tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6052229495885117424..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like ReligionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66845394167425447002010-07-30T22:25:34.181-04:002010-07-30T22:25:34.181-04:00Ryan,
You said to Ryan Anderson,
Russ made moral ...Ryan,<br />You said to Ryan Anderson,<br /><b><br />Russ made moral claims which his world-view can't substantiate. <br /></b><br />My worldview can and does substantiate any moral claims I may have made. What's more, my worldview discloses that your moral claims stem from exactly the same source as mine. None of the silly Christian gods required.<br /><br />I pointed out earlier that<br /><b><br />Any words ascribed to Jesus had been alive and well in human cultures for thousands of years as people considered better ways for people to live in large aggregate communities rather than the less successful tribal groups they transitioned from. If Biblical Jesus was a real person, then the moral words put in his mouth by the Bible's fabricators preceded him by many centuries, and anything else he's claimed to have uttered belongs on the same trash heap as the other ignorant and superstitious fictions scrawled out by those ancient desert scribes. Your Jesus was nothing special.<br /></b><br /><br />Primate communities have been making gradual adjustments to our understanding of what constitutes moral behavior ever since our pre-human ancestors evolved into social beings. Love, compassion, caring, and even self-sacrifice were alive and well many millenia before humanity differentiated from its predecessors. There simply was, and is, no moral lawgiver. Morality is an empirical series of behavioral successive approximations, not some body of absolutes handed down by an imaginary supernatural moral exemplar. Humans decide on what is moral, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. We afford others better treatment only as we better know, better understand, and have learned to better trust them. We adjust and calculate the moral status we afford others based on differing kinds of interactions. Sexual attraction induces one sets of applied morals. Territorial disputes induce a set of applied morals that are completely different. Friends and neighbors require another distinct set of morals.<br /><br />We apply different sets of morals to those we like versus those we do not. Consider how you interact with us here at DebunkingChristianity. That you hate those of us who disagree with you is apparent. It is apparent for the way you choose the morality you freely apply to us when you would never act this way if you actually considered us your God's children gone astray. It is another body of evidence showing how you Christians do not believe what you say. You clearly do not believe there is a God holding you to account for the way you treat others. Even you know your God is not there, and, thus, that it won't judge you.<br /><br />All manner of practical urgency also influence what is taken as moral. A society wherein life expectancies are short, has the very real concern of tailoring their sexual ethics to reduce the likelihood that they will go extinct. Where life expectancies are long the sexual moral structure must work to avoid an overpopulation that will outstrip the environment's support capacity. These are real issues which cannot be addressed by some imagined set of absolutes.<br /><br />Looking at Christians today, we see them killing their own children as witches and letting their children die from easily treated diseases. Yes, Ryan, they are True Christians. Yet they have no absolute morals telling them not to destroy their own children. <br /><br />You said, "Russ made moral claims which his world-view can't substantiate," but in reality while my worldview does substantiate my moral claims, yours makes claims which are obviously false even as it proclaims them to be absolutely true.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58050082427360433032010-07-30T17:47:01.479-04:002010-07-30T17:47:01.479-04:00Ryan,
You said to Ryan Anderson,
Russ made moral ...Ryan,<br />You said to Ryan Anderson,<br /><b><br />Russ made moral claims which his world-view can't substantiate. <br /></b><br />My worldview can and does substantiate any moral claims I may have made. What's more, my worldview discloses that your moral claims stem from exactly the same source as mine. None of the silly Christian gods required.<br /><br />I pointed out earlier that<br /><b><br />Any words ascribed to Jesus had been alive and well in human cultures for thousands of years as people considered better ways for people to live in large aggregate communities rather than the less successful tribal groups they transitioned from. If Biblical Jesus was a real person, then the moral words put in his mouth by the Bible's fabricators preceded him by many centuries, and anything else he's claimed to have uttered belongs on the same trash heap as the other ignorant and superstitious fictions scrawled out by those ancient desert scribes. Your Jesus was nothing special.<br /></b><br /><br />Primate communities have been making gradual adjustments to our understanding of what constitutes moral behavior ever since our pre-human ancestors evolved into social beings. Love, compassion, caring, and even self-sacrifice were alive and well many millenia before humanity differentiated from its predecessors. There simply was, and is, no moral lawgiver. Morality is an empirical series of behavioral successive approximations, not some body of absolutes handed down by an imaginary supernatural moral exemplar. Humans decide on what is moral, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. We afford others better treatment only as we better know, better understand, and have learned to better trust them. We adjust and calculate the moral status we afford others based on differing kinds of interactions. Sexual attraction induces one sets of applied morals. Territorial disputes induce a set of applied morals that are completely different. Friends and neighbors require another distinct set of morals.<br /><br />We apply different sets of morals to those we like versus those we do not. Consider how you interact with us here at DebunkingChristianity. That you hate those of us who disagree with you is apparent. It is apparent for the way you choose the morality you freely apply to us when you would never act this way if you actually considered us your God's children gone astray. It is another body of evidence showing how you Christians do not believe what you say. You clearly do not believe there is a God holding you to account for the way you treat others. Even you know your God is not there, and, thus, that it won't judge you.