Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Self-Attesting Absurdity of the Christian Worldview

Over the past week, I presented a three-part series exploring the common presuppositionalist claim that the “Christian worldview” is the “only worldview” which “provides” the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. My investigation of this claim, which can be found here, here and here, demonstrates why this claim simply cannot be true.

But in spite of giving the matter more careful and systematic attention than presuppositionalists themselves typically devote to their own talking points, this demonstration – and more importantly, just the idea of taking a critical look at such a claim – will likely be ignored by apologists.

One thing I discovered in my research on the topic of the preconditions for intelligibility, is that the three most fundamental preconditions for intelligibility are metaphysical in nature, namely the facts of existence, identity and consciousness. What is noteworthy here is the fact that these preconditions obtain independent of conscious activity. That is, they are not put in place as a result of some action of consciousness, whether that action is merely perceiving, wishing, believing, imagining, pretending to know, etc. Indeed, one could outright deny these facts, but they would continue to obtain regardless and unchanged. Specifically, contrary to what presuppositionalists claim about their worldview, a set of beliefs does not constitute the preconditions for intelligibility. On the contrary, a set of facts is the precondition for intelligibility, facts which do not depend on or conform to anyone’s beliefs.

But the presuppositionalist might take a different angle on the topic of the preconditions for intelligibility, and instead of premising intelligibility on a set of beliefs, he premises ultimately it on some event which supposedly took place in history. On such a view, a historical event constitutes the preconditions for intelligibility, which could only mean that prior to that event, the preconditions for intelligibility did not exist, and therefore there was no intelligibility at all. And since this event is supposedly historical, in fact the culmination of a long series of historical events recorded before it, any historical events prior to this event would have to have happened without the benefit of the preconditions for intelligibility being in place, and therefore themselves were unintelligible.

Would someone really affirm such an intensely absurd position? Given its utterly ridiculous implications, it would indeed seem highly unlikely. But presuppositionalists are a strange bunch, and are very often known for leaping without looking.

Consider the following statement from presuppositionalist blogger Chris Bolt, who writes:
There is no Christianity without the resurrection of Christ… and without Christianity, there is no intelligible experience.
This statement comes from Bolt’s blog entry Reasonable Doubts About Overload Objections.

On the view which Bolt affirms here, there would be no intelligible experience without the resurrection. Of course, Bolt has in mind specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ as depicted in the New Testament gospel narratives.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is supposed to be a historical event. Christian “scholars” assign a date between AD 30 and 33 for when this event allegedly happened. And if this event did not actually happen, there would be no Christianity. As the apostle Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:17, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain.”

Christians themselves typically tell us that “the resurrection” is a “historical event.” For instance, the 19th century biblical scholar B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) reportedly stated:
Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historical incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection.
Jason Engwer of Triablogue explains that
the widespread early understanding of the resurrection as a historical event is evidence that the New Testament accounts were meant to be taken as historical narratives. (A Review of Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus (Part 6); emphasis added)
In his paper Comments on John Johnson’s Response to Frame and Hays, presuppositionalist theorist James Anderson holds that
if an appeal to the Koran trumps any evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, it will equally trump any evidence for the historicity of the resurrection!
Indeed, it appears that Christians, for the sake of holding their worldview as truth, need the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be an actual historical event.

But on the view which Bolt affirms, this would mean that intelligible experience is ultimately grounded in a historical event. Meaning: if that event did not take place, there would be no intelligible experience. It also means that there was no intelligible experience until that event happened!

Consequently, as a result of the clear implications of Bolt’s expressed view, everything prior to Jesus’ resurrection was unintelligible!

Just ponder this statement for a moment.

Consider the experience of all the biblical characters which, according to Christianity, historically preceded Jesus’ resurrection. Indeed, that all of the Old Testament, and most of the settings of the gospel narratives up to Jesus’ resurrection! According to what Bolt has told us, all of this was unintelligible!

Look at the tales of Adam, of Cain and Abel, of Noah, of Abraham and Isaac, of Job, of Moses and Aaron, of the prophets, of King David and Solomon the Wise, of Daniel in the lions’ den and Jonah and the whale, of the virgin Mary and John the Baptist crying in the wilderness. All of this, Bolt is saying, is unintelligible, since the historical event upon which intelligible experience rests, had not yet happened. Even the ministry of Jesus, calling the twelve disciples, his preaching and miracle-working, his disputing with the Pharisees and Sadducees, his scolding of the money-changers, his wrestling with Satan, his raising of Lazarus, his last meal, his arrest and trial, his crucifixion and his final words from the cross… All of this, we are now learning, was unintelligible!

What's more, Christians typically regard the "history" documented in the Old Testament as the unfolding of a comprehensive "plan" leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, we have not only unintelligibility giving rise to intelligibility, but unintellibility informing intelligibility, since the pre-resurrection content (which must be intelligibility, given Bolt's thesis) provides the underlying substance upon which the resurrection supposedly "makes sense" as a fulfillment of various currents involved in the unfolding of that "plan."

This makes for a proverbial "good grief moment" of biblical proportions. Indeed, how could one seriously propose that some historical event – either fictional or factual – could be a precondition for intelligible experience? It seems utterly absurd.

In his “e-book” titled This Joyful Eastertide , Christian apologist-blogger Steve Hays tells us that “Historical truths are truths of fact, not truths of reason,” and concedes that “the setting and timing of the Christ-event could have been otherwise” (p. 41).

There’s another problem with Bolt’s thesis predicating intelligible experience on some historical event. And that problem is implied in Hays’ concession that “the setting and timing of the Christ-event could have been otherwise.” If it is conceded that the setting and timing of an event could have been different, then it must be conceded that the setting and timing were not sufficient to provide the causal conditions for the outcome of the event in question. In other words, there might not have been a resurrection, or even a crucifixion and death. The setting, for instance, “could have” included a prefect of Judaea who was sympathetic to the rogue messianism represented in the character of Jesus, and rather than allowing him to be crucified, instead had him whisked away and put under supervised protection. It “could have been otherwise.”

