Sunday 7 June 2009

How people should think

I think there are some fundamental things which need explaining. Most xians dont seem to get these rules and it caused them to come up with really stupid arguments. They are:

1)If it supports atheism then its proberly true. You see, xians have a reputation for lying and getting things wrong(just look at the creationist movement) whereas atheists dont. Lets put it like this, if someone came to you and said they saw a flying pig...then someone else said they had evidence the first person hadnt seen a flying pig. Who would you believe? So information which supports atheism is more reliable.

2)If it supports xianity then it isnt true. The reverse of point 1. people dont rise from the dead so any argument that suggests otherwise is invalid

3)If its on the internet then its proberly true (taking into account points 1 and 2) The internet isnt run by the governement or the church and so anyone can post the truth on it.

This ties into the sceptical aproach that only believs things backed up by good evidence and logic.

19 comments:

johnny said...

Hi Mike,

You're missing several things.
First, your premise #1 (if it supports atheism then it is probably true) is unsound. By using your faulty reasoning, you are affirming the thing you are investigating, prior to investigation.
This shows that you are incorrect about your definition of atheism.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god(s), but if you are affirming it prior to investigating, you are incorrect in saying that it is a "lack of belief". If you were being honest with yourself, you would realise that your atheism is a negative belief about theism (which is what the 'a' in atheism means).

Next, your example of the flying pig is faulty, since some things can be true without the ability to be proven...
Here is an example..
Think of a red, bouncing ball.
Now prove to your blog audience that you have, indeed, thought. And that that thought was indeed, a red bouncing ball.

Some things are subjective and also true.

(2)Again, faulty reasoning Mike. Dead people tend to stay dead is true of natural occurances. However, Christians are not claiming that Jesus resurrection is a natural occurance, but a supernatural and rare occurance.

In the words of Ronald Nash ( Faith and Reason p.227 Zondervan ) (Nash is refering to Hume's words from (Hume, Enquiry, p. 114)

Hume:
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined"

Nash:
"This thinking is mistaken on two counts. First, the laws of nature do not and, indeed, cannot function as a kind of metaphysical straightjacket; they do not prescribe what can or cannot happen. Anyone who thinks this only reveals his need for a course in the philosophy of science. But attributing this view to Hume is also mistaken because it contradicts Hume's own clear teaching about the laws of nature. If Hume really had held the view before us, it would have directly contradicted other essential elements of his philosophical system. To see how all this is so, we need a little background in what Hume taught about the laws of nature."

I'll paraphrase the rest, Mike..
suppose that i'm holding a pencil at armslength, about shoulder height. David Hume is saying that we can predict that if i let go of the pencil, it will fall towards the center of the earth. Our prediction is based on past , reported testimonies that everytime something (heavier than air) is suspended above the earth and then release, it will accellerate towards the center of the earth.
The scientific law is based on the past. The scientific law is not based on the future, but is an assumption about the future based on the assumption that the future will continue to be like the past.

In other words Mike, just because dead people tend to stay dead, that fact alone is no proof that Jesus was not the exception. And it also does not refute the Christian claim that Jesus is the forerunner of what is to come.
God's Word does explain that Jesus came to make people that will die (because of Sin) to live , either in eternal suffering and torment of Hell, or with the Eternal Loving God.


I'll finish the rest in the next post... i exceeded the 4,096 characters.

johnny said...

cont...

(3)Sure, anyone can post the truth on the internet... and, anyone can post lies.... Your #3 actually has no point. Just because a government or religion regulates something, does not mean the regulation is due to a hidden or false agenda.

And, this goes back to your #1 where you say, "You see, xians have a reputation for lying..", and, while i agree that truth is important, you seem to misunderstand your own position, Mike.
If atheism is true, and there is no God, then everything came about by morally neutral processes. And if that's true, then truth should be morally neutral to your worldview.

Furthermore, since you *accuse Christians of a reputation for lying, are you claiming that you have never lied, Mike?

*the word 'accuse' means to charge with wrongdoing; blame.
Since atheism is a morally neutral worldview (as shown by it's origins), i'm not sure if an atheist could even comprehend the words 'wrongdoing' or 'blame'..

.. oh, wait, that's right.. you have to borrow from a different worldview, the concept of 'right' and 'wrong'- and the reason for that is..

Morality exists because it is objective and transendent, because God exists and is transendent.

Atheism is a false worldview.

