taking all this so personally. While my words are written in a manner directed to you personally (since I am replying to your nonsense), these comments are here for readers of my blog to enjoy in the future.

Nide: “Remember bahnsen is my homeboy. I could see him smiling down from heaven.”

Exactly – you demonstrate quite eloquently right here how blithely you confuse what you *imagine* with what you *see*. That’s your worldview’s fundamental distinctives in action.

Nide: “Stop wasting time asking me useless question. Thanks”

I’ll stop wasting your time if you stop wasting mine. So long as you continue to come here and play a court jester, I will treat as one.

In response to the relevance of my question about the relationship between silly-drunk, child-beating algebra teacher to the validity of algebra as such, I noted that Nide knows the answer to the question, saying: "Oh, it does, Nide. And you know it does. That’s why you won’t answer."

Nide responded: “Actually, no i dont.”

Either you’re utterly stupid, or you’re pretending to be stupid. While it is most likely the latter, neither alternative bodes well for your reputation as a thinker.

[Continued…]

March 01, 2012 3:58 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "My view is that algebra is NOT false or stupid because some algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home.”

Nide wrote: “But Rand's ethics were useless and stupid becuase she couln't keep them. Get the point?”

Several fatal problems here:

1) You err in assuming that Rand’s ethics are something one must “keep” as though they were commandments that need to be obeyed against one’s proclivity to do otherwise. That’s not Objectivist ethics, that’s religion. So you err by confusing Objectivism with religion. You seem to understand neither, and you clearly don’t understand the key fundamentals which distinguish Objectivism from religion. Get the point?

2) Supposing Rand “couldn’t keep” her ethics (a characterization which is itself based on false premises), it would not follow from this that “Rand’s ethics were useless and stupid.” This is known as a non sequitur. Suppose an algebra teacher continually screws up the Pythagorean theorem. Would it follow from this that the Pythagorean theorem is therefore “useless and stupid”? No. Of course it wouldn’t. The Pythagorean theorem’s truth obtains independent of any particular individual’s understanding, errors, character deficiencies, etc. Get the point?

3) The Objectivist ethics teaches that man requires values in order to live, that he must identify the values that he requires by means of reason, that he must identify the course of action that he must take in order to achieve those values which he needs to live by reason, and that he has a right to act on behalf of his self-interest in order to achieve those values at his own expense, not at the expense of others. So apparently you’re saying this is “useless and stupid.” The idiocy of your statement speaks for itself. But in a way, you’re right to object to these points, since as a Christian your worldview is entirely opposed to human values and individual liberty. Get the point?

[Continued…]

March 01, 2012 4:02 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: “I suspect that Frame’s statement “We know without knowing how we know” is more autobiographically revealing than he probably intended. The context of this statement involved the question of how Abraham knew that the voice commanding him to prepare his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice was from “God.” Frame’s words in that section of his paper essentially translate to: “We have no rational way of securing these stories and tales as genuine history, or the claim that a god exists as truth. But we accept this as knowledge anyway, and we know this without knowing how we know it. It’s a mystery!”

Nide: “Like I said go take it up with frame.”

Why should I? I have you to take it up with, and I’m taking it up with you. Christians are supposed to be “of one accord,” right? They are supposed to have “the mind of Christ,” right? They are supposed to be guided by the “Holy Spirit,” right? Clearly you’re reluctant to go on the record agreeing with what Frame states, which indicates an internal division within Christianity. How does one account for this? How does one determine if Frame is right, or if you are right in refusing to affirm what he has affirmed? This is not my problem. It is your problem, Nide. If you agreed with Frame, then there would be no conflict on this point, for there would be agreement within the ranks. Of course, it would only constitute an admission on your part, as it already does on Frame’s, that you don’t know how you know what you claim you know. But, we already know that. That’s because you really don’t know what you claim. You *imagine* all of it, and pretend it reflects reality. It doesn’t.

If you disagree with Frame, then you are essentially saying you know how Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god. So by resisting Frame’s admission, you’re implying that you know something even Frame, with all his academic acumen and spiritual piety, doesn’t claim to know. So you need to make good on this. Please explain how Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god, and please explain how *you* know this. Otherwise, we’re right back with what Frame admits about himself (and says about everyone).

I wrote: "Suppose anytime Sye TenB challenges a non-Christian to “account for” how he knows whatever he knows on whatever topic is being discussed. Why shouldn’t the non-Christian just reply with Frame’s words, “We know without knowing how we know”? If Christians are okay with John Frame making this kind of statement about their own worldview, how can they have any objection against other people making essentially the same kind of statement on behalf of theirs? Or, do they want to special plead their case?"

Nide asked: “Which christians are you talking about?”

My statement makes the answer to this question clear already: it is referring to those Christians who “are okay with John Frame making this kind of statement about their own worldview” – namely the statement “we know without knowing how we know.”

Regards,
Dawson

March 01, 2012 4:02 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said:"Then help me perceive it. I have never perceived myself thinking without a brain, for I’ve always had a brain since I started thinking. So what did you perceive to give you the impression that I can think without a brain? Please, help me out here."


Are you in control of your brain?


BB said:"Yes, you did say this, and Marshall Applewhite said there was an alien spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet. People claim all kinds of things. I’m giving you an opportunity to make good on your claim. So far, you’ve not been able to. Now, perhaps you’re just imagining that I can think without a brain. But again, we have seen in the past that your worldview does not equip you to distinguish between what is real and what you imagine. Fortunately, mine does."


I will ask again,are you in control of your brain?



BB said:"The part where you said I can think without a brain. Pointing to figments of your imagination, especially brainless ones, does not help"


How do you know that I'm imagining?



BB said:"We all do a lot of things that are not required for our survival. You do not need to comment on internet blogs to survive. At any rate, you seem to agree that the actions I listed in my message are risks that are accepted *voluntarily*. Indeed, I don’t need to get into a car in order to survive. If I don’t get into a car, I’m not going to die as a result. I don’t need to cross a street in order to survive. If I don’t cross a street, I’m not going to die. Same with the rest. So again, you have some unfinished work here, Nide. You want to say Rand was irrational. Okay, where’s your case???? I’m waiting."


Ok, then throw your car in the river. Have fun getting around.

Once again is smoking yourself to death rational?


BB said: "“Physical universe” as opposed to what? I think you’re already aware of what my worldview says: “Existence exists – and only existence exists” (Peikoff, ITOE, p. 109). Do you think something other than existence exists? If so, what? Do you think non-existence exists?"



Like I said, you are matter in motion a brain that evolved out of a slimy swamp. That's really rational.

BB said: "I’d say that’s quite a deficiency. But I know you don’t care, since you have accepted the primacy of consciousness, while I haven’t. So we’re back to the root issue: you need to “validate” the primacy of consciousness, which is impossible. But you still have yet to understand this."


What's a blarko?

You seem to know a lot.

The visible magic being.


BB said: "My eyes are open, Nide, and without any fear of what I might see. Help me see what you claim to be seeing yourself. If you think it is self-evident, then identify specifically what you’re saying. I’m reasonable. Work with me. Help me see what you say you see. Remember, the issue here is your claim that “Rand was being arbitrary.” Since Rand died 30 years ago, you could not be observing Rand “being arbitrary” directly. So you must see how this seems to be a completely stretch, based on an utter misunderstanding of what “perceptually self-evident” means, to say that “it’s perceptually self-evident” that “Rand was being arbitrary.” You seem to be so unclear on the basic issues as to require complete remedial training in the area of worldview fundamentals.


Just look at the end of her life.
It didn't match up with her claims.



BB said: "I don’t recalling making any statement to the effect that I think you do care. Your worldview’s inherent radical skepticism ultimately leads to a fatalistic, nihilistic attitude about reality. Your statement here is not expected. Indeed, it’s what one should expect from someone who’s own position provides no reason to value anything in life. So much for being “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (I Pet. 3:15).


Ok. Swamp thing.

March 01, 2012 1:46 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "You err in taking all this so personally. While my words are written in a manner directed to you personally (since I am replying to your nonsense), these comments are here for readers of my blog to enjoy in the future."


So, it's personal but not really personal. I don't get it.


BB said:"Exactly – you demonstrate quite eloquently right here how blithely you confuse what you *imagine* with what you *see*. That’s your worldview’s fundamental distinctives in action."


Ok. Swamp thing.


BB Said:"I’ll stop wasting your time if you stop wasting mine. So long as you continue to come here and play a court jester, I will treat as one. In response to the relevance of my question about the relationship between silly-drunk, child-beating algebra teacher to the validity of algebra as such, I noted that Nide knows the answer to the question, saying: "Oh, it does, Nide. And you know it does. That’s why you won’t answer."



