|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2011 : 18:30:56
|
Well, as usual, I've found another fundy blog, this one seems to be one of those presuppositional types. Long story, just read the link!
Anyway, I've posted there a few times and you can see the way this guy uh, "thinks".
Since my latest reply is in moderation, I'm posting it here as well:
Whoops. Missed a few words in my last reply: Reposting....feel free to disregard my last post:
======
Mike on morality:
//if it’s “based on” a mutable human “point of view” it is not immutable.//
So what? I never said that morality was immutable, did I?? At least with humanity, we're trying to make things better for ourselves and each other: For instance the god-ordained genocides and slavery in the OT are illegal now.
I just said that your gods inconsistent actions show that even if one were to base one's morality on him, that their system of morality is not immutable either. ( and not particularly civilized, given the things that your god did, with apologists like William Lane Craig defends!)
Mike:
//Courtrooms are usually not philosophical forums that demand a proper epistemic status.//
In courtrooms, one has to present EVIDENCE for one's claims, and deal with a proper cross-examination. I asked for examples of your claim that God-belief is necessary to provide the tools for being able to use evidence. All you did was mention that statement (which I quoted above), and then basically repeat your original statement again without giving any examples, or justifications:
//all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.//
So, I'll try again: How's about listing those "rational tools" of yours?
By the way, if it's philosophy you want, may I recommend a real philosopher's blog:
Stephen Law. He's dealt with you presupper types before:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20god%22
Mike:
//Incorrect.
There is evidence everywhere. but before one interprets evidence one has to supply the ontic foundation that can account for evidence. Atheism lacks such.//
How so? How's about you show that theism DOES account for the concept of evidence? Evidence is a religiously neutral concept. If on the other hand, you're making the claim that theism is necessary to justify the concept of evidence, how's about showing it?
Mike:
//That was not an deductive argument. It was a response to an assertion you made – “Let the readers decide.”//
Ok...Mike. You totally missed the point here. You were going on about how many xians there were in the world; much more than there were atheists; I was pointing out that besides using a fallacy; your holy book itself says that there will be FEW people making it to this "heaven" of yours, thus showing that you had just disproved one teaching of your own book by pointing out how MANY of you there were.
You replied to that with this little non-sequitor:
//God is the judge. Since He is Holy you need to have your sins expiated – repent and trust Christ.//
Not even addressing the point.
You go on to say:
//Morally and absolutely OUGHT mathematics be viewed through a religious lens or an atheist lens?
Is the ultimate locus for mathematics the rational mind of man?
Where does the truth of#65279; math reside?
Name the place:______//
As far as I know, Steven S has answered this one well: "Outside of logical proof, as Gödel has demonstrated."
He has also answered your last question well: "10) Within the constraints of the particular logical/mathematical formalism in which it operates."
Are you going to claim that the god whose "holy book" can't even do mathematics right (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#sum) and (http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html#count) is somehow the basis for mathematics now??
I simply asked you to show that your god is needed to account for evidence and the laws of mathematics, etc. I asked you to show me this. You respond with bafflegab. Back up your claim, please. Mathematics and logic, etc are religiously neutral concepts. |
|
>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. |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2011 : 20:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Watch out, they'll pray you to Hell if your not careful. Just kidding.
I went to this vacation rental to look at the hot tub two weeks ago. The tourist who were theist moved away from me when I told him I was an atheist. He said lightning might hit me. I told him if a bolt of lightning came through the window and hit him the next thing we would hear would be a booming voice saying "Goddamit, I missed!" He didn't laugh but I did. 
His wife asked me, what could she say to me for me to believe in God again? I replied, what could I say to you to make you believe in Santa Clause again? She got the point. They were a really nice couple.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2011 : 20:07:28 [Permalink]
|
| If you are a theist NOMa makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2011 : 20:10:39 [Permalink]
|
| //all men employ and analyze evidence but only theism accounts for the rational tools required to discern and analyze evidence.// |
No, theism provides a creation myth for the rational tools.//Incorrect.
There is evidence everywhere. but before one interprets evidence one has to supply the ontic foundation that can account for evidence. Atheism lacks such.// |
"God did it" isn't an ontic foundation for anything outside of theism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2011 : 15:55:54 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for sharing, Ig. I hadn't heard of presuppositionalism before. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2011 : 21:35:20 [Permalink]
|
You haven't? You lucky bastard. I don't know why you want to thank me though...those people are fucking insane. For example, here's an example of how one guy deals with the fact that I pointed out errors in the bible, which he keeps claiming lets him know that he can know things "for certain".
Edit:
For more info on presuppers, read that Stephen Law thread I gave in the earlier post here.
For another example of how annoying those circle jerking apologists are, check out what they do in the links given here.
|
>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 11/29/2011 21:43:57 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Apologetics on crack? You decide