God Bless,
johnny

Anonymous said...

Parody?

I think so.

I hope so.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

How about the earth being flat. Is that true?

Anonymous said...

http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/

Proof that Elvis is alive.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

You know jonny I have to say I'm amazed you dignified this post with a genuine response.

also did you know the US was responsible for 9/11, proof:

http://www.911truth.org/

johnny said...

Hi STAL,

Personally, i think Mike actually believes the stuff he posts. I figure that even if Mike isn't serious, there are still a lot that think like he posts.

Awhile back i had someone argue with me, that truth is subjective.
In some of Nash's classes, he mentioned some of these utterly ridicules positions some none-Christians hold, and i thought, "yeah, right.. no one holds these positions"
That is, until i've run into a few.

johnny

Crusader for Truth said...

"i'm not sure if an atheist could even comprehend the words 'wrongdoing' or 'blame'.."

Johnny, you imply the atheist is incapable of morality.

That said, please justify to me the 'pro-life' protester who recently murdered the abortionist doctor. And the other similar cases over the years.

"Morality exists because it is objective and transendent, because God exists and is transendent."

No, morality exists because it is beneficial for the survival of the human species. Religion is a by-product of this.

So, in fact, it is the Christians who have 'borrowed' moralistic concepts from common bloody sense.

Atheism is truth and reality, not even a worldview (allinoneword).

Johnny and STAL, it scares me that there are people in this world who believe the same bunkum, with such ferocity, as you do.

You're the best argument for birth control I've ever come across.

johnny said...

Crusader for Truth quoted me (johnny) as saying...
"i'm not sure if an atheist could even comprehend the words 'wrongdoing' or 'blame'.."

Then CfT said, "Johnny, you imply the atheist is incapable of morality.

That said, please justify to me the 'pro-life' protester who recently murdered the abortionist doctor. And the other similar cases over the years."

Hi Crusader for Truth (CfT),

I did not imply that the atheist is incapable of morality. Morality comes from God. The atheist just denies God's existance, and therefore, denies the truth about morality's origin.

As for the pro-life protester, you are mixing what i said with what you want to hear.

I do not have to justify his morally wrong action. What he did was morally wrong... that is to say that morally right and morally wrong actions exist... they are not assigned by us.

let me explain..

IF atheism is true (that would mean that no god exists) then everything came about by natural processes. Natural processes ARE morally neutral... that means that nothing is morally good nor morally bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


johnny said,
"Morality exists because it is objective and transendent, because God exists and is transendent."

CfT replied,
"No, morality exists because it is beneficial for the survival of the human species. Religion is a by-product of this."


You haven't given your position much thought, have you?

Your statement presupposes that the survival of humans is morally good..... your position ends up trying to claim that some morals are transcendent, absolute and objective...
i've got news for you, morals can not be both trancendent and invented at the same time and in the same way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


CfT said,
"So, in fact, it is the Christians who have 'borrowed' moralistic concepts from common bloody sense."

"common bloody sense"??!!

That's funny.
So... what you are saying is that, when a billion people are starving and they find one french fry, "common bloody sense" says that it is morally good that they fight/beat/kill each other, in order to have the chance of eating the french fry.
But morally good actions are moral ALWAYS, so that would mean that killing in order to eat is always morally good.... can you see that your, "common bloody sense" is nonsense? That it is not the standard of morality?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CfT said,
"Atheism is truth and reality, not even a worldview (allinoneword)."

I'm pretty sure that i had written "worldview" as one word, but if not, ooops.

At any rate...

Your name is "Crusader for Truth"
but then you go on and say that atheism is truth and reality.

That is such a funny claim. Do you realise that your claim is a self-defeating statement?

Your claim implies that you are a hard atheist. The term 'hard atheist' means that you know for 100% certainty, that there is no god anywhere or anytime.

Your claim implies... no... DECLARES that you are omniscient and omnipresent.

you claim to be a god in order to claim that no god exists--- see, your position is self-defeating.

Atheism IS a worldview and a false one, i might add....


Psalm 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


CfT said,
"Johnny and STAL, it scares me that there are people in this world who believe the same bunkum, with such ferocity, as you do.

You're the best argument for birth control I've ever come across."


What's truly funny is that you are basing your fear and your birth control solution on some arbitrary morality which is ultimately based on your belief that morally neutral processes produced moral rights and wrongs.

God Bless,
johnny

Crusader for Truth said...

