But It’s Not About Me

Posted on May 11, 2011. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Religion, You're Not Helping |

Many theists are annoyed by the fact they believe in something they cannot logically defend. When discussing religion with an adherent, you can usually break down the argument to where reason ends and faith begins. Unfortunately, from time to time you run across a believer who tries to shift the entire discussion about what I believe or don’t believe. Instead of actually trying to defend what they believe, they waste your time trying to attack a position that was never introduced in the first place. That’s like questioning the reporter. It’s not about me.

Even if you define the term “atheist” in its narrowest sense of asserting the non-existence of a deity, it still has nothing to do with defending the believer’s position. It’s merely a distraction to shift any burden of defending their claim. I wonder if two theists with conflicting ideologies would suffer the same fate. There seems to be more tolerance from adherents towards people with any faith rather than dealing with someone with no faith.

So, it all comes back to my original question of asking “why do you believe what you believe?” Your answer should be about your position, not mine. It’s not about me.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

42 Responses to “But It’s Not About Me”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

This doesn’t seem to take into account what it is that is the focus of the discussion. For example, if I am discussing an issue pertaining to atheism, why do you or any other skeptic find it reasonable to discuss a different topic, then blame the believer for not indulging off-topic comments?

My particular blog is not primarily purposed to assert my religious beliefs. Its primary focus is examining beliefs contrary to my own. Why must my beliefs become the focus of discussion if that is not the topic of my particular commentary?

So in the example you cite above, my post is about the rhetorical devices some Atheists use in order to take the focus off their position. Why is it a liability that I don’t spout my beliefs, if my beliefs are not being written about? You don’t seem to criticize me that I don’t blog about sports, or muffin recipes.

I would agree with you if I did post about issues I affirmed, then refused to answer questions or objections. But that’s not really the case now, is it.

Thank you for the reply, John – good to have you here.

This post was not a reply to that commentary specifically, but in the larger discussion. My conversations with you both online and via email have always resulted in you conveniently side-stepping any defense of what you actually believe.

My conversation style is to ask questions with the intent of making a point afterward. I suppose I’ll need to make my intentions clearer, lest I be accused of going off-topic. At some point you just have to make a stand and defend it.

Sorry about the double comment, but when I posed my 3 questions for atheists and George responded, I’m not sure if he or I mentioned it, but instead of ranting about me not talking about what I believe, perhaps your post should looked this:

http://greaterthanlapsed.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/10-serious-questions-for-religious-believers/

Thanks – I look forward to reading it…

>>Many theists are annoyed by the fact they believe in something they cannot logically defend.

Bare assertions to start with? I certainly can defend my worldview logically, can you? Let’s find out. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

>>Unfortunately, from time to time you run across a believer who tries to shift the entire discussion about what I believe or don’t believe. Instead of actually trying to defend what they believe, they waste your time trying to attack a position that was never introduced in the first place.

Wow, the Irony meter is peaking. Did you read your very first sentence? Bwahahaha

>>“why do you believe what you believe?”

Because its truth. Me likes truth.

Sad, here I thought someone was going to bring their “A” game. *sigh

Ok, Dan – nice to meet you too.

Since we haven’t formally been introduced, tell me about which version of religious truth you subscribe to.

How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

Come on Dan, we can smell that presuppositionalist pile of circular reasoning a mile away. You can do better than that.

sinned34,

>>Come on Dan, we can smell that presuppositionalist pile of circular reasoning a mile away. You can do better than that.

So , with that “avoidance” response, we can take that as either “I don’t know” or “I can’t” then? What are you afraid of? Just answer the question. Don’t just avoid.

I suppose I’m still waiting to see your logical defense of your worldview…

It’s not “avoidance”, Dan, it’s “cutting to the chase”. Everything that you’re going to say boils down to asserting “intelligence in the universe requires a divine intelligence to have started it all”, or some other version of Christian post-modernist bullshit.

We’re going to reply that humans can only use our senses and the tools (be it logic, mathematics, microscopes, computers, etc) that humans have spent eons developing to examine the universe around us. We’re even puzzling out the ways in which the human brain is incapable of accurately measuring reality, but thus far we haven’t found anything that requires a deity to explain.

You’ll argue that our viewpoint cannot be consistent because we’re unable to guarantee that the universe works the way we think it does.

We’ll then comment that your circular argument that “god exists because I can’t imagine anything else” is a worse answer than admitting “I can’t prove god exists”.

