My dinner with Andre: What AvC could be
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Recently, some on the forum have wished that AvC could be more than
just a forum for vituperative exchange. I, of course, have for years
agreed, and I wanted to put into words what I thought AvC could've
been … and after thinking about it for a time, I found something that
I think is meaningful to share in reference …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyf06gQvAI
This classic movie represents much of the good that I thought could
happen on AvC when I originally joined in 2007 … participants
interacting in an edifying and positive way, like Andre and Wally in
"My Dinner with Andre" … watch the film and see the kinds of
philosophical talks that I think many are yearning for. And what do
we get instead? In a large measure, nothing more than rhetorical,
polemical violence.
It doesn't have to be that way. :)
Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy. And I realize, just
how many fear genuine and kind interaction, and must respond by trying
to stop it. Violently. Despite all of the violence, hatred, and
invective, the satisfying nature of philosophical and religious
instruction and debate is so very satisfying that the dross of savage
and lawless polemical violence is worth bearing.
So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
edifying exchange. The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
Kind Regards,
Brock
Max
<assent@pcfin.net>verbosity & bombast.
As you are well aware Brock, if you choose to debate honestly, you
might get what you want.
But until you do debate honestly, it is likely you will continue to be
dismissed with utter contempt.
Kind regards
Max :)
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>On Apr 14, 11:58 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> You really should have been an editor for a newspaper circa 1790. Such
> verbosity & bombast.
>
> As you are well aware Brock, if you choose to debate honestly, you
> might get what you want.
>
> But until you do debate honestly, it is likely you will continue to be
> dismissed with utter contempt.
Brock
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>I have started watching the film and am enjoying it, but
what I don't understand with you is the comments above.
This Forum has the word "versus" in it. If you want to
discuss things from an "edifying" manner as you put it,
then this is not the forum to do it in.
Also, what is edifying and good to you may be actually
the reverse for a person such as David. I think you
need to see the bigger picture. Further, if you want
such exchanges maybe you need to be with "Like-
Minded" people on a Christian Group - not this one.
It's just a suggestion.
Cheers
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 4:17 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember suggesting that a few Christians feel they need a comfort zone
> rather that a Versus forum.
>
> If you want everyone to love you and agree with you that is what you need
> to join Brock.
>
> Also I have yet to find you actually entering any debate on you one
> line scripture replies.
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>
On Apr 15, 4:17 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember suggesting that a few Christians feel they need a comfort zone
> rather that a Versus forum.
>
> If you want everyone to love you and agree with you that is what you need
> to join Brock.
>
> Also I have yet to find you actually entering any debate on you one
> line scripture replies.
Ian, I don't normally use scripture.
Ian
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>To be perfectly frank I cant remember you debating anything.
I term your type of discussion method and you as a spoiler
of meaningful discussion, with your silly want to insist on
your own form of epistemological exactitude. Which
never advances any form of debate.
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>myself in any detail, so if I have offended
you with short retorts, then I'll have to wear
it. Are you sure you have not got me
mixed up with Brock?
On Apr 15, 5:11 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>I see. Sometimes I don't really explain
myself in any detail, so if I have offended
you with short retorts, then I'll have to wear
it. Are you sure you have not got me
mixed up with Brock?
Ian
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Hi Brock
>
> I have started watching the film and am enjoying it, but
> what I don't understand with you is the comments above.
> This Forum has the word "versus" in it. If you want to
> discuss things from an "edifying" manner as you put it,
> then this is not the forum to do it in.
If a poster, atheist or Christian, is not able to have a dialogue with
me like Andre and Wally do in that film because they resort to
cursing, invective and vituperation, then I consider that polemical
violence to be gently indicative regarding the superior position.
> Also, what is edifying and good to you may be actually
> the reverse for a person such as David. I think you
> need to see the bigger picture. Further, if you want
> such exchanges maybe you need to be with "Like-
> Minded" people on a Christian Group - not this one.
Well, to be clear, I didn't join the group in search of "like minded"
people, rather, I joined the group to enjoy the kinds of edifying
discussions that Andre and Wally exhibit, while also being committed
to a specific position. And, in point of conduct I've acted similarly
to them: gracious, generous and patient in interaction, I've created
a "safe zone" for edifying conversation, so much so that the resorts
to cursing and polemic violence on an OP part is objectively
unwarranted. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> I remember suggesting that a few Christians feel they need a comfort zone
> rather that a Versus forum.
>
> If you want everyone to love you and agree with you that is what you need to
> join Brock.
Well Ian, instead I note that the kind of edifying exchanges that
Andre and Wally had are indicative of the kind of exchanges atheists
and Christians on this forum not only could but SHOULD have. That
some posters are not up to what is a higher and better way, is
indicative of something pejorative, I assess. :)
>
> Also I have yet to find you actually entering any debate on you one
> line scripture replies.
I've done much better than that. :)
For example, some posters incorrectly insist that "the debate" STARTS
with the pre-supposition:
A) there is no objective evidence that God exists
You'll see a group on this forum state a variation on this statement
of faith over and over again. But, in an easy one line refutation,
there is specific prima facie objective evidence for the existence of
God, His attributes and character, the sinful nature of humankind, and
God's redemptive purpose:
It is a one line refutation of an objectively inaccurate statement,
and it is important to state because any presumption that a debate
starts with the attached rider of statement A is already doomed to be
untenable and not profitable. One might similarly (and inadequately)
start a debate with the objectively false presumption that the atomic
number of oxygen is 23. :)
Of course, if some of y'all object to a one line refutation, I could
gently respond by asking to you to consider offering a stronger
position than something that is refuted in just one line. :)
Regards,
Brock
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>
Regards,
Brock
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
You could just start by saying why you think we should believe in your image of a God.
Ian
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Brock,
>
> To be perfectly frank I cant remember you debating anything.
Well, Frank, your memory may be the issue more than any lack of
debate on my part. I have been very good at demolishing untenable
presuppositions, as Ian points out, often in one line. For example,
for statements like the objectively false statement:
A) there is no evidence for the existence of God
I have done well to note the incorrect nature of the statement, by
providing the objective evidence that God exists:
Similarly, some have premised variations of statements like:
B) there are no objective moral truths
I have done similarly well to note the contrasting positions, and the
untenable implications and presuppositions behind statement B.
Just two (of many) examples. Generally, a poster's insistence that
debate start with a rider of untenable presupposition(s) can be
considered its own form of limiting debate. But I hold instead to a
higher way. :)
> I term your type of discussion method and you as a spoiler
> of meaningful discussion, with your silly want to insist on
> your own form of epistemological exactitude.
No humanist I. :)
>Which
> never advances any form of debate.
The objective nature of reality does throw a monkey wrench in an
untenable and inadequate humanism. But that just means that humanism
objectively fails as an epistemological position, a very noteworthy
and relevant point to make. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
>> encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
>> edifying exchange. The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
>> less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
>
>
> How do you propose to have a "godly" discussion with an atheist?
Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of His
character, attributes and nature. For example:
http://www.thedestinlog.com/articles/savior-21444-things-church.html
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> You could just start by saying why you think we should believe in your image
> of a God.
>
> Not by one line from the bible.
Well, consider the disjunction forced. :)
Of course, I don't offer "MY" image of a God, and find the concept to
be categorically fallacious . Because I am not a pantheist, and God
is not "mine", rather I am "His". :)
Instead, I am compelled by the objective nature of reality to offer
the specific prima facie evidence for the existence, attributes and
nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and God's redemptive
purpose:
Regards,
Brock
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>http://www.thedestinlog.com/articles/savior-21444-things-church.htmlock
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 6:37:03 AM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
>> encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
>> edifying exchange. The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
>> less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
>
>
> How do you propose to have a "godly" discussion with an atheist?
Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of His
character, attributes and nature.
per·fi·dy
- noun, plural per·fi·dies.Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>
Regards,
Brock
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
Ian
Æzen
<aezen@msn.com>I've never seen this film. I've enjoyed it immensely.