"Morality comes from God."

Highly disputed. As I said before, morality is an evolutionary thing and gives us a survival advantage. If we didn't have it we would probably have all killed each other long ago, but its existence doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever that any god invented morality. That's just what the bible says and, therefore, you believe. But don't try to pass it off as fact.

That aside, the rest of your post only serves to indicate that a raw nerve has been touched. You've twisted my words around and made out you understand when you clearly don't.

I don't claim to be any kind of god. Quite the opposite. We're all human, we all have points of view to present to the pot.

Your french fry analogy is complete fantasy. What is more pertinent is to ask about the morality of millions of Africans starving to death. One french fry ain't gonna do damn to help any of them, and I certainly doubt they would kill one another over it, because its not worth the effort. When you have nothing, you appreciate what's important.

So tell me, would you give up several rooms in your no doubt large house (in comparison with the African's slum tents) so that they could feed up, clean up and have safe accommodation? If you would, where would you stop? There would be a point where you would have to turn them away from lack of space, so who do you pick to come and stay? Would you let ANY of them stay?

You're now thinking I've lost the plot, but I'm adding reason to your analogy because they are more likely to fight and kill each other for a place in your lovely temperature controlled house than they are for a bite of a fry.

Byt the way, you did say worldview. I was taking the piss. Its you Americans who can't grammatise, and you stick words together that don't really belong. I'm not about to argue grammar with you because by your nationality you are at a disadvantage. And that ain't fair.

Cont...

Crusader for Truth said...

"johnny said,
"Morality exists because it is objective and transendent, because God exists and is transendent."

CfT replied,
"No, morality exists because it is beneficial for the survival of the human species. Religion is a by-product of this."


You haven't given your position much thought, have you?

Your statement presupposes that the survival of humans is morally good..... your position ends up trying to claim that some morals are transcendent, absolute and objective...
i've got news for you, morals can not be both trancendent and invented at the same time and in the same way."

I think you're making it up, but you certainly haven't understood me in my meaning. Possibly because you have a twisted 'worldview' (ho ho). God is a fictional being, much the same as, say, Cinderella or Conan the Barbarian. So he can't have invented anything being as how he isn't there. I can't make it any more clear to you. If you want to complicate matters by putting long words in that have no relevance to the argument, go ahead, but you just end up looking like your head's too far up your arse for your own good. Which would be an accurate assessment.

But I digress. Your main point is that everything in the world is simply black or white. This just isn't the case. As I've seen in your discussions with other atheists on this blog, this has been ascertained and you couldn't really argue with this logic (not that you usually go for logic, I know). There are grey areas in life. In fact there are more shades of grey than there are of black and white. Obviously.

As you go on to explain:
"IF atheism is true (that would mean that no god exists) then everything came about by natural processes. Natural processes ARE morally neutral... that means that nothing is morally good nor morally bad."

You're getting the idea!! Take, for example, somebody kills somebody else in self-defence. To the person defending themselves, they feel bad about what they did but feel they had no choice. Kill or be killed. But to the family of the deceased, the manslaughterer is going to be labelled a bad person for killing their kith and kin. Who is right? Who has the right to dictate who is right in this situation? Nobody (and don't say god). So we have a grey area.

There are less extreme examples which I am happy to explore with you if you still need me to explain.

Just in case you were wondering, Atheism is, in fact, a world view. That's two words. But I'm being pedantic.

"What's truly funny is that you are basing your fear and your birth control solution on some arbitrary morality which is ultimately based on your belief that morally neutral processes produced moral rights and wrongs."

What's my birth control solution Johnny? Its just that I don't recall stating it so wonder how you presume to know.

The funniest bit in reality Johnny is that you can't make up your mind on moral absolutes without referring to a book that was (allegedly) written over 2,000 years ago. And you still think its relevant. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. And worst of all, you don't feel you need to.

Tragic.

johnny said...

Highly disputed. As I said before, morality is an evolutionary thing and gives us a survival advantage. If we didn't have it we would probably have all killed each other long ago, but its existence doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever that any god invented morality.

Hi CfT,

Nope, no survival advantage unless morality is objective. And, if it's objective, what's morally good/bad is always morally good/bad... morally neutral fails... even subjective morality fails, because some things are always good.

That's just what the bible says and, therefore, you believe. But don't try to pass it off as fact.

LOL... yet you think you are a Crusader for Truth when you try to pass off as fact something that you believe?