Not as funny as the Swamp you think you came out of.


That's because your analogy is useless.


BB said: "Either you’re utterly stupid, or you’re pretending to be stupid. While it is most likely the latter, neither alternative bodes well for your reputation as a thinker"


HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

BB said: "
1) You err in assuming that Rand’s ethics are something one must “keep” as though they were commandments that need to be obeyed against one’s proclivity to do otherwise. That’s not Objectivist ethics, that’s religion. So you err by confusing Objectivism with religion. You seem to understand neither, and you clearly don’t understand the key fundamentals which distinguish Objectivism from religion. Get the point?


Oh really I don't have to beleive in objectivism?

Great thanks!!!!


BB said: "2) Supposing Rand “couldn’t keep” her ethics (a characterization which is itself based on false premises), it would not follow from this that “Rand’s ethics were useless and stupid.” This is known as a non sequitur. Suppose an algebra teacher continually screws up the Pythagorean theorem. Would it follow from this that the Pythagorean theorem is therefore “useless and stupid”? No. Of course it wouldn’t. The Pythagorean theorem’s truth obtains independent of any particular individual’s understanding, errors, character deficiencies, etc. Get the point?"


Your analogy is not only pointless but useless. It has nothing to do with the matter. Why are you trying so hard to vindicate Rand's immorality?


BB said: "The Objectivist ethics teaches that man requires values in order to live, that he must identify the values that he requires by means of reason, that he must identify the course of action that he must take in order to achieve those values which he needs to live by reason, and that he has a right to act on behalf of his self-interest in order to achieve those values at his own expense, not at the expense of others. So apparently you’re saying this is “useless and stupid.” The idiocy of your statement speaks for itself. But in a way, you’re right to object to these points, since as a Christian your worldview is entirely opposed to human values and individual liberty. Get the point?


"value", "reason", "life", "human value"



This is coming from somebody who thinks he came from some muddy Swamp.


In your world those words mean nothing.


Cont.

March 01, 2012 1:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

In regards to John Frame, Like I said you have his contact info.

Remeber Bahnsen is my homeboy.

But the visible magic being asked:

" Please explain how Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god, and please explain how *you* know this. Otherwise, we’re right back with what Frame admits about himself (and says about everyone).



By faith.



Blessings.

March 01, 2012 1:58 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Then help me perceive it. I have never perceived myself thinking without a brain, for I’ve always had a brain since I started thinking. So what did you perceive to give you the impression that I can think without a brain? Please, help me out here."

Nide: “Are you in control of your brain?”

Yes. So, you acknowledge that I have a brain. That’s good. You acknowledge that I have more than your brainless god. Good. Are you now backing away from your earlier claim that one can think without a brain? I’d really like to know how that’s possible, and how you could know this about me.

I wrote:"The part where you said I can think without a brain. Pointing to figments of your imagination, especially brainless ones, does not help"

Nide: “How do you know that I'm imagining?”

I know this by means of reason.

I wrote:"We all do a lot of things that are not required for our survival. You do not need to comment on internet blogs to survive. At any rate, you seem to agree that the actions I listed in my message are risks that are accepted *voluntarily*. Indeed, I don’t need to get into a car in order to survive. If I don’t get into a car, I’m not going to die as a result. I don’t need to cross a street in order to survive. If I don’t cross a street, I’m not going to die. Same with the rest. So again, you have some unfinished work here, Nide. You want to say Rand was irrational. Okay, where’s your case???? I’m waiting."

Nide: “Ok, then throw your car in the river. Have fun getting around.”

No, I won’t. I choose to accept the risk of driving it. Don’t you get it?

Nide: “Once again is smoking yourself to death rational?”

The question is incoherent. I already explained why.

I wrote: "’Physical universe’ as opposed to what? I think you’re already aware of what my worldview says: “Existence exists – and only existence exists” (Peikoff, ITOE, p. 109). Do you think something other than existence exists? If so, what? Do you think non-existence exists?"

Nide: “Like I said, you are matter in motion a brain that evolved out of a slimy swamp. That's really rational.”

This is your transliteration, borrowed as it is, intended specifically to cast your opponent’s position in degrading terms. If my position were truly irrational, you wouldn’t need to do this to expose its irrationality. There’s something you’re afraid to deal with here, such as my question: Do you think something other than existence exists?

I wrote: "I’d say that’s quite a deficiency. But I know you don’t care, since you have accepted the primacy of consciousness, while I haven’t. So we’re back to the root issue: you need to “validate” the primacy of consciousness, which is impossible. But you still have yet to understand this."


Nide: “What's a blarko?”

What is “God”?

Nide: “You seem to know a lot.”

Yes.

[Continued…]

March 01, 2012 2:18 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "My eyes are open, Nide, and without any fear of what I might see. Help me see what you claim to be seeing yourself. If you think it is self-evident, then identify specifically what you’re saying. I’m reasonable. Work with me. Help me see what you say you see. Remember, the issue here is your claim that ‘Rand was being arbitrary’. Since Rand died 30 years ago, you could not be observing Rand ‘being arbitrary’ directly. So you must see how this seems to be a completely stretch, based on an utter misunderstanding of what ‘perceptually self-evident’ means, to say that ‘it’s perceptually self-evident’ that ‘Rand was being arbitrary’. You seem to be so unclear on the basic issues as to require complete remedial training in the area of worldview fundamentals.”

Nide: “Just look at the end of her life. It didn't match up with her claims.”

What am I supposed to perceive in order to “look at the end of her life”? That was 30 years ago. I can read accounts, but which one are you reading? Rand died at the age of 77. How is this inconsistent with “her claims”? Rand never said she would live forever. You know little about your research subject. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if she lived beyond the average life expectancy for her generation of women living in the USSR. If you want to say “it didn’t match up with her claims,” you need to show this. Otherwise you’re just blowing hot air, and I already explained to you why it is irrelevant anyway.

Contrast Rand with Jesus. Rand lived until 77 years of age, at or beyond the average life expectancy for her sex and generation. But Jesus is said to have died at 30-33 years of age, and because he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross and crucified. I’d say that allowing yourself to be nailed to a cross and crucified is hugely more risky than smoking cigarettes. Jesus is reported to have died the very afternoon of the day he indulged his risky behavior, while Rand enjoyed a rich life as one of the 20th century’s greatest success stories well into old age. If “risky behavior” is a sign of irrationality, Jesus takes the cake on this one.

[Continued…]

March 01, 2012 2:19 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “So, it's personal but not really personal. I don't get it.”

That doesn’t matter.

I wrote: "1) You err in assuming that Rand’s ethics are something one must “keep” as though they were commandments that need to be obeyed against one’s proclivity to do otherwise. That’s not Objectivist ethics, that’s religion. So you err by confusing Objectivism with religion. You seem to understand neither, and you clearly don’t understand the key fundamentals which distinguish Objectivism from religion. Get the point?”

Nide: “Oh really I don't have to beleive in objectivism?”

Objectivism is not about “believing in” something.

Nide: “This is coming from somebody who thinks he came from some muddy Swamp.”

Where have I ever stated that I think I “came from some muddy Swamp”? Are you confusing me with someone?

I wrote: "Please explain how Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god, and please explain how *you* know this. Otherwise, we’re right back with what Frame admits about himself (and says about everyone).”

Nide replied: “By faith.”

This is unbiblical, and only shows that you have a most pedestrian grasp of Christianity. The bible nowhere models ‘faith’ as some means of knowledge. It is characterized as an act of will throughout. Please show me where the bible says that Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god by faith. Otherwise, even Christians must reject your answer to my question here.

Regards,
Dawson

March 01, 2012 2:19 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "Yes. So, you acknowledge that I have a brain. That’s good. You acknowledge that I have more than your brainless god. Good. Are you now backing away from your earlier claim that one can think without a brain? I’d really like to know how that’s possible, and how you could know this about me"


Oh really BB so that means you are going to live forever. Since you can stop your brain from dying.
Do a magic trick for us Dawson delete your memory and then restore it.



BB said:"I know this by means of reason"

Brains don't reason minds do. You don't have a mind.


BB said:" No, I won’t. I choose to accept the risk of driving it. Don’t you get it?"


No.


BB said: "This is your transliteration, borrowed as it is, intended specifically to cast your opponent’s position in degrading terms. If my position were truly irrational, you wouldn’t need to do this to expose its irrationality. There’s something you’re afraid to deal with here, such as my question: Do you think something other than existence exists?"


So, you didn't come from a swamp?

Um, I beleive that there is more than the physical universe.



