"Is America Going Under?" asks the hand-wringing wackaloons over at the Christian Worldview Network. Well, yes, guys, it has been. But remember who's been in charge the past eight years: an extremist, Christian fundamentalist gang of right-wing thugs who view the Constitution as a list of bothersome technicalities to be skirted around, who honestly think their military misadventures in Iraq (which have all but broken our military) are part of a battle between Biblical notions of Good and Evil, and who have been supported by a mob of like-minded religious ideologues who look upon the prospect of total holocaust in the mideast as ultimately desirable, as it will prompt the Second Coming and the Last Days all the much sooner. If people who view the end of the world as if it were a party they can't wait to get to seem scary as shit, that's because they are.
I suspect, however, that the Christian Worldview goons see the decline of America in a slightly different light. And they've compiled all their paranoid lunacy into a "new, free, full-color magazine" that apparently explains "how America's rejection of a Biblical worldview is leading to our demise and how every Christian must respond."
This just looked like such a heaping, juicy helping of red meat that my mouth began watering right away. Hey, it was free. So I sent off for one. Look forward to seeing it, ahem, dissected here very soon.
Here is some of the entertainment promised within.
- Reinventing A Stormy History: 25 Worldview Similarities Between America Today and Nazi Germany and How Christians Must Respond (Wow, Godwinning right out of the gate!)
- Five Consequences Facing America For Rejecting God As Found in Romans, Chapter One
- America's Unknown Revolution That Robbed You of Your Liberties and What Must Happen to Get Them Back (Which liberties, you wonder? Me too. We'll see.)
- Obama, Liberals and Political Correctness Which is Really Cultural Marxism (Do these clowns even know what Marxism is? I suspect they're just throwing it out because their ill-educated sheep will react with, "Hey, wasn't Marx that commie guy?" and then go "Ooo! Bad thing!")
- How Politicians Pervert the Law and Liberty is the Casualty (Which politicians? Do you think they mean Republicans? No? Gee, what makes you think that?)
- How Humanism is Leading to Judicial Tyranny (Translation: "Waaaah! We can't get our way all the time! Waaaaah! Want my bwanky!")
Why are 'humanism' and 'post-modernism' listed as things that are destroying america?
ReplyDeleteUh, because this magazine is written by stupid people?
ReplyDeleteJust a wild guess.
Well yes, obviously, but I wanted to know the stupid people viewpoint because I thought it might be illuminating/entertaining.
ReplyDeletePatience, Grasshopper, all will be revealed.
ReplyDeleteSo you really ordered one? I can't wait to hear about it.
ReplyDeleteYou good sir have too much time on your hands :)
ReplyDeleteI actually saw an episode of the 700 club where Pat Robinson answered an email question about postmodernism. He said that it promoted an anything goes mentality that took us away from biblical truth. This is why postmodernism is evil and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI doubt you will find any who profess a postmodernist philosophy who will be Christian (excluding those in the Quaker and Unitarian Universalist churches perhaps).
ARG! for some reason I also write Pat Robertson's last name as "Robinson." My apologizes.
ReplyDeleteThinking new things is bad and evil and wrong: Religious defense Mechanism #234
ReplyDeleteEvolution is leading to our demise? Is that the same evolution that led to our very being? LOL.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a winner.
ReplyDeleteOkay, maybe not.
The request form has an entry for "Organization". Out of curiosity, did you fill that in, or did you prefer to remain officially unaffiliated?
ReplyDeleteIf America is going into decline because we are turning away from "God", then now is it that so many civilizations managed to achieve periods of without the alleged benefits of Christianity? Some how the Chinese managed the feat several times (Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, and others), India under the Mogul Akbar and his immediate successors. Heck, even the Roman Empire achieved its peak while Christianity was still just a small sect. Interestingly enough, the Western Roman Empire collapsed as Christianity increased its in power and influence, though I should caution that Christianity was not responsible for the collapse.