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 03:34:45 UTC+1, Brock wrote:
Hi friends,
Recently, some on the forum have wished that AvC could be more than
just a forum for vituperative exchange. I, of course, have for years
agreed, and I wanted to put into words what I thought AvC could've
been … and after thinking about it for a time, I found something that
I think is meaningful to share in reference …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyf06gQvAI
This classic movie represents much of the good that I thought could
happen on AvC when I originally joined in 2007 … participants
interacting in an edifying and positive way, like Andre and Wally in
"My Dinner with Andre" … watch the film and see the kinds of
philosophical talks that I think many are yearning for. And what do
we get instead? In a large measure, nothing more than rhetorical,
polemical violence.
It doesn't have to be that way. :)
I say that there is no need to lament for the way things could or ought to be.
This is the nature of the beast. It is the same in any philosophical forum I've ever engaged within - without exception.
If you wish to cut through the verbal violence, the heated emotions, to dispell the stubborn and deep seated ideologies and philosophies, etc then you are asking for the power to reach into a person and transmutate their personality. That can only be done on their behalf by themselves. You may at best lead by the example you wish to set and influence them as best you can to consider your points of view. That almost goes without saying, however the obvious sometimes needs reminding, lest we fall back into our dream worlds ;]
Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy. And I realize, just
how many fear genuine and kind interaction, and must respond by trying
to stop it. Violently. Despite all of the violence, hatred, and
invective, the satisfying nature of philosophical and religious
instruction and debate is so very satisfying that the dross of savage
and lawless polemical violence is worth bearing.
The only violence that is of anyones concern, at least here concerning the words of others, is what you inflict upon yourself. Give serious consideration to anothers words, but I propose that you do not take them upon yourself personally. There's no need to accept and embrace anything personally. It is a choice we may make - whether for better or worse - to feel offended or angered or upset, even in the face of violence and defamation. If you can observe the words and consider their position yet refrain from attaching or identifying yourself to them then you'll save yourself the provocation of your own emotions and save yourself the stress. If you find that something does hit a nerve, perhaps observe where in yourself that nerve is found rather than with so much concern as to what stimuli excited it. Then you'll know yourself better and perhaps may learn to heal the exposed stresses and pains in the face of similar stimuli.
So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
edifying exchange. The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
Kind Regards,
Brock
Very much so =]
Again, thank you for posting the video!
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>There you go again, you have an automaton-phobia you just cannot
resist avoiding answering a question without recourse to meaningless
verbiage.
In any event you are completely and utterly wrong,
The Hebrew Patriarchal Stories are evidence only
of The Hebrew Patriarchal Stories. Nothing more.
The term God/s have no existence in words on paper.
All that exists are the words on paper, and the paper.
> "The objective nature of reality does throw a monkey wrench in an
> untenable and inadequate humanism. But that just means that humanism
> objectively fails as an epistemological position, a very noteworthy
> and relevant point to make."
Anyone can assume anything but it doesn't make it true.
You still have not grasped the difference between Knowledge and
Belief.
On Apr 15, 2:33 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Æzen
<aezen@msn.com>On Sunday, 15 April 2012 10:09:11 UTC+1, Neil Kelsey wrote:
How do you propose to have a "godly" discussion with an atheist?
Haha!! Genius!! =p
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>LL. For those who woukd like to read the script, go here:
http://www.cloudnet.com/~jwinder/dinner.htm
The film is great, howver, if you can get it on Netflix or elsewhere.
.....
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
>> rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of His
>> character, attributes and nature.
>
> per·fi·dy
>
> - noun, plural per·fi·dies.
>
> 1.
> deliberate breach of faith or trust;faithlessness; treachery: perfidy that goes unpunished.
> 2.
> an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery.
>
> Why on earth would you think that atheists should show faith when discussing
> God?
Well, when anyone ascribes false or incorrect motives, actions,
character or being to someone, there is a very specific and credible
charge of perfidy.
The bible provides very high, excellent and noble attributes,
character and being to God. When any atheist, for example, makes
accusations against God, ascribing to him low, base and faulty
motives, there is a very specific danger of perfidy. :)
> It seems clear that the reason *you* can't engage in "productive and
> edifying" exchanges is because you haven't grasped the concept of atheism.
Or alternatively, I do so engage, and note the limitations of
characterizations that lack objective and specific accuracy. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
> But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
God's redemptive purpose. :)
Regards,
Brock
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:18:08 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
>> rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of His
>> character, attributes and nature.
>
> per·fi·dy
>
> - noun, plural per·fi·dies.
>
> 1.
> deliberate breach of faith or trust;faithlessness; treachery: perfidy that goes unpunished.
> 2.
> an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery.
>
> Why on earth would you think that atheists should show faith when discussing
> God?Well, when anyone ascribes false or incorrect motives, actions,
character or being to someone, there is a very specific and credible
charge of perfidy.The bible provides very high, excellent and noble attributes,
character and being to God.
When any atheist, for example, makes
accusations against God, ascribing to him low, base and faulty
motives, there is a very specific danger of perfidy. :
> It seems clear that the reason *you* can't engage in "productive and
> edifying" exchanges is because you haven't grasped the concept of atheism.Or alternatively, I do so engage,
and note the limitations of
characterizations that lack objective and specific accuracy. :)
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:18:08 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
>> >> rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of His
>> >> character, attributes and nature.
>> >
>> > per·fi·dy
>> >
>> > - noun, plural per·fi·dies.
>> >
>> > 1.
>> >
>> > deliberate breach of faith or trust;faithlessness; treachery: perfidy that goes unpunished.
>> > 2.
>> > an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery.
>> >
>> > Why on earth would you think that atheists should show faith when
>> > discussing
>> > God?
>>
>> Well, when anyone ascribes false or incorrect motives, actions,
>> character or being to someone, there is a very specific and credible
>> charge of perfidy.
>>
>> The bible provides very high, excellent and noble attributes,
>> character and being to God.
>
> I disagree that participating in the act torture is a high, excellent, and
> noble attribute, yet the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
Actually, the characterization is yours. And the example of perfidy
established. :)
Regards,
Brock
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Not true. As the Confession notes contrastingly:
"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
means clear the guilty."
http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_II.html
High, noble and excellent in character, and just. And even willing to
forgive sinners! What a wonderful God! :D
Regards,
Brock
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>
> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid. So,
when we point out bible flaws, we are justified in disregarding it as
evidence.
So, the statement "not one shred of proof" is a correct and valid one.
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>have friends in AVC. Campy delight.
>
<snip>
> interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
> bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy.
> And I realize, just
> how many fear genuine and kind interaction, and must respond by trying
> to stop it. Violently. Despite all of the violence, hatred, and
> invective, the satisfying nature of philosophical and religious
> instruction and debate is so very satisfying that the dross of savage
> and lawless polemical violence is worth bearing.
and kind interaction" as is smarmy evasiveness and intellectual
cowardice. You know, the kind you project.
>
> So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
> encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
> edifying exchange.
exchanges? Those require honesty and frankness, neither of which you
possess. It would require you to eschew chickenshit evasions and smug
platitudes.
It would require a lot of things that are not in your character.
Well, at least not in your current character of imitation christian.
> The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
> less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
involving you. There may have been one, but I must have missed it.
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
evidence.
On Apr 16, 6:19 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Timbo
<thcustom@sbcglobal.net>On Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:34:45 PM UTC-4, Brock wrote:
Hi friends,
Recently, some on the forum have wished that AvC could be more than
just a forum for vituperative exchange. I, of course, have for years
agreed, and I wanted to put into words what I thought AvC could've
been … and after thinking about it for a time, I found something that
I think is meaningful to share in reference …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyf06gQvAI
This classic movie represents much of the good that I thought could
happen on AvC when I originally joined in 2007 … participants
interacting in an edifying and positive way, like Andre and Wally in
"My Dinner with Andre" … watch the film and see the kinds of
philosophical talks that I think many are yearning for. And what do
we get instead? In a large measure, nothing more than rhetorical,
polemical violence.
It doesn't have to be that way. :)
Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy. And I realize, just
how many fear genuine and kind interaction, and must respond by trying
to stop it. Violently. Despite all of the violence, hatred, and
invective, the satisfying nature of philosophical and religious
instruction and debate is so very satisfying that the dross of savage
and lawless polemical violence is worth bearing.