<br /><br />All manner of practical urgency also influence what is taken as moral. A society wherein life expectancies are short, has the very real concern of tailoring their sexual ethics to reduce the likelihood that they will go extinct. Where life expectancies are long the sexual moral structure must work to avoid an overpopulation that will outstrip the environment's support capacity. These are real issues which cannot be addressed by some imagined set of absolutes.<br /><br />Looking at Christians today, we see them killing their own children as witches and letting their children die from easily treated diseases. Yes, Ryan, they are True Christians. Yet they have no absolute morals telling them not to destroy their own children. <br /><br />You said, "Russ made moral claims which his world-view can't substantiate," but in reality while my worldview does substantiate my moral claims, yours makes claims which are obviously false even as it proclaims them to be absolutely true.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23272706199165202010-07-29T23:25:06.511-04:002010-07-29T23:25:06.511-04:00This:
"//[Empiric principles are] predicated...This:<br /><br />"//[Empiric principles are] predicated on reasoning which cannot account for all possible contingencies. One might wonder whether “[this desk is red]” is a proposition contingent on the veracity of the proposition “ducks can swim” or “the Protestant canon is fallible.” There are infinitely many such propositions one could posit, of course, meaning that if one is to know that [this desk is red], one must be infinitely knowledgeable.//"<br /><br />Is complete nonsense.<br /><br />How would "ducks can swim" inform a perception that a desk is either red or not?<br /><br />Furthermore, like I said empiricism and the scientific method rely on statistical probabilities, NOT "100% PROOF". One need not apprehend every possible variable or "all possible contingencies".<br /><br />One need only measure the quantity in question enough times to develop a statistical confidence interval. Is it 100%? No. Does it NEED to be 100%? Again, NO.<br /><br />Does it work? Absolutely.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41810860441655026662010-07-29T13:14:48.242-04:002010-07-29T13:14:48.242-04:00The point is, if you don't understand the argu...The point is, if you don't understand the arguments FOR empiricism, then you have no basis for rejecting empiricism based on philosophical reasoning.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80499660221696013842010-07-29T13:11:19.466-04:002010-07-29T13:11:19.466-04:00What's the significance of a normal distributi...What's the significance of a normal distribution?<br /><br />What's the significance of the value for sigma?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63235915648246616342010-07-29T12:58:58.951-04:002010-07-29T12:58:58.951-04:00How much area is under both sides of the bell curv...How much area is under both sides of the bell curve out to a distance of +/- one sigma?<br /><br />No fair looking it up, just give me the answer as an integer percentage.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86002087688707506062010-07-29T12:41:14.157-04:002010-07-29T12:41:14.157-04:00Me: "If you REALLY rejected empiricism, you&#...Me: "If you REALLY rejected empiricism, you'd throw all this junk away and go find a cave to live in, make bows and arrows by hand to...( wait a second! THAT activity requires empiricism, too!)."<br /><br />Ryan: "Why would I have done this? Do you understand the difference between belief and knowledge? If so, what are you on about?"<br /><br />You DO realize that you've conflicted yourself here? Knowledge (as you've defined iit elsewhere cannot contain anything veridical due to the failure of empiricism (your argument). Then you say, "Why would I have done this?"<br /><br />Because you reject the empirically gained KNOWLEDGE that brought these things TO you! So in effect you're saying,<br /><br />"I'm perfectly willing to accept the knowledge that made all these modern conveniences possible (because the devices, etc. are SELF-EVIDENT, i.e., they exist), even though I don't believe it's possible to have the knowledge that makes them possible due to my denial of empiricism."<br /><br />See the disconnect between your brain and reality yet?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24362245998562679842010-07-29T12:32:22.912-04:002010-07-29T12:32:22.912-04:00The entirety of the religious argument is a combin...The entirety of the religious argument is a combination of fallacies:<br /><br />Ad Antiquitatem or Appeal to Tradition,<br /><br />Ad Populum or Appeal to Common Belief or Bandwagon,<br /><br />Circular Reasoning or Begging the Question,<br /><br />Style over Substance, or An attractive presentation makes it more right. <br /><br />Throw in a little appeal to fear to season it, shake well, bake for 3000 years, and voila!<br /><br />Christianity!GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89065771562855685062010-07-29T10:58:27.036-04:002010-07-29T10:58:27.036-04:00Oh, and incidentally, that's why empiricism wo...Oh, and incidentally, that's why empiricism works, too.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82063069918326362692010-07-29T10:57:19.991-04:002010-07-29T10:57:19.991-04:00We don't NEED to be 100% sure of "facts&q...We don't NEED to be 100% sure of "facts" if we CAN be 99.999% sure.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41351893504037162212010-07-29T10:56:13.401-04:002010-07-29T10:56:13.401-04:00This:
"This begs several questions: what is ...This:<br /><br />"This begs several questions: what is movement, how can movement be measured, and can we know that a given measurement is accurate? Only one who is able to account for all possible variables in an experiment can know that his perception of the results is veridical. To know that which bears influence in an experiment, one must know that which does not. As has been demonstrated, however, one must be infinitely knowledgeable to know that even one alleged fact is true."<br /><br />Is fallacious. You haven't been through statistics and least squares yet, have you?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8584674517421499742010-07-29T10:51:56.523-04:002010-07-29T10:51:56.523-04:00That's probably it didn't get the Blue Rib...That's probably it didn't get the Blue Ribbon, too.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37200059329812518582010-07-29T10:49:42.555-04:002010-07-29T10:49:42.555-04:00I read the essay again.
