tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2775403009875440781..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: “Atheism Can’t Ground Objective Morality”?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7377618000262265432014-10-12T11:01:56.805-04:002014-10-12T11:01:56.805-04:00Hello Jason,
You wrote: “Thank you for your respo...Hello Jason,<br /><br />You wrote: “Thank you for your response.”<br /><br />You’re welcome! Really, it was my pleasure entirely.<br /><br />You stated: “I will be responding shortly as you made quite a few unjustified presumptions about the definitions of words,”<br /><br />Really? Since definition is the final step of concept-formation, I would surmise that you would need a theory of concepts in order to raise any substantial epistemological objections against any given definitions. But that’s the problem for you: your worldview, namely Christianity, has no theory of concepts to begin with, which means you would have no worldview-consistent integrated basis for raising objections to any stated definition (that is, without borrowing from some non-Christian perspective on the matter). Therefore, if you are going to challenge any definitions affirmed by Objectivism, then you’re going to have to cite biblical definitions in contrast to them, otherwise you’ll be seen as borrowing from a non-Christian worldview. If borrowing from a non-Christian worldview is okay with you, then by all means, do your worst.<br /><br />You wrote: “my knowledge of objectivism,”<br /><br />Yes, your alleged “knowledge of objectivism.” If what you have published on your blog is any indication, your knowledge of Objectivism couldn’t be more superficial. But this will come out in further postings.<br /><br />You wrote: “and my intention with the original article that I wrote.”<br /><br />Backpedaling already? I quoted your own statements about what you had set out to accomplish in your “original article.” Now you want to say that your intention is something other than what you yourself stated there? <br /><br />You wrote: “I hope that my response will show you that you should be careful rather than overly presumptuous.”<br /><br />You “hope”? Hope is pretty cheap. Anyone can hope for anything. If what you’ve presented so far is any indication of what you can produce, you’re better off sticking to prayer. I believe that means you need to be on your knees, right?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84604099483781296122014-10-12T08:08:01.269-04:002014-10-12T08:08:01.269-04:00Hi Philip,
You wrote: “I was quite amused that af...Hi Philip,<br /><br />You wrote: “I was quite amused that after receiving numerous warnings from the blog software that it doesn't allow anonymous posts, that it posted my comment as ‘unknown’.”<br /><br />Actually, that is quite funny. I had no idea on this end. I’ve seen numerous comments by “unknown” before. Perhaps a similar “malfunction” was occurring with those visitors as well. Interesting. <br /><br />You asked: “A quick question; what blog piece is Jason Peterson ranting about?”<br /><br />The article getting sudden attention is Petersen’s <a href="http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/response-leonard-peikoff/" rel="nofollow">A Response to Dr. Leonard Peikoff on the Existence of God</a>.<br /><br />I am currently in the midst of preparing a full, blow-by-blow interaction with Petersen’s attempts to critique Peikoff’s statements. The first in what should be a series of five posts is already up. You can find it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/10/petersens-failed-attempts-to-refute.html" rel="nofollow">Petersen’s Failed Attempts to Refute Leonard Peikoff: Preamble</a><br /><br />Most of my interaction with the entirety of Petersen’s article has already been drafted. I just need to do the usual review/editing and create introductions. I will roll them out over the next several days, assuming I don’t get impatient and roll them out all at once…<br /><br />You wrote: “I find it hard to believe he has anything of merit to say but his immature behavior aside, it could be interesting.”<br /><br />Yes, I’ve noticed his behavior is quite unbecoming from the perspective of a civilized discussion. I realize that many presuppers are infected with a ‘bunker mentality’ of sorts and are eager to run around and tell any non-believer they meet how stupid they think he is. Christianity seems to bring out the “best” of the immature ones… (and they are legion). <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-9215859524220359822014-10-12T07:46:42.685-04:002014-10-12T07:46:42.685-04:00A quick note;
The unknown comment 3(?) up was by ...A quick note;<br /><br />The unknown comment 3(?) up was by me, Philip Rose A.K.A. TheTruePooka on YouTube.<br /><br />I was quite amused that after receiving numerous warnings from the blog software that it doesn't allow anonymous posts, that it posted my comment as "unknown".<br /><br />Kudos to you fickle Gods of the internet for this humorous moment in my day!<br /><br />A quick question; what blog piece is Jason Peterson ranting about? I didn't know of the man's existence until he came into a Facebook group comment thread because he apparently had some sort of petulant fit and felt the need to childishly hijack it to discuss something of a personal nature to him (we were in the process of having a civilized conversation about Randian Objectivism). <br /><br />I find it hard to believe he has anything of merit to say but his immature behavior aside, it could be interesting. What's the title and the name of the piece and the name of his blog? <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePookaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389356877316896875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31497588532535770592014-10-12T02:44:27.163-04:002014-10-12T02:44:27.163-04:00what i find very ironic about Jason's comment ...what i find very ironic about Jason's comment is that he is studying for a degree at a diploma mill school, the same as "Dr" James White.So yeah you are out of your elementwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25647624542954381832014-10-11T23:45:25.355-04:002014-10-11T23:45:25.355-04:00Jason Petersen,
I am sorry, but after reading the...Jason Petersen,<br /><br />I am sorry, but after reading the first few paragraphs of your response to Peikoff I have to say that you're way out of your element ... your problems do not need to be addressed from an Objectivist viewpoint. It's enough to notice how quickly and unconsciously you change the meanings of any words within a single sentence.<br /><br />We could re-interpret the meaning of "being out of one's element" and then say that in a different sense, you;re way into your element, since presuppositionalism is an open compromise with irrationality and subjectivism, which you played quite well in that thing. But I will leave it alone, as Dawson wants to give you some words himself, and you would learn nothing anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91724004514124389902014-10-11T19:02:28.642-04:002014-10-11T19:02:28.642-04:00I don't think Turkel understands that within t...I don't think Turkel understands that within the context of Western society (and especially American culture) the lack of the concept of individual rights in the bibles is a death blow to the claim of perfection by Christian apologists. <br />No one but fanatics think that the advent of the concept of individual rights is a bad thing. The lack of such a philosophy in the bible shows that the book was a product created by the humans of its time.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389356877316896875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-49704758589193447722014-10-11T18:21:40.455-04:002014-10-11T18:21:40.455-04:00Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comment.