BB said: "What is “God”?"

An invisible supreme being.


Skipping Rand the evidence is there for all to see.

The rational people will get it.

According to some sources she died miserable and on welfare.

But wait didn't she preach against governemnt help?

Anyway those aren't my problems.


Jesus is alive and well.




BB said:This is unbiblical, and only shows that you have a most pedestrian grasp of Christianity. The bible nowhere models ‘faith’ as some means of knowledge. It is characterized as an act of will throughout. Please show me where the bible says that Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god by faith. Otherwise, even Christians must reject your answer to my question here.


No it's actually biblical.

Don't be such a swamp head.

March 01, 2012 3:08 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Yes. So, you acknowledge that I have a brain. That’s good. You acknowledge that I have more than your brainless god. Good. Are you now backing away from your earlier claim that one can think without a brain? I’d really like to know how that’s possible, and how you could know this about me"

Nide: “Oh really BB so that means you are going to live forever. Since you can stop your brain from dying.”

Sure, Nide.

Nide: “Do a magic trick for us Dawson delete your memory and then restore it.”

Okay. Just did it. Are you happy now? I figured not.

I wrote:"I know this by means of reason"

Nide: “Brains don't reason minds do. You don't have a mind.”

Prove it.

I wrote: "No, I won’t. I choose to accept the risk of driving it. Don’t you get it?"

Nide responded: “No.”

There goes your claim to have a mind. You don’t seem to grasp any elementary point.

I wrote: "This is your transliteration, borrowed as it is, intended specifically to cast your opponent’s position in degrading terms. If my position were truly irrational, you wouldn’t need to do this to expose its irrationality. There’s something you’re afraid to deal with here, such as my question: Do you think something other than existence exists?"

Nide asked: “So, you didn't come from a swamp?”

I did not come from a swamp.

Nide: “Um, I beleive that there is more than the physical universe.”

I’m really happy for you.

I asked: "What is ‘God’?"

Nide: “An invisible supreme being.”

Okay, I can imagine that along with you. Now what?

Nide: “Skipping Rand the evidence is there for all to see.”

The evidence for what exactly?

Nide: “The rational people will get it.”

What does Christianity mean by ‘rational’?

Nide: “According to some sources she died miserable and on welfare.”

Feel free to cite these sources.

Nide: “But wait didn't she preach against governemnt help?”

You mean, the government that ripped her off of probably millions?

Nide: “Anyway those aren't my problems.”

No, they aren’t. So why would they be important to you?

Nide: “Jesus is alive and well.”

Ah, yes, I can imagine that too. See the proof?

I wrote: “This is unbiblical, and only shows that you have a most pedestrian grasp of Christianity. The bible nowhere models ‘faith’ as some means of knowledge. It is characterized as an act of will throughout. Please show me where the bible says that Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard telling him to sacrifice his son was the voice of his god by faith. Otherwise, even Christians must reject your answer to my question here.”

Nide: “No it's actually biblical.”

Then cite the biblical prooftexts which secure this claim. That’s all you need to do.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 12:34 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I've been a little busy lately, so I haven't posted as much. But I've been lurking, enjoying utter mismatch of exchanges you've had with Trinity. I also ventured over to Justin's blog and saw that Trinity left a comment accusing me of evading since I haven't chimed in on your current exchanges with him. Anyway, here's the comment I left over there:

Trinity writes, baiting me: "Notice how Ydemoc has evaded my little scuffle with Dawson. I wonder if he's been with his family over at the zoo."

I wrote: "Once again you, jump to conclusions based upon little or no evidence. No wonder you so readily believe in invisible magic beings.

First, I wouldn't describe it as a "scuffle" because Dawson has shown your worldview to be nothing but imaginary. In that sense, you haven't even shown up to the fight with anything of substance, let alone thrown or landed a punch.

Second, the reason I haven't commented much is because I am occupied by working on something. But I am lurking, reading along because no matter if Dawson is just shadow boxing, taking on lightweights or so-called heavyweights of the theistic variety, he never fails to deliver the devastating knockout punch. And watching him do it is so educational and so entertaining to watch [sic]. So, the question is, when will you step up and into the ring instead of just standing outside the gym, shouting [what amounts to] irrational nonsense?

But thanks for your concern."

Ydemoc

March 02, 2012 12:49 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hello Ydemoc,

It's amazing - you are "evading" the conversation when you weren't part of it to begin with (were you)? What, you can't be busy, and therefore have priorities over commenting and blogging? Over on Choosing Hats, Chris Bolt can be seen arguing that bloggers critical of Christianity are "obsessed" due to their online activity, and thus psychologically dysfunctional. But Nide is essentially saying that non-believers have some kind of obligation to participate, and if they don't, they're "evading." It's amazing how perversely double-minded Christians become when they react to my blog.

Given Nide's POV, one would apparently have to infer that Anderson, Bolt, even John Frame himself are "evading," since they haven't participated in these discussions, especially given the fact that their names have come up and their views have been critically discussed.

Nide is the troll of trolls fantasizing that he numbers among "the chosen" of the so-called "king of kings." Folks like him, and others mentioned, demonstrate that Christians need a very active imagination to carry on as they do. Couple that active imagination with a worldview which blurs the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary, and you have the labyrinth that is religion.

I'm glad these aren't my problems.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 4:48 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 02, 2012 8:05 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "Sure, Nide."

hahahahahahha.

This is too easy.


BB said: "Okay. Just did it. Are you happy now? I figured not."


How the "mighty" have fallen.



BB said: "Prove it."


I did but you're just too stupid to get it. That's your problem.


BB said: "I did not come from a swamp."


Are you denying the fiction of evolution?



BB said: Okay, I can imagine that along with you. Now what?"


Prove it.



BB said: "The evidence for what exactly?"


Her moral depravity.



BB said: "What does Christianity mean by ‘rational’?"



Thinking God's thoughts after him.


BB said:"Feel free to cite these sources."


That's your problem. Why don't you cite them.


BB said:"You mean, the government that ripped her off of probably millions?"


The burden is on you. I personally don't care.


BB said: "No, they aren’t. So why would they be important to you?"


They are not.


BB said: Ah, yes, I can imagine that too. See the proof?"


Can you imagine it because you can imagine it?

March 02, 2012 10:53 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB said: "Then cite the biblical prooftexts which secure this claim. That’s all you need to do."

Hebrews 11: 1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. 4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. 8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 20 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. 21 By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.



Cont.

March 02, 2012 10:59 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two,[a] they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— 38 of whom the world was not worthy— wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.



end

March 02, 2012 10:59 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc said: I've been a little busy lately, so I haven't posted as much. But I've been lurking, enjoying utter mismatch of exchanges you've had with Trinity. I also ventured over to Justin's blog and saw that Trinity left a comment accusing me of evading since I haven't chimed in on your current exchanges with him. Anyway, here's the comment I left over there:"


So, you been busy stalking people?


Ydemoc said: I wrote: "Once again you, jump to conclusions based upon little or no evidence. No wonder you so readily believe in invisible magic beings. "



Are you denying that you came from an "ape like creature" who crawled out of a slimy swamp?


Ydemoc said: "First, I wouldn't describe it as a "scuffle" because Dawson has shown your worldview to be nothing but imaginary. In that sense, you haven't even shown up to the fight with anything of substance, let alone thrown or landed a punch."


Dawson's little cheer leader. Sorry bud but you're on the losing team.



Ydemoc said: "Second, the reason I haven't commented much is because I am occupied by working on something. But I am lurking, reading along because no matter if Dawson is just shadow boxing, taking on lightweights or so-called heavyweights of the theistic variety, he never fails to deliver the devastating knockout punch. And watching him do it is so educational and so entertaining to watch [sic]. So, the question is, when will you step up and into the ring instead of just standing outside the gym, shouting [what amounts to] irrational nonsense?"


You might wanna go pick dawson off the floor. He took a real beating. Don't you hear the birds chirping?


BB followed: "Nide is the troll of trolls fantasizing that he numbers among "the chosen" of the so-called "king of kings." Folks like him, and others mentioned, demonstrate that Christians need a very active imagination to carry on as they do. Couple that active imagination with a worldview which blurs the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary, and you have the labyrinth that is religion."


In other words you really don't have much to say.

March 02, 2012 11:11 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I had asked Nide to explain how Abraham knew that the voice he allegedly heard commanding him to prepare his son as a burnt sacrifice was in fact the voice of his god. Nide’s answer to this was that Abraham *knew* this “by faith.” I responded, pointing out that this is an unbiblical view of faith: the bible nowhere treats faith as some *means of knowledge* - i.e., as some epistemological process by which knowledge is acquired and validated. On the contrary, I pointed out that the bible consistently treats ‘faith’ as an *act of will*. An act of will in this sense is essentially a course of action one chooses to perform *in the absence of knowledge*.