Aside from in essence bei...I read the essay again.<br /><br />Aside from in essence being a 'book report' on Gordon Clark's unnamed "series of articles", the entire article is premised on the Bible as being infallible revealed knowledge.<br /><br />you premise Scripture, God, sin and all the rest by quoting the bible:<br /><br />"the Bible is full of instances which claim the whole canon to have been breathed out by God through the prophets and apostles: “The LORD said to him, ”˜Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say’” (Exodus 4:11-12); “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17); “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness”¦no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:3; 20-21"<br /><br />Begging the question!<br /><br />(1) God exists because the Bible says so.<br /> <br />(2)The Bible was written by God.<br /><br />You're chasing your tail, use only one source for support of your conclusions, and you were obviously writing this for an audience of Calvinist judges.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />Why study math if you don't believe in it?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7081825907351084972010-07-29T08:38:27.498-04:002010-07-29T08:38:27.498-04:00Ryan said... "Gandolf,
Was your best respons...Ryan said... "Gandolf,<br /><br />Was your best response really just to give your opinion? Or was it to poison the well? Do you understand what the phrase "burden of proof" means?"<br /><br />Burden of proof? ..What from those in the asylums claiming to hear voices in their heads and suggesting all sorts of people might be coming to get them ?, or from the faithful folks claiming the allsortment of Gods exist and sinners end up in some hell ?<br /><br />Faiths are pretty much lots like asylums, i think you will find Rayan.They dont really stick to the "burden of proof" rule much.<br /><br />Both asylums and faith groups are full of loons! all making their claims ,but never ever able to actually back these claims up properly.Always finding excuses ,or telling some other story.<br /><br />You can call it poisoning the well all you like Ryan.But that dont change anything much, im simply saying like it actually looks! to me.And i couldnt give a rats arse !,if you dont happen to like it, either.<br /><br />Faiths practice this burden of proof rule you speak of,about as much as any folks in the asylums do.<br /><br />Now you had said "That you don't see it doesn't mean no one else doesn't. Obviously"<br /><br />Those folks in many asylums make many of the very same type claims.IE..i seen it ,just because you didnt see it,doesnt prove anything ...rant rant ..running around the room bouncing off walls!<br /><br />We dont simply take folks in asylum word, of what they might suggest they faithfully believe actually exists.<br /><br />And we would be just as stupid to simply take theists word for the existence of Gods too.<br /><br />So looks like the burden of proof falls on you lot, Ryan,wouldnt you agree?.<br /><br />Its about time some of you faithful folk came up with the real goods! for a change! and supplied some proper decent evidence of this mythical god you keep having these delusions! about.<br /><br />This tired old worn out crap excuse! about oh some people can supposedly see/experience God, and some people just cant, holds about as much truth to it, as weird and whacky folks in some asylum trying to claim much the same type of bullshite.<br /><br />If monsters or people actually exist, that are honestly about ready to attack folks in asylums .The chances are sooner or later many folks of all types! are very likely going to be seeing them, also.<br /><br />There is little good reason why the same thing shouldnt be expected to happen with regards to these claims made about these Gods.<br /><br />However it remains as mere faith .Little different to the mere faith of many folks in asylums.<br /><br />This is not poisoning any well,Ryan,its just stating the situation as it stands.<br /><br />If any well of yours is poisoned ,then it was already poisoned!.<br /><br />Dont try blame me, if you find yourself floundering! around in some poisonous well Ryan.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60016243404736891892010-07-29T07:21:40.841-04:002010-07-29T07:21:40.841-04:00Gandolf,
Was your best response really just to gi...Gandolf,<br /><br />Was your best response really just to give your opinion? Or was it to poison the well? Do you understand what the phrase "burden of proof" means?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64185242531353274612010-07-29T05:25:58.894-04:002010-07-29T05:25:58.894-04:00Ryan says.."Then they don't worship the s...Ryan says.."Then they don't worship the same God, dummy. They may all claim to follow the God of Abraham, but again, so what?"<br /><br />Ryan says.."1. This same double-speak is found in TCD. Is the Bible perspicuous or isn’t it, Russ? If not, then don’t pretend it is for the sake of attacking certain doctrines." <br /><br />Ryan says.."False conceptions of God are idols. Where did I say they worshipped another true God?"<br /><br />Seems to me Ryan kind of suggests, the bible maybe is a real mongrel of a mess! with regards to being easy enough for many humans to understand and follow,and so it "produces"! lots and lots of these idol worshiping beings.Naughty humans.How dare they read, perspicuous faith books!.Off to hell! for them folks.