So, at the risk of discombobulating certain hate mongers, I want to
encourage everyone else to be about the business of productive and
edifying exchange. The more good (and godly) discussions we have, the
less disruptive the haterz get to be. :)
Kind Regards,
Brock
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
>
> But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, andGod's redemptive purpose. :)
Regards,
Brock
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>
Regards,
Brock
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Marc
<mjhrobson@gmail.com>You claim, for example, there is prima facie evidence for the
existence of God but then all you do is point to the bible. Fine but
then what, exactly, in the Bible is a self-evident fact which would
lead to the conclusion that God exists? Things only remain self-
evident for a conclusion until rebutted...
What is the rebuttal?
The claim, in suggesting the bible as 'prima facie' evidence, is: The
bible is obvious evidence of God.
The implication being: Reading the bible will take you to, or closer
to, the conclusion that the Christian God is real.
The rebuttal IS, given reading the bible, that:
On 'first blush' the most excellent and high nature of God IS
disputed, in that the conclusion that God is noble is not, at all,
universally arrived at.
On 'first blush' the existence of God IS disputed, in that the
conclusion that God exists, and is the Christian God, is not, at all,
universally arrived at.
This MEANS that the bible, scripture, and the like, is not 'prima
facie' evidence of God's nobility, grace, or existence.
You claim to seek objectivity, yet ignore that whatever it is that is
being seen in the bible as 'prima facie' evidence of God and grace IS
precisely not seen and shared. This were one truly objective would
lead to the realisation that the statement "the bible is prima facie
evidence for God" fails its own test. The test being that it is self-
evident (and as such undisputed); because if it was self-evident then
upon reading the bible become Christian.
So what needs explanation is: Why, when reading the bible, (a
significant) some are, not only unconvinced, but also, and this is
more damning, actually turned away?
Many are turned away from Christianity by the act of reading (so
exactly how is it self-evident), as opposed to all becoming Christian
(which would be an obvious indicator that it is self evident).
Even with good answers to these question prima facie is out the
window.
Look I am all for discussion and being civil - I take this thread as a
call for such on your part. My, however poor, attempt to reciprocate
is above. Also, if you want 'prima facie' to be on the table then you
are going to have to do some work, because, contrary to your claims,
it actually never has been on the table. I, however, remain dubious
about the sincerity of your stated intention...
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>He likely won't get one.
Anything unanswerable for Brock is just ignored.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Brock: I shall attempt to open a civil discussion.
You claim, for example, there is prima facie evidence for the
existence of God but then all you do is point to the bible. Fine but
then what, exactly, in the Bible is a self-evident fact which would
lead to the conclusion that God exists? Things only remain self-
evident for a conclusion until rebutted...
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>Brock. It's obvious that no one had upgraded his software recently,
nor will they any time soon. That's why we get little more than vague
responses and links to various religious websites or a link to some
online version of the bible.
My theory is that Brock was developed to stifle debate, not encourage
it. And regardless of how much evidence is presented, how erudite
one's reply or how many inconsistencies are identified in the bible.
Brock will always follow his programming and appears to be
responding. I suspect he has access to a sizable database of
religious reference material, and his core programming is built up
along the lines of a common AI simulation that attempts to mimic an
interactive conversation between a human and a machine. The endless
parade of canned answers coming from him are simplified responses to
complex questions or detailed replies. This explains why so many of
his responses are merely deflections of the issues rather than
engagement in a debate.
Clearly, at this point in his development, real debate is beyond the
capacity of is current software, but maybe his developer(s) will
upgrade to a newer version. Truthfully, I like to see Brock's
programming integrated with something that can emulate TRUECHRISTIAN.
If nothing else, the intellectual effluvium should provide loads of
fun.
Steve
On Apr 15, 5:29 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:11:49 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
>
> > > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:52:31 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
>
> > >> > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:18:08 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Neil Kelsey <
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Monday, April 16, 2012 5:43:25 AM UTC-7, Steve in Virginia wrote:
Guys, guys, guys...stop! There's no point continuing any debate with
Brock. It's obvious that no one had upgraded his software recently,
nor will they any time soon. That's why we get little more than vague
responses and links to various religious websites or a link to some
online version of the bible.
My theory is that Brock was developed to stifle debate, not encourage
it. And regardless of how much evidence is presented, how erudite
one's reply or how many inconsistencies are identified in the bible.
Brock will always follow his programming and appears to be
responding. I suspect he has access to a sizable database of
religious reference material, and his core programming is built up
along the lines of a common AI simulation that attempts to mimic an
interactive conversation between a human and a machine. The endless
parade of canned answers coming from him are simplified responses to
complex questions or detailed replies. This explains why so many of
his responses are merely deflections of the issues rather than
engagement in a debate.
Clearly, at this point in his development, real debate is beyond the
capacity of is current software, but maybe his developer(s) will
upgrade to a newer version. Truthfully, I like to see Brock's
programming integrated with something that can emulate TRUECHRISTIAN.
If nothing else, the intellectual effluvium should provide loads of
fun.
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>I think you are somewhere there or there-abouts.
The software bit is a bit beyond me, but that he is a deliberate
spoiler is now beyond reasonable doubt and his sole purpose
as you rightly suggest is to stifle as much debate as possible and
get away with as much proselytising as he thinks he can.
Time me thinks to cut him down to size.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> >
>> > Actually, the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually
> immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they
> will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8)
>
> Your inability to recognize being consigned to a fiery lake of burning
> sulfur as a form of torture is a trait you share in common with psychopaths.
Or is instead a recognition of the penal nature of justice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system
So to be clear, the bible presents God as governor and administrator
of a penal system of justice, which fails to support your accusation.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><duke.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>>
>> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
>> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
>> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>
> evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid.
Or is quite specific in nature, and refutes an inadequate claim of "no
evidence". :)
> So,
> when we point out bible flaws,
Actually, the accusations on this forum have generally failed to bear scrutiny.
> we are justified in disregarding it as
> evidence.
Or too quick to presuppose something that fails to find objective support.
>
> So, the statement "not one shred of proof" is a correct and valid one.
Or objectively false:
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><duke.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
>> interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
>> bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy.
>
> No fucking kidding.
And the point of the movie "My dinner with Andre" is to show, by
example, that such discussions need not (and should not) be so
pejoratively laced. :)
Regards,
Brock
Bob T.
<bob@synapse-cs.com>On Apr 16, 8:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
justice... including God's penal system as described in the Bible, of
course.
- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
> the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
> court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
> evidence.
Since the Bible fails to testify to either Daffy or Mickey, your
association is fallacious[1]. :)
Regards,
Brock
[1] the existence of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence
of the genuine
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Rather consider that someone using short rather inconsiderate like "rather
> consider responses" cause f-ing emotional cursing in those who do not fear
> your lord :)
I'm not responsible for other's language usage, and they are not
responsible for mine. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> No its mans idea of a God, you read you interpret and you make the mental
> image.
I don't agree, anymore than one would say that a book containing the
truth: "the atomic number of oxygen is 8" is merely man's mental
image, instead of being an objective, certain fact. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>It's not hard to do, as "My Dinner with Andre" shows ... :)
> You claim, for example, there is prima facie evidence for the
> existence of God but then all you do is point to the bible.
Well, you make it sound bad! :)
The objectively false claim (and its close cousins):
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
is refuted by my answer, which notes the specific, prima facie
evidence for God's existence, humankind's sinfulness, and God's
redemptive purpose! :)
> Fine but
> then what, exactly, in the Bible is a self-evident fact which would
> lead to the conclusion that God exists? Things only remain self-
> evident for a conclusion until rebutted...
Well, firstly remember the claim being refuted:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
This claim cannot be made because the bible provides specific evidence
showing the negative universal to be objectively incorrect. :)
> What is the rebuttal?
> The claim, in suggesting the bible as 'prima facie' evidence, is: The
> bible is obvious evidence of God.
> The implication being: Reading the bible will take you to, or closer
> to, the conclusion that the Christian God is real.