George and a few other skeptics here will come up with some nuanced, intelligent responses to your crap, while I continue to hurl insults at you. During all this you’ll keep repeating, “Jesus exists because I’d be a gibbering idiot otherwise”, failing to notice that you’re a gibbering idiot no matter whether Jesus exists or not.

There, I just saved us all a bunch of time getting pissed off at you, Dan.

@zqtx

I look forward to reading more from you.

@everyone else

Why so hostile? Have you guys really become that jaded that you go straight for character bashing, rather than civil discourse?

Oscar, speaking for myself, I for some time tested my patience with Z. On my blog, he routinely disregarded the content of my posts insisting I address his questions about my beliefs. He ultimately called me names like “idiot” and insists I am in the wrong for trying to keep comments as on topic as possible.

So I am a bit jaded when it comes to Z. It seems that he doesn’t much care for my selected topics and would rather I discuss what he wants to discuss on my blog.

Well,
I thought some new blood might get the cobwebs dusted off this old place, I guess I was right. See, this kind of stuff is fun sometimes. Instead of making inside jokes with Sinned at Dan’s expense every time Dan starts typing his next retarded comment. Or me and John just politely agreeing to disagree.

John, I can see Z’s beef. The vast majority of what you present on your blog is presented as “this is what is wrong with what you might think” and very rarely “this is what I think”. This, I’m sure is deliberate, and allows you the luxury of getting defensive atheists instead of offensive ones. But it still is a bit douche-y. Not wrong, per se, just douche-y.

To Z: I told you that you and Dan would get along smashingly! He is a real piece of work. Well a peice of something, anyway. A steaming, festering, piece of something.

Feel free to insult him. He won’t go away. And that, Z, is his folksy charm. He is an arrogant, asinine, deluded DORK who lives to troll as many atheists as possible. I can’t say I don’t love what he does around here.

Dan-
I can tolerate a boatload of your ridiculous bullshit. I let you spout bible passages like a street preacher with Tourette’s, I put up with your constant self-important link spamming, I play along with your childish insults in good fun. But I don’t suffer presuppositionalists around here. Greg Bahnson is a pin-headed twat, and Van Til is a borderline retarded fuckwit. Oh, yes, and their ideas suck as well. It is the height of apologetic projection, and it is the perfection of abject idiocy.

I’m sure you disagree…..

George, I know what you’re saying, but that is what I happen to like writing about. It is not some technecality I try to fall back on so I dont have to put my view out there.

In fact when I comment on other blogs, I do just that. I linked to the most recent for Z to see I am not opposed to answering questions about what it is I believe. I just don’t have any particular interest in writing about what I believe per se.

The focus of my blog is examining other ideas, not my own generally speaking, which is why I keep asking why I am not derided for not posting football stats or baby name suggestions. If thats not what my blog is about, why would I write about it?

It has been my experience that when I put my particular views out there, the convo goes off in a hundred different directions and never stays focused on the original topic. And it frustrates me to have to repeatedly steer the convo back to the original topic only to have the skeptic object that I simply can’t answer their objection and that I’m running from something.

I accidentally left out in one of my last comments that, when I posted my 3Q’s I thought I had suggested you or those of your ilk (filthy atheist heathen)ask the question in my direction. I am not opposed to putting my views out there, that’s just not the primary focus of my blog.

Sinned34 and George,

Wow that certainly was the most defensive response I ever read. It’s cute how “annoyed by the fact they believe in something they cannot logically defend.” It reminds me of a child that punches the girl he likes. They’re not socially mature enough to have an honest conversation so they lash out. Its cute to see all of you like me so much. I’m flattered. You may not like the presuppositional argument, but please tell me how you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone presuppositional argumentation, is valid?

As we can see here “from time to time you run across a [non-]believer who tries to shift the entire discussion about what I believe or don’t believe. Instead of actually trying to defend what they believe, they waste your time trying to attack a position that was never introduced in the first place. Like attempting to introduce red herrings that speak of others as ” pin-headed twats”, and “borderline retarded [cuss words].”

As Z pointed out George “That’s like questioning the reporter.”

Even if you define the term “Presup” in its narrowest sense, and asserting the non-existence of a deity, it still has nothing to do with defending the non-believer’s position. *snicker

“It’s merely a distraction to shift any burden of defending their claim.”

Amen brother Z, you’re literally preaching to the choir now.