Nide replied by saying “No it’s actually biblical,” meaning that the bible does in fact treat faith as some epistemological process by which knowledge is acquired and validated. I challenged Nide to provide prooftexts to secure this claim, and in his typical undiscriminating stupor he cuts and pastes the entire chapter of Hebrews 11, the so-called “faith chapter.” Hebrews 11 cites numerous anecdotes culled from the OT and holds them up as commendable examples of faith. Not one of them is an example of someone acquiring and validating knowledge. Not one of them is an example such as “Abraham heard the voice and *knew* by faith that the voice he heard was that of the Lord.” In each case, we are told of an *action* that the actor performed (or which affected the actor) regardless of what he happened to *know*. Look at the examples Hebrews 11 showcases for yourself:

V4: By faith Abel offered to God….
V5: By faith Enoch was taken up…
V7: By faith Noah… constructed an ark…
V8: By faith Abraham obeyed…
V9: By faith [Abraham] went to live…
V11: By faith Sarah… received power to conceive…
V17: By faith Abraham… offered up Isaac…
V20: By faith Isaac invoked future blessings…
V21: By faith Jacob… blessed each of the sons of Joseph…
V22: By faith Joseph… made mention of the exodus…
V23: By faith Moses… was hidden…
V24: By faith Moses… refused to be called….
V27: By faith [Moses] left Egypt…
V28: By faith [Moses] kept the Passover…
V29: By faith the people crossed the Red Sea…
V30: By faith the walls of Jericho fell…
V31: By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish…
Etc.

Not one of these is an instance of X *knew* Y by faith. So Nide has so far failed to provide any prooftexts which secure his characterization of faith as some means of acquiring and validating some item of knowledge. Indeed, neither the chapter in Genesis where we find the original story of Abraham and Isaac, nor the chapter in Hebrews which Nide has pasted in his comments, says that Abraham *knew* that the voice he allegedly heard was that of his god *by faith*. The bible is utterly silent on this epistemological conundrum. It puzzled John Frame, with all his theological hoop-jumping, so much that when he considered the question of how Abraham knew this, he simply threw up his arms and confessed, “We know without knowing how we know” (see here). Frame surely did not answer the question by saying, “Abraham knew this by faith.”

So again we have another example of Nide exposing his own ignorance of what his professed worldview models.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 2:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Because I haven't been responding to his nonsense on this thread, Trinity has accused me of evading. When I found time to respond, I told him I had been busy doing something else and that I only had time for reading and thoroughly enjoying Dawson's smackdowns of his, largely, incoherent and disconnected ramblings. With that, here's Trinity's response to what I told him:

"So, you been busy stalking people?"

And I will ask him again: Is the evidence for my stalking stronger or weaker than the evidence you have for the existence of Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Corpses? You didn't answer this months ago. Will you answer it now?

I wrote: "Once again you, jump to conclusions based upon little or no evidence. No wonder you so readily believe in invisible magic beings. "

Trinity replied: "Are you denying that you came from an "ape like creature" who crawled out of a slimy swamp?"

Typical of Trinity's replies, this makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense for me to deny or reject gibberish. And to the extent I can even guess at what it is he's attempting to say, I don't even think more intelligent Christians would claim that this is what evolution teaches. Google Kenneth Miller and learn something. He's one of Trinity's guys (a Christian). Or Francis Collins. He's also in Trinity's camp.

Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. See what they say the evidence says on this matter.

An "ape like creature ... crawled out of a swamp"? That's news to me. I think there's a lot more to it than that, and it has nothing to do with invisible magic beings or cartoon characterizations of evolution by people who hold that there are Chit-Chatty Snakes and Conversational Donkeys. But if I'm wrong, and evolution teaches that, then by all means, educate me on this particular point. Tell me what you have learned that evolution teaches, and not what you were taught by your cult leaders, inculcated as you are with their pounding into your brain their Storybook worldview.

Ydemoc

March 02, 2012 2:24 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

You're most recent response to Trinity has earned itself a place in my text clipping file (as most of them do).

Ydemoc

March 02, 2012 2:30 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"So again we have another example of Nide exposing his own ignorance of what his professed worldview models."


Ok.



Ydemoc: "And I will ask him again: Is the evidence for my stalking stronger or weaker than the evidence you have for the existence of Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Corpses? You didn't answer this months ago. Will you answer it now?"


This is coming from somebody that believes in fictions like evolution.


Ydemoc:"Typical of Trinity's replies, this makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense for me to deny or reject gibberish. And to the extent I can even guess at what it is he's attempting to say, I don't even think more intelligent Christians would claim that this is what evolution teaches. Google Kenneth Miller and learn something. He's one of Trinity's guys (a Christian). Or Francis Collins. He's also in Trinity's camp."


Have you ever taken a class on evolution becuase I have?


Ydmeoc said: "An "ape like creature ... crawled out of a swamp"? That's news to me. I think there's a lot more to it than that, and it has nothing to do with invisible magic beings or cartoon characterizations of evolution by people who hold that there are Chit-Chatty Snakes and Conversational Donkeys. But if I'm wrong, and evolution teaches that, then by all means, educate me on this particular point. Tell me what you have learned that evolution teaches, and not what you were taught by your cult leaders, inculcated as you are with their pounding into your brain their Storybook worldview."

Educate yourself I already did.

Actually, I was taught about evolution by secular folks.


It's pretty funny.


The funniest part of all this is that ydemoc is clueless about his own worldview.

Brains evolved from a slimy swamp.

But that's more rational than being created by God.

March 02, 2012 2:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

When I click on the "see here" link (the one regarding John Frame) in your most recent post, it takes me back to the top of this (current) comment form.

I just thought you'd want to know.

March 02, 2012 2:41 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Ydemoc. Here is the link:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/pt/PT.h.Frame.Presupp.Apol.1.html

This is the same piece I linked to in one of my earlier comments in this thread where I pointed out John Frame's face-palm-inducing confession.

It is an example of John Frame "thinking God's thoughts after him." The result is ignorance on how epistemology works, what Nide calls "rational" according to the Christian worldview. The proof is there for all to see.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 2:47 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide stated: “Brains don't reason minds do. You don't have a mind.”

I wrote: “Prove it.”

Nided replied: “I did but you're just too stupid to get it. That's your problem.”

I did not see where you even *tried* to prove that brains don’t reason. You’ve asserted it, but I didn’t see any effort on your part to prove it.

Now recall that in a previous comment Nide exclaimed “You don't need a brain to think only a mind.” Of course, his god-belief forces him to take this position – not because evidence from reality supports this claim, but because his god-belief insists that his god is immaterial and has no body, and therefore has no brain.

Now Nide will not come out and openly admit that his god is brainless, even though it would have to be given the way his worldview imagines its god as an immaterial “spirit” lacking a body (and therefore lacking body parts). But he has insisted that a brain is not needed for thinking, only a mind is needed, and presumably he thinks a mind can exist without a brain. I have challenged Nide to support this position with evidence, in effect to prove it, and now he comes back saying he has proved it, but that I’m simply “too stupid to get it.”

Mind you, on Nide’s professed view, I am a creation of his god and I bear his god’s image. By saying that I’m “just too stupid to get” something he has not even attempted to produce, Nide is in fact implicating his god as the party responsible for the state of affairs he’s condemning. If I am “just too stupid to get it,” and I’m a “creation” of Nide’s god, then clearly Nide’s god created me “just too stupid to get it,” and there’s nothing I can do about it. But as the “image-bearer” of Nide’s god, Nide’s worldview points to me as a reflection of this almighty creator.

So if in fact I am “just too stupid to get” something that Nide has not even presented, I’d say it’s not my problem, but his own worldview’s problem – and a glaring one at that: not only does he not validate something he’s been called to prove, he’s deriding something his worldview says its god created! In other words, his god creates stupid creations. Good grief! This guy’s really on the ropes!

[Continued…]

March 02, 2012 3:56 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide had asked: “So, you didn't come from a swamp?”

I answered: "I did not come from a swamp."

Nide now asks: “Are you denying the fiction of evolution?”

Your question is fallaciously complex. It assumes that evolution is a fiction, when in fact you have not secured this claim. In fact, it is not true that evolution is a fiction. I know you don’t want to believe it, but this is not the first time in history that a religionist has confessionally invested himself in opposing the discoveries of science.