You wrote: “...Hi Robert,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />You wrote: “It is Christian apologist who must embrace and argue for universal skepticism if they are to generate opportunity to smuggle in their faith fallacies with all the attendant deleterious religious baggage.”<br /><br />Yes, it’s true: Christian apologists are routinely retreating to skepticism in their defenses. So often we hear apologists inserting “You can’t know X!” in one form or another into their predictable harangues. Universal cognitive incompetence of the human mind is the cave in which apologists are constantly seeking refuge. But we must keep in mind that believers themselves accepted this insidious premise on behalf of their own minds long before they set out to defend their worldview. Only an individual who denies the efficacy of his own mind can turn around and say things to the effect that man cannot discover certain truths by means of reason. And as has been pointed out before, when a man sacrifices himself to his god-belief, the first thing to go is his mind. Believers will find many passages in the Christian storybook to warrant such self-immolation. E.g., “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mt. 16:24). Quite simply, if the believer hasn’t sacrificed his mind, he’s holding something back from Jesus. Jesus demands it all. As Christian Paul Washer neatly puts it, “It is really what Jesus said: die and give your life to Him. Die” (<a href="http://illbehonest.com/die-to-self-surrender-to-christ-paul-washer" rel="nofollow">Die to Self, Surrender to Christ</a>). <br /><br />Death is the believer’s spiritual rite of passage. He can have it! I’ll go with life, thank you.<br /><br />Readers who are interested in which worldview – Christianity or Objectivism – is more aligned with “radical skepticism,” are invited to examine my blog entry <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-alternative-do-apostates-have.html" rel="nofollow">What Alternative Do “Apostates” Have After Leaving Christianity?</a> in which I examine this matter.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73875824725743886912014-10-11T18:16:14.694-04:002014-10-11T18:16:14.694-04:00By the way, Jason, and anyone else who is interest...By the way, Jason, and anyone else who is interested…<br /><br />Here’s the link to your (Jason’s) video on Youtube which I quoted in my previous comment:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIPHOwZBgjw" rel="nofollow">Jason Petersen on Epistemology in Secular Philosophy</a>.<br /><br />The point at which I quote from what you say occurs at 6:03-6:17 in this video. So as best I could do, I am faithfully transcribing your own words.<br /><br />Anyway, I’m still looking forward to what you have to say in response to my query above.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11132118985204617012014-10-11T10:49:19.076-04:002014-10-11T10:49:19.076-04:00Thanks to Zeta Male for stating:
However I can n...Thanks to Zeta Male for stating:<br /><br /><i> However I can not fathom the pretzel logic you would have to employ to reach the conclusion that it leads to self refuting skepticism. I look forward to witnessing the train wreak of an argument for its entertainment value I am sure it will provide.</i><br /><br />It is Christian apologist who must embrace and argue for universal skepticism if they are to generate opportunity to smuggle in their faith fallacies with all the attendant deleterious religious baggage. <br /><br />I will schedule time to analyze Dawson's deconstruction and refutations of Petersen's theological fantasies. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3873296293158508992014-10-11T08:16:08.005-04:002014-10-11T08:16:08.005-04:00Hello Jason,
Welcome to my blog!
I’m still work...Hello Jason,<br /><br />Welcome to my blog! <br /><br />I’m still working on my response to your comments against Peikoff’s statements. Please be patient as I just learned of your paper yesterday.<br /><br />In the meantime, I googled your name on Youtube and found quite a few hits. I started listening to one in particular, and I found it quite thought-provoking.<br /><br />In a video titled <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIPHOwZBgjw" rel="nofollow"></a> (6:03 – 6:17), you make the following statement (this is my own transcription of what you said here; please pardon me if I have made any glaring errors):<br /><br /><b><< If you cannot explain how you can know anything, there’s no point in talking about science, there’s no point in talking about creation or evolution. So if you can’t even justify how you know anything, then how are you going to be able to skip over it and say I know what’s right or wrong in the world? >></b><br /><br />A worthy question indeed! There’s a lot of things that come to mind in response to this question you ask.<br /><br />But suppose I respond by saying we know without knowing how we know? How would you respond to this, Jason? I’m curious, because as you probably know, many thinkers would answer you this way, and many would proceed as if this were their answer even if they did not spell it out this way.<br /><br />I await your thoughts.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36034012986646901442014-10-11T03:33:20.457-04:002014-10-11T03:33:20.457-04:00@Jason Petersen
I am no objectivist and I recogni...@Jason Petersen<br /><br />I am no objectivist and I recognize what see as faults in its philosophy. However I can not fathom the pretzel logic you would have to employ to reach the conclusion that it leads to self refuting skepticism. I look forward to witnessing the train wreak of an argument for its entertainment value I am sure it will provide.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12042673117302442691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36319786058173230682014-10-11T01:37:23.414-04:002014-10-11T01:37:23.414-04:00Bahnsen Burner,
You made the assertion that &quo...Bahnsen Burner, <br /><br />You made the assertion that "I am out of my element." I assure you, should you choose to challenge my article, you will be eating those words. <br /><br />I also found it interesting that someone from the "presup is wrong" facebook group came over here to ask for your help after they repeatedly insulted me and said that I had no relevant points that are worth concern. <br /><br />I look forward to your response as it will be yet another opportunity to demonstrate how objectivism leads to a self-refuting skepticism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319955836291719520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-38540328672264472202014-10-10T14:05:42.308-04:002014-10-10T14:05:42.308-04:00"Johan, thanks for the link. I have opened it..."Johan, thanks for the link. I have opened it and am examining it now. Expect a post in the next week or two, or sooner if time permits. Really, it almost seems unfair - like fishing in a barrel. Jason Petersen is really out of his element, but a response might be instructive to readers here and everywhere."<br /><br />Really appreciate it!<br />Love your work!<br />regards, Johan (Sweden).l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76275921682434559312014-10-10T12:28:04.341-04:002014-10-10T12:28:04.341-04:00Many Thanks Dawson.
Many Thanks Dawson. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84987490995952253242014-10-10T08:10:15.920-04:002014-10-10T08:10:15.920-04:00Hi all,
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreci...Hi all,<br /><br />Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it! I have plenty more where that came from, and I'm hoping this month I can crank some of it out.<br /><br />Wak, in response to your question, briefly, see the statement Ydemoc quoted from my blog. If how I would respond to the paragraph you posted still seems hazy, re-read what I've written and give it some more thought. By now you should be able to do some of your own thinking on these things.<br /><br />Johan, thanks for the link. I have opened it and am examining it now. Expect a post in the next week or two, or sooner if time permits. Really, it almost seems unfair - like fishing in a barrel. Jason Petersen is really out of his element, but a response might be instructive to readers here and everywhere.<br /><br />Okay, I have to run.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32541915905977396052014-10-09T23:35:54.826-04:002014-10-09T23:35:54.826-04:00Dawson,
I'm looking forward to reading it all...Dawson,<br /><br />I'm looking forward to reading it all, but I just wanted to comment on something you wrote which I came across very early on:<br /><br />"No matter how one seeks to interpret this, one thing is certain: the biblical code is positively affirming the premise that an individual can be a piece of property belonging to another. (There goes the concept of individual rights in toto.)"<br /><br />Exactly! And since this is the case, the only recourse available for the apologist at this point is what we've seen come from them over and over again: some form of rationalizing, e.g., "that was just the culture of the day," etc.) <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51589195766973411752014-10-09T20:11:32.103-04:002014-10-09T20:11:32.103-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20777949033150029992014-10-09T20:11:02.115-04:002014-10-09T20:11:02.115-04:00This was beautiful Dawson.This was beautiful Dawson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71640303276668258272014-10-09T15:44:32.062-04:002014-10-09T15:44:32.062-04:00Thank you for all the work you put down!
Perhaps ...Thank you for all the work you put down!<br /><br />Perhaps this could be of some interest for your blog: http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/response-leonard-peikoff/<br /><br /><br />/Johanl_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53054756947922301472014-10-09T15:09:23.782-04:002014-10-09T15:09:23.782-04:00Speaking of levticus 25:44-46 Dawson i found a rea...Speaking of levticus 25:44-46 Dawson i found a really interesting way someone tried to explain away the absurdity of that verse<br /><br />"<br />The laws for servants who were non-Hebrews were slightly different. For them there was no automatic release, either in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:44-46), or the seventh year of debt cancellation (Deuteronomy 15:3). These foreign indentured servants were outside the covenant community, and did not receive the benefit of debt cancellation. The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of ‘olam’ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated ‘perpetually’). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled)" <br />"http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/<br /><br />what do you think of this explination Dawson?wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.com