There seems to be more tolerance from adherents towards people without any faith rather than dealing with someone with faith. INDEED, as George spouted “Feel free to insult him[Dan]. He won’t go away.” Wow, this MUST be an early Christmas present for me. Too funny!

I will ask you this directly to avoid the smokescreen. Sinned34, is it possible that you are wrong about everything you claim to know?

What you said also reminded me of a couple of quotes: “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” ~ Lewis CS (1970) God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Cambridge, 52–53.

“The laws of logic also cannot merely be descriptions of how the human mind works because then we would not need laws to correct faulty human thinking. ~Lisle J (2009) The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 54.

OK one more, I cannot resist. “[I]f we are products of mechanistic and impersonal natural forces in a closed system, then our thoughts and rules of reasoning are also parts of that system. Any check against false conclusions would still be a part of the system which produced the false conclusions.” ~Henry W. Middle | March 1st, 2010 | The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God

Have fun in trying to avoid choking on the truth. I can sure understand why your gag reflexes take over. Truth and love can be very overwhelming sometimes. Shhh, I understand. Let me know if you’re ready for some stimulating self examination and conversations. I will be playing ball in my own yard, if you need one. But hey, It’s Not About Me. *snicker

Does anyone else find it hilarious that the ironic meter is overheating that this entire post talks about it not being about the individual and yet you attack individuals when the discussion starts? Bwahahahha You’re all too funny. Thanks for the smiles.

So George and Sinned34, it all comes back to my original question of asking “why do you believe what you believe?” Your answer should be about your position, not mine. It’s not about me.

This would be much more enjoyable if it were not so sad. I know your fate in your current position. What is at stake here is not about me, its about you. I feel sorry for you guys. Please repent.

Thankfully, Scripture has answers for people like you all: ”Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10 (I’ll let you read verse 11 on your own.)

You got a live one, George!

Please explain to us what “the truth” is, and how you know it logically. You appear to have been asked several times by several participants and refuse to answer. That’s unfair, where you demand others answer questions you haven’t properly asked yet.

Jason,

I have said it many times before, God’s revelation gives us knowledge of truth.

Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

Now let me ask you the same question to the others that they refuse to answer in claiming its some ruse or something. Its a straight forward question. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

I know my reasoning about this and other claims are valid in the same way that you believe to know that God’s revelation is true (or even revealed). I have experienced what I have experienced. I can lapse into solipsism or nihilism if I wasn’t such an optimist, but the fact that I can be an optimistic atheist presupposes that there is no need for a deity.

I do not concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us such that we are certain of their verity, because there is greater than zero non-believers in this world. Any truly omniscient being would be capable of knowing the way to convince me of the error of fifteen-odd years of reason, but has not done so. Either such a being is not omniscient, or it is not within his power to reveal to me his existence. All he (if he exists) keeps throwing my way is one fanboy after another incapable of arguing for his existence and underpinning their entire argument with a presupposition that it is true, followed immediately by a full-stop.

Jason,

>>I have experienced what I have experienced.

Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past ‘success’ of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

>>I do not concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us such that we are certain of their verity, because there is greater than zero non-believers in this world.

It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. I appreciate you revealing that about yourself. BTW, your “reason” commits the fallacy of “irrelevant thesis.” Just because there are non-believers does not mean God did not reveal Himself to them. Denial is a trait of humans after all.

As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist’s contempt toward God.

I have evidence, though, that my experiences are true, in that the current state of everything I happen to see around me is a direct reflection of all the effort I have put into my life. I know I have a job because I have a lawn. I know I’ve just mowed the lawn because I have memories of doing so, and dirt under my fingernails still. Everything I am now, is a culmination of everything I’ve experienced.

However, I never said that I know unequivocally that everything I experienced is true. I believe it to be true because I have no reason to doubt it, but I recognize that my brain is an imperfect experience recorder. I also know that brains were not immaculately designed and I’ve explored my own logical pitfalls. Argumentum ad ignorantiam does not appear to be among them, because I generally do not say “I don’t believe it because I don’t understand it”. I say “I don’t believe it because you’ve given me insufficient reason to believe it, because I don’t consider logic pretzels to be equivalent to hard evidence”.

You didn’t ask what I WOULD concede, if not an omnipotent/omniscient deity. Silly boy. You’re not very good at this.