But let’s correct the fallacy in Nide’s question, and repose it to ask whether or not I am denying the fact of evolution by stating that I did not come from a swamp. The two are in fact compatible: there is no contradiction between affirming the fact of evolution on the one hand, and pointing out the fact that I did not come from a swamp on the other. Evolution does not require that I personally came from a swamp. If Nide thinks it does, he needs to find an authoritative textbook on evolution which essentially states “For evolution to be true, Dawson Bethrick must have come from a swamp.” Where is there such a text? I’m stupefied by Nide’s persistent stupidity here.

[Continued…]

March 02, 2012 3:57 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide says that the Christian meaning of ‘rational’ is “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” I have never read this in the bible; in fact, none of my bibles even contains the word ‘rational’ anywhere in all its hundreds of pages. So Nide’s answer to my question at the very least appears to be wholly unbiblical: one could never learn from reading the bible that ‘rational’ means “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”

But this does not prevent people professing Christianity as their worldview from making statements like Nide’s. Christians give more primacy to the imagination in their worldview than anything else, including the bible (which itself is a product of the imagination of ancient writers). So in Nide’s mind, it may seem perfectly acceptable to define ‘rational’ as meaning “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Indeed, since it is all ultimately premised in the imaginary, there is no real inconsistency here: a whim-based worldview can affirm anything on whim, since even the concept ‘truth’ in the context of that worldview is ultimately whim-driven.

Of course, how does one know that he is in fact “thinking God’s thoughts after him”? Nide would probably say “by faith,” which I have already shown to be an unbiblical understanding of what faith is understood to be. But regardless, that’s Nide’s view: he thinks he knows things primarily by means of faith. But how does a person who applies faith in his epistemological musings distinguish between faith and his own imagination? Nide of course will say little on this, and what he will say on the matter will likely be some way to ridicule and degrade the questioner, even though it is an entirely legitimate question.

As an alleged epistemological method, faith is a process internal to the mind, bypassing the evidence of the senses, and affirming things that cannot be verified by any objective means. But this is very similar to how the imagination works. When Nide talks about his god, I pointed out that I can imagine his god right along with him, but Nide retorts by saying “prove it.” I cannot provide *direct* evidence (i.e., perceptually self-evident facts) to secure for Nide the fact that I can imagine something that I can in fact imagine, for imagining is not an action that is perceptually self-evident in the first place. Nide is not privy to my internal mental workings any more than I am privy to his. But I don’t expect Nide to simply take my word for it. I’m confident that Nide has the ability to imagine as well. Many, many of his comments provide ample evidence of his ability to imagine, even in this very discussion (such as when he imagines that Rand was morally depraved – no evidence is cited to provide objective support for this claim – we must *imagine* it along with Nide, who imagined it first, in order to envision it).

[Continued...]

March 02, 2012 4:00 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

So as evidence of my ability to imagine, it is important for Nide to first recognize his own ability to do this, and then to understand how this ability works – it works by selectively isolating elements of things we have perceived and experienced and reassembling them in the introspective confines of our mind into a new concoction which does not actually correspond to anything that does in fact exist. Then Nide needs to grasp the fact that I too have the ability to select and choose, such as when I choose to post a comment consisting of words which I have chosen to inform that comment.

Then Nide should be adult enough to recognize that I am in fact capable of introspective awareness, such as when I describe how my own mind works in the cognitive operations that I perform, such as in this very paragraph! Then Nide just needs to put the pieces together, to integrate these facts into a consistent sum which secures the claim that I can in fact imagine something. So by holding Nide’s hand through the inference, hopefully now he can understand the fact that I can indeed imagine. And seriously – this has been my question to Nide and other Christians all along – when believers talk about their god, what alternative to my imagination do I have at my disposal to apprehend what they’re talking about? Blank out.

[Continued…]

March 02, 2012 4:00 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide says (in reply to me): “In other words you really don't have much to say.” So is this a “rational” statement on Nide’s part? Is it an instance of “thinking God’s thoughts after him”? How can one know? How could even Nide know whether it is rational on his stated conception of what ‘rational’ allegedly means according to the Christian worldview? Some internet apologists have complained oppositely, expressing the complaint that I say so much that my “lengthy” writings are an example of what they have called “argumentum ad verbosium” (while apparently excusing Greg Bahnsen and his 700-plus page book Van Til’s Apologetic: An Analysis of His Thought from this selfsame charge). So who’s right here? Is Nide right in saying that I “really don’t have much to say,” or are other Christian detractors of mine right in saying that I say so much that I’m guilty of some fallacy of excess? Which, if any, are “thinking God’s thoughts after him”? Blank out.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 4:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I hope everybody is ok.

Did any body get hurt by Dawson's landslide?

Ok. Let me save time here because Dawson keeps wasting it.

What's the proof Dawson not your ridicule,this reminds me of Eddie tabash, but the compelling proof that God is imaginary?

That's my challenge to you Dawson.


And if you try your trick "because the only alternative I have is to imagine him" you'll be begging the question.


That's not a proof but junk reasoning.

Remember not your ridicule but the proof.


I'll deal with your other rants later.

March 02, 2012 9:48 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide asked: “What's the proof Dawson not your ridicule,this reminds me of Eddie tabash, but the compelling proof that God is imaginary?”

I identify no less than 13 points of evidence in favor of this conclusion in my blog The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism. So I’m just going by the evidence.

Nide: “That's my challenge to you Dawson.”

I’m pretty sure you’ve been made informed about this blog entry of mine before. In fact, I recall you not having anything intelligent to say in response to it.

Nide: “And if you try your trick ‘because the only alternative I have is to imagine him’ you'll be begging the question.”

Why would that be “begging the question”? If it is in fact the case that the only means of apprehending the Christian god when believers talk about it is the imagination, then this would be a relevant fact and therefore evidence to consider. Citing it would not be fallacious. Citing evidence in favor of a position is not fallacious.

Regards,
Dawson

March 02, 2012 10:51 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

You can't be serious are you seriously positing your imagination as evidence?

Anyway enjoy:

http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiction

March 03, 2012 11:59 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

A little pleasure read:

http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiction

March 03, 2012 1:52 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiction"

Looks like you understand evolution about as well as you understand logic.

Which is to say, not even a little bit.

March 05, 2012 9:17 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

You can tell that to my professor.

I'm only providing what we were taught.


Don't be an ass.

Come by sometime I would love to talk.

March 05, 2012 9:28 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dylan wrote, regarding Trinity's rejection of evolution: "Looks like you understand evolution about as well as you understand logic. Which is to say, not even a little bit."

Trinity replied: "You can tell that to my professor. I'm only providing what we were taught. Don't be an ass."

Is this an admission that Trinity only believe what he's been taught? Or is this just another example of Trinity responding before he thinks? Can't he verify the truth of something on his own or through the process of reason? Hey, perhaps Trinity should consider his own words and apply them to atheists: That atheists are only rejecting theism because of what they've been taught -- by the bible, pastors, and even Trinity himself. Way to go, Christians!

Too bad for him, though, those holding to a rational worldview do not look to a book first and reality second. No middle-man (or book) is needed to grasp that which is. And atheists holding to rationality have put his Storybook worldview of theism to the test. And it is an utter failure of reality and reason.

But Trinity continues on, rejecting science, biology, geology, paleontology, genetics -- basically reality -- all in favor of a belief that forces him to accept the notions of Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Corpses, Salt-Transmuted People, Whale (or fish)-Residing Humans, Trumpet-Tumbling Walls, etc, etc., etc.

Myth fuels his quest. And his quest to make the arbitrary come true continues on...

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 12:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

It is indeed a good example of authoritarian thinking.

March 05, 2012 1:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "It is indeed a good example of authoritarian thinking."

Trinity says he was "only providing what he was taught." Didn't Eichmann say something similar, like "I was only following orders"?

Authoritarian, indeed.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 1:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 05, 2012 2:30 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

It's funny to see Ydemoc's "brilliant" commentary.

He said: "Is this an admission that Trinity only believe what he's been taught? Or is this just another example of Trinity responding before he thinks? Can't he verify the truth of something on his own or through the process of reason? Hey, perhaps Trinity should consider his own words and apply them to atheists: That atheists are only rejecting theism because of what they've been taught -- by the bible, pastors, and even Trinity himself. Way to go, Christians!"



Thanks for confirming that evolution is fiction.


Peeping tom said: "Too bad for him, though, those holding to a rational worldview do not look to a book first and reality second. No middle-man (or book) is needed to grasp that which is. And atheists holding to rationality have put his Storybook worldview of theism to the test. And it is an utter failure of reality and reason."