And LOL again, since you imply that i've done something immoral, yet your position is one of moral subjectivity born out of moral neutrality (pssst, in case those words were too long, that means "somebody's opinion")

That aside, the rest of your post only serves to indicate that a raw nerve has been touched.

no raw nerve... just amazed that a human above the age of 3 would think that morality is not objective. I'll bet that if your employer cheats you out of your paycheck, you are the first to cry 'hey, you screwed me!!! That money is mine".
I doubt very much if you would say, "lol, you got me boss--- darn grey areas, if only morality had an objective basis".

You've twisted my words around and made out you understand when you clearly don't.

Twisted??? Where???

And, for that matter, since your position is that morality came about by evolutionary advantage.... So what if i did twist?

I don't claim to be any kind of god. Quite the opposite. We're all human, we all have points of view to present to the pot.

And yet, the point of view that you toss in the pot is that of an absolute statement-- 100% certainty that God does not exist.

Interesting that a mere human could have 100% certainty that God does not exist. Your claim implies that you are Omniscient and Omnipresent.

Your french fry analogy is complete fantasy.

Exageration for effect?

The point is that morally good actions are moral ALWAYS... your "common bloody sense" ...is not the standard of morality (that you claimed that Christians borrowed from).

What is more pertinent is to ask about the morality of millions of Africans starving to death.

So tell me, would you give up rooms in your house so that they could feed up, clean up and have safe accommodation? If you would, where would you stop? There would be a point where you would have to turn them away from lack of space, so who do you pick to come and stay? Would you let ANY of them stay?


Again, without an objective moral standard, you haven't said anything coherent. This is no different than asking me to justify the pro-life killer.

You're now thinking I've lost the plot, but I'm adding reason to your analogy because they are more likely to fight and kill each other for a place in your lovely temperature controlled house than they are for a bite of a fry.

And again... from your morally neutral position -- and that is what it would be if philosophical naturalism were true --- you've made no claim.

Btw, you did say worldview. Its you Americans who can't grammatise, and you stick words together that don't really belong.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/worldview

world·view (wûrld'vyōō')
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

[Translation of German Weltanschauung.]

I'll try to get to your other post tommorrow night.

good night,
johnny

johnny said...

CfT said, I think you're making it up, but you certainly haven't understood me in my meaning.


Good Morning CfT,

I only have a few minutes before i have to leave for work, so i'll just get started and then try to finish tonight.

No. Not making it up. I've given a summary of the logical conclusions of philosophical naturalism and morality's existence via evolution.

If you think i've misunderstood you, then please rephrase.

CfT said, God is a fictional being, much the same as, say, Cinderella or Conan the Barbarian. So he can't have invented anything being as how he isn't there. I can't make it any more clear to you.

And how do you come about by this amazing knowledge?

All i see from what you've presented, is your claim that God does not exist. I might be going out on a limb here, but i pretty sure that what you've presented is not a factual claim, but rather you've only expressed your belief... possibly based on your desire that naturalism be true.

In other words, your bias is showing.

CfT said, If you want to complicate matters by putting long words in that have no relevance to the argument,

LOL....

Which big words are you stumbling over?
I'm pretty sure i used the words relevant to the discussion. If not, point them out and explain why the miss the mark.

gotta run,
johnny

johnny said...

Hi CfT,
You said, "Your main point is that everything in the world is simply black or white. This just isn't the case."

Nice "black and white" statement.

CfT said, "As I've seen in your discussions with other atheists on this blog, this has been ascertained

I'm glad you finally piped up.. welcome.

Ok, since you seem to have missed the point, let's try again...

Is stealing morally wrong? How about gratuitous violence? Rape?
What about murder?
And since these discussion "require" mention of Hitler, i'll get it over and ask if Hitler's attempted extermination of Jews was just a simple moral grey area... so, was it?

CfT tried to taunt me with, "and you couldn't really argue with this logic (not that you usually go for logic, I know)."

It would seem that many an atheist that pipes up in Mike's blog, does not seem to know or use logic. If you feel the need to raise the bar abit, i'll try to oblige.

CfT said, "There are grey areas in life. In fact there are more shades of grey than there are of black and white. Obviously.

Interesting... right after you go on about my failure to use logic, and you write this little gem...

Do you realise that the existance of shades of grey doesn't negate absolute morality?