Well, the implication instead being: since there is specific evidence
regarding God's existence, it is objectively false to claim:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
> The rebuttal IS, given reading the bible, that:
> On 'first blush' the most excellent and high nature of God IS
> disputed, in that the conclusion that God is noble is not, at all,
> universally arrived at.
But that is not the implication, instead the implication is that since
there is specific evidence regarding God's existence, it is
objectively false to claim a negative universal:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
> On 'first blush' the existence of God IS disputed, in that the
> conclusion that God exists, and is the Christian God, is not, at all,
> universally arrived at.
But that does not support the objectively false statement:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
There is such evidence, and it is specific and prima facie. :)
> This MEANS that the bible, scripture, and the like, is not 'prima
> facie' evidence of God's nobility, grace, or existence.
No, it means that a disputation of evidence is not sufficient to
conclude that there is no evidence. :)
> You claim to seek objectivity, yet ignore that whatever it is that is
> being seen in the bible as 'prima facie' evidence of God and grace IS
> precisely not seen and shared.
I do better than that. I note the biblical text makes specific
propositional claims that constitute prima facie evidence, even if the
validity of the claims are disputed and not universal. :)
> This were one truly objective would
> lead to the realisation that the statement "the bible is prima facie
> evidence for God" fails its own test.
Or instead, the realization that universality is not a requirement for
evidence's existence. :)
> The test being that it is self-
> evident (and as such undisputed); because if it was self-evident then
> upon reading the bible become Christian.
Not anymore true than the statement that a person reading a book on
physics must become a physicist. :)
> So what needs explanation is: Why, when reading the bible, (a
> significant) some are, not only unconvinced, but also, and this is
> more damning, actually turned away?
Well, I don't doubt its an interesting question, and worth exploring
in a different context.
But with regards to the statement
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
The question is not relevant to the fact that the bible provides
specific prima facie evidence refuting the claim that there is "no
evidence".
So, for example, someone might make the statement:
* there is no evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar
Now, if I note that statement is false because of the presence of the
text of "Caesar's Commentaries", I have refuted the claim, even if
another person challenges the validity and authenticity of that text.
:)
> Many are turned away from Christianity by the act of reading (so
> exactly how is it self-evident), as opposed to all becoming Christian
> (which would be an obvious indicator that it is self evident).
Well, what is self-evident is that the text of the Bible testifies to
the existence of God and His attributes and nature, regardless of
whether the reader is convinced by the testimony. Thus it is
objectively false and inaccurate to state:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
Because it is prima facie that the text of the Bible does so testify. :)
> Even with good answers to these question prima facie is out the
> window.
Or is right back in, stronger than ever. :)
> Look I am all for discussion and being civil - I take this thread as a
> call for such on your part. My, however poor, attempt to reciprocate
> is above.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope you can understand that one can
disagree with your position without intending to be socially
disagreeable. I myself strive to do the very thing here. :)
> Also, if you want 'prima facie' to be on the table then you
> are going to have to do some work, because, contrary to your claims,
> it actually never has been on the table.
I disagree, and note that it is universally acknowledged that the text
of the bible presents specific interactions between God and humankind,
even if such interactions are not universally believed to be true by
all readers. :)
Regards,
Brock
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 8:40 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Duke of Omnium
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>
> >> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
> >> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
> >> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>
> > Even pretending that the bible is "prima facie evidence," prima facie
> > evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid.
>
> Or is quite specific in nature, and refutes an inadequate claim of "no
> evidence". :)
>
valid. Even a christian as dumb as the one you pretend to be should
grasp that.
> > So,
> > when we point out bible flaws,
>
> Actually, the accusations on this forum have generally failed to bear scrutiny.
scrutiny. Try again. Try harder.
>
> > we are justified in disregarding it as
> > evidence.
>
> Or too quick to presuppose something that fails to find objective support.
>
>
>
> > So, the statement "not one shred of proof" is a correct and valid one.
>
> Or objectively false:
>
> http://bible.cc
>
sad.
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 8:41 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Duke of Omnium
>
> >> Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
> >> interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
> >> bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy.
>
> > No fucking kidding.
>
> And the point of the movie "My dinner with Andre" is to show, by
> example, that such discussions need not (and should not) be so
> pejoratively laced. :)
>
the intelligence of the christian you pretend to be. It would be more
"edifying" for everyone concerned.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 6:40 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You could just start by saying why you think we should believe in your image
> > of a God.
>
> > Not by one line from the bible.
>
> Well, consider the disjunction forced. :)
>
> Of course, I don't offer "MY" image of a God, and find the concept to
> be categorically fallacious . Because I am not a pantheist, and God
> is not "mine", rather I am "His". :)
>
> Instead, I am compelled by the objective nature of reality to offer
> the specific prima facie evidence for the existence, attributes and
>
> http://bible.cc
I , rather , suggest that this profound revelation given me directly
form
from reality, inclusive of its cognizant inhabitants , is indicative
of truth, as are other such direct revelations, which state clearly,
that no such as gods are either a part of nor necessary to the advent
of any phenomena, and that the inadequacy of , human apprehension,
demonstrated, by all the bibles, and "so called holey books, are the
best representation that the objective nature of reality is not
limited by mans opinions thereabout.
I, further, submit that fear of ignorance, thereof , and cooperation
with it's nonverbal dictates offer, the only salvation (from undue
suffering, and premature extinction) affordable to cognitive
creatures who's fleeting presence there in is fallaciously considered
of any importance thereto.
In the name of the, most holey , Omniverse,( all that is was or ever
shall be) included in the space of minimal attributes within and of
which, all such are extended ), existing , unlimited by time or space
and unencumbered by intelligence, such including ,but not limited
to universes and the contents thereof, are extended, and which is
the simple and unintentional, source of all complexities, including
consciousness, the miracle of mathematically corresponding
descriptive functions, and which due to it's own natural and various
fluctuations becomes such extensions and the localities thereof to
pay heed to the following;
In name of the one true single actuality , its fluctuations and
that ,therein,extended, I implore humanity to eschew such as
ignorance produced,debilitating sadomasochism , superstition, and ,
any adherence thereto , in favor of the liberating thrill of
discovery and the enhanced probability for survival of our progeny.
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>Nice one son.
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>All of your argumentation here so far, is premised upon
your own belief and the beliefs espoused in and by religion
from various sources.
Nothing you say or repeat as having been read or espoused
in a book of words (bible) (WCF) (LC) (SC) are your own words,
They are in fact writings of the beliefs of others, which you
either quote or reflect upon in your own words.
None of it is derived from actual KNOWLEDGE shown to have
the slightest value in truth and or fact.
All of it stems from BELIEF.
Your appearance here has one aim and one aim only and
that is to spoil and or otherwise to stifle any discussion
and to take every opportunity to proselytise your religious
beliefs in beliefs of other beliefs.
Time you educated yourself more honestly and fruitfully.
There is no honesty in religious belief.
On Apr 16, 7:01 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>
Observer
You display an incredible lack of understanding as to what is and is
not credible evidence.
The utter nonsense of the biblical myths, and folk lore, are routed in
the superstitions of the ideologues who created it. Nothing credible
recommends the investment of belief therein .
Such was whiten by the ignorant for consumption by the ignorant and is
believed only by the ignorant and mentally deficient.
After many recent attempts to engage you in an intelligent discussion
I am forced, by your unwillingness and or inabilities, to fully and
intelligently participate therein , as are most others here,
forced to dismiss you as suffering from Dementia praecox and unfit to
participate in these or any other serious discussions requiring some
degree of mental competence.
So there with, you ,as explained above, dismissed, not to indicate
that you can no longer post your perverted nonsense here as it is
useful in the de-conversion of those who are not altogether mentally
hopeless.
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
> > the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
> > court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
> > evidence.
>
> Since the Bible fails to testify to either Daffy or Mickey, your
> association is fallacious[1]. :)
>
Are Looney Tunes cartoons prima facie evidence to the existence of
characters that appear in them?