It's funny to see peeping tom using the words "reason", "rational", as if they really mean anything in his world.


By the way have you ever taken a class on evolution?

Still waiting for you to answer this one.


"But Trinity continues on, rejecting science, biology, geology, paleontology, genetics -- basically reality -- all in favor of a belief that forces him to accept the notions of Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Corpses, Salt-Transmuted People, Whale (or fish)-Residing Humans, Trumpet-Tumbling Walls, etc, etc., etc."


Have you ever taken a class in anything you just mentioned?



Swamp people are something else.

March 05, 2012 2:31 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

It really isn't worth the trouble of copying and pasting Trinity's most recent reply to me, since his response is so lame, I think I'll let it stand on it's own.

I will, however, point out that this latest response to me isn't the first time that he's demonstrated a profound inability to integrate ideas that have been presented to him.

With such an obvious deficiency, no doubt due in no small way to the fog of faith he has chosen to enshroud himself with, it comes as no surprise that he would fail to (purposely or not) grasp what evolution is all about.

Look at the wisdom that has been presented to him on this blog. And look at how he's responded. With non sequiturs, disconnected soundbites, and other such nonsense. He came here to this blog rejecting reality, and he went into his college class doing the same. To turn one of Johnny Cochran's famous phrases: "If the stuff don't fit the myth, Trinity must have quit" wanting to learn, shutting down his mind, rejecting anything that contradicts his Storybook.

Think about that: He will reject for as long as he lives ***anything*** that contradicts his storybook! Incredible! But why? Wouldn't he want to know if this whole "3 in 1" god-man thing is just a bunch of nonsense? Wouldn't he want to know if it wasn't true? If it was fundamentally arbitrary? Who knows.

His latest reaction just goes to show the damage that can be done to a mind that is in pursuit of trying to make the arbitrary come true.

But don't take my word for it, read our exchanges above and see for yourself. Or, to get a better idea of this kind of mind at work, take him up on his invitation and visit his blog and read his entries and exchanges. And don't worry... you won't have to read much to see what I'm talking about.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 4:30 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 05, 2012 4:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Remember that conformance to authority is to him a moral virtue. He does not see this as a bad thing. Conversely our lack of conformance to authority is a moral failing in his eyes. Note that here he tries to undermine ones autonomous reasoning but over at answering Muslims he never employs this tactic. He instead tries to discredit their authority, in this sense we are worse then Muslims, they at least have the virtue of conformance to authority, just the "wrong" one. I strongly suspect this is tied into their "the authoritarians" dislike for induction. Induction being essentially figuring out things for yourself and not being spoon feed the answers from an authority.

March 05, 2012 4:44 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc is seriously an idiot.

He claims that my answer was "lame"

But that's just a trick to escape my questions.

He qoutes all these different fields but has never taking a class in any.


I wonder where is he getting his information from?



That's a brain out of the muddy swamp.



Notice how he won't come do any of his tricks on my page.

March 05, 2012 4:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I'm still waiting for you to account for induction.

You ever plan on getting to it?

March 05, 2012 5:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity's keep making my points for me, and demonstrating why I labeled his last response to me as "lame."

All the classes in the world will do no good if one walks in totally committed to rejecting the subject matter, especially if that rejection stems from a confessional investment in something that teaches that if you don't reject it, your soul may be subject to eternal damnation. If this confessional investment and such threats are taken seriously (as in Trinity's case), that is quite an incentive to do anything one can to marginalize and obediently reject anything which conflicts with what one has been indoctrinated with. That's what Trinity is doing with evolution... with reality.

Rejecting science in favor of the imaginary is another characteristic of those who attempt to make the arbitrary come true.

Again, I encourage anyone who would like to see a mind lost in confusion, to venture over to his blog.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 5:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Thanks for the advertisement.

But again the boy does another trick for us.

To call Ydemoc foolish and stupid is an understatement.

March 05, 2012 5:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Everyone,

See what I mean?

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 6:18 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

No, we don't.

March 05, 2012 7:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I labeled Trinity's recent posts (and older posts, for that matter) as lame. He responded with more nonsense. I then posted a comment, addressing it to "Everyone," and asking the question: "See what I mean?"

To which Trinity replied: "No, we don't."

Trinity again proves mine and Justin's point: That those who are confessionally invested in the arbitrary and making it come true, are prone to an authoritarian mindset.

I asked a question, "See what I mean?", leaving it up to the reader to make up his own mind. On the other hand, Trinity takes it upon himself to speak for "Everyone" by answering with "No, we don't [see what Ydemoc means]."

Trinity: The man who makes my point with every comment he makes.

Really, head on over to his blog to see how he makes many other points for me.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 8:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Does any know what peeping Tom is talking about?

Notice how he tells everybody to go to my blog.

But I havent seen him there. No testosterone

March 05, 2012 8:23 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Typically, Trinity is so fogged in by faith, he doesn't even recognize how authoritarian his recent comments are.

And he continues to make my point every time he posts.

And if you want to see a wonderful example of what happens to a mind that is on a futile quest to make the arbitrary come true, go over to his blog and read his interaction (or his non-interaction interaction, which is really no interaction at all) with Anton Thorn's material. It will underscore for you what I've been talking about.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 8:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I emailed Anton and never got a response.

I guess he's done with the parlor tricks.

March 05, 2012 8:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes, finally with something semi-coherent: "I emailed Anton and never got a response."

Kind of like praying to Jesus?

Trinity writes: "I guess he's done with the parlor tricks."

Why don't you say the same about Jesus?

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 9:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Those are called wonders.

Jesus walked on water.

Prove to me he didn't.

March 05, 2012 9:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Jesus walked on water."

And you know there was a man named Jesus and he actually existed because...?

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 9:27 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"I'm only providing what we were taught."

No you're not. You don't even know what evolution is, so clearly you weren't taught a thing.

I don't fault your professor for this. It's impossible to teach someone who takes snickering, self-righteous pride in their own ignorance.

March 05, 2012 9:32 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dylan,

Hear, hear!

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 9:36 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

You can eat your red herrings later.

Prove the question.

Dylan,

You must have some magical powers.

So, then tell us where did life come from was it from a swamp?

March 05, 2012 9:42 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity is back to making no sense or -- at the very most -- not laying the foundation for the existence of one of the three-for-the-price-of-one deities he worships. He makes a claim that Jesus walked on water. I simply asked:

"And you know there was a man named Jesus and he actually existed because...?"

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 9:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc resorts to tricks.

March 05, 2012 9:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

No tricks. Just a simple question. But don't feel too bad. You're not alone. Sometimes it's the simplest questions that Christians have the most trouble explaining or answering.

Again: ""And you know there was a man named Jesus and he actually existed because...?"

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 10:04 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"So, then tell us where did life come from was it from a swamp?"

First of all, who's "us"? There's one of you.

Second, evolutionary biology pertains to the diversity of life, not the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

This is the type of thing you can learn with about forty-five seconds worth of research. It doesn't get much more rudimentary than that, and you got it wrong.

You've barely even started this engagement, and already you've confirmed the ignorance I accused you of.

If you have a question about evolution, I suggest you think long and hard about it. You are off to an abysmal start.

March 05, 2012 10:04 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan you can waste time later.

Where did life come from?

In regards to Ydemoc I'll borrow one of Dawson's phrases.

This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic while at the same time trying to switch the burden.

The four gospels that's my evidence.

Where is yours?


Is it your imagination I suggest not if you want to be taken seriously?

March 05, 2012 10:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity claims that Jesus walked on water.

I asked him: ""And you know there was a man named Jesus and he actually existed because...?"

Trinity replied: "The four gospels that's my evidence."

Great! So Jesus' existence is not available at the most fundamental level of awareness, like say a rock or table or another living human is, but must first be learned of and accepted via tales from a Storybook. Thanks for answering that.

But let's explore a little further and see if Trinity can tell us:

"And you know these gospel stories are true because...?"

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 10:28 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

From the impossibility of the contrary.

Jesus says reject me and you're reduced to stupidity.

You are a great example of this.


Now where is your evidence?

March 05, 2012 10:38 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"Where did life come from?"

You already asked that. For the second time, this is a question pertaining to abiogenesis, not evolutionary biology.

I'd tell you to go back to the starting line, but you haven't even begun. To continue the analogy, you don't even appear to know what the sport is.

March 05, 2012 10:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan I don't care.

This is the question I'm asking right now.

Where did humans come from?

if you don't know just say so.

Either way the only alternative I have is to imagine it along with you.

March 05, 2012 10:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 05, 2012 11:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I asked Trinity: ""And you know these gospel stories are true because...?"