ReplyDeleteWas God on the side of the Muslim Arabs when they conquered an empire that stretched from Spain to Central Asia? Because a Muslim would argue that the early successes of the Arabs were due to the divine favor bestowed upon them by Allah.
Wow, Godwinning right out of the gate!
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that this is an example of the genetic fallacy, don't you? What is it about this site that proves to be such a classic-fallacy-magnet?
arensb: I really did consider putting "Atheist Community of Austin" down. But considering the possibility they might then not send me the mag, I left it blank. They may have sent it anyway, which would be fun, but I left it blank anyway.
ReplyDeleteRhology: You do realise that this is an example of the genetic fallacy, don't you?
Okay, Rho, do you think they are right to claim 25 similarities between America and Nazi Germany? I predict that when I get the magazine, the article will be revealed to be a massive load of paranoiac, lamely argued bullshit. In addition to being an example of Godwinning, that is. There is, I agree, a chance it may be a brilliant exercise in reasoning, which would entirely invalidate my prediction. (Example 1: Nazi Germany had trees. America has trees. Example 2: Nazi Germany had buildings. America has buildings...) Somehow though, I'm dubious.
As you're the guy who's constantly leveling accusations of "question begging" when no one is question begging, I'm not sure you're as well versed in the classic fallacies as you seem to think.
I'd almost be concerned about giving those sort of people my home address, and I wouldn't want to send that sort of thing to a work address.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I can figure out a way to shoplift one?
Well, I do know that I'd have to actually read the article before I make any judgment calls on it. But given that America as a whole is responsible for 40+ million abortions/murders, I'm at least willing to hear them out.
ReplyDeleteAs you're the guy who's constantly leveling accusations of "question begging" when no one is question begging, I'm not sure you're as well versed in the classic fallacies as you seem to think.
{snicker}
I can't help but laugh a little, b/c this statement is also an example of the genetic fallacy in action.
And yes, I'm probably not as well-versed in them as I should be, just to answer the question.
If I made a magazine that said Christianity, faith, and the Catholic Church were destroying America, I'm pretty much going to get judgment calls no matter what's in the darn thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm President of an atheist student group on my campus and I ordered 25 to give out for those who want a good laugh. I put right on the application form the name of the group and it's kind of hard to misunderstand so we'll find out if they are going to send atheists their rags or not.
ReplyDeleteWell if they do send it off, credit can at least be given to them for sincerely wanting to propagate their beliefs among those who disagree with them rather than just their own flock.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but laugh a little, b/c this statement is also an example of the genetic fallacy in action.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's also an example of something you have in fact done a number of times here. I'm just sayin'.
"You do realise that this is an example of the genetic fallacy, don't you?" - Rhology
ReplyDeleteNope.
Godwin's Law doesn't judge the merit of an argument. A Nazi comparison may be entirely correct and valid, but it is still a Godwin.
Even if you assume that calling something a Godwin implies a lack of merit, it wouldn't be a genetic fallacy. How would it qualify as a genetic fallacy when it makes no statement or implication regarding the origin of the article?
Martin,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to prove it anytime. Of course, given that you switch to mocking mode whenever I come around and start asking for proof of your assertions, I'm not holding my breath.
dethanos,
The obvious inference from Martin's statement is that "Godwinning" means that the statement is self-discrediting.
There are Nazi comparisons and then there are Nazi comparisons.
You all seem surprised by the type of content being published in the magazine. Yet you have been looking at the same type of magazines at checkout stands for years. You know the Sun, Globe, National Enquirer.
ReplyDeleteBut given that America as a whole is responsible for 40+ million abortions/murders, I'm at least willing to hear them out.
ReplyDeleteThen you shouldn't be happy to hear that god aborts even more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbERKwNszU
Oh yeah i forgot. When god kills then its called "working in mysterious ways"...so mysterious that the total of natural caused deaths always result in perfectly predictable and uniform statistics.