> Regards,
> Brock
>
> [1] the existence of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence
> of the genuine
>
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 8:40 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Duke of Omnium
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>
> >> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
> >> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
> >> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>
> > Even pretending that the bible is "prima facie evidence," prima facie
> > evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid.
>
> Or is quite specific in nature, and refutes an inadequate claim of "no
> evidence". :)
Let us , then, modify the phrase to no credible evidence ,and be done
with it.
>
> > So,
> > when we point out bible flaws,
>
> Actually, the accusations on this forum have generally failed to bear scrutiny.
Such a generalization is unsupportable as a vast quantity of flaws
exist in the text composed only of myths and folklore and there exists
no process by such could ever be substantiated as to it's veracity .
It remains only the superstitious , sadomasochistic, misanthropic
debilitating nonsense, to be eschewed by all people of good will, and
should be rightfully expunged from human consciousness by all means
short of violence.
.
>
> > we are justified in disregarding it as
> > evidence.
>
> Or too quick to presuppose something that fails to find objective support.
>
>
>
> > So, the statement "not one shred of proof" is a correct and valid one.
>
> Or objectively false:
Rather, objectivity a statement which is truth bearing.
>
> http://bible.cc
Observer
The entirety, of which is, to be blunt, a load of mindless
debilitating , superstitious crap!
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Or just: punishment.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:37:37 AM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
>> >>
>> >> Not true.
>> >
>> > "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
>> > sexually
>> > immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they
>> > will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation
>> > 21:8)
>> >
>> > Your inability to recognize being consigned to a fiery lake of burning
>> > sulfur as a form of torture is a trait you share in common with
>> > psychopaths.
>>
>> Or is instead a recognition of the penal nature of justice:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system
>>
>> So to be clear, the bible presents God as governor and administrator
>> of a penal system of justice, which fails to support your accusation.
>
> I agree that the Bible presents God as governor of a penal system of
> justice; I disagree that torture is just.
Many have such an opinion. :)
> The use of torture reduces the
> penal system to the level of the criminal, or worse.
Well, punishment is simply a part of a penal code. I don't agree that
a civil authority is reduced to the moral level of a criminal because
it justly punishes the criminal.
> God cannot be
> considered good (let alone "infinitely good") if he engages in the act of
> torture, and is not worthy of worship if he exists.
Or, God is infinitely good because He is just.
In addition to His justice, He is also amazing to provide mercy and
pardon to sinners in Christ. Those who deserve no divine favor find
it in an amazing way:
"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love, and a willing mind."
http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XX.html
> I am continually amazed
> that any Christians would defend God's justice system, but I guess I score
> low on the psychopathy scale. I regard you as profoundly immoral for your
> religious beliefs.
Subjective aesthetic considered. However, I note a contrasting position:
"God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil
magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the
public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the
sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and
for the punishment of evil-doers."
http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXIII.html
As a generalization, it is right and just and good for governing
authorities to provide penalty and punishment for criminal behaviors.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><duke.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 16, 8:40 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Duke of Omnium
>>
>> <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>>
>> >> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
>> >> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
>> >> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>>
>> > Even pretending that the bible is "prima facie evidence," prima facie
>> > evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid.
>>
>> Or is quite specific in nature, and refutes an inadequate claim of "no
>> evidence". :)
>>
> Factually incorrect. Rebutted prima facie evidence is no longer
> valid.
Or such assessment isn't tenably made.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><duke.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 16, 8:41 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Duke of Omnium
>>
>> <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
>> >> interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
>> >> bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy.
>>
>> > No fucking kidding.
>>
>> And the point of the movie "My dinner with Andre" is to show, by
>> example, that such discussions need not (and should not) be so
>> pejoratively laced. :)
>>
> Too stupid to grasp the mot juste. Tsk tsk tsk.
Smarter than some, if less than others. :)
Though perhaps smart enough to enjoy the interesting dialogue and
discussion in the movie, and to realize AvC could, and should, be that
kind of resource for participants. :)
Regards,
Brock
Marc
<mjhrobson@gmail.com>> > existence of God but then all you do is point to the bible.
>
> Well, you make it sound bad! :)
>
> The objectively false claim (and its close cousins):
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> is refuted by my answer, which notes the specific, prima facie
> evidence for God's existence, humankind's sinfulness, and God's
> redemptive purpose! :)
>
> > Fine but
> > then what, exactly, in the Bible is a self-evident fact which would
> > lead to the conclusion that God exists? Things only remain self-
> > evident for a conclusion until rebutted...
>
> Well, firstly remember the claim being refuted:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
Christian God, because of the Bible?
> This claim cannot be made because the bible provides specific evidence
> showing the negative universal to be objectively incorrect. :)
>
> > What is the rebuttal?
> > The claim, in suggesting the bible as 'prima facie' evidence, is: The
> > bible is obvious evidence of God.
> > The implication being: Reading the bible will take you to, or closer
> > to, the conclusion that the Christian God is real.
>
> Well, the implication instead being: since there is specific evidence
> regarding God's existence, it is objectively false to claim:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
there is 'objective' evidence for the existence of Brahma, Allah,
Zeus, Thor, and so on... as all we require for the claim that there is
evidence is the existence of texts which make claims about god(s) and
the like that include some sort of relationship with mankind and the
world. In other words, given such a strict notion, how could we remove
texts including - I assume - unacceptable claims about
god(s)?
> > The rebuttal IS, given reading the bible, that:
> > On 'first blush' the most excellent and high nature of God IS
> > disputed, in that the conclusion that God is noble is not, at all,
> > universally arrived at.
>
> But that is not the implication, instead the implication is that since
> there is specific evidence regarding God's existence, it is
> objectively false to claim a negative universal:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> > On 'first blush' the existence of God IS disputed, in that the
> > conclusion that God exists, and is the Christian God, is not, at all,
> > universally arrived at.
>
> But that does not support the objectively false statement:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> There is such evidence, and it is specific and prima facie. :)
>
> > This MEANS that the bible, scripture, and the like, is not 'prima
> > facie' evidence of God's nobility, grace, or existence.
>
> No, it means that a disputation of evidence is not sufficient to
> conclude that there is no evidence. :)
evidence, as such evidence must be without dispute - herein this is
not the case.
> > You claim to seek objectivity, yet ignore that whatever it is that is
> > being seen in the bible as 'prima facie' evidence of God and grace IS
> > precisely not seen and shared.
>
> I do better than that. I note the biblical text makes specific
> propositional claims that constitute prima facie evidence, even if the
> validity of the claims are disputed and not universal. :)
nature of the Norse gods, there position, and mandates... If making
claims is sufficient for evidence then there is evidence that the
ancient Greek gods played with the fates of men. That aliens not only
exist, but have visited Earth and abducted people.
> > This were one truly objective would
> > lead to the realisation that the statement "the bible is prima facie
> > evidence for God" fails its own test.
>
> Or instead, the realization that universality is not a requirement for
> evidence's existence. :)
evidence being 'prima facie'.
> > The test being that it is self-
> > evident (and as such undisputed); because if it was self-evident then
> > upon reading the bible become Christian.
>
> Not anymore true than the statement that a person reading a book on
> physics must become a physicist. :)
for, or of, anything. Within the discourse all things are disputed, as
implied by the fact that all things must be argued for and
demonstrated. Any assumptions should be stated and seen as a point of
concern and accepted only contingent on the idea that it will be
addressed later.
> > So what needs explanation is: Why, when reading the bible, (a
> > significant) some are, not only unconvinced, but also, and this is
> > more damning, actually turned away?
>
> Well, I don't doubt its an interesting question, and worth exploring
> in a different context.
> But with regards to the statement
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> The question is not relevant to the fact that the bible provides
> specific prima facie evidence refuting the claim that there is "no
> evidence".
>
> So, for example, someone might make the statement:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar
>
> Now, if I note that statement is false because of the presence of the
> text of "Caesar's Commentaries", I have refuted the claim, even if
> another person challenges the validity and authenticity of that text.
> :)
Aliens both exist and have abducted humans.
But upon reading books making claims we can see that there is *prima
facie* evidence for alien visitation, influence, and abduction.