Trinity replied with: "From the impossibility of the contrary."

I see. So you hold that it's impossible that non-original and anonymous Storybook tales from 2000 years ago, tales that put forth, make reference to, and require belief in such notions as Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Corpses, and Conversational Donkeys; and in people turning to salt, people living inside whales, and a global flood with animals caged inside an ark -- that it's impossible for all this not to be true? Got it.

You believe this, and you call me stupid? This is what you've been taught and have chosen to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. You're so confessionally invested. And you've swallowed it all, hook, line, and stinker. And it does stink.

Trinity wrote: "Jesus says reject me and you're reduced to stupidity."

Well, one cannot actually reject that which is imaginary or has yet to be proven to actually exist, so stupidity wouldn't follow from doing so. But it appears I'm not the one whose belief forces him to accept such ridiculous Storybook notions. When you stick to a belief in such notions, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is stupidity. And your responses and behavior on this board have demonstrated just how dense Christian brainwashing has made you.

Trinity wrote: "You are a great example of this."

Yet you believe in Conversational Donkeys.

Ydemoc

March 05, 2012 11:10 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"Dylan I don't care."

What you mean is you don't care anymore. You started off thinking you'd make an argument against evolution, but you've now realized your abysmal ignorance is keeping you from even formulating one.

You shot yourself in the foot right out of the gate, and now you're trying to make it look like I should be on the defensive, hoping I'm stupid enough to fall for it.

I'm not, and neither is anyone reading along.

You showed up to a hockey game with a wiffle bat and your pants around your ankles, shouting 'Why won't you pitch to me? Are you too scared to pitch to me or something? If you can't, just say so...'

March 05, 2012 11:27 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide asked: "Where did life come from?"

That's easy. Life came from existence. That's the objective answer. It is the answer that I affirm, as part of my worldview. Since you reject everything in my worldview, you must reject my answer to your question, otherwise you'd be borrowing from my worldview (and you wouldn't have that, would you?).

So tell us, Nide, how does your worldview *account for* life?

Be careful on this one. Make sure you're not tape-looping yourself into circle of futility.

Regards,
Dawson

March 06, 2012 4:56 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I guess people haven't noticed that I'm in the business of answering fools. Anyway.

Suddenly Dawson enters the room.

"life comes from existence"

As if this answers the question.

You can go here for an answer to your question:

http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolution?m=0


I'll let Dylan keep playing make believe with himself.


And then we have Ydemoc:


More tricks, More evasions, You've learned a lot from Dawson.

March 06, 2012 7:45 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"I'll let Dylan keep playing make believe with himself."

There isn't a single person reading along who can't follow the simple narrative - you made some ignorant statements about evolution, I called you out on your ignorance, then you confirmed your ignorance.

Then you confirmed it again.

Then you confirmed it again.

Now you've finally realized your ignorance of evolution is stultifying your attempt to even begin an argument. You've switched tactics, moving on to petty insult by accusing me of playing 'make-believe', hoping you'll get an emotional response so you can claim some kind of moral victory.

It won't work. I insist, once again, that you stay on topic. Demonstrate to me that you know something - ANYTHING - about evolution, and we can use it as a starting point for discussion or argument.

You brought it up, now own up to it.

"More evasions"

Are you really sure you want to accuse other people of evasion?

Your entire exchange with me so far has consisted of reiterating the same off-topic question, followed by an insult, all the while avoiding - one might even say 'EVADING' - the actual topic.

March 06, 2012 10:08 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "More tricks, More evasions,"

No. No tricks. Just the facts. And those facts are that by virtue of your mind being fed tales from a Storybook, you are forced into denying that which conflicts with notions such as Chit-Chatty Snakes, Conversational Donkeys, City-Strolling Corpses, and Unicorns. That you would see tricks where there are none, falls right in line with your seeing agency where there is none.

Trinity writes: "You've learned a lot from Dawson."

Yes, I have. I've learned quite a bit reading his writings -- "learned" being the operative word, here. The same cannot be said of you, however. Oh, you've read his writings, but with eyes blinded by faith.

Still, you've certainly taken away a lot. You've come to a blog that espouses a rational worldview, seeking to lift lines and phrases to use in your own writings, thinking that a line here or a phrase there will help you defend your worldview. But they won't. And they never will. Because, fundamentally, that which you are defending is imaginary. You're selling and defending something that doesn't exit. That you would steal lines and phrases from a rational worldview, and use them in an attempt to defend and sell such a worldview, reveals who's really the one engaged in trickery. And it ain't moi.

Ydemoc

March 06, 2012 10:10 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 06, 2012 10:31 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dylan, Dawson and Ydemoc

just wanted to let all three of you know I appreciate your efforts. This has been very entertaining.

March 06, 2012 10:32 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Earlier, Trinity wrote: "I guess people haven't noticed that I'm in the business of answering fools"

I've noticed. And I've tried to point it out to you, that you answer or talk to a fool every time you pray -- for, in reality, when you pray you're not talking to anyone but yourself. By the way, how's the "talking and answering yourself" business going?

Ydemoc

March 06, 2012 11:22 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hey Justin I'm glad the peanut gallery has kept you entertained.

Dylan if you want I can give you the phone number to the department that deals with fiction here at the college.

You can tell them how wrong they are about evolution.

By the way where did life come from? How did life begin?

Ydemoc,

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

You can do your tricks later.

March 06, 2012 11:23 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide had asked: "Where did life come from?"

I responded: “Life came from existence.”

Nide replied: “As if this answers the question.”

It does answer your question. You may not *like* my answer to your question, but there’s no question that I have answered it

If you think my answer does not answer your question, you’ll need to explain why. I’m guessing you don’t have any good reason for saying it fails to answer your question. Otherwise you’d have stated it already.

At any rate, that is my answer to your question: life came from existence. Either you agree that life came from existence (and thus affirm the truth of my worldview), or you disagree, and thus put yourself in the dubious position of affirming the view that life came from non-existence. I’m guessing you don’t like my answer because it puts you in this very tight spot. That’s the beauty of my position, Nide: it slashes off entire categories of arbitrary ideas at their root.

I had asked Nide: “how does your worldview *account for* life?”

Nide replied: “You can go here for an answer to your question: http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolution?m=0”

I went to the link you provided, and did not see how your worldview *accounts for* life. Can you copy/paste your answer here, so that I don’t mistake anything you’re trying to say? Or, does your worldview simply have no *account for* life?

While you’re at it, I’m still waiting for an answer to an earlier question I asked: Does your god have a brain?

Regards,
Dawson

March 06, 2012 11:26 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Dylan if you want I can give you the phone number to the department that deals with fiction here at the college.”

Nide, does this college you’ve mentioned here have its own website? If so, please post a link. I’m curious to learn more about it. And yes, please provide the phone number you’re talking about.

Nide asked: “By the way where did life come from?”

I’ve answered this already: from existence.

Nide asked: “How did life begin?”

First of all, your question presupposes that at one time there was no life at all. This needs to be established.

Second, if it is the case that at one time there was no life at all, life began by means of a causal process.

See, Nide, I have answers for you. Where does your worldview answer these questions?

Regards,
Dawson

March 06, 2012 11:31 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson just play the ass it's pretty entertaining. You've been answered. It's your problem now.

http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/departments/anthropology/index.dot

Let me know what they say.

March 06, 2012 12:50 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Dawson just play the ass it's pretty entertaining.”

So I’m “play[ing] the ass” simply for asking you to post the link and telephone number to the college you mentioned? My, you really are thin-skinned. And yes, it is pretty entertaining. As I’ve pointed out in the past, here at IP, Christians are the entertainment.

So let me ask you, Nide: Are you a student enrolled at William Paterson University? If so, what are your educational goals? Do you agree with the University’s mission statement (found here)?

Nide: “You've been answered.”

Actually, I haven’t, not by you anyway. There are still several outstanding questions. I’ll enumerate them for you:

1. How does your worldview *account for* life?

2. If life didn’t come from existence, where do you think it came from?

3. Does your god have a brain? Yes or no.

4. You had charged that “Rand was being arbitrary.” When are you going to support this claim?

5. If an algebra teacher drinks himself silly every night and beats his kids at home, is algebra false or “stupid” as a result of this? Yes or no?

6. If someone answers the question, “How do you know?” with the statement, “We know without knowing how we know,” do you think this answer indicates that the one who said it has anything valuable to say about knowledge?

7. Do Christians die?

8. How does one determine whether or not he is “thinking God’s thoughts after him”? Please explain the steps you would take to make this determination.