<br /><br />Guess that saves heaven from getting far to over crowded for the Calvinist folks likings.<br /><br />Though i do wonder how much double speak they must need to use, trying to prove Gods as still supposedly being kind and loving and fatherly etc.Or maybe this rabid brand of Christians dont even bother with that?.<br /><br />What i find a little strange is all these faithful folks, including those whom this Ryan suggests as being, the idol worshipers.Will ALL very likely claim to be using some special devine "objective standard".<br /><br />Which in my opinion tends to suggest, Godly folks claim of using some supernatural "objective standard" carrys about as much weight, as any special "objective standard" claimed by the good folks in some asylum, who might also suggest they too! hear voices talking inside their heads!.<br /><br />Ryan says..."That you don't see it doesn't mean no one else doesn't. Obviously"<br /><br />Cher cher.Go Ryan, Go Ryan<br /><br />Yeah and many folks in those asylums would also claim, that you dont hear it in your head!,doesnt mean i dont hear voices inside my head either.And it doesnt mean other people dont also hear voices inside their wee beanys too!.<br /><br />And they might also claim.. I can see soon somebodys going to come and kill me!, so i need to do something before this person gets to come kill me.That you personally dont see this person is coming to kill me,doesnt prove this person isnt actually coming to kill me!.<br /><br />Do you recommend we should let all them asylum folks out too ,Ryan ??.After all often we cant prove them to be totally wrong either.Maybe they do hear voices?,maybe they do have devine skills telling them somebodys coming to get them?.<br /><br />Hey maybe they can all join your church!,you sound a lot like you`d maybe all have heaps in common.<br /><br />Ryan in your world just because something isnt proved with enough good evidence,it dont mean at all that it most likely, doesnt even exist.<br /><br />Ryan in your preferred faith world,even the asylum folk!, should be totally free to roam wherever and whenever they please.By your rules you would have no right!,to even question their "personal beliefs" of utter madness.You would be expected !, to have faith, in their own personal testimonys that they gave you.<br /><br />If you inquired about some good evidence! for proof of what they were suggesting,like you did! they could simply also reply.->"That you don't see it doesn't mean no one else doesn't. Obviously"<br /><br /><br />------------------------<br /><br />Im so very very thankful!, faithful folks still dont get run to this world entirely.What utter chaos and mindless madness would soon run riot, if they did.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59489300347123194292010-07-29T00:58:10.603-04:002010-07-29T00:58:10.603-04:00GearHeadEd wrote:
"You CANNOT prove God by q...GearHeadEd wrote:<br /><br />"You CANNOT prove God by quoting the Bible."<br /><br />Duh. I said as much in that paper, if you had cared to read it. I gather that you see only what you want to see. What a waste.<br /><br />FYI, I don't see the trash can. I know it should be there, and I've deleted posts on blogger.com sites before. I really just don't see one here. Sorry.<br /><br />"You're accusing atheists of argumentum ad populum fallacy?"<br /><br />Just Russ. Project harder.<br /><br />"When did you abandon studying mathematics, Ryan?<br /><br />Was eighth grade math too hard, and that's why you've chosen a field that doesn't require any science?"<br /><br />Since I'm a math major, your attempted insults are amusing.<br /><br />"Your rejection of empiricism is woefully shortsighted and full of logical errors, considering empiricism brought you every modern convenience you use to communicate these thoughts to us, keep your food cold, allow you to drive a car (not to mention design and build the roads you drive it on!)."<br /><br />That is a nice set of assumptions I can't wait to "see" you prove!<br /><br />"If you REALLY rejected empiricism, you'd throw all this junk away and go find a cave to live in, make bows and arrows by hand to...( wait a second! THAT activity requires empiricism, too!)."<br /><br />Why would I have done this? Do you understand the difference between belief and knowledge? If so, what are you on about?<br /><br /><br /><br />Ryan Anderson wrote,<br /><br />"Other Ryan, how a world view accounts for things like "should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc... has less then zero to do with the truth of that world view."<br /><br />Russ made moral claims which his world-view can't substantiate. If you're acknowledging that Russ is being inconsistent... well, ok, I guess. But the point was really for Russ' benefit, not yours.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16480226238048605852010-07-28T22:07:05.295-04:002010-07-28T22:07:05.295-04:00Other Ryan said "If you could justify how, wi...Other Ryan said "If you could justify how, within your atheistic world-view, you can account for “should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc. I might be more inclined to reflect on what you say."<br /><br />Other Ryan, how a world view accounts for things like "should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc... has less then zero to do with the truth of that world view.<br /><br />Just FYI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16386657730189004672010-07-28T20:48:40.082-04:002010-07-28T20:48:40.082-04:00Smoke and mirrors, Ryan,