Todoke (or anyone else),
ReplyDeleteIf you're interested in interacting with a rebuttal of that wrongheaded assertion, feel free to stop by.
Rhology: Secular rebuttal please?
ReplyDeleteOn a theological point? How exactly would one go about doing that?
ReplyDeleteThe entire problem with that is you're founding your entire argument on a position (The Bible) that we do not accept. It's akin to assuming all fish are pink when launching into a marine biology discussion
ReplyDeleteIf you look closely at Todoke's comment (to which I responded with my link), you'll see it's a statement about God. I didn't see you jump in with such a comment to respond to him, but for the sake of your own consistency I'll assume you're talking to him too.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, he made a claim about the God of the Bible. My post rebuts it. The end.
At any rate, he made a claim about the God of the Bible. My post rebuts it. The end.
ReplyDeleteI read you "rebuttal".
In other words, "God is God, so he can do anything he damn well pleases, but we can't".
Consider this analogy (which I actually get from theists quite a bit). People with pets don't allow those pets to do certain things, like eat at the table, climb on the couch etc. Well, that is the analogy to God!
On the other hand, I'm not allowed to poop on the rug, hump my house guests leg, or bite the mailman. All of these are behaviors which we try to teach our pets not to do, but we don't do them either.
What I'm saying here, is that there are certain standards of behavior which, if they are expected of us, should be expected of any deity in charge of us. Killing is bad, then the deity shouldn't kill (what's that with a flood?) We shouldn't keep slaves, neither should the deity. We should forgive, so should the deity (honestly, infinite punishment for finite crimes...Not just "crimes" but for "blaspheming the Holy Spirit"? Are you farking kidding me? Ted Bundy gets a pass because he says he's really really sorry, but I say that I see no evidence and Blammo! Lake of fire forever time!)
Nope. Morality is morality. None of this religion inspired "moral relativism" for me.
Yes, your in other words is right. And God always pleases to do what is right. We usually please to do what is wrong. I'll take those odds all day.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing 2 parts of the point. God commands us to do X and Y.
Part 1) To do X and Y is good and right. Thus, not to do X and Y is bad and wrong. We can know this objectively, on the Christian worldview. We can know this for certain.
Part 2) Humans usually choose to do wrong. This pains God, and it also gives Him abundant, just grounds to punish us in Hell for our lawbreaking. Yet He provided His own beloved Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice, a substitute, a propitiation, in our place. He offers that all the punishment for those lawbreaking acts fall on Him, not us. We can acquire this propitiation by faith and repentance, not by doing some laundry list of stuff (b/c, again, that's what got us into the problem in the first place - what we do).
To clean up the rest:
Killing is bad, then the deity shouldn't kill
Who's arguing "killing" is bad? Murder is, killing isn't necessarily.
Read this - it'll help.
We shouldn't keep slaves, neither should the deity.
Who's arguing keeping slaves is necessarily immoral? Not me.
We should forgive, so should the deity
He does. If you ask.
Ted Bundy gets a pass because he says he's really really sorry, but I say that I see no evidence and Blammo! Lake of fire forever time!)
It's b/c you're lying when you say you see no evidence. You are rebelling against God and suppressing the truth of the evidence that is plain to see all around you.
Besides, where do you get off judging anyone else? Are you some kind of Pope of Morality? Who gave you the power to go around telling people they're bad or morally wrong? Justify your moral statements.
Morality is morality.
How do you know? Where do you get your morality and how do you know it's the right one?
I'm discussing that over here. You're invited.
Peace,
Rhology
In other words, "God is God, so he can do anything he damn well pleases, but we can't".
ReplyDeleteOf course, if such a being existed, it could do whatever it wanted to. Kind of like Charlie X in that episode from the original Star Trek series, who could make people disappear if they laughed at him or displeased him. Or the kid from the Twilight Zone episode who sent people he didn't like to the corn field. "You're a bad, bad man, and I don't like you!"