9. What is your proof that I can think without a brain?

10. If a Christian apologist challenges a non-believer to explain how he knows something he has affirmed, and the non-believer replies by saying, “We know without knowing how we know,” do you think there’s anything wrong with this? Yes or no. Please explain your answer.

11. Do you agree with the Objectivist principle that man needs values in order to live? Yes or no.

12. How do you know you’re saved?

13. Do you have “the mind of Christ” (cf. I Cor. 2:16)? Yes or no.

14. Is "the mind of Christ" omniscient? Yes or no.

15. When are you going to do something about that bad smell over at your blog? Seriously, it really stinks over there.

These are some pretty good conversation-starters, wouldn’t you agree?

Nide: “It's your problem now.”

Specifically *what* is my “problem now”?

Regards,
Dawson

March 06, 2012 1:51 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"So let me ask you, Nide: Are you a student enrolled at William Paterson University? If so, what are your educational goals? Do you agree with the University’s mission statement (found here)?"

Well, if you are really interested in my auto-biography send me your number, I will be more than happy to tell it to you.

You can go here for an answer to your questions:

http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawson

March 06, 2012 4:05 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"Dylan if you want I can give you the phone number to the department that deals with fiction here at the college.

You can tell them how wrong they are about evolution."

Again, you switch tactics. Is there anything you won't do to avoid formulating an actual argument?

You've gone from goal-post moving to insult to... whatever the fuck this is supposed to be. Funny? Clever? Profound?

It's none of those. Nor does it distract me from the fact that you've given no indication that you have the vaguest clue what evolution is, or even what an argument against it would look like.

Speaking of which,

"By the way where did life come from? How did life begin?"

Look at that, we've come full circle. Did you think the circumstances would magically change if you asked this a fourth time?

It's still not a question about evolution.

It's still an attempt to distract attention from your blatant, gleeful ignorance.

I still insist you own up.

March 06, 2012 4:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan you don't have to be insane.

Your worldview doesn't have an answer.

Man up to it.

March 06, 2012 4:42 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

Again, you revert to baiting tactics, attempting to draw fire from yourself.

Again, I'm not a fucking moron, so I don't fall for it.

Again, I ask that you at least attempt to formulate an argument pertinent to evolution.

March 06, 2012 7:28 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan there are no arguments for evolution.

Prove to me that pinnochio exists and then maybe I'll entertain your delusions.

Did you read my post on human origins?

Remember the dried up fossils and old bones suggests evolution but doesn't prove it. This comes from the mouth of an evolutionists.


Don't stink up the room with your foul mouth.



By the way let's see if your brain is as big as your mouth. There is a visitor that comes to my blog from time to time(Cacambo) who is actually pretty sharp. He has left some comments that are razor sharp. Why don't you go and respond let's see what you got. Notice that Ydemoc and Justin won't do it. No testosterone. Dawson won't come down from his high horse I would ask him. Anyway, I'll be waiting.

March 06, 2012 7:55 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I strongly suspect that Cacambo is you, the writing style is practically identical. I find it interesting that “Cacambo” confirmed with his responses many of the points I made about theists in my post a conceptual divide. Amusing indeed.

March 06, 2012 8:26 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"Dylan there are no arguments for evolution."

I didn't ask for one.

I asked for an argument PERTINENT to evolution.

As in, having to do with evolution.

As in, give some indication you have a clue what you're talking about.

"Prove to me that pinnochio exists and then maybe I'll entertain your delusions."

Asinine non-sequitor.

Stop trying to be witty. You suck at it.

"Remember the dried up fossils and old bones suggests evolution but doesn't prove it."

FINALLY, something barely resembling a pertinent argument. And it only took you ten posts or so. I'll be ignoring the rest of your post, since this is the only relevant portion.

Firstly, congratulations on accidentally saying something true. Fossils are one line of evidence among many for evolution, but they don't 'prove' evolution. Not one biologist or paleontologist would claim that.

Secondly, even if there were no fossils at all, the evidence for evolution from genetics alone would be sufficient.

As per usual, there's nothing I've said here that you couldn't have very easily figured out on your own, if you had the slightest interest in learning. This is as basic as it gets.

So yeah. That barely qualified as a statement, let alone an 'argument', but it's still better than anything else you've offered.

Anything else?

March 06, 2012 8:37 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Yea Dylan the day you feel like a man come by.

Cacambo's comments will be waiting.

Justin,

Why would I do that?

March 06, 2012 9:09 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

If you want to emasculate someone, it's better to do it BEFORE you start an argument on a subject you know less than nothing about, then spend a whole day trying to pussy out of said argument.

March 06, 2012 10:35 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

I guess your mouth is bigger than your brain.

March 06, 2012 10:44 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

Not only do you absolutely suck at arguing, you really don't have a grasp on this whole insult thing, either. It's very simple.

If you spend a whole day evading a line of discourse, you shouldn't accuse other people of evasion.

If you spend a whole day trying to pussy out of an argument you know you can't win (an argument YOU started, no less), you shouldn't try to emasculate someone.

If you start an argument on a topic you know nothing about, you shouldn't accuse other people of having big mouths.

If you're going to troll, please make an effort, at least.

Unless this IS you making an effort. That would just be sad.

March 06, 2012 11:12 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "So let me ask you, Nide: Are you a student enrolled at William Paterson University? If so, what are your educational goals? Do you agree with the University’s mission statement (found here)?"

Nide responded: “Well, if you are really interested in my auto-biography send me your number, I will be more than happy to tell it to you.”

I’m not interested in your autobiography – e.g., where you were born, how your parents treated you, how you failed to fit in at grammar school, etc. I just asked if you are a student at WPU, and if so, what your educational goals are and whether or not you agree with the University’s mission statement. Not sure why you’re afraid to answer this. You seemed to indicate on your blog that you had taken a class on evolution, and when inquired further, you directed me to WPU’s website. So I’m wondering if you were a student at WPU. But if you’re ashamed of something, then by all means, take the 5th.

Nide wrote: “You can go here for an answer to your questions: http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawson

Your responses have been addressed here: Nide’s 15

Enjoy!

Regards,
Dawson

March 07, 2012 2:26 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

Man up.

March 07, 2012 4:40 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

Emasculation. You're doing it wrong.

Here's a lesson for free:

You spent an entire day evading an argument you started, not me. Therefor, you don't get to say 'man up'. I do.

Anytime you feel like debating the topic that YOU brought up yourself - WITHOUT resorting to bitch tactics the instant you feel cornered - I'll be ready.

March 07, 2012 5:26 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan you've gone mad.

I don't argue or debate over fairy tales.

Keep playing make believe its hilarious.

Try to close your mouth it smells in
here.

March 07, 2012 6:58 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

You pussied out of an argument you started. That's not make believe. That's blatantly evident to anyone who's been reading along.

Speaking of fairy tails, here's one I invented -

Once upon a time, there was a creationist who knew something other than jack fucking shit. The End.

March 07, 2012 8:07 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dylan,

You wrote: "Once upon a time, there was a creationist who knew something other than jack fucking shit. The End."

That's pretty funny.

March 07, 2012 8:39 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan prove to me that Pinocchio exists.

Then maybe i'll take you seriously.

March 07, 2012 8:41 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

'You believe in fairy tales', says the guy who believes in talking snakes, zombies and omnipotent cosmic wizards.

You're really on a roll with this hypocrisy thing you've got going on.

March 07, 2012 6:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

How do you know those are fairy tales?

What's wrong scared to come over.

No. T

March 07, 2012 6:52 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

'Scared?' says the guy who starts arguments, then pussies out of them.

March 07, 2012 9:04 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

How utterly fucking tedious this is.

March 07, 2012 9:10 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

Getting tired?

I'm still waiting to see if your brain is as big as your mouth.

March 07, 2012 9:16 PM  
Blogger Sara said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 07, 2012 9:52 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

'I'm still waiting to see if your brain is as big as your mouth.'

Says the guy who pussied out of an argument he started.

Tedious, tedious, tedious, tedious, tedious.

'Getting tired?'

Yes, frankly. Your pridefully ignorant, braying jackass hypocrite act has gone from mildly amusing to boring. Worse than that, it's redundantly boring.

I can't bring myself to care which vacuous bitch tactic you'll try to recycle for the umpteenth time in your next post. Not even a little bit.

March 07, 2012 9:56 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

Loud bark no bite.

March 07, 2012 10:16 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

Says the guy who pussied out of...

Fuck it. You know the rest by now.

March 07, 2012 10:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

You should have called your blog, "The Conversational Ass."

That would've been better, don't you think?

Ydemoc

March 07, 2012 10:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home