You're accusing athe...Smoke and mirrors, Ryan,<br /><br />You're accusing atheists of argumentum ad populum fallacy?<br /><br />That's rich.<br /><br />When did you abandon studying mathematics, Ryan? <br /><br />Was eighth grade math too hard, and that's why you've chosen a field that doesn't require any science?<br /><br />Your rejection of empiricism is woefully shortsighted and full of logical errors, considering empiricism brought you every modern convenience you use to communicate these thoughts to us, keep your food cold, allow you to drive a car (not to mention design and build the roads you drive it on!).<br /><br />If you REALLY rejected empiricism, you'd throw all this junk away and go find a cave to live in, make bows and arrows by hand to...( wait a second! THAT activity requires empiricism, too!).<br /><br />Better yet, pray for some Manna to fall from heaven into your front yard. That's all you have left.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69972413342336306052010-07-28T20:37:03.753-04:002010-07-28T20:37:03.753-04:00Ryan,
You linked me to a page where the ENTIRE ar...Ryan,<br /><br />You linked me to a page where the ENTIRE argument is based on Bible verses.<br /><br />You CANNOT prove God by quoting the Bible.<br /><br />That's circular, and proves exactly ZIP.<br /><br />Try again.<br /><br />----------------------------------<br /><br />And you CAN wipe the duplicate posts. See the little trash can icon in the lower left just under the last lines of your post?<br /><br />Notice that you ONLY see those on posts YOU have written.<br /><br />You can do it. There are four practice posts just WAITING for you...GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84339029847482944952010-07-28T15:48:57.850-04:002010-07-28T15:48:57.850-04:00Russ wrote,
“If others have read the same words a...Russ wrote,<br /><br />“If others have read the same words and gotten it wrong, there is no reason whatsoever to think you have gotten it right.”<br /><br />1. This same double-speak is found in TCD. Is the Bible perspicuous or isn’t it, Russ? If not, then don’t pretend it is for the sake of attacking certain doctrines. <br /><br />2. Ironically, Loftus et. al. have accused Triabloggers of misunderstanding their words. Ergo, by your own argument, you have no reason whatsoever to think you have understood TCD. Or anything else on DC.<br /><br />Do you really not see the argumentum ad populum fallacy? Sheesh.<br /><br />“Beyond that, Ryan, if there is supposed to be only one god, your version of a god, how can you say they are worshipping a different one.”<br /><br />False conceptions of God are idols. Where did I say they worshipped another true God?<br /><br />”The ease with which you dismiss other's beliefs amazes me.”<br /><br />Ditto.<br /><br />“Your rejection of the gods that others have imagined based on the same words from your own holy book is more than sufficient proof.”<br /><br />No, it’s not. You’re not looking at the reasons I believe what I believe – you’re looking at what others have believed, also without considering why; therefore, your argument that my conclusions are suspect are fallacious. This is basic stuff, Russ. Come on.<br /><br />“If, as you have suggested, the words of the Old Testament depict a distinct god to each of the Abrahamic faiths, then you cannot say you have comprehended those words at all.”<br /><br />But I didn’t suggest that. In fact, I asked why anyone should accept without question a claim that one follows the God of Abraham, and you asked why we shouldn’t. Now, not only have you failed to answer that question, I’ve answered yours and you look like a fool.<br /><br />“You are proof that those words do not speak truth. You are proof that those words are whatever a local culture wants to say they are. If different readers reach radically different ends from the same words, those words can't be said to have been understood or comprehended.”<br /><br />Why not? Why are you reasoning from effect to cause? Why do you not look at the reasons the different conclusions have been reached? Why is it impossible to conceive of a misuse of a perspicuous source?<br /><br />“Moreover, it says that the author was a careless and shabby writer.”<br /><br />I appreciate that you consider the authors of the OT to be careful and excellent writers.<br /><br />/irony<br /><br />"I'm a complete materialist atheist, and you have no better comprehension of gods and their words than I do."<br /><br />The rest of your post is a regurgitation of material I’ve just refuted, begged questions, and straw men, and since I don’t particularly feel like beating a dead horse today, c ya.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59230841158464470922010-07-28T15:48:30.803-04:002010-07-28T15:48:30.803-04:00Russ wrote,