Who's arguing keeping slaves is necessarily immoral? Not me.
ReplyDeleteMassa Rhology, you need any help with cleaning up around the house?
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteThe "read this-it'll help" link will answer that question.
And you can help, but I don't pay well. ;-)
@rhology
ReplyDeleteHe does. If you ask.
Jesus begs to differ:
# LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come".
Not only does Jesus say it, but in 3 out of the 4 Gospels. I would have to go with Jesus' opinion, rather than yours.
How do you know? Where do you get your morality and how do you know it's the right one?
I'm discussing that over here. You're invited.
Hmmm, you and Jefferson Davis. I'm sorry, but any god who advocates slavery (and does so in the New Testament, as well as the old), Genocide , Gang rape (remember, Lot is a good and just man...), incest (see previous comment about Lot), infanticide (there were children in Sodom and Gomorrah. What's up with that?) etc... I choose not to get my morality from such a heinous, loathsome god.
Do you get your morals from Leviticus and Exodus? Do you stone your children if they are bad?
Do you try to excuse away the Old Testament by saying that it is wiped out by the New Testament...
Again, Jesus' opinion is different than yours:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Care for some shrimp?
It's b/c you're lying when you say you see no evidence.
ReplyDeleteUm, who made you the Pope of telepathy, Rho? You presume to tell people what they think? That's just about as arrogant as assuming that your interpretation of God's mind is right.
maddogdelta,
ReplyDeleteblasphemy of the Holy Spirit
You apparently don't understand the nature of that sin, but I don't care to discuss it right now.
For the sake of argument, I concede the point. Now, you need to give me an objective reason why it's morally reprehensible for God not to forgive that sin. That was the original point.
Same thing with slavery, incest, infanticide, etc. You beg the question when you call TGOTB "heinous, loathsome". What is the moral standard you use to judge?
You know, it's not like this is some brand-new argument. Why can't atheists around here learn from previous interactions? This is the very first question I always ask. The fact that you keep acting like you've never heard that question before is dumbfounding to me.
(BTW, just b/c the Bible records it doesn't mean it's approved - re: Lot's incest.)
Do you get your morals from Leviticus and Exodus? Do you stone your children if they are bad?
See my answer here.
Tom Foss
telepathy
I see no one has answered my Pope of Morality comment yet. Typical. You guys leave more points unanswered around here than the Detroit Lions.
And no, I claim no telepathy. God said that, and He reads minds. Romans 1 and 2.
as arrogant as assuming that your interpretation of God's mind is right.
Hahahaha, I seriously expect more from you. Hopefully you were drunk when you typed this.
I don't "assume" my interp of God's mind is right. I read the Bible, in context, and then --gasp!-- argue for my position. Give it a try some time. The reading the Bible and the arguing for your position, both.
Peace,
Rhology
@Tom Foss
ReplyDelete@Rhology It's b/c you're lying when you say you see no evidence.
Um, who made you the Pope of telepathy, Rho?
I didn't want to comment on this one earlier because, to be quite straightforward, calling me a liar is the easiest way to spin me up.
I know this is not any kind of absolute proof, Rho, but I will submit that in 1981, I graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (not known as a hotbed of liberalism, doncha know). That particular institution had the most rigid honor code of any school in the country: "A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do." Violate the code, and you were literally drummed out of the corps. People took final exams on their own schedules, those exams weren't proctored. People would leave cash on their desks in unlocked rooms, and would find it there later. When you were accused of an infraction, and it was an unjust accusation, the administrator hearing your case would take your word. Was this, in a very limited sense, an ideal society? Yes. However, almost every graduate is able to understand the value of this kind of trustworthiness in society. Most carry the code with them until they die.
I am one of those that still carry that honor code with me.
What do you have to demonstrate your trustworthiness?
No offense intended, maddogdelta, but in your own words, I would have to go with Jesus' opinion, rather than yours. Romans 1:18-28.
