tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8142465704328096960..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Rawlings' BawlingsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger676125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2548118354800118842013-01-27T17:22:52.519-05:002013-01-27T17:22:52.519-05:00Richard Carrier made an interesting observation am...Richard Carrier made an interesting observation among many regarding Christian epistemology.<br /><br />Richard Carrier in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/237xopo" rel="nofollow">Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?</a> writes in rebuttal to J.P. Holding about historical standards employed by early Christians.<br /><br /> <i>John uses the same vocabulary as Paul when he tells Christians to "test" prophetic spirits by seeing whether they promote or stifle love. Indeed, his test is absurdly question-begging: "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God, but is the spirit of the Antichrist" (1 John 4:1-3). As standards of inquiry go, this hits rock bottom. The only further test subsequently offered is the criterion of whether the spirit promotes love or worldly desires (1 John 4:4-5:13), since only the former comes from God. It is impossible to accept any of these tests as evidence today. Whether someone in a prophetic trance confesses Christ and advocates love has no bearing at all on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. Indeed, the mere fact that these tests were more than sufficient for Christian converts proves exactly the opposite of Holding's point: they were satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call "irrefutable" evidence.</i><br /><br />What Paul and early Church leaders used for epistemology was faith. They sought to <i>'proves' the truth by appealing to the efficacy of apostolic miracle-working, to subjective revelation, to scripture, and to his upstanding behavior or 'suffering' as proof of his sincerity.</i> <a href="http://preview.tinyurl.com/2cwtbal" rel="nofollow">Link to Carrier's article</a> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-19331331696245228272013-01-26T17:43:43.827-05:002013-01-26T17:43:43.827-05:00@Robert
you got redirected, seriously, sorry abou...@Robert<br /><br />you got redirected, seriously, sorry about that guys. I am running linux with a very very locked down browser and so I tend to not worry about or give consideration for how dangerous the web can be for windows systems. I never saw the redirect attempt at all. They might have an OS string detector and ignore anything but windows as that is their intended target. Sorry folks.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-27903151762566802382013-01-26T11:23:23.904-05:002013-01-26T11:23:23.904-05:00Ha LOL. Nide's blog name has been taken and us...Ha LOL. Nide's blog name has been taken and used by an atheist hacker. Stay the frack away from http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/ cause it'll redirect to some web nasty phishing-id-theft malware sites.<br /><br />There are millions of Nides out there lost in their mythos. It's interesting to me that Christians depend upon the fallacy that their arbitrary assertions are plausible because they're possible. But this ignores that the word possible means<br /><br /><br />1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.<br />2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.<br />3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.<br />4. Of uncertain likelihood.<br /><br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible<br /><br />Since it's not possible for information to occur as other than encoding in material particles, or casualty to obtain sans existence, or consciousness to be other than awareness of objects, then the religious claim that YHWH/Jehovah existed prior to existence is an attempt to smuggle in a redefinition of the word possible as meaning anything goes. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68025812725519041492013-01-26T01:08:23.697-05:002013-01-26T01:08:23.697-05:00@Photo
holy shit indeed. Yeah I saw that he had s...@Photo<br /><br />holy shit indeed. Yeah I saw that he had some of Dawson's original stuff from back in 2005. What I suspect is that this guy has been a regular reader here since the start but never commented. The second that Nide, Richard or whatever deleted his old blog this guy probably starting trying to get it for the pure comic value. Eventually it was once again put back in the pool of available blog names and he snatched it up. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66636718466613271892013-01-25T22:14:55.988-05:002013-01-25T22:14:55.988-05:00Holy shit Justin,
Looks a lot like the work of an...Holy shit Justin,<br /><br />Looks a lot like the work of an excellent hacker, doesn't it? I mean, it has posts by Dawson ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50789210745069810102013-01-25T18:07:30.782-05:002013-01-25T18:07:30.782-05:00arg... Dawson I did not mean to double post, I got...arg... Dawson I did not mean to double post, I got a error 503 the first time and assumed it did not go thru:)<br /><br />The blog I linked to appears to have been up for some time but has he exact same name as a certain so and so we know, how strangeJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-55838189587253819952013-01-25T17:49:01.101-05:002013-01-25T17:49:01.101-05:00This is too strange to believe
http://hezekiahah...This is too strange to believe<br /><br /><br />http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62496223516171220332013-01-25T17:47:21.268-05:002013-01-25T17:47:21.268-05:00Ok now this is too strange to believe