”If your Christ-blather makes you bet...Russ wrote,<br /><br />”If your Christ-blather makes you better people, as you claim it does, how would we know it if it can't be seen?”<br /><br />According to you if-then statement, you couldn’t. But who said I accepted the premise?<br /><br />”If your Bible believing Christianity makes you more moral…”<br /><br />Than what?<br /><br />“…why do fundamentalist Christians like you have a higher divorce rate than atheists?”<br /><br />Why do you assume everyone who professes to be a Christian is one? As I already said: “So you know some hypocrites. And? What is your point?”<br /><br />“Why do atheists in the US have a much higher average income than fundamentalist Christians? Where is the CE?”<br /><br />Why are you still relying on empiricism to make a point when I have already stated I reject empiricism (cf. <a href="http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/empiricism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>)?<br /><br />”All your religion offers you Ryan is smoke and mirrors. It does not do what it claims.”<br /><br />Then prove it. What relevance do statistics about health and wealth have to truth? You ooze irrationality when you make such appeals.<br /><br />”This is not a simple matter of hypocrisy, Ryan. Christians do not believe what they say they do”<br /><br />Then they aren’t Christians. Duh.<br /><br />“This is factual information, Ryan.”<br /><br />Even if it were, all of it is irrelevant.<br /><br />“[Isn't it odd that you advocate for your God while your generation will be the first in US history to have a shorter life expectancy than your parents, while in the rest of the developed world, where Christianity is fading fast, life expectancies are still rising?]”<br /><br />Like China?<br /><br />”I have proven it.”<br /><br />No, you haven’t. You’ve cited a constitution I’ve never read which implies the opposite of what you interpreted it means. And even if it were true, how is that relevant to whether or not I enjoy reading Scripture?<br /><br />”You don't use the Bible you only use the bits you like, or, more correctly, the bits your clergyman has told you he likes.”<br /><br />Prove it.<br /><br />“Killing every single human infant, toddler and child while sparing cockroaches, snakes, and naked mole rats, is not a valuable moral case study.”<br /><br />Keeping in mind that Scripture obviously doesn’t teach this, why, on atheism, not?<br /><br />“A loving father knows that children are not to be destroyed, they are to be loved and nurtured, and taught the ways consistent with the culture they occupy.”<br /><br />You are not God’s child, however, so the point is moot.<br /><br />(continue)<br /><br />Russ wrote:<br /><br />”Why isn't it the same god, Ryan.”<br /><br />You can’t be serious! How can you possibly fail to understand that if I believe in a God whose very essence is mutually exclusive with the teachings of modern Judaism and Islam (which I do), then I don’t believe in the god of modern Judaism/Islam?<br /><br />“Why do you think you've got it right and the others have it wrong?”<br /><br />Same reason I know you’re wrong: an exercise in logical principles.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17090353124352688452010-07-28T15:47:15.106-04:002010-07-28T15:47:15.106-04:00Russ wrote,
”If you want to draw a parallel betwe...Russ wrote,<br /><br />”If you want to draw a parallel between what I said and empiricism you need to make it more clear. Georgia Tech is failing you, Ryan, if your standard retort in the face of having Christianity's absurdities pointed out to you is to merely reflect the critic's own words back at them.”<br /><br />I guess you didn’t understand the point of the tu quoque argument. The reference to my position regarding empiricism was simply a qualification of that point.<br /><br />”Just looking around a bit you should be able to see that the world and reality as a whole does not conform to your silly take on the world, and most of the world is just as well off or better for it.”<br /><br />Another “brute fact” argument isn’t going to convince me, Russ. <br /><br />“You need to do something special for yourself: actually research the Christianities, other religions and atheism to see how they compare, for better or for worse. Look at the largely atheist countries of Scandinavia, for instance. They have the best health care outcomes, longest life expectancies, lowest infant mortality rates, lowest drug abuse rates and lowest abortion rates in the world, while they laugh at the Christianities.”<br /><br />If you could justify how, within your atheistic world-view, you can account for “should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc. I might be more inclined to reflect on what you say. But it almost seems like you go out of your way to beg questions. <br /><br />Moreover, your whole post hinges on the idea that Christianity should offer us a prosperity gospel? Hello? Where in the world do you get that idea? The NT is full of passages which tell believers to expect suffering and persecution. How, then, is the fact that not all Christians have ice cream parties and slip-n-slide contests 24/7 an indication that it’s false? <br /><br />”You can dismiss this with your well-rehearsed, "Blah blah blah," but it won't make you and your fellow believers live any longer and it will not nullify the fact that while you screech out "Hosanna to God on high," the infants from within your particular brand of Christianity die at a rate almost three times the rate they die among the atheists of Scandinavia. Why would your version of a Christian God let that happen? Obviously, faith is of no value.”<br /><br />Why should I value what you value? Come to think of it, why do you value what you value?<br /><br />”Put your head in the sand all you like, but that won't change the way the world works.”<br /><br />Repeating bigoted statements doesn’t make them any more true, Russ. You can continue to believe what you do about Christian debaters if you like, but the fact is you’ve done nothing more than assert your own opinion. If that’s all you got, I get it. Keep pontificating if you like, but when you do, all I see is “blah blah blah.”<br /><br />“In particular it won't change the data that prove that the Christianities are not useful models when it comes to morality, generosity, love, compassion and other such virtues. Christians drone on about love, tolerance, caring and the like, but on any Sunday morning the most segregated places in the US are Christian churches.”<br /><br />Howso? Where are you getting this information from? Or is this yet another “truth” I’m going to have to find by “looking around a bit”? Why should I do your homework for you?<br /><br />“Your own church's Constitution points out your insularity saying,<br /><br />//Inasmuch as there is need for Christians to have fellowship with others and for strengthening the stand of Bible-believing churches in this nation, this church shall have fellowship with other Bible-believing churches and individuals of like faith.//<br /><br />This is an overt rejection of the rest of Christianity, the other two billion Christians who imagine their religion different from the way you imagine yours.”<br /><br />Firstly, how does “other Bible-believing churches” imply a rejection of said churches as within the bounds of Christendom? What in the world are you talking about? Secondly, what constitution are you looking at?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56278829131149719282010-07-28T15:47:12.316-04:002010-07-28T15:47:12.316-04:00Russ wrote,
”If you want to draw a parallel betwe...Russ wrote,<br /><br />”If you want to draw a parallel between what I said and empiricism you need to make it more clear. Georgia Tech is failing you, Ryan, if your standard retort in the face of having Christianity's absurdities pointed out to you is to merely reflect the critic's own words back at them.”<br /><br />I guess you didn’t understand the point of the tu quoque argument. The reference to my position regarding empiricism was simply a qualification of that point.<br /><br />”Just looking around a bit you should be able to see that the world and reality as a whole does not conform to your silly take on the world, and most of the world is just as well off or better for it.”<br /><br />Another “brute fact” argument isn’t going to convince me, Russ. <br /><br />“You need to do something special for yourself: actually research the Christianities, other religions and atheism to see how they compare, for better or for worse. Look at the largely atheist countries of Scandinavia, for instance. They have the best health care outcomes, longest life expectancies, lowest infant mortality rates, lowest drug abuse rates and lowest abortion rates in the world, while they laugh at the Christianities.”<br /><br />If you could justify how, within your atheistic world-view, you can account for “should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc. I might be more inclined to reflect on what you say. But it almost seems like you go out of your way to beg questions. <br /><br />Moreover, your whole post hinges on the idea that Christianity should offer us a prosperity gospel? Hello? Where in the world do you get that idea? The NT is full of passages which tell believers to expect suffering and persecution. How, then, is the fact that not all Christians have ice cream parties and slip-n-slide contests 24/7 an indication that it’s false? <br /><br />”You can dismiss this with your well-rehearsed, "Blah blah blah," but it won't make you and your fellow believers live any longer and it will not nullify the fact that while you screech out "Hosanna to God on high," the infants from within your particular brand of Christianity die at a rate almost three times the rate they die among the atheists of Scandinavia. Why would your version of a Christian God let that happen? Obviously, faith is of no value.”<br /><br />Why should I value what you value? Come to think of it, why do you value what you value?<br /><br />”Put your head in the sand all you like, but that won't change the way the world works.”<br /><br />Repeating bigoted statements doesn’t make them any more true, Russ. You can continue to believe what you do about Christian debaters if you like, but the fact is you’ve done nothing more than assert your own opinion. If that’s all you got, I get it. Keep pontificating if you like, but when you do, all I see is “blah blah blah.”<br /><br />“In particular it won't change the data that prove that the Christianities are not useful models when it comes to morality, generosity, love, compassion and other such virtues. Christians drone on about love, tolerance, caring and the like, but on any Sunday morning the most segregated places in the US are Christian churches.”