ReplyDelete@Rho
ReplyDeleteWhat is the moral standard you use to judge?
I use a moral standard that, in general, tries to promote the good of humanity. Failing that, to do, and encourage others to do, what causes the least amount of harm.
See, that wasn't too hard. I don't need to read a bronze age text on bats being birds to tell me how to behave.
And if you think about it, my sense of morality which comes from promoting human welfare, and doing the least harm, is actually workable.
But a little more specifically, there has been research in a field called moral psychology, which actually seeks to answer your question in a verifiable, scientific matter. I will admit, my moral sense does not come from some "outside source" telling me what to do other than my own perceptions as to what is best for myself and others. But the cool part is that what is being learned in moral psychology studies is that humanity actually evolved these traits.
In other words, yes, I have heard that question plenty of times, and very few theists can believe that I can be a moral person without being threatened with a lake of fire. Furthermore, as an adult, I find that people telling me that I need threatening with a lake of fire for me to act morally is an insult. I don't need threats to act morally, or to tell the truth. As an adult, I understand the benefits of these behaviors, and act accordingly.
See my answer here.
So, Paul is a better source than Jesus? I find that....interesting.
Either that, or people looked at the restrictions of what it took to live like Jesus said to live, by following the law, and decided that telling Romans to get circumcised (Today only! Half Off!) would not encourage any converts. So, let's just rework the text, wave our arms and tell all the newcomers that the "old rules" don't apply, they can now eat shrimp.
Your story makes sense if you believe in magic, and that suddenly, like the Mormons with polygamy, someone had a revelation saying that it was ok to change the rules. My story makes more sense if you have studied human behavior, even from the standpoint of an amateur. Hell, during my time at VMI, there was all sorts of hand wringing about how we had to make life easier, not as strict, and maybe relax the honor code to get more students. Why would the early church leaders be any different? (And Acts 15 pretty much describes this exact process.)
Your idea that it is Okee Dokey for God to cast people into the lake of fire, ETERNALLY, for any finite sin is abhorrent to my sense of morality. You may disagree, which is fine. But I would expect better behavior out of someone who is presented as my superior in any way. Pro basketball players get paid to play basketball and I don't, because they are better at playing basketball. Opera singers get paid to sing and I don't because they sing better than I do. If I am to take moral instruction from someone, I would like to think that they are more moral than I am. Is that too much to ask? We do that everywhere else, but God gets a pass because, well, he's God and allowed to make up the rules as he goes along. Eat Shrimp, Don't eat shrimp. Engage in polygamy, don't engage in polygamy. Keep slaves, just don't beat them so hard that they die in one day (two days is fine, so read up on CPR and tourniquets)...Wait, the slaves bit was never rescinded.
Our society is more moral than your god. I see no reason to take moral lessons from him.
The reading the Bible and the arguing for your position, both.
Amazing that you should ask that we do that, since I would guess that many of the people on this board (myself included) are atheists (at least in part) because we read the bible.
Our society is more moral than your god. I see no reason to take moral lessons from him.
ReplyDeleteMad Dog, you might want to word things differently than that. To state that you see no reason to take moral lessons from TGOTB is to make it sound like you do believe such an entity exists and that you don't want to abide by its morals, which plays right into Rhology's "liar" accusation.
Personally, and this is what you probably mean as well, after careful consideration of the matter, I came to the conclusion that TGOTB does not exist and that the Bible does not represent the inerrant truth of some supreme being. We might find some of the things that TGOTB does in the Bible abhorrent, in the way that we find Darth Vader or Anton Chigurh abhorrent, but our opinion of the morals of TGOTB do not make TGOTB any more or less real.
It would be fairer to say that we have a host of religious and philosophical traditions, including the Bible, as well as the vast weight of human history, personal experience, and observation, to draw on in formulating a way of conducting our lives in an ethical way.