http://heze...Ok now this is too strange to believe<br /><br />http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82277461049919926112013-01-25T09:12:50.665-05:002013-01-25T09:12:50.665-05:00I recall having watched a television documentary a...I recall having watched a television documentary about the origins of religion. The idea was similar to the parallel Ydemoc noted with Manti Te’o and the “girlfriend” hoax. We humans have love and feelings for each other. In the deep past many thousands of years ago the ancestors grieved for their loved ones lost and simultaneously puzzled and pondered the whys of nature. Those early people as do we today have proclivity towards presupposing purposeful consciousness exists beyond our minds, so it seemed natural and easy to imagine gods, ghosts, and spirits who exerted control over the environment. And so, superstitions and magics were born. The next step to shamanism, ritual belief, and religion was easy, and humanity lived in fear and awe of an imaginary great beyond ever after. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75785970250069291342013-01-24T20:03:21.257-05:002013-01-24T20:03:21.257-05:00-- Manti continued to perpetuate the story -- of n...-- Manti continued to perpetuate the story -- of not only having had this girlfriend, but also of the grief he suffered when she “died” -- with friends, teammates and the media, even *after* he was notified that it was all a hoax! He tells Couric: “"Katie, put yourself in my situation. I, my whole world told me that she died on Sept. 12. Everybody knew that. This girl, who I committed myself to, died on Sept. 12. Now I get a phone call on Dec. 6, saying that she's alive and then I'm going be put on national TV two days later. And to ask me about the same question. You know, what would you do?" <br /> <br />-- Manti says he *felt* fear upon learning that his “girlfriend” hadn’t really “died” like he thought, but was actually alive, and he was at a loss on what to do. He tells Couric: ”I thought, what would everybody think? What are you going to tell everybody? At that time on Dec. 8, when I found out she was alive. I wasn’t ready for that. I didn’t know who to turn to. I was scared.”<br /><br />-- Others have claimed to have actually “seen” the girlfriend. (Granted, to fool Manti, those behind the hoax *did* use an actual picture of a girl)<br /><br />For more on Couric’s interview, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/manti-teo-tells-katie-couric-hoax-emotions-real/story?id=18293500<br /> <br />I think the parallels to god-belief are clear enough and do not require elaboration. And there may be even more that I’ve overlooked. <br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77247358411767926942013-01-24T19:57:55.698-05:002013-01-24T19:57:55.698-05:00Hi everyone,
I don’t know how many of you have be...Hi everyone,<br /><br />I don’t know how many of you have been following the story that’s been in the news lately regarding Notre Dame star linbacker Manti Te’o and the “girlfriend” he claimed to have had for some three years, but I have noticed similarities between what we’ve heard about so far, and what we see and hear from those who embrace god-belief.<br /><br />First a quick summary -- this from Wikipedia: “One of the enduring stories of Notre Dame's 2012 season was Te'o's strong play following the death of his grandmother and girlfriend, as well as his emergence as a Heisman Trophy candidate. In January 2013, Deadspin revealed that the existence and death of his girlfriend had been faked. Te'o released a statement[3] claiming to have been the victim of a hoax that lured him into an online relationship with a nonexistent woman.[4]”<br /><br />For more details, scroll down to the section “Girlfriend hoax” at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manti_Te%27o<br /><br />-- Manti never actually met his “girlfriend” in person, though they did speak on the phone.<br /><br />-- Manti claims that what he *felt* for his “girlfriend” -- both the love for her while she was alive and the grief upon learning of her “death” -- was “real.” As he put it in an interview with Katie Couric: "What I went through was real. You know the feelings, the pain, the sorrow, that was all real and that's something that I can't fake.""<br /><br />(continued...)Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90372407936122124532013-01-23T19:33:03.784-05:002013-01-23T19:33:03.784-05:00Robert,
Thanks for sharing this excellent quote. ...Robert,<br /><br />Thanks for sharing this excellent quote. It really hits home on the very topic you intended it to address. Here Augustine provides the essential formula for Christianity's intellectual hijacking from non-Christian achievements.<br /><br />Compare Augustine's point with the point Van Til makes in <i>The Defense of the Faith</i> (p. 23n.1), where he writes:<br /><br /><< I do not understand why my critics object when I use such terms as “concrete universal” or employ such terms as “the universal,” “the particular,” “the one and many.” Especially do I not understand this on the part of those who are “experts in philosophy” and whose business it is to teach philosophy from the Christian point of view. The charge of “intellectual anabaptism” might well be lodged against me if, as a teacher of Christian apologetics, I failed to translate Christian truth in the language of the day. Is not the important thing that Christian meanings be contrasted with non-Christian meanings? The Apostles did not shun the usage of language borrowed from non-Christian sources. When they used the term logos must they be thought of as followers of Philo’s non-Christian thought simply because he also used that term? >><br /><br />The Christian “principle” then may be condensed as follows: “The non-Christian achievements are to be taken over and retrofitted with Christian meanings and interpretations drawn from the biblical worldview and stamped with the label of Christianity, not in order to adopt the vices of the non-Christian’s depravity, but using a semblance thereof in order to advance the Christian agenda.”