No doubt bunkered-down Christians will object to this with froth. But care should be taken not to miss the broader point with which presuppositionalists need to come to terms. Proponents of Anal Phil are well known for dividing truths into two opposing alternatives: necessary vs. contingent. If it’s the case that “the setting and timing of the Christ-event could have been otherwise,” then it seems that Anal Phillers would deem “the Christ-event” – regardless of what it is thought to constitute – as a contingent truth rather than a necessary truth.

This would mean that premising the intelligibility of human experience on some historical event would mean that the preconditions for intelligibility are contingent rather than “necessary,” which again vies against what presuppositionalists themselves have historically insisted.

To be sure, any way you slice this, it comes up rife with absurdities. And these absurdities are typically detected by giving more careful thought to what presuppositionalists say than presuppositionalists themselves typically give. So let ‘em speak!

I’m glad these aren’t my problems.

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: ,

60 Comments:

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Let me share with you some words from Jesus:

If they don't believe Moses they won't believe somebody that has come back from the dead.

Your a pretty smart guy. I know you will get what I am saying.

Blessings.

March 22, 2012 6:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

When I read: "Consequently, as a result of the clear implications of Bolt’s expressed view, everything prior to Jesus’ resurrection was unintelligible!"... I thought to myself, "Apologists cannot possibly mean this, can they?"

And then I read the rest of your blog entry and thought, "Oh yes they can!"

Given this view, perhaps it helps explain why they would so willingly accept such unintelligible notions as a Conversational Donkey and a Chit-Chatty Snake.

It is absurd, it is unintelligible, it is written in what we deem to be a sacred Storybook, therefore it must be accepted!

How ridiculous!

Ydemoc

March 22, 2012 10:17 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "If they don't believe Moses they won't believe somebody that has come back from the dead."

And we should believe someone named Moses actually existed because....?

And even if he did exist, we should believe what he said because....?

And we should believe somebody came back from the dead because....?

And we should believe hell exists because....?

And we should believe your Storybook because....?

Try not to "imagine in a vicious circle" when supplying your answers.


Ydemoc

March 22, 2012 10:45 PM  
Blogger Paul Baird said...

If only it was that easy Dawson but my understadning is that because of sensus divinitatis they can backdate the effect of the resurrection to cover not only the prior events in the Bible but events anywhere in the world.

You should comment on that psychological trick !

March 22, 2012 11:03 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

In 1835 David Friedrich Strauss, a superb scholar, wrote Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Strauss' analysis debunked and neutered the sort of religious fundamentalism or extremism exhibited by Trinity/Nide/Hezekiah Ahaz. The crisis of theology resulting from Strauss was in part responsible for the appearance of Higher Criticism in general. The book is worth the read even if it is a bit lengthy by modern standards. Life of Jesus Critically Examined is available on Google books as a free ebook in pdf. Here's link to the 1892 edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=BjdNAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Friedrich+Strauss+Life+of+Jesus+Critically+examined&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n7JsT9TcAuSi2wWlo5TpBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=David%20Friedrich%20Strauss%20Life%20of%20Jesus%20Critically%20examined&f=false

All fundy Xantians would do well to read Strauss.

March 23, 2012 10:37 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 23, 2012 10:47 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 23, 2012 10:48 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Hello Paul. Your observation is correct. When supernatual-mystics are argued into a corner, they reach into their arses and pull out out the magic card and claim their special woo is possible. Its good to force them out into the open because then the argument from existence and issue of metaphysical primacy blows their house of cards down. Seldom will be encountered a Christian honest enough to admit that other non-Abrahamic religions feature acolytes who profess to feel an inner witness of their special magic man's special woo. But confronting them with reality will plant the seed of doubt that encourages questioning assumptions. Nor will be seen any Christians who are willing to admit sensus divinus is a brain phenomena as explained by Victor Stenger.

In "Has Science Found God" Victor J. Stenger describes an experiment conducted (without a control group or statistical error accounting) by neurologist Andrew Newberg on eight Buddhists and several Franciscan nuns in prayer. The test subjects engaged in Tibetan style meditation and prayer. All participants reported transcendent feelings. The Buddhists described the feelings as a sense of timelessness and infinity as if they were [part of everything in existence while the Nuns claimed a tangible sense of the closeness to and mingling with god. None of the subjects reported any "revelations about future events or risky predictions that could be used to objectively confirm a true otherworldly reality to the experience." The subject's brains were imaged with a SPECT camera (single photon emission computed tomography). The images depicted decreased brain activity in an area dubbed, by Newberg, the orientation association area (OAA). Newberg's contends the function of the OAA is to "draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else, to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." According to Newberg the reduced OAA activity results from a decrease in the flow of incoming sensory information during meditation or prayer. Newberg surmises that without this information the OAA cannot find the boundary between the self and non-self. Therefore the brain has no option but to detect the self as in touch with the transcendent. [5] Newberg's study was coauthored by Eugene d'Aquili and published in his book "Why God Won't Go Away", p.5 Stenger agrees with Newberg and d'Aquili that the sensation born again Christian's experience in response to their emotions of faith and belief has a neuro-physiological basis. The feeling of the presence of the Holy Spirit is most probably a brain phenomena.

Sensus Divinus is no refuge for the Christian mystic.

March 23, 2012 10:51 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

I will probably amaze people by saying this, but...

I think you're overstating your case; and while my arguments may not be the traditional theistic arguments, I think they can explain your issues here.

The main issue is this: You are presuming non-predestination, of either a strong (everything will happen as it will) or weak (We know some things will happen) form.

In a universe where the Resurrection *will always happen* (i.e. is a necessary, not a contingent fact), then that can be used as a ground for "intelligibility". The when/where of the event can be contingent without it itself being contingent -- the loser of the 2012 Presidential race will give a concession speech, but we don't know exactly when, and where only in the vaguest of terms (Almost certainly in the U.S.) (Now, since I am a materialist, I will not assert that the concession speech is necessary, but you get the general drift.)