<br /><br />Howso? Where are you getting this information from? Or is this yet another “truth” I’m going to have to find by “looking around a bit”? Why should I do your homework for you?<br /><br />“Your own church's Constitution points out your insularity saying,<br /><br />//Inasmuch as there is need for Christians to have fellowship with others and for strengthening the stand of Bible-believing churches in this nation, this church shall have fellowship with other Bible-believing churches and individuals of like faith.//<br /><br />This is an overt rejection of the rest of Christianity, the other two billion Christians who imagine their religion different from the way you imagine yours.”<br /><br />Firstly, how does “other Bible-believing churches” imply a rejection of said churches as within the bounds of Christendom? What in the world are you talking about? Secondly, what constitution are you looking at?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46435198261489603952010-07-28T15:46:19.189-04:002010-07-28T15:46:19.189-04:00Russ wrote,
”If you want to draw a parallel betwe...Russ wrote,<br /><br />”If you want to draw a parallel between what I said and empiricism you need to make it more clear. Georgia Tech is failing you, Ryan, if your standard retort in the face of having Christianity's absurdities pointed out to you is to merely reflect the critic's own words back at them.”<br /><br />I guess you didn’t understand the point of the tu quoque argument. The reference to my position regarding empiricism was simply a qualification of that point.<br /><br />”Just looking around a bit you should be able to see that the world and reality as a whole does not conform to your silly take on the world, and most of the world is just as well off or better for it.”<br /><br />Another “brute fact” argument isn’t going to convince me, Russ. <br /><br />“You need to do something special for yourself: actually research the Christianities, other religions and atheism to see how they compare, for better or for worse. Look at the largely atheist countries of Scandinavia, for instance. They have the best health care outcomes, longest life expectancies, lowest infant mortality rates, lowest drug abuse rates and lowest abortion rates in the world, while they laugh at the Christianities.”<br /><br />If you could justify how, within your atheistic world-view, you can account for “should” and “should not,” “better” and “worse,” etc. I might be more inclined to reflect on what you say. But it almost seems like you go out of your way to beg questions. <br /><br />Moreover, your whole post hinges on the idea that Christianity should offer us a prosperity gospel? Hello? Where in the world do you get that idea? The NT is full of passages which tell believers to expect suffering and persecution. How, then, is the fact that not all Christians have ice cream parties and slip-n-slide contests 24/7 an indication that it’s false? <br /><br />”You can dismiss this with your well-rehearsed, "Blah blah blah," but it won't make you and your fellow believers live any longer and it will not nullify the fact that while you screech out "Hosanna to God on high," the infants from within your particular brand of Christianity die at a rate almost three times the rate they die among the atheists of Scandinavia. Why would your version of a Christian God let that happen? Obviously, faith is of no value.”<br /><br />Why should I value what you value? Come to think of it, why do you value what you value?<br /><br />”Put your head in the sand all you like, but that won't change the way the world works.”<br /><br />Repeating bigoted statements doesn’t make them any more true, Russ. You can continue to believe what you do about Christian debaters if you like, but the fact is you’ve done nothing more than assert your own opinion. If that’s all you got, I get it. Keep pontificating if you like, but when you do, all I see is “blah blah blah.”<br /><br />“In particular it won't change the data that prove that the Christianities are not useful models when it comes to morality, generosity, love, compassion and other such virtues. Christians drone on about love, tolerance, caring and the like, but on any Sunday morning the most segregated places in the US are Christian churches.”<br /><br />Howso? Where are you getting this information from? Or is this yet another “truth” I’m going to have to find by “looking around a bit”? Why should I do your homework for you?<br /><br />“Your own church's Constitution points out your insularity saying,<br /><br />//Inasmuch as there is need for Christians to have fellowship with others and for strengthening the stand of Bible-believing churches in this nation, this church shall have fellowship with other Bible-believing churches and individuals of like faith.//<br /><br />This is an overt rejection of the rest of Christianity, the other two billion Christians who imagine their religion different from the way you imagine yours.”<br /><br />Firstly, how does “other Bible-believing churches” imply a rejection of said churches as within the bounds of Christendom? What in the world are you talking about? Secondly, what constitution are you looking at?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.com