I turn you attention to: www.ufocasebook.com... they are among us.
In other words: How should decisions be made about what is in and what
is out?
> > Many are turned away from Christianity by the act of reading (so
> > exactly how is it self-evident), as opposed to all becoming Christian
> > (which would be an obvious indicator that it is self evident).
>
> Well, what is self-evident is that the text of the Bible testifies to
> the existence of God and His attributes and nature, regardless of
> whether the reader is convinced by the testimony. Thus it is
> objectively false and inaccurate to state:
>
> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
and is the King of the Gods? This as a criteria for 'evidence' is
profoundly silly.
> Because it is prima facie that the text of the Bible does so testify. :)
>
> > Even with good answers to these question prima facie is out the
> > window.
>
> Or is right back in, stronger than ever. :)
> > Look I am all for discussion and being civil - I take this thread as a
> > call for such on your part. My, however poor, attempt to reciprocate
> > is above.
>
> Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope you can understand that one can
> disagree with your position without intending to be socially
> disagreeable. I myself strive to do the very thing here. :)
>
> > Also, if you want 'prima facie' to be on the table then you
> > are going to have to do some work, because, contrary to your claims,
> > it actually never has been on the table.
>
> I disagree, and note that it is universally acknowledged that the text
> of the bible presents specific interactions between God and humankind,
> even if such interactions are not universally believed to be true by
> all readers. :)
our decedents entertain, 2000 years from now, the possibility that the
Queen, today, was the leader of the Lizard People because David Ike
wrote about it in a book and offered *evidence* and made claims? There
is 'prima facie' evidence, because David Ike, that the Queen is a
lizard person and out to take over the world - what a wonderful
position you propose.
There is 'prima facie' evidence for God, because the Bible... This is
starting to sound all too familiar.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Brock,
>
> All of your argumentation here so far, is premised upon
> your own belief
Not true. In fact, I've been consistent to note the contrasting position:
The objective nature of reality is independent of my beliefs.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>>
>> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
>> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
>> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>
>
> not credible evidence.
Or note the difference between a subjective assessment of credibility
and the objective existence of said evidence. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:43 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
>> > the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
>> > court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
>> > evidence.
>>
>> Since the Bible fails to testify to either Daffy or Mickey, your
>> association is fallacious[1]. :)
>>
> Ah, but he didn't mention that it's the Bible that testifies to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
>> > the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
>> > court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
>> > evidence.
>>
>>
>> [1] the existence of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence
>> of the genuine
>>
> The existence of God doesn't disprove the existence of Mickey?:-)
>
It's the same mistake you've made previously regarding the difference
between syntax and semantics. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Apr 16, 8:40 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Duke of Omnium
>>
>> <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 15, 1:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > But that is just bible dogma not one shred of proof again.
>>
>> >> Actually, it is specific prima facie evidence for the existence,
>> >> attributes and nature of God, the sinful nature of humankind, and
>> >> God's redemptive purpose. :)
>>
>> > Even pretending that the bible is "prima facie evidence," prima facie
>> > evidence, having had its flaws pointed out, ceases to be valid.
>>
>> Or is quite specific in nature, and refutes an inadequate claim of "no
>> evidence". :)
>
> Observer
>
> Let us , then, modify the phrase to no credible evidence ,and be done
> with it.
:)
Regards,
Brock
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>It includes torture, death, genocide etc., and it is one
I reject.
On Apr 17, 1:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
>
> >> Not true.
>
> > "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually
> > immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they
> > will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8)
>
> > Your inability to recognize being consigned to a fiery lake of burning
> > sulfur as a form of torture is a trait you share in common with psychopaths.
>
> Or is instead a recognition of the penal nature of justice:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system
>
> So to be clear, the bible presents God as governor and administrator
> of a penal system of justice, which fails to support your accusation.
>
>
> Brock
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>the rebuttal of your "prima facie" evidence. But keep trying.
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 2:11 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Duke of Omnium
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 8:41 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Duke of Omnium
>
> >> <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Now, having said that, I have had some measure of meaningful
> >> >> interactions on AvC and forums like it, but it has been at a cost of a
> >> >> bearing a lot of cursing, invective and perfidy.
>
> >> > No fucking kidding.
>
> >> And the point of the movie "My dinner with Andre" is to show, by
> >> example, that such discussions need not (and should not) be so
> >> pejoratively laced. :)
>
> > Too stupid to grasp the mot juste. Tsk tsk tsk.
>
> Smarter than some, if less than others. :)
among people with the normal number of chromosomes, anyhow.
>
> Though perhaps smart enough to enjoy the interesting dialogue and
> discussion in the movie, and to realize AvC could, and should, be that
> kind of resource for participants. :)
>
pretend to be, the movie would have resembled the food fight from
Animal House. "Hey, Wally, see if you can guess what I am ... a zit!"
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Monday, April 16, 2012 2:08:35 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, April 16, 2012 8:37:37 AM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
>> >>
>> >> Not true.
>> >
>> > "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
>> > sexually
>> > immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they
>> > will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation
>> > 21:8)
>> >
>> > Your inability to recognize being consigned to a fiery lake of burning
>> > sulfur as a form of torture is a trait you share in common with
>> > psychopaths.
>>
>> Or is instead a recognition of the penal nature of justice:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system
>>
>> So to be clear, the bible presents God as governor and administrator
>> of a penal system of justice, which fails to support your accusation.
>
> I agree that the Bible presents God as governor of a penal system of
> justice; I disagree that torture is just.
Many have such an opinion. :)
> The use of torture reduces the
> penal system to the level of the criminal, or worse.
Well, punishment is simply a part of a penal code. I don't agree that
a civil authority is reduced to the moral level of a criminal because
it justly punishes the criminal.
> God cannot be
> considered good (let alone "infinitely good") if he engages in the act of
> torture, and is not worthy of worship if he exists.Or, God is infinitely good because He is just.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 8:43 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
> > the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
> > court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
> > evidence.
>
> association is fallacious[1]. :)
Are there not admonitions against giving false testimony even in this
psychotic nonsense?
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Guys, guys, guys...stop! There's no point continuing any debate with
Brock. It's obvious that no one had upgraded his software recently,
nor will they any time soon. That's why we get little more than vague
responses and links to various religious websites or a link to some
online version of the bible.
My theory is that Brock was developed to stifle debate, not encourage
it. And regardless of how much evidence is presented, how erudite
one's reply or how many inconsistencies are identified in the bible.
Brock will always follow his programming and appears to be
responding. I suspect he has access to a sizable database of
religious reference material, and his core programming is built up
along the lines of a common AI simulation that attempts to mimic an
interactive conversation between a human and a machine. The endless
parade of canned answers coming from him are simplified responses to
complex questions or detailed replies. This explains why so many of
his responses are merely deflections of the issues rather than
engagement in a debate.
Clearly, at this point in his development, real debate is beyond the
capacity of is current software, but maybe his developer(s) will
upgrade to a newer version. Truthfully, I like to see Brock's
programming integrated with something that can emulate TRUECHRISTIAN.
If nothing else, the intellectual effluvium should provide loads of
fun.
Steve
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>
On Apr 15, 5:29 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:11:49 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
> > wrote:> > >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>
>
> > > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:52:31 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
> > >> wrote:> > neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>
>
> > >> > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:18:08 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Neil Kelsey <
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> Well, by "godly" I consider a discussion where God is considered
> > >> >> >> rightly, and without the perfidy some bring in their assessment of
> > >> >> >> His
> > >> >> >> character, attributes and nature.
>
> > >> >> > per·fi·dy
>
> > >> >> > - noun, plural per·fi·dies.
>
> > >> >> > 1.
>
> > deliberate breach of faith or trust;faithlessness; treachery: perfidy that goes unpunished.
> > >> >> > 2.
> > >> >> > an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery.
>
> > >> >> > Why on earth would you think that atheists should show faith when
> > >> >> > discussing
> > >> >> > God?
>
> > >> >> Well, when anyone ascribes false or incorrect motives, actions,
> > >> >> character or being to someone, there is a very specific and credible
> > >> >> charge of perfidy.
