|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2011 : 12:58:03
|
Some goofs over at another religious site figured they'd have fun posting a strawman of atheism, so I figured I'd call them on it.
You can read Steve's replies (this and the following comment)
These are my replies back:
steve said, about atheism:
...which undermines the value of life...
Oh? Like this?
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
What about this?
Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.
Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion.
Steve, your comments look like a cheap strawman of atheism. If any view undermines human life, it looks like it's your religion that does.
Unless you can show that those people are atheists somehow? |
My second reply:
steve said:
Your comment looks more like a popular, ignorant caricature of presuppositionalism.
Looks to me like presuppers do indeed use circular reasoning:
Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.
If that is doing presuppositionalism wrong, I suggest you take it up with that Sye TenB guy. His website is proofthatgodexists.org |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 02/19/2011 12:59:28
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2011 : 04:22:59 [Permalink]
|
My replies to what he said back to me:
steve
i) You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.
I disaprove of the killing of women and babies. That shows that I, unlike Craig, values their lives, as he has no problem with it.
I'm showing you that it's your fellow theists who, when it's your god ordering it, have no problem with the taking of lives.
Yet ironically, it's you who asserted, without any evidence, that it's atheism that devalues life. I at least, gave an example of the opposite being the case, and brought an example forward of an atheist Carl Sagan, whose views led him to value life. You later dismiss it of course.
steve
ii) Also, it’s silly to insinuate that something is wrong because it allegedly has a "brutalizing" effect on the agent. To be a battlefield medic may have a numbing effect on his sensibilities. But it’s a good thing, not an evil thing, to be a battlefield medic.
Tell that to Craig. He was the one who was concerned about the "brutalizing" effect on those soldiers. I couldn't care less about them, I care more about their victims.
By the way, being a battlefield medic is kind of the opposite of being a soldier who kills women and children, don't you think?
steve
"Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion."
Well, that’s a silly argument. That fact that something is unique doesn’t make it precious.
Ok, what would make a life precious in your view? Biblegod telling you so?
steve
Ted Bundy was unique and “irreplaceable.” Good riddance!
Guess what? You ignored that part where Sagan had said that it's unjustified to kill people over, wait for it: differences of opinion.
Bundy killed people. He did not merely disagree with them, now, did he?
Contrast that with your bible commanding blasphemers, witches, "Canaanites" (including babies) etc to be put to death.
Besides, doesn't your own god value every human life, even Bundy? "He so loved the world etc etc".
If that's not what you think then guess what? If your god didn't intend/want for everyone to go into heaven then HE'S the one who first "devalued" life, not us.
Now, here's where you get snakey. You bring up one guy (Micheal Ruse), and you apply what he said to ALL of atheism.
Yet, when I quoted Vincent Cheung and William Craig as examples of how your religion devalues life, all of a sudden, it doesn't apply, remember?
steve
i) I’m not Vincent Cheung, so quoting him doesn’t ipso facto disprove my own position, even if he were mistaken.
So, if YOU quote one person who says something that makes "atheism" look bad, it CAN be used, but if I quote a fellow xian of yours saying something that makes your religion look bad, it CAN'T be used?
Ruse doesn't speak for atheists any more than you claim Cheung doesn't speak for you.
Consistent, eh?
By the way, about Ruse who "argues for moral nihilism":
This part of the program has gone very smoothly, with empirical researchers showing in great detail how and why morality is a terrific adaptation for social animals like us humans.
Yeah, sounds like total "nihilism" to me, uh huh! |
steve
ii) In addition, you haven’t shown what is wrong with his position. Quoting something you disapprove of is not an argument. So, once again, you assume what you need to prove.
What's wrong with Cheung's position? The killing of billions of people kind of puts a kink in the survival of the human race, doesn't it.
Care to show what's right about Cheung's position?
Again, I gave an example of where it's THEISM that devalued life. Again, you disregard it.
steve
iii) Because God has intrinsic worth, what God does has intrinsic worth as well because it exemplifies the intrinsic goodness of the Creator.
Given his actions in the bible, that's arguable, to say the least.
Besides, can you SHOW that he has "intrinsic worth"?
Or is that just another assumption without evidence on your part (you know, like your assertion that atheism devalues life).
It's kind of funny how when I bring up something that's bad (killing of babies and women) you asked what's wrong with it: (ie You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.)
Aren't you people the ones who value life?
Now...can you explain just how Sye TenB's argument is "virtuously circular" since his conclusion is built right into his premise? That kind of circularity most definately matters to the argument at hand. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 02/20/2011 04:23:49 |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 09:18:12 [Permalink]
|
Interesting: On the Triablogue site, only the second "blockquote" of my reply got published, which was then responded to.
What happened to that first section of my reply? Oh well, I just reposted.
After all, part of Steve's reply to me (dealing with Micheal Ruse) was dealt with in the unpublished part. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Triablogue twits.