<br /><br />That’s essentially what’s going on. Augustine was clearly influenced by Plato. Moreover, and importantly, since Christianity actually has no epistemology of its own, the Platonic model, given its overt mysticism, was a natural fit. One could say that bible-based Christianity has a Plato-shaped hole that needed to be filled. Augustine recognized this need and, given his familiarity with Platonism, sought to fill that hole.<br /><br />Okay, another very busy week. Keep up the convo, I’m watching but can’t participate much at this time.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48863411392281579902013-01-23T16:42:55.674-05:002013-01-23T16:42:55.674-05:00Michael claimed Christianity did not borrow from P...Michael claimed Christianity did not borrow from Platonism contrary to What Augustine wrote in "On Christian Doctrine", book II 40.60<br /><br /><i>60. Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God's providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use.</i><br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-61979959919028902412013-01-22T11:16:41.124-05:002013-01-22T11:16:41.124-05:00Cheers Robert that was a very interesting and some...Cheers Robert that was a very interesting and somewhat enlightening read.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82175511403701764152013-01-21T09:17:04.954-05:002013-01-21T09:17:04.954-05:00Hello Ydemoc, thanks for posting the link to an i...Hello Ydemoc, thanks for posting the link to an interesting upcoming debate. D'Souza is whack job. I'm not familiar with Bernstein, but if he's a competent Objectivist, then he'll steamroll D'Souza. Looks like fun. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90306968057422748632013-01-20T23:57:19.757-05:002013-01-20T23:57:19.757-05:00Robert,
You mentioned that you live in Texas. If...Robert,<br /><br />You mentioned that you live in Texas. If you reside anywhere near Austin, I thought I'd draw your attention to this notice which is part of the regular mailings I receive from "The Objective Standard":<br />_____________________<br /><br />TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective<br /><br />Sunday, January 20, 2013<br />Livestream of D’Souza–Bernstein Debate on Christianity<br /><br />Posted by TOS Admin at 4:52 pm<br /><br />The Livestream option for viewing the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Bernstein—Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?—is now available for purchase.<br /><br />This event, which will be held on February 8 at 7:00 PM CST in Austin, TX, will be the first time a major religious intellectual has debated a major Objectivist intellectual. Never before has a theist of D’Souza’s stature grappled with a philosopher espousing a secular, observation-based, absolute morality—and never before has an Objectivist of Bernstein’s caliber grappled with a Christian as knowledgeable as D’Souza is about philosophy.<br /><br />Religion vs. Objectivism is the battle for the future of the West, and this debate will put the central issues on the table for all to see.<br /><br />Please help spread the word about it by inviting your friends to attend either live in Austin or via Livestream on the Web.<br /><br />http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php<br /><br />Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?<br />Dinesh D’Souza vs. Andrew Bernstein<br /><br />When: February 8, 2013, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM<br /><br />Where: Hogg Auditorium, University of Texas–Austin<br /><br />Tickets: General Admission $30.00, Students $8.00<br /><br />This event will be accessible via livestream for $5.00. To purchase Livestream access, click here.<br />Brought to you by The Objective Standard and UT Objectivism Society<br /><br />The Issue in Question<br />Is Christianity the source of important truths, moral law, and man’s rights and thus profoundly good for mankind—or is it antithetical to all such values and thus profoundly bad? Christian conservative Dinesh D’Souza will argue that Christianity is good; Objectivist atheist Andrew Bernstein will argue the alternative.<br /><br />https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events/dsouza-bernstein.asp<br />________________________________<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76787926468126317032013-01-20T11:32:50.683-05:002013-01-20T11:32:50.683-05:00Hello friends: I registered on createdebate.com wi...Hello friends: I registered on createdebate.com with my twitter sock account, fxinfidel. (I fancy myself able to learn how to make coin from forex trading.) I then posted an attempt at a <a href="http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Primacy_Inanimateness_or_Consciousness#arg333205" rel="nofollow">response to Michael's fallacy.</a><br /><br />Now it's time to get some work done prior to heading to the gym. Today is an abs and legs day.<br /><br />Best and Good. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83203379141179936912013-01-20T10:24:06.906-05:002013-01-20T10:24:06.906-05:00Michael is posting on createdebate.com. Here's...Michael is posting on createdebate.com. Here's the godaddy whois domain registration info <a rel="nofollow">link</a> <br /><br />Createdebate.com was registered by Andrew Dondlinger<br />2400 E. Main St. Suite. 103-156<br />Saint Charles, Illinois 60174<br />United States<br /><br />This guy seems to be a non security threat based on website informer report.<br /><br /> http://website.informer.com/Andrew+Dondlinger.html<br /><br />It probably would not be dangerous to register on create debate using a sock.