As for Rhology, for his own personal reasons, he needs to believe that the Bible represents not just a guide for living one's life, but THE guide. He doesn't want to recognize that it is someone's else'e subjective morality wrapped up in the guise of divine command, because he can't. He has too much of himself invested in the belief that it is.
Just think of him as someone who believes that he has the best recipe book in the world, which offers the healthiest and most delicious meals that one can have. You can tell him that you have tried some of the recipes in his book and didn't like them, but he will just say that you must not have followed the recipes properly or that you simply just don't know what is good for you, whereas he does.
You don't have to get mad at him, as I have learned, you just have to recognize and accept him for what he is.
@tommy
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to get mad at him, as I have learned, you just have to recognize and accept him for what he is.
Point made.
As I mentioned earlier, what really pushed the wrong button was being called a liar. I'm usually a little calmer on these boards than that.
// there is one other way to get me frothing, but I don't think that will show up within the context of this board.
maddogdelta,
ReplyDeleteYour response is a mishmash of self-righteousness and question-begging assertions. To what moral standard do you appeal in making all your "reprehensible" statements? I already asked you before, are you planning to answer?
And irony of ironies - you, in denying that you're a liar about deceiving yourself that God exists, are calling Jesus a liar. Is that OK with you? Why is it OK for you to call Jesus a liar but not OK for me to call you a self-deceived liar to yourself?
@Rho
ReplyDeleteAnd irony of ironies - you, in denying that you're a liar about deceiving yourself that God exists, are calling Jesus a liar. Is that OK with you? Why is it OK for you to call Jesus a liar but not OK for me to call you a self-deceived liar to yourself?
I wasn't calling Jesus a liar. I was pointing out that you were taking stances contradictory with Jesus' teachings, adopting Paul's instead.
You know, like the part where Jesus said that the old law still applies...Remember, the one I quoted, when I was trying to point out to you that, well, the old law still applies.
Pardon me, but I was always under the impression that "Christian" implied "follower of Christ", rather than "Denier of Christ and Follower of Paul".
I stand corrected.
old law still applies
ReplyDeleteSee here where I put that old canard to rest.
Why on earth do you people even bother arguing with Rhology? It doesn't matter what you say. Your logic may be impeccable. You may defeat all of his arguments. You could show him an affidavit from God, attesting to your rightness - none of it would matter. He will always believe what he wants to, then devise arguments to support his a priori conclusions. This is the nature of addiction.
ReplyDeleteEvery blog I read maintained by atheists, former Christians or deconverted Orthodox Jews has at least one character like Rho. They convince no one, and no one convinces them, but, for some reason, they never leave. I have to see this as a manifestation of addiction as well. Occasionally, I'll ask one of them why he/she remains. Most of the time, they don't respond. When they do, it's generally something along the lines of, "I'm crusading for the truth!" I've never received a real answer.
Every blog I read maintained by atheists, former Christians or deconverted Orthodox Jews has at least one character like Rho. They convince no one, and no one convinces them, but, for some reason, they never leave.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Cipher! Don't you know that Rhology really, really loves you and is just concerned for your spiritual welfare? He's desperately trying to save us from the pit of fire that surely awaits us all.
Of course, what Rhology doesn't know is that my immortal soul is made from asbestos, so the flames can't harm me. :-)
Tommy, to continue with the addiction model - I don't believe that the proselytizer is concerned with our "spiritual welfare". Most of the time, the proselytizer isn't really trying to convince us; he's attempting to convince himself. If he can convince you that he's right, then, he reasons, he must, in fact, be right, and he can stave off for a little while longer the ever-present doubt that threatens to overtake him.
ReplyDeleteI guess I should have added a smiley face, Cipher.
ReplyDeleteNo, no - I knew you were kidding. It just gave me an excuse. :)
ReplyDelete. Occasionally, I'll ask one of them why he/she remains. Most of the time, they don't respond.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't ask, but I'll answer anyway. ;-)
I enjoy it. I get to watch you guys, who in EVERY other scenario, demand evidence and proof and all that, and then when I come around and ask you to back up your position, you make fun of me for asking for evidence and proof. It's priceless.