I would concede an omniscient/omnipotent/omnimalevolent being that both knows how to convince me, and intentionally provides evidence against his existence, just so he could punish me eternally. I would concede an omniscient/impotent being, who knows but is incapable of providing evidence. I would concede an omnipotent/benevolent being who simply does not know what it would take to convince me.

I would also concede that there is a bar that can be hurdled, that would convince me of a specific deity’s verity. The longer and more complicated their “just-so” stories are, the higher the bars, though. A deist god who is the universe, or a theist god who created the universe as we see it in its initial state, and all the stuff that came afterward — including all the religions — being natural culminations of long millenia of evolution and cultural transmission of incorrect ideas amongst humans who love to pass on wrong ideas — that I could believe. But to tell me that there’s a deity that was revealed in a very old book that’s wrong about some very easily verifiable things about reality, no. You can’t pass the hurdle with that weaksauce jump.

There’s nothing irrelevent about saying that the properties you’ve proposed of your god are contradictory and contraindicated by reality. Suck it up, buttercup.

As a person who does not believe in the Bible, much as I don’t believe in the Qur’an or the Torah or the Veddas or the Upanishad or the Baghavad Gita, I feel you have no more special argument for your position than does any presuppositionalist apologist from any other tradition. What makes your argument so special that it works for Christianity, and not for Russel’s Teapot, or for Islam, or for the Great Green Arkleseizure?

“The laws of logic also cannot merely be descriptions of how the human mind works because then we would not need laws to correct faulty human thinking.”

Correct. They are not merely descriptions of how the human mind works. They are descriptions of the pitfalls the human mind often encounters in attempting to understand this world. They have been built up as a toolset to be employed when attempting to understand this world, so as to avoid those pitfalls we’ve identified. The “laws” of logic are not sacrosanct, nor do they rise to the level of deification. They could, in fact, need improvement, since people like yourself believe that the existence of a set of tools developed by humans must de facto prove a deity’s existence.

Jason,

>>They could, in fact, need improvement, since people like yourself believe that the existence of a set of tools developed by humans must de facto prove a deity’s existence.

Developed by humans? When was the meeting? What is your basis for assuming that past experiences have any meaning now? How do you know that your reasoning and memory about past experiences are valid?

Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans made logic?

Dan,
This is fun.
I just wanted to let you know that I’m working on a presup post so you can try to stay on topic in a thread for once.
It is going a bit long, so I won’t have it today. It will most likely be Saturday or Sunday. Hopefully no mobs come to get me for working on the Sabbath.
Jason can hold his own till then. I’ll make sure I check back…..

George,

>>Hopefully no mobs come to get me for working on the Sabbath.

That is because you do not understand what actually is the Sabbath.

Using a proper exegesis method we see that God rested as in completed his work. It is completed. The word is שָׁבַת(shabath) Strong’s H7673 which means cease or desist (from labor).

Jesus is NOW our Sabbath rest. (Hebrews 4:9-10, Matthew 11:28-30) In other words His work is complete; His work is done. He is now our 4th Commandment. We are to “Remember the Sabbath (Christ), to keep it [Him] holy. We are indeed to keep the Sabbath holy, and whoever dishonors it shall surely perish.

Keep searching.

Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans made logic?

You’re so frigging close to realizing the point we’re trying to make that you’re almost tripping over it.

Sadly, you’re an ignorant idiot who thinks that logic is some magical entity that poofed into existence when YHWH belched out the universe a few thousand years ago.

Like any good evangelical Christian, I despised philosophy when I was younger and never took a basic introductory course in it, yet even I have even managed to figure out that logic, mathematics, and science are all devices that humans have spent thousands of years deriving and debating in attempts to understand, describe, and examine the nature of reality (or “Truth” as you seem so enamored of calling it).

Why am I not surprised to find you bandying about the words “logic” and “truth” like blunt weapons, when you so obviously have no grasp of what they are, nor can you acknowledge even a sliver of history of philosophy that went into developing them.

So, with all due respect, piss off before you hurt yourself. Quit derailing this discussion and come back to post on George’s upcoming Presupposition piece, so we can attempt to beat some sense into you where it is appropriate.

Sinned34,

ONCE AGAIN, I will take that rant as another “avoidance” response. Thanks for not answering the questions yet again, and just merely attacking me personally.

In any formal debate setting, you would have lost this debate. Thanks.