>
> > >> >> The bible provides very high, excellent and noble attributes,
> > >> >> character and being to God.
>
> > >> > I disagree that participating in the act torture is a high, excellent,
> > >> > and
> > >> > noble attribute, yet the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
>
> > >> Actually, the characterization is yours.
>
> > > Actually, the Bible characterizes God as a torturer.
> > Not true.
>
> "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually
> immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they
> will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8)
>
> Your inability to recognize being consigned to a fiery lake of burning
> sulfur as a form of torture is a trait you share in common with psychopaths.
>
> * snipped remainder for irrelevancy*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>On Apr 16, 9:18 am, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Guys, guys, guys...stop! There's no point continuing any debate with
> > Brock. It's obvious that no one had upgraded his software recently,
> > nor will they any time soon. That's why we get little more than vague
> > responses and links to various religious websites or a link to some
> > online version of the bible.
>
> > My theory is that Brock was developed to stifle debate, not encourage
> > it. And regardless of how much evidence is presented, how erudite
>
> one's reply or how many inconsistencies are identified in the bible.> Brock will always follow his programming and appears to be
> > responding. I suspect he has access to a sizable database of
> > religious reference material, and his core programming is built up
> > along the lines of a common AI simulation that attempts to mimic an
> > interactive conversation between a human and a machine. The endless
> > parade of canned answers coming from him are simplified responses to
> > complex questions or detailed replies. This explains why so many of
> > his responses are merely deflections of the issues rather than
> > engagement in a debate.
>
> Clearly, at this point in his development, real debate is beyond the
>
> > capacity of is current software, but maybe his developer(s) will
> > upgrade to a newer version. Truthfully, I like to see Brock's
> > programming integrated with something that can emulate TRUECHRISTIAN.
> > fun.
>
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>On Monday, April 16, 2012 4:43:03 PM UTC-7, Steve in Virginia wrote:
DAAAAASIY.....DAAAAAAASIY.....GIIIIIIIIIVW....YOURRRRRRRR...AAAAAANSWERRRRR....TRUUuuuuu....
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 2:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brock,
>
> > All of your argumentation here so far, is premised upon
> > your own belief
>
> Not true. In fact, I've been consistent to note the contrasting position:
>
> The objective nature of reality is independent of my beliefs.
Just as the objective nature of reality is independent of nonsensical
superstitious beliefs of the vacuous misanthropes who concocted the
stories in " the bible" or the those to indolent to look beyond them.
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Apr 16, 2:13 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course you prefer the vacuous mentality and superstitious beliefs
of a hideous ideology to anything that might bring one to edification
as to the objective reality.
It's all right you have already been dismissed as unworthy of
participation in adult discussions with those who are in possession
of the tools of the cognoscenti.
The sophomoric approach you take is so childish as to be laughable .
and of course you aren't playing with a full epistemological ,deck
having chosen one of the most ridiculously stupid misanthropic,
ideologies ever to curse human kind.
So run along and play , little boy ,you have been dismissed by adults.
Psychonomist
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>>
>> Well, the implication instead being: since there is specific evidence
>> regarding God's existence, it is objectively false to claim:
>>
>> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> This then opens the door to all the other religions. By this criteria
> there is 'objective' evidence for the existence of Brahma, Allah,
> Zeus, Thor, and so on...
That's simplistic, and in a particular and specific way, incorrect.
For example, citing "Caesar's Commentaries" as evidence for the
existence of Julius Caesar does not "open the door" to other persons
from antiquity. That is to say, "Caesar's Commentaries" does not
provide evidence for the existence of Plotinus, Hammurabi, or
Aristotle. :)
> In other words, given such a strict notion, how could we remove
> texts including - I assume - unacceptable claims about
> god(s)?
Well, you mentioned these specific names:
* Brahma
* Allah
* Zeus
* Thor
I believe I refute your objection correctly to note that the text of
the bible does NOT provide evidence regarding their existence.
>> > This MEANS that the bible, scripture, and the like, is not 'prima
>> > facie' evidence of God's nobility, grace, or existence.
>>
>> No, it means that a disputation of evidence is not sufficient to
>> conclude that there is no evidence. :)
>
> I agree, but it is sufficient to dispute it being 'prima facie'
> evidence, as such evidence must be without dispute - herein this is
> not the case.
Not true; evidence need not be indisputable for it to exist. :)
>> I do better than that. I note the biblical text makes specific
>> propositional claims that constitute prima facie evidence, even if the
>> validity of the claims are disputed and not universal. :)
>
> Yes and as pointed out the Norse Sagas make specific claims about the
> nature of the Norse gods, there position, and mandates...
But the bible does not provide evidence regarding their existence, so
your association isn't valid. :)
> there is evidence that the
> ancient Greek gods played with the fates of men.
I agree, there is certainly evidence that the ancient greeks so wrote. :)
> That aliens not only
> exist, but have visited Earth and abducted people.
But the bible provides no specific evidence in support of the
existence of ancient greek gods, nor for alien abduction, so the
association is fallacious. :)
>> > This were one truly objective would
>> > lead to the realisation that the statement "the bible is prima facie
>> > evidence for God" fails its own test.
>>
>> Or instead, the realization that universality is not a requirement for
>> evidence's existence. :)
>
> No it is not a requirement for evidence, but it is a requirement for
> evidence being 'prima facie'.
I disagree:
"Prima facie (play /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃɨ.iː/;[1] from Latin: prīmā faciē) is
a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at
first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at
first appearance", from the feminine form of primus ("first") and
facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal
English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be
self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie
denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove
a particular proposition or fact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
>> Not anymore true than the statement that a person reading a book on
>> physics must become a physicist. :)
>
> A worthwhile physics book would not claim to be prima facie evidence
> for, or of, anything.
That's overly simplistic. :)
> Within the discourse all things are disputed, as
> implied by the fact that all things must be argued for and
> demonstrated. Any assumptions should be stated and seen as a point of
> concern and accepted only contingent on the idea that it will be
> addressed later.
Well, if you say "all things are disputed" then disputability is not a
pre-requisite for evidence being prima facie. :)
>> > So what needs explanation is: Why, when reading the bible, (a
>> > significant) some are, not only unconvinced, but also, and this is
>> > more damning, actually turned away?
>>
>> Well, I don't doubt its an interesting question, and worth exploring
>> in a different context.
>
> No this is the context.
Not true. For example, defense attorneys are frequently "not
convinced" by evidence that a judge will find prima facie admissible.
So the objective nature of the evidence is not affected by individual
or corporate belief.
In the case of history, for another example, the objective truth that
Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River is independent of contemporary
historian's belief (or lack thereof) in it. :)
>> Now, if I note that statement is false because of the presence of the
>> text of "Caesar's Commentaries", I have refuted the claim, even if
>> another person challenges the validity and authenticity of that text.
>> :)
>
> Equally someone, for example, may claim: *there is no evidence that
> Aliens both exist and have abducted humans.
I don't agree that the comparisons are equally similar. In
particular, the claim is not supported by the text of the bible, so
the association is fallacious. :)
> But upon reading books making claims we can see that there is *prima
> facie* evidence for alien visitation, influence, and abduction.
> I turn you attention to: www.ufocasebook.com... they are among us.
> In other words: How should decisions be made about what is in and what
> is out?
A great question, and one worth talking about in proper context. With
regards to the objective falsity of the statement:
* there is no evidence for the existence of God
The question is not relevant.
>> Well, what is self-evident is that the text of the Bible testifies to
>> the existence of God and His attributes and nature, regardless of
>> whether the reader is convinced by the testimony. Thus it is
>> objectively false and inaccurate to state:
>>
>> * there is no evidence for the existence of God
>
> So Zeus is *possibly* real because Greek mythology claims Zeus exists
> and is the King of the Gods? This as a criteria for 'evidence' is
> profoundly silly.
Perhaps what is silly is the association fallacy. :)
>> > Also, if you want 'prima facie' to be on the table then you
>> > are going to have to do some work, because, contrary to your claims,
>> > it actually never has been on the table.