Cheers,
Rhology
I enjoy it. I get to watch you guys, who in EVERY other scenario, demand evidence and proof and all that, and then when I come around and ask you to back up your position, you make fun of me for asking for evidence and proof. It's priceless.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you use it to make yourself feel superior.
In the brief time that I've been coming here, I've seen them refute your arguments repeatedly. You simply dismiss their arguments while clinging to your own. You will always believe what you want to believe. Again, this is the nature of addiction.
Have the last word. I wouldn't waste my time interacting with you. Your belief system is an abomination.
I've sort of been teetering on the fence on this issue, but this thread in particular hath swayed me. I'm enacting a Rhology rules-of-engagement for myself, i.e. do not interact with the man.
ReplyDeleteHe's not interested in rational debate, he just makes it look like he is to legitimatize his presence. His post above is a perfect example:
"I get to watch you guys, who in EVERY other scenario, demand evidence and proof and all that, and then when I come around and ask you to back up your position, you make fun of me for asking for evidence and proof. It's priceless."
Secular rationalists such as those on this space are based _entirely_ on evidence and proof. The person making the claim against the evidence has the burden of proof.
He then pretends that sites maintained by the ACA like Ironchariots.org (which is evidence and proof aplenty) do not exist, never mind talkorigins.org or any high level biology text.
Rhology's arguments, I'm sad to say, consist entirely of 'No, you!' and 'The bible says so.'
Unlike some other posters who possess opposing positions, I no longer believe that Rhology comes here in good faith, and should be ignored.
Suggest you all do the same.
Honestly, -C, I have yet to meet a conservative evangelical who approaches atheists without agenda. There are a few progressives - Jim Wallis types - but they are far from the norm.
ReplyDeleteI see no one has answered my Pope of Morality comment yet.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between "not answering" and "having answered it many times in the past, but having seen it summarily ignored by the person asking for it." It's simply lying at this point, Rhology. We've repeatedly told you where our moral sense comes from, whether or not you accept that as a legitimate source (it's okay, we don't accept your claimed source either). You may disagree, but there's a difference between disagreeing and ignoring.
Incidentally, nice dodging of the point, Rhology: how exactly do you have any idea what any other person thinks or believes?
I don't "assume" my interp of God's mind is right. I read the Bible, in context, and then --gasp!-- argue for my position.
And yet, there are plenty of other Christians who read the Bible, in context, and then come to wildly different positions. How is an outsider supposed to know which position is the real Biblically-supported one? How do you know that your positions are the correct ones, while other Christians' positions aren't?
How is an outsider supposed to know which position is the real Biblically-supported one? How do you know that your positions are the correct ones, while other Christians' positions aren't?
ReplyDeleteTom, as someone who does not recognize that the Bible is the revealed word of some universal creator, I, of course, don't care which is the correct Biblical interpretation.
Tommy:
ReplyDeleteYes, but the wider point is that when there's an actual discernible objective truth, experts' opinions tend to converge on a consensus. This is particularly obvious in the sciences (steady state or Big Bang? Consensus: Big Bang), but is also evident in other fields: if a vast majority of experts agree on questions like "are teflon washers better than nylon ones?" or "is it okay to use margarine instead of butter in couscous?" or "is serving mediocre food cheaply and quickly a valid business model?" or "is object-oriented programming better than procedural programming?", then that consensus is likely true.
What Tom is pointing out is that in matters of religion, there is no expert consensus on many questions, even major ones like "how many gods are there?", "is the Quran the word of God?". And, just within Christianity, major doctrinal disagreements still exist on whether women can be ministers, who goes to hell, what one must do to be saved, and so on and so forth.
To me, this strongly suggests that religion does not provide objectively true answers.