BTW you might want to look up Hasty generalization which is a logical fallacy that your rant seemed to be loaded with. Ya student.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

Seriously, the “meeting” was by three separate traditions in China, India and Greece concurrently, converging after humanity started actually sharing its developments intra-culturally. The laws of logic were put together by humans to identify the places in our thought processes where we tend to go wrong by comparison with how the universe actually works. They were refined over thousands of years.

It’s funny that a presuppositionalist thinks that nihilism and solipsism are actually valid arguments against atheism. If nothing exists outside your mind, and everything in the world is a construction by that mind, then you’re God.

Do you have an actual positive argument for God? Or do you merely have the intellectually bereft tactic of saying “Suppose Christianity is true. Therefore, there’s a god. Therefore, Christianity is true. Thanks for the debate, let’s go grab lunch together!”?

Jason,

OK since Sinned34 is too scared to answer the question, maybe you can.

Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans made logic? If not, why not?

Why won’t you answer my question, Dan? What positive evidence for your god do you bring to the table? It’s not about our beliefs, it’s about yours. I disbelieve your beliefs as equally as I disbelieve the Norse gods, but amusingly enough, despite a big-budget movie about the god Thor, nobody’s come to our blogs to suggest it’s proof they must exist.

Your question is nonsensical, and depending on how you try to straighten it out, has multiple answers. Let’s break it down:

Could the universe both exist and not exist simultaneously? It’s counterintuitive but yes, it could — because it is. The very idea of quantum, where information takes multiple states simultaneously at the lowest levels of our ability to examine this universe, indicates that the hypothesis by Stephen Hawking and others that we exist in a multiverse where every conceivable universe-state and set of universe-conditions exists simultaneously, means the universe could both exist the way we see it and not, simultaneously.

The invention of logic by humans, an effort to better understand this reality and compensate for our poorly “designed” brains’ flaws, did not actually change the state of this universe. Unless M-Theory exists and that’s why quantum works the way it does, at which point then yes, the invention of logic actually imposed logic on this particular universe. Other universes might not have humans to invent logic, or might have humans that never invented logic, or might have humans that invented logic that works differently because their universe’s rules are different.

What were you expecting the answer to be?

Dan,
Honestly? I’m just trying to get your goat. Thank you for telling me where you left it tied. That is the most transparently passive aggressive comment you have ever left. It seems we have stumbled onto something here.
For clarification: This is my blog and I will “cuss” whenever I fucking well feel like it. FUCK! See? I did it again. Right there. I’ll do it for fun, I’ll do it to incite the response I want from you, and I’ll do it just about any other time when it strikes my fancy. Know one thing though, Dan. When I cuss, I do it purposefully, not out of anger. I’ve written about Presup on this blog already, and I am still working through a post that will wrap the whole thing up. I’m sure you will have your opportunity then to debate its merits, or you can go searching for my past posts.
This is Z’s post. Not mine. So pretending like there is some correlation between you derailing a comment section and the post author not defending their own views just exposes your own poor reasoning and comprehension. So maybe you just might try reading posts before commenting, instead of just skimming them for themes you can soapbox on.
You have no argument, you just pop by to be contrary.
If you want a presup debate, have at ‘er. I’ll gladly oblige you. Not here. Not in a thread that has no bearing on it. Find a topical post, and comment there.
Even better. I’ll publish a new post tomorrow that gives you your platform to open that can of worms. I’ll consider it a warmup for my long form post on presup that I have been planning since Peter realized he was in over his head.
I introduced you to Z the best I know how. Honestly. My guests can insult you. You deserve it. I’ll draw the line when enough is enough. You show no capacity to grasp or properly dissect anyone else’s argument here. That in itself is worthy of derision. I mean it when I say that you are the but of jokes. You reap what you sow, and since I do not ban people around here often, you have to expect that you are bound to reap some trolling behavior. Buck up. You’re supposed to be a big boy.
That Titus quote is a gem. So when are you planning on taking the advise and having nothing to do with me? You don’t comprehend atheist arguments and now, apparently, I discover you don’t comprehend scripture either. At least you are consistent.
I keep you around because I consider you my regular inoculation against my softening view of Christianity. Every time Jules, or Kate, or Nelson, or the sane Dan has me thinking maybe I ought to re-examine my views on faith, I can depend on you to come along and remind me that those people are the exception- you are the rule. Thank you for reminding me why Christianity deserves its critics.

George,

>>This is my blog and I will “cuss”

We all know who you are, because the Bible described you to us and you confirm it daily (Romans 3:10-18)

Thanks for proving the Bible right, again.