That you steal a loaf of bread because you are starving, does not make it any the less wrong. It might gain you some sympathy and perhaps mercy, but stealing is taking something that is not yours to take, period.

What about cheating on your spouse (if you have one)?
Do you say, "tough crap, Honey-- it's just a grey area. Quitcher crying" ?

What about when you go to the pub and the barmaid (purposely) short-changes you? I'll bet you demand your correct change.

But if all of morality is just grey areas, as evolution (natural origins) would mean that they are, none of the above are actually wrong. You forfit your right to claim that you are wronged. And the only ways to your hedonic ends, is either happenstance or by force.

cont...

johnny said...

...continued


As you (johnny) go on to explain:
"IF atheism is true (that would mean that no god exists) then everything came about by natural processes. Natural processes ARE morally neutral... that means that nothing is morally good nor morally bad."


You (CfT) replied:

You're getting the idea!!

You can't be that dense, can you?

I gave you an 'if ... then', with only one option. I figured that you would realise that there is a flip-side to that coin.

Then you go on...

Take, for example, somebody kills somebody else in self-defence. .... Kill or be killed. ... Who is right? Who has the right to dictate who is right in this situation? Nobody (and don't say god). So we have a grey area.

oh brother...

In self-defense, eh?
I came at you with intent to kill you (you said, "kill or be killed"). You fought back and i died as a result of my immoral behavior, and you call it a grey area?
Things around it may be grey areas, depending on perspective, and, most importantly, the truth... the truth that it was indeed 'in self-defense'.

I got news for you... our legal system--- any legal system, presupposes that morality is objective (in other words, the system itself presupposes black and white.. many of the grey areas come from people not owning up to responsibilities or thinking they've been wronged (which again, affirms that black and white exist.)

Just in case you were wondering, Atheism is, in fact, a world view. That's two words. But I'm being pedantic.

First, that's hilarious coming from someone who is arguing for 'grey areas'.

Second, i'm pretty sure that it's either way. I've also seen it with a hyphen.

What's my birth control solution Johnny? Its just that I don't recall stating it so wonder how you presume to know.

I was referring to this:

"You're the best argument for birth control I've ever come across.

19 June 2009 04:47"


You said,
"The funniest bit in reality Johnny is that you can't make up your mind on moral absolutes without referring to a book that was written over 2,000 years ago. And you still think its relevant. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. And worst of all, you don't feel you need to."

It's funny too, cuz many atheists just regurgitate Dawkins or Hitchens or someone, and then pat yourselves on the back singing, "we be smart"

night.
johnny

Crusader for Truth said...

Johnny,

Not being funny, but just fuck off. I can't be arsed arguing with such stupidity you ignorant twat. I'm not going to dignify any of your crap with a response cos you don't listen anyway.

You really are very, very thick, and then try to cover that fact up by using meaningless, inappropriate words in your argument. Would you repeatedly bang your head against a brick wall? No?

I'd say you're going to hell, but you're not. You're just going to rot in the ground when you die, and get eaten by worms. You'll then become part of the earth that feeds the plants that grow from the ground above which you were buried.

Sorry Mike, you've got some really twisted people on this site here.

I wish you well Mike. But I don't think anything will be achieved here in terms of bringing sense to these ignorant people. My patience has been exhausted.

Take care dude, might see you back here some time.

Johnny, I really hope that one day you see sense and stop wasting your life on this fantastical nonsense. By your tone and level of conversation I doubt you even finished secondary school.

johnny said...

Crusader, you call me ignorant and thick yet here's an example of your stupidity...

I'd say you're going to hell, but you're not. You're just going to rot in the ground when you die, and get eaten by worms.

duh, is that supposed to be an insult?

Hey, if your worldview is correct, that's what we'll all be doing... and the result is that none of this actually mattered.

But, since your world view is wrong, and God does exist, Jesus' work on the Cross is the only thing that can keep us from Hell.


You'll then become part of the earth that feeds the plants that grow from the ground above which you were buried.


God Bless,
johnny

johnny said...

For those that still think the grey areas are proof that the black and white does not exist, have a listen of this... it is about 15 minutes long. It's a Q & A with Ravi Zacharias.


http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx


johnny

johnny said...

www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/JustThinking.aspx



I keep thinking this blog won't cut the URL, but over and over...

incase it cuts the end again, it's on the rzim website... online broadcasts.... just thinking...

The date in the archive is 6/26/2009.
Part 3 of the Seattle Q & A


johnny