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67385786952683593142013-01-19T23:38:36.558-05:002013-01-19T23:38:36.558-05:00Hello friends. I'm sobering up after drinking...Hello friends. I'm sobering up after drinking too much wine at dinner. I love a good Cabernet Sauvignon. It's funny Michael is spewing his same crap, and it'd be jolly good fun to ram it back up his ass. To that end, here is an interesting video by You Tube objectivist Dhorpatan where he rebuts a rather nasty Christian You Tube apologist using two clever objectivist atheistic arguments. If you've time, watch the five minute video and post an assessment of Dhorpatan's points.<br /><br />Here's the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oibs8PZD3Q&feature=share&list=PL17077F292647DAD7" rel="nofollow">Link</a><br /><br />Best and Good Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-65189924285936228232013-01-19T22:43:25.082-05:002013-01-19T22:43:25.082-05:00Over on his blog he is also still carrying on talk...Over on his blog he is also still carrying on talking to himself through his sock puppet Kyle JamisonJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-44866321402505363562013-01-19T20:48:12.027-05:002013-01-19T20:48:12.027-05:00Bawlings wants to feel successful. So he goes some...Bawlings wants to feel successful. So he goes somewhere where they will be happy to hear whatever he says. I saw some pretty bad thinking over there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-757850730925152282013-01-19T15:04:19.207-05:002013-01-19T15:04:19.207-05:00Hi folks,
I encourage everyone who might be inter...Hi folks,<br /><br />I encourage everyone who might be interested to check out this link:<br /><br />http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Primacy_Inanimateness_or_Consciousness#arg0<br /><br />Within the last week, a certain someone has submitted a debate question (and replied to it as well). Here is that reply:<br /><br />"The immediate problem with Objectivism's metaphysics is not the notion that existence exists, which is to say that something exists, and that consciousness exists. These things are self-evident as is the law of identity. (Objectivism asserts the obvious as if it were something unique to itself or profound.)<br /><br />The apprehension that something exists is the apprehension that human consciousness exists. So what? Existence exists doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. So what exists? The fact that we have to ask that question demonstrates that human consciousness certainly does not have primacy. But again, so what?<br /><br />1. Existence has primacy over human consciousness.<br /><br />2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.<br /><br />These are not the same assertions at all. The ultimate issue of primacy can hardly be settled without definitively establishing what the nature and the extent of existence are.<br /><br />The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite.<br /><br />Huh? And what are these assertions based on precisely? The certainly doesn’t follow from the fundamental axioms of being."<br /><br />The person's moniker? "Rawlings1234."<br /><br />It goes without saying: all indications point to this certain someone as being none other than Michael David Rawlings. <br /><br />If so, it's too bad that he didn't take more care over there in his assertions, most notably the one where he states: "The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite."<br /><br />If Michael is still paying attention to what is written on Dawson's blog, I would ask: Where in the Objectivist literature can we find it "declared" that "all of existence [is] material"?<br /><br />I would urge him to clarify this himself, before someone wades in and quizzes him on it and/or clarifies it for him.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73764067661962907102013-01-19T11:47:15.470-05:002013-01-19T11:47:15.470-05:00Good morning Justin, Ydemoc, Dawson, Freddie, Phot...Good morning Justin, Ydemoc, Dawson, Freddie, Photo, Gnardude, and friends.<br /><br />Justin, I look forward to reading your blog on the Kalam. Thanks to Photosynthesis for his excellent points concerning the Kalam. <br /><br />A perhaps persistent response that I've seen several times from various theistic believers when confronting notification of observations that casualty, information, and consciousness are contingent to existence is to assert that it's sill logically possible for information, casualty, and consciousness to obtain sans existence. I think this is a good thing because it brings the crazy to the forefront bypassing all the red herrings muddying the waters.<br /><br />Question: How best to frame the discussion as to empathize the objectivist point: "How? Somehow. Blank out." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60515149371822451102013-01-18T19:59:28.092-05:002013-01-18T19:59:28.092-05:00... details, details ... well, if it's a trans...... details, details ... well, if it's a transformation we are talking about, then we should not use the words "begin to exist" in the first place. If it's actual beginning to exist, then cause and effect don;t apply because cause/effect assume existence, and so on and so forth. As I said, no winning for creationists. Always dealing with the absurd when trying to give credence to their absurd beliefs ...<br /><br />Could go on and on ... but that requires giving them too much credit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-28915761467626428482013-01-18T19:55:32.577-05:002013-01-18T19:55:32.577-05:00Damn spellcheckers!
"equivocation to begin w...Damn spellcheckers!<br /><br />"equivocation to <b>begin</b> with"<br /><br />---<br /><br />We are also forgetting that cause/effect assumes existence to begin with, which is the shortest version, Dawson's one, of what I am saying above ... I think.<br /><br />:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com