>>Every time Jules, or Kate, or Nelson, or the sane Dan has me thinking maybe I ought to re-examine my views on faith, I can depend on you to come along and remind me that those people are the exception- you are the rule.

I hope you do understand that you believe that I have more power then anyone in this universe and more powerful then God himself. hehe No you are deluded once again.

No the reason you do not believe in God is all on you. Its between you and God. and NO ONE has the power to remove God’s people from Him. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I have said it before and I will say it again. You were NEVER, EVER, EVER a Christian. (1 John 2:19) You know how I know? Christ Himself said so. (John 10:28)

Now you are acting like a little child trying to avoid accountability. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, ‘convincing’ is out of my hands. People do not convert people, George. Your argument is not with me its with Scripture (1 Corinthians 1: 18-20, 1 Corinthians 2: 14)

Live with your choices and stop trying to blame something that is ALL YOURS on someone else. Man up!!

Take the advice of God, because you simply lack the wisdom (James 1:5-7) You’re dead in your sin. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

Even though I feel like I am leading the dog to his own vomit I will say this. Salvation is not just for the next life George – Not only did Christ’s death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ’s payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.

No hard feelings here. I will be in Heaven sitting very disappointed at you for being so stubborn in denying God. I do this for you, you understand, I could be playing and talking with my 6 children.

I am here on your behalf George. “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” ~C.H. Spurgeon

I love you too much to idly stand by watching you just jump off that cliff. Dork.

Yeah, that’s enough bullshit for me – I won’t be responding to anything else you say in this thread, Godbot. See you in the Presup thread whenever George posts it.

Until then, stop masturbating to The Way Of The Master reruns before your penis falls off.

Suppose there is a God. Suppose also that he wanted people to defend him, and that’s why he loaded up a Bible-worth of inherent self-contradictions that require study and apologetics. Suppose also that by merely asserting repeatedly, without defending, that you’re disappointing this god.

Since we’re into presuppositions, I guess that means you’re actually going to hell. Sorry!

Jason,

Is this comment an early Christmas present? We don’t celebrate Christmas so its not needed.

You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords. Your logic and critical thinking skills are certainly lacking. Please try again. Thanks for the smile though. I will cherish it.

I have to defend John Barron Jr, for he, as anyone else, has every right to write in his blog whatever he wants. To look at things from his personal point of view. If he decides to hide his own standing point, that also is his prerogative. When we write on issues that are important to us those issues are allways presented from a subjective standingpoint.

On the other hand, if any blogger, cries the comments are not about the subject, just because the commenters have broadened the narrow vision given in the original article, it is usually a result of the commenters proving the weaknesses of the original text.

I like the element of Dans replies, in that he is trying to find something humorous to say. After all, one of the purposes of blogging is to amuse ourselves and others. When speaking of such fanciful ideas as gods and religions, it is a humorous subject, until we come to the genosidal part of those…

However I must concour with ZQTX, that it is my personal experience about theist also, how they are annoyed, with the lack of logic of their own beliefs. I am not a specifically good conversationalist, but if I were, I could not be sure wether it is just my argumentation that makes them uneasy. Now being how I am, makes me sure these people get nervous about the unpalusibility of the faith they hold.

The most fanatical theists are not at the least bit as nervous conversing the issue of faith as the moderate theists. I think it is linked in the human understanding of morals. If a person has healthy sense of ethics, that person will find it difficult to defend any religion that is responsible for, or advocates violence, abuse or injustice.

The fanatic theists hold “tribal morals” where people are divided into actual people and the others, and violence, injustce and abuse is OK in those terms to the “others”. This is very natural phenomenon and it is wittnessed othervise in the society for example when a nation goes to war. The enemies all become less human “others” in the minds of the warring nations. If it was peace time and Osama bin Laden was just a nother sick old man accused of serious crimes, people would have wanted him to be brought to justice, to stand for the accusations. But as it is war, killing of this man was seen as natural retaliation, and the death of his son was not murder, but collateral damage. If Chilean special forces would have executed Augusto Pinochet (who was alledgedly responsible for far more human lives than Osama) at his home and shot his son in the process, how would the world have reacted?