>>
>> I disagree, and note that it is universally acknowledged that the text
>> of the bible presents specific interactions between God and humankind,
>> even if such interactions are not universally believed to be true by
>> all readers. :)
>
> Such is the case for a whole range of claims about many topics: Should
> our decedents entertain, 2000 years from now, the possibility that the
> Queen, today, was the leader of the Lizard People because David Ike
> wrote about it in a book and offered *evidence* and made claims?
Well, a question is not an objection. Try to state the objection
explicitly and I believe it likely to be obvious why it fails. :)
> There
> is 'prima facie' evidence, because David Ike, that the Queen is a
> lizard person and out to take over the world - what a wonderful
> position you propose.
But again, you simply fallaciously associate. "Caesar's commentaries"
as a text provide specific prima facie evidence for the existence of
Julius Caesar, and in no way support a claim of existence of "lizard
people". Similarly, the bible provides specific evidence for the
existence of God, and not in support of the other claims you've
offered. :)
Regards,
Brock
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>> "Not true. In fact, I've been consistent to note the contrasting position:
> The objective nature of reality is independent of my beliefs."
No one is questioning the specific nature of things. I said quite
simply
"your beliefs." No one is questioning objective reality as to whether
it's independent of your beliefs or otherwise.
Be that as it may and not withstanding, it is your beliefs you
pedal here. Not anything that can withstand the empirical test,
with regards to any existence of god-things.
On Apr 16, 10:12 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marc
<mjhrobson@gmail.com>lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>Marc asks: "what is evidence?"
In your last Para' to him, your respond with:
>Snip:> "the bible provides specific evidence for the
> existence of God,".....Snip the rest.
That statement is clearly false. There is no evidence
in the world of the existence of a god to whom you refer
as being in the bible.
What is in the book of stories of which you speak, are
references to second/hand beliefs in the existence of
of something you refer to as a god. There is no specific
reference which clearly demonstrates the actual and
physical existence in either body shape or form of a
living creature or known living thing called a god
which is verifiable as such by any human, or test that
humans can make to quantify, qualify and or verify as
pertaining to any form of entity, referred to anywhere
as a god. If you insist there is then you had better
put up, or to put it as politely as possible; SHUT UP!
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>Steve
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Yes, it's "A" penal system, which lacks justice.
Or is just to include punishment as a part of it.
> It includes torture, death, genocide etc.,
Or simply punishment appropriate to the crime.
> and it is one
> I reject.
Its not uncommon for defendants, for example, to reject the authority
of the court system they are being tried under, but with respect to
their successful prosecution, such a rejection is generally academic.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com><duke.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Factually incorrect. Rebutted prima facie evidence is no longer
>> > valid.
>>
>> Or such assessment isn't tenably made.
>>
> Your subjective assessment of what is tenable also has no bearing on
> the rebuttal of your "prima facie" evidence.
I'll stick with the objective truth:
The bible provides specific prima facie evidence for the existence of
God, the sinful nature of humankind, and God's redemptive purpose in
Jesus Christ. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Though others are proper and considerate to note contrastingly. :)
>> > The use of torture reduces the
>> > penal system to the level of the criminal, or worse.
>>
>> Well, punishment is simply a part of a penal code. I don't agree that
>> a civil authority is reduced to the moral level of a criminal because
>> it justly punishes the criminal.
>
> That's not what I said.
Well to the degree that you made a moral assessment regarding the
"level" of the criminal system, I consider the remark responsible. :)
> Your inability to grasp the immorality of torture is something you share in
> common with psychopaths.
Or just the ability to note that punishment is an appropriate and just
part of a penal system.
>> > God cannot be
>> > considered good (let alone "infinitely good") if he engages in the act
>> > of
>> > torture, and is not worthy of worship if he exists.
>>
>> Or, God is infinitely good because He is just.
>
> The use of torture is not just.
Sorry, the unacknowledged 800 lb gorilla in the room is that
punishment is an appropriate and just part of a penal system. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>
>
> On Apr 16, 8:43 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brock, if you changed the word God to Daffy Duck, and changed
>> > the word Christ / Jesus to Mickey Mouse and put this before a
>> > court, there is no way it would be accepted as prima facie
>> > evidence.
>>
>> Since the Bible fails to testify to either Daffy or Mickey, your
>> association is fallacious[1]. :)
>
> Observer
>
> Are there not admonitions against giving false testimony even in this
> psychotic nonsense?
>
The existence of the counterfeit does not disprove the existence of
the genuine. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Or instead, the loaded and emotive characterization faces a specific danger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> > You display an incredible lack of understanding as to what is and is
>> > not credible evidence.
>>
>> Or note the difference between a subjective assessment of credibility
>> and the objective existence of said evidence. :)
>
> of a hideous ideology to anything that might bring one to edification
> as to the objective reality.
Or simply note the objective truths of the bible are independent of my
preferences[1]. :)
> The sophomoric approach you take is so childish as to be laughable .
> and of course you aren't playing with a full epistemological ,deck
> having chosen one of the most ridiculously stupid misanthropic,
> ideologies ever to curse human kind.
Or just simply note that humankind only has proper position in respect
to relationship with God on terms of His own choosing:
"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12-1.htm
Regards,
Brock
[1] not that you have been particularly careful or faithful in the
representation of my position by such a characterization. :)
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>On Apr 20, 6:50 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, it's "A" penal system, which lacks justice.
>
> Or is just to include punishment as a part of it.
>
> > It includes torture, death, genocide etc.,
>
> Or simply punishment appropriate to the crime.
the line of what is acceptable / unacceptable behaviour?
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Be that as it may and not withstanding, it is your beliefs you
> pedal here.
Nope, the objective truths of the bible precede me. :)
> Not anything that can withstand the empirical test,
> with regards to any existence of god-things.
I don't agree. Consider instead that its a rigged game (or a kangaroo
court) if one would measure God's existence or properties by using
methods and processes that are inadequate. I would offer its like
using a thermometer to measure the radioactivity of a sample, and
concluding that there is no radiation simply because the thermometer
invalidly indicated no measurement.
So if, for example, you handed me a thermometer (empirical reasoning)
and asked me to measure radioactivity (God's existence) with it,
instead of trying to pretend the measuring device was adequate, I
would note what I have been clear about noting: You would be using
the wrong tool for the job, and the first step away from conclusions
using that error is to stop using the faulty standard.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>>> > There
>> > is 'prima facie' evidence, because David Ike, that the Queen is a
>> > lizard person and out to take over the world - what a wonderful
>> > position you propose.
>>
>> But again, you simply fallaciously associate. "Caesar's commentaries"
>> as a text provide specific prima facie evidence for the existence of
>> Julius Caesar, and in no way support a claim of existence of "lizard
>> people". Similarly, the bible provides specific evidence for the
>> existence of God, and not in support of the other claims you've
>> offered. :)
>>
>
> to converse.
Or am just careful enough to consider that the existence of the
counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine, and to
note the association fallacy when people believe disproving "lizard
people" is tenable support for a disproof of God's existence. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> What is evidence?
I'll wait for the objection. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>> Brock,
>
> Marc asks: "what is evidence?"
>
> In your last Para' to him, your respond with:
>
>> existence of God, and not in support of the other
>> claims you've offered." :)
>
> in the world of the existence of a god to whom you refer
> as being in the bible.
No, the statement is true in regards to the text of the bible:
> What is in the book of stories of which you speak, are
> references to second/hand beliefs in the existence of
> of something you refer to as a god. There is no specific
> reference which clearly demonstrates the actual and
> physical existence in either body shape or form of a
> living creature or known living thing called a god
> which is verifiable as such by any human, or test that
> humans can make to quantify, qualify and or verify as
> pertaining to any form of entity, referred to anywhere
> as a god.
Well, the verifiable existence of God incarnate, the Lord Jesus
Christ, is certainly attested to by the bible. So there is such
evidence.
Of course, if you appeal to verifiability, I respond by noting that
the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
verification of it. :)
> If you insist there is then you had better
> put up, or to put it as politely as possible; SHUT UP!
Or note the categorical error in an appeal to verifiability. :)
Regards,
Brock