If the universe is viewed as a finished product from the start, which we are simply experiencing as we move through it, then the conditions for intelligibility (as described by presuppers) can exist.

Now, they happen (as you and I have both discussed elsewhere) to be *wrong* as to their preconditions, but that doesn't mean that these *particular* conditions result in the problems you describe.

Also -- I agree with your general point regarding feeding 'em rope and letting them tangle themselves up. ;)

March 23, 2012 12:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hello Steven,

Just couldn't stay away. Well, at least you are not dumb like Ydemoc.

Robert,

Some time ago you posted a really bad argument here. I asked you a question about it. I haven't seen you respond. I wonder why.

March 23, 2012 1:16 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

HA, did you notice that I was arguing *against* the post as presented?

March 23, 2012 2:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

That's because you're a Christian remember I told you this?

March 23, 2012 3:49 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

That's because you're a Christian remember I told you this?

No. That's because I stand in opposition to sloppy thinking (or incorrect thinking) from either side.

I think Dawson's incorrect as to the nature of the absurdity he ponders. I think he's correct in his overall point.

Clear?

March 23, 2012 4:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

No, No, No

Stevie wonders.

You're a christian.

But this just got good.

You hear that Dawson?

I'm surprised his cheer leader isn't here defending him.

March 23, 2012 5:24 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 23, 2012 6:21 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Ydemoc said...

"....And then I read the rest of your blog entry and thought, "Oh yes they can!"

Hello my friend: There are many liberal Christians who realize the Bible is not inspired by any god and is the work of per-scienctific men and is composed of myths and legends and resulted from theological battles. Those folks see Christianity as more moral philosophy than all consuming lifestyle. Many are weak atheists/agnostics and are open to using methodological naturalism in the scientific method to answer questions and improve the quality of life as well as accepting of the findings of higher criticism. I have no problem with those sorts of people. On the other hand, nutters like @Hezekiah Ahaz/Nide/Trinity can be quite as dangerous as your typical Al Qaeda muslin fanatic. I think it good to keep the distinction in mind.

March 23, 2012 6:31 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz/Nide/Trinity

You typed "Some time ago you posted a really bad argument here. I asked you a question about it. I haven't seen you respond. I wonder why."

I'd be happy to answer your question; what is it? Also post a link to my argument you think bad and explain why you think you think it bad.

Whatever my argument you were referring unto, its a damn sight better than your ridiculous nonsense:

'Some magic guys did some magic stuff that nobody can know anything about except by reading about it in a book of religious fairy tales.'

Dude, pay attention. Now look up above where I posted about David Friedrich Strauss who wrote Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Strauss refuted all your silly bullshit 183 years ago. Read the free book. Its good for you. Read your Bible from cover to cover. Use colored markers to highlight absurdities, cruelty, assertions of historical facts or facts about the nature. Highlight passages depicting abuse of women or advocating or defending slavery, or of alleged prophecies; be on the lookout for contradictions. When you get done go back and fact check. If you're honest, you'll identify many problems and see that YHWH is a moral monster worthy only of being swept into the dustbin of dead gods.

Come to your senses and don't waste your life on religion.

March 23, 2012 6:48 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "If they don't believe Moses they won't believe somebody that has come back from the dead."

And we should believe someone named Moses actually existed because....?
*************************

Have you read Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman's book "The Bible Unearthed"? F&S are big time archeologists in Israel and have done the digs, research, and analysis. Their conclusion: no sojourn in the land of Goshen, no exodus, very likely no Moses, no military conquest of Canaan, no great unified kingdom under David, Solomon, Rehoboam. Others have refuted the legends of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the twelve tribes. Its all as much bull shit as the world wide flood of Noah.

Here's Paul Tobin from Christian Delusion on Abraham and the patriarchs:

"the stories in Genesis about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are also no longer considered historical by most scholars competent in the field.19 The reasons are compelling: • Genesis 11:26-28 says that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldees." Estimates of Abraham's lifetime fall anywhere between the twenty-third century BCE and the sixteenth century BCE, yet the Chaldeans as a people only came into existence around the eighth to seventh century BCE-long after the time of Abraham.20

Genesis 26:1 relates a story about Isaac going to Gerar to meet with "Abimelech, king of the Philistines." Archaeological finds tell us that there was no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistines to meet with Isaac during the historical period in which he would have lived.21

• Genesis 12:14-16, 24:10-11, and 37:25-28 include the use of domesticated camels in the story of Abraham and of Joseph. The archaeological evidence shows us that camels did not become domesticated until the eleventh century BCE, well after the time of Abraham and Joseph. Camels could not have been used during the time of the patriarchs.22

• Genesis 17: 9-11 tells of the covenant between God and Abraham, which was sealed by the act of circumcision. We know that circumcision was widely practiced in ancient times in the Fertile Crescent. In particular, the Egyptians and the Canaanites practiced the rite, the very people with whom Abraham would have had the most contact. How could the act of circumcision be "a sign of the covenant" between God and Abraham when everyone else was doing it? It was only during the time of the Babylonian captivity, during the sixth century, that this custom could have set the Jews apart. For the Babylonians of that time did not practice circumcision.23

Thomas Thompson, professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, noted with iron-clad logic, that if these and other specific references in the patriarchal narratives have been shown to be anachronistic, then they add nothing to the story; but these very references were the historical anchors that supposedly rooted the narratives into history in the first place. Without them how are we to distinguish these narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?24"

"The Bible and Modern Scholarship" by Paul Tobin; in John W. Loftus (ed.) The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (Kindle Locations 1913-1926). Kindle Edition.

March 23, 2012 7:10 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Robert,

Good point. And theists certainly run the gamut, don't they? All different kinds seem to be all around me. From those that believe in a god but don't bible thump, to those who make it a point to bring it up every single day.

Recently, I had someone in my immediate family scream at me over the phone, at the top of his lungs, "I WILL NOT SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF SATAN COMING OUT OF MY BROTHER!!!"

All because I told him that perhaps his biblically based guilt and threats of damnation that he was heaping upon a distraught, vulnerable relative was, possibly, at this time -- considering all the factors involved -- going to do more harm than good to this person's welfare. Basically, I was just giving him my thought on the matter... just throwing it out there.

And for that, he screams at me, telling me he thinks the voice of Satan is speaking through me?

Kooky.

I asked him later, "Why single out that particular thing I said, or that particular moment? After all, aren't all non-Christians and unbelievers essentially speaking with the voice of Satan?"

He wouldn't (and really can't, at least, not honestly) answer that.

Yet, we still speak on a daily basis.

The other day he called. My wife answered. She said he wanted to know what time I usually go to the gym. I told her to tell him, "About the same time Satan does."

She told him. He didn't find it too funny. I did, though. And a lot less nutty than taking it seriously.

Ydemoc

March 23, 2012 7:28 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hi again, Robert,

I've read Tobin, but not the book by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman. Thanks for suggesting. I made a note of it.

Ydemoc

March 23, 2012 7:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

aren't you gonna defend your hero?

I got on 100 on Steve.

Robert,

Really?

March 23, 2012 8:13 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Steve don't let me down I'm routing for you.

March 23, 2012 10:09 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Augustine: “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

Trinity again fails to heed the admonition from one of his Church Fathers.

Ydemoc

March 23, 2012 11:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Steve don't let up on them. Stick and move, Steve, stick and move.

March 23, 2012 11:09 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

No, No, No

Stevie wonders.

You're a christian.


No, I'm not. You don't know what I am, but I can tell you that, I'm not.

And no one in the comments thread has addressed my point, that I can see; they've been addressing yours, so why you're "routing" for me and calling on me to do something, I have no idea.

I admit that this is making me wonder again if you're some kind of ultra-dedicated Poe.

March 24, 2012 2:14 AM  
Blogger Reynold said...

That's what I've been wondering...no xian or theist that I've heard of could possibly be as wacked out as Hezekiah is. Mind you, presuppers as a lot are totally nuts, so it is hard to tell.

March 24, 2012 3:04 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Steve,

Yes, Yes, Yes .

You're a Christian.

Reynold,

how do you know?

March 24, 2012 5:25 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Robert:

Fascinating points. I will give what you posted some more thought. Very interesting!

I want to welcome the criticisms of my blog entry, and would like to give my thoughts in response. I'll start with Paul Baird's comment.

Paul wrote: “If only it was that easy Dawson but my understadning is that because of sensus divinitatis they can backdate the effect of the resurrection to cover not only the prior events in the Bible but events anywhere in the world.”

Yes, I’m aware that some Christians often tend to treat the resurrection as though its effects were felt wide and far, transcending temporal boundaries, and limited only to (at least some portion of) the human race regardless of when and where they live, have lived or will live. But the effect which Christians have in mind here are the resurrection’s alleged “redemptive” powers. The resurrection of Jesus is seen as a triumph over death and sin (even though both continue to this day), and this triumph is characterized by some as having a significance that is not time-bound. Whether that’s that to be because of the “sensus divinitatis,” simply divine supremacy, or some other supernatural mechanism, the resurrection is primarily held to have a role in redemptive theology. Which means: the significance of the resurrection assumes a lot (indeed, a whole lot).

While the redemptive implications of the resurrection already seem completely artificial (at least to folks like me), in the context of Christianity they arise out of a long-standing tradition of seeking reconciliation with the divine (and even the divine seeking reconciliation with its creatures).

But as for the resurrection’s supposed role as the ultimate precondition for intelligibility, even given its temporal and proximal transcendence (as Paul reminds us of), this is a stretch beyond even the crudest norms of logic. And here’s why:

While the resurrection itself is thought to be a singular historical event, its significance as an important event within the Christian worldview depends on an enormous strata of underlying factors, including metaphysical, epistemological as well as moral factors (as Christianity conceives of it).

[Continued…]

March 24, 2012 6:59 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Indeed, even the intelligibility of the resurrection itself depends on a large-scale series of prior historical antecedents, including (but not limited to) the “creation,” the “fall,” early attempts to “redeem” mankind, prophetic movements, genealogical succession, persecution of the Israelites, their continual backsliding and repeated efforts to get them back on track, dues-ex-machina type divine interventions (e.g., “miracles”), etc., not to mention all the underlying doctrinal issues, such as obedience, transgression, sacrifice, redemption, glorification, etc., all of which factor into the theological significance of the resurrection and without which it would have no theological meaning.

Even more, just as the religious significance of the resurrection is not meaningfully irreducible, its occurrence (and “reality” in the believer’s mind) is not causally irreducible. The claim that the resurrection itself is “the precondition for intelligibility” seems to deny all of this, since it requires the one who accepts it to ignore the resurrection’s own preconditions as they are laid out in the bible itself.

The point is that the resurrection of Jesus, on Christianity’s own terms, presupposes a huge context of underlying factors in order to make it what it is understood to be within the Christian worldview. In other words, within the Christian worldview, the resurrection – its occurrence, its causality, its meaning, its significance, its implications – rests in its entirety on numerous more fundamental factors which themselves would have to be intelligible in order for the resurrection itself to be intelligible as the event and phenomenon that Christianity supposes it to be.

This is all to say that, even within Christianity, the resurrection itself could not be the precondition for intelligibility, for that would only imply that it is premised on factors which themselves would not be able to enjoy the fruits of intelligibility. To label the resurrection of Jesus as the precondition for intelligibility would simply constitute a self-obliterating breach of cognitive hierarchy, a stolen concept of biblical proportions. Even on Christianity’s own terms, an entire plethora of factors would need to already be intelligible for the resurrection itself to be intelligible. So the jig is up for Christians like Bolt.

Regards,
Dawson

March 24, 2012 6:59 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Please, let this sink in first.

I will take up imnotandrei's points tomorrow.

Regards,
Dawson

March 24, 2012 7:00 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 24, 2012 8:20 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

imnotandrei said...And no one in the comments thread has addressed my point, that I can see;

Hello imnotandrei, I would have addressed your points, but they were directed towards Dawson. I thought it inappropriate to chime in with my opinion before Dawson provided his answer. Nevertheless, when I do type a response be assured I have no pejorative intent.

That said, congratulations on not being a Christian. Its a mark of distinction to not have been fooled by silly superstitions.
********************************

@Hezekiah Ahaz What is your question? How do you know my argument was faulty? Did your god's holy spirit tell you?

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Sit down in a quiet place. Close your eyes and focus your awareness on your breathing. Don't think - just be. Stay as still and quiet as you can for about five minutes.

Now try to sense the feeling you think is the presence of your god's holy spirit. Do you feel it? If so pray to it and ask it to tell you my special number.

If your god is real, and if it knows many things, it surely knows my special number. There is no clear reason why there should be a morally sufficient reason for it to remain silent on my special number. 

If your god is real, and if it wants you to think its real, then it should have no problem showing you its real. A rational being will use rational means to achieve a desired end. You may think Matthew 4:7 gets you off the hook for testing your god, but is does not. Invoking ekpeirazō drawn from Mt 4.7 references back to Deut 6:16 and 8:2. Modern Biblical Criticism shows the Pentateuch was not authored by the fictional character Moses, and besides, Matthew's Jesus then, in Mt 4:10, goes on to misquote Deut 6:13 by inserting the adverb 'only' into the text. This shows the authors/editors/redactors of Matthew to have, like all other Bible scribblers, been playing fast and lose with whatever they may have had perceived as facts.

Additionally Deuteronomy itself is a forgery as the Bible itself indicates in 2 Kings c.22 story of how during King Josiah's renovation of the Temple, The Book of The Law, Deuteronomy, was found by Hilkiah. The story goes on to describe how the priests scammed Josiah by using Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22:14) to validate Josiah's superstitions. 

Matthew 4:7 won't get you off the hook for honoring your own personal commitment to your own self. You owe it to yourself to test your god. The Bible itself shows its ok to do so. Worked for Gideon: Judges 6:36-40; Elijah: 1 Kings 18:36-38; Isaiah: 2 Kings 20:8-11. See if your god will tell you my special number. If it can, then you can know its a real deal, if not, then you're delusional. 

You have nothing to lose.

March 24, 2012 8:25 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 24, 2012 8:50 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

@Ydemoc : I'm feeling strong sympathy and compassion for you and your family. That your brother is afflicted with religious fundamentalism is a grievous cause for concern. You will have to be very careful with him. Tell him you love him and want only good things for him. Confront him with the facts, starting with that you are not Satan. Show him the passages in the Bible that refer to Satan wherein it is seen that Satan is one of YHWH's special messengers (angles). Satan is part of the firm. The New Testament character, the Devil, is most likely drawn from Zoroastrianism's evil anti-god Angra Mainyu or Ahriman. Show your brother the facts about inflationary cosmology and evolution. There was no first cause or even a beginning to existence. Biological complexity is a natural phenomena so there is no teleological purpose to existence. Do it by email to avoid making him excessively afraid. Try to get other rational minded relatives to help deprogram him from the cult he's involved with. Be patient; be loving; be tough. It might take several years to get through all his defenses and make him realize he's predicating his religious stance on ideas the possibility of which are unprovable and that are demonstrably impossible.

March 24, 2012 8:53 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

Steve,

Yes, Yes, Yes .

You're a Christian.


You've got a very strange definition of Christian, then, since I don't believe the resurrection happened.

I look forward to your comments, Dawson; it'll be an interesting discussion.

March 24, 2012 9:26 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

How do you know Steve?

March 24, 2012 9:28 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Robert,

Thanks for your many kind words and advice. I have already done many of the things you've suggested.

Let me say that despite our differences, my brother and I still talk on a daily basis, still laugh at many of the same things, and still agree on many things, and offer each other advice on many non-faith issues (I can see Trinity and others of his ilk rolling their eyes at this, thinking to themselves "There are no 'non-faith' issues!".... yeah, okay, whatever...)

Anyway, my brother knows I'm an atheist, and I know that he is confessionally invested in the imaginary -- although, of course, he doesn't call it that.

He has insisted that I respect his faith position and that I not try to debate him anymore -- and I have tried to comply with this request. But I have told him that I respect his faith about the same as he respects Islam or Mormonism or any other non-Christian, non-Calvinistic worldview. He doesn't like it too much when I tell him that.

He has many, many times told me he will no longer discuss theological issues with me. I've told him, "Great! Then don't bring them up." -- but he still does. I'm never the one who broaches the subject; he is, even though he said some time ago he was going to refrain from doing so: "I shook the dust off my feet a while ago," he likes to say.

I guess his feet are still dusty, since he still cannot seem to help himself from bringing up the topic of his faith in most of our conversations.

In an attempt to preempt and stifle any dissent on my part, he often prefaces comments by stating, "Now I don't want any comment by you on what I'm about to say...," as he goes into some "Jesus is the only way" spiel or whatever, as it pertains to one issue or another

Out of courtesy, I sometimes comply with his request of not commenting; other times I tell him that it's probably best that he not tell me whatever it is he's going to tell me, because I'm not always going to sit like a bump on a log, tacitly sanctioning whatever it is he tells me -- especially if it is so fricken' absurd that it requires a response, (which is most often the case).

I think next time I'll tell him, "Look, if you are going to invoke your faith when talking about this issue, and you don't want a response, but would rather I remain silent about it, why bother telling me at all? In fact, why not just go pray?" (And if he really doesn't want a response, that's actually what he should do, since praying is actually just talking to oneself.)

(continued)

March 24, 2012 10:50 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

When it comes to his belief and any evidence to the contrary (I know I'm understating it here), he has his head buried deeply in the sand.

You might ask, How did he and I get to this point? We'd never talked very deeply about these issues until a few years back, when he was bible thumping, inviting me to church with him, asking me why I didn't want to go, along with saying some rather absurd things about evolution, and showing quite a bit of ignorance about the topic.

At the time, I wasn't as informed as I am today about evolution and philosphy, but I knew enough to know that the things he was saying were nothing more than faith-driven dogma.

So I investigated. I learned much more about evolution and why it is a fact. In my research, I stumbled upon Dawson's blog (I was familiar with Thorn's, but hadn't been there for a long time because I thought it defunct), which was a tremendous eye-opener for me, about what's really going on behind the curtain of religious belief, and why all god-belief is groundless.

Every time the topic of faith came up in conversations with my brother, I presented my findings to him.

Eventually, he went from someone who was thrilled to be having what he called "bible study" with me, to someone who was now asking that I not bring up the topic of Christianity at all anymore, and who now attempts to shut down any of my responses whenever ***he** does bring up the topic!

Funny how our conversations have... evolved.

Luckily, I still have a sense of humor about a lot of this stuff. And, at the right time, this humor is a useful tool for diffusing what would otherwise be contentious and tense conversations. It doesn't always work, though.

Nonetheless, we continue to talk. I continue to tell him what I think, especially if I think what he's saying is way off base.

Stay tuned....

Ydemoc

March 24, 2012 10:51 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

How do you know Steve?

Because if there is one thing I can be more certain of than anything else, because it is inside my own head and directly knowable *only* to myself, it's my beliefs.

And Jesus' resurrection isn't among them.

March 24, 2012 2:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "How do you know Steve?"

Steve, I might answer Trinity thusly:

Because the impossibility of the contrary, silly.

I see Trinity has yet to answer my questions about the other imaginary being he believes in (I think that makes at least four magic beings that he has yet to account for, except by "imagining in a vicious circle"):

Does Satan have knowledge and can he use reason?

Is Satan a genius?

If he answer "yes" to any of these questions, how does he account for knowing this without his "imagining in a vicious circle"?

Ydemoc

March 24, 2012 3:10 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Steve,

I thought you weren't certain about anything.

Ydemoc,

Stupid people hate correction.

What's wrong aren't you gonna defend your hero?



Steve Rember stick and move.

March 24, 2012 3:49 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "How do you know Steve?"

Steve, I might answer Trinity thusly:

Because the impossibility of the contrary, silly.

I see Trinity has yet to answer my questions about the other imaginary being he believes in (I think that makes at least four magic beings that he has yet to account for, except by "imagining in a vicious circle"):

Does Satan have knowledge and can he use reason?

Is Satan a genius?

If he answer "yes" to any of these questions, how does he account for knowing this without his "imagining in a vicious circle"?

Ydemoc

March 24, 2012 4:34 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

HA;

Learn to read; I said "more certain of..."

And with every post like that tou make, you accomplish reverse evagelism -- you make me like the idea of being like you less and less appealing.

March 24, 2012 6:32 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

What's your point Steve?

What will a man give in exchange for his soul?

This is a duel to the death, after the tradition of cornelius van til, don't go to hell Steve that's all I wanna see you get saved from. Ydemoc too even though he annoys me.

March 24, 2012 6:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

From the An Atheist Viewpoint -- http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-difference-year-makes.html

These are Trinity's posts during an exchange we had:

------------------------------------

Hezekiah Ahaz Jan 2, 2012 09:43 AM

"Ydemoc I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest hell."


Hezekiah Ahaz Jan 2, 2012 11:44 AM

"Alex I try to love everybody but some people can really act like an ass i.e. Ydemoc."
-----------------------------------

Meanwhile, in his posted comment above, Trinity writes:

"... that's all I wanna see you [Steve] get saved from. Ydemoc too even though he annoys me."

Trinity exhibits the bipolar consequences of "imagining in a vicious circle" as he continues his ultimately futile quest to make the arbitrary come true.

Was he sincere then or is he sincere now?

Ydemoc

March 24, 2012 9:52 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

like I said yea you're still an ass.

March 24, 2012 10:53 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

What's your point, Steve?

That you're doing the opposite of what you claim to intend.

That your tactics are hurting your cause.

If a Christian is someone who acts like you, if you are in any way a model, then I am even more glad not to be one. That you are setting a bad example for your faith.

This is a duel to the death, after the tradition of cornelius van til, don't go to hell Steve that's all I wanna see you get saved from.

You have come perilously close to presenting a God whom I sufficiently morally disapprove of that I would consider resistance the only honorable and moral alternative. "Here I stand I can do no otherwise"

So stop trying to claim me as a Christian, HA. Even if I were to be a deist, I would not be that sort of deist.

March 25, 2012 12:49 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Steve,

And you think complaining will make the facts go away?

March 25, 2012 4:34 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Robert wrote: “I would have addressed your points, but they were directed towards Dawson. I thought it inappropriate to chime in with my opinion before Dawson provided his answer.”

Robert et al.: Please, this is unnecessary. No one is stepping on my toes here by addressing points that come up in a discussion before I do. Indeed, I might never address something specifically, either because I don’t think it’s important, or I simply do not have the time. This latter explanation is most likely.

Many of the participants in the comments of my blog contribute substantial thoughts well worth considering (though I do admit that Nide is not among these), and I appreciate the time and effort it takes to post one’s thoughts here. I do not want to deter this in any way.

But if you have something to say on a matter, please don’t wait for me to chime in on the issue first. I might never get a chance to, and it’s not as though my thoughts on the matter in question automatically supersede yours. Seriously, I really don’t want this notion to cause anyone hesitation. If thinkers allowed hesitation to prevail, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

My schedule is extremely demanding. Beginning tomorrow I will be heading off to a 5-day conference at some “resort” in the jungles of central Thailand. I have no idea what my accommodations will be. I don’t know whether or not I’ll be able to take warm-water showers, let alone have access to the internet. And even if I do, my blog will not be my priority.

So please, if you have something to say on a matter, please don’t wait on me. If you’re adult in your thinking and presentation of your ideas, you’re welcome here, regardless of your perspective. Let’s discover together. Time and time again Robert, you have proven yourself as a worthy contributor on my blog, even if I do not always comment on what you say. You always bring something fresh to the conversation, so please don’t feel like you need to defer to someone else to have your say.

Okay, I’m going to reply to imnotandrei next.

Regards,
Dawson

March 25, 2012 6:52 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Imnotandrei writes: “The main issue is this: You are presuming non-predestination, of either a strong (everything will happen as it will) or weak (We know some things will happen) form.”

Actually, I don’t think predestination (or the presumption thereof) is at all relevant.

Imnotandrei explains: “In a universe where the Resurrection *will always happen* (i.e. is a necessary, not a contingent fact), then that can be used as a ground for ‘intelligibility’.”

I don’t see how the resurrection, even if it is considered to be a product of some broad predestination scheme (and no doubt Christians will claim it is), could still “be used as a ground for ‘intelligibility’.” The Christian can certainly say (as mystics openly embrace the arbitrary) that the resurrection is a “necessary” event given the assumption of divine predestination. Fine. But that still does not make the resurrection suitable as a (or *the*) precondition for intelligibility. Simply being a staple of the universe is not sufficient to make it relevant to the question of what grounds intelligibility.

Imnotandrei continues: “The when/where of the event can be contingent without it itself being contingent”

I get that. Indeed, the believer may very well hold that that the mechanical specifics surrounding the resurrection as an event are “contingent” while holding that the resurrection itself is a necessary advent, regardless of those specifics. That’s fine. But again, the question at this point is not whether or not the resurrection is *predestined* or “necessary,” but rather if it is relevant to intelligibility as such. Simply saying that some event is “necessary” in nature (even given predestination) is not sufficient to give it fundamental relevance to intelligibility when in fact it may not be relevant to begin with (and we know it’s not). The assumption of relevance would need to be argued for, and I frankly don’t see how one could seriously press the point that it is relevant. One could *arbitrarily* press for this point, but that is what we should expect: defenders of the arbitrary will resort to citing additional arbitrariness in defense of their arbitrary viewpoint.

Imnotandrei gave an analogy to support his point: “the loser of the 2012 Presidential race will give a concession speech, but we don't know exactly when, and where only in the vaguest of terms (Almost certainly in the U.S.)”

Of course, the loser of the election could (e.g.,) suffer a heart attack or be killed in an auto accident on the night of the election. Consequently, there’d be no concession speech, at least from the loser himself. But I understand: it’s sure to happen at some point barring such exceptional situations which would bear on the matter. But again, the issue here is not whether or not the event in question is sure or likely to happen; but, rather, whether it is relevant to the matter at hand, namely the preconditions for intelligibility. The loser of the 2012 presidential election giving his concession speech is not a precondition for intelligibility. Indeed, the preconditions for intelligibility need to be in place for such a speech to be intelligible. The same is the case for the resurrection: the preconditions which give the resurrection its historicity, meaning and significance need to be in place in order for the resurrection to be what Christians consider (read: imagine) it to be.

[Continued…]

March 25, 2012 6:59 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Imnotandrei qualified his analogy: “(Now, since I am a materialist, I will not assert that the concession speech is necessary, but you get the general drift.)”

But even if you believed (with solid grounds) that the concession speech is in fact necessary, it would still not follow from this that the concession speech itself, or the event of the concession speech in general, is suitable as the precondition for intelligibility. Indeed, the same question I raised earlier comes up: what is the relevance? On the contrary, the meaningfulness of the concession speech would presuppose certain preconditions which make its intelligibility possible. It could not be the precondition of intelligibility as such: it needs the preconditions for intelligibility to be in place in order for the speech to be intelligible.

Imnotandrei also wrote: “If the universe is viewed as a finished product from the start, which we are simply experiencing as we move through it, then the conditions for intelligibility (as described by presuppers) can exist.”

If the universe is viewed as a *product* to begin with, then it is a product of some activity begun (and “planned” – in the case of Christianity) prior to its existence. Are we to suppose that this activity (indeed, *conscious* activity per Christianity) proceeded in the absence of the preconditions for intelligibility? If the precondition for intelligibility is a part of a product (e.g., the resurrection as a historical event – even a necessary event – in the universe), then it seems that the producing which made the product a reality had to take place in the absence of that precondition. And this is just one of the fallouts of the view which Bolt affirms. Indeed, self-attesting absurdity was never so plain as this.

Imnotandrei writes: “Now, they happen (as you and I have both discussed elsewhere) to be *wrong* as to their preconditions, but that doesn't mean that these *particular* conditions result in the problems you describe.”

But what makes their position wrong? I don’t know what imnotandrei would say, since he has already stated that he rejects Objectivism. My view, generally, is that (a) they ignore the primacy of existence, and (b) their worldview lacks an objective understanding of concepts. Ignoring the primacy of existence puts them on the wrong side of truth to begin with; lacking an objective theory of concepts simply leaves them in the dark as to how to find their way out of their mystical mess. Christianity simply is not true, but the primacy of existence tells us why this is the case fundamentally, and the objective theory of concepts tells us why their lack of it leads them to the myriad confusions which they affirm in place of truth.

I have a lot more to say on this matter, but it will have to wait. I’m already way behind on the things that I do need to take care of now.

Regards,
Dawson

March 25, 2012 7:04 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

Steve,

And you think complaining will make the facts go away?


Considering you have no facts to offer, I'm not complaining about the facts. I'm dismissing your attempts to impute beliefs onto me.

March 25, 2012 10:09 AM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

Dawson,

Thank you for your reply...

But that still does not make the resurrection suitable as a (or *the*) precondition for intelligibility. Simply being a staple of the universe is not sufficient to make it relevant to the question of what grounds intelligibility.

We agree. I simply argued that it was not *contradictory* for them to do so. Irrelevant and contradictory are not the same. (It seemed to me in the original post you'd been wondering how something "contingent"could be foundational)

But what makes their position wrong?

And here we get to another difference -- I am not making assertions about the existence or non-existence of God (since I've mostly been arguing against the TAG) -- but rather simply that as a "proof", it is critically flawed, relying on a raft of logical fallacies tied together with blatant assertions and powered by the hot air of its proponents (to be, for a moment, flowery of metaphor. ;))

March 25, 2012 10:55 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

I was challenged to come on "fundamentally flawed" but I'm declining since I don't have the proper equipment.

I don't really remember the excuse you used in your decline of Sye challenge but yea I'm not really into the atheist pony shows either.


Dawson said: " (though I do admit that Nide is not among these)"


HAHAHHA.....Dawson I thought you cared about me.



Steven,

After all we have been through is this the way you really plan on showing your gratitude?

March 25, 2012 2:03 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: “But that still does not make the resurrection suitable as a (or *the*) precondition for intelligibility. Simply being a staple of the universe is not sufficient to make it relevant to the question of what grounds intelligibility.”

Imnotandrei replied: “We agree. I simply argued that it was not *contradictory* for them to do so. Irrelevant and contradictory are not the same.”

The contradiction comes in the form of a stolen concept fallacy. Suppose one presents a very complex trigonometric proof involving various formulae and equations, and then says that this entire proof is the precondition for the intelligibility of basic arithmetic. The problem is that the proof assumes the intelligibility of basic arithmetic already: the proof would not be possible unless basic arithmetic were already meaningful to begin with, which means: its preconditions for intelligibility would have to be something far more fundamental than the proof in question. This is essentially a contradiction of conceptual hierarchy, which is just as much a contradiction as saying 2+2=3 (or for Christians, 1+1+1=1). Moreover, I would say that the Christian view is indeed contradictory, since it contradicts the facts. Apologists try to conceal its contradictions by erecting a mirage of “internal coherence” and pointing to things that are completely irrelevant to human epistemology, e.g., the “resurrection,” as though they did have some relevance. So we have not only a contradiction, but a perverse indulgence in irrelevancy. So yes, quite absurd indeed!

[Continued…]

March 25, 2012 3:34 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Imnotandrei wrote: “(It seemed to me in the original post you'd been wondering how something ‘contingent’ could be foundational)”

The necessary-contingent dichotomy is not the domain of rational philosophy, but is one of the staples of Anal Phil. And I’m guessing that Anal Phillers would object to placing the resurrection in the necessary category. If you recall your earlier statement, you had stated: “In a universe where the Resurrection *will always happen* (i.e. is a necessary, not a contingent fact), then that can be used as a ground for ‘intelligibility’.” My understanding is that Anal Phil holds that only those things that obtain in all “possible universes” can rightly be said to be genuinely “necessary.” And the way that we can determine whether or not something is going to obtain in all “possible universes” is to see how far one can get by imagining its absence. We can’t imagine the absence of logic, so the thinking presumably goes, so logic is “necessary.” We can’t imagine 2+2 not equaling 4, so basic arithmetic truths are “necessary.” But we can easily imagine that the resurrection did not take place (indeed, I’m convinced there never was one in the first place), so it cannot on this analysis be genuinely “necessary.” Simply saying that it’s “always” going to happen in one particular given universe, is not sufficient to make it “necessary” as the Anal Phillers typically conceive of it, so far as I understand the “logic” of their thinking. This is the point I was raising in my blog entry when I pointed out that we can imagine a Pilate who’s sympathetic to Jesus’ plight and seeks to protect him from harm, thus precluding his crucifixion (and consequently his resurrection). Not hard to imagine this, and the imagination is the ultimate decider for the Anal Phillers as to what’s “necessary” and what’s “contingent.” (Though they probably wouldn’t admit this.)

My broader point begins with the fact that, in Christianity, the resurrection is not a standalone. It assumes an enormous context of issues and notions upon which its meaning and significance within Christianity depend. But to cast the resurrection in the role of the precondition for intelligibility treats it as a standalone and ignores the enormous context upon which its meaning and significance within Christianity stand. (It also treats it as though it were relevant to the question of what the preconditions of intelligibility are or must be, and that in itself is absurd.)

Moreover, Christians insist that the resurrection is a historical event. And as such, it comes in the midst of a long chain of historical events which precedes it. How can a historical event be the precondition for intelligibility? How? Especially when the meaning and significance of the resurrection depend on such a huge context of underlying assumptions, notions, factors, etc., for its own intelligibility. The meaning and significance of the resurrection assume the intelligibility of everything from causality to guilt, from divine decree to redemption, from humbling to glorification, from mercy to fulfillment, etc., etc. Since the meaning and significance of the resurrection rest on the conceptual integrity of these underlying factors, their intelligibility must already be secured in order for the resurrection itself as a historical event and a divine fulfillment to be intelligible. It could not logically be the other way around, for that would be turning logic on its head. But this is in effect what has been affirmed. Indeed, quite absurd!

Okay, I have to go now.

Regards,
Dawson

March 25, 2012 3:39 PM  
Blogger imnotandrei said...

HA, I owe you no gratitude.

March 25, 2012 3:44 PM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Hello everyone: Its a nice day. I'll get back to this thread asap. For now, however, got other things to do

Best/Good

March 29, 2012 10:25 AM  
Blogger Alex B said...

I wonder why Richard 'Hezekiah Ahaz' Conniel continued to let everyone think that he was his (uninvolved, perhaps) brother, Nide?

Unless, of course, he's a pathological liar, and really IS Nide all along.

Something odd is going on in his mind, as there's a major disconnect between how he acts in a live encounter and how he behaves on blogs...it's almost like he's two different people.

April 01, 2012 1:50 PM  
Blogger Alex B said...

Also, I don't know if you heard the podcast featuring Mr Corniel, Dawson

http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-03-30_episode_41__hezekiah_ahaz_special.mp3

April 01, 2012 1:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home