Because the phenomenon is such a natural part of human society, the fanatic religious people and even the moderate ones have difficulties in recognizing it. So, in these terms it becomes somehow natural to accept that “other” people simply go to Hell to suffer for an eternity, or that “other” people were born into the poorer castes. All it requires is for these other people to join our tribe, and they get to go to Heaven, or live their lives by certain religious rules, so they are born into wealthier families in their following lives. The fact that these systems are totally unfair, and that their designers cared not about people who had never heard of such outrageous claims, causes the need for a supernatural supreme authority to back them up. Something that is inherently “good” altough it permits all this evil. This is how religion feeds social injustice in any society.

If a theist is a fanatic, then the theist will also spend time more with the scriptures, or whatever means of religious tradition he holds, and comes to run into these unfair logics. That is why such a person finds it so important to discredit anyone who dares to disbelieve the particular superstition that fanatic is signing to. This is done by claiming the other religion has evil intent. Yet, at the same time the theist is ready to worship his/her own deity even, if it was evil in some respects.

The atheist represents a nother kind of threat to any particular theism, because all religions have their contradictions, and flaws and are easily discredited by the theist, by pointing out the sort of weakenesses in other religions, the theists would never see in their own faith systems.

Foremost method to attack atheism is to claim an atheist view is not stronger in any ways measurable to any theist view. Because the natural science has proven most fancifull ideas all old religions hold as myths, the competition has to be removed from what we can measure to if the claims are equal. To achieve this the theist would like nothing more than to prove the atheist position is a position of faith. It however is not. And any intelligent theist knows this, so they run around words, to discredit the atheist position from disbelief into a belief. This will allways fail.

To believe in a specific supernatural religious system is allways a leap of faith, because the supernatural phenomenon stops being supernatural at the moment of scientific proof. Atheism is based on what can be known about the universe on scientific evidence.

Jason,

>>Why won’t you answer my question, Dan?

Please show the evidence where I haven’t ow will not. I will address any question you have if its understandable. I will say something like please try again, like I just did to you, if you are not making sense.

>>What positive evidence for your god do you bring to the table?

While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God’s collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

>>Could the universe both exist and not exist simultaneously? It’s counterintuitive but yes, it could — because it is.

Thanks for admitting that it can’t. That was my point I wanted to make. Thanks for that.

>>What were you expecting the answer to be?

Just that.

Very well. From now on I will refer only to The Lord of the Rings as evidence of how the Valar truly shaped this world. That means your book is obviously heresy, being as incorrect about so many things as revealed by the prophet J.R.R. Tolkien.

You have not shown why your Bible is proof of anything other than some people writing a book. Because of this, every book is equally valid as proof of a worldview. Please frame all questions in that light, and provide book references to where in The Silmarillion it says that the people of Middle Earth (who had to exist, because it’s written that there were thousands of witnesses to their existence!) ever believed what you’re suggesting.

Jason,

>>Very well. From now on I will refer only to The Lord of the Rings as evidence of how the Valar truly shaped this world.

You have committed the fallacy of hasty generalization in that the Bible is a historical narrative and LOTR is a fictional book. Apples and oranges, and you know it. You’re not alone in comparing LOTR with the Bible though. Atheists try all the time with me.

Let me show you why you shouldn’t read the Bible like Aesop’s fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say “You can’t believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories” Fantasy stories don’t include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.

The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written plainly as a historical narrative. Now, when Jesus is obviously talking parables then we don’t take it literally. Psalms, for example, says the trees “clap their hands” Now, of course they don’t, but we understand what the passage means, because Psalms are poetic songs.

Remember the Bible is to be taken Literally unless it is obvious a hyperbole or a parable or a song. We read the Bible plainly because of the obvious literary devises used. I thought you were smart enough to know this though. I will not take your education for granted again. :7)

Since it was written after the existence of these kings, some of which are truly historical figures (most of which are not), it stands to reason that the author of Hosea knew about those kings and included them in the Bible.

What proof do you have that the rest of the Bible is historically accurate? Archaeology, contemporary history, anything?

Meanwhile, the Silmarillion contains genealogy showing unbroken lines of descendence from the people of Lord of the Rings all the way back to Iluvatar, the deity responsible for creating all the Ainur, who in turn created the Valar, who in turn created the races of elves, dwarves and men. This is historical fact because it corresponds with everything written in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings perfectly.

You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords.

Says the guy whose entire argument boils down to “Suppose the Bible is true. Therefore, God actually exists.”

[…] Jason:“You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords.” […]

[…] from time to time around here. The first post ever on Misplaced Grace that was not authored by me appeared on May 11th, and I hope that his contribution helps to keep the conversation going around […]


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: